From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden. Creation displays the glory of God, and to treat His creation carelessly insults the Creator.
From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.
I don't agree with many of the actions of the established environmental movement. But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind. Even if the current environmental movement is hostile to God and man, that doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our responsibilities to care for our environment for the safety and wellbeing of all people.
From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.
____________________
There is a profound difference between the philosophy of the environmental movement and the philosophy of conservation. Environmentalism views humans as an undesirable species. Conservation views humans as primary in nature.
The Bible teaches conservation and good husbandry. It does not teach the eradication of the human species to protect nature.
Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general. Global warming for instance, at the moment we are on the cusp of a next ice age global temperatures are actually lowering not rising. There is no scientific case for global warming, ice flows and glaciers are thickening in Greenland and Antarctica. the exception being the antarctic peninsula which has always seasonally calved icebergs. The average temperatures in most cities has not shown a uniform rise this implies that global weather patters are very much local not a global system. Some cities show large temperature increases since records began others show decrease in temperature. The main key indicator that global warming is occurring would be the sea levels, and those are static since records began showing flat not increasing trends.
Most environmental lobby groups take portions from respected scientific research and once out of context twist the meaning intent and conclusions of the scientist that published the original white paper.
I agree with the author of this thread they are a group that has a large stake commercially in their agenda. They protect billions of dollars of research grants and sponsorships and donations. They are compromised and not to be trusted in my opinion
Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism. The point here is that there are so many dynamics and complexities to any ecosystem that manging them is beyond our understanding at present and our technological capability.
Attitudes that promote assumptions that mankind somehow has to interfere with "nature" (whatever that is) are ignorant to the extreme. Most of the countryside and plains in the USA are assumed to be "natural" yet the understanding is false. The native American Indians often shaped the landscape by burning forest and scrub to create grazing prairies for their buffalo hunting requirements. this was on a primitive scale landscaping to a far greater degree of intelligence than most so called environmentalists show today.
You cannot be a caretaker if you are not allowed in the garden. One the jobs of a caretaker is to clear out the dead to prevent forestfires like what we have seen happen in the U.S. in the past couple of years because of the evironuts movement to prevent any human action in forests.
A theological argument to be sure, but still a very strong one reason not to ban DDT.
The carelessness of the enviromentalists (Witness the recent Progessive government of the USSR and the resulting enviromental catastrophies) is an affront to everything God has created.
I think I agree with you here. But I agree with Amos the Prophet too, because I think he's talking about environmental extremism.
Plenty of, if not most, conservatives are moderate conservationists as well. I don't think there are many who want the world turned into a parking lot with pools of industrial waste and scorched hilltops scattered about for variety.
On the other hand, there seems to be no shortage of environmental wackos who would love for mankind to at least revert to the stone age, if not disappear altogether. For that well-represented vein of thought and belief, I think Amos is right on the money.
No one has suggested "turning our back" on anything. But "Environmentalism" as it now stands is a move toward both paganism, collectivism and a command economy. Find a new word for it if you like, and a new group to hang out with, because "environmentalism' is just plain evil.
You like Jim Wallis do you?
yes, but there is precious little else said about it. Fill the earth and subdue it was the order. Ever since the fall, all our endeavors to save creation, which is now in bondage to decay and corruption, will fail. The only one who will redeem creation, and those who trust him, is Christ himself.
Most of this stuff is coming into the church under the social(ist) gospel mantle. To put our hope in our abilities to 'fix the world' in any way is the essence of Dominionist Theology.