Man is one viscious parasite...

[Aussie Thoughts]

Is that the Shepherd's Chapel doctrine beloved of creationists?

Not really. I'm just reading what's written like my dad taught me many years ago. A lot of ministries do it that way down here.

I have trouble explaining it as some of the details are a bit muddled for me

You and I both. It helps to have a Greek/Hebrew manuscript or concordance of some kind handy when reading scripture to iron out the rough patches.

What do you think God thinks of our stewardship?

Don't know. God hasn't shared his opinion with me lately.

 

[Thomas]

Not really... A lot of ministries do it that way down here.

Strange. It's a relatively recent concept, as far as I can see, it seems to be an apologia attempting to make Genesis fit science. Along with Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.

It does rather founder, IMHO, on the fact that it views Satan in a particularly Christian sense, and therefore cannot really be accepted as an interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I had a quick look round the web, and there's an enormous amount of stuff out there intending to prove Genesis conforms to science! Amazing! Seems we in the literally-oriented west cannot view the text in anything other than a modern mindset. I hadn't realised Australia was so influenced by American fundamentalism. Should have guessed, I suppose.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Strange. It's a relatively recent concept, as far as I can see, it seems to be an apologia attempting to make Genesis fit science. Along with Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc.

I don't know about that. It's been taught that way in my region for as long as I can remember.

I had a quick look round the web, and there's an enormous amount of stuff out there intending to prove Genesis conforms to science! Amazing!

Amazing they're trying to make it conform or amazing that it does conform?

I hadn't realised Australia was so influenced by American fundamentalism.

I don't know about that either. If anything I'd say it's the other way round. My region is know as the convict free zone. Meaning we originally immigrated from the European continent, as apposed to those who came here from England as prisoners of his majesty. My ancestors came here from Germany in the late 1600's. Our farm dates back to that time. Any road, my granddad used to say that's where the way we interpret the Bible came from.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The dichotomy between man and nature is no different really than the problem any creature faces in its habitat. The current crisis has its roots in the ill-named 'Age of Enlightenment'.

This is when science really was seen as a way of controlling and exploiting the world, rather than, up to then, a way of understanding and working with.

I think it's telling that 'man' in that era context is taken to mean the masculine of the species (it being a given that 'science' was not something the female of the species could get their pretty little heads around), and that nature was described as a 'wanton woman' and had to be tamed. It was this imagery that set the basis for the debate.

So when we say 'man', I would rather say 'industrialised western cultures' as opposed to man generally. It's evident from studying other eras and other cultures that man is quite capable of living in harmony as part of nature in a symbiotic relationship. It's a question of appetite. One could argue that science went off the rails when it moved from 'understanding the world' to 'making my life easier', but the lever and the wheel are both principal examples of that, so the 'error', if that's what it is, goes way back.

We have, in the space of about 200-300 years, followed a path that is leading to an 'extinction event', the 'path' the west is walking is unsustainable. Sadly, there is no immediate solution, other than hoping in 'fairy-tale' or 'magic' fixes.

I'm with most of what Thomas is saying, the one thing that differs is the fundamental nature of man. Thomas, you see man as once feeling part of nature, recent even, but that is not my view. I specifically remember reading a religious history book that tries to point to where even tribal and shamanistic religions centre around a human vs. nature theme. I will dig that book up and see if I can gleam some insights from it.

I found that book I mentioned and it only mentioned it briefly but I thought I might take a crack at translating something and it turns out it's very tricky. I was a bit lazy and made direct translations where a perfect translation wasn't possible.

Neither is is a particularly intimate relationship with nature that is the common denominator among the [without written language] peoples, and on the whole one should take care not to romanticise these cultures relationship with nature. These are of course cultures with closer contact to nature than the distinctly materially evolved societies, but it is more correct to see the [without written language] peoples relationship to nature as their way of being "cultural". Even among [close to nature, "primitive culture"] culture and nature is classified in different ways, and the border between the human world and that which is outside is apparent, even if the border is drawn by different principles than those drawn in highly technological or industrialised societies.
Jensen, T., Rothstein, M. & Podemann Sörensen , J., 1996. Religionshistoria. 2 ed. Nora: Nya Doxa.

We also had a quick run-down of the history of scientific history which illustrated more precisely where I perhaps agree with you. Francis Bacon specifically called for the subjugation of nature which I agree was not common in man's relationship with her environment. Descartes, I think, also contributed to man distancing herself from nature when he declared the spirit completely disconnected from the material. But I see here a difference between man abusing nature from this point but not necessarily feeling a part of nature at any point.

Why do you think man has at one point felt one with nature in a way that is different from how man feels today?