religion and the environmental crisis

My last post was a story about a woman who does amazing things. The hostility of many of the replies has me stunned. See my last response to dmallind at the bottom of the thread. I have had requests to know more about the carbon-free footprint building I referred to. In a day or two I will copy here the newspaper column I wrote about that building. The column is really about the preservation of the earth, which is the theme of the final two paragraphs. If you don’t care about the building, you may want to read just the final sentences.


Every major religion has as its root a concern for the earth, not some speculation about heaven. One cannot separate Christianity from environmental concerns. In the 13th century, a monk, who grew up rich and left it all to live in nature wrote the following canticle.

Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures, especially through my lord Brother Sun, who brings the day; and you give light through him. And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendor! Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.
Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars; in the heavens you have made them, precious and beautiful.
Be praised, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air, and clouds and storms, and all the weather, through which you give your creatures sustenance.
Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure.
Be praised, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you brighten the night. He is beautiful and cheerful, and powerful and strong.
Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Mother Earth, who feeds us and rules us, and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs.
Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)

Perhaps the major theme in every seminary and in most progressive churches is about the crisis we are facing with the despoiling of the earth. Later on I’ll talk about how some of us are working on this issue.

said, "Survival of the world depends on our sharing what we have, and working together. If we do not the whole world will die. First the planet, and next the people."

This issue is on the mind of every Native American spiritual leader--every Native American--I know. If we don't deal with the environmental crisis, none of the other problems will matter.

their Christian religion is why they fight action on Global Warming.
Once we move away from science into superstition, how do we know who is right?

I am glad you are working on environmental issues. But why do you need more than the dire warnings of climatologists?

Christians can get conned perhaps even more readily than anyone else. Bunches have been conned by conservative wolves hiding under sheep skins. Moving from science to superstition id a terrible transition. But then many os us do not define all religion as superstition.The warning of climatologists is good enough for me!

into the debate at all, as you did in the OP.
Seem to me it is supercilious.

It is the world--the physical world that the Bible says God loves. It is everywhere. The
greek word for the physical world is "Kosmos". The Greek word for the evil systems of the world is "aionos." If you don't cherish the planet you don't understand religion.

Just open your bible to any random page and I'm sure it'll be there. He said so.

Man was placed in the Garden to tend and watch over it.

Has it not occured to you that the story in those early chapters of Genesis is a metaphor for the conflict between pastoralists and agriculturists? The creation narrative is just a throw-away way to set the scene and God's command to Adam isn't about responsibility to care for the Earth, it's about the 'idyllic' view of pastoralism that the bronze-age pastoralists who wrote it held: the command is to live off of the land as-is, rather than cultivating crops. Why do you think the punishment for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is living an agriculturist lifestyle?

Like those fundamentalists, you just took a passage from the Bible, removed all relevant context, and took it at face value. Scholarship, my ass!

between agriculturalists and pastoralists. In historically known mixed economies, one has relied on the other. The pastoralist supplied the agriculturalist with meat and fiber in exchange for grain, fruit and vegetables. Indeed, it has not been uncommon for pastoralists and agriculturalists to belong to the same social groups. The men would take the flocks out to pasture in season,while women and children tended the crops. See Finkelstein and Silberman for a discussion of this phenomenon in the settlement of the Palestinian highlands by the people who would become the Israelites.

And by the way, your date for the writing of Genesis is 500-700 years off, and Jerusalem was a rapidly growing city, not a pasture. Even the earliest, oral, portions of the creation story are believed to date only to the early Iron Age.

That tradition is apparent from the POV of the narratives in Genesis. The stories told by a group of nomadic pastoralists at a time when agriculture was an emergent system would undoubtedly portray agriculture in an unfavorable light if it was the system favored by settled adversaries of that group of nomadic pastoralists.

The anti-agriculture message of those stories would also likely be lost over time if the culture to which they belong eventually adopted agriculture.

and incongruent with the archaeology. Any time we get into subjunctives, we're not talking facts. And just for the record, agriculture was an "emergent system" in the Middle East about 7000 years before the origins of the Genesis story. That's a looooooong time to keep up an oral tradition.

There are also inconsistencies between your interpretation and the rest of the story of Cain. He is not only protected by Yahweh, despite his murder of his more favored brother, but goes on to found a city with his (unexplained) wife. His descendents are not, as one would expect with the interpretation you offer, more pastoralists, but inventors of the arts of civilization, including metalsmithing and music. The conflict between brothers is an often-repeated Biblical motif--Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael, Joseph and his brothers--and does not necessarily have allegorical meaning.

The Semetic peoples didn't arrive in the Middle East until after agriculture had taken hold there. A pastoral culture with strong in-group/out-group isolationist beliefs comes to a new area dominated by agriculturists and you think that it's implausible that they would have included that hostility toward the dominant out-group in their oral tradition? The stories could easily have been preserved over thousands of years as part of the culture's religion, especially a religion obsessed with tradition.

As for the "inconsistencies" with the Cain story, you may have forgotten that it's a story about an agriculturalist (Cain) murdering a pastoralist (Able) because God favored the pastoralist. Cain's punishment was to be hated everywhere he went, and his descendants all died in the flood...that is unless you regard the flood as fiction, but Cain as a real person with living descendants. :crazy:

We have no idea at this point what sort of beliefs the original Semitic peoples in the Middle East held. We do know what the religion of their descendants the Canaanites looked like, and it doesn't seem to have included any "strong in-group/out-group isolationist beliefs." Quite the contrary; they seem to have intermingled freely with several other populations, including the Egyptians and the Hittites. The "strong in-group/out-group beliefs" that are evident in Deuteronomy, on the other hand, are a product of the reforms instituted by King Josiah many centuries later when he in effect invented Judaism. You seem to be assuming that the form of religion we see in the Old Testament extends back into the nebulous time when the first Semitic peoples entered the area, and that simply isn't so.

