Karen Winter wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> Karen Winter wrote:
>
>>>>> The Calvinist mindset is not one that lends itself to concern
>>>>> for the environment, or animals, or even humanity.
>
>>>> Ipse dixit. I'm not entirely surprised someone who pretends to be so
>>>> tolerant is so intolerant,
>
>>> Why is this intolerant?
>>
>> Because, yet again, you've chosen to see things as "what Glorfindel
>> believes is good" and everything else is "bad."
>
> Ipse dixit. Nowhere did I suggest that.

You sure as hell have been implying it, and not very subtly.

>> There are many protestant charities and relief organizations acting
>> with great compassion for humans, and many protestants, individually
>> and corporately, are very concerned about the environment and animal
>> welfare.
>
> But which ones espouse a specifically Calvinist theological position?

Aid and relief agencies seldom "espouse" doctrine. They dispense aid.
For example:
http://www.crwrc.org/
http://www.pca-mna.org/

> You've clearly said that good works are irrelevant --

Strawman. I said they're the fruit of the redeemed; good works do not
redeem sinners.

> a sort of mindless spasm resulting from a predestined salvation

Strawman -- you *don't* understand Calvin, Matthew 25, or what I wrote
about it. I exhaustively quoted from Calvin on Matthew 25. You snipped
it (with the lame response of "I'm not a Calvinist, and I don't accept
Calvinist theology") rather than address its points:

We must therefore hold these two
principles, first, that believers are called to the possession
of the kingdom of heaven, so far as relates to good works, not
because they deserved them through the righteousness of works,
or because their own minds prompted them to obtain that
righteousness, but because God justifies those whom he
previously elected, (Romans 8:30.) Secondly, although by the
guidance of the Spirit they aim at the practice of
righteousness, yet as they never fulfill the law of God, no
reward is due to them, but the term reward is applied to that
which is bestowed by grace.

Christ does not here specify every thing that belongs to a pious
and holy life, but only, by way of example, refers to some of
the duties of charity, by which we give evidence that we fear
God. For though the worship of God is more important than
charity towards men, and though, in like manner, faith and
supplication are more valuable than alms, yet Christ had good
reasons for bringing forward those evidences of true
righteousness which are more obvious. If a man were to take no
thought about God, and were only to be beneficent towards men,
such compassion would be of no avail to him for appeasing God,
who had all the while been defrauded of his right. Accordingly,
Christ does not make the chief part of righteousness to consist
in alms, but, by means of what may be called more evident signs,
shows what it is to live a holy and righteous life; as
unquestionably believers not only profess with the mouth, but
prove by actual performances, that they serve God.

Most improperly, therefore, do fanatics, under the pretext of
this passage, withdraw from hearing the word, and from
observing
the Holy Supper, and from other spiritual exercises; for with
equal plausibility might they set aside faith, and bearing the
cross, and prayer, and chastity. But nothing was farther from
the design of Christ than to confine to a portion of the second
table of the Law that rule of life which is contained in the two
tables. The monks and other noisy talkers had as little reason
to imagine that there are only six works of mercy, because
Christ does not mention any more; as if it were not obvious,
even to children, that he commends, by means of a synacdoche,
all the duties of charity. For to comfort mourners, to relieve
those who are unjustly oppressed, to aid simple-minded men by
advice, to deliver wretched persons from the jaws of wolves, are
deeds of mercy not less worthy of commendation than to clothe
the naked or to feed the hungry.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.htm

> which have
> no relationship to the humans doing them at all. They are all
> "Christ's work". So why bother?

I've addressed that strawman already and alluded to James: faith without
works is dead. Contrary to your own "mindless spasm" about Calvinism,
Calvin himself addressed the issue:
...[b]elievers not only profess with the mouth, but
prove by actual performances, that they serve God.

> You've said we have no real need
> to see the environment as God's;

When did I say that?

> it's made for humans and we can
> do anything we want with it.

It's for our benefit and welfare.

> So why bother with environmentalism?

I think it depends on how you mean "environmentalism." You most likely
mean the old "watermelon" -- green on the outside, red on the inside --
as if socialism and communism have good track records for air, water, or
people. I don't think we need to embrace radical leftist ideology to
have clean air and water.

> Calvinists believe humans are predestined to salvation or damnation,
> and, historically, Calvinists have seen people like the robber barons

Pretty funny you bring this up after the way Sylvia prated about your
mother's family -- the Corletts -- ran Colorado and New Mexico:
Rattie's credentials: Her mother was one of the twin daughters
of the vice-governor of Colorado. The family went waaaaay back
in the Southwest region. We always smile when we see (anywhere
in CO, AZ or NM) "Corlett Rd" or Corlett st" or Corlett
anything... it's Rattie's middle name and was her grandfather's
surname.
-- Jun 3 2003, alt.support.childfree

It *is* [Karen's] home state. Her mother's maiden name was
Corlett. For those in the Southwest, yes THAT Corlett, the vice
governor of Colorado. So Rat's family roots run DEEP in CO and
NM.
-- Jun 25 2003, alt.support.childfree

If I'm not mistaken, your relative George Corlett was one of those
responsible for the Rio Grande Compact scam. This scheme deprived
Natives of water rights and it limited the amount of water available to
New Mexicans and Texans downstream from all the dams he wanted built so
Colorado could control the Rio Grande. Are your grandpa's dams good for
the environment, and how have they contributed to "social justice"
considering tribes were blocked from participating, tribes and small
family farmers could no longer use the aquacias?
http://wrri.nmsu.edu/publish/dr/xxiii1.pdf

Also:
[T]he Rio Grande is subject to an interstate compact that
apportions annual flow between the states of Colorado, New
Mexico and Texas, as well as an international treaty that
allocates 60,000 acre-feet (more than 19 billion gallons) of
water to Mexico every year. After nearly a century, these
arrangements seem inherently flawed. *The rights of Native
Americans were recognized but not delineated, and no water was
set aside for river ecosystems.* Yet today, federal laws, such
as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, require
minimum flows for the dilution of treated wastewater and for
species habitat, leaving management agencies and water rights
holders to try and meet the mandates.
http://www.geotimes.org/may04/feature_riogrande.html

While you're at it, maybe you can explain why you still call yourself a
"vegan":
We went for dinner at the restaurant Rat used to go to as a tiny
ratling. I had a fabulous shrimp fajita and Rattie had the chile
relleno, pronouncing it excellent. I also had one of the
restaurnat's carnivorous margaritas! MMMMMM!
-- Sylvia, Mar 9 2004, alt.support.childfree

FWIW, chiles relleno are made with cheese, and often with eggs.