Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:06 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
I don't think wise stewardship is in question here, it's the urgency, the emotional investment, that is in question. Wisdom is supposed to enable the personality to control emotions. Wise stewardship has nothing at all to do with the so-called inevitable "end of the world as we know it" campaign. It's a shame that so many people have bought into this hysterical aspect of stewardship. Panic, fear and acute anxiety actually paralyze the function of wisdom. Attaching morality to it is no different than the primitive response of aboriginal man who feared climate and nature so much he devised a moral system of bondage which included all manner of sacrifices.

This primitive response is weaseling it's way through the collective subconscious even today and has raised its ugly head in certain communities of activists who are fixated on developing a system of living that pays homage and offers sacrifice to placate the gods of nature using emotionalism rather than wisdom. It's a retrogressive tendency and not one I embrace. Even so, I do embrace wise stewardship, much like Adam and Eve were wise stewards of their garden home. But their seven commandments did not include anything about the environment. It was not part of their religion as it is today. It was NOT an emotionally laden, fear ridden, panic driven part of their lives. Natural occurrences, either bad or good, were not blamed on man's moral incompetence or virtue.

There's no mention at all about the environment, the climate or the flora and fauna of this earth in the commandments below, so those things must have nothing, or very little, to do with religious or moral living according to our superiors. In my opinion, such things were, and are, a matter of simple common sense.

(1017.9-18.2) 93:4.7-13
1. You shall not serve any God but the Most High Creator of heaven and earth.
2. You shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal salvation.
3. You shall not bear false witness.
4. You shall not kill.
5. You shall not steal.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.

Perhaps today the doers and shakers of this world are lacking in common sense? Common sense is a safeguard against emotional religious zealotry, which is what I think hampers the progress of the environment and nature worshippers today in their appeal to the moral conscience of nonbelievers. My conscience does not accept anything lacking in common sense. If I'm going to rattle my inner sense of right and wrong, it better make sense, otherwise I can't give it a second thought. Perhaps my thinking is as rare as unicorns, I don't know, but I'm incapable of succumbing to irrational lachrymosity. It moves me not.

If one thinks about the lack of common sense in this world today it will astound. It has become almost a mortal sin to smoke in public or drink with a plastic straw because it contaminates the environment and those living in it, yet it is of the highest moral virtue to offer a person a clean needle to inject heroin into his body, then allow him to lie about the streets and use them as a latrine. I ask you, is that common sense?

Let me assure everyone, the end of the world is not coming any time soon. But I do know this, if the world is ending in twelve years, then Jesus will be here before 2030 since he promised to return, and I'm going to be alive to see it! There's nothing better than that. Can't wait. So bring it on!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 1100
Location: Nanticoke NY
"The Business of the Father" well this concept means so much more to Jesus than it could mean to me right now. But I believe that the personality of Jesus includes environmentalism. The Business of the Father is to preserve (maintain and gratify perhaps) the very life in the Universe, especially those values of material life that producing sentience finding His Way all the way back to Paradise, unity of life with the First Source and Center. Jesus was the preserver of "cultural civilization" in his own time. He once gave serious consideration towards the life of a farmer, gave each of his siblings the opportunity to cultivate, and even had a Hand as the conductor of caravans, which he also repaired and maintained. Furthermore, Jesus loved nature and his horticultural prowess is far transcendant of even Johnny Appleseed! He actually must have shaped the propagation of living forms, in addition to finding good tutors at mathematics and science, and preserving the wisdom of his forefathers (not only their knowledge but their (Simon's) Gardens). If you think about the differences between modern and ancient civilization, the caravans drawn by animal power at the beginning of the mechanical age, "must carry the goods themselves", having not machinery and informational guidance for robotic software guidance systems. The goods were not exactly unitary products, either, with their own labels. Such dross comes with the danger of a technocratic or materialist society, that has abandoned the foundation of cultural civilzation, and many say that we are poisoning the planet thereby with unregulated unstandardized and single use productions.

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 1035
Location: Denver CO
Quote:
If one thinks about the lack of common sense in this world today it will astound. It has become almost a mortal sin to smoke in public or drink with a plastic straw because it contaminates the environment and those living in it, yet it is of the highest moral virtue to offer a person a clean needle to inject heroin into his body, then allow him to lie about the streets and use them as a latrine. I ask you, is that common sense?