No, I'm not confused about Cain. My point is that even though God favors the pastoralist, Cain and his descendants do not promptly adopt a pastoralist lifestyle. There's an implicit recognition that settled communities and pastoralist groups complement each other. Not only that, but Cain's descendents are credited with devising some of the more complicated arts and crafts associated with civilization. That they subsequently "died in the Flood" is irrelevant.

How interesting...

How dull.

Fundamentalist? Seriously?

Wow, you truly have shown your ass with this one.

First, please share what scholarly sources you have for your pastoralist/agriculturalist conflict theory.

Second, has it not occurred to you that the story is a metaphor about how mankind is to relate to not only God, but to all of creation? The command isn't to live off the land "as-is", for if that were true there would be no need for the command of "tend and watch over it" the garden. Tending the land entails weeding, trimming, pruning, etc.

Everything was given to Adam and Eve (oh, not literally real, btw), but it was their greed which brought expulsion from the Garden. It was basically God saying "So, you think you can do it as good or better than me? Go right ahead." It's a theme repeated over and over and over...mankind's greed (for knowledge, power, money, etc.) puts them at odds with and out of balance with all creation.

By your reading, a non-literal couple were in a literal garden, a literal god literally told them to tend it, they literally disobeyed, and were literally punished by literally being expelled from that literal garden.

Saying you don't believe in a literal reading because two of the characters weren't literally real people, while taking everything else literally is a cheap cop-out.

How far did you have to stretch to come up with that one?

I don't believe Adam and Eve were real nor do I believe there was an actual, literal, Garden of Eden. Since I don't believe that, it's, well, a lie for you to say that I literally believe they were punished and kicked out of a Garden that, well, I don't believe really existed.

Are we supposed to care for all creation? Yes.

Let me put it simply for you.

The Garden = The planet and everything on it. We're supposed to take care of it... that's what tend and care for mean.

I know it's difficult for you to accept that there are Christians who fall outside of a narrow-minded box, but take a look around DU, there's plenty of examples that don't fit the "anti-science, homophobic, woman hating, literalist" vision you have.

Like I've said before, Christianity is a lot more complex than that and to ignore that is to embrace ignorance.

The underlying theme of mankind's greed being incompatible with God and creation is all throughout scripture, both OT and NT. Environmentalism, social justice... it's all there.... and guess what.... some of us take that pretty seriously.

Yet, somehow, you still stretch to come to conclusions based on...well, I'm not sure what. You're drawing conclusions of what I believe that, well, quite honestly, aren't what I believe.

BTW... still waiting on those scholarly sources that provide evidence of the interpretation you posted.

At least you didn't quote-mine a three-year old article to build it this time.

The pastoralist vs agriculturist theme saturates the early books of Genesis. All you need to see it is an open mind--one unshackled by dogmatic beliefs about humanity's place in the universe. This planet is not ours to do with as we please. To believe otherwise is complete hubris.

"All you need is an open mind" = "The Bible clearly says"

Without sources, your theory is just your interpretation... and, to use a common argument heard in R/T, why should we believe that your interpretation is the 'right' one.

BTW...Genesis is ONE book with, as most scholars agree, 3 sources... are you, perhaps, referring to the Pentateuch?

I don't believe the planet is to do with as we please... never said nor implied that. Again, your words, not mine.

When I said the early books of Genesis, I meant chapters. It was a silly mistake.

As for sources, a good start would be if you referred to the archaeological record of the Semitic people's origins and migration PRIOR to their settling in the Mid-East, the record of other peoples in the Mid-East, and the history of agriculture, it's methods, and impact on human settlement. Scholarship, my dear Sal, extends beyond studying the history of an ancient middle eastern religion.

Got any?

As far as the 'books' thing, that's why I asked if you were referring to the Pentateuch.... those slips happen, I was simply asking for clarification, no insult intended.

it's Daniel Quinn's novel Ishmael, and the authority is a talking gorilla.

The idea put forth by Quinn's gorilla is one interpretation I find stimulating, but not the only one I find interesting or worth discussing.

That's the wonderful thing about fiction--there are an endless number of ways to interpret it, none more valid than any other. I recently came across a fascinating interpretation of The Black Swan which holds that Natalie Portman's character was sexually abused by her mother. It certainly puts the whole film in an entirely new light.

is that any interpretation that can be supported from the work is valid. I've given plenty of F's to papers that didn't meet the criterion, and a great many A's to students whose work was original and taught me something I hadn't considered before.

I also gave lots of F's for failure to document sources.

Just sheer curiosity--I stopped seeing grading rubrics for interpretating fiction half-way through high school.

The point is that mere opinion isn't enough.

I don't recall such formulaic evaluation methods in either the undergraduate or graduate courses I took.

but the schools where I've taught all require written/online course requirements and grading policies. They come in handy when you wind up in the Dean's office with a student who "thought he had an A" when every paper he's handed in has been a D or an F.

I've never heard of a school that allowed novels as documentary sources, myself. Interesting, indeed.

That said, when discussing fiction, it's usually customary to cite the work in question. Do you ding a student discussing King Lear if they quote from the play and include it as a source?

You admit to using Ishmael as an "influence" in your contention about the relationship between argriculturalists and pastoralists in the Middle East. You refuse to cite your other sources. The Red Tent, maybe?

"Do you ding a student discussing King Lear if they quote from the play and include it as a source?"

Not in a literature paper. Citing it as factual ancient Celtic history, or anthropology--I imagine profs in those disciplines might have some trouble with that.

I read Ishmael a little over ten years ago, and I don't think I even still own a copy. It is a provocative work, and it influenced the interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis I provided. In the time that has passed since, I have read many other works, non-fiction BTW, that both support and counter the ideas in Quinn's work.

If I were trying to pass off the agriculturist/pastoralist interpretation as correct or mine, my failure to cite corroborating sources would be a problem. Since I neither attempted to present Quinn's thesis as correct or mine, the problem doesn't exist. I merely presented it as a possible interpretation to challenge someone who presented their own literalist reading as sacrosanct.

