/lit/ - Literature

>>16411556
You're reading the bible wrong if you think that. Drop all that poisonous gnostic influence before you try to understand what's going on.

>>16411556
God created "nature." Everyone that believes in Him know this.

> How come christianity has shown so little appreciation for nature?

> picture of the Saint who literally preached to the birds

>>16411556
>t. Only understanding of Christianity is Protestantism.

Do the Gnostics hate nature or something?

I love Nature. I dream of conservative government that's main goal is to protect nature. I don't know why the church and the majority of the right don't care about a the environment.

>>16411639
he's the only exception

>>16411556
because its jewish

>>16411556
The German Idealists and Poets of the 18th and 18th century perfectly express the Christian love of and imminence in nature.

>>16411556
How come whenever I try to post a picture it doesn't work?

>>16411646
Money.

>>16411750
Explain, honey.

>>16411764
When I post text only it shows up in a thread, but when I try to post with a photo it doesn't show up.

>>16411556
Earth is an anteroom to those who need an afterlife to console them after the hardships of life.
The nature loving christians are an odd and tolerated subset. “Wow, goly-gee! Lookit all the neat stuff god made in seven heckin days!” The “intellectuals” of the church hate life. You don’t have to be gnostic, this is just the childish worldview of any afterlife believer.

>>16411646
Yes, this is because hundreds of years ago some Greek was walking home after fucking a boys thighs. He kicked a thorny bush, and having no protection because he was wearing sandals, yelped and hopped in pain. This caused him to fall off one of Greece's many cliffs and break his coccyx. Bedridden, he devoted the rest of his life to saying nature is bad.

>I don't know why the church and the majority of the right don't care about a the environment.
Shitposting aside, this is is a very hard question to summarize. Much more educated people could write volumes on this subject. But from my understanding this mainly stems from a reaction against the hippie movement of the 1960s. Before this most leftists and liberals were not very environmentally conscious. They favored the use of nature for man's benefit -- Pinchot's conservation vs. Muir's preservation.
>Their friendship ended late in the summer of 1897 when Pinchot released a statement to a Seattle newspaper supporting sheep grazing in forest reserves. Muir confronted Pinchot and demanded an explanation. When Pinchot reiterated his position, Muir told him: "I don't want any thing more to do with you." This philosophical divide soon expanded and split the conservation movement into two camps: the preservationists, led by Muir; and Pinchot's camp, who co-opted the term "conservation." The two men debated their positions in popular magazines, such as Outlook, Harper's Weekly, Atlantic Monthly, World's Work, and Century. Their contrasting views were highlighted again when the United States was deciding whether to dam Hetch Hetchy Valley. Pinchot favored damming the valley as "the highest possible use which could be made of it." In contrast, Muir proclaimed, "Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people's cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the hearts of man."[45]
Anyways, the right began to take more after Picnhot's ideas due to liberals increasing urbanization and disconnection with ancient practices like hunting and fishing. Hunters obvious enjoy the use of firearms, which makes them natural enemies of most gun control legislation. The issue further splits when environmentalists arrive, often they're anti-hunting, anti-firearm, and paradoxically both big and small government advocates. Furthering this, most hunters are religious people who live in rural areas (or are a generation or two removed, now living in suburbia). The big issue of abortion drove these people into the arms of the Republican party -- who have ever since paid lip-service to conservative religious groups. This all results in a horrible soup because the Republican party is ultimately the party of industrialists. Essentially it's the oil&gas party wearing modest clothes and holding a rifle (the democrats are wearing a tube top and holding a dildo).

>>16411796
Check your file type. You using a phone?

>>16411556
It is a well-known fact that Christ is the anthropocosmos and died for all creatures. Man is the symbolique Metaxu it is the middle point and center of creation, that is why Christ was Incarnated, it encompasses the whole creation. Man extends from Intellect (angelic) to sensual, animus, and corporeal (the rest of creation until the most elementary particle).

>>16411811
I thought it was the file type because I first noticed it with a .png, so then I started trying .jpegs but the same thing happens. I'm using a computer not a phone.

