Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

God has given the earth to humans to use in a wise way (ref:  early chapters
in Genesis).  This certainly includes caring for the earth in the same
way we would be responsible for caring for anything God has given us. 

Collis

    
    
    Thanks Collis.
    
    A question....do you consider yourself a part of the Earth?
    
    Carole

    The texts refered in .1 (something about "rule the earth") have been
    used in the past to justify all manner of actions -- something along
    the line, "it's mine and I'll do what I want with it".  However, we
    have learned in the political sphere in the last century, despotic rule
    kills the body politic, as well as ultimately the despot.  We need a
    new concept of what it means to "rule the earth".  Something more along
    the line of the way the brain "rules the body", perhaps.
    
    DR

Re:  .2

  >...do you consider yourself a part of the Earth?

Not in the context of the question, as I understand it.

Re:  124.3

  >The texts refered in .1 (something about "rule the earth") have been
  >used in the past to justify all manner of actions -- something along
  >the line, "it's mine and I'll do what I want with it".  

People should are si----, I mean, wicked, aren't they.  :-)

Collis

    Collis,
    	I was just about to point out that your comment included language
    which required wise (intelligent, productive, conservatory) use of the
    earth rather than wasteful or rapacious use of it. Then you went and
    almost used that naughty word. So I won't. So there !

    Here we get a little into economics.  Land ownership is a curious
    thing.  Most Christians will tell you that God owns everything, and
    then they turn around and purchase real estate.  I've fallen into
    the same trap.
    
    Amused, Tecumsa said, "Can you own the clouds?  Can you own the sky?"
    Here was a man who understood!  Too bad he was considered the savage.
    -----------------------------
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard,
    	do you mean to suggest that we should take seriously the words of
    some nasty old man with long hair and leather pants ?  Someone who
    never graduated high school and tended to his needs behind a bush near
    the tent he called home ?  He even TALKS like a commie hippie !  
    	Come to think of it, he also makes a lot of sense. ;-)

    If I have the time, I try to add, "The Letter to The President of 
    United States," from Chief Seattle.

    This is a true letter that Chief Seattle wrote in response to the
    President's request to buy Indian land.
     
    Peace
    Jim

    Please do, Jim.  I have been trying to find it and have been
    unsuccessful.
    
    E Grace

        Digital has it now!

        From the archived MOMCAT::WOMANNOTES-V2 conference:

================================================================================
Note 735.110                 Two-legged incubators?                   110 of 118
VIA::HEFFERNAN "Mentally diverse"                   127 lines  15-AUG-1989 08:09
                     -< famous Chief Seattle Speech - FYI >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1854 Chief Seattle of the Puget Sound Indians was asked to sell a
large area of land in what is now Washington state.  He and his people
were also promised a reservation by President Franklin Pierce.  Here
is Chief Seattle's reply, one of the most beautiful statements on the
environment ever made.

<< Keep in mind this was written in 1854 >>

------------

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land?  The idea is
strange to us.  If we do not own the freshness of the air and the
sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people.  Every shining pine needle,
every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and
humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people.  The
sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.

The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to
walk among the stars.  Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for
it is the mother of the red man.  We are a part of the earth and it is
a part of us.  The perfumed flowers are our sisters; the deer, the
horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers.  The rocky crests,
the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man - all
belong to the same family.

So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy
our land, he asks much of us.  The Great Chief in Washington will
reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves.  He will
be our father and we will be his children.  So we will consider your
offer to buy our land.  But it will not be easy.  For this land is
sacred to us.

This shining water that moves in the streams and the rivers is not just
water but the blood of our ancestors.  If we sell you land, you must
remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is
sacred and that each ghastly reflection in the clear water of the lakes
tells of events and memories in the life of my people.  The water's
murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst.  The rivers carry
our canoes, and feed our children.  If we sell you our land, you must
remember, and teach your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and
yours, and you must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you would
give any brother.

We know that the white man does not understand our ways.  One portion
of land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes
in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs.  The earth is
not his brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on.
He leaves his fathers' graves and his children's birthright forgotten.
He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to
be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads.  His appetite
will devour the earth and leave behind only desert.

I do not know.  Our ways are different from your ways.  The sight of your
cities pains the eye of the red man.  But perhaps it is because the red
man is savage and does not understand.

There is no quiet place in the white man's cities.  No place to hear the
unfurling of leaves in spring, or the rustle of an insect's wings.  But
perhaps it is because I am savage and do not understand.  The clatter
only seems to insult the ears.  And what is there to life if a man
cannot hear the lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the
frogs around a pond at night?  I am a red man and do not understand.
The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind darting over the face of
a pond, and the smell of the wind itself, cleansed by the rain or
scented with the pine cone.

The air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same
breath: the beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath.
The white men, they all share the same breath.  The white man does
not seem to notice the air he breathes.  Like a man dying for many
days, he is numb to the stench.  But if we sell you our land, you must
remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its
spirit with all the life it supports.  The wind that gave our
grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh.  And if we
sell you our land you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where
even the white man can go and taste the wind that is sweetened by the
meadow's flowers.

So we will consider your offer to buy our land.  If we decide to accept
I will make one condition.  The white man must treat the beasts of this
land as his brothers.

I am savage and do not understand any other way.  I have seen a thousand
rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them
from a passing train.  I am savage and do not understand how the smoking
iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to
stay alive.

What is man without the beasts?  If all the beasts were gone, man would
die from a great loneliness of the spirit.  For whatever happens to the
beasts, soon happens to man.  All things are connected.

You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the
ashes of our grandfathers.  So that they will respect our land, tell
your children that the earth is rich with the lives of our kin.  Teach
your children what we have taught our children, that the earth is our
mother.  Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth.
Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

Even the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as a friend to
friend, cannot be exempt from the common destiny.  We may be brothers
after all.  We shall see.  One thing we know, which the white man may
one day discover - our God is the same God.  You may think now that you
own Him as you wish to own our land; but you cannot.  He is the God of man
and his compassion is equal for the red man and the white.  The earth is
precious to him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt upon its Creator.
The whites, too, shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes.
Contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

But in your perishing, you will shine brightly, fired by the strength
of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose
gave you dominion over the red man.  That destiny is a mystery to us,
for we do not understand when the buffalo are slaughtered, the wild
horses are tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with the
scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills blotted out by
talking wires.  Where is the thicket?  Gone.  Where is the eagle?  Gone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the end, they named a city after him on the land he could not own.

    Thanks Bob! 

    Carole .0,
    
    Reverence for the earth and all creation is the foundation of
    my faith.  I believe wo/mankind was given stewardship of Mother
    Earth and all her kingdoms, and by and large, that responsibility
    has been abused and neglected.  Not only has this abuse condemned
    many species to extinction and continues as we speak, it is
    nailing shut our own coffin, and may soon end the human legacy on 
    this planet.
    
    And all for what?
    
    Karen
    
    p.s.  Thanks very much Bob for posting Chief Seattle's letter.  
                                                        

    Me too, thank you, thank you. I have a laser standing by to print it at
    this moment.

    Thank you!
    
    E Grace

	A Prayer of Gratitude

	  Francis of Assisi

Most high, all powerful, good Lord,
to you all praise, glory and honor
and all blessing;
to you alone, Most High, they belong
and no [person] is worthy of naming you.

Praised be you, my Lord,
with all your creatures,
especially My Lord Brother Sun,
who brings day, and by whom you enlighten us;
he is beautiful, he shines with great splendor;
of you, Most High, he is the symbol.

Praised be you, my Lord,
for Sister Moon and the stars:
in the heavens you formed them,
clear, precious and beautiful.

Praised be you, my Lord, for Brother Wind
and for the air and the clouds,
for the azure-calm and for all climes
by which you give life to your creatures.

Praised be you, my Lord, for Sister Water,
who is very useful and humble,
precious and chaste.

Praised be you, my Lord, for Brother Fire,
by whom you enlighten the night:
he is beautiful and joyous,
indomitable and strong.

Praised be you; my Lord,
for Sister our Mother the Earth
who nourishes us and bears us,
and produces all kinds of fruits,
with the speckled flowers and the herbs.

Selections from the Assisi Declarations by Fr. Lanfranco Serrini

"Because of the responsibilities that flow from our dual citizenship,
our dominion cannot be understood as license to abuse, spoil, squander
or destroy what God has made to manifest God's glory.  That dominion
cannot be anything else but a stewardship in symbiosis with all creatures."

"At the risk of destroying ourselves we may not reduce to chaos or disorder,
or, still worse, destroy God's bountiful treasures."

"Therefore, in the name of Christ who will come to judge the living and
the dead, Christians repudiate:

1. All form of human activity - wars, discrimination and destruction of
cultures - that do not respect the authentic interests of the human race,
in accordance with God's will and design, and do not enable us as
individuals and as members of society to pursue and fulfill our total
vocation within the harmony of the universe.

2. All ill-considered exploitation of nature that risks to destroy it and,
in turn, to make humanity the victim of degradation."

    
    
    There is a discussion going on in CHRISTIAN, Note 338 - Birth Control,
    which has brought this note to my mind again.  Something to do with
    the world population can fit on the continent of Australia, and
    that the world currently produces enough food to feed everybody,
    so the conclusion is that the world is not overpopulated.  Did I
    get that logic right?  Later notes in that string bring up the issues
    of the ecological balance and the need for areas to grow trees and
    such, and even mention the species that are affected.  Thank goodness
    some people are thinking about this.  But what concerns me is that
    there are still people who think that we can continue the population
    explosion because we have the ability to feed everyone and can fit
    all these people on one continent!  This makes no sense to me and
    shows a dismal lack of vision.
    
    We have already done irretrievable damage to the earth, and are
    wiping out many species on a regular basis.  Our development of
    land is done with no thought of doing so in harmony with the 
    environment and the creatures who share this planet with us.  We
    build homes in areas that have never had development on them before
    and then flip out when animals show up in our backyards looking
    for food.  We take away their means of food and then justify killing
    them so that they won't starve to death!
    
    I'm sorry, but I just get so angry about this and the way we have
    treated our world.  There are many steps we can take to begin to
    turn this around....birth control is one of them.
    
    Carole

    No doubt Chief Seattle would have some peace of mind knowing that the
    Almighty will not put up much longer with the way man is treated His
    earth.  Speaking of the final destruction of this world's system of
    national entities and their policies that have so mismanaged the land
    we live in, the Bible states "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty,
    the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and
    begun ruling as king.  But the nations became wrathful, and your own
    wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to
    give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones
    and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring
    to ruin those ruining the earth."  -- Rev. 11:17,18
    
    Since the prophecies in Revelation have their fulfillment in the Last
    Days (in which we are living), they would apply to the earth in the
    near time frame.  And thanks to the resurrection of the unrighteous,
    Chief Seattle may well have an opportunity to see the earth return to a
    paradise condition which he never even dreamed of.  -- Acts 24:15, Isa.
    11:6-9
    
    Larry
    

    
    
    The Native Americans also have their prophecies regarding the
    the coming Earth changes.  I have some concerns though, and I
    guess I'll pose this question to you Larry.  The NA prophecies
    tell of the time when people will again live in harmony with
    the Earth as the native peoples did before.  This will require
    connecting in with the Earth's energies and communing with
    nature.  This is exactly the way of life that was viewed as
    'heathen and savage' and was stamped out by mostly Christians.  
    Do you think the attitude in the future would be any different?
    
