Christianity vs Earth, the right vs the left (the Nietzsche reading club)

[Henk]

To be honest the way the "Earth" keeps being mentioned here makes it sound like the planet is some kind of deity.

We could have engineered the Earth and make it more inhabitable. We do the opposite.

Sweet Holocene conditions could have sustained 50,000 years if we didn't act stupidly.

Gaia is indeed a deity.

For indigenous peoples the Earth is a deity, that's why they are able to care for it and the future.

[Opus131]

For indigenous peoples the Earth is a deity

You mean primitive people. We are all "indigenous" of one piece of land or another. It's not like modern man descended down from the heavens or something.

For me this entire discourse (as much as i could understand) is entirely incoherent. The argument appears to be that the industrial society which is "threatening" the earth is the final culmination of Christianity, except industrial society and the scientific revolution that preceeded it are a consequence of Humanistic and Enlightenment ideas that rejected Christianity in the first place, the Church being seen as this backward and retrograde institution that for centuries impeded the "progress" of man, a progress which involves, among other things, man's domination and exploitation of the "earth" (reminds me of that scene in Things to Come where giant machines were ripping the earth apart to extract the resources necessary to send man to the stars).

Meanwhile, the people who had it right all along apparently just so happen to be the ones that are the LEAST progressed. Everything man has accomplished since the invention of agriculture and the rise of civlization was just one giant mistake, which is like the most radical anti-progressivist argument that there can possibily be.

Lastly, i'm not entirely sure how Nietzsche would look at this notion that the "earth" is a deity when he was explicitly atheistic. So we killed God only to now worship Gaia. Seems like a contradiciton to me. I'm also not entirely sure whether primordial cultures (i prefer this word over "primitive" to be honest since that belongs to progressivist terminology) were really all onboard with this "Gaia" worship. Everything i know about primordial traditions seem to point to a view of the world in which this physical reality was interwoven with a spiritual realm which is really what governed everything in this world. And many of them did in fact believe in a supreme being or "great spirit", which cannot be anything other than God.

Another inconsistenciy is this notion that Christianity and the "rich" are somehow related. On one hand, this is the same religion whose founder told us that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" and always had a negative attitude towards material or wordly possessions, and on the other, is there any evidence that all the giant corporations who own all the capital today are in any way Christian or religious at all? And didn't capitalism rose after the French Revolition dismantled the older traditional monarchical system that was actually the one endorsed by the Church historically?

Ultimately, i would argue modern society and all the negative conquences that rise from it are a direct result of man thinking he is the master of the universe, displacing God and no longer trusting in "His" providence, but setting himself up as the master of his own destinity. It was the humanist that gave us those industries and machines that are "raping" the earth, and now it is the humanist who wants to save us from the consequences of his attempt to dominate nature, which is a bit like the arsonist trying to come to the rescue and put out the fire he ignited in the first place (and the solution appears to be even more control and domination which is akin to trying to down a fire by pouring gasole into it). I don't see how the Christian, whose entire world revolved around trying to find the "kingdom" within himself, can possibly be blamed for ANYTHING modernity created. The modern world is opposed to Christianity on every possible level and until a minute ago actually boasted of this fact and saw it as a source of pride. Now that things are falling apart with the enviorment collapsing and surveillance systems controlling every move we make somehow the blame lies in the very "backward" and "superstitious" institution that was actually against all of this. I don't see how that makes any sense whatsoever.

[Henk]

My argument is that Christianity proclaimed the dominion of the Earth by man. This has been taken up by capitalism. Enlightenment thinkers were also Christians btw.

Moreover I see a reversal of values in which the far-right and the rich profit from sinning (sinning, for example lying, has become a virtue) and by which Christianity is taken to it's perverse limit, in which the Earth is exploited and abused to the point of climate breakdown and an inhabitable Earth.

While the left and the greens try to save the Earth, but are disqualified as sinners (with inclusion of the method of confession adopted by the media).

Christianity has become a trick.

Argued differently: it's still a struggle of Christians (those that abuse Earth) against pagans, with the sin instrumentalized by the Christian media against the pagans. Christians are allowed to sin, because by sinning they can continue their Earth abusing activity, but not their opponents. And because we all still live in Christianity the pagans are hardly immune.

Hope this makes it more clear.

I thank you for your time replying to me. I might respond more extensively later.