>>16411556
I don't think Christianity is unappreciative of nature. In fact, the concept of stewardship is rather central to the biblical narrative. Sure, Christians don't worship nature, because we believe in a natural hierarchy wherein Creator precedes creation, and we also believe that nature has been damaged by our sin, but we still believe creation is glorious, worthy of our rational, aesthetic, and spiritual consideration. However, if by "appreciation" you mean something along the lines of the "appreciation" held by radical environmentalists, or deep ecologists, or whatever, then, well, I'd just say that we have different ideas about what it means to be appreciative of nature.

>>16411713
>St Anthony Abbot
>St Cuthbert
>St Hubert
>St Columba
>St Basil the Great

Many other examples.

>>16411824
Sometimes I run into “corrupted” images. I just take a snapshot of it, making a new file.

>>16411888
Yeah. I did something like that by screen capping the image I wanted to post and saving it as another file but it still didn't work. Weird.

>>16411556
there's a reason monasteries are built in the fucking woods you clown.

christian philosophy is pretty adamant about how nature is gods creation and should be respected

>>16411556
I'm no scholar but I imagine its to distance itself from any early religions (specifically Greek) that related certain aspects of nature to the gods; this could be seen as idolatry and would therefore be a sin.

>>16411713
>who are the Franciscans

Nature is the sacred temple of God, we are given the task of rejuvenating and watching over it. Nature cannot be anything but a pure expression of the divine will.

>>16413273
This
Worshipping nature and natural forces is something pagan barbarians do.
Nature-worship=Barbarism

>>16411556

J’aime l’âne si doux
marchant le long des houx.

Il prend garde aux abeilles
et bouge ses oreilles;

et il porte les pauvres
et des sacs remplis d’orge.

Il va, près des fossés,
d’un petit pas cassé.

Mon amie le croit bête
parce qu’il est poète.

Il réfléchit toujours.
Ses yeux sont en velours.

Jeune fille au doux coeur,
tu n’as pas sa douceur:

car il est devant Dieu
l’âne doux du ciel bleu.

Et il reste à l’étable,
fatigué, misérable,

ayant bien fatigué
ses pauvres petits pieds.

Il a fait son devoir
du matin jusqu’au soir.

Qu’as-tu fait jeune fille?
Tu as tiré l’aiguille...

Mais l’âne s’est blessé:
la mouche l’a piqué.

Il a tant travaillé
que ça vous fait pitié.

Qu’as-tu mangé petite?
-T’as mangé des cerises.

L’âne n’a pas eu d’orge,
car le maître est trop pauvre.

Il a sucé la corde,
puis a dormi dans l’ombre...

La corde de ton coeur
n’a pas cette douceur.

Il est l’âne si doux
marchant le long des houx.

J’ai le coeur ulcéré:
ce mot-là te plairait.

Dis-moi donc, ma chérie,
si je pleure ou je ris?

Va trouver le vieil âne,
et dis-lui que mon âme

est sur les grands chemins,
comme lui le matin.

Demande-lui, chérie,
si je pleure ou je ris?

Je doute qu’il réponde:
il marchera dans l’ombre,

crevé par la douceur,
sur le chemin en fleurs.

>>16411888
It's working again now for some reason. Nice digits.

>>16411556
Jesus teaches in parables that have to do with nature like 99% of the time.

One of the key doctrines is baptism

Possibly it's that humans of this time were of nature. There was a oneness. Humans weren't wreaking havoc of on environment then.

I mean there aren't a lot of recipes in the bible either.

>>16413993
>Humans weren't wreaking havoc of on environment then.
Bro there used to be Lions in Greece.

all of nature will be destroy and remade in the eschaton anyway
>is the reasoning
nothing but something to be destroyed

>>16411713
Have you not seen the millions of pictures of priest with bears?

>>16411805
Surely with but one life to live you place the utmost value on your beauty and health. Post timestamped physique.

The RIGHT needs to start caring about the enviroment

>>16414801
Then they’d become LEFT, and they’d rather kill us all to win.

>>16411713
yikes
do some reading kid

>>16411556
>yeah bears just come up to me and let me feed them
pagans and atheists will NEVER have this relationship with nature

>>16414801
name one non-government (has obvious incentives to keep taxing you for "environmental reasons") scientist who claims the human (cow farts and cars@!!!) influence on global warming is scientific

All the initial findings about our influence on global warming clearly showed our influence was insignificant. but of course you don't research, bill nye the literal non-scientist does that for you!

