• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genesis and the Natural World

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
This is a quote from Genesis in the Bible that i heard read whilst watching David Attenborough’s newest TV programme 'Charles Darwin The Tree of Life' in commemoration of his 200th anniversary.

And God said Adam and Eve, be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the foul of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth.

As far as the Bible is concerned, this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish.
With so much of the Bible's content being made redundant on factual claims, many cling to its value in terms of moral teaching. I would challenge someone to show me how this sentence is anything but shameful and morally reprehensible in terms of guidance on how to treat the natural world.

Alex
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
This is a quote from Genesis in the Bible that i heard read whilst watching David Attenborough’s newest TV programme 'Charles Darwin The Tree of Life' in commemoration of his 200th anniversary.


As far as the Bible is concerned, this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish.
With so much of the Bible's content being made redundant on factual claims, many cling to its value in terms of moral teaching. I would challenge someone to show me how this sentence is anything but shameful and morally reprehensible in terms of guidance on how to treat the natural world.

Alex[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]


it was written for ancient man in ancient times.

that has nothing to do with how modern man would do such a thing. Its not even in the same ballpark as the ancients.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
it was written for ancient man in ancient times.

that has nothing to do with how modern man would do such a thing. Its not even in the same ballpark as the ancients.

Of course, written for ancient man in ancient times by ancient man himself.
I'm leaving it open ended in the OP to see whether people see this quote as reflecting:

1. 'Ancient man' as you put it
2. God, if that is their maintained belief and subsequently what they then make of such a God.
3. Its relevance today in terms of valuable and defendable reading.

Alex
 

outhouse

Atheistically
'Ancient man' as you put it

yes, obvious at that.


God, if that is their maintained belief and subsequently what they then make of such a God

I have no valid input there.


Its relevance today in terms of valuable and defendable reading

worthless for modren man as todays meaning would constitute enviromental war.

easy to defend in that it was for ancient man to exploit.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
As far as the Bible is concerned, this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish.
No, as far as you are concerned, "this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish". I can almost guarantee that you've attained this perspective without ever availing yourself of informed commentary on the verse in question. You simply see what you want to see.

For those less driven by a petty desire to denigrate the Torah ...
  • The NICOT Commentary notes: "For reasons already indicated, it appears unlikely that we need to transfer the nuance of force and dictatorship into the use of 'kabas' in Gen. 1:28. Probably what is designated here is settlement and agriculture; 'subdue the land' in ch. 1 is a semantic parallel to 'till and keep the land' in 2:5,15."
  • It is also noteworthy that the new JPS translation uses "master" to "subdue".
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
No, as far as you are concerned, "this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish". I can almost guarantee that you've attained this perspective without ever availing yourself of informed commentary on the verse in question. You simply see what you want to see.

For those less driven by a petty desire to denigrate the Torah ...
  • The NICOT Commentary notes: "For reasons already indicated, it appears unlikely that we need to transfer the nuance of force and dictatorship into the use of 'kabas' in Gen. 1:28. Probably what is designated here is settlement and agriculture; 'subdue the land' in ch. 1 is a semantic parallel to 'till and keep the land' in 2:5,15."
  • It is also noteworthy that the new JPS translation uses "master" to "subdue".


Its quite interesting you bring up some examples of issues of translation and understanding, i will look into it for sure.

I would still hold some defense to how i read and interpreted it, and would actually like to ask if you have any more detail as to what supports some of the examples you used from the NICOT Commentary as to their validity as interpretations beyond a simple interpretation as was mine.

But seperate from that, my underlying point is in voicing my concern over such a text as it exists in the world of today. With it as a book still conducting a huge following, how its grand claims of source and authority, coupled with its nature of not readily adopting change, and as a source of moral teaching and inspiration for many, i wonder if it does more harm than good, and whether to belittle the modern mans interpretation really defends its unchallenged continuation.

Alex
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
yes, obvious at that.




I have no valid input there.




worthless for modren man as todays meaning would constitute enviromental war.

easy to defend in that it was for ancient man to exploit.


True that by todays standards its morally 'worthless', but that’s contingent on us knowing better anyway. And as a claimed source of morality, a claim still held by many, i wonder what people have to say about it.

Additionally, ancient man could and prob was morally incorrect about many things, so as to its appropriateness for the ancient people based on its temporal creation/existence, it still might not have stand-alone moral weight even back then. Especially if one believes it to originate from God, its lack of foresight and self-serving nature is worrisome.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses

Ah cool, interesting, i will have a little read in depth later, but glanced at the wiki for now. :D

I seem to agree with White really. I think religion has a powerful effect on people, especially through the ages, and with regards to the quote as an example, to me seems to echo an exploitative self serving relationship with the natural world, of course with the rebuttal being the interpretation of it being more of a 'stewardship', it seems at a minimum far from clear enough as a guidance to how to live regarding such an important issue.

