Religion and the Environment

I brought up this issue in my environmental literature and communications class yesterday...

Do you think that religion affects how we treat the environment?

I would think Buddhists would live more lightly on the land and honor and care for nature more so than Christianity would.

What do you think?

 

i think most religious people can care, but many will not because they will see God as the reason for much and do not see the earth as important.

especially in christianity, why care for the environment if the end times are near, and in islam a sign of the end times is that the environment worsens. doesn't mean they should do something about it though.

i think that most likely people who are not religious are the best at wanting to care fot our planet, just my opinion
peacex

 

For sure. Pagan religions were earth centered, and Buddhism and Hinduism see the world being as sacred as they themselves are.

Meanwhile, Christianity has it written right into the religion, in black and white, that nature is to be used (and abused) and under the dominion of mankind. Too bad it didn't say stewardship (though I think it might, at least the word "dominion" may be a mistranslation). Any religion that says material existence is unimportant and only spiritual existence is will have a negetive effect. Plus, look at how Christianity has treated the human body: ugly, shameful, evil, sinful, something to be ignored as much as possible. The body is just an empty shell, a vehicle for the soul. Well, in that respect, if the body doesn't matter, neither would the world, which in the Christian mind, is there only to serve us (and then only in a material sense).

Which isn't to say the Christian (or Jew or Muslim, who have similar views) can't be environmentally conscious. It just isn't a major part of the religion, as it is taught and practiced. But it could be. Go from "dominion" to "stewardship" and you have a very different attitude. Even with Western religions' human-centered perspectives, they can see the world/nature as a gift from God to be cherished and protected, while also making use of it. They can be ecological tyrants, but they could also be master gardeners of the earth.

And personally, I see the nonreligious people as evenly split. You may have the secular humanists and such who want a healthy ecosystem, but you also have the greedy corporate people, as well as their consumers, who let money, not spirituality, guide their course. For them, it's about making the most money, or spending the least (depending on if they're a seller or a buyer). All other considerations are secondary, and usually a very DISTANT second.

 

I find it funny how so many Christians claim to be pro-life when the majority of them are wasting fossil fuels, worsening the GHGs, cutting down trees for cattle farming, etc. Not to be judgemental or anything, but that's just what I've noticed lately

 

As a christian myself (well, in that I associate Christian with Jesus, not really every other person who calls themselves a Christian, as I have a differing view on God and Jesus than a lot of them), I am inclined to agree. Most christians take it for granted that God has given us this wonderful world to live in, and also it is up to us to take care of it. I could be incorrect, but right off hand I believe I have read some versions of the Bible that DID say stewardship rather than dominion... I could be wrong though. I am an enviromentalist personally.

 

Apparently the OLD Testament said "stewardship", but the New Testament says "Dominion".

It's all based on interpretation.

 

I guess that question is good as it really got me thinking well I personally think that religion plays a part in the way in which things are done (especially the environment whether good or bad)



well I going to think about the question more :H

 

Actualy, stewardship has been a subject of study among some evangelicals. Recently some came out with the position that, in addition to their other issues, human caused global warning is against God's will and we should stop it.

Social and political issues divide all religions into sub-sects.

 

I'm religious about practicing my 3R's

 

The passage in Genesis that many so called Christian use to justify their destrution of the environment is mistranslated. The original Hebrew word translated at subdue or have dominion actually means to mangage or take care of. G-D says in Revelation that he will destroy those that destroy the earth. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Christians should take care of G-D's creation as well as our bodies. That belief is one of the reasons most Seventh-day Adventists are vegetarian.


btw: Pro-Life is actually a code word for Anti-Choice.

 

I don't really want to get into this right now, but just thought I would mention that it depends on how you look at it...

"Pro-choice is actually a code word for anti-life"

I don't think that is a fair arguement either, but being pro-life myself, I think your ideology on that has some holes. For example, they had the choice (exception in rape and incest, which makes up a small small small percentage of abortion) to get knocked up or not (could've been prevented...)

 

This is basically my philosophy on all ethical matters regarding religion: Religion is fine as long as the religious TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for their treatment of humanity and the Earth. For example, the idea that the current world is only a temporary stage where one should be preparing for their entry into the afterlife should never be used as an excuse not to take responsibility for looking after it. My experience with the modern evangelical church was that the subjects were more bent on governing morality then saving the planet.

 

I agree with this however, there are some who strict ones i know who are consious, and also only eat organically.