>>16414801
Accepting Climate Science means that one will eventually have to submit to globalism and leftist politics as well.

>>16414998
Was there ever a saint who did the same with snakes? I think its a good message of do not judge by aperence if one did, as satan may have taken a snakes form, but that does not mean that snakes are not god's creations. good parable of whats on the inside that counts.

it has though

>>16411713
Pope Francis has an encyclical about nature.

>>16411716
Underrated, no matter how hard they deny it the semitic influences are there and play a part in it

Since the fall of man, nature and all of creation is inherently sinful. That's why Jesus journeyed into the desert, and why most visions took place in the desert. The desert has a lack of vegetation, which indicates a lack of corruption. The sands know no sin as there is no life to corrupt.

>the so called Paradise is a literal garden
>why christians not like nature! >:(

>>16411808
Interesting post anon, I enjoyed reading it

>>16415345
>>16415351
You don't need to accept climate science to want to preserve nature. I took a school trip to Beijing when I was 17 years old, and you could feel the air as you breathed, it was noticeably thicker than the air at home. The sky was gray. Everything was filthy.
I don't want my fucking country look like that, there needs to be a law that if you pollute we fucking kill you

The old testament preached beauty, power and dominance over this world.
The new testament preached the impurity of this world and the supremacy of the afterlife.

Unironically it's because the jewish influencers in the church hate nature with a passion.

>>16415668
im like 99% sure plants and animals are considered "innocent" and without sin

>>16411805
Hating life is the ultimate contrarian opinion and like all contrarian opinions, should be discarded. If you cannot see the beauty in existence then you need to start looking or end yours with all haste to save others the trouble of dealing with you.

>>16414013
And there used to be wolves in England. Small price to pay for safety of livestock and children.

>>16411556
>Is it because of gnostic influences?
What Gnostic influence? Apart from reading men deep into heresy, there won't be any. If anything, there might be a few authors just trolling gnostics.
As for the main question, it is not an object of Christianity, so you will find Christians very much pro or against nature. It is also not clear what you mean by this. Many theologians for a long time shaped various variants of the peripatetic school, which is certainly "natural" as opposed to a more purely idealist view (also very common among great Christian writers).
Unless you mean natural as in the wilderness. That's also relatively common, all things considered, not just as a theme of books but in the very life of hermits.

>>16411556
>Jesus explicitly describes The Baptist as the greatest man that had lived
>the man spent most of his adult life alone half naked in the desert surviving on grasshoppers
>Christians largely abandoned other metaphors for afterlife and describes it as "paradise" which means garden
How stupid can posters be?
At best you can say that technology, self-control, and more generally personal and spiritual mastery over nature are encouraged if not ordered. You can "appreciate" nature without reversing the hierarchy and making it a mistress.

>>16411716
Any other answer is inferior to this.

>>16414366
The fact that the location of the picture is such rare location as georgia means there are vey few pictures of priests with bears.

>>16417292
I guess the answer is that you have not seem them, then. look them up if you don’t believe me .

>>16411556
No, it's the Jewish influences.

>>16411556
This is mainly secular propaganda. It's like David Suzuki criticizing Genesis 9:2 as giving us a license to over-exploit nature. But Suzuki is also a sick bastard who is in favour of the depopulation agenda and probably unironically wants a human population of half a billion just like in the Georgia guidestones say.

Distrust anyone who says that x group hates nature, it's just propaganda to teach you to hate.

>>16415730
Ok just make sure there isn't some globalist elite that can control what countries do which is exactly what they are trying to do. I'd be ok with climate regulation if it was decided on the country level, not the world level.

>>16411556
Because Christianity wanted to shun Druidism which was the major religion in Europe before Christianity and to spread Christianity they had to make Druidism seem sinful

Alright, reading the thread it's obvious that hating nature means not worshiping it to the larpagans.

>>16411556
What do you expect from a desert religion?

>>16411556
Not only does God have great love for His Creation, but Creation has a great love of God. Most claims that Christianity is incompatible with ecology stems from lay theology and the enlightenment's abuse of the literary nature-man dichotomy (which is mistaken as Christian). In reality there is no barrier between man and the rest of Creation, the only difference between the two is that our predecessors' free will cause Creation to be overwhelmed by sin and death. The "stewardship" mentality that is seen as extremely anthropocentric (because it is mistaken as conservation), comes from lay people. We have an obligation to steward because Creation does not belong to us. Nature does not exist beyond a literary device, it is all really one big Creation of which we are a part of.

