coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

lowlyman

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 01:46 PM

Truth.Seeker

I don't know how you can make the arguments that you are making, no matter how logically correct/incorrect they are. For instance, how can you say the following in a Christian spirit:

"So, as long as there are humans, the theological importance of seeing nature in "harmony" is not important."

I thought the whole purpose of man is to be in harmony with all creatures, nature included.

From Truth.Seeker:Bishoy,

How about this: since Nature is so precious, all of us are wrong to have built anything. Even better, let me go to the other extreme, since everything we do to nature is from nature itself, than everything is fine. Since God created all things, then everything is good. Carbon monoxide is just Carbon and Oxygen put together. Cars are made from metals taken from nature, etc.

With regards to your quotes. All the saints are pointing to the fact that God created everything. That's not news. To make your point you should use Romans I, where St. Paul says that we know that God exists by "the things that are made." That's what St. Augustine is getting at.

No environmental impact will "change that." Because WE are the most complex thing that He has made. So, as long as there are humans, the theological importance of seeing nature in "harmony" is not important.

There's not a separate "Book of Nature" apart from the Bible, the saints get everything they wrote from the Bible.

2. And the point is? If genesis 2 is about the preciousness of the environment, God wouldn't have destroyed it when He destroyed man in the flood. Simple.

3. Thank you for finding the verse for me. Why to let the land rest? "so that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the wild animals may eat." Nothing to do with the environment.

4. Creation is not rational. If you're not rational you can't enter into a covenant. You can't enter into anything.

5. It's straight up heterodoxy to say that Christ came to save the environment. The "world" here is referring to Jews and Gentiles, not the planet Earth. The "all things" you're mentioning is talking about Earth AND Heaven, including, humans, angels, the 24 priests, the beasts, etc...They're not all human, so the Apostle couldn't just say, "gather all people." Read the verses in context.

6. In Romans 8, St. Paul is talking about humans and humans only, by "all of creation" he means Christians and non-Christians alike. Here:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

"that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." If your interpretation is correct, than apparently trees groan with birth pangs. Interesting.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 02:28 PM

From lowlyman:Truth.Seeker

I don't know how you can make the arguments that you are making, no matter how logically correct/incorrect they are. For instance, how can you say the following in a Christian spirit:

"So, as long as there are humans, the theological importance of seeing nature in "harmony" is not important."

I thought the whole purpose of man is to be in harmony with all creatures, nature included.



I was saying that if someone were to argue that nature needs to be in harmony so that people, by just taking a look around will know that God exists (according to Romans I), the answer would be, "not really."

Frankly, you thought wrong. The whole purpose of man is to love God and to love his neighbor as himself. At least that's what Christ said.

I can go through every socio-political idea I have in mind and fashion some way that makes it look Biblical. I would be engaging in dishonest exegeting.

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Biboboy

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 04:08 PM

agape,

I'm not sure I'm convinced by what u say. And I also don't agree that the exegesis of the bible is done as a result of sociopolitical issues of this day. Care for creation has been a part of Christianity since the beginning (hence monasticism), and it seems to me that u r a lonely voice in ur exegesis of scripture when it comes to doctrinal matters of the salvation of the whole creation. I suggest doing more research on this topic instead of providing ur own opinion and exegesis of scripture. There are plenty of resources, and u can start off by looking at Harvard's Forum on Religion and Ecology, which provides resources from every religion concerning the ecological crisis.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 05:15 PM

And I suggest you stick to the Bible.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

lowlyman

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 05:22 PM

How can you love God if you don't love and take care of what he created and sustains?

From Truth.Seeker:From lowlyman:Truth.Seeker

I don't know how you can make the arguments that you are making, no matter how logically correct/incorrect they are. For instance, how can you say the following in a Christian spirit:

"So, as long as there are humans, the theological importance of seeing nature in "harmony" is not important."

I thought the whole purpose of man is to be in harmony with all creatures, nature included.



I was saying that if someone were to argue that nature needs to be in harmony so that people, by just taking a look around will know that God exists (according to Romans I), the answer would be, "not really."

