Shouldn't Christians protect animals from extinction?

God of Love

Regular Member
Feb 1, 2003
328
14
61
✟8,038.00
Faith
Oneness
When it comes to the topic evolution, one thing has always puzzled me. It seems logical that Christians would support and try to protect any animal that's on the endangered species list. After all:

1. Christians are assigned the task of being the stewards of the Earth, being given dominion over the animals and the responsibility of caring for God's creations.

2. Animal extinctions tend to support the theory of evolution .

Yet contrary to this, at least in my area (Virginia), it's almost always liberals and "the political left" who jumps to the protection of an endangered species, while the christians and political "right" are railing against endangered species protection.

Any thoughts on this?
 

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
When it comes to the topic evolution, one thing has always puzzled me. It seems logical that Christians would support and try to protect any animal that's on the endangered species list. After all:

1. Christians are assigned the task of being the stewards of the Earth, being given dominion over the animals and the responsibility of caring for God's creations.

2. Animal extinctions tend to support the theory of evolution .

Yet contrary to this, at least in my area (Virginia), it's almost always liberals and "the political left" who jumps to the protection of an endangered species, while the christians and political "right" are railing against endangered species protection.

Any thoughts on this?
I would think that some Christians are a mite fed up with having every creature held up as more important than man is, in effect. Christians cannot be good stewards over the earth till we rule it, really, to any great extent. Therefore we still need to use the things of this present world, which is set up to be destructive to much life.
How many liberals feel bad when their Jaguar hits bugs on the highway? Or when animals are used for experiments for their make up, and perfumes? How about when their new house or condo is built on land that creatures needed to live on? If the perception among Christians was that they were somewhat sincere, rather than hypocrites, why, they might get more cooperation. A good start might be to worry more about saving the babies, than the whales.
 
Upvote 0

God of Love

Regular Member
Feb 1, 2003
328
14
61
✟8,038.00
Faith
Oneness
I would think that some Christians are a mite fed up with having every creature held up as more important than man is, in effect. Christians cannot be good stewards over the earth till we rule it, really, to any great extent.

So God and the Bible are completely incorrect? God's timing was off? He shouldn't have commanded man to be stewart until sometime in our future?


Therefore we still need to use the things of this present world, which is set up to be destructive to much life.

This is the attitude I frequently encounter. It's as if when Christians read the part of Genesis stating God gives man dominion over the animals, they read it as "God made Man SUPERIOR to animals." There is a difference, as presented in ECCL 3.


How many liberals feel bad when their Jaguar hits bugs on the highway? Or when animals are used for experiments for their make up, and perfumes? How about when their new house or condo is built on land that creatures needed to live on? If the perception among Christians was that they were somewhat sincere, rather than hypocrites, why, they might get more cooperation.

Have you asked them how they feel? And I seem to recall a lot of women headed to church in full make-up. And aren't Christian homes built on "land that creatures need"?

In my opinion, when the more liberal groups dedicate their money and time to the protection of an endangered species, it lends some sincerity.... a lot more sincerity than the attitude: "God gave us the Earth to tromp on and destroy whatever species we want".

A good start might be to worry more about saving the babies, than the whales.

Why not save the babies and the whales?

Let's take that a step further...

Some years ago, when I went to church, the men had a "men's breakfast" one Saturday morning before going out deer hunting. The topic of the morning's discussion was abortion, and the members all signed a petition that was going around before heading out to the woods.

It so happened that this meeting was on an early January morning, during the first week of January when it is legal to kill both bucks and does. Here in Virginia the deer breed (rut) in late October or early November.

Later that day, one of the guys shot a doe and while gutting her, found a fetus. He seemed to think nothing of it, but I thought to myself how hypocritical it was that we had all signed this petition that morning, yet we were out there hunting does that were likely to be pregnant.

That day was my last hunting day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TooCurious
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So God and the Bible are completely incorrect? God's timing was off? He shouldn't have commanded man to be stewart until sometime in our future?
We do what we can. Being a Stewart doesn't mean worshiping the creature more than the creator. I figure there was just the one kind on the ark, so most things we see are adaptations. I doubt God would not have a plan in place to repopulate the earth with animals.
That doesn't mean I don't respect them, in their place. But I am not going to have the guilt trip of the sins of wicked man, and all the destroying he does laid on me.


