Go to THRAWN RICKLE
- Add a comment
- Go to Medved Interview Postponed!
Just to be sure, Passion...
I reread Isaiah 24, and while I agree that the statements are pretty drastic, what I cannot find is any time reference. In fact, what I do see is that the writer seems to be describing either a current event, or one that he forsees in the immediate future – not something thousands of years away. Furthermore, the use of words seems to indicate that the writer is not so much speaking of our planet, of which he certainly had absolutely no comprehension, but of the earth where he lived, i.e., his country, his region.
All I am trying to get you to see is that this is exactly the kind of thing I wrote about earlier, where the interpretation is all-important to the understanding. There is no factual evidence to support anything like this, and unless you choose to infer from the writing that the writer is somehow referring to the eventual destruction of our planet when our sun goes nova, then you are forced to conclude that the passages refer to local events, in both time and area.
For myself, I find it difficult to believe that a writer from that era could conceive of anything like the sun going nova, since he could not even have comprehended the relationship of our planet to the sun, since he didn't even know what a planet was.
Again, I am NOT trying to influence your religious thinking, except to get you to see that interpretation of any Scriptural passages is fraught with danger.
posted by
arGee
on January 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Some of what you say makes sense Argee...
But Isaiah 24 is pretty clear...God doesn't leave any room for doubt. He says the earth will be destroyed because mankind would not listen to their creator or heed his warnings.
The only question is WHEN.
posted by
Passionflower
on January 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM
| link to this | reply
I respect your religious passion, Passion...
But I ask you to consider that historically humans have interpreted passages of Scripture to suit their particular prevailing point of view. This resulted, for example, in the Catholic Church long insisting that the Earth was the center of God's creation, notwithstanding clear evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, eventually, the Church came to grips with its obvious misinterpretation, modified its tenants, and moved forward.
I would not presume to instruct you on your beliefs, but I ask you, with respect, to remember that whatever science discovers about this world is part of God's creation, and cannot be ignored. If a person's belief conflicts with provable fact, it seems to me that any prudent person would modify his or her beliefs to comply with how God's universe really works.
No Divine Being I can conceive of could possible find fault with such honesty.
posted by
arGee
on January 10, 2007 at 9:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks ArGee...I appreciate your POV on this subject however--
Of course I DO respect your point of view and I DO know that our planet is created to renew itself just the same as our bodies do.
However, as a Christian, I believe what God has to say on the subject. In Isaiah 24, God tells us what will be the ultimate fate of mankind and this planet.
It aint pretty!
posted by
Passionflower
on January 10, 2007 at 9:09 AM
| link to this | reply
I posted a detailed comment about your poem, Passion...
With the other
comments for the poem.
posted by
arGee
on January 10, 2007 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Non scientists tend to believe, Passion...
That human activity has a direct and immediate impact on the environment. In actuality, human impact is difficult to measure, except in the very short time frame and in very localized areas.
We all can see the immediate effect of air pollution when we land in an airplane – the pall overlying Los Angeles or Denver, for example, or when we see a messy garbage dump. What people can't see, however, is that our planet is very efficient at absorbing these pollutants, recycling them, and ultimately using them.
People forget that humans are part of the ecology, not set apart from it. As such, obviously, we need to consider how our actions might affect things, but it is important always that we stay away from the Chicken Little Agenda. More than anything, this is the point I make in my book: The sky is not falling, the earth is not facing destruction, and we are not destroying ourselves.
posted by
arGee
on January 10, 2007 at 8:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Here's one of my favorite environmental poems.
Let me know what you think. It's called:
"IN OBSCURITY"
posted by
Passionflower
on January 9, 2007 at 4:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for your thorough explanation.
Sounds like you have sufficient credentials to speak intelligently on the subject. No matter what anyone says about any of it though, the truth is that mankind has NOT tried to peacefully co-exist with his environment and with the other species on our planet.
We have selfishly gone forward in the name of "progress" and "Industrialization" and taken whatever we wanted without regard to the effects it would have on planet earth.
posted by
Passionflower
on January 9, 2007 at 4:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Wacko is Michael Medved's word, not mine, Passion...
But let me try to define it for you. First, however, a preamble:
I am an environmentalist. After half a career in the Submarine Service, I transferred my commission into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, where I served out my career. I spent three years in the high arctic helping establish a biologic baseline so that we would have a meaningful reference to refer back to in the event of any serious oil spill or other disaster.
I spent a year on the equator at sea studying the viability of mining manganese nodules for commercial use.
I spent a year at the South Pole in charge of National Science Foundation atmospheric research.
I spent the remainder of my career conducting one type or another of environmental research and engineering studies to enable humans to make a smaller impact on the environment.
THIS is what real environmentalists do.
An environmental "wacko" is someone who doesn't comprehend scientific principles (or ignores them); who believes anything that supports whatever his or her current pet theory about the environment is, whether or not it contains any scientific truth; who believes that humans are a scourge on the natural world, and that human activity should be strictly controlled; who (sometimes) is willing to undertake terrorist or quasi-terrorist activities on behalf of the environment (such as spiking trees or blowing up car dealerships); who tries to implement legislation to further these aims and goals without any rational reference to scientific reality; etc.
These people typically are against nuclear power, even though it is the single most benign power source available to humans on a mass basis; against wind power (at least some of them), because it kills birds; against hydroelectric dams because they believe that dams negatively affect migrating fish populations (even though there is a great deal of evidence that migrating fish populations actually thrive when dams are present); are opposed to free-market economics (most of them, anyway), and actively support socialist solutions to problems; are opposed to individuals owning firearms (although some have no problem stealing explosives to use against law abiding citizens); and nearly all these people want to move our society toward stasis – a state where everybody remains virtually in the same area where they are born, where nobody uses any kind of non-renewable resource (implying horse and buggy transportation, e.g.), and where only the so-called Eco-bosses are free to travel the world and live a normal life as we presently know it.
I know this is a lot to digest, Passion, but you did ask...
posted by
arGee
on January 9, 2007 at 3:35 PM
| link to this | reply
What do you define as "Whacko"???
It's pretty hard to identify the Whackos these days. (ps...Afzal copies and pastes that comment into everyone's blog so he can stay #1 in MOST Comments.)
Have you read any of my "Environmental Poetry"??? I hold very strong views on the subject but would hardly consider myself as a whacko.
posted by
Passionflower
on January 9, 2007 at 3:00 PM
| link to this | reply
In a way you're right, Tony...
But Medved is very enthusiastic about my book, so he will make up for it in spades! Plus, It will be a lot of fun poking at these guys.
posted by
arGee
on January 9, 2007 at 2:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Well that's a victory for the argument and a defeat for the publicity!
posted by
Antonionioni
on January 9, 2007 at 1:05 PM
| link to this | reply
A question, Afzal...
Have you set up your system to generate automatic short responses to Blogit posts?
posted by
arGee
on January 8, 2007 at 7:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Interesting post .
posted by
afzal50
on January 8, 2007 at 7:35 AM
| link to this | reply