Frankly, you thought wrong. The whole purpose of man is to love God and to love his neighbor as himself. At least that's what Christ said.

I can go through every socio-political idea I have in mind and fashion some way that makes it look Biblical. I would be engaging in dishonest exegeting.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 05:31 PM

So lowlyman, when was the last time you confessed driving your car to your priest?

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

lowlyman

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 05:44 PM

lol.. nonetheless, that doesn't mean I don't have a responsibility for then env.

to answer your question, my other sins take up most of my confessions...
lol
From Truth.Seeker:So lowlyman, when was the last time you confessed driving your car to your priest?

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 05:49 PM

I hope you saw my point. Every time you drive you're hurting the environment. People don't hurt what they truly love. Therefore, you don't love God because you don't love what He created. Therefore, you don't love God because your drive your car. You laughed - and that was the point .

Do you see my main problem with this topic? Once a duty is established in Christianity, not doing it becomes a sin.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

lowlyman

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 07:27 PM

I see the point. However, I drive out of necessity most of the time. That is, without driving I cannot provide for my children. Now, if I were driving to indulge myself for the enjoyment of it, say by driving a Hummer, then I would need to bring that up in my confession. if I was the CEO of a corporation trying to maximize my profits at the expense of the environment, then this would be grave indeed.

I sincerely hope that you see my point.

lowly

[quote=is to see the point I see your point"Truth.Seeker"]I hope you saw my point. Every time you drive you're hurting the environment. People don't hurt what they truly love. Therefore, you don't love God because you don't love what He created. Therefore, you don't love God because your drive your car. You laughed - and that was the point .

Do you see my main problem with this topic? Once a duty is established in Christianity, not doing it becomes a sin.[/quote]

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 03, 2008 - 07:50 PM

And what if the CEO is trying to maximize the profits of his corporation so that the shareholders of his corporation can get a higher return on their investment so they can put food on the table just like you need to do? What if we shut down that polluting factory, its 300 workers are going to get laid off? What if costs that the factory has to incur to become more "green" will cause it to lay off many workers?

So, all Hummer drivers are sinners? What if you buy a car that gets 17 miles to a gallon when you could have bought one that gets 19 miles to a gallon?

NO ONE to my knowledge gets out there and says, "I'm going to destroy the environment today." It's always something that we do that ends up having an effect on the environment.

When does it start and when does it stop? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it's a sin to do activities that may hurt the environment.

That's why I maintain that the environment is an important socio-political issue that every person should be concerned with and act accordingly, but that the lack of that action is not sinful.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 04, 2008 - 12:45 AM

From AMoussa01:What on earth do you mean by "non-Biblical sins?" There is no such a thing. Either its a sin or its not a sin.

GB
Tony

Tony,

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I didn't see this. I said that facetiously. There are no non-Biblical sins, that's my point.

_________________
A. S.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

lowlyman

posted on Apr 04, 2008 - 01:05 PM

You just have to be kidding me!

I think CEOs can put food on their tables while doing the responsible thing with the environment. The difference is with their bonus being in the tens of millions in the hundreds of thousand. Either way they eat well.

>>>What if we shut down that polluting factory, its 300 workers are going to get laid off?

Who is arguing for shut it down? Why not invest in clean technology? Why not give them in incentives to clean up their act?

>>>So, all Hummer drivers are sinners? What if you buy a car that gets 17 miles to a gallon when you could have bought one that gets 19 miles to a gallon?

So aren't we all sinners? Of course we are! So use your logic please. But the important thing is to distinguish that not all sins are of the same magnitude.

>>> NO ONE to my knowledge gets out there and says"I'm going to destroy the environment today."

I disagree with that. Many folks are in position to save the environment but they choose to destroy it. For example, those who have been dumping toxic waste in the Mediterranean are doing it purposely and for-profit. that's wrong.

From Truth.Seeker:And what if the CEO is trying to maximize the profits of his corporation so that the shareholders of his corporation can get a higher return on their investment so they can put food on the table just like you need to do? What if we shut down that polluting factory, its 300 workers are going to get laid off? What if costs that the factory has to incur to become more "green" will cause it to lay off many workers?

