poncho
Well-Known Member
Or enforce it on others. And I agree with Curtis. I don't care much for the hypocrite approach to it either. Al Gore is a shinning example of that approach.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New climate study deals blow to skeptics
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Or enforce it on others. And I agree with Curtis. I don't care much for the hypocrite approach to it either. Al Gore is a shinning example of that approach.
...Or that those who want immigrants to come here legally are racists.
Nope. Means to conquer and subdue. It can even refer to annihilation. Used when one army conquers another.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Garden of Eden, think about it HD, is that too difficult for you?
The concept that (before man's fall, when death had not entered the picture yet) that God commanded man to annihilate all the fish, birds, and animals that He created does not make sense. Seems flawed to me.
Quit speaking in vague terms. Scripture, please...
quantumfaith
Active Member
Genesis 2:15. No one is trying to invent scripture to support some wild idea here, just a simple principle that we are to take care of the environment of creation.
I am not saying that it is speaking of destroying the earth and annihilating the animals. I am saying it CANNOT be speaking of some kind of environmental protection. Personally, combined with God's command to populate the earth, I would say it probably refers to taking over wild areas to form settlements...cutting down trees to build houses, cultivation, building dams, etc. etc.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Nope no longer going to respond to your childishness. Let me know when you grow up.
Which is not found anywhere in scripture. Doesn't mean it is good or bad, just that it is not found in scripture (like speed limits).
Genesis 2:15 is not about protecting the environment. Says nothing about that: its about working the ground (think farming without the hard work...)
Right. Cause a grown up would allow you to rewrite the Bible....
(As in: "Your showing my position is wrong, so let me denigrate you instead, since I cannot win.")
quantumfaith
Active Member
Right. Cause a grown up would allow you to rewrite the Bible....
(As in: "Your showing my position is wrong, so let me denigrate you instead, since I cannot win.")
There is your mentality right there, front and center...."winning".
Really?
Sounds like backpedaling...
I'm still wondering who invented what verses that you referred to earlier.
Didn't say anything about winning. Personally, my goals are to get rid of ridiculous folk theology. However, when you cannot support your position with scripture, nor are you willing to change your position when you are shown to be incorrect, you in fact show that that is YOUR goal.
Could you please show where I am "backpedaling?" I said it "could" be used for annihilation. The verses are about taking over the planet, not about preserving some rare species of lizard.
I am surprised anyone has the nerve to defend man made global warming. It is an absurd notion that has been completely discredited by poor scientific techniques and personal agenda's as revealed by the email scandals. It appears the enviro extremists have backed up and regrouped with more bad science. I suppose they have learned how to hang on to the details of their conclusions even tighter so as not to let the cat out of the bag this time. I imagine people have better things to be concerned with.
To believe that mankind has not had a big impact on the atmosphere is very unreasonable. After all look at what mankind has done to the landscape.
What is unreasonable is to continue to promote this discredited junk science with fabricated results.
Last edited by a moderator: