Should we be more invested in climate change and the environment as christians?

CuriousCate

New Member
Feb 28, 2018
2
0
36
Australia
✟305.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If we are put on this earth made by god to be perfect then surely we are somewhat caretakers of this world. Does that mean we have a responsibility to address things like climate change and environmental disasters like landfill and plastics in our oceans? God made the world perfect and we seem to be destroying it with our pollution and wasteful habits.

What’s your opinion?
 

2PhiloVoid

Pushing your epistemic pillars!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
18,482
8,865
Somewhere, out there!
✟914,507.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If we are put on this earth made by god to be perfect then surely we are somewhat caretakers of this world. Does that mean we have a responsibility to address things like climate change and environmental disasters like landfill and plastics in our oceans? God made the world perfect and we seem to be destroying it with our pollution and wasteful habits.

What’s your opinion?

My opinion is most definitely, "yes"! We do have a responsibility--a big one--to take care of this planet God has provided for our biological lives. In fact, there's no good reason that our Christian faith can't be "substantively green" in a way that still expresses of a more biblical worldview.

Thanks for the thoughtful post and questions, CuriousCate! ;)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
17,323
4,545
63
✟253,956.00
Faith
Pentecostal
If man caused climate change were real then yes we should. But it's not. The climate is changing. But it's not doing it because of us. It's doing it because that's the natural order of things. Can we pollute? Of course we can. Can we do things to our environment that could cause damage? Yes. For example we could cut down all the trees on this planet. Or we could have zero pollution controls and dump untreated poisons into all the rivers. We pour nulear waste into the ground openly. There are all kinds of things we could do. But we aren't. We are being sensible about this. We don't have to go nuts about taking care of our world. We just have to be sensible. Places like America are very sensible. It's the third world and communistic countries that struggle. The climate change we are experiencing was inevitable. It's part of nature. The climate has been changing since the dawn of time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis Drake
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
823
442
✟37,935.00
Faith
Christian
Bear with me i’m just going to switch on my universal translator

Climate change is one giant fraud created by global corporations to advance their NWO objectives. No sensible Christian should be taken in by it.

Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that confirm that everything is just fine and dandy.”


If man caused climate change were real then yes we should. But it's not. The climate is changing. But it's not doing it because of us. It's doing it because that's the natural order of things. Can we pollute? Of course we can. Can we do things to our environment that could cause damage? Yes. For example we could cut down all the trees on this planet. Or we could have zero pollution controls and dump untreated poisons into all the rivers. We pour nulear waste into the ground openly. There are all kinds of things we could do. But we aren't. We are being sensible about this. We don't have to go nuts about taking care of our world. We

Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, yeah sure the climate is changing, but that has nothing to do with 250 years of industrialisation, we don’t need to do anything differently, everything is fine and dandy.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zoii
Upvote 0

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
3,974
2,479
✟173,105.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Bear with me i’m just going to switch on my universal translator



Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that confirm that everything is just fine and dandy.”

Just so people know, the above is what's called a "straw man argument"!

Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition

So congratulations @apogee, in your vivid imagination, you have successfully defeated a stance I neither believe in nor stated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
3,974
2,479
✟173,105.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Bear with me i’m just going to switch on my universal translator.

Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, yeah sure the climate is changing, but that has nothing to do with 250 years of industrialisation, we don’t need to do anything differently, everything is fine and dandy.”

Again @apogee, congratulations in imagining your defeat of @rjs330 . You have scored another straw man victory.
Maybe you should get your "universal translator" checked out cos on my laptop, he states the opposite of what you seem to be reading on yours!
Straw man
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition
 
Upvote 0

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
3,974
2,479
✟173,105.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
823
442
✟37,935.00
Faith
Christian
Again, just wondering what connection you see with your world wrestling link @apogee? How does that advance your argument and prove me wrong?
Seems to me that you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself here.

Ok let’s just recap,

The OP said

If we are put on this earth made by god to be perfect then surely we are somewhat caretakers of this world. Does that mean we have a responsibility to address things like climate change and environmental disasters like landfill and plastics in our oceans? God made the world perfect and we seem to be destroying it with our pollution and wasteful habits.

What’s your opinion?

you said...(although granted perhaps not necessarily in direct response to the OP)

Climate change is one giant fraud created by global corporations to advance their NWO objectives. No sensible Christian should be taken in by it.

To which I rather facetiously replied.

Bear with me i’m just going to switch on my universal translator

Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that confirm that everything is just fine and dandy”

Which seemed to incite sufficient irritation, for you to invoke some supposed formal debate contravention, and to employ some fairly extreme font choices, temporarily damaging the retinas of anyone left reading this thread.

I then half-heartedly posted some links to Wikipedia, to rather vaguely imply that actually it was perfectly reasonable for me to suggest that you are an adherent to one or more conspiracy theories, and that you place more weight in these than in the massive consensus that exists in the scientific community.

But by all means feel free to set me straight on any of these points, if you feel I’m misrepresenting your views in any way.
 
Upvote 0

Francis Drake

Returning adventurer.
Apr 14, 2013
3,974
2,479
✟173,105.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
The OP said............
Which seemed to incite sufficient irritation, for you to invoke some supposed formal debate contravention,
Not irritated, merely bemused.
You're welcome to use straw man arguments, its no debate contravention as far as I know, but it reveals a lack of real argument, so just expect to get called out on them.
and to employ some fairly extreme font choices, temporarily damaging the retinas of anyone left reading this thread.
Standard font, just changed colour to show it was a quote. If it hurts your eyes, go to bed early tonight or wear shades.
I then half-heartedly posted some links to Wikipedia, to rather vaguely imply that actually it was perfectly reasonable for me to suggest that you are an adherent to one or more conspiracy theories, and that you place more weight in these than in the massive consensus that exists in the scientific community.
So you imagine there's a consensus?
And you think truth is established by the majority viewpoint?

I wonder how that ties up with scripture.
Matt7v13Enter through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad the way leading to destruction, and many are those entering through it. 14For small is the gate and narrow the way leading to life, and few are those finding it.
The above clearly shows that the broad way must be right, after all that's the general consensus.
Only ignorant fools would take the narrow gate.
But by all means feel free to set me straight on any of these points, if you feel I’m misrepresenting your views in any way.

There is no end of information available that shows the consensus is nothing more than media hype. There are also several threads already on CF that show the climate fakery.
I haven't time to list it all now.
 
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
823
442
✟37,935.00
Faith
Christian
Not irritated, merely bemused.

Well at least we’ve established one area where i’ve managed to misrepresent your views.

You're welcome to use straw man arguments, its no debate contravention as far as I know, but it reveals a lack of real argument, so just expect to get called out on them.

As is fairly obvious, I was being facetious. Whereas this is a perfect example of a straw man argument, congratulations you’re clearly adept at employing them.

Standard font, just changed colour to show it was a quote. If it hurts your eyes, go to bed early tonight or wear shades.

Sounds like excellent advice.

So you imagine there's a consensus?

I imagine nothing

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia


And you think truth is established by the majority viewpoint?

Nope, science does not establish truth, only consensus, which is then subject to correction and refinement as better models for understanding reality become available.

I wonder how that ties up with scripture.
Matt7v13Enter through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad the way leading to destruction, and many are those entering through it. 14For small is the gate and narrow the way leading to life, and few are those finding it.


I’ve no idea, as Jesus is clearly talking about salvation rather than ‘scientific consensus’.

The above clearly shows that the broad way must be right, after all that's the general consensus.
Only ignorant fools would take the narrow gate.

To quote Dr Carson “a text without a context is a pretext”

There even appears to be a thread here devoted to that topic. How convenient. Text without Context is Pretext

There is no end of information available that shows the consensus is nothing more than media hype. There are also several threads already on CF that show the climate fakery.
I haven't time to list it all now.

It’s fine, I can just have a search sometime.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
17,323
4,545
63
✟253,956.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Bear with me i’m just going to switch on my universal translator



Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, there are plenty of conspiracy theories that confirm that everything is just fine and dandy.”




Translating: “no we can do whatever we like with this planet, yeah sure the climate is changing, but that has nothing to do with 250 years of industrialisation, we don’t need to do anything differently, everything is fine and dandy.”
Well that's kind if funny. You just completely dismissed something that I didn't say. Well done! You slapped an argument on the table I didn't make and then snarkily wiped it off the table as if you defeated something mightily. The problem is I never said what you say I said. Is that how you usually operate?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis Drake
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
17,323
4,545
63
✟253,956.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Well at least we’ve established one area where i’ve managed to misrepresent your views.



As is fairly obvious, I was being facetious. Whereas this is a perfect example of a straw man argument, congratulations you’re clearly adept at employing them.



Sounds like excellent advice.



I imagine nothing

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia




Nope, science does not establish truth, only consensus, which is then subject to correction and refinement as better models for understanding reality become available.



I’ve no idea, as Jesus is clearly talking about salvation rather than ‘scientific consensus’.



To quote Dr Carson “a text without a context is a pretext”

There even appears to be a thread here devoted to that topic. How convenient. Text without Context is Pretext



It’s fine, I can just have a search sometime.

You might not want to base opinion on Wikipedia. CO2 is not causing climate change. There is a lot of nonsense being pushed about by the media and the man made climate change scientific community. In order for us to have the effect claimed by the alarmists on the oceans we would have to raise the temperature on this planet by thousands of degrees.

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide can't cause Global Warming | Principia Scientific International

The other problem is people cannot produce all these supposed peer reviewed papers and who is doing the reviews that support these alarmists.

Like I said. Pollution is not good. We do have to use resources wisely. But the most we could do is effect localized regions and not the climate.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis Drake
Upvote 0

apogee

Regular Member
Oct 9, 2004
823
442
✟37,935.00
Faith
Christian
Well that's kind if funny. You just completely dismissed something that I didn't say. Well done!

I think you both clearly deserve an apology for my facetiousness. So I hereby offer my sincerest apologies for being flippant.

You slapped an argument on the table I didn't make and then snarkily wiped it off the table as if you defeated something mightily. The problem is I never said what you say I said. Is that how you usually operate?

This is a bit silly, as far as far I’m aware ‘universal translators’ only exist in the Star Trek universe.
 
Upvote 0