Talk:Christian views on environmentalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs an encyclopedic viewpoint; needs meaningful references

this topic is already covered in more detail at Evangelical environmentalism. Maybe there is reason to have an individual page on this topic, but right now this one is pretty much a copy of the Evangelical Environmentalism page. it needs more information about non-evangelical christian approaches. 71.197.215.3 (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that "Christianity and environmentalism" isn't a legitimate topic; but rather, the article at a minimum must reference outside sources that establish its legitimacy. The author's say-so is not enough. This article begs for references, and not merely links to key words. Gruffbear (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

I'd suggest renaming this article to Christianity and ecology in line with Religion and ecology and a consistent format for other religions. Also, "Green Christianity" isn't used so much and thus it doesn't really cover the scope needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I realize also that "Green _____" is probably somewhat left of neutral, since the topic could incorporate approaches that are less "Green" oriented (Green reflecting a left political movement) as well as Christian approaches that may be outright critical of Green approaches, yet still within the topic of Christianity and ecology. Thanks. So I'll WP:BRD the move and invite discussion here. HG | Talk 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

much of this information is found on evangelical environmentalism. they should be brought together somehow.

The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "Temptation in the Consumer Wilderness: What Matthew 4 has to say to the age of climate change"

The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "Temptation in the Consumer Wilderness: What Matthew 4 has to say to the age of climate change", page 30-33 by Fredric L Quivik (a historian of technology at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI, and Good Shepherd Lutheran Church member). 108.73.114.77 (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Sojourners — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:350.org#Add_Why_We.27re_Merging_to_Form_a_Climate_Change_Supergroup_.3F, Why is Sojourners not wp:rs, or is that just your opinion? 99.190.81.244 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just Art's opinion. 99.112.214.230 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And that of two other editors at the former WP:RSN#Sojourners. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I make a mistake; Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99#Sojourners had one reply which suggested that all articles are opinion pieces, and should only be included if the author is a recognized expert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I read then, they weren't align with you, Art. 99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Proving, once again, that you cannot read English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By communicating in English, are you not proving yourself wrong? Please avoid this Extremism language. 99.181.157.60 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. You've still shown that you don't understand what I wrote, or what Itsmejudith wrote. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is your communication problem, Art. Avoid WP:INSULT. 99.181.150.8 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(Real insult redacted) There's no insult in noting that you are unable to write coherent sentences in English, or to understand coherent sentences. There are any number of languages I don't speak. Perhaps you skills would be better served in writing in your native language Wikipedia. If sensible, your changes might then be translated into English. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the direct connection, more than "choose life" for quote and Green Christianity?

Is there a reference for the direct connection, more than "choose life"?

• Bible verse, Deuteronomy 30:19: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." 99.181.128.190 (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How is the Politics of global warming not related to this topic?

How is the Politics of global warming not related to this topic? 141.218.36.50 (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Related, but not relevant. Only related through religion and environmentalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is a religion, so why the apparent attempt at pigeonholing? 141.218.36.50 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and environmentalism → religion and environmentalism → environmentalism → ... → Politics of global warming — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Still not relevant. Please justify before re-adding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was this paragraph changed from ... to ...

From ...

Christians and members of the Christian right are typically less concerned about issues of environmental responsibility than the general public. But a growing number of members of several Christian denominations are striving to revive environmental awareness within the church.

To ...

Christians and members of the Christian right are typically less concerned about the issues of the environment than the general public. But some members of several Christian denominations are striving to raise environmental awareness within the church.

141.218.36.50 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Because you made it at the same time as the other, clearly incorrect, edit noted above. I'm not sure which is better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What? To whom are you referring? Please, help me understand what you are attempting to communicate. 141.218.36.50 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When I removed your nonsense (as noted above), I also removed that edit. I'm not sure which version of that is better, but my rule of thumb is, that if you make one serious error, I assume your other edits are in error, unless I can see clearly why it's an improvement. In this case, I can't see a significant difference, so my decision defaults to revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"expalined" per View History? What? 99.181.129.46 (talk) 04:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a Palin Freudian slip? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My browser displays potentially misspelled words in text fields, but not in the edit summary field. I don't know why. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The research sited as sourced focused on Mormons rather than the larger Christian community. This hardly is diverse enough to quality the statement and should be revised. In general conservatives who identify as Christians tend to be less concerned with the environment when it impacts economic progress -- that is in issues which promote or impede economic policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.45.38 (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a section in the article on Mormons? (see Mormonism#Relation to Christianity for reference) 99.112.212.201 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Add but keep clarity on Mormonism and Christianity relationship?

