Talk:Evangelical environmentalism

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Evangelical Christianity Top‑importance

	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Evangelical Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Evangelical Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Evangelical ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Evangelical ChristianityEvangelical Christianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Minority view

Unless I'm misreading this article, there seems to be an implication in this article that the liberal position on the environment is the dominant view among American Evangelicals, which seems to me to be a politically motivated falsehood. Also, why is a Vatican spokesman quoted in this article, as Roman Catholicism is a rather distinct theology from Evangelicalism? 184.6.141.5 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs attention

This is a topic of critical importance to modern Christianity and to the world in general. It needs help.

Reverted heavily POV edits

I reverted a series of changes by anonymous User:70.118.249.125 to the last good version of the article. (i.e. last good version, highly POV edits, changes between the two). Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox. Thank you. - Anirvan (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anirvan - the evangelical environmntal movement is a political movement, and therefore must be discussed as such. To remove references to politics is incorrect. The ECI, for example lobbied for cap and trade and is most definitely a political organization. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.143.108 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be discussed as a political movement, but biased opinion does nothing useful for wikipedia. I agree with Anirvan, "Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a political soapbox." If you wish to slander the movement, at least ground your criticisms to actual events.

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries?

Add stewardship within Planetary boundaries? 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction.

Add Creation includes all Life on Earth, thus good stewardship would avoid extinctions, such as with the current Holocene extinction. 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not all evangelicals are creationists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said all evangelicals are creationists, only Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin? 99.181.140.5 (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did. The sentence has no relevance unless all evangelical environmentalists are creationist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the clarification, but Creation is (disambiguation) page, thus can be "The Creation", that which was created, so can mean Totality, Everything, the Universe, all that-is ever-was ever-shall-be, ... not creationism, which certainly has its own wp page with a wide variety of different meanings. Creationist (-ists) again has a different mean also. 99.119.130.3 (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to disambiguation pages as if the word itself had meaning, now. :sigh: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Word (Creation) has meaning in the Book of Genesis. 166.249.97.11 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this support the requested addition? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last part appears to be an attempt to clarify your understanding, or lack there of. 99.19.46.189 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a potential justification for the addition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add living within our means (Planetary boundaries) as good stewardship?

Add living within our means (Planetary boundaries) as good stewardship? 99.56.120.165 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source it, go ahead. You'll need a single source which says two things, though: That planetary boundaries is an interpretation of "living within our means", and that "living within our means" is "good stewardship". You also need to relate "good stewardship" to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add resource: There is no faster, easier fix for America’s energy crisis than to simply begin living within rational limits. by Vaclav Smil in Seed (magazine)

There is no faster, easier fix for America’s energy crisis than to simply begin living within rational limits. by Vaclav Smil in Seed (magazine) found on No Impact Man. Where some of the rational limits are Planetary boundaries, but not the only ones. 99.181.159.59 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be appropriate in the article Planetary boundaries. Please don't try it insert it there without writing it on that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary boundaries would be less related, as it is about Ecosystem habitability (Planetary habitability ) issues ... continuation of Life in general. 108.73.112.139 (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was wrong as to where it might be a resource. It certainly isn't appropriate in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "that talk page" User:Arthur Rubin, which talk page, Talk:Planetary boundaries, Talk:No Impact Man, Talk:Vaclav Smil, what? 99.181.129.120 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the article where it might be appropriate to add the link, which is probably planetary boundaries. It wouldn't fit in any of the article articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article articles? 99.19.40.97 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, "other articles", including this one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource: April 2011 Sojourners magazine issue cover story: Overcoming Denial How to Talk to Climate Change Skeptics (with all due respect).

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home ...