This seems like apples and oranges to me. Using a plastic straw or blowing cigarette smoke into someone's space - caring about the environment - is a quite different topic than accommodating safe heroin use. Maybe both use what you call common sense, but they are two very different topics.

I do think that Nature is very resilient, as are human beings. Nevertheless, when faced with a choice of whether to continue the unbridled use of petrochemicals that we know are contributors to poor air quality, and making the switch to cleaner sources, I would always choose the latter just because I consider it a better, more enlightened choice. When faced with the choice of clear cutting a forest for profit and preserving that forest and learning to use its bounty for the good of all, I would choose the latter for the same reasons.

As Adam and Eve lived, we would do well to try to learn to live in cooperation and harmony with Nature. I think the prevailing view of humanity has always been to dominate and subdue Nature, rather than work cooperatively with its forces. That view, in my opinion, is outdated and needs revision. No need for panic, but a wise assessment of the situation by those who wield power - free from special interests - might be in order.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
We know that the consequences of climate change are most acutely felt by the poor among us. Those of us who are fortunate to live in geographic areas that remain, as yet, little affected by it can blithely say, "Climate change is not a moral issue and people need not panic." It sure makes life easier and simpler if all we have to worry about is our own backyard.

To complicate matters, we have a situation in which most of us enjoy the bounty and affluence that society's neglect of our duty of wise stewardship of our planet's natural resources has enabled. Our daily lives are dependent on fossil fuels, plastics, and booming economic conditions. On the other hand, we have no direct knowledge of future generations who may suffer as a result of our bounteous lifestyles. They weigh less heavily on us because it is so abstract; whereas, our day to day lives are entirely in focus and concrete.

One thing the UB helps us understand is to take the long view; the mortal ascension plan requires discipline and faith now, in order to participate in endless adventure as Finaliters later. It also reminds us of the Golden Rule, that we are to love others and treat them the way God would have us do. That should include those stricken by poverty in third world countries, and unborn generations of God's children all over the planet. I agree with Maryjo that there is no need to panic (although, give any social or economic challenge and you can always find some people who panic about it). But we need to be wise stewards and we need to think of future generations, not just ourselves and our self-centered interests.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
maryjo606 wrote:
This seems like apples and oranges to me. Using a plastic straw or blowing cigarette smoke into someone's space - caring about the environment - is a quite different topic than accommodating safe heroin use. Maybe both use what you call common sense, but they are two very different topics.


I disagree. It's the same topic:Moral outrage over contamination of the personal and collective environment. It's not okay to contaminate your lungs or anyone else's lungs with cigarette smoke, but it is okay to help someone contaminate their body and mind with heroine. It's not okay to contaminate the oceans with plastic, but it is okay to contaminate the streets with AIDs, hepatitis and cholera laden feces. It's exactly the same topic hampered by SELECTIVE moral outrage. It seems to me that those who value the air and the ocean place less value on human lives. Only wisdom can cure this problem. Petrochemicals in the air pose the same danger as toxic chemicals in the blood stream. Where is the enlightened choice being made there?

maryjo606 wrote:
As Adam and Eve lived, we would do well to try to learn to live in cooperation and harmony with Nature. I think the prevailing view of humanity has always been to dominate and subdue Nature, rather than work cooperatively with its forces. That view, in my opinion, is outdated and needs revision. No need for panic, but a wise assessment of the situation by those who wield power - free from special interests - might be in order.


Cooperating with nature requires an understanding of nature. Also, mankind is meant to control the physical forces of the planet with wisdom rather than power or domination. Mind controls matter while spirit controls mind.