Like I said earlier, the wonderful thing about fiction is that "there are an endless number of ways to interpret it, none more valid than any other."

Do you have any evidence that the stories in the Bible are anything more than poorly written and edited historical fiction?

You want to be more specific about which story? There's lots of them.

Do you have evidence that they aren't historical fiction, you know, like Gone With the Wind or The Court Martial of George Armstrong Custer?

Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed

John Dominic Crossan The Historical Jesus
God and Empire

Jonathan L. Reed Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus

B. S. J. Isserlin The Israelites

Susan Ackerman Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah

Baruch Halpern {i]The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History

And for those hung up on "parthenogenesis": John Shelby Spong Born of a Woman

Atlanta exists, the Civil War happened, therefore it is likely that Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara were real people and Gone With the Wind gives an accurate account of a period of their lives.

I've read a few of those already and none of them present the anything beyond the above analogy. What's more, Finkelstein and Silberman are Biblical minimalists, holding that the accounts in the Bible have little basis in fact, if any. That's an interesting citation in support of the notion that the Bible is historically accurate.

I may have missed it, but did you offer any evidence that the stories in the Bible are more than fiction?

None of them is a novel, and none of them relies on a talking gorilla.

While Finkelstein and Silberman are minimalists, they do corroborate what current archaeology will support. You might also see my posts in reply to edhopper in Peacetrain's very long thread.

No, I'm not going to summarize the evidence for each story one by one.

Remember: I never cited a novel, nor ever "relied" on a talking gorilla (the absurdity of that claim is beyond the pale).

I asked you if you had evidence that the stories of the Bible were "anything more than poorly written and edited historical fiction," and you provided a list of sources, none of which support the idea that "the stories of the Bible were anything more than poorly written and edited historical fiction," and at least one of which (I haven't read them all) concludes the opposite.

Like many others, when you can't address the ideas, you try to go after the source. Why else would you become so fixated on the false assertion that Ishmael is a source of mine, and on the absurd notion that Quinn's choice of a gorilla (which I think is a pretty good choice for providing an outsider perspective) is an important distinction to make. Here's something to think about, would you use the character as an ad hominem if he was a neopagan university lecturer?

I know your game. I've seen it before, once even by a student trying to defend his honors thesis that pre-Reformation Europe represented the most tolerant time in human history (I imagine he would have done well in your courses since he provided all of his sources, as quote-mined as they were), and I refuse to play along.

I've just provided you several thousand pages of discussion of the subject. How perceptive of you to know that "none of support the idea that 'the stories of the Bible were anything more than poorly written and edited historical fiction" without having read them. Finkelstein and Silberman, incidentally, do support quite a bit of the court history material about the northern kingdom of Israel, so you're wrong about that, too.

Giving a list of references is not providing "several thousand pages of discussion." You provided a list of eight books and while those references may spend several thousand pages discussing their various theses, that discussion was provided by the authors themselves, not by you.

I know you just can't wait for an academic "discussion" where I say something like "an example of the Bible's lack of credibility is highlighted by the Exodus narrative, of which Finkelstein and Silberman say, "the conclusion--that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible--seems irrefutable." provide a wonderfully formatted citation like (Finkelstein and Silberman, 63) You then respond with another quote from a different source, and back and forth until we've spent considerable time simply reviewing the work of others and saying how it supports our positions and getting nowhere because there's no 'right' answer in literature.

It's really an intellectually bereft way of discussing a subject because there's no thinking required when presenting the work of others.

If you want to discuss ideas, I'm open to that provided that you leave your straw men and ad hominem arguments at home.

It's well ended.

:crazy:

Ok, thanks.

The best you can come up with is to scoff at an idea because the author chose to have it presented by a telepathic gorilla? Weak sauce, Sal. That's almost as bad as insisting that language is static; the meaning of words doesn't over time or when adopted by another language.

How does the expression go? If you're going to use the superstitious ramblings of bronze-age goatherds as a source for contemporary ethics, please unplug your computer?

I'd be more than happy to read any academic sources you'd offered. Archaeology, Near East history....anything like that.

But a telepathic gorilla?

Silly me... I thought you only dealt with facts and actual evidence.

I was under the impression that you understand that characters in fiction merely voice the author's opinions. Apparently you missed that day at theology school.

Like I said, I thought you believed in facts and actual evidence.

Ishmael is neither.. it's the author's opinion.

If you've got academic sources, I'd be glad to read them.

If you can't address the author's opinion, which I summarized for you upthread, attacking the character he has deliver it must be the next best thing.

I am under zero obligation to support someone else's opinion. If you feel that there are facts that refute it, feel free to cite your sources.

You proposed the theory.

It's up to you to bring documentation to the table to support it.

You said "The pastoralist vs agriculturist theme saturates the early books of Genesis", so clearly it's not just the author's opinion, but yours as well.

I'd love to read about it...it sounds like an intriguing theory. But scholarship requires more than one author's opinion voiced through a telepathic gorilla.

It's interesting that you find it necessary to make mention of the author's choice of character. I'm reminded of a past thread where after acknowledging that you were repeating a lie, you continued to argue the false conclusions of that lie. Doubtless you can find scriptural support for your behavior.

As for sources, I don't have a list handy as it's something I explored a decade ago and don't regard it as much more than an interesting hypothesis. Why don't you apply some of your famed "scholarship" to the matter?

As to the early chapters of the Bible being "saturated" with pastoral vs. agriculture themes, a good place to start would be in Genesis 4, where a shepherd is favored over a farmer and the farmer then kills the shepherd in retribution. Of course this story can be about other things, but a conflict between pastoralists and agriculturists is apparent if you take Cain and Abel as representing their respective lifestyles. The anti-agricultural bias of the early Hebrews can be seen in God's preference for the gifts of the pastoralist. An easy way to ignore this theme is to read the story as a literal one about the first murder, a political one about the origins of adversaries of the authors, etc. Fiction can be read to say whatever you like.

