[asa] On animals and the environment (was Event or process)

From: Christine Smith <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri May 11 2007 - 18:42:29 EDT

Janice writes on 5/9:
"Humans have "rights" because they also have
"responsibilities". (One of those responsibilities is
to care for God's dumb beasts with extreme kindness
and respect, unlike the way they treat each other.)

The confused pantheists/ panentheists/ gaias in the
"animal rights" (PETA) movement, etc., aren't
willing --- or able --- to admit this."

I agree with the sentiment that humans have "rights"
and "responsibilities" that animals don't have, and
that *some* animal rights movements have gone too far
in trying to equate animals with humans. That being
said, as an animal lover, I would not classify animals
as "dumb beasts", except in the spirit that if they
are "dumb beasts" to us, then we are no less "dumb
beasts" from God's point of view. I would also note
with some interest that of all the blessings given in
the Bible, the very FIRST, explicitly mentioned
reference to a blessing in the Bible is given not to
humans, but to animals:

"And God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and
multiply and fill the waters in the sea, and let birds
multiply on the earth." (Gen. 1:22)

Surely this is some indication of the importance of
animals to God?

Janice continues:
"...Now that I think about it, the radical
environmental movement probably represents what you
might call a godless effort to preserve this aspect of
God's reality -- a sort of hollow memory of the
fullness of God's self-revelation. The
environmentalist loves this divine truth -- or one
part of it -- but not the source of this truth, which
is to say, reality. Thus, he often slides into the
barbarism of pantheism, or at least becomes the
functional equivalent thereof. (Of course, I am
speaking in generalities, as there are obviously
countless people who love nature but are not radical
environmentalists.)"

I wonder how you would define "radical
environmentalism"? It is clear from you previous posts
that you are a climate change skeptic--I personally
believe that climate change represents a very serious
threat and I do consider myself an
"environmentalist"--does this make me "radical" by
your definition? Or would your definition be
restricted to those environmentalists who would ignore
the needs of the poor in favor of preserving nature
(an attitude and strategy which I would condemn)?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri May 11 18:43:00 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 11 2007 - 18:43:00 EDT