Also see Religion and environmentalism#Mormons and the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Further discussion below on Talk:Christianity and environmentalism#User talk:97.87.29.188.23May_2012

99.181.152.187 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

References

What?

• Politics of global warming add. 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Shortest link from this article to there runs:

  • Christianity and environmentalism → Religion and environmentalism → Environmentalism → ... → Global warming → Politics of global warming

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an explanation? 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've explained it to you before, but it's shorthand for an explanation. If:

1. B is relevant to A.
2. C is relevant to B.
3. D is relevant to C.
4. E is relevant to D.
5. F is relevant to E.

We do not add "F" to the article on "A". We add "F" to "E", etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What of Christianity and politics and Stewardship (theology) for example? 99.19.43.8 (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What of them? Should they be mentioned here? The first is probably only one step away, but the second links only through religion and environmentalism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Art, are you thinking of Wikipedia:Categorization, such as Category:Christianity and environmentalism and Category:Environmentalism and religion; instead of Wikipedia:Article? 99.181.152.185 (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is with all the → ? 99.181.132.138 (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A → B means A connects to B (or B is relevant to A); but relevance is not transitive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Art, this doesn't appear to be wikipedia terminology. What kind of "transitive", Transitive set as in Set theory? 99.190.86.147 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's not obvious, but I meant transitive relation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) Art, your → appears to be a Material implication ... then wouldn't you be saying A implies B and B implies C ... then it is trivially obvious A → F. 99.56.121.98 (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all related to my intent. I'm using it to indicate the directed graph where an edge indicates relevance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From the digraph? 99.56.123.174 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ABC News (Australia) resource

Why Evangelical Christians have left the Right by Marcia Pally, 28.OCT.2011 excerpt ...

"New evangelicals" (as Richard Cizik, President of The New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, calls them) have shifted away from the religious right - moving towards an anti-militarist, anti-consumerist focus on poverty relief, environmental protection, immigration reform, and racial/religious reconciliation.

See Scot McKnight, Christianity Today, Randall Balmer, Greg Boyd (theologian), An Evangelical Manifesto, Richard Land, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, National Association of Evangelicals, World Vision International, Rick Warren, Evangelical environmentalism

And crossing the country again, an Iowa office worker (and evangelical) told me, "You know, 'If you give a person a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you teach him how to fish, he'll eat for his whole life.' But what if they don't have rights to use the stream, and what if the stream is polluted? ... [W]e have to deal with pollution, sustainability, poverty, education, and information together. There is no 'they' and 'us'; there is just 'we'."

99.190.86.147 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:97.87.29.188#May 2012

See discussion regarding Christianity and Mormonism-related discussion on User talk:97.87.29.188#May 2012. No concensus for inclusion, less controversial location (duplicated there) is Religion and environmentalism. 141.218.36.85 (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quick Evangelical example of why the Mormonism section is more appropriate in another article or needs to have caveat(s) ... Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Mormons January 25, 2012; example excerpt ...

Many evangelicals assert that Mormonism denies the divinity of Christ and is therefore not a branch of Christianity

From January 14, 2012 The Theological Differences Behind Evangelical Unease With Romney is confrontational about a Baptist Reverend Robert Jeffress who is "... preaching that Mormonism is heretical to Christianity"

From USA Today October 2011, Will Romney, Perry race be Christian vs. Christian?

Jeffress' view that Mormons aren't Christian is shared by 75% of Protestant pastors, according to a survey of 1,000 Protestant pastors conducted last October by LifeWay Research.

Here is something that backs adding "Some Mormons consider themselves Christians" from January 2012, Many Americans uninformed, but still wary of Mormon beliefs

... call Mormonism a "cult," saying followers aren't Christians. Are, too! Mormons say.

My guess this is an unnecessarily charged topic since Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and previous Jon Huntsman presidential campaign, 2012 are self-stated mormons. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

From The Salt Lake Tribune first published May 10 2012 New guide advises Evangelicals on how to talk to Mormons; excepts ...

