Why shouldn't taking care of God's Earth/creation be a moral issue?

[Prophesy]

It’s a perfect moral issue.

And it should begin with the person’s own self-examination of their attachments to things. Their consumption. Their desire for endless comfort. Their desire for more.

And by their incredibly quiet spirit of poverty, and their humility, perhaps a few people nearby them may notice and may begin their own self-examination.

Where this focus goes off the rails is with “activism”, brow-beating others…or pushing from high levels of government for reform. It all becomes an indirect environmentalism.

The Church properly knows that it’s a moral issue…and it’s a personal issue.

When we finish refining our own desires and behavior to such a state of perfection AND HUMILITY, then maybe others will take notice.

But there should be no self-promotion, and browbeating.

I would agree and disagree. As a chemist I get excited about proposed alternative fuel sources (like the production of higher order alcohols from carbon dioxide).
But I also disagree because there is a lot of balogna floatin’ around (like ethanol, a worse fuel than regular gasoline coincidentally).

We just have to make sure we don’t get caught up into non-sense.
Remember those fancy grocery bags made from the supermarket that people went rampant for? In order to balance the energy that is used to replace one of those crumby old plastic bags for one of the new fancy ones, you’d have to use it hundreds of times (let alone people would reuse the old crumby ones for garbage bags and food donations) (This was an example of the Father of Green Chemistry in Canada. I’ll see if I can find his actual research as well since that was interesting even if only as a side note).

-Prophesy

 

[meltzerboy]

Abortion, gay marriage, and once in a blue moon even poverty is considered a moral issue.

My question is, why is environmental protection a moral issue? Why should we rely on the secular liberal hippies of the world to protect God’s creation? Shouldn’t we take it upon ourselves to do what we can to prevent further destruction from our gif from the Father?

I think extreme levels of industrial pollution in our air, water, and ground is immoral.

What do you think?

I agree with you and think we should all do what we can to protect the environment, even if it is limited to recycling, which is the law in many places. As a point of fact, there are groups of Evangelicals today who consider the environment an important moral issue.

 

[valentino]

I would agree and disagree. As a chemist I get excited about proposed alternative fuel sources (like the production of higher order alcohols from carbon dioxide).
But I also disagree because there is a lot of balogna floatin’ around (like ethanol, a worse fuel than regular gasoline coincidentally).

We just have to make sure we don’t get caught up into non-sense.
Remember those fancy grocery bags made from the supermarket that people went rampant for? In order to balance the energy that is used to replace one of those crumby old plastic bags for one of the new fancy ones, you’d have to use it hundreds of times (let alone people would reuse the old crumby ones for garbage bags and food donations) (This was an example of the Father of Green Chemistry in Canada. I’ll see if I can find his actual research as well since that was interesting even if only as a side note).

-Prophesy

It doesn’t make sense why we approve legistlation whichh hasn’t been proved by the majority of specilists on this issue which are bipartisan or independent.It seems that many of the legislation passed comes from some independent source consiting of just a few people and they might have some personal agenda .

 

[Prophesy]

It doesn’t make sense why we approve legistlation whichh hasn’t been proved by the majority of specilists on this issue which are bipartisan or independent.It seems that many of the legislation passed comes from some independent source consiting of just a few people and they might have some personal agenda .

Really depends on the country, the legislation and the level of government. In some states (but I’m Canadian so what do I know?) I understand that ethanol is extremely popular because of the corn production. Higher demand on corn results in more profit for farmers, so if you’re a politician in these states if you don’t sacrifice your children to the corn gods, you’re not going to get elected.

-Prophesy

 

[valentino]

Really depends on the country, the legislation and the level of government. In some states (but I’m Canadian so what do I know?) I understand that ethanol is extremely popular because of the corn production. Higher demand on corn results in more profit for farmers, so if you’re a politician in these states if you don’t sacrifice your children to the corn gods, you’re not going to get elected.

-Prophesy

Actually the US is finding that corn ethannol is working out so well.It doesn’t burn as efficiently as they thought and it costs too much to make the ethanol.plus there is a negative effect when farmers turn to growing corn.it will not be a lasting alternative.I believe we are going back to drilling more for now.

 

[Prophesy]

Actually the US is finding that corn ethannol is working out so well.It doesn’t burn as efficiently as they thought and it costs too much to make the ethanol.plus there is a negative effect when farmers turn to growing corn.it will not be a lasting alternative.I believe we are going back to drilling more for now.

That’s what I was talking about. I think said something along those lines earlier.

Prophesy:

But I also disagree because there is a lot of balogna floatin’ around (like ethanol, a worse fuel than regular gasoline coincidentally).

Here are a few more problems. Ethanol requires more energy to be created than it gives of (endothermic reactions are notoriously stupid to use for fuel) and it cannot even be transported by pipeline, it requires the use of a refrigerated transport truck.

-Prophesy

 

[St_Francis]

I think that all too often environmental solutions have unexpected negative effects which fall disproportionately on the poor. For example, green spaces requirements in San Fransisco Have resulted in a lack of housing, driving prices up and making it so poor people can’t really afford to live there.

The fact that corn started being used for a source of energy has created a shortage of the staple of the Meexican diet, raising the price, which of course has a much higher effect on the poor.