    Carole
    

Note 124.20

>    No doubt Chief Seattle would have some peace of mind knowing that the
>    Almighty will not put up much longer with the way man is treated His
>    earth.

	Mind you, I don't know Chief Seattle personally, but something
tells me he would take no delight in retribution, even that of a Divine
nature, for the desecration of the Earth.  Something tells me he would
rather we change our attitudes and actions; experience a non-traditional
"metanoia" (which means "repent" or "re-think").

Peace,
Richard

Re: .21

Hi Carole:

Well now, you posed a fair question and it deserves an equal answer. 
If I told you what I thought, it would only be my opinion and opinions 
are among the world's cheapest commodities.   So, since the prophecy 
clearly tells us that God would bring to ruin those ruining the earth, 
it is only fair to let the same author tell how what the earth would 
be like without those people.  There are a number of scriptures that 
set forth a description of the New World or, as Revelation puts it, 
the 'New Earth.'  The one I like best is taken from the book of Isaiah 
which describes earth's ruler, Jesus, when he brings his Kingdom 
government to the earth.  "And there must go forth a twig out of the 
stump of Jesse [David's father] and out of his roots a sprout will be 
fruitful.  And upon him the spirit of Jehovah will settle down, the 
spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of 
mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; and 
there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah."  (Isa 11:1-3 
NW)  With those credentials it's hard not to do well!  So its not 
surprising to hear that his judgments are righteous.

"And he will not judge by any mere appearance to his eyes, not reprove 
simply according to the thing heard by his ears.  And with 
righteousness he must judge the lowly ones and with uprightness he 
must give reproof in behalf of the meek ones of the earth.  And he 
must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the spirit of 
his lips he will put the wicked one to death.  And righteousness must 
prove to be the belt of his hips, and faithfulness the belt of his 
loins."  (Isa 11:4-5 NW)  As a result not only is man at peace with 
man, but also with the world of animals.

"And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and 
with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the 
maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere 
little boy will be leader over them.  And the cow and the bear 
themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down.  And 
even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child 
will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light 
aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own 
hand."  (Isa 11:6-8 NW)  Even the Native Americans never had that 
experience.  And the reason for all of the above is provided at the 
conclusion of the passage.

"They will not do any harm or cause any ruin in all my holy mountain; 
because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of 
Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea."  -- Isa 11:9 NW

I believe Chief Seattle could live with that, don't you?  Hope that 
answers your question.

Larry

   

Hello Richard:

>Something tells me [Chief Seattle] would take no delight in 
>retribution, even that of a Divine nature, for the desecration of the 
>earth.

No doubt he wouldn't...but then no one said anything about 
retribution.  If we as imperfect humans bring to the bar of justice 
those criminals whose behavior against fellow humans demands rightful 
punishment, why wouldn't our perfect Creator with perfect justice 
bring proper punishment against those who ruin his creation???  But 
then again He not only wants to help all men, including those who are 
ruining the earth, but he makes it possible to take the proper steps 
to gain life on the paradise earth as described in Isa 11 which I 
quoted from in the previous reply to Carole. "This is right and is 
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be 
save and to come to the knowledge of the truth."    -- 1 Tim 2:4 NKJ

>Something tells me he would rather we change our attitudes and 
>actions; experience a non-traditional [repentance].

Chief Seattle is not the only one who would like a change of attitude 
and repentence.  "The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some 
think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, 
but all to come to repentance.  But the day of the Lord will come like 
a thief..."  (2 Pet. 3:9,10)  Unfortunately very few indeed 'come to 
the knowledge of the truth' before the 'day of the Lord' and do come 
to ruin which explains why Jeremiah tells us that then those "slain by 
Jehovah will certainly come to be in that day from one end of the 
earth clear to the other end of the earth."   (Jer 25:33 NW)  All for 
a lack of interest in finding out what God's purpose is for the earth 
and for man on it.  But I suspect that Chief Seattle will be here some 
time after the dead are buried and will be among "the meek ones' who 
will "possess the earth and.. .will indeed find their exquisite 
delight in the abundance of peace."  -- Ps 37:11

Larry

    
    
    Thanks for your reply Larry.  I do hope that, when all of these
    changes have come to pass, all people will live in cooperation
    with each other and with nature.
    
    Carole

	For those who would like to participate in a writing campaign
    	to have our government pass a thoughtful and progressive energy
        policy for the 1990's, please read the following cover letter
    	and consider sending the sample letter to your representatives
        and President Bush.
    
    	Carole
    
    
    
    
	Dear Friends,

	During the months of February and March, the United States Congress
	will be considering important bills that will determine our national
	energy policy for the current decade.  Although there is talk of
	conservation, the main thrust is for increased oil drilling -
	including drilling in the sensitive eco-system of the arctic wilderness
	and the important fishing grounds off the continental shelf.  Congress
	needs to hear from us if it is to at least give conservation equal
	weight.

	Enclosed is a sample letter which you can copy to send to your
	Congressmen/women, Senators and the White House.  If you would like to
	join the 'Pass It On Letter Writing Campaign', please make at least
	one extra copy of this cover letter and the sample letter, and pass
	on to an environmentally conscious friend and ask them to do the same.
	If you can pass it on to three or four people, or a group you belong
	to, all the better.

	One of the most important bills is the fuel efficiency bill.  49% of
	our oil is used in automobiles and trucks.  Last year a White House
	organized filibuster killed the bill - it has been re-introduced in
	February and will require a massive letter writing campaign to 
	counteract current pressure.

	     Send in your letters and pass it on!

	Send to:

  Congressman/woman________, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515
  Senator______________, United States Senate, Washington DC 20510
  President George Bush, The White House, Washington DC  20500



 	Dear

	At this time, when Congress is about to decide our energy policy for
	the 1990's, I would like to express my support for conservation
	measures before resorting to drilling in environmentally sensitive
	areas.  It is my understanding that there is only between two and
	three years of oil supply in all the undeveloped offshore oil fields,
	yet environmental damage could be irreparable.  I am strongly in 
	favor of *a strong fuel efficiency bill*.  49% of our oil is used
	for autos and trucks.  Automakers have the technology to produce
	energy efficient cars but do not want to risk being the only one.
	I also support the following programs:

	1.  ALTERNATE FUELS.  Domestically produced alternative fuels are
	    available now and cars that can run on them will be produced by
	    major automakers for sale in California.  These alternative fuel
	    cars not only save oil but cut down on the emission of greenhouse
	    gases.

 	2.  INCREASED ELECTRIC CONSERVATION.  If current lighting was 
	    converted to the best available lighting technology - there
            would be savings of $30 billion, a 25% decrease in electricity
	    use.  Japan has shown that conservation can be put into effect
	    without harming the economy.  According to Greenpeace the number
            of barrels saved per day, if the U.S. used oil as efficiently
	    as Japan, is seven million.

	3.  INCREASE IN THE BUDGET OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR RENEWABLE
            ENERGY RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION.  Between 1981 and 1989 this
	    section of the budget was reduced by 90%.  This is unconscionable
            in a world in which most of our oil comes from an area that is
            very unstable politically.  In the early days of oil exploration
	    the industry was able to be price competitive with government 
            price supports and tax breaks.  Why is this not being done for
            the renewable energy industry?  Certainly this could be good for
            the economy and create jobs.

  	I ask you to support the fuel efficiency bill, conservation measures,
	and the development of renewable energy sources.

					        Sincerely,

    A friend of mine this past weekend burned his driver's license
    as a statement against the damage our addiction to fossil fuels
    has brought upon our planet and against the blood spilled in the
    process of protecting the interests of the wealthy.
    
    To some he may be perceived a kook.  To me, he is a saint.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Carole .26,
    
    Thanks very much.  I have printed out the letter and will 
    make copies for a few other people I know.
    
    Kb
     

    re:.27
    
    	Anyone who burns their driver's license had better hope they are
    never stopped by the police for questioning. Just being in a car that
    is suspected of being involved in something illegal could be a problem.
    And, no, I don't mean "driving without a license". Many police officers
    believe they have the right to demand to see anyone's driver's license
    and can arrest anyone who refuses to cooperate with that request. I
    know of bicyclists who have been so accosted. 

Re: .29  Dave

Maybe this is a good way to get rich on a false arrest lawsuit...

				-- Bob

    From an article,
Humans Brutalizing Humans: Necessary Images in the Christian Religion?
by Delores Williams, a member of the faculty at Drew University Theological 
School

    ....we must now
evaluate the social effect of the images and ritual central to the Christian
religion and search our tradition for those that foster healing rather
than brutality.  As I see it, the important images and symbols of the
Christian religion are those that communicate some hopeful message about
sin and salvation in relation to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.
A variety of suggestions are possible.  The mustard seed could be an 
important image in the Christian religion, simultaneously emphasizing 
the importance of faith in the healing ministry of Jesus, the importance 
of faith for salvation, and the centrality of the kingdom of God in Jesus' 
preaching ministry....(Luke 13:18-19)

Of prime significance for humans is the reminder this parable provides of 
the connection of human destiny with the growth and care potential of 
nature.  It is also a reminder of the protection/shelter nature provides
for life forms.  This kind of reminder is certainly significant for our
time when the environmentalists all over the world are trying frantically
to direct our attention to the way in which humans are destroying the
natural environment.  Lifting up the mustard seed as a central image in
the Christian religion has the social effect of raising our
consciousness about the way societies use and relate to nature and the
religious effect of providing hope for human destiny.

    
    RE: .31
    
    I like that Nancy!  Thanks for entering it.
    
    Carole

    Hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes.  Seems like
    the Earth can sure dish it out,......
    
    			......but the Earth genuinely can't take it.

We humans have done a terrific job of subduing the Earth.  Actually, it's
beyond being subdued.  The Earth has been exploited.  The Earth has been
raped and pillaged.  We've done a terrible job of forecasting the irreparable
devastation that humans would incur upon this habitat in the name of Destiny.

Richard

    Richard .33,
    
    > We've done a terrible job of forecasting the irreparable devastation
    that humans would incur upon this habitat in the name of Destiny. <
    
    The Hopi and other native american cultures did an excellent and 
    accurate job of forecasting the devastation, centuries ago.
    
    Too bad Europeans lost their reverence for the earth somewhere along the
    way.  We're all paying the price now, and I fear it will continue to rise
    steadily as long as we maintain the "war brings prosperity" and mass 
    consumerism attitudes that predominate western society.
    
    Karen

    
    Hi all,
    
    I was wondering if I could get some feedback on how 'traditional'
    Christianity views the use of herbs in the treatment of illness.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

Can't say as I know, Carole.

Personally, I would do what works (within rather broad limits) whether it
be medicine, surgery, chiropractic, diet, herbs, acupuncture, etc.

Collis

    
	I have lately been reading a book called "The Dream of the Earth"
	by theologian Thomas Berry.  I was attracted to this book because
	of a very strong longing that has been growing inside of me to make
	more direct contact with the Earth and nature.  I *feel* the Earth
    	calling to me, and the title of the book was just *so* compelling.

