The Bible as an environmentalist text

[Metal POWER!]

A little observation.



After God created vegetation:

"And God saw that it was good."


After God created fish, birds and suchlike:

"And God saw that it was good."


After God created beasts of the earth:

"And God saw that it was good."


After God created humans, he tells us we can do whatever we want and then says:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good."

[scourge]

Like nationalism in later parts of the Bible, responsible stewardship of the Earth and living things is implied in Genesis. But like New Age Christian humanism and Marxism disguised now in One World God antinationalism tracts, the words are bent to fit whatever selfish short term pursuits the mercantilist interests see fit to fund. The merchant caste is running amok because our warriors too seldom make an appearance or are incarcerated in supermax and our thinkers are reduced to taking up their slack with a strong show of words.

[Dunkeldood]

I've noticed some of the best parts of Judeo-Christian/Islamic texts are often about how wondrous nature or "God's bounty" is (because the authors really do seem to be in awe of it, enough to continually use it to prove God's greatness), but it usually degenerates into how it's all ours to do whatever the hell we want with because God gave it to us, the believers. In practice this seems to make our environment just a taste of what's to come, and therefore trivial, in light of the infinite bounty we are to receive once we die.

[nous]

I've noticed some of the best parts of Judeo-Christian/Islamic texts are often about how wondrous nature or "God's bounty" is (because the authors really do seem to be in awe of it, enough to continually use it to prove God's greatness), but it usually degenerates into how it's all ours to do whatever the hell we want with because God gave it to us, the believers. In practice this seems to make our environment just a taste of what's to come, and therefore trivial, in light of the infinite bounty we are to receive once we die.

It is obvious that such thinking is against any traditional religion. Think of yourself as a servant, and of a garden as a gift from your king: would you not hold this gift in high regard and take care that it will not be destroyed? Now God is the king of this world and man is his servant.
The "we can do whatever we want" attitude of modern "Christians" is *at best* the result of a misinterpretation of free will. Free will does not mean: we can do whatever we want and it will have no consequences for us. No, it means: we are responsible and will be judged for everything evil we do out of free will.

[▓]

Actually, this reminds me a lot of why the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths fail, whereas older or more intuitive systems avoid the pitfalls of the monotheisms. Because the monotheisms state the very obvious, whilst turning to the crowd and proclaiming "Isn't what I just said so amazing?", when it is not - it is obvious. Of course nature is glorious, and all cultures are aware of this truism; you get to die very quickly if you have a poor environment. Yet the monos substitute the greatness of nature with the interpretational symbolism of God. And with interpretation comes the duality of misinterpretation:
1-"Here is nature - it is good."
2-"Yes, very good."
1-"It is good, because my God created it - for me."
2-"That is a lie - if anything, this nature is for me."
1-"Mine."
2-"Mine."
1-"Well if I can't have it, then no-one can"
"KABOOM"

Whereas the older, dead ways were a simple statement of fact, with no extrapolation into the empty realm of the possessive confidence trickster:
1-"Here is nature - it is good."
2-"Yes, very good."
1-"....."
2-"....."
*sound of insects above a babbling brook*

[Nimbostratus]

Free will does not mean: we can do whatever we want and it will have no consequences for us. No, it means: we are responsible and will be judged for everything evil we do out of free will.

Excuse me but that's a quite exoteric and common statement among modern christians that leads to imperfect contrition instead of salvation through God's love. From a traditionalist and esoteric perspective, this love is nothing but an emulation of His will, an identification that surpasses the ego, and since He is the Absolute, emulating His will means to be free.

The slavish ego, stills creating karmic debts, in spite of his 'elections'.

[Dunkeldood]

It is obvious that such thinking is against any traditional religion. Think of yourself as a servant, and of a garden as a gift from your king: would you not hold this gift in high regard and take care that it will not be destroyed? Now God is the king of this world and man is his servant.
The "we can do whatever we want" attitude of modern "Christians" is *at best* the result of a misinterpretation of free will.

I'm pretty sure different monotheistic religious parties (racially pure, believing males) have been subjugating what they've seen as the less important humans (women, slaves, converts, nonbelievers/pagans, believers in older monotheistic religions) for hundreds, if not thousands of years, partly if not mainly due to the passages in their texts about God granting this world as a gift to them. While philosophically I might agree with you, I think traditionally the group that has identified themselves as having been in God's favor, and been given his bounty, has almost always exploited this position for their own selfish interests. Modern day Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't seem to display any fundamental differences except for the ability to be more altruistic and less concerned with power because of more stable governments and/or dispersion from their native lands.

[nous]

Excuse me but that's a quite exoteric and common statement among modern christians that leads to imperfect contrition instead of salvation through God's love. From a traditionalist and esoteric perspective, this love is nothing but an emulation of His will, an identification that surpasses the ego, and since He is the Absolute, emulating His will means to be free.

The slavish ego, stills creating karmic debts, in spite of his 'elections'.

Sorry, I don't understand you. Could you expose the path from my statement to "imperfect contrition"?