This is the attitude I frequently encounter. It's as if when Christians read the part of Genesis stating God gives man dominion over the animals, they read it as "God made Man SUPERIOR to animals." There is a difference, as presented in ECCL 3.
We are superior, you joking? What, you think you are equal to a cockroach? How about a dust mite? Maybe a sparrow?
Have you asked them how they feel? And I seem to recall a lot of women headed to church in full make-up. And aren't Christian homes built on "land that creatures need"?
But you held up 'liberals' as the holy ones wanting to protect endangered species. If you want to look at Christians, we can do that as well.

In my opinion, when the more liberal groups dedicate their money and time to the protection of an endangered species, it lends some sincerity.... a lot more sincerity than the attitude: "God gave us the Earth to tromp on and destroy whatever species we want".
We lost the dominion, by the way at the fall, far as I heard. That dominion, in the opinion of some included authority over the sun, weather, stars, etc. Not just lording it over animals. Your idea that Christians feel being almost equal to angels, means we want to tromp on the earth is insane.

Why not save the babies and the whales?
Why not have priorities, where man is the top one? Anyhow, that is all talk, no one is saving squat with a sinful heart. If God did not step in, they would destroy the earth. Doesn't matter how much government money they skimmed off saving a few owls, or whatnots.

Let's take that a step further...

Some years ago, when I went to church, the men had a "men's breakfast" one Saturday morning before going out deer hunting. The topic of the morning's discussion was abortion, and the members all signed a petition that was going around before heading out to the woods.

It so happened that this meeting was on an early January morning, during the first week of January when it is legal to kill both bucks and does. Here in Virginia the deer breed (rut) in late October or early November.

Later that day, one of the guys shot a doe and while gutting her, found a fetus. He seemed to think nothing of it, but I thought to myself how hypocritical it was that we had all signed this petition that morning, yet we were out there hunting does that were likely to be pregnant.

That day was my last hunting day.

Bambi will be relieved to hear that. If you ask me, we should not kill for sport. If someone really needs the meat, and whacked a pregnant deer, the world will go on.
 
Upvote 0

God of Love

Regular Member
Feb 1, 2003
328
14
61
✟8,038.00
Faith
Oneness
We do what we can. Being a Stewart doesn't mean worshiping the creature more than the creator.

Of course it doesn't mean worshipping the creature more than the creator. That's wasn't something I suggested. But it does mean doing more than just having a "whatever happens to them happens" attitude. That's not being a steward at all, in any way, shape, or form.

I figure there was just the one kind on the ark, so most things we see are adaptations. I doubt God would not have a plan in place to repopulate the earth with animals.
That doesn't mean I don't respect them, in their place. But I am not going to have the guilt trip of the sins of wicked man, and all the destroying he does laid on me.

The "in their place" suggests that respect isn't much. Exactly what is "their place"?

We are superior, you joking? What, you think you are equal to a cockroach? How about a dust mite? Maybe a sparrow?

We are not superior, we are different. This "categorizing" and building an "importance to God" heirachy is exactly the problem. The attitude you present mirrors many of the Christians I know, and ironically goes against what is said in the Bible.

Can't you possibly imagine that God loves you and loves the sparrow just as much as you? Is that idea too large for you?

Eccl 3:19...

"(Speaking of beasts and man) ... yea, they all have one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. (20)All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."

What to you think that "one breath" represents, since it's obvious to anyone that any creature breaths more than once?

Why do you think the author says "For all is vanity"?

But you held up 'liberals' as the holy ones wanting to protect endangered species. If you want to look at Christians, we can do that as well.

I didn't hold the liberals as "holy ones". I presented the idea that one would expect Christians to be the "holy ones" by trying to protect God creatures ... yet there is a lot more evidence to contrary. So what do the fruits tell us?

We lost the dominion, by the way at the fall, far as I heard. That dominion, in the opinion of some included authority over the sun, weather, stars, etc. Not just lording it over animals. Your idea that Christians feel being almost equal to angels, means we want to tromp on the earth is insane.

Again, I'm going by the fruits I see. Look back at that "lording" comment. Show me otherwise.


Why not have priorities, where man is the top one?

Why not save them both at once? If that really such a multitasking impossibility?

Anyhow, that is all talk, no one is saving squat with a sinful heart. If God did not step in, they would destroy the earth. Doesn't matter how much government money they skimmed off saving a few owls, or whatnots.

So who has the sinful heart? The one saving, or not saving? There are lots of people putting their own money and time into it, not skimming from the government. Guess that means they're the ones doing God's work, huh?

Bambi will be relieved to hear that. If you ask me, we should not kill for sport.

