Spirituality
26 Nov 17
30 Nov 17
Originally posted by @rwingettIf you ignore eternal consequences you have a point.
Degradation of the habitat may not be a spiritual issue at the present time, but it desperately needs to become one. It is clear that environmentalism, as it currently exists, lacks the motivational force necessary to overcome the inertia of global capitalism in its ongoing despoliation of the planet. Environmentalism needs to reframe its battles as spirit ...[text shortened]... pale in comparison. Continuing with business-as-usual is going to have disastrous consequences.
Originally posted by @moonbusHow anyone can believe a science fiction writer when he comes up with his so-called religion is beyond me, trillion year old humans, alien invaders, why didn't people figure out right from day one the dude was in laa laa land? I figured THAT out in 1968 when I spent about a week with those dudes. But I had help, they kind of took me under their wing and let me into the inner office in Washington DC ATT and I saw :'Rongrams' messages from thier so-called god.
While I agree that there will have to be a sea-change in how mankind views and inhabits his habitat if h. saps is to survive another few centuries, I see a few problems with introducing a new religion, pantheism or any other.
One is that people who already have a religion won't have any incentive to jettison theirs in favor of a new one. Another is that ...[text shortened]... aks, charalatans, fools, and money grubbers. Viz, Scientology, Osho, etc. Beware false prophets!
One question sent was what to do about Scientology apostates, those who quit, his answer: I am quoting from an actual message I saw with my own 4 eyes:
"There is always the 45 solution''.
Might as well have come from the Ayatollah.
01 Dec 17
Originally posted by @rwingettI agree with you that the issue is both urgent and enormous, and that business as usual is a recipe for disaster. Indeed, the avalanche may already be starting to slip (global warming, etc.), though some people don't yet see it coming. That still does not make it a matter of religion, whether a new one or an established one.
Degradation of the habitat may not be a spiritual issue at the present time, but it desperately needs to become one. It is clear that environmentalism, as it currently exists, lacks the motivational force necessary to overcome the inertia of global capitalism in its ongoing despoliation of the planet. Environmentalism needs to reframe its battles as spirit ...[text shortened]... pale in comparison. Continuing with business-as-usual is going to have disastrous consequences.
Personally, I think the root of the problem is not capitalism per se, although unregulated capitalism tends to magnify certain weaknesses in the social system.
It is a law of nature that any species which over-populates its habitat is doomed. We humans reproduce as if we were immune to natural law. "Be fruitful and multiply" was a sensible sexual ethic for the Hebrews returning to their 'promised land' after a long period of exile; it is no longer an appropriate sexual ethic. There are too many people on the planet now; too many people are a burden the ecosystem cannot and will not sustain for long. If h.saps is to survive another few centuries, the population must be got under control; by which I mean, not that the rate of increase must be slowed, but that the absolute number must be reduced to an ecologically sustainable level and stabilized there.
There are four methods of dealing with the issue:
1. Implement world-wide contraception policies.
2. Culling (after all, we shoot deer to prevent them from starving en masse).
3. Wait for war, famine, and disease to reduce the human population to an ecologically sustainable level (which may be zero, as far as other species are concerned).
4. Pray that God will rapture the just and get rid of the unjust for us.
Personally, I favor option 1, but I can imagine some future Stalin- or Mao-type feeling compelled to try option 2 in order to try to avert option 3. Option 4 is so ineffectual that, practically speaking, it defaults to option 3.
01 Dec 17
Originally posted by @sonhouse"How anyone can believe a science fiction writer...?" Is that a psychological question, 'by what mental trickery or self-deception does one get oneself to believe nonsense?' People can be lead to do so under controlled circumstances when deprived of reality checks. It was L. Ron Hubbard's peculiar genius to have discovered how to create such conditions and maintain them, indefinitely, as an institution.
How anyone can believe a science fiction writer when he comes up with his so-called religion is beyond me, trillion year old humans, alien invaders, why didn't people figure out right from day one the dude was in laa laa land? I figured THAT out in 1968 when I spent about a week with those dudes. But I had help, they kind of took me under their wing and le ...[text shortened]... n 4 eyes:
"There is always the 45 solution''.
Might as well have come from the Ayatollah.
BTW, Hubbard is on record in praise of the apartheid regime in So. Africa; he said segregated townships were an admirable social arrangement. As if anyone needed any further proof of Hubbard's 'spiritual credentials.'
Originally posted by @rwingettBrother's and sisters, we see the world on the verge of ecological destruction. Scientists were clever and learned to empower themselves through fossil fuels, they were clever enough to make plastic, something that does not biodegrade. They were even clever enough to create weapons of mass destruction to spare ourselves the problem of sending soldiers into hellish environments to fight our wars.
Brothers and sisters, a mere two hundred years of industrial society has been sufficient to bring the world to the brink of ecological destruction. The signs of the coming apocalypse are everywhere to see: global warming, super storms, rising sea levels, droughts, enormous wildfires, pollution, habitat loss, accelerating species extinction, all coupled wit ...[text shortened]... sisters. We need to quickly realize that what we do to the earth, we ultimately do to ourselves.
Brother's and sisters, do we continue to be like Adam and Eve? Do we continue to worship at the forbidden tree of knowledge just for the sake of knowledge and all the power it can bring us, or do we heed God's warnings for wisdom before obtaining such knowledge so that we don't destroy ourselves?
Will seeking more knowledge devoid of God's wisdom save us? Last I checked, we are on the verge of the robotic and Ai era. So what will a droid with artificial intelligence do to a humanity that it is being told is destroying the planet?
Can I hear a good amen?
01 Dec 17
Originally posted by @whodeyThat'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 elsewhere, it can never align itself sufficiently with environmentalism to be an effective champion of it.
Brother's and sisters, we see the world on the verge of ecological destruction. Scientists were clever and learned to empower themselves through fossil fuels, they were clever enough to make plastic, something that does not biodegrade. They were even clever enough to create weapons of mass destruction to spare ourselves the problem of sending soldiers into ...[text shortened]... ence do to a humanity that it is being told is destroying the planet?
Can I hear a good amen?
Originally posted by @rwingettI think you will find that your only hope resides in the back pages of the Bible with the coming of the Messiah to save us from ourselves.
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.
In the interim, people turning to God I think can slow down the process.
Make no mistake, we are completely and utterly dependent upon God, but most just don't realize it................yet.
Don't get me wrong, most understand that we are dependent, they just believe it is government that will provide us with our collective salvation.
I'll tell you what, I will put my faith in Christ and you can put your faith in a group of pedophile rapists that have sold their souls to corporate America.
Deal?
02 Dec 17
Originally posted by @whodeyYou seem to be branding those who would disagree with your political views as "a group of pedophile rapists".
I'll tell you what, I will put my faith in Christ and you can put your faith in a group of pedophile rapists that have sold their souls to corporate America.
02 Dec 17
Originally posted by @whodeyI 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"?
LOL.
Both parties seem to disagree with my political views.
They deserve each other.
Originally posted by @sonshipAre you engaging in wordplay-sophistry - yet again - with the word "religious" - or do you really think rwingget worships a supernatural being?
Why should we not consider this your man-made religious belief ?
When it is your hope, well, that is not a man-made religion of sorts ?
Your belief is the exception?