[Henk]

Abusing and destroying Earth is not considered a sin by Christiany and it's adherents, it's promoted as a means to get rich, Christianity as a perversion. This is demonstrated further by the fact that you are expected to be free of any sin when you resist.

[Karl Henning]

Nietzsche also wrote that the liberal christians are the worst.

To state the obvious, "liberal Christians" doesn't mean the same thing 125 years since N's death.

[Henk]

Christian values have become empty apart from the dominion of Earth which has resulted in the abuse of Earth, apart from the struggle against pagans, the defenders of Earth. For this all means are allowed, including the very effective means of sin, which has always been a trick. 

[Henk]

Nietzsche though was in favor of Christian praxis, the example of Jesus, as an ideal.

He was against the Christianity of the crucifixion.

[Henk]

In fact Nietzsche writes in honouring ways of Christianity. I'll post some of the aphorisms. Nietzsche shined his light on Christianity in remarkable ways.

I'll post also his criticism.

So we can acquire a balanced view.

[SimonNZ]

In fact Nietzsche writes in honouring ways of Christianity. I'll post some of the aphorisms. Nietzsche shined his light on Christianity in remarkable ways.

I'll post also his criticism.

So we can acquire a balanced view.

Please don't. Nietzsche was the grandfather of the modern "virtue of selfishness" Ayn Rand devotee crowd. Calling on him to be the voice of communal obligation and social and environmental wellbeing is nonsensical.

[AnotherSpin]

Please don't. Nietzsche was the grandfather of the modern "virtue of selfishness" Ayn Rand devotee crowd. Calling on him to be the voice of communal obligation and social and environmental wellbeing is nonsensical.

I haven't read Ayn Rand in ages, but of course I still remember the main themes. And now it strikes me that, in a weird way, they remind me most of nineteenth-century Russian thinkers like Chernyshevsky or Dobrolyubov. Which is funny, considering how publicly Rand hated Chernyshevsky, for example. One of those cases where opposites somehow end up being the same in something essential.

[Spotted Horses]

My argument is that Christianity proclaimed the dominion of the Earth by man. This has been taken up by capitalism. Enlightenment thinkers were also Christians btw.

You don't have to argue it, it is explicitly stated in the scripture. But it did not start with the Christians. It goes back to The Torah, Genesis, Book I. It was the sixth day.

1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(King James Version, since it is the most poetic.)

The crux of it, God instructs man to "subdue" the earth. All of the Earth, including the beasts of the sea and the land, the plants that bear seeds or fruits containing seed are there for man's benefit.

It is a peculiarity of the Torah that after the creation myth set forth in Chapter 1, a second creation myth is set forth in Chapter 2. Evidently when they compiled the Torah they couldn't decide which one to include, so they pasted in both. In the Chapter 1 version male and female are made at the same time, after cattle. In the Chapter 2 version Adam is made before the cattle and Eve is made from Adam's rib after the cattle are found to provide inadequate companionship (apparently Adam didn't hit it off with the cattle). But the motif where creation serves at Man's pleasure appears.

2:19, And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

2:20, And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

So it goes back to Genesis, and I have heard fundamentalist Christian cite these passages to argue that Man's rapacious treatment of Nature is explicitly authorized by god.

[Mandryka]

Drill baby drill.

[71 dB]

I have heard fundamentalist Christian cite these passages to argue that Man's rapacious treatment of Nature is explicitly authorized by god.

Plot twist: God didn't warn about the dire consequences caused by rapacious treatment of Nature.   

[AnotherSpin]

My argument is that Christianity proclaimed the dominion of the Earth by man. This has been taken up by capitalism. Enlightenment thinkers were also Christians btw.

Moreover I see a reversal of values in which the far-right and the rich profit from sinning (sinning, for example lying, has become a virtue) and by which Christianity is taken to it's perverse limit, in which the Earth is exploited and abused to the point of climate breakdown and an inhabitable Earth.

While the left and the greens try to save the Earth, but are disqualified as sinners (with inclusion of the method of confession adopted by the media).

Christianity has become a trick.

Argued differently: it's still a struggle of Christians (those that abuse Earth) against pagans, with the sin instrumentalized by the Christian media against the pagans. Christians are allowed to sin, because by sinning they can continue their Earth abusing activity, but not their opponents. And because we all still live in Christianity the pagans are hardly immune.

Hope this makes it more clear.

I thank you for your time replying to me. I might respond more extensively later.

