All comments

A non-believer's lament...

Tim: Re: A non-believer's... (1 day ago)
Jacob: Re: A non-believer's... (1 day ago)
Tim: Re: A non-believer's... (1 day ago)
Jacob: Re: A non-believer's... (1 day ago)
Tim: Re: A non-believer's... (2 days ago)
john doyle: Re: A non-believer's... (2 days ago)
Jacob: Re: A non-believer's... (2 days ago)
john doyle: Re: A non-believer's... (3 days ago)

The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton

john doyle: Re: Proposition 2: Ancient... (2 days ago)
john doyle: Proposition 2: Ancient... (2 days ago)
Syndicate content

it's the relationships

it's the relationships

isn’t the creation narrative precisely about how easy it is for humanity to ruin everything?

I do not believe that the creation narrative is about how we ruin the actualy physical creation. The creation narrative — I believe — is about how we ruin relationships. We have become experts at it, unfortunately. The story of creation is about relationships being created and broken…and subsequently restored in Christ. Afterall he did say “Behold, I make all things new.” We are in that new and perfect creation now: A new heaven, a new earth and New Jerusalem.

I also do not believe that we are doing long-term damage to the environment. As Chrichton clearly demonstrates, the environment is infinitely more resilient and complex than we realize and it was created in such a way that it can withstand tremenduous stresses and environmental disasters. The planet already survived several cataclysmic events, such as meteorite crashes, mass volcano eruptions and one (or more) severe ice ages. All this happened thousands or millions of years before man was even around.

To suggest that a creature with 60 or 80 year lifespan can accurately measure and quantify its action on the environment on a long-term basis is simply unreasonable in my opinion. We are giving ourselves too much credit and too much power :)

Now..with that said, I am not suggesting that there are no environmental problems that are real. I am all in favor of pursuing a better car, cleaner energy, means to create less pollution and trash. But let’s do so in a reasonable way, not at someone else’s expense or by imposing draconian government regulations on markets. Modern SUVs are cleaner and more enviro-friendly than most small cars that were around just 10 years ago. So what is the problem then?

I personally think it’s dislike of success and free markets. Is it just a coincindence that most if not all environmentalist groups are linked to socialist and communist groups?

How should the emerging church respond to the prospect of 'large-scale ecosystem collapse'? By: Andrew (76 replies) 24 October, 2006 - 18:07