(1306.3) 118:10.14 2. Man's increasing control — the gradual accumulation of the knowledge of the laws of the material world, the purposes of spiritual existence, and the possibilities of the philosophic co-ordination of these two realities. Man, the savage, was helpless before the onslaughts of natural forces, was slavish before the cruel mastery of his own inner fears. Semicivilized man is beginning to unlock the storehouse of the secrets of the natural realms, and his science is slowly but effectively destroying his superstitions while at the same time providing a new and enlarged factual basis for the comprehension of the meanings of philosophy and the values of true spiritual experience. Man, the civilized, will someday achieve relative mastery of the physical forces of his planet; the love of God in his heart will be effectively outpoured as love for his fellow men, while the values of human existence will be nearing the limits of mortal capacity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
kaktroof wrote: "It seems to me that those who value the air and the ocean place less value on human lives."

Huh? Are you saying that human lives are not dependent on clean air and clean oceans?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:13 am +0000
Posts: 1035
Location: Denver CO
Quote:
I disagree. It's the same topic:Moral outrage over contamination of the personal and collective environment. It's not okay to contaminate your lungs or anyone else's lungs with cigarette smoke, but it is okay to help someone contaminate their body and mind with heroine. It's not okay to contaminate the oceans with plastic, but it is okay to contaminate the streets with AIDs, hepatitis and cholera laden feces. It's exactly the same topic hampered by SELECTIVE moral outrage. It seems to me that those who value the air and the ocean place less value on human lives. Only wisdom can cure this problem. Petrochemicals in the air pose the same danger as toxic chemicals in the blood stream. Where is the enlightened choice being made there?


Gee, I don't feel that way, kat. I guess I still see these things differently than you do, even after your explanation. In my world, I see no heroin addicts out on the street, no feces on the streets. The worst that I see are homeless camps, about which no one seems to have an answer - but that is surely another topic for another day. In any event, even though I may feel bad for those afflicted, I am not face-to-face with those issues in my life.

Environmental issues impact peoples' everyday lives and people can choose to make a difference right where they live. If general moral outrage takes over, how does one focus one's energies? I think we - at least I - have to be selective about where I choose to concentrate my energies, or I will just end up feeling bad all the time about so many issues with no real recourse to action. We can't change everything, but we can do something...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Agon D. Onter wrote:
Huh? Are you saying that human lives are not dependent on clean air and clean oceans?


I'm saying that clean air and clean oceans are just as important as feces-free, disease-free streets. I'm also saying it's just as important to stop people from putting heroin into their bodies as it is to stop them from putting nicotine into their lungs. Which one is more fatal and destructive to society? It's the degree of moral outrage over these things that is askew. It's currently immoral to pollute the air and water, but it is morally acceptable to pollute the pavement and assist someone with polluting their bodies. It's also acceptable to help people kill themselves but it's not acceptable to kill a sea turtle. It's morally acceptable to destroy an unborn fetus but it's immoral to destroy a sea turtle egg. Why is the turtle's life more important than the human's? It seems a bit out of proportion to me.

We will not be remembered in heaven for caring about turtles or plastic straws, but we will be remembered for the individual humans we DON'T care about. The human being has more value to the universe than the sea turtle, the air or the ocean. All are important, but not equal in importance. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Well, Katroof, I don’t know who these people are that hold such bizarre, extreme views as you describe. There are zealots to be found on any issue, but the majority of folks are somewhere in the middle holding moderate views. I think you have created a caricature strawman to enable your argument, but it doesn’t fit reality.

On the drug issue and others, sometimes society has to accept the lesser of two evils - sometimes there is no morally right choice available.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Agon D. Onter wrote:
On the drug issue and others, sometimes society has to accept the lesser of two evils - sometimes there is no morally right choice available.


Well Agon, I'm not sure what two evils you are referring to, and this is probably not the right venue to discuss it, but suffice it to say that the individual human life has great value to the Father.

(138.4) 12:7.9 The love of the Father absolutely individualizes each personality as a unique child of the Universal Father, a child without duplicate in infinity, a will creature irreplaceable in all eternity. The Father's love glorifies each child of God, illuminating each member of the celestial family, sharply silhouetting the unique nature of each personal being against the impersonal levels that lie outside the fraternal circuit of the Father of all. The love of God strikingly portrays the transcendent value of each will creature, unmistakably reveals the high value which the Universal Father has placed upon each and every one of his children from the highest creator personality of Paradise status to the lowest personality of will dignity among the savage tribes of men in the dawn of the human species on some evolutionary world of time and space.

