The artist Josh Tiessen made this altar tripych that is currently on tour. In this video, he documents that process and what all the elements of the painting mean to him theologically in light of Christian eschatology and passages from Isaiah. It’s really interesting. (He would be a cool guest for a future podcast or topic for a future blog post @jstump)
There is some provactive theological reflection in the video if anyone wants to discuss. What you do think about the ideas of animal suffering and exploitation that he brings up? What do you think about the link between the ivory trade/luxury consumerism and animal medical testing and Israel’s animal sacrifice system?
Nice explanation of the story behind the painting. I think there was much good in the explanation.
I agree that the destruction of nature around us is mainly due to the greed of us humans. Although the Eden story uses somewhat harsh words about the dominion of humans over the creation, there is an underlying obligation to protect the creation of God. We should reflect the good will of the Lord towards the creation, rather than reflect our destructive greed on others. Getting short-term profit at the cost of long-term destruction is not good.
Some parts are more dependent on the philosophy behind the ideas. Some wordings seemed to reflect the ideology of equality between humans and the other animals, to the point where we should treat animals like humans. Although I do support the basic idea that we should treat the animals well, I give more value for humans than the other animals.
Animal use in medical and scientific experiments is one area where the ideologies may clash. There is a need to make a cost-benefit analysis of each experiment. For example, how do we value the suffering of a mice and a human - should we weigh them equally? If these are given equal weight in the cost-benefit analyses, that would support the use of humans in medical experiments instead of mice.
Usually, the cost-benefit analyses are dominated by the principle that the potential suffering of few should be covered by the benefits to many, many more (benefits >> costs). The principle of reducing the suffering to a minimum has even lead to the conclusion that angling (using of hook) is rarely an acceptable method for obtaining fish for experiments, even if tens of people would be angling fish around for recreation and food. This kind of analysis makes you look at behaviours from an alternative perspective.
2 Likes
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
