Jump to content

- - - - -

Patristic views on ecology

  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#101 Richard Leigh

Richard Leigh

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted 12 December 2003 - 12:33 AM

Dear R.J.G.,

Not necessarily. Most are pretty individuallistic.
My daughter "belongs to" PETA without buying into the notion that animals actually have "rights," but that none the less, humans have responsibilities for them.

My advice is to ask the particular group. And I would never fear being up front about my own proplife, ant-abortion etc., stance. (If I were in a totalitarian state, that might be a different story...)


#102 Fr Averky

Fr Averky

    Former frequent poster (deceased)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 02:50 AM

Dear Friends,

Owen you are right, I am still struggling to attain the spiritual life, and I know nothing about national industrial policy, thus my comment that monks are not exactly experts on ecological issues.

While it is true that we are more aware of what God's will is not, certainly we are capable of being aware of what it is for us, although it is not always clearly written out. God speaks to us and shows us the way all the time, we just have to have the desire to see His will and then to do it.

John Curtis Dunn, where do you get all of those ideas? (smile)

R.J. G. Not ever having been one to join groups having issues, I always feel it is better to do something to better a situation by doing some good quietly and privately. By contributing to a local animal shelter, either by donating cat and dog food, or writing a check to me is more postive than spraying fake blood in a fur sales show room. And of course, there are so many ways to help the poor and homeless right in your own town. Many many people doing many small good deeds do make a difference, especially when done for the sake of Christ. Sitting back complaining or judging does no one any good. Each of us has an opportunity to give our Widow's Mite every day, and if done or given from our hearts, God will notice it.

Love in Christ,

Fr. A.

#103 John Curtis Dunn

John Curtis Dunn

    Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 13 December 2003 - 02:05 PM

The Ecological Crisis, IMO, as it confronts and challanges the Orthodox Church and her members is about two worldviews: Consumerism versus Contemplation. The former is viewed as being materialistic by the latter, and the latter is perceived as being out of touch with modern civilization. Perhaps, man is driven in both of these directions by his dual-nature: spirit and flesh. He is at once a creature who moves outwards towards his physical enviroment and inward towards his spiritual enviroment.

Perhaps, the tension exists because of how we answer, why and for what purpose was man Created as both a physical and spirtiutal Creation?

john dunn

#104 Owen Jones

Owen Jones

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,341 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 December 2003 - 03:01 PM

There are no new questions. How far should the Church go in imposing its will on society? The Church opposed autopsies. Should we have given up on that issue? The Church opposed charging interest on loans. Should it have given up on that policy? The Church opposed changing the calender.

The Church is now asked to oppose pollution and industrialization that causes pollution. It is demanding that people be taxed in order to pay for the elimination of pollution. Is this just another in a long line of social policy demands by the Church that will be overtaken by events?

Also, what is more important as causing death and suffering? Pollution? Abortion? There are millions dying of AIDS. Should we not also take the same stern moral approach on this issue that we are asked to take regarding pollution? Should the Church not condemn the behavior leading to so many millions of deaths, and countless orphans. Should we not advocate laws making sodomy illegal and imposing harsh sanctions? Is there really any difference? In fact, we can clearly see the suffering and death in the countless millions from abortion and from sodomy. It is much more difficult to make a scientific case that people are dying or will die, certainly in mass numbers, from industrial pollutants. Mostly what we hear are the extreme, isolated cases, such as Chernobyl. But the rest of it is statistical projection. A theory. That sodomy causes many millions of deaths and orphans is not a theory. it is a demonstrable fact. Why one moral imperative and not another? Why this moral imperative and not that moral imperative?

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users