(It is interesting to note that the Sumerians, an agricultural society, had their own myth about the same type of conflict with the roles reversed. Inana preferred the peaceful farmer to the beligerent shepherd. Look up "Inana prefers the farmer.")

Since you place a high value on that allegorical character, I assume that you 'treat others as you want them to treat you.' Accordingly, I'm simply behaving toward you in a manner consistent with your behavior toward myself and others on this forum over the past couple years.

Although I haven't quite mastered the art of disappearing for months at a time when pressed for answers...doing so isn't really my thing.

that your reading is correct. Your mixture of literal and metaphorical readings of biblical verses is supported currently by...rectal extraction?

If you study a work of fiction enough, you can use it to support any extant beliefs you have, and since believers make "God" in their own image, they can always rest assured that the all-powerful creator of the universe agrees.

The question was "Where in the Bible does it talk about God wanting us to protect the earth?"

My answer: Genesis 2:15 "The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it."

Seems pretty simple and straight forward...unless those words mean something different in your world.

Interesting.

I asked how you came to the decision to take this verse literally. How many times will you dodge that question, from multiple posters I might add, before you admit the clarity of the fact that there is no rhyme or reason to the "rightness" of your reading?

I don't think there was a real garden.
I don't think man was "placed" there.
Yet, I do think the overall sentiment of man learning to live in harmony with creation, tending and caring for it, is valid.

Got a problem with that?

I said that I don't take it literally above in this thread. Did you miss that or did you intentionally ignore it?

Do you have a point or are you just being argumentative or you really can't understand what I'm saying.

I've explained, numerous times, exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics. I'm not doing it anymore. You refuse to accept the word of theologians, and not only me, when discussing theology, instead accepting the words of neuroscientists and zoologists in theology simply because they fit in your box. I'm sure you'd call the landscaper to work on the supercollider, too.

I'm done discussing exegesis, eisegesis, and hermeneutics with you.

Explanation has never been your strong suit, and you default back every time we have this discussion to the simple and fallacious defense of "I'm a theologian, so there."

My point is simple. It is above, and it is what struck your nerves so effectively. You have no more support for the "rightness" of your reading than the theologians from other faiths that you disagree with. You have no more support for the "rightness" of your reading than anyone else who posts here. But feel free to tell us all again how your possession of a theology degree confers upon you the same level of understanding of the Bible as a physics PhD would of a supercollider. Your blind invocation of fallacy is always amusing, especially as it serves as yet another example of the angels on pinheads idiom.

That for something to be "right" there has to be unanimous agreement? Good luck with that. We'll just have to toss out, oh, art, literature, history, science, economics, etc. because, well, nobody has any more support for the 'rightness' of their interpretation than anyone else. No single field of study has 100% unity in belief, for lack of a better word.

Hell, why pursue an education at all? Why should people bother to spend time and money to become knowledgeable in any subject, then continue to become experts, especially when someone like you can come along and go "HAH! Someone says you're not right, so you can't be!"

My points are simple.

1. You claimed I took the verse literally. I did, and do not. You're wrong.
2. If my interpretation is wrong, then please, share with us YOUR interpretation. Enlighten us with your depth of knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Ancient Near East culture.

Subjectivism is the path to moral relativism which leads to the "At least we're not ________" arguments used to justify torture and other morally repugnant actions by people and states.

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Seems pretty simple and straightfoward too - but those words mean something different in your world, don't they?

Jeremiah chapter 2 verse 7 - I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable. (NIV)

As is usual, the suggestion is phrased as a complaint and a threat, but you get the point.

Imagine a world globe. In your mind's eye, color the overpopulated countries. Then color the strongly religious countries.

Then draw your best conclusion.

Pretty clear instruction from the Lord.

When mothers says "eat your dinner she doesn't mean to gorge until you are 500 pounds.

"Go forth and multiply, but not too much" You are using your reason and conscience to mitigated what the Bible says. As well you should. But the Bible does not say, "Go forth and multiply within reason."
Better to ignore the Bible all together and use your mind and reason to decide what is right.

there is more environmentally unfriendly architecture devoted to religious practice than for almost any other commercial enterprise .

If the practice of religion was understood by its adherents to be rooted in the earth how do you explain all those church spires and building drives? Have millions of believers been missing the point for two thousand years? Was the development of the groined vault and the flying buttresses just a minor detour on the way to oneness with the planet?

Religion has exploited the planet and the people on it as ruthlessly and efficiently as any other cultural tradition. How are adherents to any particular faith working to inspire the members that share their faith to abandon the existing infrastructure that they built and paid for?

While the communal practice of faith is unavoidable in any culture, and that unavoidability is rooted in its utility, any adherent to that faith has to assume responsibility for its failures as well as its successes. To do otherwise is merely blinkered propaganda.

Is it architecture or just religious architecture? If it is the latter that must include the Taj and the Parthenon--to name a couple. If it is the former there goes Disney Hall and the Sydney opera house. Or maybe you would include all religious music and art.
There goes most of the repertoire of the Philharmonic and the Louvre.

Of course the arts community has little or no political power in this country compared to religion. What is the ratio of art galleries to churches in this country?

After the enlightenment or so religion was no longer the only game in town when it came to artmaking. But no matter, religion leapt into the industrial revolution with both feet and now churches look like shopping malls. And most of them serve the same function.

If every major religion is "rooted in the earth" how do you explain the vast majority of religious imagery from the Sistine chapel to a tee shirt worn at a revival? Christianity is no more "rooted in the earth" than professional sports. Christianity is rooted in industrialized message distribution and for all ideological intents and purposes God is little more than the invisible hand of the marketplace.

The church hasn't led us anywhere for hundreds of years. It's been following the environmental gravy train just like everybody else.

The real question is how are those believers who practice their faith the way it should be practiced going to save us from their brethren and return religion to the source of hope and strength it once was?

recumbent on the earth from which he has just been fashioned, right? Michaelangelo's figures tend downward to the earth, even the ones that are allegedly airborne. They all show the effect of gravity in their massiveness. Despite the delicacy of facial features, the Pieta looks as immovable as a natural outcropping of marble. He got away from this style only at the very end of his life, in some unfinished pieces.

Look, too, at the land- and city-scapes and still lifes the Flemish masters incorporated into their Annunications and Nativities. Look at Girogione's Tempest, which is actually a Flight into Egypt, showing an almost nude Mary nursing her infant beside a flowing spring--an earth mother image if there ever was one.

It's not all della Robia angels. As for t-shirts, I'd just rather not look, thank you.

Adam is reaching toward God who ain't exactly in Cleveland. And it's painted on the ceiling.

I'm sure you'd rather not look at the tee shirts since they are the most fitting format for our most common understanding of religious practice.

Still waiting for that explanation. Hasn't every church ever built been constructed using contemporaneous technology and materials? Hasn't the architectural style reflected the taste of whatever cultural elite paid for it out of the pockets of people who could ill afford to concentrate such wealth among so few?

And now we have an OP trumpeting the virtues of "green construction" and claiming that was religon's plan all along. What a surprise. It's just another in a long line of religion's effort to dominate the spiritual lives of people who have discovered they can get the same thing from a minor leauge baseball game.

but he's also clearly bound to the earth, very much a part of it. As for being painted on the ceiling--sorry, there's less significance there than you think. Church and wealthy homes' ceilings were routinely painted from the Early Renaissance right through the Roccoco, many if not most with decidedly earthly (and earthy) themes. And since they were all painted on plaster, they were all painted diectly onto an earth substrate.

Well, of course, chuches tend to be built in the styles consistent with their time and place. For most of time and in most places, that meant relatively environment-friendly construction. There are some exceptions--lots of "immigrant Gothic" Catholic churches were built in the 19th century, along with a good many "Norman" Episcopal churches, and there are a couple in my city that follow the Wren model with architrave and spire--but that being true, it follows that modern churches are being built with more steel framing and less timber, more prefab concrete walls instead of stone or brick. And some, of course, are consciously "green," using adobe or straw-bale construction.

So--let's extrapolate, since you have such objections to consumption of resources in the building of churches by religious bodies. How do you feel about single-family dwellings, which probably represent the biggest and by far the most wasteful drain on resources in most communities?

can be summed up in four words: Up good. Down bad. The architectural development of churches express that upward, etherial, heavenly orientation. Church architecture, until recently because of scientific discoveries, has reflected anything but a concern for the environment. It has only shown an interest lately because it needs to try and regain relevance in a world full of people that have found a multitude of other ways to share their humanity.

Whatever interest the church may have in the environment is for its marketing potential. Christian theology has been used to inspire people to acts of good or ill for thousands of years. The current interest in being a good steward of God's creation is just another iteration in religion's effort to keep up with the times. The question is will they use the collective energy of the faithful to make a better world or make money?

The OP's effort to recast two thousand years of iconology to claim cultural market share on the latest threat to the human race would seem to indicate the latter.

As for the Sistine, please explain how a narrative that begins with creation and ends with the last judgement is meant to keep the faithful "rooted in concern for the earth".

The Church viewed and views the "downward" movement of the Incarnation as the defining intervention of God into human history. If you look at some of the Flemish Annunciations, you can see a tiny baby Jesus, already carrying his cross, descending a ray of light toward Mary, his own conception and ultimate death.

The same "downward" direction in the Easter Acclamation: "Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again." Come again to earth, that is--to institute the Kingdom of God, which is seen as not only the reign of peace and justice among humans, but a restoration of nature to the perfect form it possessed at the creation. (And just in case it's necessary--we're talking symbols here, not an endorsement of the literal reading of Genesis.) It's Isaiah's Holy Mountain, the lion and the lamb together, the snake with its venom drawn.

BTW, this is the real meaning of the so-called "rapture." The passage in which Paul says that believers will "meet the lord in the air" is firmly in the context of Christ's return to earth, not the context of the faithful being Hoovered up into heaven. What Paul is actually describing is the sort of delegation that would go out from the city gates to meet a visiting prince or other dignitary somewhat short of his arrival, then lead him back in a celebratory procession. In this case, lead the king back to earth and into a redeemed human and natural world.

As for the architecture, until fairly recently (say beginning in the 18th century and the Industrial Revolution) human beings had relatively little capacity to effect global changes in the environment. More damage was done by natural events such as volcanic eruptions than by smoke from human kitchens and fireplaces. Current church architecture addresses a whole different set of issues. Perhaps ironically in view of your post, it's the "prosperity gospel" groups who deny global warming that will not only create the largest carbon footprint but the largest bank balance.

Cutting and pasting is a pain from a phone.

So many Americans believe in heaven and hell you would have a hard time finding someone who didn't. What do you think the chances are of someone thinking hell was above and heaven below? And since we're using Michelangelo so much, he seems to think in terms of up and down as well.

Now, if current theological research thinks otherwise they need to get the message out because all that careful parsing and those obscure references are being swallowed up by the culture at large. Its probably because of religion's natural tendancy toward conservatism.

Of course I can't tell you how you feel, and if you want to interpret Scripture that way that's none of my business. But if you ask anybody where heaven is and they will point up. Ask where hell is and they will point down. And that includes most Christians whether they have read Dante or not.

One of the facilities in the image above is, I believe, Patrick Henry college, a school designed to train fundamentalist Christians for public office. I doubt those theologians who developed your understanding of ecclesiastical direction have a similar facility.

The fundamentalists get all our attention because they have too much money and power. If the Christian faith were half what it's cracked up to be we wouldn't have a fundamentalist Christian problem in this country. Any faith that can't police its own ranks any better than that isn't much of a faith.

Can religion be "fixed"? I doubt it. There's too much money to be made from people's emotions. They may be the only truly inexhaustible resource on the planet.

But if you and yours can turn it around more power to you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11770/eternal-destinations-americans-believe-heaven-hell.aspx

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo)

http://legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/060617/heaven.shtml

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm#salv

"Up" and "down" are shorthand remnants of an antiquated cosmology and don't seem to be related to "actual" locations in the sense they were for Europeans of Dante's era. It's kind of like an expression we have here on the border. "Where is X ranch/small town/turnoff/road?" If the respondent doesn't know exactly, the answer is likely to be a wave of the hand and "Pa' ya"--"Over there somewhere. That general direction. Maybe." Up and down for heaven and hell are "Pa' ya." "Somewhere not here."

"Any faith that can't police its own ranks any better than that isn't much of a faith."

So how do you propose this "policing" be done? What influence do you think Episcopalians or Methodists have on Southern Baptists or members of the Assembly of God? What should the liberals do--excommunicate the fundies? They aren't members of the same church anyway. BFD. Declare them heretics? Another BFD, though I have actually seen the "prosperity gospel" referred to in both speech and print as a heresy. Problem is, the fundies think the mainliners are heretics, too. It would be nothing but a pissing contest. (And never mind pagans like me--we have no standing whatsoever to "police" anyone else's faith, and wouldn't do it if we did. We don't even "police" our own.)

So what does that leave? Any kind of physical "policing" would require the power of the state. And that way lie inquisitions and other unpleasantness not allowed by our Constitution.

I was raised southern Baptist and have spent a lot of time around penticostals and other fundies. They believe in that shit. And there's a lot of them. As I recall the fundies are growing in numbers.

Like I said, I doubt it can be fixed. We just aren't very good at managing abundance, and religion has proven to be just as susceptible to the evils of wealth as any other social institution. I am willing to bet that if Constantine had decided to unify the Roman empire with paganism the result would still be the same.

It would help if we didn't have to listen to the virtues of religion at every turn. I get tired of hucksters trying to turn people's emotions into the source of a revenue stream.

I spent more time than I ever wanted to in a Southern Baptist church and Sunday school when I was a child, and we were never taught that heaven was "up there" or hell "down there." (Actually, we weren't taught much about hell at all, come to think of it.) Heaven and hell were places you couldn't go while you had a physical body, hence weren't physical places at all.

Religion has always been subject to the evils of wealth, or at least, organized, hierarchical religion has been. (Alexander VI, anyone?) I've never run into a Native American spiritual leader with an overflowing bank account, though.

when they were developed. Neither did Christopher Wren's church spires. They did, however, lay the theoretical and practical groundwork for a lot of later engineering and architecture, as did the finally successful attempt to get a dome onto the Duomo in Florence.

Now, tell me--how many Gothic cathedrals do you see under construction today? And what about the square footage of indoor malls, all of which are far larger and require far more constant cooling and heating than a church, not to mention huge impermeable surfaces for parking? How about courthouses, which usually include large open interior spaces that require climate control 5 days a week? A LOT of public architecture could be more environmentally responsible than it is. Your average "immigrant Gothic" church ain't even in the running.

All human activity has an environmental impact.

So--are you saying that 25% of all outsize, environmentally wasteful building projects are megachurches? Or that megachurches constitute the norm for new church construction? If so, let's see some actual stats.

how do you explain any church built in the last thousand years? Churches built in the modern era are no different from any other building. And those impressive cathedrals consumed both human and natural resources far beyond any utility they may have offered.

Styles of church building have changed radically over the last thousand years, and most churches built over that time are quite modest in size and consumption of resources. Until it became practical to ship large amounts of stone, lumber, etc., substantial distances, most drew and a growing number still draw on local materials. There's a charming little church in a small community some 30 miles from my home that was built out of local river sandstone, adobe and mesquite wood in the 1870's. Nothing could be more rooted in the earth more firmly than that building, or more beautiful.

As for the cathedrals, the people who built them were apparently satisfied that the resources invested were worthwhile. The buildings weren't just places to attend Mass, they offered venues for large civic functions, including Parliaments, in the days before dedicated government buildings. They provided refuge in time of trouble and offered the social services of the day, including education, medical treatment, and food for the poor. They also provided large numbers of paying jobs and trained artisans who would go on to employ their skills in secular architecture. They were churches, yes, but they served major secular functions as well.

used resources commensurate with any other structure - unless of course the church fathers could figure out a way to dominate the lives of people far beyond matters of spiritual concern. That's how we got those cathedrals. And the reformation. And all the bloodletting to defend the churches right to profit from dominating people's lives. As I recall the church owned about three fourths of Europe before people figured out how badly they were being screwed.

There is no reason to believe that the technological and cultural advances of the last two thousand years could not have been accomplished without a belief in a Christian God, right along with the brutality.

Religion is just a cultural tool among many. It's not special just because it's yours. Marketing spin like that found on the OP does nothing to help us make it relevant today.

n/t

n/t

gathered together in a shared experience using a particular set of customs and rituals in anticipation of a particular emotional result.

Is there any real difference between a revival meeting and "the wave" at a baseball game?

A dog show is a a "religious ritual?"

A tax-payer financed high school graduation is a religious experience--which should therefore allow prayer?

Unless we can mandate cheerleaders in church. "Gimmie a J!...".

All emotional attachments are not created equal. Religion has gotten a lot of people killed. That's why we have a first amendment. Bridge, not so much. Little leauge baseball and Canadian hockey-maybe.

Humans emotionally invest spontaneously because they were designed to. It feels good to cooperate. That's how we got indoor plumbing and ice in our Scotch. Since the advent if the division of labor and global travel religion has had a lot of competition for its claim on people's hearts.

Do you like to skydive? Jump motorcycles over buses? Rollercoasters? Scary movies? Your body does not distinguish between fear and excitement. You and I live in a culture that allows us to choose our actual level in the fear/excitement ratio. I think faith works the same way. It's not hard to imagine a Pepsi loving Christian Dodgers fan with a crush on Brad Pitt and a devotion to their alma mater. Our culture offers a myriad of choices in the placement of faith. Some call it brand loyalty. And in there somewhere religion has to find its market niche - which explains the success of prosperity Gospel.

But it's all the same stuff. Artists call it "content", and it's everywhere there are people.

to an extent that's not really supportable. Ritual is usually a component of religion, but it isn't the entire experience. I can't speak for you, but my feelings at ceremony bear no resemblance whatsoever to my feelings at, say, a City Council meeting (which are sometimes, frankly, close to murderous), or a sports event. Concerts and art exhibits have some of the same qualities, but are not a perfect match. I think the difference is that religious and aesthetic experiences tend to be inner-directed, while attention at the kind of public events you're talking about is outwardly-directed.

of an inner state. One is the reason for the other. For me, attending mass would be as meaningless as a football game since I'm not inspired by either. Many other peiple obviously are. A distinction of degree assumes measurmemt, which in the case of faith would require arts rather than sciences. You can make that distinction for yourself, but you could never empirically prove it to another. Is there any real difference between a martyr who dies for his faith and a soldier who dies for his country? Or between a witch hunt and raging Canadian hockey fans?

Attempting to empirically quantify an emotional experience in that way is like asking to borrow a cup of love. That's why we have art, literature, music and all the rest.

While the practice of faith is inner directed, the performance of ritual is the outer direction of the experience. From sitting Zen to high mass we imbue content (meaning) to everything and everyone around us - to one degree or another. Why else would we perform the rituals together if not for others to share?

Part of its function, in religion, is to facilitate the inner experience. Now whether this can be quantified, or "objectively" measured, I seriously doubt. It depends on individual self-observation.

Uhm, yes, there's a difference between a witch hunt and raging hockey fans. Whom did the hockey fans intend to murder? Nor is there a discernable parallel between hating someone because s/he's a social nonconformist and anger that one's favored team has lost a match. I don't think you really meant to draw an equivalency between breaking windows and breaking living bones, but it's the kind of pitfall into which overgeneralization can lead.

conducting experiments to test the tensile strength of glass. Exigent circumstances play a role. Those hockey fans probably live in a world that is pretty far removed from violence. Thats part of why it made the papers. If you'll recall hooliganism eventually became a real problem in Europe. Maybe they were a tougher crowd. But the motivation for the act, no matter what it is, remains the same. If it isn't rational, its arational. Both ways of thinking are useful and necessary for humans for good or ill.

Let's be clear on this. The motivation of a witchhunt is a desire to do murder.

Are you saying that the hockey rioters were in fact looking for someone to kill?

They were responding in an arational emotional way because if their dissapointment. Soccer hooligans took it further sometimes for less reason I expect. That's the non quantifiable (by empirical means) part of it. Dissapointment does not result in any specific response. But that half of the human experience can be measured. Shakespeare did a fine job of it. Michelangelo did well too.

I think the motivation of a witch hunt is rooted in personal offense that another is not inspired by a particular faith. That makes it a handy tool for controlling people. The result all too often is murder, but there were and continue to be any number of unfortunate results. But as always, one's faith can do just as much harm as good. Faith and religion should never be considered anything more than the tools they are.

of the victim(s) as "other." There were times when the otherness was specifically religious, but not always. Those who fell victim were usually social outsiders--old, cranky, ugly, eccentric, sharp-tongued, poor. Or, as in the Salem cases, they might have had something the instigators wanted, such as property.

It seems to me that religion has been a convenient tool for the labeling of " the other". There's always some asshole out there willing to use our herd instinct against us.

Apparently one they have decided to turn into a curse in the last century, or Christianity has at any rate. But for the last few thousand years almost all the beautiful, innovative and lasting buildings have had a religious origin (a few palaces and stately homes are quite nice, but even Versailles pales beside St. Peters). Ecologically friendly? Not especially I guess but when a building stands for centuries that's at least not as chronic a waste as rebuilding tacky concrete eyesores every few decades as tastes change.

My Catholic wife and I had very divergent opinions of the splendor of the Vatican when we went about 10 yrs ago. She thought it was the most embarrassing thing the church ever did - spending untold wealth on glorious buildings. My opinion is what other group ever created something that wondrous. They may have tithed the poor for generations to raise the money to build it, but nobody else would have. On a smaller scale even quite modest older (mid 19th Century and earlier) chjurches are almost always the most aesthetically pleasing buildings in town, and many many advances in architecture came from building cathedrals and church towers as well as tombs nd monuments globally. Even the widely and justly acknowledged most beaautiful building on the planet was built as a Muslim tomb.

Churches and temples themselves, art, and preserving Classical thought. For these things at least the world's major religions deserve credit.

Right on all points.

And the stuff they build now will never withstand the test of time (thankfully). As a physical manifestation of an ideal they certainly qualify as art and we still respond to them that way.

But that was a different time when people had a better understanding of spirituality and much less understanding if how faith could be the source of a revenue stream.

When I saw the Sistine I was profoundly moved on several levels. I was also appalled at the loutish behavior of the tourists who seemed unable to show even a little respect for one of the crowning glories of western art, not to mention the spiritual center for millions of Catholics all over the world.

Those cathedrals were built for the glory of god and the church hierarchy and in no way could their design be construed to be "rooted in a concern for the earth" as the OP asserts. As usual what begins as a community of people defining and supporting each other by the shared practice of faith sooner or later becomes a tool for the enrichment of the facilitators of faith. What began as art for God became power for the church.

And that change starts when some enterprising believer decides to leverage people's faith and good will for the aggrandizement of himself and his chosen faith. Careful resource management and green architecture are good for the human race and if the church decides that's a good thing it's because the people thought of it first. Not the other way around.

But that is not the actual case....

Wouldn't say it, and don't believe it. The Indian D.T. Niles said, "Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where they might find a bit of bread."

You did say you can't imagine anyone wanting to live in a world without the morality that comes from religion (not an exact quotation, but pretty close).

