 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/3/2006 9:08 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Yo.
See this movie.
Look at reviews given to this movie.
Keep an open mind during this movie.
Double check some of the stats given for this movie.
But, please...please...
SEE THIS MOVIE.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 7/5/2006 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Seriously, what can really be done that's going to actually effect a significant difference? Sure, do what we can, but is it ever going to be enough? Here's the list from that site Meph mentioned.
10 Things You Can Do as an Individual and Family Member
- Pray that God will help all of us become aware of and address this problem, especially our leaders.
- Study the Bible in light of the impacts global warming will have on people and God's other creatures.
- Keep informed by signing up for our email updates/action alerts.
- Organize your life so that it is easier and more desirable to walk, bike, car pool and use public transportation.
- When a new passenger vehicle is required, purchase the most fuel efficient and least polluting vehicle that truly meets your needs.
- Keep your car's engine tuned up, the tires properly inflated, and don't carry weight unnecessarily in the car (e.g., using the trunk for storage).All save gas.
- Weatherize your home to conserve energy and cover your water heater with a fire-safe insulator. (Check to see if your utility or your local or state government offers an incentive or rebate program to help you weatherize your home.)
- Purchase compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy efficient appliances. (Look for the "Energy Star" label.)
- Choose electricity produced from renewable sources if available in your area.
- Support businesses that are reducing their global warming pollution by your investments and purchases.
I'm just skeptical that this is really going to amount to much. What's worse, is that it may just have the opposite of the intented effect. People become innoculated, so to speak. They FEEL like they're doing something, but we're still headed toward eventual crisis. Yeah, I've got flourescent bulbs now. My car gets 50% better mileage than some SUVs. I've got low-e windows. I'm good.
Do any models actually predict that doing things like those on this list are likely to stop, let alone reverse, the trend? It seems that we've ALL got to be way MORE radical than is called for on this list. I don't see it happening. Not only is the world population going to continue to "J-curve", but many third world countries are progressing technologically so that even if population growth stopped now, energy consumption (and correlated emissions) will continue to rise. Post Edited (Corey) : 7/6/2006 11:35:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/6/2006 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | |
All the proof we need, eh?
Post Edited (TGB) : 7/6/2006 11:53:36 AM (GMT-5)
Image Attachment :
warm.jpg 51KB (image/pjpeg)This image has been viewed 19 time(s). | | | |
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/7/2006 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Seriously, what can really be done that's going to actually effect a significant difference? Sure, do what we can, but is it ever going to be enough?
and...
I'm just skeptical that this is really going to amount to much. What's worse, is that it may just have the opposite of the intented effect. People become innoculated, so to speak. They FEEL like they're doing something, but we're still headed toward eventual crisis. Yeah, I've got flourescent bulbs now. My car gets 50% better mileage than some SUVs. I've got low-e windows. I'm good.
Do any models actually predict that doing things like those on this list are likely to stop, let alone reverse, the trend? It seems that we've ALL got to be way MORE radical than is called for on this list. I don't see it happening. Not only is the world population going to continue to "J-curve", but many third world countries are progressing technologically so that even if population growth stopped now, energy consumption (and correlated emissions) will continue to rise.
Let's start from another premise by asking ourselves a fundamental question:
Would it be correct to say that this whole issue is one that CANNOT be totally ignored or minimized by people committed to expanding the Kingdom of God over and against the kingdom of darkness?
It seems like the Evangelical Climate Initiative is framing this whole thing in terms of being a morally relevant issue. Human beings ARE despoiling God's creation on a massive level that is causing increasing human and animals deaths. It seems to me that they would frame this as an ANTI-GOD occurance that should be combatted. Now, if one has a warfare worldview perspective of the world where ENGAGEMENT against the forces of darkness, not merely SELF-SEPARATION from those force, is inherent in the view, doesn't this mean something? Should our actions be determined by possible PRAGMATIC OUTCOMES of those actions...OR...should our actions be determined by our IDENTITY as counter-cultural Kingdom of God agents?
This matters. If we talk about this situation from more of a pragmatic consideration (ie. Can we REALLY do anything about this ultimately?) then we are much more likely to fall into rational apathy, if not outright indifference or despair. If we are talking about this situation from a more identity consideration (ie. Is it a matter of my identity as a Kingdom person to do something about this issue?), then we don't. We "revolt" (remember this word from SATPOE?) against this stuff, even though in this probationary period, we may ultimately fail at what we are attempting!. Every time we make ourselves part of the solution, in whatever small way, to the extent of that small way, we are NOT continuing to be parts of the problem. And that's a good thing.
In short, one could say that, for Kingdom people, it's more about being integrous with their faith identity...than it is about the plausibility of practically reversing the tide of increasing problems.
