DH
Frank....do yourself a favor...please, try a different thread. If there is any pettiness in this thread, it is delivered from your neck of the woods.
This coming from the guy who called me willfully blind, silly, extremist, ridiculous, irrational, absurd and simple, who uses straw man arguments to make a (transparent) attempt at discrediting my stance and who has only received two Karma from this entire thread?
Yea I’m the petty one; I’ll add that one to the list too.
I've not stated that you are any of the above....but I think your position is. I think it is extreme and irrational, and you push it to ridiculous levels that truly look silly, and in the least, obtuse...and I think your reflexive disregard for any example that I have offered has devolved into a genuine pettiness. I don't think I've attacked straw men in this thread...I havent addressed every concern raised by every voice- but I've covered a substantial number of them and I think in fair and sensible ways. I also realize it is a very unpopular position that I have presented.
DH
I've not stated that you are any of the above....
Really? That is so untrue... not worthy of a man who calls himself a Christian... at least not according to you.
I typically expect such behavior, thanks for confirming my position.
Quote:
DH
you won't, will not, and simply cannot see the effect
This is a comment directed at me, not my position… and is in effect saying that I am willfully blind.
Quote:
DH
I am almost certain an extreme atheist like yourself will be fundamentally counter productive in any such conversation.
Quote:
DH
I think rational observers will recognize the ways in which extremists (of which I include yourself)
I suppose this is not you actually calling me an extremist?
Furthermore I have been highlighting your behavior for this entire thread and you never denied this intent before.
Petty: narrow-minded in nature, spiteful in character.
From the above material I think it is clear you fit this definition far better than I do.
Face it, you don’t like the way I submit my arguments because they highlight the absurdity of yours; and I’m having fun with this and you seem to be getting frustrated.
You have clearly beaten this thread into the dirt and not solicited any real support so why don’t you find somewhere else to post?
Frank: Face it, you don’t like the way I submit my arguments because they highlight the absurdity of yours; and I’m having fun with this and you seem to be getting frustrated.
I think you have submitted an important critique against the abuses and absurdities of some religions. I also think you have proven unable to distinguish between varieties of religions or the complexities of religious life for history, culture, ethics, etc. I think the absurd position is the one that leaps immediately to black/white either/or classifications...it is also expressed in crude oversimplifications and gross compartmentalizations; ie, "all religions...." or "no religions..." or "religion has nothing to do with...". I think your position, at least in this thread, offers very little hope and promises to increase our worst tendencies to avoid complex analysis or leap quickly to broad overgeneralization and dangerous cynicism. I'll leave it at that.
DWill: traditionalism will be a challenge for religion. I think laws will have to play some role (e.g. tough fuel efficiency standards), but only a supporting one. Especially in the U.S., coercion won't be easily accepted.
I agree that each religion will have to confront those practices and traditions that encourage ecologically irresponsible behavior. I happen to think the best way to do that is to highlight alternatives within the tradition: ie, lift up those elements of tradition that are earth friendly and mandate a kind of creation care ethic. These elements can be found in traditional hymns, liturgies, scriptures, prayers and various theologians and religious leaders across time. I think laws will be crucial. Large corporations and industries (our biggest polluters) will not (perhaps cannot) willfully sacrifice and abandon profit proven methods without strong influence. I think the federal government (as in the Civil Rights movement) can and must enforce what is really a human rights issue: we do not have a right to wrecklessly pollute our fragile ecosystem. I think individual choices are also important, and there is really no limit to what a few determined souls can do. But, large scale industrial transformation and economic change will require legal force.
Grim: What is the point of going on and on about all the good religious organizations are doing when what should be discussed is what we should all be doing in our shared humanity?
I certainly don't disagree. My point in this thread is to address how different religions are working to embrace an ethic of creation care, how they are often working together to do it, and that fundamentally changing lifestyles of a largely religious population will require substantial religious efforts. I think the last point is the most contentious, but I don't think it irrational. Do you think our humanity is richer and healthier if we simply abandon its diversity? I think our humanity is all the more beautiful in its complex diversity of religious, and non-religious, expressions. I think we can and must rely upon multiple worldviews and belief systems to turn the tide of ecological devastation.
