tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post111029980447627362..comments2024-03-28T21:22:17.322-04:00Comments on The AC is On: Responding to Your Comments ...Anvilcloudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07974744042579564912noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post-1111779754143647572005-03-25T14:42:00.000-05:002005-03-25T14:42:00.000-05:00Anonymous here again (I will, for now, continue no...Anonymous here again (I will, for now, continue not identify myself-- but thanks for the invite to take off my cloak and hood)... I can truly appreciate AC's perspective, and I agree with it, for the most part. I believe that people in general-- not only Christians who have read the Bible-- rape and pillage the earth. AC's example of pouring raw sewage into the ocean is heinous, and certainly is not respectful of the one earth that we have to nurture and enjoy and sustain and then pass onto the next generation. However, my comments made earlier (on your other post on this topic) were not so much in response to AC's comments directly, as much as to Katt's comments (the first of the 4 comments where mine are found). With all due respect to Katt (and I truly do not intend this to be a flame in any way, simply a different point of view), this is the portion I was responding to:<BR/><BR/>"...If I'm alive and a tree is alive...why should i assume that I'm more Important? (or anything alive, like a bug)i think it is just human egos that need to feel that they are above nature and are the only ones with a soul. We are all the same. we all will die. nothing lives forever. because humans believe that they are above nature and are the only ones with souls...is the very reason why they have destroyed our planet the way they have, raping the rain forest and poluting the air."<BR/><BR/>Contrary to Katt, I do believe humans have souls and other living beings do not... but that is actually, for me, the exact reason to NOT injure other life forms or do damage to the earth. I will be held accountable for how I have treated others, humans and other life forms, and I think of Jesus' words, "As you have done to the least of these, you have done to Me" (my paraphrase) as my guide for treating others with respect. It is as though I am treating Jesus Himself with disrespect or contempt if I choose to injure an animal. I view the earth as a gift to humans, as well as a responsibility to humans to maintain and protect and develop. On a much larger scale, that is what children are to their parents as well—- gifts as well as a responsibility. And I think God cares very much about how we treat the earth and its inhabitants. So in the end, I think we all agree on the outcome, although I think we have pretty different ways of arriving there. By the way, dont' worry, AC-- I don’t take offense at your “comments on comments”… I really do believe we are all entitled to our own perspective, as well as the opportunity to disagree (whether in great or small degree) from each other. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post-1110431670323681372005-03-10T00:14:00.000-05:002005-03-10T00:14:00.000-05:00Hi Anvilcloud - thanks for your comments on commen...Hi Anvilcloud - thanks for your comments on comments! I share your feelings that these issues are important (i.e. religious interpretation of social activist movements like environmentalism). Your citation presented in this entry ignites another very interesting topic - the complex intersection between religion and medical ethics. As bizarre as the save-the-squirrels anecdote may seem, this issue is repeatedly addressed in bioethics, namely, animal (and human for that matter) experiments for medical research. Of course, out of context, the "squirrel guy" appears to have no legitimate justification for drowning the furry critters, but there are also many examples of medical experiments performed on animals that may also seem (to some) to have ill justifications. It would be interesting to examine what various religious doctrines and/or ideologies say regarding bioethical guidelines for invasive medical research involving animal subjects. I have participated in some engaging discussions on religious medical ethics, but none that questioned the implicit (or explicit - as one might interpret from Genesis) assumption of human welfare as taking all precedence over the welfare of animals. Not even to say that animals are more or less valued than humans - but the greater contested issue is where do we draw the line? Or rather, to what extent should we sacrifice the welfare of animals in order to better our own? <br /><br />Thanks for the thought-provoking entries! Looking forward to more! ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post-1110382456849574212005-03-09T10:34:00.000-05:002005-03-09T10:34:00.000-05:00AC, you've hit on a fantastic topic here! Keep it ...AC, you've hit on a fantastic topic here! Keep it up!Jennifer Swanepoelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412037714911643943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post-1110323349486775422005-03-08T18:09:00.000-05:002005-03-08T18:09:00.000-05:00Why on earth would someone do that to squirrels? ...Why on earth would someone do that to squirrels? I never even realized they were pesky! How heinous!Christihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05369978641581682398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6998770.post-1110316142295216722005-03-08T16:09:00.000-05:002005-03-08T16:09:00.000-05:00My religious tradition suggests God said we could ...My religious tradition suggests God said we could "<I>run</I>" the store... not "<I>ruin</I>" the store. Somewhere along the line someone added an 'i'. <br /><br />I suspect a disgruntled monk with a wicked sense of humor. :)-epmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10290108507107672811noreply@blogger.com