Did Christ shed his blood for trees?

[JustChristian]

I cannot speak for "most of the environmentalists", but is it really necessary to hold one of two polarised views on this? Of course Jesus Christ did not shed His precious blood for trees (or for rocks, snakes, tigers, dogs, cats, tortoises....) But that doesn't mean we can say, "Jesus didn't die for trees (or for rocks, snakes, tigers, dogs, cats, tortoises....) so if I will treat them exactly as I please. If I want to treat them cruelly or destroy them merely for my pleasure, I'll do it!"

I would also suggest that anybody who does not believe in our Creator God, whether or not they are "environmentalists", will put creation above the Creator (though of course they wouldn't call it "creation" :laugh: !)

Good summary. Unbelievers put this world (all of creation) above God because they don't believe in God. This world is all they have. They have no hope of eternal salvation. The mistake that has been made is many Christians lump these unbelievers with Christians who do believe in God and salvation through Christ's sacrifice on the cross together. Their objective might sometimes be the same e.g. reduce automobile exhaust pollutants but for entirely different reasons. The unbelievers simply want to improve their living conditions in the only life they will have (outside of Hell). The believers want to improve living conditions for the glory of God by being good caretakers of His creation.

 

[Revmitchell]

The believers want to improve living conditions for the glory of God by being good caretakers of His creation.

This is an over simplification. The much energy and money put into these efforts by Christians can go to winning the lost. It suspicious when Christians act just like the world and then tack on "we do it for the glory of God".

 

[JustChristian]

This is an over simplification. The much energy and money put into these efforts by Christians can go to winning the lost. It suspicious when Christians act just like the world and then tack on "we do it for the glory of God".

You can choose to destroy God's creation if you want to for whatever reason (monetary gain, politics). I choose not to do that. That's your choice. But I believe that Christians can evangelize when we "do the right thing" in accordance with our belief in God as the creator of the universe. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to insist that God created the earth as opposed to evolution and then completely disregard the proper caretaking of it? If all this just came about by chance I can see polluting it. If it was created by a Holy God whom we claim to worship I can't.

Your choice.

 

[BaptistLady02]

No, Christ's sacrifice was for humans only.

 

[JustChristian]

No, Christ's sacrifice was for humans only.

So do I of course. Doesn't it seem like a funny question though?

 

[Born_in_Crewe]

You can choose to destroy God's creation if you want to for whatever reason (monetary gain, politics). I choose not to do that. That's your choice. But I believe that Christians can evangelize when we "do the right thing" in accordance with our belief in God as the creator of the universe. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to insist that God created the earth as opposed to evolution and then completely disregard the proper caretaking of it? If all this just came about by chance I can see polluting it. If it was created by a Holy God whom we claim to worship I can't.

Agree - it does look better if we do the right things for the Earth. Even if the Earth is going to be destroyed, it still evangelises to the watching world if we take care of the Earth.

 

[Revmitchell]

Agree - it does look better if we do the right things for the Earth. Even if the Earth is going to be destroyed, it still evangelises to the watching world if we take care of the Earth.

Do you have scriptural support for this?

 

[David Lamb]

This is an over simplification. The much energy and money put into these efforts by Christians can go to winning the lost. It suspicious when Christians act just like the world and then tack on "we do it for the glory of God".

That in itself is an over simplification. I don't belong to any "environmentalist" organisation, and far from spending money, I find that I save money by such things as recycling and not wasting water, fuel, etc.

 

[Revmitchell]

That in itself is an over simplification. I don't belong to any "environmentalist" organisation, and far from spending money, I find that I save money by such things as recycling and not wasting water, fuel, etc.

But that s not the gospel.

 

[David Lamb]

But that s not the gospel.

No it is not, nor was that what I was suggesting. I was answering your comment (emphasis mine): "The much energy and money put into these efforts by Christians can go to winning the lost." Sorry for not making that clear.

 

[Revmitchell]

No it is not, nor was that what I was suggesting. I was answering your comment (emphasis mine): "The much energy and money put into these efforts by Christians can go to winning the lost." Sorry for not making that clear.

None of that has anything to do with the gospel nor does it effect the gospel at any point.

 

[David Lamb]

None of that has anything to do with the gospel nor does it effect the gospel at any point.

Sorry again. I will try wording my thought differently: Replying to BaptistBeliever's statement that Christians should be good caretakers of God's creation, you said that the energy and money put into these efforts by Christians could instead go to winning the lost. My reply was intended to indicate that being a good caretakers does not have to use more money, but rather less. An example here in the UK is the use of water. For many years, water and sewerage services were paid for by a charge which was based solely on the value of a person's house. No matter how much water they used, even if they wasted it by leaving taps running all day and night, their water bill would be the same. Now, there is the alternative of having a water meter, and paying for the water actually used. My water bills are less than half what they were prior to having a meter fitted. The money thus saved is available for gospel work.

