>>539846
>difference
You're still splitting hairs. Both are servants. I don't see how this makes any difference to the actions undertaken or permissible.
All I'm hearing is a haughty "Don't call ME no mere employee of God!" and so you seem to forget Lk 14:8.
>>539850
>Thats called Gaia worship
That's an extremist statement.
Gaia worship means to be caught worshipping Gaia, or, in modern context, to be regarding the planet as the "god" not to offend. I mean, I can see why you might say it, but you are deliberately misreading the anon and so impugning him and going too far. The anon here:
>The destruction of nature by man is a sin
… is not saying it's a sin against Gaia, but that it's a sin against God to be destroying what He gave us, to disregard his gifts because we disregard Him. That's not elevating gifts above giver, that's treating gifts with respect because the giver is worthy of respect. It's equivalent to talking about the Romans barging into the Holiest of Holies: the Romans sinned because they were mocking God. Destroying the earth is mocking God, by effectively saying "there is no one in heaven who can be offended by this action."
This is abundantly clear in the attitudes of a lot of modern industrialists, who wilfully destroy because "Who can stop me making muh profits?" Though I am not sure I would tar the earliest industrial revolutionaries with this since damage to the environment was such an unknown concept. Now we know better. We did not then – and still many people deny – think the earth could be damaged. Therein, the sin of ignorance is at play.
Yet, even then, ignorance of the law is no defence before the law.