	What this book discusses through a series of essays is the precarious
	state humanity now finds itself in in regards to our survival, and
	also the precarious position we have placed the Earth in.  I agree
	with Berry that certain Western mindsets have more than helped to
        bring us to the	edge of this precipice, and that a major change needs 
    	to take place.

	We need to understand that human destiny and Earth's destiny are
	integrally linked.  I guess this is where I see Christianity, in
	particular, failing.  So many Christians are looking to the time
	when they will be *raptured* into heaven, away from this Earth.
	They hold the belief that they are 'in the world, not of the world'.
	They will never allow themselves to be of the Earth; to acknowledge
	the Mother who has so lovingly given them their 'bodies' and provided
	for their needs so unselfishly.  The world, the Earth is evil to them.
	
	How can we change this focus around so that the Earth is no longer
        abused, but is honored and loved the way She should be?

	Carole

Carole, 
      a few thoughts in relation to your note :

        1) you seem personify the earth as though it had feelings and
           a will. Is this what you have in mind when you say you feel
           "the earth calling to me" and the longing in you to have "direct
           contact" or do you mean you are, for example, interested in 
           taking up gardening.
    

>>>.........................................................I agree
>>>with Berry that certain Western mindsets have more than helped to
>>>bring us to the edge of this precipice, and that a major change needs 
>>>to take place.

        2) Is it really a Western mindset or is it more the mindset of 
           the greedy. I am a westerner and don't for a minute believe
           that the earth should be abused, however I don't see that a
           change to an alternative mindset (northern, southern or eastern)
           has anything better to offer.



>>>We need to understand that human destiny and Earth's destiny are
>>>integrally linked.  I guess this is where I see Christianity, in
>>>particular, failing.  


       3) The Christian position on the earth is that when God created it
          He said that "it was very good". God likes his creation.

          In terms of its destiny 2 Peter 3:10-13 states that the present
          earth will be eventually burned up on the last day. Because
          God loves us our destiny is NOT integrally linked with that of 
          earth (otherwise we would end up burned).

          Until the last day I am not in any hurry to get off the earth,
          eventhough I know that there is something better for me beyond 
          this earth. Maybe these Christians have somthing good to look 
          forward to.


>>>'in the world, not of the world'.

       4) This is a "Christian-ese" term which means that the Christians
          do not have a desire to live according to any evil values
          of the societies in which they live.



>>>They will never allow themselves to be of the Earth; to acknowledge
>>>the Mother who has so lovingly given them their 'bodies' and provided
>>>for their needs so unselfishly.  The world, the Earth is evil to them.


       5) Is there something in your thinking that sees the earth as a type
          of "goddess" [She/Mother] with the ability to love, give bodies and 
          provide unselfishly. Would you expect a Christian to acknowledge
          such a personality.

          The Earth, but not the earth, might be viewed as evil.

Regards,
Seamus.
          

    RE: .38 Seamus...
    
    >    1) you seem personify the earth as though it had feelings and
    >       a will. Is this what you have in mind when you say you feel
    >       "the earth calling to me" and the longing in you to have "direct
    >       contact" or do you mean you are, for example, interested in 
    >       taking up gardening.
    
    Well, I hope this was not as sarcastic as I read it!  I am glad
    to see you were able to pick up the sincerity and feeling behind
    my words.  Yes, I am referring to the Gaia principle that science 
    is now beginning to embrace - that the Earth is a living organism.
    
>>>.........................................................I agree
>>>with Berry that certain Western mindsets have more than helped to
>>>bring us to the edge of this precipice, and that a major change needs 
>>>to take place.

>        2) Is it really a Western mindset or is it more the mindset of 
>           the greedy. I am a westerner and don't for a minute believe
>           that the earth should be abused, however I don't see that a
>           change to an alternative mindset (northern, southern or eastern)
>           has anything better to offer.

    
    Well certainly greed is a major factor in the destruction that is 
    taking place on the planet.  We could begin by learning from the
    native peoples of North America.  We could begin by not dumping
    chemicals into our own backyards.  We could begin by tripling our
    efforts are recycling.  We could begin by buying only products that
    are not environmentally harmful.  And on and on...
    
    

>>>We need to understand that human destiny and Earth's destiny are
>>>integrally linked.  I guess this is where I see Christianity, in
>>>particular, failing.  


    >   3) The Christian position on the earth is that when God created it
    >      He said that "it was very good". God likes his creation.

    >      In terms of its destiny 2 Peter 3:10-13 states that the present
    >      earth will be eventually burned up on the last day. Because
    >      God loves us our destiny is NOT integrally linked with that of 
    >      earth (otherwise we would end up burned).

    >      Until the last day I am not in any hurry to get off the earth,
    >      eventhough I know that there is something better for me beyond 
    >      this earth. Maybe these Christians have somthing good to look 
    >      forward to.

    This is exactly what I am talking about.  With a belief structure like
    this, the earth just might burn up.
    

>>>'in the world, not of the world'.

       4) This is a "Christian-ese" term which means that the Christians
          do not have a desire to live according to any evil values
          of the societies in which they live.

  I don't know.  That is not how other Christians have defined this.

>>>They will never allow themselves to be of the Earth; to acknowledge
>>>the Mother who has so lovingly given them their 'bodies' and provided
>>>for their needs so unselfishly.  The world, the Earth is evil to them.


    >   5) Is there something in your thinking that sees the earth as a type
    >      of "goddess" [She/Mother] with the ability to love, give bodies and 
    >      provide unselfishly. Would you expect a Christian to acknowledge
    >      such a personality.

    I see the Earth as a biological entity.  I don't see the Earth as a 
    goddess.  I see the Earth as a divine part of God.  Our bodies are
    made from earth substance.  Without the Earth, we wouldn't have these
    bodies to experience through.  The Earth provides all of our physical
    sustenance.
    
    
    >      The Earth, but not the earth, might be viewed as evil.

    This is exactly my concern.
    
    
    Carole          

    RE: .38 & .39 

      Carole,
              no sarcasm in what I have written. I am asking these
              questions to understand your point of view.
    
       1) I agree that the earth is a living organism.
       2) Agree with you on recycling, antidumping etc.    


>>>This is exactly what I am talking about.  With a belief structure like
>>>this, the earth just might burn up.

       3) The belief structure that I have outlined here reflects what
          I believe is God's final destiny for the earth (2 Peter 3:10-13)
          and also His decision on when it will occur.

          However it would be wrong for me to think that 
           a) any work could or should be done to bring this about;
           b) the belief structure outlined will cause the effect ..
              for Example : I believe that people will die ... but that
                            belief does not cause people to die.

          The final choice is not mine to make. However I believe that
          as I Christian I am required to care for what I have been 
          given until God decides it is time to take them/it away from me. 



>>>I see the Earth as a biological entity.  I don't see the Earth as a 
>>>goddess.  I see the Earth as a divine part of God.  Our bodies are
>>>made from earth substance.  Without the Earth, we wouldn't have these
>>>bodies to experience through.  The Earth provides all of our physical
>>>sustenance.
    
       4) Would it be fair to draw a conclusion for what you have written
          that you would see our bodies as a divine part of God as we are
          made from earth substance ?.


       5) In what sense do you see "the Earth as a divine part of God" ?.
          
          For example if my wife and I have a baby, the baby is part of us
          but is yet a seperate person with their own feelings and 
          personality. If either baby or me die then the other will still 
          exist as a full person.

          I can certainly view the earth as being Gods workmanship in which
          He has expressed Himself, His creativity, beauty etc. but remains
          a seperate person.
          If I believe that God created the earth then I must of necessity
          believe that He existed beforehand and was not lacking part of 
          Himself. 


>>>This is exactly my concern.

       6) Your concern seems to me to be that the Christian belief about
          the destiny of the earth is going to cause the earth to be 
          burned up.
          Correct me if I am wrong on this one.

Will be back tomorrow.
Regards,
Seamus.

      RE: .40
    
      >        no sarcasm in what I have written. 
    
      Oh, ok.  I thought your reference to gardening was sarcastic...kind
      of simplifying what I was saying.
    
      > 3) The belief structure that I have outlined here reflects what
      >    I believe is God's final destiny for the earth (2 Peter 3:10-13)
      >    and also His decision on when it will occur.

      Yes, I know.  This is what I am talking about.
    
      Belief structures have caused all kinds of things during humanities
      time on this planet.  They create the contexts of our lives.
    
      What I *believe* is that there is an urgent need for us to re-connect
      with nature, in similar ways that the native peoples were connected.
      From my understanding, traditional Christian thought would make this
      a no-no.

      > 4) Would it be fair to draw a conclusion for what you have written
       >   that you would see our bodies as a divine part of God as we are
        >  made from earth substance ?.

        Yes, I see us as a part of the Divine, of God.  Included in that
        are both our spirits and our bodies.
    
       5) In what sense do you see "the Earth as a divine part of God" ?.
    
       Well, awhile ago I put a note in this file about my view of God
       as having 4 parts - spirit, will, heart and body.  The Earth is
       as much a divine part of God as we are.
              
       Oh I don't know.  I think the Earth and we are here for a reason
       and that we and the Earth are unique expressions of God.  To me,
       I think God would feel *every single thing* that happens to those
       parts of Him/Her.  

       >6) Your concern seems to me to be that the Christian belief about
       >   the destiny of the earth is going to cause the earth to be 
       >   burned up.
        
       Belief systems are powerful things.  As I said above, they create
       the contexts within which we live our lives.  Christian belief may
       not effect anything, however, I don't think it supports the intense
       effort it will take to turn the current situation around.
    
    
       Carole

Many of our so-called Christian predecessors freely interpreted "dominion"
to mean "exploitation" when it came to the Earth's natural resources.

There's something curiously hypocritical about telling the people who
are destroying the tropical rain forests for their own economic interests,
"You can't do that, because we here in North America already have!  And if
you keep impinging on forests as we did, there won't be enough vegetation
to keep up the oxygen production."

The most current estimates indicate that one biological species is being
destroyed *per day*, and that by the year 2000 it will be closer to wiping
out a species *per hour*.

Now, here's an irony for you.  Even after Bush and Gorbachev have made good
on the reductions as agreed upon in the US and Soviet nuclear arsenal, both
nations will still possess the capability to destroy each other many times
over.  Children are particularly quick to pick up on the absurdity of this
situation perpetrated on the present generation by seemingly rational adults.
In the words of one child I overheard, "That's silly!  Everybody knows you
can't kill anybody more than once!"

The "arms race" was (and is) diabolical, degenerative, and sinful.  *Yet*
there are Christians who believe that a nuclear holocaust would usher in
the Second Coming of Christ, and hence, they encourage the ultimate insane
event to happen.  Meanwhile, the so-called Super Powers and others continue
to contaminate the Earth with hazardous by-products of weapons production
and energy consumption that will continue to be life-threatening long after
their present storage containers have deteriorated.

Do you want to do something for the Earth?  If at all possible, get rid of
your car and encourage others to do the same.  Your car was the reason for
the Gulf War.  Your car is the number one contributor to the pollution of
the atmosphere.