Now that we agree on. But the Christian guys I once hunted with often had this conquest "whoever kills the most or the biggest is supreme" attitude. It really came down to their own low self-esteem (a bi-product of their religious teachings).

If someone really needs the meat, and whacked a pregnant deer, the world will go on.

Of course the world will go on. It's the uncaring mindset that will eventually kill us.

Now let me guess, you call yourself a "pro-lifer", right?
 
Upvote 0

ArnautDaniel

Veteran
Aug 28, 2006
5,295
328
The Village
✟14,653.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When it comes to the topic evolution, one thing has always puzzled me. It seems logical that Christians would support and try to protect any animal that's on the endangered species list. After all:

1. Christians are assigned the task of being the stewards of the Earth, being given dominion over the animals and the responsibility of caring for God's creations.

2. Animal extinctions tend to support the theory of evolution .

Yet contrary to this, at least in my area (Virginia), it's almost always liberals and "the political left" who jumps to the protection of an endangered species, while the christians and political "right" are railing against endangered species protection.

Any thoughts on this?

To paraphrase an old add campaign -

Kill all you want. God will make more.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Of course it doesn't mean worshipping the creature more than the creator. That's wasn't something I suggested. But it does mean doing more than just having a "whatever happens to them happens" attitude. That's not being a steward at all, in any way, shape, or form.

One of the main places where He talks of a steward is the parable of the unjust steward. That guy was a crook.
Now, over here, I read this. Do you really think it is about endangered species??
Tit 1:7 - For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; I would think that means more to look after God's people, and spiritual things.
Or over here, do you really think He is mainly going to be looking at how much we got active in the save the whales campaign?

Luke 12: 42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

While we are to take care of our creatures, and be loving, remember, it was God that made us the first fur coat.
Also, He did save the endangered animals on the ark, that is true. But a world full of them were killed. Apparently it is not quite as high on the priority list as some seem to make it.
The "in their place" suggests that respect isn't much. Exactly what is "their place"?
Who cares?? It is what their place is not, that is more important! That place is not above man, period. Get used to it.

We are not superior, we are different. This "categorizing" and building an "importance to God" heirachy is exactly the problem. The attitude you present mirrors many of the Christians I know, and ironically goes against what is said in the Bible.
Says you. We are more important than many sparrows. Jesus said so. You lose.

Can't you possibly imagine that God loves you and loves the sparrow just as much as you? Is that idea too large for you?

Eccl 3:19...
Loving a sparrow does not mean giving the world to them alone. They have a place. Like eating bugs, maybe, so man is not overrun, amusing us singing, and etc.

"(Speaking of beasts and man) ... yea, they all have one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast; for all is vanity. (20)All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
In that sinful man also dies, like all animals do, that is true. Thus far, and not further. There is the rest of the bible that clears up possible misapplications of that.
What to you think that "one breath" represents, since it's obvious to anyone that any creature breaths more than once?
I lean towards it meaning things that breathe, how about you??

Why do you think the author says "For all is vanity"?
Everything is relative. Our life, as the bible makes clear is very important, and useful here. As we take stock of our lives, and parts of it, such as gathering things, etc, in the big picture, it is vanity. But there are things that we can take with us. Loved ones, lessons of love, etc.
Be happy.

I didn't hold the liberals as "holy ones". I presented the idea that one would expect Christians to be the "holy ones" by trying to protect God creatures ... yet there is a lot more evidence to contrary. So what do the fruits tell us?
That is not what makes one holy. It is believing in the Holy One. Your idea of holiness is skewed.

Again, I'm going by the fruits I see. Look back at that "lording" comment. Show me otherwise.
We are lords of the earth. Enjoy it. We are as gods, Jesus said.

Joh 10:35 - If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Why not save them both at once? If that really such a multitasking impossibility?

If you want money for people with minds that hate, all I can tell you is whether you'll have to wait. Alright?

So who has the sinful heart?

Mankind.

The one saving, or not saving? There are lots of people putting their own money and time into it, not skimming from the government. Guess that means they're the ones doing God's work, huh?

No, they are doing there own work, and what apparently they feel is righteous. It may be OK, but so may many things. If the hearts of man are made right, animals will have it made in the shade. In fact, you won't even have to worry about the big bad wolf eating the sheep any more, or little Bo Peep. They will eat straw. Won't that make other animals happy. Imagine the billions of murders each day that will no longer happen. God wins the prize for top animal lover I guess.


