Private ownership of property is a better option for protecting the habitat for wildlife than government ownership in Africa. The reason is governments in Africa tend to be too corrupt. By contrast, public ownership of land seems to be more popular in the U.S. This may not be apparent to you, but consider the government’s ownership of most of Alaska, large portions of Nevada, and other western states. When people want to protect land, they generally give it to their state’s division of wildlife.
That was the main thrust of my point.

“One of the fundamental debates of the environmental movement is over what is the best way to protect the environment.” Is this true?
Most people believe the environment needs protection. Different circumstances call for different measures. Some are large; others are small.

Is Yellowstone Park the property of the American government or the people of the United States? If it is a publicly owned facility, it is there for all the people. Its use can be changed if the people choose to change it. This is how I see it. Am I wrong?

Privately owned land may be used by its owners for whatever purpose they chose, provided they break no laws. This is not necessarily good or bad; it is fact.

“Americans tend to support the government option.” This may be true, but it does not appear so to me. What is your evidence?

“In Africa, private owners appears to achieve more stable results. Understandable given the levels of corruption that is apparently endemic in so many African governments.”

I have read this several times, but I don’t know what you mean. Does it appear that private ownership in Africa attains more stable environmental results than public or private ownership in the US? Is private ownership corrupt? Is corrupt government necessary for the achievement of stable results? You need to make yourself clearer here.
Incidentally, are African governments more corrupt than non-African governments?

Most people don’t talk about capitalism. It is a fact of life, a vehicle for investment and a means of providing goods to people. Like Christianity, it sometimes goes bonkers. The Holy Office when it tortured people rejected true religion, and capitalism when it puts profit ahead of proper practice is immoral. Governments in civilised countries have outlawed torture and should regulate capitalism.

“Where there’s muck, there’s money!”. One might add, ‘”and them as gets money like to stay far away from t’ muck as they can.”

Bottom line (what a lovely capitalist cliché!), it is too simplistic to refer to ‘the environmental movement’ (where is it?) or to write of ‘many environmentalists’ (do you mean most/all?) as an anti-capitalist danger. A clearer, more straightforward approach is needed.

The tanning of the skins make the allergy argument unlikely.

Praise God!

Peter

I do have some questions which a scholar such as yourself may be able to answer: 1) Can we be sure that I Corinthians was actually written by Paul?

My answer. What level of proof are you looking for? I just ask that you require the same level of proof for 1 Cor. as you do for other historical events of the same period. There are various Introductions to the N.T. you can read that will deal with the subject of authorship questions. I suspect your real problem is your adoption of rationalistic historicism which argues that if it can’t happen today, then it didn’t happen then ala Hume.
Second, Christianity is an apostolic religion. this means that we must believe what was taught by the apostles. Study the word tradition. We either believe their testimony or we don’t.

2) If it was written by him, can we be sure it was not doctored?

Answer: See above. And consider this. Christians who suffered brutally in the first few centuries must have been great liars.

3) When did Paul die? I thought he was dead before the gospels were written. Without having worked at it at all yet, I am dubious as to the authenticity of this epistle.

Answer. Not sure what your point was. the gospel was around when Jesus preached. When it was written down is a separate question. Paul had ears he could hear the gospel. In fact, he claimed that he knew people who had witnessed Christ’s resurrection body. Paul also was a highly skilled theologian. Once he grasped the reality of Christ, all the pieces fit together like a figured out jig saw puzzle.
I hope if you are honest about your questions, you will spend the time reading authors from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Dallas theological Seminary, and Trinty Evangelical Divinity School. There are also lots of books on the resurrection defending the reasonableness of its historicity.
I would focus there. If you don’t think Jesus rose again, then don’t bother believing in him because we are still in our sins. Besides, who wants to follow such a loser?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AmLQL8JzgjEC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22What+is+conversion%3F+not+at+all%22&source=bl&ots=wG0kI7nEiU&sig=qFGwcz6uq3KuFPla7XFFtfWmmbM&hl=en&ei=SQFGS65imZmMB5edqIID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22What%20is%20conversion%3F%20not%20at%20all%22&f=false

Chris