Hello Nancy
I'm amused that you put sex in the same category as alcoholism.
Good stewardship, responsibility, and justifications of why we can't
be stewards, and be responsible seem to go together. Nobody wants to
be responsible, and we hide so well behind our justifications.
Nothing new in that. What is new is that in the last 30 years or so,
and especially in the industrialised countries, there's been a steady
increase in the sheer pressure of persuasion *not* to take
responsibility but to cede it to our betters, in exchange for all the
wonders of a consumer society, which comes with a ready-made set of
justifications, and it's so effective its victims don't even notice
it's there. In the US this has been accompanied by a similar
crescendo of "religious" spin (quotes by necessity).
This isn't the way people normally are, it's not even the way most
people are now.
After all..it's a woman's body, it's my car that needs fuel, it's my
building that needs the forest, it's my job that takes the clean
air, we are all king babies, it's me, my needs, my wants, me, me, me.
Lets take the good old drunk, who chooses to drink and ends up in
a head on collision killing. He is ultimately responsible for his
actions, drunk or sober. Just as we all are responsible for our
actions. The alcoholic wants instant gratification and finds
alcohol his tool. His choice is not one of drinking or not drinking,
because that choice has been removed from his book. He has crossed
the line and once crossed, the choice is removed. The alcoholic's
choice is whether or not to stay sober.
For a man and woman to consent in having a relationship, even the
quickie instant gratification relationship. It takes two for
consensual sex, the line has been crossed. That couple has
consented to give their bodies. In that action, whether it be one
for instant gratification or a lifetime of marriage, They are
responsibility of their actions. If that act, produces a child, the
consenting couple is 100% responsible to that life. Like the
alcoholic who has consented to the drink, their are consequences to
their action, and their choice has been limited because they made a
decision for consensual sex. They chose to give their bodies. If
a child results from their act; any reasoning or justification
killing that life, any life, is not their choice. That choice, like
the alcoholic deciding to drink, has been removed from the list of
what we can do. Now, there is responsibility to the life that was
created. The ultimate responsibility is to life. And Yes, they can
choose to justify their need for instant gratification behind many
different doors, one of which is abortion. And then their is the
victims of a rape( I say victims, because if a child results, it too
is a victim.) But two wrongs don't ever make a right.
Instant gratification, around the world
Why do you think that? You can't extrapolate from your view of the US
to the rest of the world, it just doesn't work, most people aren't
like that at all.
has gotten our entire community
YOUR entire community maybe.
into as my mother use to say one mell of a hess. Stewardship!! yes,
we need stewardship from teaching our children that abstinence of
sex, abstinence of any abuse of our bodies and environment is what
is called for.
Abstinence is not-doing, what about doing? Doctors used to think that
health is the absence of disease, some of them still think that, but
there's much more to health than just the absence of disease, and if
you focus on eradicating disease you'll never discover what health
is. You have to focus on health itself to discover that. I think
you're making a similar mistake.
God has a good solution for sex, it's called abstinence and
marriage. Respect for what God has given, beginning with our bodies
is the first start. The mentality of "right to life" begins with
Stewardship. We have to instruct our children to be first stewards
over their body, to honor and respect it, and teaching them then to
be stewards over their environment will be much easier. In your own
words: "Oh wait. It's human selfishness, "superiority" and
indifference to the rest of the world's creations that has brought
us to today's fossil fuel dilemma." Today's dilemma began with
generations being taught that their needs come first, I want what I
want when I want it, and it's okay to justify behavior by avoiding
responsibility, from the simple act of sex, to the worlds problems.
We all want to sit in the victim's chair and point our fingers.
Well, when you point your finger at someone or something, there are
always 3 pointing back to you.
So where do we start to clean it up? Do we begin behaving
responsible and begin teaching tools which will help the next
generation? Or do we just attach the problem with a protest for
saving a snail's life, or fossil fuel issues, to avoid the bigger
picture? Nobody wants to tackle the bigger picture, that begins at
conception. It's so much easier to justify our behavior, to pass the
buck, to blame, and point fingers. For me, the choice begins with
respecting life, all life. For you see, I am no different than the
murderer sitting on death row, or the drunk choosing to stay sober.
I can only quote what Todd told you:
"Maybe when you can empathize with tens of millions of men, women and
children who have precious little control over their own fate and are
issued death sentences by presidential proxy - whether that be
withholding family planning funds that provide condoms or initiating
international and national policies of embargos, wars, protectionism,
corporatism, cronyism and elitism that strip away lives at every
stage of what should be a wonderful living process - maybe then
you'll not be so quick to assign attributes that don't exist to
others and start seeing "right to life" as more than just a singular
issue."
From the choice Adam had, which he chose to point his finger and
blame Eve, to the present discussion, Let's all grow up and begin
teaching responsibility.
In the context of this forum, that remark is more than a little inappropriate.
But Baby, it don't begin when your driving a car. That is my point.
You have to understand that it's not the same for other people as it
is for you, and that's not to say that they're wrong and you're
right, nor vice-versa. You can't prescribe these things, you can't
impose your one-size-fits-all solution on everybody.
Best wishes
Keith
----- Original Message ----- From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 11:13 PM
Subject: Jesus was a liberal..., and look what it got him... was Re:
[Biofuel]The New Blue States/Country
You twist the argument Nancy, and intentionally barb it with a
misconstruction of what others actually believe. I wonder what a
reader is expected to construe from such an act?
In the first place, there are enormous "herds" of people who
believe in the right to life for all life. (In case you missed it,
that is "ALL" life and all species, not just decision by "short
straw.")
What it sounds like to me is that you are somehow willing to
relegate all of your god's creations to a consecutive order of
importance, or unimportance, depending upon which end of the ladder
you're starting from.
I wonder what he or she would think about the indifferent
anhilation/extinction of one, multiple and eventually thousands of
species by another, much less the eventual extermination of one
specie's own self as a result of the choice to exhibit no
forethought for others or anything beyond itself? Hmmmmm..... What
rubric might you be praying under were your Jesus to have conducted
his affairs in the same manner? The First Southern Baptist Church
of Me?" (Perhaps the Jesus part is a bit presumptive. But then
again, that camp often leaves a large, debris strewn swath in its
wake, much as did you.)
(If Jesus only had an Evinrude and a few sticks of
dynamite.........., maybe he would have had no need for miracles?)
But as to a creator, or god, or whatever your preference might be,
might his or her thoughts be that everything has its place and
humans think wrongly that it's their "right" to pick and choose
which species to relegate into oblivion? Or is it more probable
that his or her creations weren't quite so perfect as originally
thought and the intervention of humans is entirely necessary in
order to straighten out all those initial mistakes?
The latter is all rather doubtful. More like humans have a god
complex and tend to try and reinforce their "superiority"
("dominion") at every opportune and inopportune moment possible, in
every venue, whether "requisite" or not. Funny that "dominion"
thing. All rather like kicking a dead horse to prove one is still
in "control," when all it proves is just how little in control one
really is. The horse may not kick back, but neither will it pull
the wagon any further..............
A lot to be said for good stewardship........
Secondly? I don't think there is or needs to be a secondly.
Everyone would really like to live in a world where every child is
wanted. Where the social and economic pressures don't exist that
give women, men and even children cause to terminate pregnancies
early. Everyone would like to have a peaceful existence where there
are no demands placed upon them other than to enjoy the sheer
beauty of being alive - no kissing up or being subservient to
warlords, multi-nationals, politicians of particular design or the
obnoxious manager at the local five and dime, Mal-Wart or Bob Evans.
In case you missed that chapter in your biblical studies, there was
a time when that was the norm. They called it Eden (at least by one
biblical account) And then humans fouled the water, shat in their
own bed and bespoiled all the good that they had, thinking that
there was something more out there that they needed to know or
somehow they could improve on what was already as good as it could
ever be.