Now that we agree on. But the Christian guys I once hunted with often had this conquest "whoever kills the most or the biggest is supreme" attitude. It really came down to their own low self-esteem (a bi-product of their religious teachings).

No, Jesus was not the Great Hunter. They were off track.

Of course the world will go on. It's the uncaring mindset that will eventually kill us.
Thanks for the cheer, and optimism.

Now let me guess, you call yourself a "pro-lifer", right?
Not usually, why? Is that a bad thing now, in the greenie meanie books?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Dad, shame on you for not cultivating one of the characteristics that defines and differentiates human beings, compassion, while fattening yourself with the seeming characterists of non-human animals, apathy. That's pretty ironic.
I get fat with characteristics of non human animals now? What does that mean, I should be a vegetarian tree hugger?

Apathy is a state of indifference — where an individual has an absence of interest or concern to certain aspects of emotional, social, or physical life. (wiki)

Those that have no interest in the eternal future of mankind, as much as freaking out over some species of bugs that might move on or die as earth's climate changes, do not make themselves little gods, and me animal like. Sorry. Nice try.
 
Upvote 0

POSW

Junior Member
Feb 20, 2008
24
1
✟7,651.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
dad said:
We are superior, you joking? What, you think you are equal to a cockroach? How about a dust mite? Maybe a sparrow?

How about a grizzly bear? A shark? A pack of wolves? Would we be "superior" to them, without our weapons and technology?

The problem with everything you've said is that most of what environmentalists do involves getting people to stop needlessly killing animals. It's not like these animals are dying off all by themselves. We humans are killing them, and we don't care.

Edit:
dad said:
What does that mean, I should be a vegetarian tree hugger?

No, you don't have to hug trees. You just shouldn't cut them down because you don't like the color of your table and you need a new one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
B

Braunwyn

Guest
I get fat with characteristics of non human animals now?
hmmm, now? I would imagine your apathy isn't something that has just ocurred today.

What does that mean, I should be a vegetarian tree hugger?
Of course not. I wouldn't expect you actualize qualities you obviously don't have. Although as a human you are capable of intellectually addressing your indifference.

is a state of indifference — where an individual has an absence of interest or concern to certain aspects of emotional, social, or physical life. (wiki)
It's interesting that you had to google the word to learn its definition. Keep reading further into your wiki page. It might help.

Those that have no interest in the eternal future of mankind,
Give me examples of where you see that in the posters who have bothered in this thread. Who has shown no interest in the future of mankind?

as much as freaking out over some species of bugs that might move on or die as earth's climate changes, do not make themselves little gods, and me animal like. Sorry. Nice try.
Poor try on your part. Look, I'm sure you are practiced with deceiving yourself in order to over look your lack of compassion and overall caring for those around you but don't think think your deception is something I'll buy into.

Re:gods. That's your world-view. It's for sale but I'm not buying. It's sad that you think qualities such as altruism, compassion, and looking beyond your own gluttonous desires are qualities only a god can hold.
 
Upvote 0

God of Love

Regular Member
Feb 1, 2003
328
14
61
✟8,038.00
Faith
Oneness
While we are to take care of our creatures, and be loving, remember, it was God that made us the first fur coat.

It appears obvious that your idea of "taking care of" and "being loving" are not the same as mine. Letting Man's habits run an animal into extinction is not my idea of taking care of them.

Who cares?? It is what their place is not, that is more important! That place is not above man, period. Get used to it.

Nor is it below. Get used to it. :)

We are more important than many sparrows. Jesus said so. You lose.

And that makes it ok to slaughter them?

Loving a sparrow does not mean giving the world to them alone. They have a place. Like eating bugs, maybe, so man is not overrun, amusing us singing, and etc.

You avoided the question.

In that sinful man also dies, like all animals do, that is true. Thus far, and not further. There is the rest of the bible that clears up possible misapplications of that.

I disagree. Perhaps you should read Eccl 3, and then we'll talk about this "clearing up" part.

I lean towards it meaning things that breathe, how about you??

So it has nothing to do with a soul, right?

Everything is relative.

Then there is no absolute truth. Are you sure about that stance ... I think you're going to regret it.

Our life, as the bible makes clear is very important, and useful here. As we take stock of our lives, and parts of it, such as gathering things, etc, in the big picture, it is vanity. But there are things that we can take with us. Loved ones, lessons of love, etc.
Be happy.

I agree with that. And I believe taking the love shared with and for one of God's creatures can be an intricate part of that.

That is not what makes one holy. It is believing in the Holy One. Your idea of holiness is skewed.