And so on and so forth. It just somehow seems like the rich get a nicer lifestyle (bike paths), while the poor just get mpre hassles.

All for a theory for which there is little evidence and less proof.

Sheesh. Elitist baloney idol worshippers. (not you guys, those fanatics who don’t think about the world’s being God’s creation)

 

[Prophesy]

I think that all too often environmental solutions have unexpected negative effects which fall disproportionately on the poor. For example, green spaces requirements in San Fransisco Have resulted in a lack of housing, driving prices up and making it so poor people can’t really afford to live there.

The fact that corn started being used for a source of energy has created a shortage of the staple of the Meexican diet, raising the price, which of course has a much higher effect on the poor.

And so on and so forth. It just somehow seems like the rich get a nicer lifestyle (bike paths), while the poor just get mpre hassles.

I would think that people are doing it because they believe it’s the right thing to do. It’s just that the paths to Hell and poverty are paved with the greatest of intentions.

-Prophesy

 

[MacMcCarver]

Do you suggest that we should treat the sin of polluting the environment as we do the sin of abortion?

Surely you do not suggest these two to be on par with each other, do you?

They may not be on par on the personal morality level, but the two sins certainly accomplish the same end pretty well. Pollution kills. Those who oppose environmental legislation are opposed to the future of humanity.

 

[andyandely1997]

That’s what I was talking about. I think said something along those lines earlier.

Here are a few more problems. Ethanol requires more energy to be created than it gives of (endothermic reactions are notoriously stupid to use for fuel) and it cannot even be transported by pipeline, it requires the use of a refrigerated transport truck.

-Prophesy

Also, using a food supply for our energy consumption is immoral.

 

[vz71]

They may not be on par on the personal morality level, but the two sins certainly accomplish the same end pretty well. Pollution kills. Those who oppose environmental legislation are opposed to the future of humanity.

Abortion directly kills.

Pollution does not.

 

[andyandely1997]

I think that all too often environmental solutions have unexpected negative effects which fall disproportionately on the poor. For example, green spaces requirements in San Fransisco Have resulted in a lack of housing, driving prices up and making it so poor people can’t really afford to live there.

The fact that corn started being used for a source of energy has created a shortage of the staple of the Meexican diet, raising the price, which of course has a much higher effect on the poor.

And so on and so forth. It just somehow seems like the rich get a nicer lifestyle (bike paths), while the poor just get mpre hassles.

All for a theory for which there is little evidence and less proof.

Sheesh. Elitist baloney idol worshippers. (not you guys, those fanatics who don’t think about the world’s being God’s creation)

I agree all these go green initiatives hits the poor the hardest. Also, some people have inversed the order of creation from God-Man-Animals-Plants-Earth to Earth-Plants-Animals-Man-God. We have to put things in perspective with these green plans, when it comes to how it will affect the human race.

 

[Prophesy]

Also, using a food supply for our energy consumption is immoral.

I wouldn’t say so much immoral as stupid. Like I said before, there other new, exciting technologies in development.

-Prophesy

 

[MillTownCath]

Abortion directly kills.

Pollution does not.

What is your point? I don’t think we need to create some kind of scale of which kind of killing is better/worse than others. We’re just saying that it, too, should be considered a moral issue.

 

[vz71]

What is your point? I don’t think we need to create some kind of scale of which kind of killing is better/worse than others.

There are those that appear to equivocate the two based upon the end result being similar.
It is an error, and that is why I pointed it out.

 

[MillTownCath]

There are those that appear to equivocate the two based upon the end result being similar.
It is an error, and that is why I pointed it out.

Oh okay.

Yeah I’m not saying it’s worse or the same as abortion, but it certainly is still an important moral issue. And if not taken care of, it could become extremely lethal. I’d say it’s more important than whatever the government’s stance gay marriage is, to be honest.

 

[MacMcCarver]

There are those that appear to equivocate the two based upon the end result being similar.
It is an error, and that is why I pointed it out.

It doesn’t matter if they are similar. There doesn’t need to be a scale of how wrong something is. Wrong is wrong and should therefore be combated in all its forms. It’s not an intellectual issue; you’d think that the world’s problems would go away by thinking about them by the way some just infinitely categorize things.

 

[vz71]

It doesn’t matter if they are similar. There doesn’t need to be a scale of how wrong something is. Wrong is wrong and should therefore be combated in all its forms. It’s not an intellectual issue; you’d think that the world’s problems would go away by thinking about them by the way some just infinitely categorize things.

The church disagrees.

Witness the different catagories of sins.

 

[MillTownCath]

The church disagrees.

Witness the different catagories of sins.

I think you two are actually in agreement.

Yes, some things are worse than others, but they’re still both wrong.
Just because you’re a pro-life politician doesn’t mean you can support companies that pollute God’s earth, for example.

 

[vz71]

I think you two are actually in agreement.

We are. Or at least we have more we agree on then we disagree on. At least as far as I know.

I choose to catagorize.
Pollution can be serious, or it cannot be serious.
A piece of trash flew out my car window the other day.
Technically, that is pollution. I am littering.
But no, I did not believe it serious in any way.
However, there are industries that know their process is poisoning the environment and do not do enough to protect the people around them from such.
And that is serious.

Abortion always is a mortal sin.
There is no way to have an abortion that is not a mortal sin.