re: 200 year old live oak or Dollar General?

quote:

---

quote:

---

not at the expense of mankind

---

Define expense?

Mankind: I want money from development

---

Yes, lawful business enterprise is a valid reason to open up a plot of land for a building, etc.

Do you reject the idea that humans should be able to use land for housing, business activity, and worship? What about recreation? Those have traditionally been the primary reasons for land development. Would you say that we shouldn't interfere with our natural surroundings for the sake of human enterprises?

quote:

---

And when it says abuse, is extinction of a species abuse?

---

Extinction? It depends on how and why. It's clearly lawful to kill animals for various purposes, including for food. If humans hunt a particular animal for food, and out of ignorance of population numbers, that animal goes extinct, I can't see how that would be a sinful abuse of nature. It might be unwise to hunt an animal to extinction, but if not doing so results in starvation and there is no knowledge of how to breed that animal to replenish populations, it would be worse to let a people starve for the sake of the animal.

If people are going around killing every rhino, buffalo, or other animal they can find for the sake of merely wiping them out, then I can see that as sinful abuse.

quote:

---

Were there any spiritual implications for the people who drove the northern white rhino to extinction?

---

Potentially. Depends on the individual. Someone belonging to an African tribe that hunted the rhinos for food? Nope. A cartel looking to exploit the animal for sinful purposes? Sure.

These things aren't always black and white and they require wisdom in the Scriptures to apply to various situations, however the point still stands that it is biblically lawful to use the land for lawful purposes, such as for building homesteads and businesses, like a Dollar General store. If the only consideration of building that store is that it would result in a tree being cut down, then I can't imagine how that, in and of itself, is abuse.

quote:

---

I don’t fully understand the question.

---

Everyone who makes moral judgements ("this is wrong" or "that is good") needs to have some standard to compare an action against to make that judgement. The police judge activities according to their knowledge of the law to make arrests. Christians use (or should use) the Bible as the primary moral standard to say if some sexual activity is permissible or sinful, for instance.

I'm asking what the standard is that you are using to make a moral judgement about using land for human endeavors like businesses?

Do you go off of your gut and/or emotions? Do you judge moral issues by the legal code of the place you live in? Are you looking for societal consensus to direct you? That's what I'm asking. I'd like to know what standard you are using to condemn the cutting down of a tree for a business purpose.

quote:

---

The church being discussed could have purchased fill dirt from an existing source. Instead they wiped out longleaf pines (which can live for hundreds of years and are much reduced compared to historical numbers) and eliminated habitat for the myriad creatures that lived there. I bet not a single person running that church considered what they were doing to God’s natural creation.

---

Perhaps it wasn't considered. I'm not familiar with the example so I'll just have to take your word for what happened.

Would you be OK with a church purchasing that same plot of land to put a building on for worship? What about a soup shelter for their ministry to the locals? What about a pregnancy crisis center? Are you saying that the land should have remained untouched and undeveloped regardless of reason, or are you objecting to its specific usage (fill dirt)?

I want to say that I appreciate your respectful tone in this debate. You haven’t resorted to name calling nor insults which is a breath of fresh air on this forum. Bravo.

Long day at work and honestly don’t have the mental bandwidth for a worthy reply to your post. I can say that I either 1 - disagree with your interpretations or 2 - if your interpretations are correct, I apparently disagree with Christianity.