How to Talk to Climate Change Skeptics? 10 myths about global warming, and what the science really says. by John Cook
Addressing the Naysayers: The gospel truth about climate change. by Katharine Hayhoe
For God So Loved the Dirt... Whether Christians do right by the environment depends on whether we can see the Earth as a megastore where we can 'shop' for whatever we want -- or as a garden that needs careful tending. by Norman Wirzba
Climate Change: Just the Facts by Bill McKibben
When Ideology Trumps Science A conversation with author John Cook. Interview by Elizabeth Palmberg

99.181.149.29 (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the articles, will they be available for free access later? 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! ;-) I'll look into it, and see if I can find accessible copies, or similar articles. 99.19.40.168 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back over two years (example "Be the Change" issue); still a subscription needed: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.contents&issue=soj0903 99.109.126.27 (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get a paper copy of this issue (sold out at the book stores, stolen from the library) without getting a subscription or buying over the Internet? 99.181.155.158 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM. 99.181.155.21 (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For God So Loved the Dirt ... Whether Christians do right by the environment depends on whether we see the Earth as a megastore where we can "shop" for whatever wwe want - or as a garden that needs careful tending. by Norman Wjrzba, on page 16, 17, and 18 would be another. 99.181.131.64 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE. These references maybe useful in editing this article, but we as editors must be careful to keep the tone and language of the article as neutral and balanced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are other citations ... here is one on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation called "Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#July_2011_Sojourners_is_another_resource:_.22We_have_the_Technology:_Off-the-shelf_renewable_power_can_meet_100_percent_of_world_need_-_if_we_have_the_will..22". 216.250.156.66 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were quotes removed?

==Quotes==
"...nature: it is not our own. It belongs to God, and we are to exercise our dominion over these things not as though entitled to exploit them, but as things borrowed or held in trust. We are to use them realizing they are not ours intrinsically. Man's dominion is under God's dominion." ref Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man, 1970, p. 69 /ref

" Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody ... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious. But no victory ever comes without a battle."' ref "Pat Robertson's Perspectives," Oct/Nov 1992 /ref

"The earth was given to man, with this condition, that he should occupy himself in its cultivation... The custody of the garden was given in charge to Adam, to show that we possess the things which God has committed to our hands, on the condition that, being content with the frugal and moderate use of them, we should take care of what shall remain. Let him who possesses a field, so partake of its yearly fruits, that he may not suffer the ground to be injured by his negligence, but let him endeavor to hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better cultivated. Let him so feed on its fruits, that he neither dissipates it by luxury, nor permits it to be marred or ruined by neglect. Moreover, that this economy, and this diligence, with respect to those good things which God has given us to enjoy, may flourish among us; let everyone regard himself as the steward of God in all things which he possesses. Then he will neither conduct himself dissolutely, nor corrupt by abuse those things which God requires to be preserved." ref John Calvin on Genesis 2:15; Commentary on Genesis, 1554. EARTH-WISE: A Biblical Response to Environmental Issues. Calvin B. DeWitt. 1994, 2007 (Second Edition) by Faith Alive Christian Resources /ref 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No context was provided. A section of long quotes simply doesn't belong -- if really essential they can be integrated within relevant sections of the article, but I'm not seeing the need. Take 'em to wikiquotes. Vsmith (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Take 'em to wikiquotes."? Please help me understand. 99.112.214.106 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:QUOTEFARM. Vsmith (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Vsmith, thank you. (",) 99.35.15.210 (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resource?

Jonathan Dudley's Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics ISBN-13: 978-0385525268

Amazon.com's Product Description ...

Growing up as an evangelical Christian, Jonathan Dudley was taught that abortion is murder, homosexuality sin, evolution nonsense, and environmentalism a farce. He learned to accept these conclusions--the "big four"--as part of the package deal of Christianity. Yet, when he began studying biology at the evangelical Calvin College and theology at Yale Divinity School, Dudley's views started to change. He soon realized that what he had been told about the Bible--and those four big issues involving scripture and biology--may have been misconstrued and that what so many Christians believe about key social and political issues may be wrong. ... And he surveys how evangelicals are changing their minds about environmentalism, and how this development supports a new way of thinking about the Bible. Throughout the book, Dudley, now an M.D. student at The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, also illustrates the scientific problems with popular evangelical views. In the process, he lays the groundwork for a new generation of post-Religious Right evangelical political activists, who believe in evolution, rally behind the environmental movement, are moderate on abortion, and support gay marriage--and who are more faithful to orthodox Christianity than their counterparts.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]