Jan 15
Here is a quote from the malaria program director of the World Health Organization of the UN:
I am here today to ask you, please: Help save African babies as you are helping to save the environment. African babies do not have a powerful movement like the environmental movement to champion their well-being. They need your help.
Arata Kochi, September 15, 2006
Hat tip: WORLD Magazine
January 16th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I understand protecting creation but we put so much into these things and they will like all things be gone. How much more important is the soul of men? A thing that will face forever in hell or forever in heaven.
January 17th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
That’s right, who cares about this world, let them die, it’s all about the next world anyway.
I guess a Christian doesn’t have to be a humanitarian.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Okay, you missed what Gavino said.
We’re saying the babies shouldn’t die. We need to save them. They have a right to life. How about we try to save them before we save the whales? Which is more important, the possible thinning of bird egg shells, or the saving of millions of human lives by DDT?
That’s what we’re saying. Since “it’s all about the next world,” (which isn’t true, if you know anything about Christianity; but I’ll use it anyway since that’s what you think) we need to keep people alive so that the Gospel has a chance to reach them.
On the other hand, if a human life has no more value than a whale’s, then we shouldn’t expend any more energy to save it than we would a whale’s. In fact, that baby would probably end up killing the environment, become a drain on the human food supply, and increase the surplus population. Therefore, it’s okay to, and we even should, kill it (ever heard of abortion?)
Also, why is saving people worth it, what the point. It’s not good, because there is no absolute good and bad, and it’s not convenient for you, so why save it?
I guess an atheist/secularist/evolutionist doesn’t have to be a humanitarian.
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
That’s what Gavino said? Sure didn’t sound like that to me.
“Since “it’s all about the next world,” (which isn’t true, if you know anything about Christianity; but I’ll use it anyway since that’s what you think) we need to keep people alive so that the Gospel has a chance to reach them.”
Yes I understand that completely…and I also understand that many “Christians” think only about “the next world”. I’ve seen that many times even though it isn’t true. That’s what it sounded like Gavino was saying there was nothing implied by him that even acknowledged helping these kids. Only saving their souls.
“I guess an atheist/secularist/evolutionist doesn’t have to be a humanitarian.”
Correct, I guess, somebody somewhere may fit that description.
February 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Here’s what Gavino said: I understand protecting creation but we put so much into these things and they will like all things be gone. How much more important is the soul of men? A thing that will face forever in hell or forever in heaven.
In other words: We put so much money into protecting the environment when it will pass away. The soul of a man is much more important than the environment. It will last forever unlike the environment.
I agree with Gavino, but protecting the environment and protecting lives should be done simultaneously. What we’re doing right now is protecting the environment above protecting babies. That’s wrong because human lives are more important the bird’s eggs.
A Christian needs to care for humans
a. to keep them alive so they can accomplish God’s plan for their lives.
b. to keep their physical bodies alive so that their spiritual ones can be saved.
c. to follow God’s command to care for one another.
d. to respect the right to life.
e. because Jesus did.
and many other reasons.
That’s what it sounded like Gavino was saying there was nothing implied by him that even acknowledged helping these kids. Only saving their souls.
It wasn’t clear, I’ll give you that.
Correct, I guess, somebody somewhere may fit that description.
I meant that an atheist doesn’t have to be a humanitarian, a secularist doesn’t have to be a humanitarian, and an evolutionist doesn’t have to be a humanitarian. I was trying to save my time from extra typing, but I see it didn’t work.