So, all Hummer drivers are sinners? What if you buy a car that gets 17 miles to a gallon when you could have bought one that gets 19 miles to a gallon?

NO ONE to my knowledge gets out there and says, "I'm going to destroy the environment today." It's always something that we do that ends up having an effect on the environment.

When does it start and when does it stop? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it's a sin to do activities that may hurt the environment.

That's why I maintain that the environment is an important socio-political issue that every person should be concerned with and act accordingly, but that the lack of that action is not sinful.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 04, 2008 - 01:55 PM

1. You didn't finish reading my statement. I said CEO's maximizing profits so shareholders (the average shareholder in a publicly traded company isn't all that rich) can put food on the table.

2. I mentioned the alternative you just said. What if companies lay people off because of the costs of becoming more green?

3. We are all sinners, but that's obviously not what I meant. Are all people who buy Hummers sinning because they bought hummers? Is buying a car that gets 17 mpg instead of 19 mpg a sin? Are all the monks at St. Antony's monastery sinning because they mostly drive trucks when they could be driving sedans?

4. The example you give doesn't back up your argument. The companies that dump toxic waste don't do it to destroy the environment, but to maximize profifts. That is not to say that they don't hurt the environment, that is to say the purpose they have in mind is not about the environment. In other words, if it didn't hurt the environment at all, they'd still do it.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

lowlyman

posted on Apr 04, 2008 - 03:32 PM

From Truth.Seeker:1. You didn't finish reading my statement. I said CEO's maximizing profits so shareholders (the average shareholder in a publicly traded company isn't all that rich) can put food on the table.

>> I am sorry but I go through reading the posts quickly in the interest of saving time. As a result, I misunderstand few things every now and then. You have to admit that this is a far-fetched scenario. How many people are waiting on Corporation earnings report, so they can put food on the table?

2. I mentioned the alternative you just said. What if companies lay people off because of the costs of becoming more green?

>> Obviously, people's need should take precedence. However, I very much doubt that these options are mutually exclusive.

3. We are all sinners, but that's obviously not what I meant. Are all people who buy Hummers sinning because they bought hummers? Is buying a car that gets 17 mpg instead of 19 mpg a sin? Are all the monks at St. Antony's monastery sinning because they mostly drive trucks when they could be driving sedans?

>>> I am trying to suggest that the use of something is what determines whether a sin is committed or not. So buying a hummer is not a sin. Now, if you were to buy Honda Civic and then use the differential in money for the poor, I would suspect you would increase in virtue. So once again, not all sins are the same!

4. The example you give doesn't back up your argument. The companies that dump toxic waste don't do it to destroy the environment, but to maximize profifts. That is not to say that they don't hurt the environment, that is to say the purpose they have in mind is not about the environment. In other words, if it didn't hurt the environment at all, they'd still do it.

>>>I would say they are still guilty of hurting the environment

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 226

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 04, 2008 - 03:56 PM

1. A lot of people, including me. Infact, management and the board of directors do all they can to make shareholders happy so as to not be fired by them.

2. Whenever a corporation's costs increases, something has to give.

3. It's really hard for me to envision that I have to confess to my priest about every time I drive just to get some fresh air. Again, nobody drives anymore than they need to for the sake of destroying the environment, it's always for another reason.

4. I agree, I was originally making a point about when do you become guilty and when you don't. The #1 polluter in the world is people driving their cars. So, every single one of us is guilty of adding to the destruction of the world.

Anyway, I don't really have much more to add, so this is my last post on this topic.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Biboboy

posted on Apr 07, 2008 - 11:26 PM

Agape,

1- The world doesn't revolve around CEO's and their families. Decisions, in a democratic society, is done by all people and for all people. Everyone has the right to live, and the decisions we make affect everyone everywhere. It's not only upto the CEO's.

2- Read the Stern Review, it's available online. The costs of living as we are (business-as-usual) is greater than "going green" - you need to factor in a lot of other costs such as health care and damage to property. Another point I'd like to mention is that arguing for the sake of jobs in the business-as-usual trend we're in is not convincing. We need to think in the long-term: if human activities are unsustainable, we're dead, along with the whole planet. That's called suicide.