How do you like bicycling?  It'll give you back the firm thighs you had when
you were 19!

Peace,
Richard

Carole,

      RE: .41
    
>>>What I *believe* is that there is an urgent need for us to re-connect
>>>with nature, in similar ways that the native peoples were connected.
>>>From my understanding, traditional Christian thought would make this
>>>a no-no.

        1) In what way were the native peoples connected. How is the
           connection maintained and expressed. Does reconnect mean
           to care for or to have a different belief about nature.

           My earlier reference to gardening is begause I have some
           Christian friends who are very keen organic gardeners and
           are passionately concerned about the environment. 


>>>Well, awhile ago I put a note in this file about my view of God
>>>as having 4 parts - spirit, will, heart and body.  The Earth is
>>>as much a divine part of God as we are.


        2) Is having a "spirit, will, heart and body" sufficient to
           make something divine.

           Some of the characteristics that I believe are necessary
           for divinity are 
               a) All knowing
               b) All powerful
               c) Having no begining (infinite existence)
               d) Ever present (in time and space)

        3) How would you know that the earth has a will.


>>>I think the Earth and we are here for a reason
>>>and that we and the Earth are unique expressions of God.  To me,
>>>I think God would feel *every single thing* that happens to those
>>>parts of Him/Her.  


        4) Fully agree with you. What do you think the reason is.



>>>I don't think it [Christian belief] supports the intense
>>>effort it will take to turn the current situation around.

        5) I think that how we view "support" can be different. 
           Encouraging people in my neighbourhood to be environmentally
           good citizens may be my way of doing it instead of lobbying
           a government to make a law that maybe won't be kept or enforced.

           A Christian perspective would usually see that it's the nature
           of mankind that is faulty and that by changing this the other
           effects (symptoms) should follow --> Care for fellow human beings,
           care for the earth etc.         

           If the Christians worked at getting rid of the greed and 
           exploitation then this could be viewed as being supportive.
           Maybe by getting people changed there will be more people
           willing to do the intense work involved.

Re 42.


>>>there are Christians who believe that a nuclear holocaust would usher in
>>>the Second Coming of Christ, and hence, they encourage the ultimate insane
>>>event to happen.  

        6) There are other Christians who believe that by spreading the
           gospel they will usher in the Second Coming of Christ.

           Would Jesus "have to" come back just because someone decided
           to start a war. ....  "There will be wars and rumors of war but
           these things must pass before the end"

Regards,
Seamus.

Being one of Jehovah's Witnesses I look forward to everlasting life on a
paradise earth (compare Psalms 37). But, are we worried that man will totally
destroy his environment?. Well no, I have come to be impressed how well God
designed the earth so as to rejuvinate itself. However one may think that man 
will get the upperhand, this not so for those who hope in Jehovah. Those hoping
in Jehovah are confident that man will not be allowed to carry on willfully 
ruining the earth, for in His own due time God has promised "to bring to ruin 
those ruining the earth." Revelation 11:18 NWT.

Phil.

    Re: .44
    
    Phil,
         how do you interpret John 14:1-3 where Jesus says that He goes to
         prepare a place for believers in His Father's house and will come
         to receive them there.
    
         Do you see a difference when you compare Ps 37:29 with 2 Peter
         3:10-13.
    
    Regards,
    Seamus.

re .42

Richard,

I used to think very similarly too

;Do you want to do something for the Earth?  If at all possible, get rid of
;your car and encourage others to do the same.  Your car was the reason for
;the Gulf War.  Your car is the number one contributor to the pollution of
;the atmosphere.

Infact I did not take my driving test until I was 32 years of age, my main 
reason was that I felt cars polluted the environment. But then I realised the 
same is true of other things that man has developed. For example, the earth 
is becoming one big refuse tip, why because the direction man has taken in 
improving his lifestyle. We are in a throw away age, the problem is the
things we throw away scar the earth for hundred of years. Did you know that
each throw away diaper (nappy) will hang around, as such, for about 250 years 
after being used. How many nappies a year does a baby go through?-) .

It seems as though whatever mankind does, he can't seem to look further than
the end of his nose. Jeremiah identifies this in Jeremiah 10:23 NWT
"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It 
does not belong even to direct his step." He needs guidance from a superior
source. Guidance that will look after his longterm interests, man seems only
able to look after his short term interests.

The reason I am using a car is that alternatives are impractical in the current
world we live in. I can use it for the good of helping the elderly get about
to places such as the weekly meetings. The development of huge supermarkets 
make it difficult for such ones to get needed provisions without the aid of 
some sort of transport. More public transport sure would be a step forward, but
in my area they are cutting down. I would love to see the reintroduction of
the shire horse but I can't see this in the near future. Jehovah's Witnesses
look forward to the new world that God has promised (2 Peter 3:13) and I won't 
be worried if there are not any cars about.

Man needs guidance from the one who created him and the earth. God knows
the best way man can live as well as living in harmony with the earth. An
illustration could be a VAX cluster, those who designed it know the best 
way of keeping it running smoothly. To pass this information onto the customer
they supply manuals, which show how to get the best out of the VAX cluster
and the different components. Ignore such advise as not doing housekeeping and 
your system disk soon gets filled up, everything then grinds to a halt. What
manual do you think our Creator has provided so that we can get the best out
of our lives, as well as our surroundings?. This manual can give us a short 
term benefit now even in the present world we live in. 

Phil.

Re .45

Hi Seamus,

Just to clarify, as a Jehovah's Witness we intepret a "new heavens and a new
earth" differently. We see a "new heavens" as being Christ's kingdom that will
rule over the earth and the "new earth" as a new society of people that will
come under that rulership. In context of 2 Peter 3:10-13, in verses 5 and 6
Peter draws a parallel to Noah's day and the flood, during the flood Noah and
his family as well as the globe were preserved, it was the wicked society of
mankind that were destroyed. So in verse 7 one can see that the "earth"
symbolizes that "wicked human society". So the "earth" in verse 10 again
symbolizes "wicked human society" . Please compare Genesis 11:1, 1 Kings 2:1,2
and Psalms 96:1 for "earth" being used in a figurative sense such as "human
society".

Though Jesus promised to prepare a place for God's chosen ones he also
said ,backing up Psalms 37:11 and 29, that "Blessed are the meek, for they
shall inherit the earth." Matthew 5:5 RSV. The "little flock" (Luke 12:32)
of chosen ones that are resurrected to heaven will rule as "kings and priests"
to the benefit of those on the earth who have come through the great tribulation
, compare Revelation 5:10; 7:9,14. From this one can see two different classes
of followers, some will have the privelege of heaven and others will be able
to enjoy a paradise earth. Others later will be able to benefit from this
heavenly kingdom.

Regards

Phil.

    Re: 124.42
    
    Nice thoughts...but...not too practical.  The auto,when first
    introduced,stopped a very large pollution problem at the time.
    The city of Chicago ,prior to the auto,daily had 20,000 lbs of horse
    manure deposited on it's streets. Wind and rain caused some really
    bad pollution problems.
    
    The air in LA is doomed to be bad,due to the natural "bowl" caused
    by the mountains and the sea wind.  Remove the cars and the air will
    still be bad.
    
    I'm in agreement with most environmental goals...but....lets propose
    some good engineering solutions to the problem.
    
    Marc H.

    "God is no longer the only one capable of destroying the Earth."
    
    					- Caption to a poster
    
    "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got 'til
    it's gone; Take Paradise and put up a parking lot."
    
    					- Joni Mitchell

	Though God is capable of destroying the earth, it mystifies me why
	many believe God will destroy the earth. The earth is spoken of
	as being God's footstool (Isaiah 66:1), I know if I had created 
	such a beautiful footstool that I would want to keep it. I would
	just get ride of the woodworm.

	An illustration might be if I went to work abroad in another Digital
	office. And rather than leaving my house vacant I rented it out 
	to a family. While I was away these tenants showed a gross lack of
	respect for my property. If upon my return I found the house to be
	in a right mess , what would I do?. Well I wouldn't burn the house
	down, I like it too much. I would just kick the uncaring tenants
	out.


	Phil.

Re: .50

Phil,
     it may well be that the earth will become so corrupted (by man) that
     the only reasonaly thing to do would be to destroy it. [Noah and the flood
     story]

     Take for example your illustration of the house. If the tenants had
     damaged the foundations to the extent that the walls become unstable
     or had introduced some deadly biological/nuclear germs then perhaps 
     destroying the house would be a reasonable proposition.

     I have read somewhere of God's enemies becoming His footstool and also
     of the earth becoming old like a garment and perishing (Heb 1:10-12).
     Could it be that He is making a new footstool or garment.

Regards,
Seamus.

re .51

	Hi Seamus,

	Thank you for replying, I find many do not like discussing this issue. 
	I read Hewbrews 1:10-12 and I'll try and do some research on these 
	verses.

     ;it may well be that the earth will become so corrupted (by man) that
     ;the only reasonaly thing to do would be to destroy it. [Noah and the flood
     ;story]

	But, the earth or globe was not destroyed in Noah's day. Also not
	all men were destroyed either, but unrighteous mankind were. As
	Peter draws a parallel to Noah's day should we not expect something
	similar to happen. The book of Revelation chapter 7 verse 14 talks
	of a group "who have come out of the great tribulation", could these
	ones not be like Noah and be survivors of God's day of anger, on the
	physical earth.


     ;Take for example your illustration of the house. If the tenants had
     ;damaged the foundations to the extent that the walls become unstable
     ;or had introduced some deadly biological/nuclear germs then perhaps 
     ;destroying the house would be a reasonable proposition.


	Notice in Revelation 11:18 NWT which I quoted yesterday that "God will 
	bring to ruin those ruining the earth" and not those who have ruined
	the earth. (The RSV uses "destroying"). If the tenants had damaged to
	the extent that the foundations were unstable, then it could be said
	that they had destroyed or ruined it. But this verse seems to imply
	that God steps in before he will allow this to happen.

	Phil.

    RE:  all
    
                  I do not read in my Bible that God will destroy the
    earth. However...even if God wanted to...he wouldn't have to...Man is
    doing such a *GREAT* job on his own!
    
                  This is a subject *VERY* near and dear to me.  For many
    people, myself included, our "church" is nature.  Yes, I go to a
    building and call it church, but in a very real sense nature is where I
    "see" and "feel" God talking to me.  
    
    
    Dave
    

        RE .53

        Dave,

        Please may I ask you how you see the future of the earth turning out?
        Will man get the upperhand as it were and destroy the earth?.

        Phil.

    
    Hi everyone,
    
    I know that I started this note and the current discussion, but hope
    that you will excuse me from further participation right now.  It just
    hurts too much at the moment.
    
    Peace,
    Carole

    RE:Phil & Carole,
    
    
                Phil,
                        The current trend is toward a ruined planet. 
    Unless, of course, mankind learns maturity.
    
    
              Carole,
    
                        I understand....take care of yourself.
    
    
    
    
    Dave

    Also see 286.1, The Necessity Of Global Cooperation.  It contains
    many facts, thoughts and ideas relevant to this topic.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 124.55

>    I know that I started this note and the current discussion, but hope
>    that you will excuse me from further participation right now.  It just
>    hurts too much at the moment.

