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

[Opus131]

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 don't think it's just a matter of "translations". Interpretation also matters which is why you have to rely on what the Church actually teaches, and in Christian theology, man is not in charge of anything, God is.

This idea that Christian theology somehow led to what is clearly a profoundly secular notion, such as the idea mentioned here that the earth is just a large storehouse of resources to be used to erect this vast industrial machinery that drives our modern technological society is an incoherent idea. It has no basis in Christian belief, and was nowhere to be seen in any Christian society UNTIL Christianity begun to be rejected, when man, and not God, was now the master of the world.

[Opus131]

That's a completely rose-tinted and unread assumption. There are countless examples of pre-contact indigenous peoples hunting countless species to extinction and of constantly moving as all edible plant life is consumed. Not all, but oh so many.

"We" are exactly the same as "them"...but now we do it at an industrial scale.

Easter Island is a case in point.

[Opus131]

I define civilization by it's sustainability, it's ability to care for the future in the first place. If we don't care other animals are more civilized than us and we aren't worthy. And we are so evil we destroy other species.

If you define civilization by it's art we are pretty succesful.

Civilization just means a society that has developed an aggregate nuumber of cities or "civitas", which by necessity implies a more extensive production of artifices than one would normally find in pre-historical societies.

In either case, this notion of "sustainability" is another incoherent idea. There's nothing that can be sustained indefinitely because everything dies. Even if you could manage to turn the clock back and reset all human societies to the level of neolithic life the earth is going to die one way or another. Even if it's billion of years away it's still going to happen whether you like it or not. Nothing in this world is eternal.

This is not to say we should just "destroy" the earth merely becuase the planet will die eventually anyway, but given the almost religious reguard you have for the planet i thought it was worth pointing out.

[steve ridgway]

This is not to say we should just "destroy" the earth merely becuase the planet will die eventually anyway, but given the almost religious reguard you have for the planet i thought it was worth pointing out.

Genesis 1 though does state that God saw that his creations were "good" which suggests He might prefer them to be taken care of.

[Henk]

I went through the whole thread, once more I read the posts, some of them I needed to read with more attention, and get a better view of all the arguments made.

I thank all of you who participated.

The cause from which I started the topic was because of some tumult in my country and because of the overall bad state of affairs in our world with respect to environmental issues. It wasn't from a neutral state that made me start the topic.

I try to argue in a more reasonable and respectful way. To cite Popper: 'I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.'

I think I argue too much like Nietzsche, in some aggresive style. But Nietzsche could do it, because he wrote books and wasn't in discussion. But even then, he was quite aggresive, especially in his final works which many don't appreciate.

I will post another text summarizing the arguments and raising once again the (remaining) issues I have since they aren't quite sorted out yet. They are part historical, part political though and I didn't consider this, so I'm to blame. I just want to mention them if this is allowed (probably not).

My intentions are genuine and decent. I'm interested in 'green Christianity'. I have now three books about it to read.

[Henk]

I don't want to 'play the blaming game' and I don't want to have 'the final word'.

We all have had a chance to have our say, myself included.

My thesis that Christianity is against the Earth has been falsified.

Let me try to end positively, and with, music 🎶 (see the link with downloadable files at the end of this post). Here are the descriptions of the three books I want to read:

'Bible and Ecology: Rediscovering the Community of Creation

In this well-argued and timely book, Bauckham considers the relationship of humans to the rest of creation.He argues that there is much more to the Bible's understanding of this relationship than the mandate of human dominion given in Genesis 1, which has too often been used as a justification for domination and exploitation of the earth's resources. He also critiques the notion of stewardship as being on the one hand presumptuous, and on the other too general a term to explain our key responsibilities in caring for the earth. In countering this, he considers other biblical perspectives, including the book of Job, the Psalms and the Gospels, and re-evaluates the biblical tradition of 'dominion', in favour of a 'community of creation'.With its clear analysis and thought-provoking conclusions, The Bible and Ecology is an essential read for anyone interested in a biblically grounded approach to ecology.'

