With environmentalism routinely attacked as "Green Religion",
By who? That's the first I've ever heard that phrasing or accusation.
I am prompted to ask where various Christians (and other religious) stand on issues like loss of biodiversity, climate change, environmentally destructive practices and the intersection of religion, ethics and environment.
It appears to me that (some) christians see earth as belonging to god and don't think that humans have the capacity to destroy it, so they don't really care about how they treat it. Others, it seems to me, want to make "armageddon" or the "end times" a self fulfilling prophecy. However, there are a number of christians that do care about this planet and realize that we are the caretakers and that we do have an impact, positive or negative, on Earth. They come in all shapes and sizes, colors and creeds. It is impossible to get a straight answer how "christians" feel on ANY given subject.
to believing that Jesus will only return when the world is alight with war, evil and environmental degradation - "After the Last Tree is Felled, Christ Will Come Back" (James G. Watt - Ronald Reagan's Interior Secretary) and therefore to be welcomed.
And those same people seem to gladly push for war with the middle east, or "brown people". Thus,t he self fulfilling prophecy.
Is climate change a sideshow or is is our response to it central to God's relationship to humanity?
What does one really have to do with the other? What does this god character have to do with weather? I thought that was Jupiter?
Will God intervene if we choose wrong or leave us and future generations to suck it up?
I am reminded of a quote from Rorshach:
quote:
If God saw what any of us did that night he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew... God doesn't make the world this way. We do.
And is God okay with influential religious voices counting themselves competent to do the assessing and making the choice on behalf of their flock, supplanting individual choice with their own?
If it did have a problem with it, it sure doesn't make it's opposition very clear.
Would that be a sin of the leaders or of the followers or both?
If we are accepting the premise of sin in the first place, I would place the burden on the leaders for lying, being deceitful or being misguided but spreading a message anyways. If they truly believe what they say, then they surely are delusional and that should absolve them from any wrongdoing in the eyes of a supposed loving god character.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
™ Version 4.2
(1)