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

[AnotherSpin]

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.

As far as I remember, toward the end of his life Leo Tolstoy studied Greek first, and later Hebrew. He was not convinced that the Synodal translations of the New and Old Testaments into Russian were truly adequate. I completely agree with Tolstoy on this point, as I do on most others.

More than once, when I needed the precise meaning of a phrase from the New or Old Testament, I turned to the original text and translated it with the help of Google and other modern tools.

[Florestan]

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

Wisdom.

[Henk]

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.

Indeed, I was implictly refering to this. This interpretation has inspired colonialism and capitalism.

I'll delve deeper in the matter with this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8618243-the-bible-and-ecology?ref=nav_sb_ss_1_11

This book is actually centred on ecology being valued by Christianity.

My thesis is also that humans are a colonial species, being an eusocial species, as Wilson argued, like ants and bees for instance.

Christianity coincidences with our colonial nature.

We need to transcend ourselves.

[Henk]

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.

It doesn't matter much since the translations have made our history.

[Henk]

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.

Indeed and that's why calling them 'primitives' as @Opus131 does, is totally unfitting.

Indigenous peoples are able to care for the future. We aren't. What's civilized, what primitive? Animals and plants might be called primitive, they don't need to care, because they aren't able to destroy, mostly they only do good, except for invasive species, but they are introduced by man.

[Wanderer]

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.

Exactly. This is also the teaching and interpretation of the Greek Orthodox Church.
In Orthodoxy, 'dominion' has never meant domination or exploitation, but stewardship - the same balance you describe between radah (κατακυριεύσατε) in Genesis 1 and to serve and to guard (εργάζεσθαι, φυλάσσειν) in Genesis 2. Humanity is entrusted with creation, not given ownership of it.

The current Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew, is very involved in environmental protection for this very reason - it is a theological duty, not a modern invention. He is even widely known as the 'Green Patriarch' because he teaches that harming the environment is a form of sin.

This is why relying only on English translations often leads to misunderstandings; the original languages and the Orthodox interpretative tradition make that stewardship aspect very explicit - unlike some Protestant interpretations that took 'dominion' in a more absolutist way.

[Karl Henning]

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.

Thank you for raising the point of stewardship. 
Separately, the casual conflation of Christianity and capitalism is an obvious fallacy. 

[Henk]

Thank you for raising the point of stewardship.
Separately, the casual conflation of Christianity and capitalism is an obvious fallacy.

Missionaries went first to the to be colonialized places on Earth followed by armies. It was one strategy imo, though I need to study it to validate this claim.

[Henk]

Thank you for raising the point of stewardship.
Separately, the casual conflation of Christianity and capitalism is an obvious fallacy.

Christianity and paganism has been a struggle for ages. Wealth versus Earth. Christianity isn't so innocent. And my thesis is this struggle resurges in our time.

All the killing, all the bloodshed.

Even monks were very violent.

There's goodness and evil in Christianity. But I'm quite sure it hasn't been able to prevent the mess we're in. Sin is attributed to the left, to the pagans.

[Spotted Horses]

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.

I certainly acknowledge the value of understanding the original language. But the Jews have not been a dominant demographic in the world. Their influence on the world has been to a large extent through the book they produced, which was taken up by the Catholic Church, by other Christian orders and by Islam. Christians typically encountered the Torah first through Latin translation, then by translation to vulgar languages. Galileo had no end of problems because his speculations on the world contradicted Genesis Chapter 1. I would note that Christianity stands in contrast to some other religions in which the earth, or nature, is seen as a sort of a god. Of course those other systems of belief sometimes used their scripture or beliefs to do terrible things. My own observation, not particularly original, is that horrors come when doctrine is regarded as more important than people and/or reality.

[Karl Henning]

Missionaries went first to the to be colonialized places on Earth followed by armies. It was one strategy imo, though I need to study it to validate this claim.

And now you want to conflate Christianity with colonialism. If you are unable to make distinctions, your "argument" will not rise above the level of rant.