What do you think about this, Corey?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/7/2006 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB:
Wouldn't "what one ought to do" depend upon one's assessment of the problem? I mean, there are competent scientists who interpret the evidence differently (i.e., the climate situation is not as dire as some think and humans are not "heating" the planet). I'm not a scientist and I admit I'm not up on this issue, but I do know enough to know a) there are competing views, b) political motivations can and probably are behind some or all of those arguing BOTH sides, c) I'm not taking Al Gore seriously on much of anything, especially on science and the history of the internet. ;o)
1) Hmmm...I'm so glad you said all of this. Really.
It is a person with just THESE ideas that I would really like to hear comment on the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and it's claims. Tom, I'll pay for your friggin ticket and give you some gas money if you go see it this weekend and present your commentary here sometime later. No joke, dude. I'd REALLY like yours and Corey's opinions. Ya'll INTPs know how to break stuff down and analyze it till the cows come home. I'll give it to ya the next to we hook up at Friday's. Promise!
2) Tom says:
Point is, "what one ought to do" follows "what one thinks about the problem," right?
Yes. My question is more general though. ONCE a person has decided that a particular issue is of serious "interest" to a certain important worldview perspective that the person has, it would seem that integrity with that worldview would lend itself to NOT being able to be indifferent or apathetic towards that issue. I'm wondering what this thought means in the context of global warming and all that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/7/2006 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 7/7/2006 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: Corey, what would be your ALTERNATIVE to doing something...anything...about this issue? Would it be rational apathy? In a previous post, you mentioned something about "divine intervention" being the only way out or something like that? I thought that was important. What did you mean by that?
Corey: By all means I reject apathy, you know that already. A kingdom person is characterized by passion for the things of God. I want to maximize God's aesthetic experience of beauty. How can I best do that? Now, I can spend an extra $8k to get a hybrid car that gets 33 mpg instead of say, 24. This will make some impact, no? Or I can use that $8k to support more orphans in India. I've made my choice to go for the latter, since it's my appraisal that it's more beautiful to God. In fact, giving those kids a slightly better life probably actually increases the overall polution in the world, especially if they live longer and go on to have kids of their own. I guess I'm more okay with that priority. Is this apathy? I don't think it is.
I hope you don't hear me saying don't do something...anything...about this issue. Do what you can, something, anything, with your limited resources, as aligned with the priorities of God. I affirm that the ecology is a priority of God, but I do view it as less of a priority than the widows and orphans, that's all. Pure religion is this....
My earlier comments about our need for divine intervention is that I think it will ultimately take a miracle of some sort to fix all that's wrong with the environment. I don't see any feasible way of fixing this ourselves. Our population is going to to continue to grow, and that's the fundamental cause, as I see it, of pollution. When I had kids, I expected them to make a mess, and accepted that I would end being the one to clean it up. I think if God wants "kids", he's got to be prepared for some mess that he's going to have to clean up himself. I think he was prepared for this, and has resources to make it right again. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/7/2006 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
By all means I reject apathy, you know that already. A kingdom person is characterized by passion for the things of God. I want to maximize God's aesthetic experience of beauty. How can I best do that? Now, I can spend an extra $8k to get a hybrid car that gets 33 mpg instead of say, 24. This will make some impact, no? Or I can use that $8k to support more orphans in India. I've made my choice to go for the latter, since it's my appraisal that it's more beautiful to God. In fact, giving those kids a slightly better life probably actually increases the overall polution in the world, especially if they live longer and go on to have kids of their own. I guess I'm more okay with that priority. Is this apathy? I don't think it is.
I hope you don't hear me saying don't do something...anything...about this issue. Do what you can, something, anything, with your limited resources, as aligned with the priorities of God. I affirm that the ecology is a priority of God, but I do view it as less of a priority than the widows and orphans, that's all. Pure religion is this....
Ok. I understand lots better now. You WOULD say that having some measure of concern and action for stewarding the earth's resources is a Christian priority and responsibility. But you would also say that there are other Christian priorities that may trump that, with respect to the allocation of one's personal time and resources. I hear ya.
It's very interesting that I have rarely heard evangelicals talk about population control methods as viable solutions to some of our problems...whereas some process theists like John Cobb find it to be population control to be inevitable, in some way. Just a random thought.
********************************
Corey:
My earlier comments about our need for divine intervention is that I think it will ultimately take a miracle of some sort to fix all that's wrong with the environment. I don't see any feasible way of fixing this ourselves. Our population is going to to continue to grow, and that's the fundamental cause, as I see it, of pollution. When I had kids, I expected them to make a mess, and accepted that I would end being the one to clean it up. I think if God wants "kids", he's got to be prepared for some mess that he's going to have to clean up himself. I think he was prepared for this, and has resources to make it right again.
