Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>    It's just 1 fish (albeit a big one :-) ) and not of any consequence.

    There is nothing wrong with eating one's catch if one is hungry.

    There is nothing wrong with releasing one's catch is one isn't
    hungry.

>    all live in and need to take great care of.  If we don't, it'll become
>    less habitable by the effects of our own misuses.  Others see this
>    source as being run by God and that our role is to serve God who will
>    in turn provide for our needs by managing the resources of the earth
>    for us.

    Well, the works  of good (wo)men will be determined by their fruit.
    If the fruit stinks, well, you get my drift.

    This sort of links into the discussion of pergatory.  Although
    some may become born again environmentalists, one still has to 
    live with consequences of one's past actions even if they are
    forgiven.

    The problem is that the rest of us have to live with it, too.

    I believe we should use the Earth, not use it up or abuse it.

    Tom

    I also believe like Tom that the decision to keep or free the fish is
    arbitrary.  Consider the example of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain. 
    God provided a ram simply for a sacrifice.  
    
    We are in fact stewards of the planet...and if you read end time
    prophecy, you will see that our control over resources are somewhat
    limited even now and will eventually be out of control.  I do promote
    responsible care through legislation and common sense, however, at the
    same time, I despise organizations that block the progress of humanity
    for nonsensical reasons.
    
    -Jack

 God gave man dominion over the earth, including the animals.  That is not
 a license to abuse or destroy.  There is Biblical discussion of being
 good stewards of that with which God blessed us.  We need to stop short,
 however, of worshipping the created rather than the creator, as the Bible
 tells us.



 Jim

    In Revelation it says that "God will destroy those who have destroyed
    the earth"... or something to that effect.
    
    I'd say that we are held accountable for our actions here, which
    includes stewardship of the Earth.  
    
    
    -steve

    RE .1 (Tom)
    
    >There is nothing wrong....
    
    Is there something wrong with releasing the fish if you are hungry?
    IOW, is making a sacrifice for the sake of other living things a noble
    thing?  
    
    >    Well, the works  of good (wo)men will be determined by their fruit.
    >    If the fruit stinks, well, you get my drift.
    
    Earlier in this century there was a chemist (forget his name) who
    invented DDT.  It was used to almost irradicate malaria in the tropics
    by irradicating the mosquitoes that carry the parasite. Untold
    thousands were saved as a result of his work.  He won the Nobel peace
    prize for his discovery.  At first sight, one would say that this was a 
    good thing and that the fruits of this act spared many people.  A
    second glance decades later tells us that DDT is not such a good thing,
    the quality of the fruits has changed.  
    
    Sometimes one act can produce both good and bad fruit.  It's tough to 
    determine if an act is good or bad based on observing the whole basket
    of fruit.
    
    
    RE .2 (Jack)
    
    >I also believe like Tom that the decision to keep or free the fish is
    >    arbitrary.
    
    Maybe.  But it does "seem" have an effect.  People have been keeping
    too many of the fish caught off Georges Bank for too long now, and what
    once were rich fishing grounds are now severly depleted.  Some would
    say that this is a direct result of overfishing.  I suppose others
    might say that this is an act of God.  My friend thinks the latter and
    says the grounds will be restored if/when Americans/Canadians get their
    religious act together.  How can a people come to a consensus on a
    course of action with such diverse views of the problems and their
    causes?
    
    Re .3 (Jim)
    
    >God gave man dominion over the earth, including the animals.
    
    Does that equate to control over the earth?  Clearly we humans could
    not stop hurricane Fran from hitting N.C. last night.  Where does
    dominion begin and end?
    
    
    -dave
    

>    Is there something wrong with releasing the fish if you are hungry?
>    IOW, is making a sacrifice for the sake of other living things a noble
>    thing?  

    If you are hungry but don't intend to keep a fish that you've
    caught, they why are you fishing?

    If you want to do the fish a favor, leave them alone.  :-)

    If you or someone near is hungry and the fish could be used
    to feed them (HYPOTHETICAL ALERT!) I question the morality
    of throwing it back in.  When I say "hungry" I mean that the
    person *needs* food, and soon.  Not how you feel at 11:50 am.

    In another, though slightly bizzare twist, would it be moral
    if (HYPOTHETICAL ALERT!) your plane crashed in the Andes, you
    ran out of food and there were dead people around you (conveniently
    refrigerated in the snow), you proceeded to consume said
    deceased?  To feed your starving children if they were with
    you?

    Tom

Also see topic:
================================================================================
Note 124.0                 Christianity and the Earth                103 replies
WILLEE::FRETTS "Plays with Elephants!"               11 lines  11-DEC-1990 09:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    	I am interested in hearing some Christian perspectives regarding
    	the environment and taking care of the Earth.  Do all Christians
    	feel the same way about this?  Is it an important part of your
    	lives?  How does the issue fit in with your faith?
    
    	Thanks!
    
    	Carole