What do you think?
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
This is a quote from Genesis in the Bible that i heard read whilst watching David Attenborough’s newest TV programme 'Charles Darwin The Tree of Life' in commemoration of his 200th anniversary.


As far as the Bible is concerned, this seems to give the green light for humanity to exploit the natural world as they wish.
With so much of the Bible's content being made redundant on factual claims, many cling to its value in terms of moral teaching. I would challenge someone to show me how this sentence is anything but shameful and morally reprehensible in terms of guidance on how to treat the natural world.

Alex
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
To this day humanity exploits and administrates the natural world. we have domesticated anything from the wolf and the cow to corn, thousands of years ago. in Mesoamerica, in the Near East and in China.
For any reason that you still choose to focus on the Bible in this regard, must be the same reason that the Bible will always be central to human civilization, and its effect over human civilization will still echo forever.
the bible is part of human culture and literature, a critique of such approach over the Bible, will also have to criticise EVERY other aspect of human culture, which on a whole has been moving steadily through the ages from domestication and agriculture, to central power, and eventually the large scale consumerism we have to day.
if I were you I would focus on the real symptoms of this, such as real redundant social trends, and of consumerism.
in this regard, the Bible is a blessing which holds the pinnacle of human morality and literary works as it evolved in the Near East and the Levant and during Hellenistic and Roman times.
It is no surprise that scholars through the years have said that our culture is derived from Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. it certainly isn't derived from McDonalds and the Survivor season 24.
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
Additionally, ancient man could and prob was morally incorrect about many things, so as to its appropriateness for the ancient people based on its temporal creation/existence, it still might not have stand-alone moral weight even back then. Especially if one believes it to originate from God, its lack of foresight and self-serving nature is worrisome.


I dont find it morally wrong for the time it was written.

Looking at its allegorical nature and A new expanding culture still in its infancy of creating its religion and wanting the culture to prosper. It was very appropriate at that time. Its moral weight at that time was very much in line perfectly with the culture at hand.

You had no issue of overpopulation and that culture needed numbers that would ensure its survivability and add power to the people for future conflict.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
I dont find it morally wrong for the time it was written.

Looking at its allegorical nature and A new expanding culture still in its infancy of creating its religion and wanting the culture to prosper. It was very appropriate at that time. Its moral weight at that time was very much in line perfectly with the culture at hand.

You had no issue of overpopulation and that culture needed numbers that would ensure its survivability and add power to the people for future conflict.

True, and i didnt mean to say that it wasnt morally defendable for the time, only that it might not have been ideal even then, with room for improvement as with all human thinking. The fact it was thought and written doenst exempt it from some criticism, just as some things said and done today or anytime for that matter.

Im not denying its sensibility if it was written by man, (which of course i think it was) but in context of its claimed word of God origin, and what people who maintain that belief might say.
 

Noaidi

slow walker
What do you think?

I agree with outhouse above. It may have been appropriate for its time, but to still hold the view today that we should have dominion over Nature is outmoded and dangerous. Even the concept of stewardship grates on me a little, as it implies that Nature needs our guiding hand. It doesn't. Nature requires us to back off, reduce our resource consumption and stop breeding.
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
To this day humanity exploits and administrates the natural world. we have domesticated anything from the wolf and the cow to corn, thousands of years ago. in Mesoamerica, in the Near East and in China.
For any reason that you still choose to focus on the Bible in this regard, must be the same reason that the Bible will always be central to human civilization, and its effect over human civilization will still echo forever.
the bible is part of human culture and literature, a critique of such approach over the Bible, will also have to criticise EVERY other aspect of human culture, which on a whole has been moving steadily through the ages from domestication and agriculture, to central power, and eventually the large scale consumerism we have to day.
if I were you I would focus on the real symptoms of this, such as real redundant social trends, and of consumerism.
in this regard, the Bible is a blessing which holds the pinnacle of human morality and literary works as it evolved in the Near East and the Levant and during Hellenistic and Roman times.
It is no surprise that scholars through the years have said that our culture is derived from Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. it certainly isn't derived from McDonalds and the Survivor season 24.


Good points, and my target in this thread is not meant to illustrate my total disregard for all else that constitutes factors and variables in a growing civilization, but rather as one thing to mention, due to me seeing it recently, and wondering what people might make of such a passage.

Im not one to deny or inappropriately criticise history and heritage, but there’s a difference in how one can look at something like this, be it with the historians hat on or the believers hat on.
My point is, that might such text not be appropriate as a guide in todays age, given that so many people indeed see it that way, and as such there is some responsibility to adopt some reasonable change?
As a historical document its one thing, but as a claimed supernatural moral guideline is it defendable?

