Originally posted by @fmf I believe there must be collective efforts to mitigate our detrimental impacts on our environment and, to a certain degree, the expression of that political and spiritual principle is reflected in my actions in my professional life. Just to be clear. Do you really seek to dismiss me, people like me, and those we choose or call upon to apply our principles in the public domain, as "a group of pedophile rapists"?
I dismiss you as much as I dismiss myself. Without God, we are nothing.
We seek to be free, free from oppression from others. This includes those who destroy the environment for profit. Problem is, we are by in large powerless against our oppressors, and even more so against our participation with them.
We are like the man dying on the side of the road who is saved by the Good Samaritan. We are all dying and in need of a savior.
The hell of it is, even if we had the power to free ourselves we lack the wisdom to use such power correctly on our own.
Originally posted by @whodey I dismiss you as much as I dismiss myself. Without God, we are nothing.
We seek to be free, free from oppression from others. This includes those who destroy the environment for profit. Problem is, we are by in large powerless against our oppressors, and even more so against our participation with them.
We are like the man dying on the side of the r ...[text shortened]... if we had the power to free ourselves we lack the wisdom to use such power correctly on our own.
"Without God"? Is you smearing people you disgree with as "a group of pedophile rapists" an example of you being 'with' your god figure?
Originally posted by @fmf "Without God"? Is you smearing people you disgree with as "a group of pedophile rapists" an example of you being [b]'with' your god figure?[/b]
My use of the terms pedophile and rapists refer to the recent revelations within the US Congress. I began a thread that revealed these same Congressmen have been paying off women who have been sexually abused, at the tune of around $17 million. They use tax payer money to do it, and both parties are equally guilty. So the women sign a document saying they won't talk and the Congressman pays the woman off with tax payer dollars. Everyone then is happy as they wash, rinse, and repeat.
I was not suggesting everyone is a pedophile or rapist, but don't pat yourself on the back too much for not being one if you are not one. Instead, try putting on that ring of power first. Try making all that money and having all that power and then try to restrain your primal sin nature. You may then become that person you now think you are better than.
Originally posted by @whodey My use of the terms pedophile and rapists refer to the recent revelations within the US Congress.
Why? What does that have to do with anything? People who disgree with you are to be likened to "a group of paedophile rapists"? Why do you talk to people on this forum in this way?
Originally posted by @whodey I began a thread that revealed these same Congressmen have been paying off women who have been sexually abused, at the tune of around $17 million. They use tax payer money to do it, and both parties are equally guilty. So the women sign a document saying they won't talk and the Congressman pays the woman off with tax payer dollars.
What does this have to do with what rwingett said in the post you were responding to or the OP?
Originally posted by @whodey I was not suggesting everyone is a pedophile or rapist, but don't pat yourself on the back too much for not being one if you are not one..
Originally posted by @fmf Why? What does that have to do with anything? People who disgree with you are to be likened to "a group of paedophile rapists"? Why do you talk to people on this forum in this way?
My whole point in response to Rwingett is, perhaps the threat to the world are not those who deny science, for they are about as much as a threat as the beasts of the field who don't even understand what science is. No, perhaps the real threat to the world are people like him, or people like the scientist Robert Oppenheimer who created the A-bomb and then later said, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
Food for thought. Once we begin elevating ourselves above others, that is when problems arise. I'm not here to elevate myself above others, rather, I'm trying to pass around a little humility and get people to think.
Originally posted by @whodey My whole point in response to Rwingett is, perhaps the threat to the world are not those who deny science, for they are about as much as a threat as the beasts of the field who don't even understand what science is. No, perhaps the real threat to the world are people like him, or people like the scientist Robert Oppenheimer who created the A-bomb and then l ...[text shortened]... yself above others, rather, I'm trying to pass around a little humility and get people to think.
What does this have to do with "paedophile rapists"?
Originally posted by @rwingett That's actually not a bad post. But it misses the mark in assuming that Christianity has the power to stave off the worsening ecological crisis. It clearly does not. Christianity has no inherent conflict with environmental destruction. Or at the very best, it has a very weak and ineffectual opposition to it. Simply put, as Christianity's emphasis is elsewh ...[text shortened]... it can never align itself sufficiently with environmentalism to be an effective champion of it.
"Lay up your treasure in heaven" is a recipe for mortifying the body here. Some Christian sects go so far as to claim that Adam's fall from grace degraded the whole of creation, not only the soul of man. Why bother to care for the planet if God is coming in the next few years to rapture the just. Pfui.
Originally posted by @moonbus "Lay up your treasure in heaven" is a recipe for mortifying the body here. Some Christian sects go so far as to claim that Adam's fall from grace degraded the whole of creation, not only the soul of man. Why bother to care for the planet if God is coming in the next few years to rapture the just. Pfui.
The part that interested me was Whodey's linkage of the tree of knowledge with technology, which I think is absolutely correct. At least metaphorically. Mankind's original sin is technology. In the beginning mankind was integrated into the whole of nature and its intricately interconnected web of life. With technology, mankind became alienated and separated from nature and began to look upon it as merely a collection of resources to be exploited and used up. That is how the whole of creation came to be degraded. Mankind was forced to leave Eden because he made it uninhabitable. The land was no longer able to support mankind's primordial existence as scavenger-gatherers and he had to take up agriculture, which led to the technological downward spiral we find ourselves in today. Adam's sin is visited upon future generations because they are subsequently born into technological societies. The apple cannot be uneaten.
But if we take "God" to be the whole of nature, then salvation comes, not from God coming to us, but us coming back to God. The gates of Eden are closed to us forever. With 7+ billion people in the world, it is impossible for us the re-embrace our scavenger-gatherer lifestyle. But we can still manage to quit blindly following the dictates of technology and sustainably re-integrate ourselves into nature's (God's) web of life.
Originally posted by @moonbus "Lay up your treasure in heaven" is a recipe for mortifying the body here. Some Christian sects go so far as to claim that Adam's fall from grace degraded the whole of creation, not only the soul of man. Why bother to care for the planet if God is coming in the next few years to rapture the just. Pfui.
In fact, I carved wooden frames for my monitor and keyboard that give a Neo-Luddite re-interpretation of the Garden of Eden story.
In this version the serpent tricks Adam and Eve into eating from the tree (technology) by pointing out that they were forbidden from eating from the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil". Since technology is allegedly neutral, surely it falls outside of the ban. But, of course, the serpent lied. Technology is not neutral. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Originally posted by @rwingett In fact, I carved wooden frames for my monitor and keyboard that give a Neo-Luddite re-interpretation of the Garden of Eden story.
In this version the serpent tricks Adam and Eve into eating from the tree (technology) by pointing out that they were forbidden from eating from ...[text shortened]... , of course, the serpent lied. Technology is not neutral. And the rest, as they say, is history.
A Sermon
02 Dec '17 02:001 edit
Back to Top