Carole,

	I suspect we've disappointed you, that this note has taken a
direction or tone you had not anticipated.  If this is so, I, for one,
apologize for my part in it.

	Industrialized nations generally do not treat the Earth with honor
and respect.  I think this is particularly true where parcels of the Earth
can be bought and sold, wagered against, speculated upon, warred over, and
otherwise broken up into economic units.  I think this is also particularly
true where there exists no sense of obligation to restore what has been taken
from the Earth.  To me, the concept of Jubilee has much to do with the concept
of restoration.

	None of us can genuinely own anything.  Christians typically give
this concept lip service.  Some don't even acknowlege it.

Peace,
Richard

RE  Phil, Dave, Carole  (52, 53, 55).


RE .52
	Hi Phil,

>But, the earth or globe was not destroyed in Noah's day. Also not
>all men were destroyed either, but unrighteous mankind were. As
>Peter draws a parallel to Noah's day should we not expect something
>similar to happen. 

      Yes. Only partial destruction took place.

      What struck me in the story (I don't have my bible with me so 
      I cannot give you an exact quote) was where it says that the earth
      would not be destroyed again by a flood of water. 

      Also it says that "As long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest 
      will not cease". Now, if I compare this to what someone in a position
      of authority would say "While I am in charge around here this is
      the policy that will be adapted" ... you might well wonder how long 
      the policy will be in force and if there will be a change in policy 
      afterwards.
 
>Notice in Revelation 11:18 NWT which I quoted yesterday that "God will 
>bring to ruin those ruining the earth" and not those who have ruined
>the earth. (The RSV uses "destroying"). If the tenants had damaged to
>the extent that the foundations were unstable, then it could be said
>that they had destroyed or ruined it. But this verse seems to imply
>that God steps in before he will allow this to happen.

      Yes. These verses show that man will not be allowed to totally destroy 
      the earth. What is not discussed in these verses is God's ultimate plan
      for the earth.


RE .53
Dave,
     can I refer you to 2 Cor 4:18 to 5:2. The Christian hope is that
     we will be physically present with God and will be able to able to 
     see Him "face to face". It will be better than we can experience here
     and now.




RE  .55
Carole,
     there is hope. Please feel that you can risk sharing your thoughts
     and hurts so that we can understand better. 

Regards,
Seamus.
    

re:  .59  Seamus.

    > What struck me in the story (I don't have my bible with me so 
    > I cannot give you an exact quote) was where it says that the earth
    > would not be destroyed again by a flood of water. 

  I have mine handy; let me help you.

  Ge 9:11 (NWT)  "Yes, I do establish my covenant with you:  No more will
                  all flesh be cut off by waters of a deluge, and no more
                  will there occur a deluge to bring the earth to ruin."


    > Also it says that "As long as the earth remains, seedtime and harvest 
    > will not cease".

  Ge 8:22 (NWT)  "For all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and 
                  harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and
                  day and night, will never cease."


    >                  Now, if I compare this to what someone in a position
    > of authority would say "While I am in charge around here this is 
    > the policy that will be adapted" ... you might well wonder how long 
    > the policy will be in force and if there will be a change in policy 
    > afterwards.
  
  Well, Jehovah will always be in charge, and what he says *will* come to pass.

  Isa 55:11 (NWT)  ".....so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove
                    to be.  It will not return to me without results, but it
                    will certainly do that which I have delighted, and it will
                    have certain success in that for which I have sent it."


    > Yes. These verses show that man will not be allowed to totally destroy 
    > the earth. What is not discussed in these verses is God's ultimate plan
    > for the earth.

  God's ultimate plan for the earth is shown at Ge 1:28 (NWT)  "Further, God 
  blessed them and God said to them:  'Be fruitful and become many and fill 
  the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the
  flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving 
  upon the earth.'"  This was said to the first couple in the Garden of Eden,
  a physical paradise.  This paradise was to expand to encompass the whole
  earth, and would be filled with perfect humans, who would be obedient to 
  God.  They would have the whole earth and all living creatures in subjec-
  tion to them.  This, obviously, hasn't come to fulfillment yet, but in light
  of Isa 55:11 (above), do you have any doubt that it will?  Do you think that
  an opposing, slandering spirit creature and two rebellious humans could ac-
  tually cause God to give up his purpose for any of his creation?

  Isa 45:18 shows that the earth was made to be inhabited.  Ps 104.5 and
  Ec 1:4 show that the earth itself will not be destroyed.  Prov 2:21, 22;
  Ps 37:9, 11, 28, 29, and Matt 5:5 all show who will inherit the earth, re-
  main on it, and reside forever on it; these passages also show who gets cut
  off from the earth.  Notice that Prov 2:21 says that the upright and perfect
  ones (KJ), upright and blameless (NE & NWT), ones will *remain* on the earth.
  They will not have to be removed from the earth in order to have the evil 
  ones cut off.  Just as in Noah's time, the righteous ones were protected and 
  the unrighteous ones were destroyed.


  Steve

    

RE: 60

     Hi Steve,

     I came across some interesting verses last night in Hebrews 12:26-29 ..

     "Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but the heavens also.
      And this expression 'Yet once more' signifies the removing of those
      things that can be shaken ... in order that the things that cannot
      be shaken may remain..."

     Any thoughts.

Regards,
Seamus.

    
    
    I would encourage all of you to read the responses to Note 889 in
    the CHRISTIAN notesfile (this is Cindy Painter's Global Cooperation
    paper).  It is perspectives like these that concern me tremendously,
    and why I reactivated this note.
    
    How disheartening.
    
    Carole

I read what you had to write, Cindy.  I think you did a very good
job in putting it together.  However, from my perspective, it seemed
a little out of balance.  Yes, there are many problems that need
to be addressed and humankind has really messed up quite a bit, but
what about the things we have done right?  I didn't notice any
positives at all addressed (about past actions, that is).

In terms of your conclusions, I think they have some reasonableness
from a humanistic perspective.  From a Christian perspective, I think
that they totally miss the mark.  Regardless of how hard we try
(and we SHOULD try very hard), we truly are incapable of accomplishing
what needs to be done by ourselves.  This is the bad news.  But the
good news is even better - we can accomplish ALL things through
Christ Jesus.  And what we don't accomplish, He will.

Do you think that what I have said is a valid Christian perspective?
If so, could it be incorporated into your paper?

				Collis

    re:  .61  Seamus.
    
    The verses you refer to in Hebrews have application to the conclusion
    of this wicked system of things, and the new heavenly arrangement
    described at at Re 20:6 and 21.2.  Since it isn't talking about a
    literal physical shaking of the earth and the heavens, I think we'll be
    taking this topic off of it's original intent by getting into it here.
    
    
    Steve
    

Re:  .64  

Steve,

>The verses you refer to in Hebrews have application to the conclusion
>of this wicked system of things, and the new heavenly arrangement
>described at at Re 20:6 and 21.2.  Since it isn't talking about a
>literal physical shaking of the earth and the heavens, I think we'll be
>taking this topic off of it's original intent by getting into it here.

   If I take this interpretation and apply it to what has already been
   mentioned earlier in Hebrews 1:10-12

     "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the
      earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
      They will perish, but you remain; they will wear out like a garment.
      You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
      But you remain the same and your years will never end.
   
   I would have the dilema of saying that God established "the wicked system 
   of things" that you mentioned. Instead does heaven and earth not refer
   to something physical.


RE. 60.

   I checked out the references given in .60 in the NIV. I notice that
   "land" is used instead of "earth" in some instances. Do you
   have "earth" in all these.

    Ps 104.5 "He set the earth on its foundations, it can never be moved

    Ec 1:4 show that the earth remains forever

     Do we have the problem here that you find in the book of Job whose
     friends say different things to Job which are more the recording
     of the reasonings of those searching for answers than definitive
     statements from God.

     Is this not the view of a man who sees everything as meaningless and 
     whose heart begins to despair.

     For example if you read what the same writer says in EC 9:1-3
     you could conclude (if other scriptures are not brought to bear)
     that the good and evil have the same destiny.


  Prov 2:21, 22;   will live in the land and remain in it.
  Ps 37:9, 11, 28, 29, inherit the land and live in it forever
  Matt 5:5 says the meek will inherit the earth, 
         (as someone once joked ..."because they would be too 
                                    polite to refuse"
    

Regards,
Seamus.    

The Earth is not so much God's gift as much as it is a trust.  We
are called to be trustees of the Earth.  Our Christian predecessors
have set a poor example for us.

Peace,
Richard

>Our Christian predecessors
>have set a poor example for us.
    
    So have our non-Christian predecessors.
    
    			Alfred

    Re: -1
    
    Granted.  Perhaps they had more in common with each other than we're
    accustomed to thinking about.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re:  .65  Seamus.

 > If I take this interpretation and apply it to what has already been
 > mentioned earlier in Hebrews 1:10-12

 >   "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the
 >    earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
 >    They will perish, but you remain; they will wear out like a garment.
 >    You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.
 >    But you remain the same and your years will never end.

Compare this to Ps 102:25-27.  It's almost the same, isn't it?  As you read 
the book of Hebrews, you'll find a lot of the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) quoted.
Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews as a legal arguement in support of Christ
and it's freely documented with proof from the Hebrew Scriptures.  Paul takes
various features of the Mosaic Law (covenant, blood, mediator, tent of worship,
priesthood, offerings) and shows them to have been nothing more than a pattern
made by God pointing forward to far greater things to come, all culminating in
Christ Jesus and his sacrifice, the fulfillment of the Law.  One verse you 
didn't quote in your reference to 12:26-29 was verse 28, which shows the bene-
fit of the new covenant mentioned on verse 24.  And that is the new heavenly
arrangement I pointed to in Re 20:6 and 21:2.  That's why I say that the shak-
ing you quoted in your .61 reply is figurative; verse 28 helps put it in the
proper context. 

   
 > I would have the dilema of saying that God established "the wicked system 
 > of things" that you mentioned. 

Jehovah didn't establish the present wicked system of things; Satan did when
he challenged God's soveriegnty (see Ge 3:4, 5).  At 2 Cor 4:4, Satan is called
"the god of this system of things" (NWT).  Of course, you already know this (I
assume), so I don't think you would be in a dilemma at all.  What it should do
is make you use your reasoning power to get things in their proper context.  


 >                                Instead does heaven and earth not refer
 > to something physical.

It depends on the context.  In Heb 1:10/Ps 102:25 the earth and heavens that
are mentioned are literal, but will they literally perish, wear out, be rolled
up, or be changed?  No, that's figurative.


 > I checked out the references given in .60 in the NIV. I notice that
 > "land" is used instead of "earth" in some instances. Do you
 > have "earth" in all these.

I looked up the Greek word rendered "earth" and "land" in these passages, using
Strong's Concordance.  The word is ge (ghay).  Strong's says:

     primary word -- soil
     by extens. -- a region, or solid part, or the whole of the terrene
                   globe (incl. occupants in each application)
     ground, land, world

Whether "land" or "earth" is used makes no difference; you have to look at the
context. 