'If we lose the Earth, we lose our souls

In this book Bruno Latour calls upon Christians to join the struggle to avert a climate catastrophe.  First and foremost, Christians need to overcome their lack of interest in "earthly things" and pay attention to the Earth at a time when it is being neglected. He also urges Christians to renew their understanding of their faith in the context of the new image of the world that has emerged from earth system science – that of a world in which the myriad of beings that inhabit the world are interdependent and living in close proximity on a slender, fragile membrane on the surface of the planet.

This new image of the world cannot fail to have an impact on the sciences, on politics, and on religion, just as, in earlier centuries, the cosmology of Copernicus and Galileo upset the old order. Latour sees the ecological crisis, and the cosmological mutation that it entails, as an opportunity to convey anew, to the largest possible audience, the tradition of Christianity as it has never been appreciated before, by bringing to bear the lessons of eschatology on the great crisis that looms before us all.'

'Green Mass: The Ecological Theology of St. Hildegard of Bingen

Green Mass is a meditation on--and with--twelfth-century Christian mystic and polymath Saint Hildegard of Bingen. Attending to Hildegard's vegetal vision, which greens theological tradition and imbues plant life with spirit, philosopher Michael Marder uncovers a verdant mode of thinking. The book stages a fresh encounter between present-day and premodern concerns, ecology and theology, philosophy and mysticism, the material and the spiritual, in word and sound.

Hildegard's lush notion of viriditas, the vegetal power of creation, is emblematic of her deeply entwined understanding of physical reality and spiritual elevation. From blossoming flora to burning desert, Marder plays with the symphonic multiplicity of meanings in her thought, listening to the resonances between the ardency of holy fire and the aridity of a world aflame. Across Hildegard's cosmos, we hear the anarchic proliferation of her ecological theology, in which both God and greening are circular, without beginning or end.

Introduced with a foreword by philosopher Marcia Sá Cavalcante Schuback and accompanied by cellist Peter Schuback's musical movements, which echo both Hildegard's own compositions and key themes in each chapter of the book, this multifaceted work creates a resonance chamber, in which to discover the living world anew.

The original compositions accompanying each chapter are available free for streaming and for downloading at https://www.sup.org/books/literary-studies-and-literature/green-mass/excerpt/audio-files-and-captions'

[relm1]

It's great that you've found that some modern christian thinkers take ecology seriously, their work doesn't actually falsify the claim that christianity has historically been pretty rough on the earth. They are doing corrective, reinterpretive work precisely because the dominant christian tradition has long leaned toward human exceptionalism and "dominion" being interpreted as having rights to pillage and shape centuries of resource exploitation through various means and colonialism. Modern eco-theology is valuable and hopeful, but it's a recent response to a very long problem, not evidence the problem never existed. I think your premise is showing what christianity should become, not what it historically was.

[steve ridgway]

My thesis that Christianity is against the Earth has been falsified.

It's good to hear that Christians who care about the Earth have some writings to back up their position 🌍.

And thank you for encouraging me to read the first bit of Genesis as I now have an answer for the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door -

[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
[2:15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
[2:17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.

Which in my view encourages me to study the wonders of the universe, appreciate and care for nature, and not concern myself with the knowledge of "good" and "evil" or any other abstract religious and philosophical concepts i.e. anything after Chapter 2.

[Henk]

It's good to hear that Christians who care about the Earth have some writings to back up their position 🌍.

And thank you for encouraging me to read the first bit of Genesis as I now have an answer for the next time the Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door -

[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
[2:15] The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
[2:17] but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.

Which in my view encourages me to study the wonders of the universe, appreciate and care for nature, and not concern myself with the knowledge of "good" and "evil" or any other abstract religious and philosophical concepts i.e. anything after Chapter 2.

Thanks for your contributions (including in the 'Future of Earth' thread. Being critical of abstract concepts as well as your argument that we are kin because of a common history, makes a lot of sense to me.

[Henk]

Civilization just means a society that has developed an aggregate nuumber of cities or "civitas", which by necessity implies a more extensive production of artifices than one would normally find in pre-historical societies.

In either case, this notion of "sustainability" is another incoherent idea. There's nothing that can be sustained indefinitely because everything dies. Even if you could manage to turn the clock back and reset all human societies

This is not to say we should just "destroy" the earth merely becuase the planet will die eventually anyway, but given the almost religious reguard you have for the planet i thought it was worth pointing out.