DH
I think your position, at least in this thread, offers very little hope and promises to increase our worst tendencies to avoid complex analysis or leap quickly to broad overgeneralization and dangerous cynicism. I'll leave it at that.
I have submitted my position several times in this thread and you still don’t get it… I see little point from offering it up so you can attack it, distort it, or misrepresent it (or me) yet again.
I think I have made my point (to everyone but you) so I will step aside at your request…
I love it when people cherry-pick what they like from the Bible while disregarding the inconsistencies and the downright offensive parts. Takes a goodly amount of cognitive dissonance.
Anyway, I believe what Thomas Paine said is true, that the Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed.
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: The meek shall inherit the earth
In this discussion it is helpful to draw a distinction between good true religion and bad false religion. Sadly, the latter so dominates the world as a result of institutional corruption that it makes it hard for a dispassionate observer to see how religion can possibly be good and true. A key example regarding ecology is in the phrase from the Sermon on the Mount “the meek shall inherit the earth”. This is generally seen as paradoxical and stupid, because obviously the strong and rude seem to inherit more than those who stand on quiet integrity. Yet, this line attributed to Jesus Christ is pointing to a fundamental dysfunction in our world, a problem that the churches have largely made themselves blind to. For the meek are those, including all natural animals and plants, who lack imperial power. Their inheritance can either involve humanity joining the meek, or the extinction of humanity. It is a deeply evolutionary idea. The problem is that unmeek human life is not sustainable, but is so arrogant and haughty in its pride and greed that it is unwilling to listen.
Some of the discussion here has mentioned the apocalypse. My view is that the theories of bad false religion on this topic have become so dominant that a good true interpretation is squeezed out of view. For example, Jesus said in Matthew 25 that those who visit prisoners are among the elect. This looks deeply counter-cultural from the perspective of idolatrous fundamentalism, but it illustrates how so called “Bible believing Christians” are basically liars and frauds, in that they do not take the actual Bible seriously. If we do take the whole Bible seriously, then obviously there are a lot of obsolete ideas which can be discarded, but there is a kernel which is completely ecological in intent. It gets back to the basic idea that union with God is union with nature.
A key Biblical idea supporting this message is the myth of the tree of life. This tree stood at the centre of the garden of Eden, alongside the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fall from grace is the loss of connection to the tree of life. Surprisingly, this tree makes another appearance, bookending the Bible in Genesis and in Revelation. At the end, the tree stands at the centre of the holy city, where it has twelve fruits, one for each month, for the healing of the nations. The clear implication which should be drawn is that restoring the state of grace after our current world state of corruption must be identified as an ecological task. This astrological image of the twelve fruits of the year is anathema to stupid fundamentalists and dogmatic scientists who have so twisted the language of the Bible and of reason as to make the good true Biblical message invisible.
Overall, community environmental projects are just tinkering at the edges of the catastrophe looming for our planet. What is required is strategic thought, engaging with our basic identity. Religion is essential to this task, and as I suggest above, the Bible contains answers which we could see if we became open to honest dialogue.
What, exactly, is the propaganda in the Green Bible? And what makes it specifically Christian?
geo: I love it when people cherry-pick what they like from the Bible while disregarding the inconsistencies and the downright offensive parts. Takes a goodly amount of cognitive dissonance.
What makes you think the Green Bible does these things?
geo: Anyway, I believe what Thomas Paine said is true, that the Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed.
I think this is partly true...lots read it and never examine it...but lots read it and examine it too. Those who demand black and white interpretations, avoiding nuance, complexity, and the use of multiple perspectives when reading...usually the most boring, unimaginative and generally brutal interpretations...should be least reliable in knowing what it means to examine the text.
Robert, I'm glad you decided to join the discussion...I hope to give your response more time...here's a starter...
Robert: Overall, community environmental projects are just tinkering at the edges of the catastrophe looming for our planet. What is required is strategic thought, engaging with our basic identity. Religion is essential to this task, and as I suggest above, the Bible contains answers which we could see if we became open to honest dialogue.