You probably aren't all that familiar with the Bolshevik take on nature, are you? There was this legendary slogan floating about: "We cannot expect favours from nature." Basically, the environment was considered just a giant warehouse of timber, coal, oil, whatever you needed to knock together communism before lunch.

I still remember, right before the whole USSR thing folded, there was a dead-serious debates about reversing the flow of the great Siberian rivers. The plan was apparently to turn the taiga into one massive orchard of... apple trees? Vineyards? Something outrageously Mediterranean, anyway. Because nothing says "scientific socialism" like making the Lena River flow uphill so comrades in Yakutsk can grow champagne grapes. Absolute madness.

[71 dB]

I still remember, right before the whole USSR thing folded, there was a dead-serious debates about reversing the flow of the great Siberian rivers.

How would they have accomplished that? How do you make water flow against gravity?

[Mapman]

How would they have accomplished that? How do you make water flow against gravity?

It has been done (on a smaller scale, and with somewhat questionable success). The short answer is canals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_River#Reversing_the_flow

[AnotherSpin]

How would they have accomplished that? How do you make water flow against gravity?

The Bolsheviks never hesitated before such trifles and nonsense as gravity; every decision of the Party was carried out without question. If millions of Ukrainians had to be starved to death so that grain could be sold to the West, it was done, and similar feats were repeated many times with apparent and full success until the entire system eventually collapsed one day.

As for the river diversion scheme, you can google it up if you doubt my words: the idea was to redirect the great Siberian rivers, which naturally flow north into the Arctic Ocean, and send their waters southward into Central Asia to irrigate farmland, replenish the shrinking Aral Sea, and boost agricultural production. Conceived in the 1930s and developed in the 1960s–1980s, the plan envisioned colossal canals and reservoirs, even experiments with nuclear explosions to carve channels, but it was ultimately abandoned in 1986 under Gorbachev due to mounting ecological concerns, economic constraints, etc.

[Florestan]

How would they have accomplished that? How do you make water flow against gravity?

The Soviet scientists created the longest metre in the world, the heaviest kilogram in the world and the tallest dwarf in the world --- and you think they couldn't have defeated a trifle such as gravity? 

[steve ridgway]

The crux of it, God instructs man to "subdue" the earth. All of the Earth, including the beasts of the sea and the land, the plants that bear seeds or fruits containing seed are there for man's benefit.

It's setting humans apart from the rest of Nature, whereas all life forms - including humans - evolved from a common ancestral single celled organism and have shared the atoms of Earth since its formation. The "pagan/indigenous" attitude of kinship with other animals and treating them with respect is in that sense more appropriate, we are all part of a larger ecosystem.

[San Antone]

You don't have to argue it, it is explicitly stated in the scripture. But it did not start with the Christians. It goes back to The Torah, Genesis, Book I. It was the sixth day.

1:26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

(King James Version, since it is the most poetic.)

The crux of it, God instructs man to "subdue" the earth. All of the Earth, including the beasts of the sea and the land, the plants that bear seeds or fruits containing seed are there for man's benefit.

It is a peculiarity of the Torah that after the creation myth set forth in Chapter 1, a second creation myth is set forth in Chapter 2. Evidently when they compiled the Torah they couldn't decide which one to include, so they pasted in both. In the Chapter 1 version male and female are made at the same time, after cattle. In the Chapter 2 version Adam is made before the cattle and Eve is made from Adam's rib after the cattle are found to provide inadequate companionship (apparently Adam didn't hit it off with the cattle). But the motif where creation serves at Man's pleasure appears.

2:19, And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

2:20, And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

So it goes back to Genesis, and I have heard fundamentalist Christian cite these passages to argue that Man's rapacious treatment of Nature is explicitly authorized by god.

Not really.  As someone who attended Orthodox synagogue for 13 years I heard those verses interpreted more like this: 

In the Torah, humanity's dominion over nature is best understood through the concept of stewardship, not absolute power. The Hebrew words used are key: radah (to rule or have dominion) from Genesis 1:28 is tempered by le'ovdah (to serve/work) and leshomrah (to guard) from Genesis 2:15, creating a mandate to manage and protect the Earth responsibly on behalf of God. This means that while humans are given authority, they are also tasked with caring for creation, using resources wisely, and treating all living things with respect.

Relying only on English translations of the bible often produces inaccuracies.