A final attempt to agreement.

Earth is life, Earth is of the highest value. To be human, is to be nature or Earth loving. The Earth incites our reverence to it. This is most reasonable to say. Does it contradict your beliefs, and if so how?

I have tried to bring to attention the features of Christianity and the Bible with respect to Earth and nature.

Latour writes in a critical tone and I hope it appeals to you and other Christians. We need you on board to tackle the mess were in. The Earth and humanity can exist yet for a very long time if we 'till and keep it' ('Genesis'):

'If we lose the Earth, we lose our souls

In this book Bruno Latour calls upon Christians to join the struggle to avert a climate catastrophe.  First and foremost, Christians need to overcome their lack of interest in "earthly things" and pay attention to the Earth at a time when it is being neglected. He also urges Christians to renew their understanding of their faith in the context of the new image of the world that has emerged from earth system science – that of a world in which the myriad of beings that inhabit the world are interdependent and living in close proximity on a slender, fragile membrane on the surface of the planet.

This new image of the world cannot fail to have an impact on the sciences, on politics, and on religion, just as, in earlier centuries, the cosmology of Copernicus and Galileo upset the old order. Latour sees the ecological crisis, and the cosmological mutation that it entails, as an opportunity to convey anew, to the largest possible audience, the tradition of Christianity as it has never been appreciated before, by bringing to bear the lessons of eschatology on the great crisis that looms before us all.'

I'm curious about your views.

[Florestan]

the dominant christian tradition has long leaned toward human exceptionalism and "dominion" being interpreted as having rights to pillage and shape centuries of resource exploitation through various means and colonialism.

I'd very much appreciate if you could substantiate this claim with quotes from (1) the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin and (2) the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (in Eastern Orthodoxy that's what constitutes the Christian tradition). Thank you.

[Florestan]

your premise is showing what christianity should become, not what it historically was.

What ecological disasters are the historical Papal States (no doubt the most Catholic of the Catholic states, ruled as they were by the Pope himself) responsible for? What colonies did they have?

[Henk]

'Weber traced the origins of the Protestant ethic to the Reformation, though he acknowledged some respect for secular everyday labor as early as the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church assured salvation to individuals who accepted the church's sacraments and submitted to the clerical authority. However, the Reformation had effectively removed such assurances. From a psychological viewpoint, the average person had difficulty adjusting to this new worldview, and only the most devout believers or "religious geniuses" within Protestantism, such as Martin Luther, were able to make this adjustment, according to Weber.

In the absence of such assurances from religious authority, Weber argued that Protestants began to look for other "signs" that they were saved. Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation. The inability to influence one's own salvation presented a very difficult problem for Calvin's followers, who, in Weber's view, considered it an absolute duty to believe that one was chosen for salvation and to dispel any doubt about that: lack of self-confidence was evidence of insufficient faith and a sign of damnation. So, self-confidence took the place of priestly assurance of God's grace.

Worldly success became one measure of that self-confidence.' (Wikipedia)

[Henk]

It's great that you've found that some modern christian thinkers take ecology seriously, their work doesn't actually falsify the claim that christianity has historically been pretty rough on the earth. They are doing corrective, reinterpretive work precisely because the dominant christian tradition has long leaned toward human exceptionalism and "dominion" being interpreted as having rights to pillage and shape centuries of resource exploitation through various means and colonialism. Modern eco-theology is valuable and hopeful, but it's a recent response to a very long problem, not evidence the problem never existed. I think your premise is showing what christianity should become, not what it historically was.

To clarify my stance: I think you can't say that Christianity as a religion, as a whole, is against Earth. None of the members here are and it has no biblical foundation, on the contrary. That there is a certain inclination to avert from Earth in a struggle against others, or in a belief in an afterlife, and an inclination towards, a psychological strengtening of (see the text from Wikipedia in the previous post), capitalism, is an argument I would defend. However the appeal to get rich by plundering the Earth is of all ages. Crucially, our means and our urge ('growth', 'development', 'neoliberalism') to do so have increased, independently of, or at least not traceable to, Christianity.

My argument is rather that Christianity hasn't been able to avoid the plundering of Earth and that now time has come to join forces and unite to save the planet and ourselves.