   > Do we have the problem here that you find in the book of Job whose
   > friends say different things to Job which are more the recording
   > of the reasonings of those searching for answers than definitive
   > statements from God.

   > Is this not the view of a man who sees everything as meaningless and 
   > whose heart begins to despair.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Care to elaborate?


   > For example if you read what the same writer says in EC 9:1-3
   > you could conclude (if other scriptures are not brought to bear)
   > that the good and evil have the same destiny.

You're saying that one has to look at the context, and I agree.  As far as you
say "same writer", do you mean Job and Ecclesiastes were written by the same
person?  The information I have says that Job was written by Moses, and Solomon
wrote Ecclesiastes.  However this isn't really relevant to our conversation.

In light of looking at things as literal or figurative, how do you explain the
"new heavens and new earth" mentioned at 2 Pe 3:13 and Re 21:1?


> Matt 5:5 says the meek will inherit the earth, 
>        (as someone once joked ..."because they would be too 
>                                   polite to refuse"
 
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "meek" as, (1) Showing patience and 
humility; gentle.  (2) Easily imposed upon; submissive.  My NWT renders the
verse as saying "mild-tempered".  Same thing, really.

Steve

    
    Re.63
    
    Collis,
    
    No, I don't believe it is out of balance.  With 40,000 children dying
    every day, I see a serious problem on our hands.  And this is only one
    statistic out of hundreds that I put in the paper (directly and
    indirectly).
    
    You have your perspective and I have mine.  You are certainly free to
    write a paper listing the things we have done right, and from a
    strictly Christian perspective at that.  I'm not saying we haven't done
    some things right...the purpose and audience of my paper is based on
    the premise that if we don't think and act on the things mentioned then
    our children risk growing up in a world that is so polluted that they
    risk dying from the very things that we could begin to turn around at
    this very instant.  A veritable death sentence, if you will, and who's
    fault is it?  God's?  Or ours?  God isn't polluting the Earth, we are.
    Why should we leave it to God to fix, when we can do our part right
    now?
    
    I really don't think you understand my perspective.  "Faith without
    works is dead." sums it up rather well.  
    
    As for the Christian perspective, I mentioned at the end of the paper
    that religions must work even closer together than ever before.
    
    The Berlin Wall came down.  I believe the walls that separate religions
    and countries can come down as well.  
    
    Cindy

    >>>>..........if we don't think and act on the things mentioned then
    >our children risk growing up in a world that is so polluted that they
    >risk dying from the very things that we could begin to turn around at
    >this very instant.  A veritable death sentence, if you will, and who's
    >fault is it?  God's?  Or ours?  God isn't polluting the Earth, we are.
    >Why should we leave it to God to fix, when we can do our part right
    >now?
    
    This is where many of my concerns lie.  Some Christians hold the belief
    that they will be 'raptured' away from all this, and so will their
    children (if they have been 'saved').  With a belief like this, it is
    easy to see how the items you raised in your paragraph above would not
    concern them.
    
    >"Faith without works is dead." 
    
    So true!!
    
    >As for the Christian perspective, I mentioned at the end of the paper
    >that religions must work even closer together than ever before.
    >
    >The Berlin Wall came down.  I believe the walls that separate religions
    >and countries can come down as well.  
    
    Yes!!
    
    Carole

Article: 1681
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.features
Subject: 'Greening' church and synagogue
Date: 16 Aug 91 00:04:22 GMT
 
_ _R_e_l_i_g_i_o_n_ _i_n_ _A_m_e_r_i_c_a
	Is there anything more religious than the Creation?
	More and more, religious leaders -- Protestant, Roman Catholic and
Jewish -- are answering ``no.''
	``We believe a consensus now exists, at the highest level of
leadership across a significant spectrum of religious traditions, that
the cause of environmental integrity and justice must occupy a position
of utmost priority for people of faith.''
	That ringing declaration was issued by 30 of the nation's top
religious leaders following a mid-summer meeting of the faith leaders,
top scientists and members of Congress billed as a Summit on the
Environment at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the Museum of
Natural History in New York.
	Most importantly, the religious leaders affirmed that the question of
the environment is not simply one issue among many other pressing
matters the faith groups deal with, but a challenge that reaches into
the heart of theology and religious observance.
	The meeting brought together leaders of the World Council of
Churches, the Nationl Council of Churches, a number of mainline
Protestant denominations, the Greek Orthodox Chruch, the National
Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Church as well as the
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, all four branches of religious
Judaism, the Southern Baptist Convention and American Indian groups.
	Religious involvement in environmental issues is nothing new. In
1970, at the time of the first Earth Day, there was a spate of books and
papers on ``ecology theology.'' So, too, with last year's 20th
anniversary observance. And the World Council of Churches recently
mounted a major conference on ``Justice, Peace and the Integrity of the
Creation.''
	What makes the new initiative significant is, first, that it does
begin to link the oft-warring religious and scientific communities in a
joint effort to deal with environmental issues.
	Among participants at the June meeting were Carl Sagan, James Hansen,
a leading expert on global warming, F. Sherwood Rowland, president-elect
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Peter Raven,
a foremost expert on species extinction, and Anne Whyte, a prominent
scholar on population and development.
	``But we religious leaders accept a prophetic responsibility to make
known the full dimensions of this challenge, and what is required to
address it, to the many millions we reach, teach and counsel,'' they
said.
	Equally important, the religious leaders said they would convene a
meeting of seminary deans and faculty to develop curriculum emphasizing
the stewardship of Creation -- a potentially far-reaching program that
could educate a whole generation of ``green'' pastors and rabbis.
	``Almost daily, we note mounting evidence of environmental
destruction and ever-increasing peril to life, whole species, whole
ecosystems,'' they said. ``Many people, and particularly the young, want
to know where we stand and what we intend to do.
 ``And finally, it is what God made and beheld as good that is under
assault,'' they said of the environment. ``The future of this gift so
freely given is in our hands, and we must maintain it as we have
received it.'' _ _a_d_v_ _f_r_i_ _a_u_g_ _1_6

    I don't think that the future of the world is in any sense
    foreordained.  We have the potential for building a better world, with
    all that this entails, just as we have the potential for destroying
    everything that is good about our lives.  Unfortunately, the prospects
    for developing an ecologically sound lifestyle on our planet don't look
    good, although I do think that the seeds for a turnaround do exist,
    paltry as they may be.  In either case, what I think is clear is that
    the condition of the world will not be static; it will either improve
    significantly, or it will get much worse.

    The front page of today's _Boston_Globe_ features an item summarizing
    a series of articles published in the journal _Science_ which warn that
    we on course towards giving our descendants a world of "rats, ragweed
    and cockroaches"--unless we make serious and radical changes.  "Every
    new shopping center built in the California chaparral, every hectare of
    tropical forest cut and burned, every swamp converted into a rice paddy
    or shrimp farm means less biodiversity", write Paul Ehrlich and Edward
    O. Wilson.

    The fear of nuclear holocaust may have subsided somewhat with the
    demise of the cold war (although Bush's pursuit of the Gulf War, which
    squandered a golden opportunity to build a more just world in the face
    of an emerging post-Cold War status quo, demonstrates the continuing
    problems that war presents for our planet).  But the ecological
    destruction that we are waging on our planet could be every bit as
    destructive in the long run.  In way, that should come as no surprise;
    war and ecological destruction, in my view, both represent simply
    different manifestations of a willful failure of nerve on the part of
    human beings.  Both express a cosmology of destruction, power, control,
    and violence.

    I am heartened to see, in the article by UPI Religion Writer David
    Anderson, that religious leaders are attempting to cooperate in efforts
    to preserve the world that God created.  This represents, in my view,
    the modern prophetic call, the contemporary expression of God's
    prophetic inspiration, no different from God's prophetic call upon
    Isaiah, Micah, Amos, and others in their own time.  While I don't take
    eschatological visions literally, I do think that eschatology often
    represents a conditional expression of the importance and the urgency
    of the message, expressed in mythological language.  I believe that
    cooperation among religions on this issue is vital, lest our mutual
    efforts be sidetracked and our energies diverted over sectarian 
    bickering.  If religion takes a positive, active role in assuming moral
    leadership over this issue, it may, in at least some small way, help to
    nurture those small seeds of hope.

    -- Mike

    
    I would like to ask you to please say prayers that the elected
    officials of the town I live in (Clinton, MA) make the right 
    decision regarding the following.  I live on the outskirts of
    town on a hill overlooking a large pond.  This area has been
    very mistreated by the people who live in the vicinity, but it
    has an underlying beauty and specialness.  A man owns a number
    of acres of land in back of our street.  He says that he wants
    to build a 4-bedroom house on the pond end of the property.
    Nothing to out of the ordinary about that, right?  However, he
    says that in order to put in a road/driveway, he must remove
    all the trees from 4 acres of the land, take off all the topsoil,
    and pull out all the gravel.  Then he will replace the topsoil
    and put in some new plantings.  The truth behind this is actually
    a money making scheme.  He wants to sell off the gravel and make
    mucho $'s!  The house idea is a front.  But the town selectman
    have taken this request and are considering it!  Even after all
    the protests from neighbors and the glaring facts that it will
    screw-up the topography of the land, very likely mess up the water
    table and the our wells, and cause incredible noise and road
    destruction because of the large number of trucks and equipment
    that will be 'mining' this area and carrying off the gravel.
    All for greed.
    
    Please pray that the town officials will keep their integrity and
    not allow this man to desecrate this area.
    
    Thank you very much.
    
    Carole

re:  .69  Steve,

Both of us seem to be using our eschatology (perhaps unconsciously) in 
deciding whether to take a passage either literally or figuratively.
The view that I take goes as follows : 


1) Many examples of faith and righteousness in the bible confessed that 
   they were strangers and exiles on earth and were looking for something 
   better. Heb 11:13-16.


2) Jesus promised the disciples that He was going to prepare a place for them.
   John 14:1-6. Jesus left the world physically and went to the Father. Note
   that the disciples took this literally and not figuratively John 16:25-30.


3) Peter believed that his inheritance was prepared for him in heaven.
   I Peter 1:3-5.


4) The vision that John had was of a countless number of people around
   the throne of God (in heaven) Rev 7:9-17.


5) Things that are currenly visible are temporal, Things which are not seen 
   are eternal. God will prepare us for the change .. 2 Cor 4:5-5:6.


With this in mind I take references such as Matt 5:5 "the meek will inherit 
the earth" figuratively, (The text is not explicit in whether it is the old 
or the new earth). It certainly doesn't mean "the wicked system of things" that 
we discussed earlier. Another verse, I dont have a reference for it at the 
moment from the Psalms, is "If the righteous is rewarded on the earth, how much
more the wicked". 

This would lead me to interpret the inheritance of the earth as more 
figurative than literal, though I won't dispute that there is a literal
interpretation for the Jews being brought in to the land of Israel in some
passages.


When it comes to interpreting some of the pasages that I have already used
about the old earth being destroyed, I do not have a problem taking these
literally, as the view outlined above shows that I will be in heaven at the
time. I have no concern about what happens the old earth AFTER the last day.
I do have a concern beforehand because it affects human life.

Hope this clarifies.

Regards,
Seamus.
 

