The Great and Abominable Church: Environmentalism

[_Fortigurn]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

[_Coggins7]

Insightful points bc. The doctrine of stewardship as understood in the Gospel requires us to respect and manage the environment in a wise and prudent manner (while we maintain our continual struggle to make sure it doesn't shorten our lives and kill us) while exploiting it for our safety, comfort, and security. It does not require or imply that we should hallow the environment or see it as greater than ourselves (although it is, at present, overwhelmingly more powerful).

[_bcspace]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

[_Coggins7]

Are you really that stupid Coggins? You connected "The Left" with environmentalists and then connected environmentalists with fertility cults. You also connected both to the "adversary culture".

In any case you are still dodging my direct and critical blow where I pointed out your contradiction in hating the legality of abortion and yet you decry the left as "utterly inconsistent with that document’s [the constitution's] divine and timeless principles of individual liberty and self governance."

So, why is the pro-choice stance bad given your commitment to self-governance? You have contradicted yourself. Your conspiracy theory ideas are nonsense in part because they are self-contradictory.

Since you seem to have both a reading comprehension problem as well as a severe difficulty processing information logically, our discussion is over. Your inability to comprehend and follow the nuances of my argument (which really aren't that subtle) and force words into my mouth and meanings into my arguments that are not there, either inferentially or conceptually, indicates either an unwillingness to engage in serious, critical thought, or an inability to do so.

I'm not going any farther with the abortion question because its quite obviously well over your head, as is the history and philosophy of the leftism and environmentalism, one of its primary manifestations.

[_Coggins7]

Oh, and by the way bc, pay no attention to Fortigurn, he's only here to stir the pot and spray the hornet's nest. He's an ignoramus but, what must be admitted, a very articulate and clever one.

[_Coggins7]

As to Mr. Coffee, we are done as well, unless you can convince me that your older that sixteen, living on your own, and drug free.

Otherwise, if you think I'm going to waste any more time debating someone who has no business even entering into discussions that require at least a working knowledge of the subject matter, and the intellectual discipline to reason through the evidence in a mature, methadological, and moderately sohphisticated manner, your quite incorrect.

Pull up your pants, turn your hat around, and get a life.

[_bcspace]

Oh, and by the way bc, pay no attention to Fortigurn, he's only here to stir the pot and spray the hornet's nest. He's an ignoramus but, what must be admitted, a very articulate and clever one.

He was only clever enough to inspire me to coin the term "FLR" (Fortigurn's Lazy Research). Could've been a great Illusionist's spell back in my AD&D days.......

[_Mr. Coffee]

As to Mr. Coffee, we are done as well, unless you can convince me that your older that sixteen, living on your own, and drug free.

So instead of actually answering any of my questions of refuting any of my points, you resort to ad homenim attacks. Good job, s***head. Weak.

Otherwise, if you think I'm going to waste any more time debating someone who has no business even entering into discussions that require at least a working knowledge of the subject matter, and the intellectual discipline to reason through the evidence in a mature, methadological, and moderately sohphisticated manner, your quite incorrect.

Then answer my points by presenting evidence and actual arguemnts instead of b***s*** sophistic rationalizing and lameass personal attacks, no load.

No that you've demonstrated you're an intellectual coward and a b***s****ing liar, why don't you grow a set of balls and actually try to defend your postion, numbnuts?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Just to make sure there isn't any miscommunication in that last...

I am calling you out, Coggins. Either defend your position by presenting evidence and rational argumewnts to counter my own or admit you are full of s***.

[_Fortigurn]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

Ah, so you draw it on the basis of a theology.

He was only clever enough to inspire me to coin the term "FLR" (Fortigurn's Lazy Research). Could've been a great Illusionist's spell back in my AD&D days.......

Unfortunately you haven't shown a single instance of me carrying out 'lazy research', while you've contributed to my sig on three separate occasions. By the way, you need to correct your own sig. I gave you several documented examples. I can repeat the post if you like.