Anything that diminishes a person's value is evil, in my opinion. When it comes to lesser and greater evil the Revelation tells us this:

(193.6) 16:7.7 Man's choosing between good and evil is influenced, not only by the keenness of his moral nature, but also by such influences as ignorance, immaturity, and delusion. A sense of proportion is also concerned in the exercise of virtue because evil may be perpetrated when the lesser is chosen in the place of the greater as a result of distortion or deception. The art of relative estimation or comparative measurement enters into the practice of the virtues of the moral realm.

Which of those two evils is more influenced by ignorance, immaturity or delusion? Which is more distorted or deceptive? I can tell you that placing a higher value on impersonal things, like air and water, rather than on living human beings, is definitely distorted in my opinion. I also think it's immature, but that's another case to be made.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
Must be .... interesting ... to live in the black and white, either-or mindset that you do, Katroof. Taking care of our air and water IS taking care of people. It’s all connected. Trees help air for breathing, oceans provide habitat for food for humans, and salt that is necessary for human life. Similarly, doing things that massively pollute the air that humans require to breathe hurts people.

We must be wise stewards of human life - every life is priceless - and doing so requires being good stewards of the natural resources that nurture human existence. This is just common sense.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Agon D. Onter wrote:
Must be .... interesting ... to live in the black and white, either-or mindset that you do, Katroof. Taking care of our air and water IS taking care of people. It’s all connected. Trees help air for breathing, oceans provide habitat for food for humans, and salt that is necessary for human life. Similarly, doing things that massively pollute the air that humans require to breathe hurts people.


Of course that all matters. The question is not black or white, but as the reference mentions, it's a matter of the "art of relative estimation or comparative measurement". In other words, proportionality. All are important, but all are not equally important.

In fact, I think the choice between the welfare of impersonal air and the welfare of a person is a binary decision. It's not valid to claim that caring about the welfare of the air impacts more people therefore it has greater value than caring for an actual person. Society has to do both, but the welfare of the personality has greater value.

Agon D. Onter wrote:
We must be wise stewards of human life - every life is priceless - and doing so requires being good stewards of the natural resources that nurture human existence. This is just common sense.


It's only common sense if the decisions being made take into account the impact on both the individual and the collective. What good is a beautiful blue world of clean air and pristine water if every human is dead from drug overdose or the plague which is resurfacing from rat infested feces strewn streets? That makes no sense at all, common or otherwise. As the Revelation informs us, it's a matter of comparative measurement. Compare the value of human life to the value of Mother Earth then make wise decisions concerning both. But when you compare the value of human life to animal or plant life, human life will always win.

Even if the planet suffers a catastrophic, cataclysmic disaster, which would naturally destroy all things physical including plants and animals, there is a plan for terrestrial escape of the entire salvable population. That alone should tell you something. It should tell you that in the eyes of the universe the physical planet is not as important, or as valued, as the personalities living on it.

(582:3) 51:2.3 While there is this dematerializing technique for preparing the Adams for transit from Jerusem to the evolutionary worlds, there is no equivalent method for taking them away from such worlds unless the entire planet is to be emptied, in which event emergency installation of the dematerialization technique is made for the entire salvable population. If some physical catastrophe should doom the planetary residence of an evolving race, the Melchizedeks and the Life Carriers would install the technique of dematerialization for all survivors, and by seraphic transport these beings would be carried away to the new world prepared for their continuing existence. The evolution of a human race, once initiated on a world of space, must proceed quite independently of the physical survival of that planet, but during the evolutionary ages it is not otherwise intended that a Planetary Adam or Eve shall leave their chosen world.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:52 am +0000
Posts: 969
katroofjebus wrote:
It's not valid to claim that caring about the welfare of the air impacts more people therefore it has greater value than caring for an actual person.


Oh, I have to disagree with you there. It is the classic ethics problem of a trolley about to hit 5 people on the tracks, but if you pull the lever quickly, it will move the trolley to the other track … where one person is standing. Should one save the 5 while knowing the one will be killed? Which is the moral/ ethical choice? Would it be moral to do nothing?

katroofjebus wrote:
It should tell you that in the eyes of the universe the physical planet is not as important, or as valued, as the personalities living on it.