Is spreading the gospel nothing to do with the gospel? Surely that is not what you meant, and I have misunderstood you.

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry again. I will try wording my thought differently: Replying to BaptistBeliever's statement that Christians should be good caretakers of God's creation, you said that the energy and money put into these efforts by Christians could instead go to winning the lost. My reply was intended to indicate that being a good caretakers does not have to use more money, but rather less. An example here in the UK is the use of water. For many years, water and sewerage services were paid for by a charge which was based solely on the value of a person's house. No matter how much water they used, even if they wasted it by leaving taps running all day and night, their water bill would be the same. Now, there is the alternative of having a water meter, and paying for the water actually used. My water bills are less than half what they were prior to having a meter fitted. The money thus saved is available for gospel work.

Is spreading the gospel nothing to do with the gospel? Surely that is not what you meant, and I have misunderstood you.

No not at all. The neo-liberal movement these days ties environmentalism into the gospel as if it effects it one way or the other. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. But the neo-liberal justifies their world view simply by tacking on the gospel at the end. Fallacy movements need justification. This hyper-concern over environmental issues have a weak basis and are being propped up by the gospel. Which in the end distorts it. No where can it be biblically justified.

 

[David Lamb]

No not at all. The neo-liberal movement these days ties environmentalism into the gospel as if it effects it one way or the other. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. But the neo-liberal justifies their world view simply by tacking on the gospel at the end. Fallacy movements need justification. This hyper-concern over environmental issues have a weak basis and are being propped up by the gospel. Which in the end distorts it. No where can it be biblically justified.

It seems we are talking about two different things. Perhaps in America the phrase "environmental concern" is used only of those way-out groups you seem to be talking about. Here, it is used to mean any positive concern for the environment, whether it is responsible disposal of waste (not just dumping our old fridges and matresses in the countryside, for example), using things like water and energy in an unnecessarily wasteful way, or trying to ensure that factory and farm waste does not pollute the water supply. People of all religions and none have such concerns here. I am certainly not a liberal (neo- or otherwise), nor do I start with a concern for the environment and tack the gospel on to the end. I agree with you that such a position has a weak basis. But, as I say, I don't hold that position, as I hope I have now made clear.

 

[JustChristian]

No not at all. The neo-liberal movement these days ties environmentalism into the gospel as if it effects it one way or the other. I may have misunderstood what you were saying. But the neo-liberal justifies their world view simply by tacking on the gospel at the end. Fallacy movements need justification. This hyper-concern over environmental issues have a weak basis and are being propped up by the gospel. Which in the end distorts it. No where can it be biblically justified.

I never said anything about making this part of the cannon or even an important thing to do. I simply asked whether a Christian should destroy God's environment. Saying something like "I think you should spend all your time evangelizing is ridiculous. Even the most devout Christian does other things in their lives such as eat, drive a car, take out the garbage. Should you be evangelizing instead of eating?

This topic has been so politized that fundamentalists are saying inane things to argue against those terrible liberals who'd rather have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. If you think you glorify God by polluting His creation go right ahead.

 

[Revmitchell]

I never said anything about making this part of the cannon or even an important thing to do. I simply asked whether a Christian should destroy God's environment. Saying something like "I think you should spend all your time evangelizing is ridiculous. Even the most devout Christian does other things in their lives such as eat, drive a car, take out the garbage. Should you be evangelizing instead of eating?

This topic has been so politized that fundamentalists are saying inane things to argue against those terrible liberals who'd rather have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. If you think you glorify God by polluting His creation go right ahead.

Baloney. What liberals are doing is presenting environmentalism as part of the gospel and making it one of the primary platforms of the church.

 

[David Lamb]

positive concern for the environment, ...... using things like water and energy in an unnecessarily wasteful way, .....

Of course I meant not using thingslike water and energy in an unnecessarily wasteful way! Ooops!

 

[David Lamb]

Baloney. What liberals are doing is presenting environmentalism as part of the gospel and making it one of the primary platforms of the church.

It is baloney if a church starts preaching environmentalism as part of the gospel, thus going towards your hyperbole of believing that Christ died for trees. But there is a "happy medium" (no, not a laughing spiritist! :laugh: ). We can (and I believe should) use God's Creation carefully without making environmentalism part of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is baloney if a church starts preaching environmentalism as part of the gospel, thus going towards your hyperbole of believing that Christ died for trees. But there is a "happy medium" (no, not a laughing spiritist! :laugh: ). We can (and I believe should) use God's Creation carefully without making environmentalism part of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not hyperbole. That is what has been espoused in the politics section recently.

 

[David Lamb]

It is not hyperbole. That is what has been espoused in the politics section recently.

You mean there are people who really believe that Jesus shed His precious blood at Calvary to provide salvation for trees? (I must have missed those particular posts in the Politics forum). If so, I was wrong to use the word hyperbole, and I apologise.