I always wonder how the world would look if the bible had said "Respect the earth and all living beings" instead of “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion…"
I always wonder how the world would look if the bible had said "Respect the earth and all living beings" instead of “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion…"
A lot of Christians argue that it does say exactly that. In Genesis 2:15, God tells Adam to care for the planet:
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Of course fundamentalists tend not to see it that way.
> Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
John 2:15
(that's 1 John 2:15 - John 2:15 is the one where Jesus attacks the money changers)
The next line is critical for context, as it defines what "things in the world" means.
> [...] For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
Seems clear to me this isn't about creation (ie not saying don't cherish nature / animals).
There are infinite alterations you can make to the bible to make it more moral, like remove the parts where innocent people are punished on someone else’s behalf (raped, stoned, killed) or commanded to enslaved others and take virgins as the spoils of war.
Thankfully over the centuries some people have used their human moral intuitions to gloss over some of the worst parts. But would’ve been much nicer to not have those parts at all.
> alterations you can make to the bible to make it more moral
this is brilliant. The book that is supposed to the be the word on morality needs edits. I can hear the religious right gathering their pitchforks and tiki lights now. It's a perfect book written by the almighty. But for those that don't drink that particular kool-aid it's a self evident observation since it's a book of cherry picked stories by a group of people to push their agenda.
Depends how you interpret it tbh. At least in my tradition the focus is on seeing the good, bad, and ugly of history. There's many bible stories that are more cautionary tales than role models.
Now to be fair, there's also examples of God (as portrayed by the writers) being vindictive and harsh. I don't have great answers for that, but I do wonder how much it is seeing through their perspective of the situation and how much it was God. (I obviously come at this as a believer).
As to being the only moral text... I certainly hope it's not, because we've learned a lot since then, and I hope what's considered truth can expand beyond one book.
EDIT: not to dismiss your points, just to say that some of us view it in a more nuanced way.
Well no king would ever accept and propagate that religion.
The tribe with the bible that directed to multiply would have conquered the tribe with the bible that directed respect the earth and all living beings because back then, might was proportional to population.
“ It has not occurred to you that your ancestors were survivors and that the survival itself sometimes involved savage decisions, a kind of wanton brutality which civilized humankind works very hard to suppress. What price will you pay for that suppression? Will you accept your own extinction?”
- Frank Herbert, God Emperor of Dune
The same can be said for moments where avoiding savage decisions resulted in survival; when oblivion was the alternative, and where it was the result of humanity's capacity for compassion and cooperation overcoming "civilized" humankind's tendency towards a banal and unthinking brutality.
Remember that, multiple times in the past half-century, the protocol was to launch all ICBMs and pray.
Which is kinda hilarious given that despite being called a tyrant, Leto II had basically created a post scarcity society that was almost entirely castrated of violence or capacity for it. He kept chastising people for that desire to tame those base instincts but he was doing the exact same thing. It's just a funny thing to quote given the context of his character.
better to attribute it to God Emperor Leto Atreides II , not Frank Herbet the author
[dead]
It would look like India.
"be fruitful" and "replenish the earth" is already aligned
As for "subdue", ask anyone maintaining a large garden how much they have to work to keep it from reverting back to a wilderness. Gardening is choosing which species stay and which are forcibly removed and optimizing the environment to enable your chosen species to thrive. If the words "subdue" and "dominion" freak you out, pick your brains up off the floor and go touch grass.
Western civilization has decided that it wants to keep the primate species and is dissatisfied when they become roadkill, so it altered the environment to enable the chosen species to thrive. This article is a gardening success story. Gardening requires dominion. We have dominion over the primates and we have chosen to be benevolent with that dominion.
> so it altered the environment
The motorway was not a natural occurrence, and neither cars or trucks evolved naturally. Humans went there and installed a limited fix for the destruction they caused in the first place.
I put a path in my garden so I can continue to maintain the garden, and walk around and enjoy it. But oh no, my daisies are wilting because they're too close to the path. So I adjust the path, raise the bed a little bit, and add a border, and they're happy after a little bit of water.
Totally normal gardener behavior.
Jesus, what a bizarrely aggressive response.