[Florestan]

Calvin and his followers taught a doctrine of double predestination, in which from the beginning God chose some people for salvation and others for damnation.

This is outright heresy for both Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and was formally condemned long before Calvin's birth, at the Council of Orange in 524.

We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.

My humble advice for you all would be to specify exactly which denomination you have in mind when speaking of "Christianity".

[Florestan]

in Christian theology, man is not in charge of anything, God is.

You've probably studied theology with Calvin. 

Seriously now, in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology man is not a puppet in God's hands but a free agent whose cooperation with God is essential. It's true that God extends His grace to everyone, but one thing He cannot do is save anyone against their will. At least when it comes to salvation, man is very much in charge of it.

And while we're at it, you might want to consider this: Roman Catholic and Protestant theology regard Fall and sin as a transgression in need of atonement (mankind inherits and takes part in the original sin of Adam and Eve); Eastern Orthodox theology regards Fall and sin as a disease in need of cure (mankind inherits only the consequences of Adam's original sin, first and foremost death; nobody other than Adam and Eve are responsible for the original sin). As an admirer of all things Byzantine, you'll sure take time to ponder on it.

[Opus131]

You've probably studied theology with Calvin. 

Seriously now, in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology man is not a puppet in God's hands but a free agent whose cooperation with God is essential. It's true that God extends His grace to everyone, but one thing He cannot do is save anyone against their will. At least when it comes to salvation, man is very much in charge of it.

We were talking about the planet though. Of course, even when it comes to man there is this mixture between free will and predestination, or grace and works.

But in terms of the universe at large, one should think that God is very much in charge. This general anxiety a lot of people feel in modern times, this idea that something must be done and must be done NOW to avert some kind of imminent disaster, be it an enviormental disaster, a giant asteroid coming our way or the earth dying eventually (so that we must learn how to travel the stars in order to outlive the planet) is very much a byproduct of this humanistic notion the only entity with agency in this universe is man armed with his rational faculties, and that there's no such thing as any kind of divine plan or divine power out with any sort of control over physical reality.

 

[Florestan]

when it comes to man there is this mixture between free will and predestination, or grace and works.

Speaking from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, there is absolutely no mixture at all. Free will exists; predestination doesn't. God does not foreordain anyone to salvation or damnation. Both salvation and damnation are processes, not states. In my (Eastern Orthodox) book, anyone using "predestination" as a valid concept is not a Christian.

But in terms of the universe at large, one should think that God is very much in charge. This general anxiety a lot of people feel in modern times, this idea that something must be done and must be done NOW to avert some kind of imminent disaster, be it an enviormental disaster, a giant asteroid coming our way or the earth dying eventually (so that we must learn how to travel the stars in order to outlive the planet) is very much a byproduct of this humanistic notion the only entity with agency in this universe is man armed with his rational faculties, and that there's no such thing as any kind of divine plan or divine power out with any sort of control over physical reality.

Well, yes, if you put it this way you'll get no argument from me here.

Still, this doesn't mean that we should simply fold our arms and wait for God's intervention. The climate change issues are real and we need to address them. God works not only by Himself, but by people as well.

[Florestan]

Just to make things clear once and for all:

Eastern Orthodoxy strongly rejects, condemns and censures all five TULIP points. Whoever thinks that "Christianity" means TULIP is misguided.

[Opus131]

Free will exists; predestination doesn't. God does not foreordain anyone to salvation or damnation.

But the way your life unfolds is predestined. There is no random casuality. Events that occur in your life, challenges you may face, it's all preordinaed in the end. Whether you die tomorrow or not is not something you have any choice over.

So God is the master of our destinity as much as he is the master of all reality. Our entire existence has been mapped in advance. Within this preordaned set of events we have the "freedom" to make choices, and our salvation depends on those choices, so it is true that we are not predestined to be saved or damned, but we are still not the masters of our lives. We have a free "will", but we are not free from contingency.

The climate change issues are real and we need to address them.

I'm not so convinced they are. Or rather, i'm not convinced it is within our power to actually "kill" the planet. Defiling the environment is one thing, but this idea it is within our abilities to actually cause an apocalypse doesn't really sit right in my mind.