 

Yes, but sadly you don't see a lot of them leading massive churches or appearing on their own evangelical TV shows. "Saving" people is about money, to most born agains the environment can essentially fuck off.

 

Recenty I had a discussion with someone, based on the following basis:

What if you were a time traveller and could travel to colonial North America 250 years ago, and you brought the following items with you: enough vaccination serums to innoculate about 10,000 people against small pox and information about how to mine and smith iron, as well as how to manufacture gun powder. Would the American natives been able to fend off European invaders? Would this have significantly been enough technological know-how to change the course of North American history?

I argued that it wouldn't have been enough to change the course of history significantly. I argued that although more Native Americans would have been saved through small pox vaccinations, and may have been slightly technologically advanced with metal working technology, it would not have sufficed to change the tide of history. Ultimately they would have suffered the same fate, because of the difference in their philosophical points of view.

The majority of the European invaders were influenced by Protestant Christian values, which instructs their followers that God has given them the ability that they can effectively change their environment for their own benefit; hence "God helps those who help themselves".

Native Americans on the otherhand, like other pagan religions, were influenced by the philosophy that a greater spirit created the world like it is and it's disrespectful to change it, if not a sin itself. Some pagan religions have the limitation in belief that the environment is a given and that changes are detrimental. Thus, the American natives would have been impeded by their own philosophy. Instead of exploiting metal technology, banding together and raising huge armies to drive out the European invaders, they would have most likely used limited technology to produce only the few tools and weapons they would have really needed for their own personal use. Over-production for themselves or specialization in production for the benefit of others wouldn't have fit into their world picture. Not that their world picture is incorrect (it isn't) but it would have always inhibited them from effectively warding off an aggressive culture whose philosophy of changing one's environment to suit their needs is good and approved by God.

 

I just had an interesting thought...anyone ever heard the story of Easter island? They have been able to deduce that the tribal people living on Easter island a few hundred years ago drove themselves to extinction because they cut down all the trees to create mechanisms for moving those funny head shaped things up hills. Ultimately the animal life they fed on died out, as did the humans. It is thought that the stone heads were erected as homages to pagan gods or dead ancestors....so even animism can screw up the environment

 

Weissdorn, that's a very good point, and I agree (mostly). I always wondered why the many tribes didn't band together to save themselves, but I suppose they didn't realize the whites wanted to destroy them, until it was too late. Also, their populations and resources were too low to withstand the human wave of immigrants coming from Europe and Africa. The biggest migration in human history.

However, I wouldn't say their philosophy/culture would have ALWAYS held them back. Such things can change, and the natives weren't stupid. If they'd been given ironworking technology and vaccinations, they might have held on longer, long enough to change and adapt to the new ways. Of course, then they'd be just like the whites; they'd become what they wish to repel.

Oh, and the Easter Islanders didn't completely die out, but their civilization was destroyed. Over-utilized their resources, trapped themselves on a now-barren island, and slowly withered away to just a fraction of their former numbers.

 

I sugest if you havn't already... read the book Ishmail, kind of goes along some of these lines, very very amazing book.

 

As I stated in another thread. I see the earth as my home. my spiritual realm. Natrue is my fair and loving goddess. She holds the bruise and scars from our damn battles. She has more to teach than we ever will take the time to learn. If we let her show us and guide us the earth would mean everything to everyone. Being human in my opinon is a test, we have the chance to come back as something great, something that wont destroy her. something that will love her unconditionally and wont track muddy imprinted marks on her. She's like a crystal ball once shes dropped shes shattered forever and we are going to kill oyurselves off quicker than what we think. I feel that if we honor her with the love and respect she deserves she will take care of us. Cause she brought us in she will bloody hell take us out when she chooses. She has a place for us and if we sit long enough and learn some patience we would know that place. We would UNDERSTAND that place. There is no bible, there is no preacher. There is the wind, the water, the dirt, and all the other aspects of any element known to man and known to nature herself. We are no better than that blade of grass in our backyard, and that one blade of grass no matter how dull it looks or feels...will always be better than us, because it never did anything to nature. It respected her and it has a story to tell...whose willing to listen?

AIM: LiLHippieChick76

 

I wouldn't say 'never' , actually grass is what put the stress on species to become smaller in size. Prior to grasslands, species had to be large, dinosaurs being the most famous for that, to feed off of tree tops.
It's pretty amazing when you think of it, how many species have affected nature. But I digress...