RE .51

Hi Seamus,

Looks like I'm a bit behind in this discussion, anyway I did some research
on Hewbrews 1:10-12. I found an answer in the August 1st 1971 Watchtower
under the subheading "Questions from Readers". It seems that Paul was 
making a contrast between the permanance of Jesus (having been resurrected
to immortal life) with that of the perishable physical creation. We know
that the earth, to man's peril, can be destroyed
. It's existance depends
on a continual re-newing process. Hewbrews 1:10 mentions the literal heavens, 
these too are perishable but God gives us the promise in Psalms 148:6 that
the heavens will stand to time indefinite. He will not discard the heavens 
like an outer garment, even though He has the power to, rather he will ensure 
it's continued existance. Hewbrews 1:10-12 gives Christians the full assurance
that they can place continued faith in Jesus, compare Hewbrews 7:25.

re.75 

This note was posted to Steve , but I am curious you mention 

;					I do not have a problem taking these
;literally, as the view outlined above shows that I will be in heaven at the
;time. I have no concern about what happens the old earth AFTER the last day.
;I do have a concern beforehand because it affects human life.

Revelation 5:9,10 NWT reads "And they sing a new song, saying:" You are worthy
to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with
your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and nation, and you
made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as
kings over the earth." During this thousand year reign, of the Judgment day,
the earth will see a realisation of the promises in places such as Isaiah 11 
and Isaiah 35. This will be a joyfull time as the earth is restored to it's 
original purpose, Genesis 1:28 and Isaiah 55:11, with this in mind (the earth 
being restored to a paradise) why would He then discard it?. Should we view
this as literal or figurative?.

Phil.

re:  .76  Phil

Thank you for the help in reasoning on this.  I had the below reply almost 
ready when you entered yours.  I'll put it inanyway, 'cause it took too long
to write just to waste it.

                   ********************************



re:  .75  Seamus.


>1) Many examples of faith and righteousness in the bible confessed that 
>  they were strangers and exiles on earth and were looking for something 
>  better. Heb 11:13-16.

Looking for something better, yes, but not necessarily going to heaven.  I got
into a discussion in this file about people who don't go to heaven; topic 260,
replies .24, .27, .33, and .36.  Read them over; there's some information there
that's relavent to this discussion.


>2) Jesus promised the disciples that He was going to prepare a place for them.
>  John 14:1-6. Jesus left the world physically and went to the Father. Note
>  that the disciples took this literally and not figuratively John 16:25-30.

Luke 22:29 shows that Jesus made a covenant with his disciples for them to rule
with him in heaven, and Luke 12:32 shows that this would be a "little flock".
Who will they rule?  See >4) below.  


>3) Peter believed that his inheritance was prepared for him in heaven.
>  I Peter 1:3-5.

He *knew* it was.  He was one of the ones Jesus made the covenant with at 
Luke 22:29.


>4) The vision that John had was of a countless number of people around
>  the throne of God (in heaven) Rev 7:9-17.

Yes, in a *vision*.  Things seen in visions are commonly symbolic or figurative.
E-no'pi-on tou thro'nou is the Greek phrase used here; literally, "in sight of
the throne", and it doesn't require them to be in heaven.  They're simply "in
sight" of God.  See Ps 11:4.  Also compare Matt 25:31-33, Luke 1:74,75 and Acts
10:33.  They're also not described as being "bought from the earth", like the
144,000 are at Rev 14:1-3.

What all this says is that a "little flock" will go to heaven to rule with 
Jesus.  The greater number will remain on the earth, just as Jehovah has always
intended for mankind.  Had Adam and Eve not sinned, they would not have died;
they would have lived forever on the earth.  Jesus sacrificed his life to vin-
dicate his Father's name from Satan's false accusations and lies, and to pay
for what Adam had lost.  Jesus prayed that his Father's will take place on the
earth, just as in heaven.  God's will is to have the world filled with perfect,
obedient humans, living forever, taking care of the earth and all things in it.
The "new heavens" refer to this heavenly Kingdom arrangement, which would not
have been necessary had mankind remained in it's original perfect condition.
The "new earth" is the cleansed human society under Kingdom rule.  Satan's 
wicked system of things and rebellious mankindwill no longer exist.  And you
can well believe that Jehovah God can accomplish this without destroying the
earth.  Or maybe you think he can't.  You tell me.

Steve

Article: 8434
From: wheeler@super.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: NCR Editorial
Date: 20 Aug 91 07:25:21 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Bowie, Md.
 
Catholic Journal Encourages Vegetarian Diet
 
   In a recent editorial, the widely read and respected Roman Catholic
journal __National Catholic Reporter__ indicated its support for
individuals choosing a vegetarian diet.  According to the article, such
a choice has personal and social ramifications of great dimension.
Challenging the current "cult of meat," the NCR suggested that the
consumption of meat is an issue that can no longer be ignored but must
be addressed.
   Drawing factual support from the award-winning and best-selling book
__Diet for a New America__ by animal rights activist John Robbins, NCR
indicated that the verdict is in: that meat consumption is responsible
for ecological disaster.  For example, according to the NCR article,
millions of acres of land and more than half of the water used for all
purposes in the United States are wasted in the production of livestock
for meat consumption.  NCR also indicates that the modern "meat culture"
is also responsible for animal cruelty and poor human health conditions.
   NCR recognizes that the challenge of a vegetarian diet provides
individuals with the opportunity of living out a fuller faith.
According to the editorial, "it is at best foolishness, and at worst,
hypocrisy, to pray...[and] hear speeches about the integrity of creation
if at the same time we chomp away at meat -- an all-too-familiar
scenario at conferences, retreat centers and in parish halls.  All our
theories about being Earth's stewards are as riddled as the ozone if our
most primal act -- eating -- aids and abets eco-catastrophe."
   It seems most appropriate that NCR concluded its editorial in favor
of vegetarianism by reminding its readers that "Our bodies, composed of
earth and water, must reflect in their very cells the justice and
spirituality we seek for the world at large."
 
  -- submitted by INRA member Judy Miner, Vermont
 
Reprinted from:
   INRoAds, Number 16, Summer/Fall 1991
   International Network for Religion and Animals
   P.O. Box 1335, North Wales, PA 19454-0335, USA, (215) 699-6067
 
--
* The Animal Rights Electronic Network -- AREN <info@nic.aren.org>
* PO Box 17521, Raleigh, NC  27619-7521
* The Animal Bytes BBS -- (301) 891-2646
 

    This weekend, I saw "The Blue Earth" at the Imax theatre in Norwalk,
    Connecticut.  It was my first experience at an Imax theatre, and I
    strongly recommend it to anyone who has never seen this type of film
    before.  Anyway, the film was very awesome, with much of the
    photography taken from Space Shuttle astronauts.  It really gives you
    an awesome sense of the beauty of the earth, the power of nature, and
    the destruction that we humans are bringing to the planet.  It was very
    inspiring, but also rather sad in the way it brought home what we are
    doing to the Earth.

    -- Mike

    Re: .79
    
    I saw "The Blue Planet" at the Imax in Denver this summer.  I
    second your recommendation.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
    PS  The computerized "ride" along the earthquake fault was thrilling!

I wasn't sure where to enter this but this seemed appropriate.  

This is a daily meditation from the Science of Mind magazine for Sunday, 
August 25.


I ANSWER TO MYSELF

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
         Romans 8:5

From the Universe, nothing is or can be hidden...
         The Science of Mind, pg 449

These days we hear a great deal about being "accountable".  Just to make sure 
that I was clear about what the word meant, I went to the dictionary, and it
said that the word accountable meant "responsible, answerable, answerable to
a superior".  I wonder...perhaps we are now at a place in our lives where
being accountable is no longer an option but an absolute necessity, if we are
to live as true spiritual beings.

We must be answerable for our thoughts and actions so others, perhaps future
generations, no longer continue to reap what we have sown.  As spiritual 
beings living in a material world, we cannot divorce ourselves from what goes
on saying, "This is not my doing".  As thinking or non-thinking, loving or
non-loving, interested or apathetic beings we are participating in life, either
by our wisdom or our ignorance.  We add or detract from it all.

There is a superior knowledge within each of us, an all-wise Presence from
which we truly can hide nothing, since it responds to us at all times.  It is 
our next portion to stand forth and say, "I know who I am.  My deeds speak for 
me."



Nanci
         

	One Sky, One Earth - this slogan is looked upon with fear and
suspicion by many who claim the name Christian.  It is said to be a product
of "godless" humanism and part of the New Age "conspiracy."

	One Sky, One Earth - the message seems so obvious to me.  It says
to me: "This is all you've got to work with - Don't blow it!  Take care of
it.  After it's gone there'll be no replacing it."

	It says to me that all those imaginary lines we've drawn on a map
to designate borders are just that - imaginary.  What we do is not confined
to our "territory."  What we do affects the world.  We cannot continue to
contaminate God's creation faster than creation can regenerate itself.  We
must stop thinking only of ourselves in the choices we make.  Is this so
foreign to the genuinely Christian way of thinking?  Is this so Satanic in
its intent and purpose?

Richard

re: Note 124.82 by Richard "Watch your peace & cues" 

>                            -< One Sky, One Earth >-

Richard, I agree.  I've heard it said that of everything the "Space Race" 
helped spawn; medical technology, materials, electronics, vast amounts of 
data, improved weather forcasting (yeah, right!.-), the single most valuable 
item was that view looking back at the earth from space.  One lone jewel, no 
dotted line borders, no flags, no place to hide.  As Copernicus, Galileo, and 
others worked within the framework of science to hone our sense of who we are
and where we are in relationship to the universe, those photographs of the
earth have probably done more to educate people, not simply in a scientific
way, but I'd say even in a spiritual way, in the matter of where we stand in 
Creation.  Science is often denigrated in religious circles.  I see science
and faith with the opportunity of working hand in hand to be good stewards of
this fragile Earth, our island home. 

Peace,

Jim

'And After the Fire,
A Still Small Voice'

Lao-tzu sidesaddle on a barebacked ox
blew the world's fool cool on his ascetic flute.
Half-lotus on my souped-up golden calf
I covet the best air-cushioned shocks
to soothe my worship of this lifestyle that pollutes
-- Oh greed, how artful is my craft --

earth, air, fire and water, all the elements
and the four cardinal directions
(not to mention the sky above and oceans down and down).
Good Lord, the temple fabric suffers such deep rents
our biosphere weeps acid and may drown.
Let's pray for revival -- and to reverse our predelictions

before we sink in our homemade seeps.
Gypsies are breaking camp to save their flesh.
Our Great Mother gives us dirty looks:
stress factors all-encompass her like midden heaps.
Not even scholars could screw this up in history books.
Hope's our safety net, if we're no smaller than its mesh.

Ed Zahniser

    Jim, .83
    
    Well said!!  I agree...
    
    Ro
    

The environmental and human damage reported in the following could ruin
your whole day.

Richard



(NLNS)--El Salvador was once call Cuscatlan by its natives, Land of
the Jewel.  Botanists have categorized fourteen types of vegetation
in a country the size of Vermont.  Once the home of toucans,
macaws, jaguars, peccaries, anteaters, various monkeys, most of
these species are now gone.  Central America once served as land
bridge between North and South America for migrating animals but
now few are left.