I think this is largely part of what I've been arguing in this thread...that the kind of fundamental reorientation of identity and culture, society and economy, politics and industry...will require the kinds of resources that religion can provide...the requisite transformation of values needs exponentially more than mere technological improvements and modification of consumption habits. I think the Bible can, and must, be an essential part of the solution...it will not be the only tool...but neither can it be dismissed.
What, exactly, is the propaganda in the Green Bible? And what makes it specifically Christian?
"Dissident Heart" is being more transparently disingenuous here than he realizes. I was involved with this conversation for awhile until I had a chance to read the thread in its entirety and decided it was a waste of time due to just this kind of intellectual dishonesty.
For the moment we'll leave the insulting manner in which DH continuously pastes links to various religious products on this thread. I'm at a loss to think of anything that would be more insulting to the collective intelligence of this community. Perhaps I'll tack a link to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on the end of my response here. That will surely make a point, huh?
I'll address both Robert Tulip and DH since both seem to be operating on the same wavelength.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with the "Green Bible." If you want to pick out what you like in the Bible, discard the rest, and pretend that what you have fosters some sort of environmental creed, that's fine. I would say go for it. It's a free country. Hell, Thomas Jefferson himself took scissors to the Bible and cut out what he believed were all the irrelevant parts and what was left was something along the lines of "Jesus without the miracles." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible> There's no denying there are some good nuggets of wisdom in there (at least the New testament). And if you want to reinterpret certain passages of the Bible into something ecological, go right ahead. Like I said, it's a free country. But pretending there is "ecological intent" in the Bible all along is a dishonest foray into the land of Delusion. It really amounts to a pathetic, desperate attempt to make the Bible relevant.
Robert Tulip wrote:
If we do take the whole Bible seriously, then obviously there are a lot of obsolete ideas which can be discarded, but there is a kernel which is completely ecological in intent.
Yes, the ancient texts later gathered into an incoherent, rambling, self-conflicting mess called The Bible, all along has been pro-environment. All you have to throw out all the stuff that doesn't fit:
Quote:
"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)
. . . In which all non-believers' lands must be utterly destroyed! (this currently consists of two thirds of the planet.) Including destroying every green tree and burning their groves with fire.
Or:
Quote:
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch." (Malachi 4:1)
. . . in which God says that he will burn the earth leaving neither root nor branch.
Or:
Quote:
"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." (Malachi 4:5-6)
. . . in which God threatens to smite the earth with a curse.
And so on and so forth. We'll leave out the God-justified genocide, incest, and rampant misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic passages for now.
Let's also not mention the fact that the modern concept of environmentalism didn't even exist until the Industrial Revolution. Nor will we mention the fact that at the time of Jesus' birth there were about 200 million people on the planet compared to 6.7 billion today.
Robert Tulip wrote:
It gets back to the basic idea that union with God is union with nature.
Do you mean God is nature? Why not just leave the "God" part out and call it what it is: nature.
By the way religion, and especially Christianity, has done a very nice job over the millennia to hammer home the point that we are separate from nature. Man is above the animals, has dominion over the earth, etc. It's nice that you've come along now to tell us that all along, the Bible has been promoting environmentalism. I feel sorry for the millions of people who came before you who had a very different interpretation. But thanks for setting us straight.
Robert Tulip wrote:
A key Biblical idea supporting this message is the myth of the tree of life. This tree stood at the centre [sic] of the garden of Eden, alongside the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fall from grace is the loss of connection to the tree of life. Surprisingly, this tree makes another appearance, bookending the Bible in Genesis and in Revelation. At the end, the tree stands at the centre of the holy city, where it has twelve fruits, one for each month, for the healing of the nations. The clear implication which should be drawn is that restoring the state of grace after our current world state of corruption must be identified as an ecological task. This astrological image of the twelve fruits of the year is anathema to stupid fundamentalists and dogmatic scientists who have so twisted the language of the Bible and of reason as to make the good true Biblical message invisible.
Oh brother. This is a perfect example of taking something out of context and reinventing it into something brand new, something you want it to mean. The tree as a symbol of life is prevalent in many ancient myths. The fact that you are borrowing a symbol from ancient times and are using it for something new and relevant is fine with me. But pretending that this was how it intended all along as such is intellectual dishonesty of the worst order.