What would this global divine reorientation be besides some occurance involving Jesus' second return?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 7/8/2006 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | On the population control topic. The conversations you've had here about divine experience of beauty have impacted my worldview. Seriously. I understand every person as profoundly beautiful to God (and profoundly lost, but that's not the topic right now) and his desire for maximal expression of beauty. It would seem to follow that God would experience more beauty the more people there are to worship him. Conversely, if we were to control population, this would diminish occasions for beauty.
This isn't abstract for me; a couple months ago I was watching my kids play together (and probably making a mess with their toys strewn about), just soaking the moment, trying to catch this bit of sand that is slipping through the hourglass. The thought occurred to me how God must think about us in this way too. He loves having kids! My wife and I are irreversibly done having any more, but at that moment it hit me that this was a sad thing. I no longer think the Catholics and others are so off base in their position on birth control. "Fill the earth and subdue it" can and should be viewed from the perspective maximizing divine experience of beauty. Put this together with universalism, and I don't think that it's ever ultimately the case that it's better if someone hadn't been born.
A necessary consequence of this would be pollution. I understand that and accept it as being a situation that God is prepared to deal with. God would rather clean up the mess than not have as many kids as possible.
Disclaimer again, I'm NOT AT ALL advocating any mis-use of the environment, but I'm just saying that this planet was expected to take on normal wear and tear. God has provision to renew this as well. I suspect angels were intended for this capacity, but that's getting further off topic. Post Edited (Corey) : 7/8/2006 8:47:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2006 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...
Corey:
On the population control topic. The conversations you've had here about divine experience of beauty have impacted my worldview. Seriously. I understand every person as profoundly beautiful to God (and profoundly lost, but that's not the topic right now) and his desire for maximal expression of beauty. It would seem to follow that God would experience more beauty the more people there are to worship him. Conversely, if we were to control population, this would diminish occasions for beauty.
This isn't abstract for me; a couple months ago I was watching my kids play together (and probably making a mess with their toys strewn about), just soaking the moment, trying to catch this bit of sand that is slipping through the hourglass. The thought occurred to me how God must think about us in this way too. He loves having kids! My wife and I are irreversibly done having any more, but at that moment it hit me that this was a sad thing. I no longer think the Catholics and others are so off base in their position on birth control. "Fill the earth and subdue it" can and should be viewed from the perspective maximizing divine experience of beauty. Put this together with universalism, and I don't think that it's ever ultimately the case that it's better if someone hadn't been born.
Hmmm...
I see where you are coming from. Let me post something here first before I fully respond.
John Cobb, circa 2003. Part of his thoughts on Overpopulation. (emphasis mine)
www.processandfaith.org/askcobb/2003/03-overpop.shtml
"Many Catholics have employed natural law theory to gain guidance on many matters. They employ this theory to oppose most forms of birth control and, emphatically, abortion. Some even argue, either from the Bible or from natural law, that the husband has the right to make choices for the whole family regardless of the wife's preferences. Process theology rejects the authority of such natural law doctrines, in part because Paul taught that we are free from not only the Jewish law, but law in general, and partly because there is really no place for immutable laws in the world of process.
Many Christians think of ethics in quite individualist ways. They do not see how concerns for the community as a whole can override the rights of individuals. Hence public intervention to discourage or prevent the births of wanted children is abhorrent. Process theology understands individuals as constituted largely by relations with others in community. The true well being of the individual is achieved only as the community flourishes. For the sake of its members the community may have to restrict the behavior of its members. We may also have to sacrifice some real goods now for the sake of future members of the community.
For process theology, ultimately, the question is how to contribute most to God. The well being of creatures overall contributes to God. The human creatures can contribute most, but the contrast of the experience of other animals to human experience enriches this contribution. The aim should be at a human population that is as large as can have an enjoyable life on a sustainable basis without unduly restricting the flourishing of other creatures. No one knows just what that is because we have not experimented with developing societies where life is less destructive but more enjoyable. Given our present means of attaining the good life, our population is already too large." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2006 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's some thoughts...
The beauty of the universe it not necessarily maximized just by numerically increasing the human population. We can agree on is these things:
1) The maximation of God's experience of beauty (via loving sociality), thinking of the whole project, necessarily entails that all human beings on the planet end up experiencing and sharing Gods' beauty aka universalism. This is my beef with Piper's Christians hedonism. He ain't consistent.
and...
2) The CAPACITY for the maximization of God's moment by moment experience of beauty is increased with more human beings being born.
What is up in the air is this: all things considered, what is the ACTUAL optimal population of human beings during moments of our "probationary period" to accomplish the maximation of God's ongoing experience of beauty with a corresponding MINIMAL amount of "ugliness" during that same time. Let's not forget TWT 4 about the potential to influence. More people means more opportunity for beauty but also more opportunity for ugliness and ETERNAL LOSS too! This is very important to understand! Let's also remember that God sees all the beauty AND the brokeness all the time. It is possible that an overpopulation of human beings (or any animals for that matters) actually ends up causing more harm than good, when thinking on a moment to moment basis.
