At 07:32 AM 10/05/02 +0100, Steve Bishop wrote:
>My own take is (and I dealt with these, in part, in my 'Green theology and
>deep ecology: New Age or new creation' _Themelios_ 16 (3)
>(1991)(incidentally, I was taken to task for some aspects of this article in
>a subsequent edition of Themelios by Michael Roberts! As ever he was partly
>(1) Pasmore is guilty of spiritialising Ň or even ecclesiastising - the
>(2) This argument is wrongheaded; even if
>God : humanity : nature
>it does not impy
>nature : humanity : God
>There is no evidence to suggest that the argument is commutative.
>(3) Stewardship rather than reducing nature opens it up to new
>possibilities. It brings liberation for creation because it fulfils their
>God-given roles. Secondly, there is no evidence that nature should be
>treated as an object; the whole premise of stewardship is that the earth has
>been given to humanity because of GodĚs love and concern for creation: it is
>his and he made it.
>(4) There is some force in this argument.
>I'd be interested in what others think.
Because you ask: I basically agree, but I cannot see the force in argument
4. Even when we do not know that we sin, God holds us responsible. (Even
in modern law we may be held responsible for deeds of which we did not know
beforehand) the "bad" results.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 10 2002 - 17:33:21 EDT