Wikipedia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Life_(Judeo-Christian)
Serpents, trees and fruit are important symbols in the religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. These symbols are also found in the Norse saga of the ash tree Yggdrasil, where the tree provides a magical springwater of knowledge. In opposition to the serpent (immortality), is the eagle and hawk. There is a similar mythology in China, where a carving of a Tree of Life depicts a bird and a dragon - in Chinese mythology, the dragon often represents immortality. James Frazer in his book The Golden Bough (1890) attempts to give a coherent unified account of a number of religious myths and symbols, whilst Ioan P. Couliano provides an analysis of the symbolism in The Tree of Gnosis (1991), and there are a multiplicity of interpretations existing concerning the Kabbalah Tree of Life (Sephiroth).
Anyway, it's out of my system now. I'm sorry for dredging this thing up from the dark, nether reaches of obscurity where it clearly belongs.
geo: For the moment we'll leave the insulting manner in which DH continuously pastes links to various religious products on this thread. I'm at a loss to think of anything that would be more insulting to the collective intelligence of this community. Perhaps I'll tack a link to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion on the end of my response here.
A primary purpose of this thread has been to provide examples of religious traditions and communities engaged in ecologically responsible behavior...ways they have re-interpreted their basic identities, normative texts and foundational traditions along greener trajectories...highlighting their creation care ethic and how that translates into turning the tide of environmental disaster. If you would like to start a thread that discusses Richard Dawkin's work (which Booktalk already has in enormous detail)...feel free.
I don't think I've been intellectually dishonest or disengenuous or insulting.
It gets back to the basic idea that union with God is union with nature.
Do you mean God is nature? Why not just leave the "God" part out and call it what it is: nature.
Hello Geo. I like what you say, and the purpose behind my comments was to elicit dialogue on precisely these issues, so thank you. I hope the discussion can remain civil while enabling a robust exchange of views. In equating God with nature I am partly following the atheist Jewish philosopher Benedict Spinoza, who argued for a pantheist naturalism. The reason I put God into the picture is that if we just talk about nature we do not have a path into the central question of how humanity relates to nature. This is a problem with the scientific method – it is descriptive rather than normative, accumulating facts without any synthetic method to determine values. If we define God as the overall purposive structure of nature that enables human flourishing, which I argue is entirely compatible with the ontology of the Christian trinity, we can also define a scientific path and goal for fixing the world, while also bringing to bear the major resources of the world's religious heritage. Central Biblical goals such as those of the Beatitudes and the Last Judgement are deeply counter-cultural and ecological, but also entirely Biblical.
Quote:
By the way religion, and especially Christianity, has done a very nice job over the millennia to hammer home the point that we are separate from nature. Man is above the animals, has dominion over the earth, etc. It's nice that you've come along now to tell us that all along, the Bible has been promoting environmentalism. I feel sorry for the millions of people who came before you who had a very different interpretation. But thanks for setting us straight.
Very good point, but what I am trying to show is that it is a false premise to assume that conventional theology provides a good basis to understand the Bible. The point I was making is that in the Bible myth, humanity was originally in tune with God/nature, but the fall broke that connection, so the lost interpretations by the church are not overall very helpful in defining how our planet can, potentially, return to a state of grace. To understand that we have to go back to first principles, looking at Biblical concepts in the light of science. On the question of humanity vis a vis animals, it is a fact that language makes us special, as only humanity can represent the nature of reality in words, which is how I understand the 'image of God' idea.
Quote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
A key Biblical idea supporting this message is the myth of the tree of life. This tree stood at the centre [sic] of the garden of Eden, alongside the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The fall from grace is the loss of connection to the tree of life. Surprisingly, this tree makes another appearance, bookending the Bible in Genesis and in Revelation. At the end, the tree stands at the centre of the holy city, where it has twelve fruits, one for each month, for the healing of the nations. The clear implication which should be drawn is that restoring the state of grace after our current world state of corruption must be identified as an ecological task. This astrological image of the twelve fruits of the year is anathema to stupid fundamentalists and dogmatic scientists who have so twisted the language of the Bible and of reason as