Some of Mouw’s colleagues and fellow believers were outraged. They accused him of selling out, of not standing for the Christian truth or adequately denouncing evil, of being duped.

Mouw spells out the doctrinal differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and historical Christian faiths: the nature of God and Jesus, the nature of the Trinity, nonbiblical Mormon scriptures and the rejection of the creeds.

99.119.130.61 (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd, note these edits [1] by Special:Contributions/108.73.113.5 in contrast with [2] and this [3] by Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin. 99.181.131.210 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

More odd is Special:Contributions/Vsmith, Special:Contributions/Fat&Happy, and Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin who worked together on both this article and on the related Religion and environmentalism without even a trace of respect for the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It would seem they have decided what is or isn't regardless of Mormons and the History of the Latter Day Saint movement (including Category:Mormonism and Category:Latter Day Saints, see Wikipedia's current subsuming Category:Latter Day Saint movement). There is utter lack of discussion of items such as conflicts over the New Testament and the lack of Moroni (Book of Mormon prophet) in the Bible, let alone any of the other attempts at discussion above. There is nothing in the Christian Bible regarding Jesus Christ traveling in the Americas as is in the Book of Mormon (also see The "Book of Mormon": A Biography (Lives of Great Religious Books) by Paul C. Gutjahr (March 25, 2012) Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-14480-1

These are differences that an encyclopedia or something that was an attempt to be would reference, such as with a link to Christianity and Mormonism.

These are just some of the violations of Wikipedia's marketed process. 99.119.130.104 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For Christian Bible, see Christian biblical canons. 99.181.131.243 (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon, the Indians are the lost tribes of Israel, Jesus Christ preached in America after his resurrection, and Smith was the prophet of the one true church. By 1844 Joseph Smith presided over an Illinois city rivaled only by Chicago - Nauvoo, with 11,000 Mormon residents. Smith was killed by a mob shortly after ordering the destruction of a printing press used by his critics. The Mormons first fled New York, then Ohio, then Missouri, then Illinois before heading en masse toward the Great Salt Lake Valley directed by Brigham Young in 1847.

Now I can't say I am a Jack Mormon, but the story and beliefs of the Mormons don't sound uncontroversially mainstream Christian. At least some explanation is necessary to maintain a claim of some level of encyclopedic standards. 99.181.138.146 (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

What about Baptism for the dead, a practice was forbidden by the Catholic Church, and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant? 108.73.113.91 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is complete quote from the wp article ...

The modern term itself is derived from a phrase "baptised for the dead" occuring twice in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15:29), though the meaning of that phrase is an open question among scholars. Early heresiologists Tertullian (Against Marcion 10) and Chrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice to the Marcionites, whom they identified as a heretical "gnostic" group. Consequently the practice was forbidden by the Catholic Church, and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant.

99.119.128.213 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) Add

 ? 108.195.136.157 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please respond User:Fat&Happy here. 108.73.112.195 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is F&'s Edit Summary "there has been no dispute regarding the accuracy of the content of the section or its NPOV presentation; sniping at Mormon beliefs is unrelated to this article)", who yet again failed Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

F&, the section is disputed if you read the above. The question is the inclusion of a clarification of the relationship between Mormons (Latter Day Saint movement) and Christianity with the inclusion of Mormonism and Christianity, LDS can be included here, otherwise there is a question of inclusion of the section-at-all. 99.181.140.183 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) See Doctrine and Covenants, not the Book of Mormon for "Baptism for the dead". 99.181.159.238 (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Create article?

Create wp article Mormonism and environmentalism. 99.181.136.35 (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That really has nothing to do with this article. If you feel that Mormon views or activities on environmentalism are so significant that they need a separate article of their own in addition to being summarized here with other Christian groups, you might want to post a request at either WP:Requested articles or WP:Articles for creation. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How about Latter Day Saint movement and environmentalism? 99.181.140.207 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, that really has nothing to do with this article. If you feel that views or activities of the Latter Day Saint movement in regard to environmentalism are so significant that they need a separate article of their own in addition to being summarized here with other Christian groups, you might want to post a request at either WP:Requested articles or WP:Articles for creation. Fat&Happy