3- Over-producing, over-consumption, and over-polluting are the "sins." These are all un-necessary. We call it gluttony in the church, so it's not something new.

4- Guilt is not the aim. It's making a change that makes us Christians. We call it repentance in the church, so again, it's not something new added into the church.

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Biboboy

posted on Apr 07, 2008 - 11:32 PM

One more thing: as for Romans 8, read it again. St. Paul makes a very clear distinction between "creation" and "us" (humans).

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 07, 2008 - 11:59 PM

1. I thought it was our BIBLICAL duty to protect the environment? Now you're talking to me about democracy? Sounds like politics to me.

2. The world will end when God wants it to end, not before that. You know, that whole anti-Christ stuff that's going to happen? You can't control it by going green. The FACT of the matter is that our Lord Christ would not say, "ehh, fire this employee today, so you'd have two jobs in 20 years." Christ stays OUTSIDE of political economics.

3. Then it's not about the environment, it's about gluttony. Go read my FIRST post.

4. Guilt is not the aim? What are you talking about? Please READ the whole discussion before responding randomly.


You are clearly wrong with respect to Romans 8. Here's why:

In context, the "us" in Romans is talking about Christians. The "creation" is primarily meaning non-Christians, but Christians as well at times.

At the end of his dissertation, St. Paul says "For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now."

If "creation" means "everything." Then, TREES groan and labor in birth pangs. You haven't explained that one to me.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Biboboy

posted on Apr 08, 2008 - 01:33 AM

Agape,

1- Aren't human rights to life and health biblical? Doesn't Christ curse the rich who oppress the poor? Don't the prophets condemn those who don't do justice? All these ideas are biblical. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

2- If that's the attitude we're expected to have, then we won't do anything in our lives. If people back in the days of the World Wars thought that the world was coming to an end anyway, do you think we would be here? No. And you can't limit Christ to what you want him to be limited to - i.e., you can't say that Christ should be out of politics and economics. That's philosophically and theologically unsound: humans cannot control God. Rather, it's God who guides us in our decisions as Christians.

3- You can't distinguish between the two.

4- Lame excuse to not respond to a valid point I made.

5- I don't agree with your exegesis. That's your own opinion, and it's not based on any research nor on the Church Fathers' interpretation of the text. Here, for example, is what St. John Chrysostom had to say:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111/Page_444.html

(continue reading the other pages too).

+++

Anyway, perhaps next time you pray tasbeha on a Tuesday night, meditate on what the church prays for when we chant this verse:

"They teach us in the Holy Scriptures, the breath of God, to be merciful to the creation that He has created."
(Fourth verse of the Coptic Wed. Psali).

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Truth.Seeker

posted on Apr 08, 2008 - 03:29 AM

1. Where did I argue otherwise? Why are you going on limitless tangents?

2. You're the one limiting Christ by trying to fit Him into your socio-politial mold.

3. Logic lesson: Y may lead to Z. It's wrong to do Y. That doesn't mean it's wrong to do Z.

Stealing leads to having money. It's wrong to steal. That doesn't mean it's wrong to have money.

4. I don't even understand what you were writing.

HOWEVER, on a second reading of Romans 8, you are RIGHT. St. Paul is talking about the Earth in general (that was my mistake). Earth's "misery" started with man's fall. Its "misery" is going to stop with his redemption. All of this is symbolic since Earth has no "feelings." Why is all of this symbolic? Because Trees don't give birth and they don't groan. St. Paul's immitating the language said in Genesis to Eve after the fall. I don't see how that adds to your point though...

I'd like to point out that this environmental stuff isn't about the Earth, it's about what happens to humans. For example: icebergs melting. Well, there's no fundamental change to Earth there, just ice changing to water. WHY are icebergs better than melted water? Can you give me an argument for why the Earth prefers either?

So, if you want to argue to save the environment, put it in terms of how that's going to help people out. The only way it'll be a sin for someone to hurt the environment is if that person is specifically going out there and doing something in order to bring some kind harm to people.

Think about it (or not), I don't care much either way .

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411