1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. We are holding our 2022 Angel Ministry Drive now. Please consider signing up, or if you have any questions about being an Angel, use our staff application form. The world needs more prayer now, and it is a great way to help other members of the forums. :) To Apply...click here

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

Discussion in 'General Political Discussion' started by CuriousCate, Feb 28, 2018.

  1. CuriousCate

    CuriousCate New Member

    2
    +0
    Australia
    Non-Denom
    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?
     
  2. DreadCthulhu

    DreadCthulhu Member

    115
    +77
    Canada
    Christian
    Single
    Yes, we should be limiting carbon dioxide/monoxide emissions, rely less on coal, etc to help preserve the environment for future generations to come.
     
  3. archer75

    archer75 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +4,501
    United States
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    Yes.
     
  4. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Blindly rock'n down to the foundations! Supporter

    +8,505
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    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! ;)
     
  5. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
    Climate change is one giant fraud created by global corporations to advance their NWO objectives. No sensible Christian should be taken in by it.
     
  6. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +4,377
    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.
     
  7. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
    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.”
     
  8. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
    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.
     
  9. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
    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
     
  10. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
  11. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
  12. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
  13. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
  14. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
    Ok let’s just recap,

    The OP said

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

    To which I rather facetiously replied.

    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.
     
  15. Francis Drake

    Francis Drake Returning adventurer.

    +2,417
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Independence-Party
    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.
    Standard font, just changed colour to show it was a quote. If it hurts your eyes, go to bed early tonight or wear shades.
    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.
    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.
     
  16. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
    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.
     
  17. HannahT

    HannahT Newbie Supporter

    +2,369
    Christian
    Married
    lol Perfect examples of how discussions can't be had on this topic. Next Thread!
     
  18. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +4,377
    Pentecostal
    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?
     
  19. rjs330

    rjs330 Well-Known Member

    +4,377
    Pentecostal
    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.
     
  20. apogee

    apogee Regular Member

    823
    +434
    Christian
    I think you both clearly deserve an apology for my facetiousness. So I hereby offer my sincerest apologies for being flippant.

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