Alex
 

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
I agree with outhouse above. It may have been appropriate for its time, but to still hold the view today that we should have dominion over Nature is outmoded and dangerous. Even the concept of stewardship grates on me a little, as it implies that Nature needs our guiding hand. It doesn't. Nature requires us to back off, reduce our resource consumption and stop breeding.


Yeah that’s quite sensible, but i guess i would push the point that many claim the origin of morality to be from God (of course im not including you there :p ), but to respond appropriately to such text today and in modern times one already needs a moral sensibility to be that judge. Of course i disagree with a supernatural origin to morality anyway.

So here it fails to be a moral guide in that supernatural sense, and its unfortunate how many people still believe it is. And in that sense i think it likely does some harm even today rather than just being a harmless historical document that can be sensibly reviewed by all.

Alex
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
Good points, and my target in this thread is not meant to illustrate my total disregard for all else that constitutes factors and variables in a growing civilization, but rather as one thing to mention, due to me seeing it recently, and wondering what people might make of such a passage.
I don't think that I can take passages out of a whole text. or take certain passages and separate them in order to project on them.
A simple fact is that humanity administrates this planet. this is a fact. we administrate nature. and every botanist, or biologist will agree that once we have started this process we cannot reverse it, or even stop doing it.
The Bible is a great testament from one of the most important regions in the world, where some of the earliest forms of domestications took place, where the Neolithic transition took place, as we know it. and otherwise where some of the notable administrations and priesthoods emerged.
When we talk about the Bible, it is amazing that it suppressed other fine literary works from the Near East, including Egyptian literature, the Babylonian literature, and various incarnations of Sumerian poetry.
To this day, I can read the Bible and be greatly impressed by the achievements of its scribes and lyricists. EVEN when they talk about morality.
perhaps if Egyptian literature and civilization were considered to be a foundation of Western civilization, it would be the Egyptian wisdom literature which we would have criticised in this thread, I don't really know.

Im not one to deny or inappropriately criticise history and heritage, but there’s a difference in how one can look at something like this, be it with the historians hat on or the believers hat on.
My point is, that might such text not be appropriate as a guide in todays age, given that so many people indeed see it that way, and as such there is some responsibility to adopt some reasonable change?
As a historical document its one thing, but as a claimed supernatural moral guideline is it defendable?

Alex
Now that you put this thread in this context. its easier to relate to it in some way.
I do not think one has to breath supernaturalism into Scriptures in order to grasp their richness, be it the Vedas or Hebrew literature.
However, I still think a key point here is that as a whole, human society is a culture of consumption which lives off the fruits of nature. and I think that the Bible is actually a positive breath of fresh air when is not read with an antagonistic approach.
but if you post the original idea that you respond to, perhaps we can give more elaborative answers.
 
Last edited:

Alex_G

Enlightner of the Senses
I don't think that I can take passages out of a whole text. or take certain passages and separate them in order to project on them.
A simple fact is that humanity administrates this planet. this is a fact. we administrate nature. and every botanist, or biologist will agree that once we have started this process we cannot reverse it, or even stop doing it.
The Bible is a great testament from one of the most important regions in the world, where some of the earliest forms of domestications took place, where the Neolithic transition took place, as we know it. and otherwise where some of the notable administrations and priesthoods emerged.
When we talk about the Bible, it is amazing that it suppressed other fine literary works from the Near East, including Egyptian literature, the Babylonian literature, and various incarnations of Sumerian poetry.
To this day, I can read the Bible and be greatly impressed by the achievements of its scribes and lyricists. EVEN when they talk about morality.
perhaps if Egyptian literature and civilization were considered to be a foundation of Western civilization, it would be the Egyptian wisdom literature which we would have criticised in this thread, I don't really know.


Now that you put this thread in this context. its easier to relate to it in some way.
I do not think one has to breath supernaturalism into Scriptures in order to grasp their richness, be it the Vedas or Hebrew literature.
However, I still think a key point here is that as a whole, human society is a culture of consumption which lives off the fruits of nature. and I think that the Bible is actually a positive breath of fresh air when is not read with an antagonistic approach.
but if you post the original idea that you respond to, perhaps we can give more elaborative answers.


Ok fair enough, i dont disagree with anything you say really, its very sensible.
But i still think that as a piece of religious text, its interpretation by some is unfortunately literal, which is one issue i have with the mentality that does go along with much of organised religion. Its in the context of this status i worry about the content. I have a lot of time and respect for the richness of literature of old, and as you touched on, supernatural elements need not enter the picture to appreciate them. But i think they often do, and its in this context i raise concern.

Alex
 
Top