T
TDWP22
Guest
the reason you don't agree with society is because society doesn't agree with you...if you don't have a solution for the things you don't agree, you are the problem in society
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
Brandon777
Guest
The first part of the statement needs to be elaborated. The second part is correct if you replace "the" problem in society with "a" problem in society because society is more than just one component individual.
T
TDWP22
Guest
no...reason why is because you are one individual so "the" is grammatically correct...don't try to soften things up
B
Brandon777
Guest
Your explanation needs to be in the form of a grammatically correct sentence for me to understand it. Which reason? Why what? I also don't see the relevance in saying that I am an individual.
T
TDWP22
Guest
your don't need to understand it because it's not for you...they know who they are
B
Brandon777
Guest
T
TDWP22
Guest
the reason you dont understand it is because you arent one of those people....besides arguing about a topic that doesn't concern you (no offense) becomes and idle converstion
And they went out, and preached that men should repent. Mark 6:12
In order to recommend a response to the environmental ills of our age, the authors first
described the problems at issue. They organized these into three main categories:
* 1) Population,
* 2) Consumption vs. sustainability and
* 3) Pollution and waste — the second two being aggravated by the growth of the first.
They explore the Biblical record, the historic record, and the evidence we can see today,
all of which point toward mankind being behind many of the ills under which the earth
currently groans. And we also suffer, along with the rest of creation, as a result of these
ills. The consequences are ecological, medical, economic, cultural, and aesthetic.
Redeeming Creation: The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship: *(1)
Theologians distinguish between two types of evil -- personal and structural *(2).
Personal evil, the problem of individual sin and moral choice, is the subject of many
sermons. The Christian's response to personal evil is a change in personal behavior. It
requires repentance, restitution and subsequent consecration to God. As Paul told the
church at Ephesus,
"Let him who steals steal no longer, but rather let him labor, performing with his own
hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has
need" (Ephesians 4:28 NASB).
But evil in a fallen world can reach beyond personal levels and demand more than
personal responses. Evil can come to be incorporated, and even rewarded, in the
operation of a system or organization. Evil at the structural level cannot be effectively
thwarted by remedies at the personal level. It is the system itself that must be changed.
As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Revelation 3:19
Reform is needed in the structures of management and the structures of law. But by
themselves the reforms generated in these areas would still be incomplete, A further and
greater, need is the development and provision of an environmental ethic by which both
individuals and agencies are judged. And until that ethic is well formulated and well
articulated, neither personal nor structural evil in natural resource management can be
effectively attacked.
Aldo Leopold foresaw the dangers of an inadequate basis of environmental ethics and
warned what would happen to those who tried to build a comprehensive program of
conservation upon them.
"No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without and internal change in our
intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions. The proof that conservation
has not yet touched these foundations of conduct lies in the fact that philosophy and
religion have not yet heard of it. In our attempt to make conservation easy we have
made it trivial. When the logic of history hungers for bread and we hand out a stone, we
are at pains to explain how much the stone resembles bread." *(3)
Because of this neglect of ethical foundations, the present environmental movement
races toward a crisis of irresolvable value conflicts, a crisis that can only result in further
degradation of God's good creation. It is to this internal crisis of environmental ethics,
even more than the external crisis of environmental degradation, that the Christian
community, the church, must respond. the church has the most resources to offer for
meeting this great need. But it is this need that will demand the greatest and most costly
sacrifice.
The Christian Church and the Prophetic Witness
Theologian Carl F. H. Henry said, "It is only as each Christian generation
permeates its environment with biblical moral sensitivities that
unregenerate society is restrained from acting on its deep-seated
prejudices and is encouraged to judge itself by Christian ideals
-- even when it is unwilling to embrace those ideals as an explicit
intellectual commitment." *(4)
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is
like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this
ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Acts 17:29-30
Notes:
(1) Fred Van Dyke, David C. Mahan, Joseph K. Sheldon, Raymond H. Brand "Redeeming
Creation -- The Biblical Basis for Environmental Stewardship"
(Downers Grove, IL InterVarsity Press 1996) pp. 155-159
(2) Steven V. Monsma, "Pursuing Justice in a Sinful World",
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984).
(3) Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River
(New York: Sierra Club/Ballentine Books, 1974), p246.
(4) James R. Newby and Elizabeth S. Newby, Between Peril and Promise
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson 1984), pp. 84-85
T
TDWP22
Guest
B
Brandon777
Guest
Are you saying I substantively need context in order to participate? You did start a new thread ya know...
T
TDWP22
Guest
yes and no...you can participate all you want but in order to understand what it means you need to context
What about a person who doesn't care about society?
P.S. It's funny how you guys are arguing over grammar.
T
TDWP22
Guest
D
dmdave17
Guest
"Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen." (2 Timothy 2:14)
Can't we find better things to argue about? Like what is really wrong with society today.
Can't we find better things to argue about? Like what is really wrong with society today.
T
TDWP22
Guest
this is simply a thought...i dont argue about things of such nature, because it's based on opinions
A
AnandaHya
Guest
people have forgotten to give thanks to God when their lives are being blessed with good things, family, love, respect, enough food, shelter, etc and then they curse or expect God to give them things to fulfill their own lusts and desires of this world when they have no desire to do the things God created them to do in the first place. they continue in disobedience and disrespect to God and expect everything to be sunshine and happy days forgetting that the world was not made for THEIR pleasure but they were made to praise and glorify God.
Instead of talking about God they would rather be "right" and fulfill the lust of their flesh and their pride with empty words and thorns.
A
AnandaHya
Guest
T
TDWP22
Guest
im taking a neutral stance....well, these are your views, rather the christian view, not society's...
your are trying to impose what you believe is positive, in to what society is doing, which you believe is negative
now, society believes they're views are correct and yours are wrong...what's the result? nothing
+/- (your views are positive/ society's views are negative) -/+ (your views are negative/society's vies are positive) what occurs? the whole process was cancelled out. no one won
people in society are happy the way they are, they don't want to turn to your views. you cannot change society no matter how hard your try....that's my point...only those who seek shall find. If they don't, let them be, dont question they're actions because you cannot change them
Last edited: