|
Post by anfauglith on Feb 2, 2019 8:44:10 GMT -6
Hello together! I want to bring in a topic that bothers me for a while. It is the question about nature's place in the christian world view. From time to time I get to read the accusation somewhere, that the christian faith all together is anthropocentristic and would reduce nature to the role of being just there for humans. While I believe that it is in no way christian to start worshipping trees or seeing any part of nature as a deity, I don't feel comfortable with reducing it to "the thing that feeds us and by chance is in some way beautiful, but only to that extend that it points us to god". Do you think it is unbiblical to think that God may have created nature in it's own right? Not just for provide something, but also for just being there, following it's own rules? (I do think that of course nature is also there to provide us, the animals, everything, with the things we need) I don't really came to a solid conclusion so far. All I can say is that I don't like the way german protestantism is usually talking about nature. In that there is certainly this notion of "nature: our food automat", but also this kind of bad pathos (that in some kind is terrible unnatural for it is so eager to avoid anything that traditional would be associated with nature in germany: woods, fog, darkness, silence, the mysterious... it just makes a kind of post-68-post-hippie-jam of it... I can't describe it in word. You'd have to experience it.) How do you see nature? Are you enjoying it? What are your thoughts concerning biblical truth and loving nature? Feel fee to share anything.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Feb 2, 2019 11:04:17 GMT -6
Great topic! I had to research "anthropocentrism" myself a little more to understand what it is - as this is the first I've heard of it. As far as humans being the "center" of the universe, I would disagree. My reference to that would be Genesis 6:4, where it talks about the Nephilim. Many scholars and theologians have stated that the "sons of God" were angels. That's a pretty big title for them if we're actually "the center". I think as far as dominion over nature, I think people assume this from Genesis 2:19, where God brought EVERY animal to Adam for him to name. The real question is - did God have Adam name animals because humans are "in charge"? Or did God have Adam name animals so Adam would see his own creativity?
|
|
|
Post by anfauglith on Feb 3, 2019 6:02:46 GMT -6
where it talks about the Nephilim. I must confess that I never understood the whole story about the Nephilim. What are they supposed to be? When I visited a small bible group at our church regularly some years ago we once had that story. But it all went down in some philosophical blah blah about this "heroes of the past" and how nobody wants to be a hero blah blah... What is your idea of what to make of them, Thomas? I would love to collect some bible verses about nature to better understand the topic. It's always that thing... walking for example through a spring forest all alone and coming past a creek or a wellspring... for me it is alwas that special feeling like "That must be life!". I just can't believe god should have created that "thing" to test our ability to ignore it. Or just for humans to see and give praise. But that is my believe. It does not mean it is necessarily true.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Feb 3, 2019 10:58:31 GMT -6
I must confess that I never understood the whole story about the Nephilim. What are they supposed to be? Here's my take on it bro. The word Nephilim is translated in different versions of the bible as "giants". These giants were the children between the "sons of God" (fallen angels) and the "daughters of men" (human women). If you read further into Genesis, it talks about The Flood, and Noah and his Ark. I personally believe that's why God made the flood happen.... because many people weren't "human" anymore, they were cross-bred with these (fallen) angels, and they were also very destructive and sinful in God's eyes. Considering fallen angels are essentially demons, its not a stretch to say their "offspring" were "demonic". A little further down the rabbit hole... are you familiar with The Dead Sea Scrolls? If not - here's a nutshell. They were discovered on a cliffside close to the dead sea (by Israel) in the late 1940s. What these ancient scrolls (estimated to be written in 400 B.C.) were, is much of what we already have in the Bible today. ...but also, some other books not in the Bible. Book of Enoch (Enoch was Noah's grandfather) and also, the Book of Giants. These non-canon books expand on the Nephilim scenario. It alludes to the giants being CANNIBALS and "blood drinkers" - killing each other and humans. It alludes to them MATING WITH ANIMALS, which created "monsters" (I think these were dinosaurs and other scary "prehistoric" animals, perhaps there is truth to some mythological monsters - hydra, griffon, centaur, etc.) ...granted, a big chunk of that is considered to be conspiracy theory, but who knows what really happened back then. I think there must be SOME element of truth to it, considering these "ancient scrolls" were all together, much of which includes the truth we know from the Bible today. I would love to collect some bible verses about nature to better understand the topic. It's always that thing... walking for example through a spring forest all alone and coming past a creek or a wellspring... for me it is alwas that special feeling like "That must be life!". I just can't believe god should have created that "thing" to test our ability to ignore it. Or just for humans to see and give praise. But that is my believe. It does not mean it is necessarily true. When God created everything we know in this world, in Genesis, He states that it is "good". The angels (the non-fallen ones) also rejoiced in His creation. It is not written anywhere (to my knowledge) that He created a diverse nature for people.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Feb 3, 2019 12:49:25 GMT -6
because many people weren't "human" anymore, they were cross-bred with these (fallen) angels It alludes to them MATING WITH ANIMALS, which created "monsters" (I think these were dinosaurs and other scary "prehistoric" animals, perhaps there is truth to some mythological monsters - hydra, griffon, centaur, etc.) Something else I want to mention here that I briefly mentioned in another thread in regards to angels and "technology".... Again, this is in the same conspiracy wheelhouse, but I think what the ancient people then perceived as "reproduction" could actually be a type of genetic manipulation using technology and advanced sciences. Obviously, primitive people wouldn't have an understanding of "gene splicing" back then. They probably saw "all the freaks" and thought they were reproduced from watchers naturally. ("The Watchers" is a term used in the Book of Enoch for the (fallen) angels.) This to me fills in the gaps regarding WHY angel genetics/DNA seem so compatible with both people and animals. Maybe it wasn't some down and dirty yum-yum-bouncy-bounce.... but maybe a done in "a lab" ala "mad scientist". Again, this is speculation on my part. I welcome being proven otherwise and other theories as explanations.
|
|
|
Post by jazzhead on Feb 4, 2019 14:55:48 GMT -6
Really interesting thread! “Then shall the trees of the forest sing for joy before the Lord, for he comes to judge the earth.” 1 Chronicles 16:33 ESV
I think there's another verse somewhere about rocks crying out too. I have spent a lot of time hiking the White Mountains here in NH, and I am a firm believer that God inhabits the rocks, trees, wind, etc. He created it all! I've seen some views from mountaintops and deep within dark forests that just stopped me in my tracks and took my breath away. As a human, I felt so absolutely insignificant and tiny. But as a Christian, I felt in awe of my creator and the fact that He made all of creation, yet still loves ME as His child! That's just amazing to me.
|
|
|
Post by jazzhead on Feb 4, 2019 15:08:38 GMT -6
down and dirty yum-yum bouncy-bounce? Thank you for a good laugh Thomas Eversole ! Gotta tell my wife that one...
|
|
|
Post by nocturnaliridescence on Feb 4, 2019 17:52:09 GMT -6
Do you think it is unbiblical to think that God may have created nature in it's own right? God created nature before He created mankind, and -- not having mankind around to rule over it -- still said that it was "good". Thus mankind isn't a necessary "part" of nature, in order for it to be considered "good" according to a holy viewpoint. Animals have the breath of life, the same that God breathed into mankind. The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.However, remember also that Jesus cursed a fig tree. I do not know with any certainty why He did this, but commentaries say that this was done to symbolize wrath that will befall people, who bear "leaves"/outward beauty and goodness, but do not bear "fruit"/righteousness in their lives. Either in a general sense (including such people today), or in reference to the Pharisees, and other hypocrites among the Jews of ancient Israel. It is important to recognize, that a fig tree was permitted to be used in such a demonstration. (For example, Jesus could have just described a fig tree, instead of using a real tree). ...................... Although, animals were used in a symbolic vision that was given to Peter. In the vision, Peter was permitted to kill and eat the animals. However, the only reason he was permitted to do this was because they were "clean" (in a ceremonial context), which is a good thing to be. Also keep in mind Matthew 6:26. God cares about, and cares for, the animals of the wild. However, human beings are above them in God's terms. (animals -> humans -> angels -> deity). Personally this is something I struggle with, a bit. I was never a "pagan", but paganism did play a significant role in what my past beliefs would eventually become. And while I never idolized nature, I did have a lot of beliefs that caused me to put nature on a very high pedestal, certainly higher than I should have put it in a theocentric universe. In terms of the Christian life, I would say, it ultimately comes down to personal conviction. When I was first born again, I impulsively denounced nature altogether. It