You toss in a few words in your OPs about people that don't believe, but it comes across as pretty falsely genuine. Take the "Nancy" thread. You say in your post that religion made her do it. MANY people pointed out that there is no proof for that. And even though you gave lip service in your OP to the fact that nonreligious can be good people, you interpreted that call for proof as "hostility" toward religion (when there was no indication of religion even in Nancy's website). So, yes, you CYA enough, but I really don't think you mean it.

You make a claim that what this woman does is solely motivated by religion. MANY people point out that other than your OP there is no support for this thought. Not even on the website you give us about her organization. And you refer to people calling BS on something you CAN'T substantiate "hostility"? You have GOT to be kidding me. You need to grow a thicker skin, sir.

Has anyone ever denied that religious people can do good things? Even denied that they can do good things because they think their god wants them to? If so they are blithering idiots who can be ignored. So why post many "religious person does something nice" threads? Is this trying to refute the "religious person does something nasty" threads? They admittedly are numerous and occasionally a bit of a stretch too I know, but there is a significant difference or two:

a) Most people generally don't do very nasty things. Not all that many do wonderful things either, but just generally do-goodinng like reducing ecological damage where possible is pretty standard. Shooting your kid because you think he is (or you are) the antichrist is a bit more news- or comment-worthy. The former is not the balance of the latter. Giving away all your wealth to the poor might be. Using LEDs and geothermal heat? Nope.

b) one of the most common claims of believers is that religion determines and drives morality. It's even in the language where the ideas are conflated - "that's mighty Christian of you" is a compliment on your niceness, not your faith. Pointing out then that Christians are nice is like pointing out rappers are misgynistic. It's part of the image and stereotype, so committed respectful monogamous rappers are worthy of commet. It's not a surprising tidbit when a 6'6"' tall black man can dunk a basketball (although I suspect the majority cannot - again stereotype <=> fact). It might be if a 5'6" Jewish guy could.

And on topic specifically, you are stretching it here. I don't know if you've noticed but your average person interacts with religion at the local church, not at academic seminaries. I have noticed all manner of things advocated on church billboards as I travel extensively - it's a diversion of mine to note them. Some of them are even good things like peace and helping the poor, although they are outnumbered by creepy, fearful or self-aggrandizing things I must say. I honestly can't recall one that had a "green" message. I'm sure it's happened, but a "cornerstone" should be a bit more obvious. If ecology is a major theme, they are keeping it a good secret.

I am not inclined to answer you or to deal specifically with the points you make. You are obviously someone who has thought about these things and I am nurtured by listening appreciatively to what you have to say. I take your thoughts seriously.

being rooted in a concern for the earth and not speculation about heaven. All evidence points to religion being very anthropocentric and not environmentally concerned. And most religions hold their followers with a promise of a better life for eternity if they are good here on earth.

I am always hearing about that "dominion over the earth" thingie as an excuse for using the earth and everything on the earth for our own purposes. You may suggest that one cannot separate Christianity from environmental concerns, but I can. And I do. The religion of Christianity does not appear to have any link to environmentalism.

And just try and keep a somewhat open mind. The major emphasis in progressive religious circles these days is the care of the creation. Thirty years ago the World Council of Churches had as its agenda, "Justice, Peace and The Integrity of Creation." Alas, we do a very poor job letting others know what we are about--and we are about quite a bit in this regard. Keep listening. Take a read to the end of my piece in R/T tomorrow

doesn't it bother you that the church keeps changing it's priorities and messages all the time. Hell, the Bible has been there forever, and I would expect that the message is the same today as it was fifty years ago...a hundred years ago...a thousand years ago. So isn't it apparent that the people who are leading the churches are leading you and all the other believers around wherever they want you to go?

I really believe in evolution. I believe in it for science. I believe in it for religion.

Every Christians that I have had contact with does the opposite, using the bible as a license to abuse any inferior being that he can profit by while denying that his actions can have any effect on the earth. Whatever tiny minority of saints there might be has no influence, and you would get yourself kicked in the ass if you got in the way. Sorry but your opinion has no connection with reality.

It is not a tiny minority. Our fault is in not getting what is going on out to the public. The World Council of Churches, The National Council of Churches, the basic theological Journals (The Christian Century for instance), every major seminary and congregations all over the map hardly constitute a tiny minority. Could it be that there are those who don't want to know because their prejudices are fixed in rock?

Do you recall a passage from the Bible where God gives humanity "dominion" over the Earth?

Having "dominion" over something means that you're free to do with it as you please--it's there for your enjoyment. I can't think of many attitudes more self-centered than the idea that the Earth and everything on it is ours by divine right.

I have to agree with you. I think you and I have little regard for the same kind of religion that grew out of a superstitious world view, and still seems to thrive. But please be aware of other things that are going on,and don't let your prejudices get in the way of listening.

My prejudices aren't in the way of me listening and I'm quite aware of the many other things going on.

Maybe, just maybe, you've misinterpreted my comment about how the "superstitious world view" that "still seems to thrive" contradicts the sweeping generalization that you made in your OP. You seem to have read it as a prejudiced statement indicating an ignorance of support for your position. On the contrary, it was a simple statement pointing out the problem with the sweeping generalization of your OP.

what you see as my "sweeping generalization."

Islam's explicit message, hell the very core of the religion, is that the only purpose of this life is to utilize it to gain access to heaven in the hereafter.

On Edit: I realize that is the purpose of Christianity as well but the OP is fond of slinging the "evolving religion" garbage. No such card can be played for Islam. The quran is literally the "word of god". End of story.

Same goes for Christianity, which is about salvation and divine forgiveness for sin.

What's more, my guess is that the OP would include Judaism as a "major religion" despite only representing a fifth of one percent of the global population.

Islam's core message is NOT to utilize this life to gain access to heaven.



Then there's also the Assisi Declaration on Nature, which contained statements from the five faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism)....but I'm sure you already knew that.