This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
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)
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)
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.[1][2] But a growing number of members of several Christian denominations are striving to revive environmental awareness within the churchcitation needed.
To ...
Christians and members of the
Christian right are typically less concerned about the issues of the environment than the general public.[3][4] But some members of several Christian denominations are striving to raise environmental awareness within the church.citation needed
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)
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)
^Sherkat, D. E., and C. G. Ellison. 2007. Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:71-85.
^Peterson, M. N., and J. Liu. 2008. Impacts of religion on environmental worldviews: the Teton Valley case. Society and Natural Resources 21:704-718.
^Sherkat, D. E., and C. G. Ellison. 2007. Structuring the religion-environment connection: identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46:71-85.
^Peterson, M. N., and J. Liu. 2008. Impacts of religion on environmental worldviews: the Teton Valley case. Society and Natural Resources 21:704-718.
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)
(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)
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'."
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
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.
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.
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)
^Everett Ferguson Baptism in the early church: history, theology, and liturgy 2009 p299 "Tertullian twice in an antiheretical context comments on 1 Corinthians 15:29, “ baptism for the dead.”4 Later writers say the Marcionites practiced baptism on behalf of the dead.5 It was also said that they ..."
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)
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