was one of those "this thing is bad, so I'll just jump to the complete OPPOSITE thing". I believed that the reason I was so misled regarding nature, was because nature itself was "corrupt" in some way (I can't remember what this was called -- it WASN'T gnosticism) and so I avoided nature, for the most part. I truly believe I needed this time. (In fact, God may have given this to me as a teaching moment.) It showed me how I was still clinging to my old ideas of purity -- that purity could be restricted to places or situations, and not the power of God. I wouldn't say I went so far as to "idolize" things that weren't nature, but I did lean far too much on them, clinging to them, instead of clinging to the knowledge that God reigns supreme over everything. Nowadays, I have a much healthier view, somewhere in the middle. I can appreciate nature, with enough knowledge and experience to not let it become a spiritual stumbling block for me. However, if some people do view nature entirely in a theocentric context, I don't think they're wrong at all. In a society so corrupted by paganism, especially western Europe, I think it's totally fair for people to view nature as a stumbling block. Maybe some of them are overreacting like I did in the past -- but I don't know, of course. Meanwhile, there are people who can live entirely off of nature, surrounded by animals and trees, and not be spiritually affected by it at all. All three views can be right, if viewed through a desire to do God's will. I would also say that nature is beautiful to point us to God... However, that isn't necessarily its only purpose. Like I said above with Genesis, nature was still beautiful and good before mankind existed, and before mankind fell and needed to be pointed back to God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2019 16:51:52 GMT -6
I like what NI had to say about this. It is indeed true that humans are above animals and plants by God's design. However, part of having dominion over the earth means being good stewards of it. We shouldn't destroy nature and should make efforts to take care of the earth. However, I am by no means an environmentalist in the modern idea of that word.
Ultimately, I don't think the Bible is anthropocentric or "creation-centric" or anything like that. It's theocentric.
|
|
|
Post by anfauglith on Feb 9, 2019 12:13:03 GMT -6
Thank you all so far for your thoughts! Especially your sharing of the verses about the breath of live and your thoughts about nature being older as mankind, nocturnaliridescence, have been very helpful for me. However, I am by no means an environmentalist in the modern idea of that word. Asking that might be a bit away from topic but being the thread starter I think it is okay to do that... Would you mind share some thoughts about that, @crimsonwarrior? I ask because I would consider myself some kind of "environmentalist", but also not in the classical sense, because I think there are some serious philosophical differences between the common environmental thinking person here and my outlook on life and the world. I agree with you about the bible being theocentric, but as we are for some reason destined to life in this world I think it is important that scripture not only teaches us about God but also inspires us how to live our lifes according to his will. I can only talk for myself in that, but I am constantly confronted with things and questions I never planed to be confronted with. And having a godly help in that is a great and important thing for me.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Eversole on Feb 9, 2019 15:37:10 GMT -6
I ask because I would consider myself some kind of "environmentalist", but also not in the classical sense, because I think there are some serious philosophical differences between the common environmental thinking person here and my outlook on life and the world. @crimsonwarrior may answer differently, but I do have a response regarding this, based on what I've observed. In the US, there's a stigma attached to "environmentalists" - that they are people who chain themselves to trees to prevent loggers from cutting them down, try to sink boats that are harpooning whales, scolding people who eat meat or even forcing their pets to conform to a vegan diet. (speaking of forcing pets to a person's lifestyle - #vegancat exists on twitter. Go look at the insanity there. These are people who don't want to open a "can of murder" for their pet, because they themselves are vegan. Actually, I take that back - don't look at it. You'll want to throw something after seeing the fur covered cat-skeleton captioned "Mr. Rainbow enjoying his cauliflower rice!") There's also a political stigma as well. The "far left" in the US seems to think that we're about 12 years away from living in an environmental catastrophe. Myself, I certainly care about the environment. If I saw someone just turning the ground or a body of water into a trash can, I'd definitely do something about it... but I'm not going to rally people to stop driving vehicles because I think we won't have an atmosphere in 12 years because of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:02:21 GMT -6
|
|