(no subject)
Interesting conundrum in environmental theology, in hideously glossed-over form:
1) Mankind is supposed to have an inherently sinful nature.
2) Mankind is told to multiply and replenish the earth.
3) What kind of an earth does that leave us?
Yeah, I know. It's not like that, for any number of reasons. But it is interesting that, at least here in Utah, the stereotype of the environmentalist is one of some hippie and/or atheist interloper from the metropolitan world (SLC, New York, San Francisco, Hollywood), while the mining/timber/livestock/four-wheeler interests so often line up with religious interests.
Local-debate myopia aside, the absence of any (mainstream) religious-environmental argument is striking....
1) Mankind is supposed to have an inherently sinful nature.
2) Mankind is told to multiply and replenish the earth.
3) What kind of an earth does that leave us?
Yeah, I know. It's not like that, for any number of reasons. But it is interesting that, at least here in Utah, the stereotype of the environmentalist is one of some hippie and/or atheist interloper from the metropolitan world (SLC, New York, San Francisco, Hollywood), while the mining/timber/livestock/four-wheeler interests so often line up with religious interests.
Local-debate myopia aside, the absence of any (mainstream) religious-environmental argument is striking....