**2. Religious perspectives on the human being**

Undoubtedly, the notion of the human being created in God's image as stated in Genesis 1:27 is a cornerstone of the Abrahamic religious perspective on human beings. Critical voices argue that here already the exploitation of the earth finds its legitimation: The human being is distinguished from the other living creatures, created "according to their species." Hence, a closer look is necessary. Indeed, Genesis 1:26 allows the human being to rule over the other living creatures. A few verses further, God even instructs the human being "to fill the earth and to subdue it" (1:28). Small wonder that critical voices point to texts such as these to accuse the religions of complicity in exploiting the earth.

Let us take a closer look by drawing upon the interpretations the religions themselves offer. Indeed, humankind is presented as separated from the rest of the living animals. Although both human beings and animals are creatures and as such related to each other, God addresses only the human being directly, vouchsafing him the dignity of being created in God's image. This dignity is explained ethically, rather than ontologically: The human being bears a responsibility for all of creation, and just like the First Human Being, the *Adam Kadmon* (both male and female) has been entrusted with the whole of creation. In that respect, each individual may consider him- or herself as equal to the First Human Being.1 Obviously, we cannot expect from animals to fulfill such a responsibility and although the human being has often forfeited this responsibility he should be considered capable of doing otherwise. The statement, often heard from activists of the environment, that the human being is "just and animal," fails to acknowledge this special responsibility. Still, the statement finds its origin in a typically human concern for the whole of creation.

The anthropocentric reading of Genesis ignores the fact that the day of rest is intended for both human beings and animals. It likewise fails to assess the specifics of the covenant between God and Noah in which the animals are included as partners of the covenant (Genesis 9:10). Only then a certain alienation between human beings and animals seems to be emphasized (Genesis 9:2), as if Adam and Eve in paradise lived more harmoniously with their fellow creatures the animals than humankind outside paradise. This may have fostered the idea that initially Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat meat, happy as they were as vegetarians. Only after humankind had shown how much evil it could spread, the eating of meat would have been allowed (Genesis 9:3). Hence, the eating of meat may be interpreted as a concession to the cruelty of humankind and to prevent him from doing violence to his fellow human beings. Even then, restrictions on eating meat remain in force: Blood as the seat of life is forbidden. The notion of divine permission to be asked before slaughtering an animal finds its origin in these texts. Ironically, ritual slaughter in Judaism and in Islam is often the target of attempts to abolish this practice, although the respect for animal life is a hallmark of it: Even a prayer is said over each individual animal is said before the slaughter.

In this perspective, vegetarianism is not an obligation, but can still be seen as an anticipation of messianic times, in which paradisiac vegetarianism will be restored. A peaceful relationship between the animals and the human beings belongs to the characteristics of messianic times, as can be seen by the many lives of saints in which an animal plays a role. In addition, some monastic rules prescribe a vegetarian menu. However, as with many messianic elements, enforcing vegetarianism without humankind being ready for it leads to violence and mutual dissension.

<sup>1</sup> See [1].

#### *Abrahamic Religions and the Environment: Intimate Strangers? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103913*

The notion of the human being created in God's image knows of a plethora of religious interpretations, some of them seemingly rather exclusive. The banishment from paradise has been interpreted as a Fall of humanity, by which the dignity of the image of God has been obscured, rightly so if we consider the murder and deterioration described in Genesis 4-9. However, Christianity may claim that only redemption by Christ restores the image of God in the human being. This would imply an inability to act responsibly in all other human beings. This is, however, not the general line in Christianity: free will, although damaged by the Fall, is never completely absent. Distinguishing between the image of God and the likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), some theologians argue that the image of God should be considered a permanent state, whereas the likeness invites to *imitatio Dei*, by obeying His commands. Anyway, the notion of dignity-as-responsibility does seem to be preserved here as well.2

Greek-orthodox theology has always emphasized the dignity of the human being more than his condemnation after the banishment from paradise. An interesting theology of the environment connects the human being again the First Human Being in paradise. Just like in Paradise, the good of the earth has been celebrated as God's gift to humanity; nowadays, the Human Being should be considered a priest of creation, receiving the gifts of the earth in gratitude, consciously of the Giver of all these benefits and rendering grace for that. If humankind would be conscious of having received the goods of the earth, humankind would not consider himself as the sole possessor of the goods, but he would be willing to share with others what he has received himself.3 Possibly, some similarity with the cosmic notions of the human being within Hinduism may be detected here. Obviously, the *creatio ex nihilo* (creation from nothing) has fostered the independence of the human being, but at the possible expense of an absence of the divine in creation. In contrast, both Greekorthodox theology and Hinduism reckon with an incarnatory theology of the divine presence in the world, the one by viewing the incarnation as a cosmic event, affecting the destiny of all living creatures, the other by affirming *avatars* as manifestations of the divine and by assuming a continuity between human beings and animals (reincarnation) and by considering some animals sacred. Add to this the fact that the Jewish mysticism, known as Kabbalah has transformed the *creatio ex nihilo* into its opposite by claiming that the Nothing (=God) has effused Himself into creation, and it will be clear that Kabbalah as well may be seen as an ally in environmental spirituality. The parallelism between macrocosm and microcosm known in Kabbalah and in many other religious manifestations, likewise bridged the gap between the divine and the world.