[Karl Henning]

Christianity and paganism has been a struggle for ages. Wealth versus Earth. Christianity isn't so innocent. And my thesis is this struggle resurges in our time.

All the killing, all the bloodshed.

Even monks were very violent.

There's goodness and evil in Christianity. But I'm quite sure it hasn't been able to prevent the mess we're in. Sin is attributed to the left, to the pagans.

You've baited and switched. You still want the fallacious conflation, and you imagine somehow that raising the point that Christians have at times collectively and individually betrayed their moral core will rationalize your poor logic.

[Henk]

And now you want to conflate Christianity with colonialism. If you are unable to make distinctions, your "argument" will not rise above the level of rant.

I tell what I read in history books.

I tell how I see it. And I haven't heard any argument that undermines my argument. My argument hasn't been contested by other arguments imo.

[Karl Henning]

I tell what I read in history books.

I tell how I see it. And I haven't heard any argument that undermines my argument. My argument hasn't been contested by other arguments imo.

A historian who cannot distinguish between A and B is a poor historian. You're being impossibly fuzzy and evasive here. I doubt you're doing your "sources" justice. And since you do not entertain my objections soberly, I'll leave this thread to yourself. Good luck.

[Henk]

A historian who cannot distinguish between A and B is a poor historian. You're being impossibly fuzzy and evasive here. I doubt you're doing your "sources" justice. And since you do not entertain my objections soberly, I'll leave this thread to yourself. Good luck.

No arguments.

[Henk]

A historian who cannot distinguish between A and B is a poor historian. You're being impossibly fuzzy and evasive here. I doubt you're doing your "sources" justice. And since you do not entertain my objections soberly, I'll leave this thread to yourself. Good luck.

You're probably are a Christian and you feel attacked. You're not my target. Current developments in the EU and in my country is the reason I develop my argument. With the background of environmental and climate collapse. Pagans care for the Earth and their future, we with our monotheïsms can't, we only create more havoc. This is what wonders me.

Maybe the concept of God can be altered in the sense of Spinoza (target of the Church btw), in a way that can add care for our place on Earth and our future. This wonders me as well.

I just try to save our future, however futile my influence will be, I try to care. That is what I intend to do. Criticism is part of it. I'm on the side of the left and the pagans and indeed against Christian parties, the conservatives one and the fundamentalist ones, not against the sincere Christian party in my country, but they're small (they have humanist values, but I don't hear them about environmental issues though).

[Henk]

Thank you for raising the point of stewardship.
Separately, the casual conflation of Christianity and capitalism is an obvious fallacy.

Search with the keyword Christianity and capitalism and you get these results: https://www.amazon.nl/s?k=Christianity+capitalism&__mk_nl_NL=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&crid=A7L472SIW02E&sprefix=christianity+capitalism%2Caps%2C122&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

[Henk]

And now you want to conflate Christianity with colonialism. If you are unable to make distinctions, your "argument" will not rise above the level of rant.

Colonialism is of course a part of capitalism. I don't know why missionaries were sent ahead. Conversion is a goal/strategy of Christianity, nowadays most of us find that
despicible, with reason.

They had good intent probably, but it was part of the globalization of the world.

[Florestan]

Spinoza (target of the Church btw)

What Church targeted Spinoza?

[Henk]

What Church targeted Spinoza?

I'm in no need replying to your post. But here you have it: 'It should also be noted that Dutch Calvinists in the seventeenth century took the immortality of the soul no less seriously than did their Catholic enemies. The Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish leaders knew this, and—still sensitive about their status in the Netherlands as noncitizens, and worried about how they were perceived by their Dutch hosts—would have taken every measure publicly to reassure the municipal authorities that their community was no haven for immortality-deniers. This suggests that there may have been a very political dimension to the herem against Spinoza. Amsterdam in the 1650s was simply the wrong place and time to be denying the immortality of the soul.' (https://www.neh.gov/article/why-spinoza-was-excommunicated)