Jump to content

Talk:Evangelical environmentalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 166.249.97.11 (talk) at 19:37, 27 March 2011 (Genesis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChristianity Stub‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page needs attention

This is a topic of critical importance to modern Christianity and to the world in general. It needs help.

Reverted heavily POV edits

I reverted a series of changes by anonymous User:70.118.249.125 to the last good version of the article. (i.e. last good version, highly POV edits, changes between the two). Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. Thank you. - Anirvan (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan - the evangelical environmntal movement is a political movement, and therefore must be discussed as such. To remove references to politics is incorrect. The ECI, for example lobbied for cap and trade and is most definitely a political organization. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.143.108 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be discussed as a political movement, but biased opinion does nothing useful for wikipedia. I agree with Anirvan, "Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox." If you wish to slander the movement, at least ground your criticisms to actual events.

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries?

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries? 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction.

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction. 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not all evangelicals are creationists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said all evangelicals are creationists, only Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.181.140.5 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did. The sentence has no relevance unless all evangelical environmentalists are creationist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon the clarification, but Creation is (disambiguation) page, thus can be "The Creation", that which was created, so can mean Totality, Everything, the Universe, all that-is ever

-was ever-shall-be, ... not creationism, which certainly has its own wp page with a wide variety of different meanings. Creationist (-ists) again has a different mean also. 99.119.130.3 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to disambiguation pages as if the word itself had meaning, now. :sigh: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Word (Creation) has meaning in Genesis. 166.249.97.11 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evangelical_environmentalism&oldid=421026454"