>>16411564
why are christians so butthurt against gnostics? because gnostic theology actually makes sense?

>>16418585
>gnostic theology actually makes sense
You have never read gnostic texts

>>16411556

>>16418599
>durr I can't understand it so it doesn't make sense
you know what really doesn't make sense? a canaanite war deity who is characterized by being an arrogant, selfish warmonger incarnating himself as a human and changing his mind on everything he laid down in the OT to suddenly die for the people he spent cursing and murdering for thousands of years.

>>16418570
I enjoyed what you wrote. Do you know what the greek says in your picture?

Also I might be misreading your comment on anthropocentrism but doesn't stewardship dictate a degree of anthropocentrism, (though perhaps it would be more accurate to say that this is a borrowed centrism as we are made in God's image and are both creator and creation, posses free wil etc).

I find anthropocentrism to be a useful remedy in arguing against pantheism. For instance I read an interesting article by Scruton about the illogical nature of animal rights, because of the right's relation to duty, which animals can't take on.

On the other hand I have to admit I find aspects of the 'man as the measure of all things' view arrogant.

Do you mean appreciation or stewardship? If stewardship, then Christianity is only religion that cares about the natural world. Hence why Westerners today are only ones who care about 'nature' whether it be preserving it or enjoying it (in its preservation). Parks and shit don't exist outside of Western culture.

>>16418425
Christianity succeeded in freeing nature from the supernatural - and St Francis of Assisi was crucial to this.

>>16418676
>Do you know what the greek says in your picture?
Not that anon, and my Greek is poor, but I think it says something about how the bees worship the Holy Persons by leaving the image of the Virgin Mary uncovered.

>>16411713
Retard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_of_Saint_Anthony_to_the_Fish

>>16411556
>How come christianity has shown so little appreciation for nature? Is it because of gnostic influences?
It is precilely the theological modality of gnosticism that leads one to appreciate the spiritual beauty that is traumatically recycled within, and through, nature; Christianity regards the natural world as the temporary domain of humans and animals, and it is treated as such: contranaturally, as a medium that should, and can, facilitate solely the integrity of all that is noble, and of all that conduces toward what is good, in the same way that one should actively strive to keep one's room clean, lest it turn into the den of a beast.

>>16418585
>gnostic theology
R ddit as fuck. Literally simulation tier drivel.

>>16418852
incidentally, christ is sometimes associated with bees in christian art: its sweet honey represents the message of the gospel whereas its sting symbolizes the last judgement

>>16411556
Christianity isn't really against nature, because Christianity isn't really for or against anything. It's not really a philosophy, it's more like a "Make Your Own Philosophy" kit. You can more or less do as you please with Christianity as long as you put some Bible quotes in there to justify what you're doing (which is easy, because the Bible is so contradictory). Every single Christian on planet Earth believes that Jesus and Yahweh are in total agreement with them and that anybody who disagrees with them in any way is simply an idiot/heretic who: "just doesn't understand the truth, the way I do".

Stoicism was a far bigger influence on christianity than gnosticism ever was.
The appreciation of nature gets abstracted into natural law, and then into god's law.
High level religion never has much to say about nature. Pagans and animists are basically the only people who really make nature a big part of their spirituality.

Gnostics shouldn't dislike nature, the demiurge isn't bad, just neutral. Same with nature, as much as I like it, I can't delude myself into thinking it's my friend.

>>16418676
Stewardship is only anthropocentric as it creates a role for man rather than letting him just be a normal facet of the ecosystem. However, stewardship does not give man superiority over the rest of Creation. Stewardship relates to the biblical leaning that we take care of Creation because it's not ours (by definition stewardship refers to when peasants maintain a kings land while he is away), we are shackled to this responsibility. Biocentrism (from an ecology optic not pagan) fits the Christian mentality nicely, but because it ignores man's responsibility (and can't see that man is the end of biological evolution) modern ecologists end up losing out to reductionist materialists.
>>16418686
Also this. Without some degree of anthropocentrism, complete biocentrism falls back into us destroying the ecological status.
>>16418852
>>16419307
Bees are considered pretty holy creatures, most monasteries I know of have apiaries.