By the way, an exoteric statement is not bad per se; actually, it is correct in its own sphere and has authority in this sphere. We should not disregard exoteric doctrines on grounds of their being exoteric.

[nous]

I'm pretty sure different monotheistic religious parties (racially pure, believing males) have been subjugating what they've seen as the less important humans (women, slaves, converts, nonbelievers/pagans, believers in older monotheistic religions) for hundreds, if not thousands of years, partly if not mainly due to the passages in their texts about God granting this world as a gift to them. While philosophically I might agree with you, I think traditionally the group that has identified themselves as having been in God's favor, and been given his bounty, has almost always exploited this position for their own selfish interests. Modern day Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't seem to display any fundamental differences except for the ability to be more altruistic and less concerned with power because of more stable governments and/or dispersion from their native lands.

I don't see how identification with a certain tradition already implies the systematic and effective destruction of the environment for profit, which is actually a modern phenomenon. It is quite impertinent to attribute environmental destruction to an imperfection of monotheistic religions. The West is atheistic, and from this it follows that it is destructive to the environment.

[Dunkeldood]

I'm pretty sure different monotheistic religious parties (racially pure, believing males) have been subjugating what they've seen as the less important humans (women, slaves, converts, nonbelievers/pagans, believers in older monotheistic religions) for hundreds, if not thousands of years, partly if not mainly due to the passages in their texts about God granting this world as a gift to them. While philosophically I might agree with you, I think traditionally the group that has identified themselves as having been in God's favor, and been given his bounty, has almost always exploited this position for their own selfish interests. Modern day Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't seem to display any fundamental differences except for the ability to be more altruistic and less concerned with power because of more stable governments and/or dispersion from their native lands.

I don't see how identification with a certain tradition already implies the systematic and effective destruction of the environment for profit, which is actually a modern phenomenon. It is quite impertinent to attribute environmental destruction to an imperfection of monotheistic religions. The West is atheistic, and from this it follows that it is destructive to the environment.

It doesn't. I'm not sure if anyone had the means to do so before the industrial revolution anyway. I probably should have been more clear. Monotheistic religions and religious texts have fueled the dominant, male, believing party to subjugate people and resources, including the environment, for their own selfish interests for a very long time. This is nothing new, and I'm sure that it has effected the way people treat the environment in the present day. Even average people who go to church every Sunday or at least harbor some Judeo-Christian/Islamic beliefs are blinded by the idealistic nature of the "afterlife" so much that they don't blink an eye when the dominant parties of politicians and businessmen make decisions that actively harm the environment, and these dominant parties are simply playing out a role that the believing, racially pure males of society have always done. I don't see how destroying the environment is a special case. While monotheistic religions retained the respect and awe of nature from older, animistic traditions, it is mostly the perversions of monotheism that have been passed on and ingrained in our society over time. I would be interested to hear why you think the West is atheistic as I've never heard this before and have always thought, as I believe is the prevailing opinion, that the West is very monotheistic.

[nous]

I would be interested to hear why you think the West is atheistic as I've never heard this before and have always thought, as I believe is the prevailing opinion, that the West is very monotheistic.

Monotheism in itself is not perverse at all. What could rightly be said is that a perversion of monotheism has been passed on and ingrained in our society over time.

"Atheistic" is admittedly an over-simplification, since, at first glance, the USA do not appear to be very atheistic. It seems to be a very inhomogenous place, but from what I've read, there are few traditional or orthodox Catholics left over there as well. Anyway, if we understand "atheistic" under the aspect of aberrance from an orthodox religious tradition, we can as well call the USA atheistic.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[Chessnut]

Weev (interviewed by Corrupt) speaks of God, family, Jews and the earth.
Part 1
Part 2

[Nimbostratus]

The discursive nature of the Bible, projects a linear display of time from Genesis to Apocalypse, detached from the homeostatic nature of the cyclical conception, even when during the Middle Ages both perceptions coexisted. There's as well, an economical focus in the development of the Bible relied on productivity, much more than any other sacred scripture.

In the Ten Talents Parable, we find productivity and spirituality equated, however, production keeps a sacred purpose. In our times the  degeneration of this concept  leads us to utilitarianism, or productivity and materialistic happiness equated, dangerous specially with the actual technology.

[Nimbostratus]

Sorry, I don't understand you. Could you expose the path from my statement to "imperfect contrition"?

By the way, an exoteric statement is not bad per se; actually, it is correct in its own sphere and has authority in this sphere. We should not disregard exoteric doctrines on grounds of their being exoteric.

Imperfection contrition is an exoteric manifestation because, while it may drive common man towards a better behavior, it doesn't takes him to a deeper understanding, or a direct identification with God's love. Not bad, but external.

Being judged by our evil implies a further punishment or reward, which constitutes at the end a conditioned freedom. Ask a modern Christian,  and he won't tell you that free-will is to do whatever you want, but an election of being saved or not. In this way, imperfect contrition is based on afterlife convenience,  not in a present identification with God, a current closeness that conforms glory by itself, but a nearby hope conditioned by application to a code. Not bad, but external.