In short, there is no ENDURING direct relationship between the amount of beauty (via loving sociality) that God experiences and the actual amount of human beings on the planet at the time. There can diminishing returns. Maybe it would look like a Bell curve? I don't know.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/8/2006 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: In short, there is no ENDURING direct relationship between the amount of beauty (via loving sociality) that God experiences and the actual amount of human beings on the planet at the time.
Jeff: How can this be if UR is true, Meph? Wouldn't Corey be right in saying that if UR is true, it can never be true that it's better to have not been born? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's all there is for us, as creatures, to consider. But with respect to what "endures," it would seem that God would experience more enduring beauty if more people are born to be saved for eternity--if each saved person contributes quantitatively to that degree of beauty. For temporal things are virtually nothing compared to eternity. How do we explain this?
Tom: My concern is that one doesn't advocate a Marxist authoritarianism in order to implement what one believes are the necessary steps to keeping population under that critical mark.
Jeff: Yes. I think this addresses the temporal aspect of the problem. Historically, governments love to exploit real and unreal crises to acquire more power, only to use that power for evils the people would have never consented to had they known. I've heard that in the 20th century, governments killed WAY more of their own people than were killed in wars--most of the time in the name of pursuing some utopian goal.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2006 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: In short, there is no ENDURING direct relationship between the amount of beauty (via loving sociality) that God experiences and the actual amount of human beings on the planet at the time.
Jeff: How can this be if UR is true, Meph? Wouldn't Corey be right in saying that if UR is true, it can never be true that it's better to have not been born? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that's all there is for us, as creatures, to consider. But with respect to what "endures," it would seem that God would experience more enduring beauty if more people are born to be saved for eternity--if each saved person contributes quantitatively to that degree of beauty. For temporal things are virtually nothing compared to eternity. How do we explain this?
We have to understand something. For every person that lives, there is ETERNAL contribution to beauty (via loving sociality) and ETERNAL "contribution" to the UGLINESS that God experiences as well. If person A lives their most of their lives in emotional, physical, and/or psychical squalor...AND...actually SPREADS that squalor...and, as a result, ends up contributing more and more eternal loss to God's experience...it could be the case that God's experience of beauty (with corresponding minimal experience of ugliness) would have been optimized had that person not been born.
Ask the question. All things considered, is it possible that things have been "better off" had Hitler never been born, even with universal reconciliation being true? Could the world have done without Hitler's rise to power? If we can even theoretically answer the question "Yes", then that should allow us to think about some things.
Now of course, we cannot know the moral character and contribution of someone before they are born. But the point I'm trying to make is that it may NOT be the case that an increase of human beings on the planet has a constant DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to an increase in God's experience of beauty in creation being optimized at any point in time.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/8/2006 12:38 PM (GMT -6) | | What I hear Corey saying is that God would KNOW the potential ramifications of having lots of human beings..and would have that as an ACCEPTABLE RISK. Such that, rather than God trying to not have as many "kids" as possible, God would just be willing to clean up WHATEVER MESS the "kids" make...and enjoy the kids themselves in the end. God was prepared to deal with the mess.
I can understand that reasoning. But maybe it gets to this idea: Is God just after the most kids possible, thinking about the END GOAL, not worrying about how much eternal loss God (or we) has to experience along the way? OR is God CONSIDERING this eternal loss quotient into God's overall plan of maximizing beautiful experience?
Currently, I'm willing to say the latter.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 7/8/2006 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: We have to understand something. For every person that lives, there is ETERNAL contribution to beauty (via loving sociality) and ETERNAL "contribution" to the UGLINESS that God experiences as well. If person A lives their most of their lives in emotional, physical, and/or psychical squalor...AND...actually SPREADS that squalor...and, as a result, ends up contributing more and more eternal loss to God's experience...it could be the case that God's experience of beauty (with corresponding minimal experience of ugliness) would have been optimized had that person not been born.
Corey: Please unpack this a bit more for me. I haven't followed you how, assuming universalism, eternal loss to God's experience of beauty is possible. It still looks like eventually for all concerned we'll look back and say, "it was all worth it cuz now I'm with you forever in beautiful loving sociality."
I fear you may be hearing me say, "Don't worry about the environment. Who cares if it goes to hell. There's a giant reset button coming anyway." This is not my point, and I would oppose anyone with such a non-Kingdom viewpoint. I hope you can see that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/8/2006 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, I'm agreeing with Corey that UR can not mean that we're indifferent to consequences in the finite age. But how would birth contribute to an eternal loss for God except in some sense of a memory? I guess process theism would accept that bad divine memories are consciously held, eternally, huh? This is the only thing I can come up with. But that would seem to imply that memories generate sentient experience, eternally--both pleasant experience and unpleasant.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/8/2006 5:09:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 56 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|