	The Salvadoran government and U.S. advisers viewed the war
as a guerilla war- requiring guerilla warfare tactics to fight it.  These
included scorched earth, free fire zones, and environmental
destruction; depopulating areas through massacres, regular air
bombs, napalm--reportedly bought from the French, white
phosphorous, and the infamous Daisy Cutters, destroying not only
human beings but the forests as well.

	It has been estimated that the Salvadoran Air Force has
dropped more than 3,000 tons of bombs over the Salvadoran
landscape causing fires that have destroyed wilderness and arable
land alike, this in turn contributes to landslides and floods.

	According to Oxfam's Michael Delaney, the northern region of
El Salvador was designated a free fire zone, where anything that
moved was bombed or shot, including animals and humans, and
forests and fields were burned.  The purpose of the free fire zone
policy was to encourage farmers (who might have supported the
rebels) to move into protected hamlets where they could be
observed and were unable to aid the rebels. 

	Dr. John Constable, a burn specialist at Massachusetts General
Hospital, who had worked with napalm victims during Vietnam,  was
a member of a delegation sponsored by Medical Aid to El Salvador
that went to El Salvador in 1984.  He found several survivors of
napalm burns and white phosphorus.  Napalm and  white
phosphorus victims in developing nations usually die quickly from
dehydration and infection if they do not receive prompt attention.
This is especially the case in El Salvador because of the collapse of
the medical infrastructure.

	Unfortunately, it is the indirect effects of war that cause the
long term damage, partly because the damage is on a larger scale
(geographically and temporarily) and cannot be easily observed, and
partly because it can ultimately destroy the entire ecological base of
the area.

	In El Salvador the main source of fuel is wood, the main source
of water is untreated river water, and main source of food is that
grown by farmers.  Deforestation and river pollution therefore have
a greater impact on the health of Salvadorans than the same
environmental degradation would have in an equivalent region of
the U.S.

	The war has indirectly added to soil erosion by causing
farmers to deforest and alter traditional agricultural patterns in
order to survive.    Farmers who had been displaced from their fields
further deforested the land in order to sell the wood in the cities to
support their families.

 	Deforestation  leads to water and wind erosion creating gullies
and ravines; as the soil erodes it causes dust storms, siltation of
reservoirs, the drying up of natural springs, and ultimately the
collapse of the agricultural system.  According to Oxfam "more than
77 percent of the country suffers serious soil erosion, causing a
annual topsoil loss of 20 percent."  This is significant considering
that it takes nature one-hundred to one-thousand years to grow one
inch of top soil.

	The drying up of springs and erosion of watersheds has caused
dangerous agrochemicals to be washed into diminishing surface
water increasing the concentrations of these poisons.  In addition to
pollution from agrochemicals the water supplies have also been
poisoned by the runoff from defoliants.  Most Salvadorans do not
have access to safe drinking water and must drink polluted water or
die of thirst, hardly a choice.

	A bizarre example of one of the results of the ecological
imbalance caused by the war is the increase of vampire bats' attacks
on humans.  The bats' main victims are cattle who's blood they suck
during the night, but so many cattle were killed by the army during
the war that bats turned to humans for sustenance.  This was fatal
for small children.

	As with the environment, the health problems that El Salvador
was facing before the war have been exacerbated .  Poverty and
malnutrition, once serious prior to the war are now rampant.  For
12 years government officials ignored the problems of El Salvador's
water supplies, erosion, deforestation and deteriorating sewage
systems.

	The environmental consequences of El Salvador's war are
significant, the war's damage has been added to an already
ecologically weakened country creating a nation that is bordering
long term and irreversible ecological destruction.

    
    And people waste their time trying to control what consenting
    adults do with their genitals.  Yikes!!!!!
    
    Carole

    
    
    And others waste their time making sarcastic remarks about same.
    Perhpas they are more related than you think. Perhaps sin is even worse
    to the spirit than this physical warfare. Perhaps your higher ground
    isn't so high...
    
    Jamey

The rape of the Earth, whether through exploitation or through warfare, is
a residual manifestation of the mentality of the conquerer, such as that
of the great and noble Christian explorer, Christopher Columbus (see
Note 436).

This mentality persists in the decision of the US government to allow
logging to penetrate into the habitat of the spotted owl.

Now, if the spotted owl is wiped out, as is anticipated, I'll probably
never miss it.  However, the Earth is a complex ecosystem.  The consequences
of permanent and irreversible damage perpetrated upon the Earth are
unfathomable.  The sin of destroying the Earth will eventually make the
Earth uninhabitable; unsuitable to support human life.  If that happens,
other sins just won't matter.  Nobody will be alive to commit them.  The
Earth will then belong to the common cockroach.  'Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the Earth.'

Peace,
Richard

    
    Jamey,
    
    You have not taken the time to know me, but my statement was not
    sarcastic.
    
    Carole
    

    
    
    Sorry, wrong word.
    
    Jamey

	On March 22, 60 persons gathered at Arvada Mennonite Church in late
afternoon to celebrate the final vigil at Rocky Flats.  Since 1979 the name
Rocky Flats became synonymous with nuclear arms.  For more than 13 years
a group has gathered at the main gate to pray, sing and call for an end
to nuclear arms production.  Triggers for nuclear bombs were manufactured
at the Flats situated midway between Denver and Boulder, Colorado in the
shadow of the Rockies.

	The facility, operated by Rockwell International until two years
ago, has stopped production of bomb triggers.  An estimated 1,500 workers
are to be terminated this Spring, however clean up operations are expected
to continue for ten years.  Manufacture of the next generation of nuclear
triggers has been shifted to the Pantax Plant near Amarillo, Texas.

	The Chicago Tribune reported that Rockwell International has agreed
to plead guilty to criminal violation of hazardous waste laws arising from
its operation at Rocky Flats.  The company has agreed to pay a fine of $20
million for mishandling of hazardous waste and illegal discharging of
pollutants into two streams that flow into the wather supplies that serve
four Colorado cities.

	The final gathering included people who had grown up in the shadow
of the facility.  One participant told how she had become involved in work
against warmaking by seeing vigilers at Rocky Flats.

Reprinted with permission
Signs of the Times, May 1992

Peace,
Richard

    
    Richard,
    
    Any idea what the pollutants were?  Was any of it radioactive?
    
    Not too long ago, I watched a PBS show on the water problems in
    Colorado caused by the numerous mining operations in the Rockies.
    Such a fragile environment, and the water from the mountains 
    supplies not only Colorado residents with their drinking water,
    but neighboring states as well.  How much more can it take before
    it gives out for good?
    
    Carole

Carole,

	I don't know the contents of the contaminants.

Peace,
Richard

U.S. Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary visited Rocky Flats last week and
said weapons-grade plutonium should never be use again.

For 40 years, workers at the plant northwest of Denver fashioned plutonium
triggers for nuclear bombs.  "The world is awash with plutonium," O'Leary
said as she toured a uranium-contaminated building at the now defunct Rocky
Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, "The future lies in cleanup, not in bombs."

She insisted her administration will succeed where others have failed.
O'Leary vowed to end the era when bureaucrats spend "this much money and
do nothing."

God bless you, Hazel O'Leary.  God bless you.

    398.85  Sorry.  I'm just used to hearing this dominion thing used to
    justify raping the Earth, robbing it of its resources and giving
    hardly anything back.
    
    We human beings are pretty clever, but not one of us can bring back
    an extinct species.  And God's not going to give us a second chance
    with any that have been wiped out.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 Yep...I was at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts Saturday and viewed the
 Audobon (sp?) collection of bird paintings.  I was amazed and saddened
 by all of the species of birds that are now extinct, not to mention the
 other animals.



 Jim

	The Whites, too, shall pass - perhaps faster than the tribes.  Continue
to contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

				-- Chief Seattle of the Duwamish
				   from a letter to President Franklin Pierce,
				   1855

        I have to confess that I often listen to Sid Roth's
        "Messianic Vision" radio program during my morning commute. 
        It's a habit I got into almost 20 years ago, back when he
        seemed refreshingly open compared to some of the evangelicals
        I knew then.  And as we all know, only the really good habits
        are easy to break. :-}

        Well, times change, and Sid has moved a bit to the right.

        This morning (and in fact all this week) the discussion is
        with a reporter who has written a book about the secret
        conspiracy to bring about the "new world order", and how
        environmentalism is the tool to make otherwise alert
        Americans succumb to this danger.

        It's the kind of stuff that really makes you weep.  You begin
        to think that perhaps the dumbing down of American education
        is actually a conservative plot to enable such tripe to be
        sold to the citizenry.

        Of course, the number one reason why environmentalism is on
        the conservative hit list is that any meaningful action on
        the environment must involve governmental regulation, and for
        some problems it would require international regulation.

        Did you know that recycling is a hoax?  The proof of that is
        the estimate that all American trash through the next century
        could be buried on 31 square miles of land [that number
        remembered only approximately].  Thus the real reasons for
        recycling are ignored and an easily-demolished strawman put
        in their place.

        Did you know that global warming is a hoax?  The proof is
        that the earth's temperature rises and falls anyway, and God
        made it that way.  (This argument is akin to saying that one
        can be careless with campfires in a forest, because forest
        fires happen naturally, and God made it that way.)

        Did you know that the evil NEA (National Education
        Association) is foisting environmental education on our
        children to get them to turn in their parents?  It's true, I
        heard it myself:  some teachers have had their students do
        inventories of energy and other resource-intensive activities
        in the home (gasp, the number of flushes!) and bring them
        into the government schools (they used to be public schools,
        but now they're government schools).

        The program ended for the day with the mention that an
        environmental bill of rights is going to supersede the U.S.
        Bill of Rights.

        Of course mention was made that the present President, and
        especially the Vice President, were chief proponents of this
        environmentalism-based assault on America.

        Lock and load,
        Bob

    Although this has little to do with the environment it is along
    the same lines as, errr.., questionable logic.
    
    In the Economist they reported, when talking about the mid-west
    within the topic of the primaries, a christian talk show host
    was quoted as saying something like:

	We all know that Jesus had no problem with paying
	taxes to the Romans - rendering unto Ceasar - but
	in a democracy *we* are Ceasar and so it is your
	christian duty to vote for lower taxes.

    If Christianity can be twisted this much and successfully sold
    to the populous then I am afraid, very afraid for this country.
    
    Tom

re Note 124.100:

        Well, I heard the rest of the interview today.  The author is
        Samantha Smith (how ironic!) and the book title is something
        like "Goddess Earth".

        In one 15-minute show, environmentalism, vegetarianism,
        communism, AL Gore, Carl Sagan, Earth Day, paganism,
        witchcraft, feminism, the green movement, "Rescuing the Bible
        from Fundamentalism", the United Nations, goddess worship,
        and the White House were shown to inextricably linked in a
        plot to bring about the "new world order".

        It certainly gives you something to think about the next time
        you're tempted to turn down the thermostat, switch off a
        light, or slow down to the speed limit. :-}

        Bob

    Also see topic 1009, "What's so sinister about the 'New World Order'?"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard