Mosquito control No Mo

[Patrick Foley]

Ron,

Fun as theology is, since it falls outside the scope of  the Leps list, 
I will be short.

Scientists have no trouble with you believing in whatever God you 
choose. Science is not about denying God, it is about finding out what 
is going on in the real, tangible, material world. Environmentalism is 
not about hypocritically co-opting Christianity's stewardship concept. 
It is about taking responsiblility for our effects on the world that we 
and our children's children hope to inhabit. If your motivation is 
stewardship for God's sake, so be it. I was thinking more about me, my 
kids, my friends, my neighbors and my fellow travelers, mere animals and 
plants though they may be. But I am delighted to share the load with God.

Patrick
patfoley at csus.edu

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski at asualumni.org>
>Subject: Re: Mosquito control
>
>
>  
>
>>To counter (for the sake of argument only), you have already said in
>>previous posts that Man (Homo sapiens) is part of nature and not outside
>>of it. This was the justification in those posts for saying that those
>>who criticize Man for altering the environment are off base because Man
>>is just another creature on this earth, like the deer, bear, etc, and is
>>part of nature.
>>    
>>
>****************
>
>I dropped that thread because others were either 1) not smart enough to
>understand what was being said or 2)  understood exactly and thus knew I
>had em by their anti-god gonads. - and thus couldn't admit their error.
>(Remember we're just having fun here.)
>
>Humanity is a alien life form on this planet because he is a created Spirit
>being housed in a primate body.  His primary function when placed here was
>to be steward of the planet - he almost immediately abandoned that and
>failed.  But, this is still his responsibility.  When God made Adam, Homo
>sapiens was already here as stated in scripture.  God "breathed" (put) a
>spirit "offspring" into a sapiens body and Mankind "became" a living soul.
>Quite some time later Eve was cloned from Adam (by a literal operation and
>technology).   The purpose of the flood was to destroy the non spirit (only
>"flesh") sapiens because the offspring of Adam were mating and reproducing
>with them.   After that event, only Spirit beings in sapiens bodies
>remained on the planet.  (see attachment)
>
>Only those who do not believe in Creation place Homo sapiens INSIDE nature.
>In this view, there is no god and man is just another animal.   YET  those
>who frame sapiens as just another animal heap SOLE  responsibility upon him
>for the ills of the planet.  A responsibility, that by the very fact of
>being "just another species" is impossible.  It is the function of
>evolution to cause every creature and creature group to look out ONLY for
>themselves.   If only, and thus as, an animal sapiens is no different.
>
>So those anti-creationists and ant-divinity persons, who totally dominate
>the natural sciences, have TAKEN the Jewish/Christian/Moslem RELIGIOUS
>position when they claim Humanity has _responsibility_.   This is utter
>hypocrisy - and THAT was the point of my posts.   Man is only responsible
>if he is accountable.   There is no accountability among the biota - only
>the Law of Survival.  Via Creation, man is accountable to God for his
>actions in society and nature - and responsibility come from that alone.
>(Other religions are not included above because they reject the Genesis
>unilateral creation by the singular God of Abraham, Yahweh.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Thus, his activities are not any more unnatural than
>  
>
>>those of the deer, bear, etc. Accepting this view point for the sake of
>>discussion, it follows then that if humans alter the environment it is a
>>"natural" occurrence, not an "unnatural" one, and so the rise in harmful
>>critters (assuming they are rising to extra dangerous levels because of
>>human activity) due to human alteration of the environment cannot be
>>"unnatural". It has to be a "natural" occurrence and, therefore,
>>claiming they are at "unnatural" levels it is not a valid argument to
>>justify getting rid of them.
>>
>>Stan
>>    
>>
>***************
>
>Two things.
>1)  The above should be the position of Darwinists - simple, natural, cause
>and effect = causality.  So why do so many of them take a position that is
>purely religious (responsibility/accountability).
>2)  But even in a purely nautral paradigm, the idea of *man interfereth,
>and man interfereth some more* is just more doing what come naturally to
>him.
>
>Cheers :-)
>
>RG
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/private/leps-l/attachments/20050507/60b68253/attachment.html