The Greek-orthodox concept of priestly dignity is undoubtedly also a correction of the ambiguous notion of the human being as the steward of creation. This notion has been derived from the parables in the New Testament, in which it denotes the human responsibility to develop and increase the wisdom/Torah received from God. In the course of history, this notion of stewardship of the talents has been taken literally, as money, instead of metaphorically, as God's wisdom. It began to serve as a legitimation of capitalist increase of money and wealth. Coupled with the obligation that wealth

<sup>2</sup> The most serious threat to this universal dignity is the reasoning that only the male human being would be created in God's image, whereas the female would be created according to the example of the male (cp. 1 Cor 11:7). I consider this gendering as a sidetrack, caused by a practical inability to accord to women the same dignity and responsibility in church as to men.

<sup>3</sup> The "green Patriarch" Bartholomew of Constantinople has developed this priestly concept into an environmental theology.

should be re-invested rather than enjoyed,—"in the sweat of your face you will eat your bread"(Gen 3:19)—sociologists like Max Weber and Richard Tawney detected in this religious notion a possible foundation of capitalism. Be it as it may, the human being as priest of creation allows for an generous distribution of wealth and a sincere enjoyment of God's good gifts, deserved to be treated with holy reverence.

It should be noted that Islam is hesitant to use the concept of human being as "image of God." No doubt, fear of a too anthropomorphic speaking about God lies at the heart of this hesitance. Although it should be stressed that according to the Bible, God creates the human being in His image, which should not be confused with the human being creating God in *his* image, the Islam keeps aloof from this concept.4 The concept to denote the dignity of the human being in the Qur'an is: *h*̣*alif*, which can be translated as: vice-regent (Qur'an 2:30). Bold interpreters of the Qur'an claim that the human being is here considered God's vice-regent on earth. Others point to the fact that in the context of the creation of the human being, the protest of the angels against the creation of the human being has been silenced.5 Hence, the human being could be considered as the successor of the angels (although his being a *h*̣*alif* is located on earth, not in heaven!). The context of the Qur'anic account is remarkably similar to the Genesis account in that the human being is considered capable of all kinds of cruelty and depravity. The angels are quick to emphasize that. Yet the dignity of the human being allows for more noble expectations from him as well.

#### **2.1 Nature and history**

From a more general perspective, it is clear that the Hebrew Bible knows of many regulations about animals. They should be treated with care and without vexing them, allowing them to rest together with the human beings. The long lists of pure and impure animals, which has laid the basis of *kashrut*, often lack a rational foundation, but retain the animal in the religious consciousness. In addition, Biblical feasts such as Pesach and Shavuot (Feast of Weeks) are based upon agriculture. Due to German protestant influence upon Biblical scholarship, this attachment to nature has been downplayed in favor of the dimension of history.6 Obviously, Pesach celebrates the liberation from slavery in Egypt, but the agricultural aspects should not be overlooked. The bone of the lamb as representation of spring and the of the new-born of the flock, the unleavened bread, and many other elements still betray the agricultural layer.7 Due to an ideological bias against nature as supposedly more prone to idolatry and to veneration of a goddess of the earth and of fertility, German exegetes like Von Rad staunchly combatted all references to nature in Biblical feasts. By doing so, they robbed the Bible of its ability to solidarize human beings religiously with their fellow creatures. Particularly, feminist scholars have criticized this ideological approach to nature in Biblical context.

In the course of history, animals have more or less disappeared from the religious consciousness, except for farmers who, in spite of an industrialized agriculture, still feel attached to their animals. Not long ago, the day of slaughtering animals was still

<sup>4</sup> See for a nuanced treatment which allows for exceptions: [2].

<sup>5</sup> It should be noted that the protest of the angels against the creation of the human being can be found in the Jewish interpretations of Genesis (Midrash Rabba) as well.

<sup>6</sup> See: [3].

<sup>7</sup> Note how the search for unleavened bread *in the houses* betrays a sedentary civilization (Exodus 12:15), although the Israelites are on the eve of 40 years of desert!

#### *Abrahamic Religions and the Environment: Intimate Strangers? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.103913*

celebrated as a feast of thanksgiving to God. Hence, we should not blame the Bible for ignoring animals and all of creation, but rather an anthropocentric reading of the Bible as it has developed in Western society, possibly only after the Middle Ages. Whereas in the Middle Ages, according to some thinkers the tripartite division of the soul in a vegetative animal and human soul, as proposed by Aristotle, were all of them present in the human being, Western philosophy has ignored the position of nonhuman creatures until recently.8

Another relevant topic when it comes to Bible and environment is time perception. The noncyclical linear time perception of monotheistic religions is held responsible for exploiting the earth.9 The linear time concept would have fostered a blind faith in progress and expansion. Suffice it to state that the notion of a last judgment can indeed be understood as the End of Time, but also as the ultimate expression of human responsibility for his behavior. This last element is, however, sadly neglected in Christianity. The cyclical time perception in Hinduism may have led to an undervaluation of history, but also to a less result-driven approach to life.10 Mutatis mutandis the African concept of time in which the remote future does not seem to play an essential role (John Mbiti) may provide a less-exploiting attitude to the environment. However, all this needs further scrutiny.
