Suzanne Romey wrote:
>
> I was afraid that my last message about making investments wasn't clear
> since it seemed like I was asking for advice. I was mostly wondering what
> people thought about the whole stock market system. Maybe it has some
> advantages, but it seems like a way for the rich to keep getting richer
> while the poor have few opportunities for advancement. The relationship I
> see to eco-feminism is the idea that economic growth is always valued. What
> about consequences to the environment with continued growth and expansion of
> the economy? It all has me confused! :(
>
> SuzanneAn economic system based on growth in the use of physical resources and
correspondingly in the continued increase in generation of wastes is
unsustainable in the long run.
Our current econcomic system and the stock market, which is a mechanism
for financing it, are fundamentally based on growth. They are also based
on the domination of some people(especially women) by other people and
the domination of people over other living things. This is in opposition
to the principles of eco-feminism.
Investing in companies that are more socially responsible is helpful,
but doesn't deal with the underlying dynamics of the economic system.
I believe in development without growth. I don't believe in the standard
western capitalist definition of development. Sharing information on
forms of natural healing or natural forms of pest management between
different regions would be a forms of development. Improved recycling
and waste minimization methods would be other forms of development.
I believe that some form of stock market could still exist in a
sustainable system. The recent rapid increases in the stock market are
based on transfers of wealth to the rich and conversion of nature into
capital. In a sustainable system, stock prices would tend to only
increase slowly, if at all, over long periods of time.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 14:38:13 1996
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:38:13 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: some Bible quotes
The context for the homophobic statements in the Bible is that Israel was a
small nation surrounded by hostile tribes and desperately needed more people.
I think that historically, homosexuality becomes acceptable when it serves a
social purpose, like delaying marriage, keeping men happy while away on
military campaigns, or reducing population growth. I would guess that any
group who needed to grow was quite homophobic.
Blessed be, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 16:37:07 1996
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 15:39:58 -0700
From: Jennifer Gilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Oregon State University
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Americans and God
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Liam Campion wrote:
> sometimes the sense of powerlessness is displaced,
> scapegoating others. the people here who are prone to joining hate
> groups like the kkk appear to have been culturally displaced, their
> neighborhoods, family farms and hunting grounds are being developed into
> small tract homes and strip malls, the newcomers are bourgoise, educated
> professionals of varied color and ethnicity perhaps they somehow become
> associated with the change. Buchanan also appealed to the fear of
> difference.
Amen. I think the "fear of difference" point is very strong. Things are
changing a lot here (as everywhere), particularly in natural-resource-based
communities and other rural areas. I think a lot of the support for
Buchanan and other fundamentalists comes from those areas where people are
afraid of losing control over their futures. They see difference as a
threat, and Buchanan promises a return to the values (real or imagined) of
the 1950s. One thing that puzzles me, though, is young people (particularly
women) who support Buchanan and other ultra-conservatives. I'm not sure
where they're coming from. Any insights?
Jennifer
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 19 14:54:28 1996
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 15:48:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Grace J. Duerksen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: some Bible quotes
In-Reply-To: <v01540b01ae8b891ac78f@[160.227.111.254]>
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > as i said earlier, i hesitate to identify myself with christians,
> >but i would challenge you to read some of these verses within context....
> >
> >grace
>
> I'm sorry, what IS the context for the homophobic statements in the bible???
>
> e ya,
>
> -michael
>
In response to the homosexual issue and the bible: when reading the
bible, one must consider two things. First, by going through a exegetical
process, one must find the *historical context* in which it was written.
then one must apply hermaneutics and find how the message in the bible can
be applyed to a *modern context.* the problem lies not in the bible
itself, but within its interpretation. two of the three passages
commonly perceived as refering to homosexuality are found in I corinthians
6:9-11, and in I timothy 1:8-11. both of these "books" are really letters
from the apostle paul. these were PERSONAL letters written by paul to a
SPECIFIC audience, about SPECIFIC situations, and were NOT intended to
become the GOSPEL per se. these letters are NOT universal as they are
percieved to be. there are some aspects of these letters that can be
taken as "truth" for our modern times, but there are namy areas in which
paul was WRONG when applying it to a modern context. my belief is that
two of these areas are women and homosexual relationships. problems are
caused when christians attempt to literally apply paul's message to their
own situation. romans 1:26-27 (also written by paul) too, is open to
interpretation. this passage describes one big lustful party. paul makes
no comment about two people of the same sex committed in LOVE (not lust)
to one another. this passage implies that these are heterosexuals
abandoning their natural orientation to have relations with one another
out of pure LUST. also, perhaps, by abonding these "natural relations"
they are committing adultry towards their heterosexual partners, which in
itself is a "sin." to sum this up, whether christian or non christian,
one needs to be careful when interpreting the bible. many things that are
written are out of context in the present day and need to be looked at
from a historical point of view...
grace