Of course! I agree. But, it IS POSSIBLE to take care of BOTH. The planet, AND the personalities living on it. It's not either-or.

Let's try this thought experiment. You've heard the phrase, 'don't poop where you eat'. Right? That's just common sense. So imagine a situation in which a household with 5 family members has 1 young child who loves to put his hands in his diaper and smear feces all over the kitchen counter. It makes him happy! He is enjoying life.

Should the parents take care of him and his happiness, while at the same time enabling an environment in which the other children are at risk for disease because of unclean surfaces in the home? I mean, that child is more important than the counter top of the kitchen, right? After all, they can just move to another house (planetary evacuation) once it becomes so filthy they start dying from it.

Or … I'm just spitballing here … maybe the parents could teach the child how to fingerpaint with non-toxic paints. That way, the child still has fun (although, admittedly, not QUITE as fun as smearing crap), and all family members are more safe (and the kitchen won't stink anymore either).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:11 pm +0000
Posts: 932
Agon D. Onter wrote:
I mean, that child is more important than the counter top of the kitchen, right?


That's not what I'm talking about. Yes the child is more important than the countertop, but not the child's behavior. It goes the same for heroin addicts defecating on the sidewalk. The person is more important than the sidewalk, but not the behavior. Both the diaper-diving child and the addict child are engaging in immature behavior. Immaturity is evil. Evil must be addressed and it is not addressed by ignoring it, placating it, sublimating it or enabling it. Likewise, dumping garbage in the ocean is a human behavior. The humans are acting immature and evil, it must be addressed. Education should help. But more importantly, just because a behavior is immature and evil doesn't automatically make it immoral. What I think is immoral is ignoring it, placating it, sublimating it or enabling it.

In terms of making behavior immoral consider the smoker. We know society has succeeded in decreasing cigarette smoking by taxing, banning and shaming. I disagree with the methods, but that's how it was accomplished, making it immoral to smoke. Yes there was some education, but not enough to make the impact activists wanted to make. Now the same thing is happening with plastic which is being taxed, banned and shamed. God forbid I should leave the grocery store with a plastic bag, the looks could kill. There hasn't been much education because society has figured out that shaming and making people feel like sinners is the best way to control behavior.

Should the parents of the diaper-diving child ban or shame the child, or should they educate the child? I think everyone will agree that educating the child according to its capacity to learn is the correct answer. Now what about the passed out, antisocial, uninhibited addict dropping his pants in public? Where is the taxing, banning and shaming? There is none, there's only enabling. Why does this situation differ from the others? Why can't we begin to educate and curtail the behavior of these immature ones? And more perplexing to me is why isn't this horrible behavior as bad as smoking? It can't only be about the air, or is it? If it is, then we're really a twisted society.

I think there is something more sinister gong on here, which some may disagree about. I think it is much easier and more profitable to attack big corporations, the modern satans, who make cigarettes, plastics and petrochemicals than it is to address human behavior on an individual basis. When it comes to heroin, there is no satan corporation to attack, no money to be gained in law suits, no aggrandizement for politicians, hence nothing is done. I don't think that's good stewardship.

And lest you think this has nothing at all to do with the Revelation, let me say that the matter of stewardship in the book seems to center mostly around money and also our responsibility to be good servants, or stewards, to one another. Being good stewards of nature isn't really mentioned, at least not that I can find, even though it seems to be common sense. The question isn't whether or not (binary decision) we should care about the environment, the question is how we go about it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 964
it's talking about a certain planet in Light & Life here:

Quote:
55:3.7 (625.6) The natural resources of this planet were administered as social possessions, community property.


it's not presented as any kind of law but it occurs to me that it's impossible to be a good steward if we aren't really the steward. when the owners all live downstream and downwind from the pollution it wouldn't be accepted. and all society would benefit...rather than let ceo's pile up more money than they can spend in a lifetime the way we do now.

@ nosophist: it's neither fair nor factual to characterize the environmental movement by one naive politician who's ideas were soundly rejected by both sides of the aisle. well not unless you at least present some of the oppositions proposals to solve problems like sweeping the forest...just to balance out the wisdom....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group