You were the one who suggested "holy ones", not me. I don't believe in "holiness".

We are lords of the earth. Enjoy it. We are as gods, Jesus said.

Agreed. An Gods take care of their creation. Thus, you've said it yourself.


No, they are doing there own work, and what apparently they feel is righteous. It may be OK, but so may many things. If the hearts of man are made right, animals will have it made in the shade.

When do you plan on starting?

In fact, you won't even have to worry about the big bad wolf eating the sheep any more, or little Bo Peep. They will eat straw. Won't that make other animals happy. Imagine the billions of murders each day that will no longer happen. God wins the prize for top animal lover I guess.

And your goal is to be more like God, right? Again, you've said it yourself.




No, Jesus was not the Great Hunter. They were off track.

Agreed. I have attended that church for years. It was filled with hypocrites; as are most I seen.

Not usually, why? Is that a bad thing now, in the greenie meanie books?

No. It would obviously be a lie to call yourself "pro-life".
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How about a grizzly bear? A shark? A pack of wolves? Would we be "superior" to them, without our weapons and technology?
Why not, Adam and Eve were superior to them, and they didn't have all that junk.

The problem with everything you've said is that most of what environmentalists do involves getting people to stop needlessly killing animals. It's not like these animals are dying off all by themselves. We humans are killing them, and we don't care.
Speak for yourself. Maybe you ought to stop killing them, if that is what you are doing.
No, you don't have to hug trees. You just shouldn't cut them down because you don't like the color of your table and you need a new one.
Maybe we should just use a lot of fossil fuel to dig up more oil, and run the refineries, factories, power generating stations, trucks, etc, required to make you a laminate or plastic one??
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
hmmm, now? I would imagine your apathy isn't something that has just ocurred today.
Me not being interested in the same thing you are does not make me more or less apathetic.

Of course not. I wouldn't expect you actualize qualities you obviously don't have. Although as a human you are capable of intellectually addressing your indifference.
So are you. I cultivate my indifference to so called man will save man, and man is just a useless evil animal theologies.

It's interesting that you had to google the word to learn its definition. Keep reading further into your wiki page. It might help.
Why?


Give me examples of where you see that in the posters who have bothered in this thread. Who has shown no interest in the future of mankind?
Let's see, list the ones that have said that their priority is the eternal salvation of mankind so far, we can take it from there. Oh, gee, that would be none.


Poor try on your part. Look, I'm sure you are practiced with deceiving yourself in order to over look your lack of compassion and overall caring for those around you but don't think think your deception is something I'll buy into.
Don't think your definition of caring for those around me as measured by how many endangered species I waste money on is something I'll buy into.

Re:gods. That's your world-view. It's for sale but I'm not buying.
You are buying something, obviously. Don't blame me for buying something as well.

It's sad that you think qualities such as altruism, compassion, and looking beyond your own gluttonous desires are qualities only a god can hold.
So, now those that don't put priority number 1 as saving endangered species are a bunch of gluttons as well. OK. What, we eat them all?
But thanks for the wake up call, as to how low people have gotten, it is the kind of thing one needs to see to believe.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Guys, just to let you know, not to discourage you but to give you all the facts, dad is the one who thinks that some time in the past the universe underwent an undetectable split before which the laws of physics were either radically different or nonexistent.
He thinks God has a flying throne, the earth is hollow, the sun is made of diamond, amongst other crazy things. I don't expect him to be any more rational here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It appears obvious that your idea of "taking care of" and "being loving" are not the same as mine. Letting Man's habits run an animal into extinction is not my idea of taking care of them.
OK, you might have something, we may not be exactly on the same page.

Nor is it below. Get used to it.
Yes it is, ask a horse! Deal with it.


And that makes it ok to slaughter them?
As needed, of course.

You avoided the question.
We are worth many sparrows. Need something more?

I disagree. Perhaps you should read Eccl 3, and then we'll talk about this "clearing up" part.
I just looked at it. Not bad. What about it??



So it has nothing to do with a soul, right?
Well, I don't know that there could also be that connection in many creatures. But, having a soul that lives on in heaven does not make one anything other than the same animal. Not sure how you think that helps you.


Then there is no absolute truth. Are you sure about that stance ... I think you're going to regret it.
In interpreting Ecc 3, everything is relative. Got some clever point your think will dazzle me or something?

I agree with that. And I believe taking the love shared with and for one of God's creatures can be an intricate part of that.
Long as that doesn't include freaking out over wicked man affecting the climate, so many creatures go extinct, or change locations.

You were the one who suggested "holy ones", not me. I don't believe in "holiness".
I used that as a descriptive word for some of the self righteous greenies.
Agreed. An Gods take care of their creation. Thus, you've said it yourself.
We are not Gods. In some respects we are as gods. We do what we can, and I think Christians would tend to love animals as much as the next guy. Most of us just don't worship them. Neither do we count ourselves as but mere beasts. Saving our fellow man, usually makes Christians think of human beings.
When do you plan on starting?
I already started. I got saved, so God is working on the insides. May take Him a while to make any noticeable progress, but time is on our side. Meanwhile, I am not the least bit worried about my limited ability to personally save the planet, the rain forests, whales, and Jimminy Cricket's mating field.


And your goal is to be more like God, right? Again, you've said it yourself.
I said that?? He is the One that will change animals to not eat each other, and not sting, or bite any more, etc. His love for man and beast is backed up by more than wishful thinking, He has the power.
No one is ever going to save themselves, and man is not going to save the planet in any way. He is destroying it full throttle as we speak. He would kill all life is God didn't stop him. THAT is the hope of the future. Beside that, any tree you save would be destroyed in nuclear war anyhow. Any species you save would die anyhow.

Agreed. I have attended that church for years. It was filled with hypocrites; as are most I seen.
People don't get perfect by going in a building, even by getting saved. They are merely the saved depraved, better than the damned dead, however.

No. It would obviously be a lie to call yourself "pro-life".
I see, why is that, because you think I am killing life on earth by not being active in throwing good money after bad, trying to save endangered species? Man is, by the way an endangered species. I have spent some modest effort in trying to save some men. Does that count?
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Guys, just to let you know, not to discourage you but to give you all the facts, dad is the one who thinks that some time in the past the universe underwent an undetectable split before which the laws of physics were either radically different or nonexistent.

I do think that it had to be different. No relation to this thread.
He thinks God has a flying throne,
No, that would be the bible. I just read bits of it.
the earth is hollow,
Lie.

the sun is made of diamond,
Lie.

amongst other crazy things. I don't expect him to be any more rational here.
Not rational enough to run around spreading insane lies on threads. Sad.
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
Me not being interested in the same thing you are does not make me more or less apathetic.
You are apathetic towards your environment and its inhabitants. According to you, giving a hoot about it is placing animals above humans, which is a ridiculous position.

So are you. I cultivate my indifference to so called man will save man, and man is just a useless evil animal theologies.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. You cultivate your indifference to so called man will save man? What does that mean?

Why what?

Let's see, list the ones that have said that their priority is the eternal salvation of mankind so far, we can take it from there. Oh, gee, that would be none.
First off, you initially stated eternal future, not salvation. "Those that have no interest in the eternal future of mankind"

The idea that people that care for the environment and animals have no interest in the future of mankind is bologna. It is an inaccurate assumption.

Don't think your definition of caring for those around me as measured by how many endangered species I waste money on is something I'll buy into.
This is an important point you make here. Some how you tie caring for this planet into money you would spend or donate rather than an acknowledgement of our how our actions affect our environment. Imo, donating money to this or that cause isn't the answer. Attempting to change our behavior is what's at issue.

So, now those that don't put priority number 1 as saving endangered species are a bunch of gluttons as well. OK. What, we eat them all?
I don't understand this either. We eat them all? I'm not following. It's not a matter of making endangered species a number one priority above humans. It's your excuse that we can't be good stewards until we rule the earth. You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds. We do rule the earth, poorly. And by doing such a poor job we hurt ourselves in the process.

But thanks for the wake up call, as to how low people have gotten, it is the kind of thing one needs to see to believe.
Again, I'm not sure what you're on about.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When it comes to the topic evolution, one thing has always puzzled me. It seems logical that Christians would support and try to protect any animal that's on the endangered species list. After all:

1. Christians are assigned the task of being the stewards of the Earth, being given dominion over the animals and the responsibility of caring for God's creations.

2. Animal extinctions tend to support the theory of evolution .

Yet contrary to this, at least in my area (Virginia), it's almost always liberals and "the political left" who jumps to the protection of an endangered species, while the christians and political "right" are railing against endangered species protection.

Any thoughts on this?
The simple rational is that liberals tend to believe that this life is all there is and that there is no GOD (or at least not one who is interactive). They then assume GOD's role as the "savior" of the planet or at least try to make it what they think it ought to be.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums