Conservative artical spin off

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

To avoid hijacking another thread, I will just start here.

WE ARE NOT SO FAR ABOVE THE REST OF THE LIFEFORMS ON THIS PLANET!

The attitude that we are has caused enough problems as it is.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

To avoid hijacking another thread, I will just start here.

WE ARE NOT SO FAR ABOVE THE REST OF THE LIFEFORMS ON THIS PLANET!

The attitude that we are has caused enough problems as it is.

[hm0504]

I think the problem is that humans, in general, know just enough to get themselves in whole lot of trouble. We're smart enough to control the destiny of the planet and we're stupid enough to make that destiny disastrous.

[hm0504]

P.S. Please clarify for me the thread you're not hijacking and conservative article you refer to. Thanks!

[Bob S.]

hm, we can't control the planet. In every case, Mama Nature will win. Earth is not just some dead rock floating in space. She is a living entity (in a way). Global warming will continue until it passes a threshhold, which will then lead to a global cooling, and then another ice age, which will lead to a gradual warming of the Earth, etc.

Volcanoes can produce more expolisive power in one eruption than all of the bombs that humans have ever created combined.

All it will take is one meteor to decimate the Earth. Just look at the tsunami caused by the Asian earthquake. And even though that was a very powerful quake, it wasn't the strongest.

We simply have the knowledge to kill all of us, but not to destroy the planet.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

There are certainly worldwide events that can happen beyond human control. And I have no doubt that in the event of a man-made global catastrophe, nature will find something else to do. All I meant was that mankind can radically alter what would be the normal course of life through nuclear catastrophe, deforestation, climate change, etc.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

quote:

Originally posted by hm0504:
P.S. Please clarify for me the thread you're not hijacking and conservative article you refer to. Thanks!

It was from the Conservative Evangellical Artical on Public Nudity thread!
I had a longer, rambling post, but I deleted it because as I read it, it was confusing even me!

I just get irritated when I hear someone say that we should be able to do what we darn well will to the Earth and the other life forms and point to the bible as a permission slip!

[hm0504]

Well, I don't think the original article or the resultant thread discussed directly man's relationship with the Earth. But there is a strong insinuation, as Trailscout nicely put it, "open, transparent relationship with God and each other and that was even manifested in the form of physical nudity. As you can see, this implies a harmony between our spirits and our bodies, between ourselves and nature, between Heaven and Earth".

Christians hold many viewpoints, both positive and negative, about how man should relate to nature.

An example of a positive viewpoint would be that God wants man to cherish nature and be mindful of his impact on it because the natural world is a critical part of helping us be content.

An example of a negative viewpoint would be that caring about nature is perilously close to, if it is not actually, idol worship; man should avoid drawing spiritual strength from nature because only God can provide true spiritual strength; being concerned for the planet implies one does not trust God to take care of things.

[Trailscout]

It is true that humans are uniquely situated at the top of the animal kingdom and just slightly lower than the angels. We exist in both terrestrial and celestial planes.

Our lofty position is not a reason for boasting or arrogance. Collectively we have awesome power to destroy the house that sustains us. Ecology comes from a Greek word meaning "house".

I do not worship creation, but scripture calls the Earth "God's footstool" and as such, it is so holy we are not even to swear an oath by it.

Scripture also teaches that we are to learn spiritual principles from their counterpart in the natural world.

We are given orders to "be fruitful and multiply" and "tend the garden". Yet tending the garden is not a commmand to destroy the garden. And multiplying does not imply unrelenting reproduction until we live in crowded squalor.

From a scientific standpoint, certain portions of each life zone should be set aside as a control, a biosphere reserve for study and low-impact exploration. It would be logical to apply the Biblical principle of the tithe to land use.(a gift set aside for God, usually ten percent).

[hm0504]

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
It is true that humans are uniquely situated at the top of the animal kingdom and just slightly lower than the angels. We exist in both terrestrial and celestial planes.

Well, if the angels are only slightly higher than us, they have my sympathies.

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
From a scientific standpoint, certain portions of each life zone should be set aside as a control, a biosphere reserve for study and low-impact exploration. It would be logical to apply the Biblical principle of the tithe to land use.(a gift set aside for God, usually ten percent).

I very much agree Trailscout; thanks for mentioning it. I might add that one seventh might even be more Biblical (Jer 4:3; Hos 10:12).

President Theodore Roosevelt was truly a visionary when, at the beginning of the modern, industrial age, recognized the need to preserve vast tracts of America's natural heritage. To this end, President Bill Clinton passed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to prevent development of 60 million acres (one-third) of US forests. Tragically, President George W. Bush, just a few weeks ago, has repealed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Yes, the howls of protest about that have been deafening, haven't they.

[Trailscout]

quote:

Originally posted by hm0504:
Well, if the angels are only slightly higher than us, they have my sympathies.

Humans were created slightly lower than angels. Some of us have lost our grip and slid down the hill from our original station.

quote:

Originally posted by hm0504:
...President Bill Clinton passed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to prevent development of 60 million acres (one-third) of US forests. Tragically, President George W. Bush, just a few weeks ago, has repealed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Yes, the howls of protest about that have been deafening, haven't they.

HM, I may be conservative in some matters, but that doesn't mean that I am not a conservationist as well.

Land use is a complicated subject. As we discussed earlier, some areas ought to be permanently set aside as control areas, or for national recreation parks or wildlife refuges. Migratory birds, for instance are terribly vulnerable at certain critical spots along their routes. We can identify these areas and give them extra protection.

Other areas might be managed for sustainable timber yield. Too often the forest service has been pressured to allow harvest too soon, before the soil nutrients have had time to percolate up from the parent rock or subsoil, preventing sustainable yield.

In other areas, the highest and best use of forest is to prevent flash floods and provide water to areas downstream.

Zero population growth is an unpopular subject, but carrying capacity is a proven concept from Ecology that humans are not exempt from.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
It is true that humans are uniquely situated at the top of the animal kingdom and just slightly lower than the angels. We exist in both terrestrial and celestial planes.

This is an oppinion. So it cannot be TRUE.
We are not above the animal kingdom, but meerly part of it! We eat and are eaten! We also defecate, breath, drink, bleed, and everything else animals do, but we have a brain that knows the concept of time and results of our actions.
Not to say other critters don't, we just have not seen it as much.
Kinda like the Chimps who use blades of grass to extract termites from their holes rather than smashing it open and depriving them of a latter meal!

[Trailscout]

quote:

Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:

quote:

Originally posted by Trailscout:
It is true that humans are uniquely situated at the top of the animal kingdom and just slightly lower than the angels. We exist in both terrestrial and celestial planes.

This is an oppinion. So it cannot be TRUE.

R.M., have you never held a true opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by R.M.GREENMAN2:
We are not above the animal kingdom, but meerly part of it! ...snip...

Kinda like the Chimps who use blades of grass to extract termites from their holes rather than smashing it open and depriving them of a latter meal!

Man, that's a great way to get termites! Thanks for suggesting it. I'll be sure to try it next time.

I didn't say we were not part of the animal kingdom, I said that we were at the top of it and that sounds very similar to what you said.

As for our concurrent position on the terrestrial and celestial planes, that's not my idea, it is taught by many religions worldwide.

[hm0504]

quote:

HM, I may be conservative in some matters, but that doesn't mean that I am not a conservationist as well.

No worries, I know of several conservatives who are conservationalists. Wish there were more.

[Trailscout]

Did you mean conservative conversationalists?

Like Tucker Carlson, George Will, Michael Savage, etc?