That should sound familiar, as we continue to do the same thing to
this very day. One definition of insanity is "doing the same thing,
over and over again, with expectation of achieving a different
result." That doesn't speak well of us as a "superior" species.
Frankly Nancy? One would tend to believe that you need to find your
answers in broader places rather than being content in painting
other humans with the singularly narrow brush from your black and
white bucket, especially those whom you not only don't know, but
who's circumstances you are apparently oblivious to in some part.
Maybe when you can empathize with tens of millions of men, women
and children who have precious little control over their own fate
and are issued death sentences by presidential proxy - whether that
be withholding family planning funds that provide condoms or
initiating international and national policies of embargos, wars,
protectionism, corporatism, cronyism and elitism that strip away
lives at every stage of what should be a wonderful living process -
maybe then you'll not be so quick to assign attributes that don't
exist to others and start seeing "right to life" as more than just
a singular issue.
.................................
And now back to our regularly scheduled biofuels programming.
Oh wait. It's human selfishness, "superiority" and indifference to
the rest of the world's creations that has brought us to today's
fossil fuel dilemma.
So I guess there's no need to change the channel at all........
Todd Swearingen
.....................................................
"Against abortion? Get a vasectomy."
...........
Nancy Canning wrote:
I agree with you Gustl. Yet, I am amazed and the quanity of
people who will uphold and fight for some snails life, being of
great importance and right to live, yet believe it is okay to kill
babies. That the Child is of no value and has no right to life.
----- Original Message ----- From: "des" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 6:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/Country
Thank you! That was the first message in this thread I found
worth saving for future reference. Too much out there,
(government, business and religion) has propagated the illusion
of separation, competition and isolation... We could easily
forget that we do all come from the same Source, sad to say
though, that when mankind tries to give that Source a name,
religion develops, and separation of our unity follows.
doug swanson
Gustl Steiner-Zehender wrote:
Hallo Whomever,
Sunday, 31 July, 2005, 18:03:48, you wrote:
Wwrc> In poor taste. Maybe even mean spirited. God must Love you
better than Wwrc> us RED NECKS. Oh, that's right, you don't
believe "In GOD We Trust".
"In poor taste. Maybe even mean spirited."? I assume that you have
NEVER listened to Rush Limbaugh or his ilk then? Jerry Falwell? Pat
Robertson?
"In GOD We Trust"? The qualifier "Somewhat" does not appear there
between "We" and "Trust". Those trusting in God are those rejecting
the ways of the world and following the ways of the Lord. That would
be those in peace churches and not involving themselves in national
politics and perhaps not even state politics. I assume you mean "In
the bible we trust" instead, with the caveat of your own particular
interpretations of that and including the old testament which has,
according to virtually all biblical scholars of the Christian bent
been fulfilled and the jots and tittles have been changed.
It is very interesting watching the contortions of the theologians
trying to make the black words in the bible match up to the red words
when they flatly contradict them in so many cases. If they trusted in
God they would have the ability to get to their knowledge without the
aid of such an inadequate medium as the written word. It is not so
interesting watching them pulling verses or partial verses out of
context and trying to warp them to their own particular beliefs. They
would rather define truth to match their own limited understanding
rather than take the trouble to bring their understanding in line with
truth. Makes one ill.
I generally attempt to be more kind in my observations but I really
get weary watching people serving two masters while claiming to be
serving only one. That which is good, right and true speaks for
itself and the rest requires justification. There are a lot of
"Christians" who are going to be justifying their heads off and a lot
who don't call themselves Christian who won't need to do so. Law vs
Spirit. There are a lot of folks out there who may have read but have
either forgotten or do not understand MT 25:12, LK 13:25, LK 13:27 and
JN 5:42. Perhaps they just think claiming to believe something is
tautologous with demonstrating the fruits of the belief. Fruits?
GAL 5:22. You won't find a lot of those fruits in politics whether
left, right or center.
Before I forget: MT 7:3-5
There is a great difference between reading the words and knowing what
they mean, understanding them. Living them is even more difficult. I
have failed somewhat in this unkind mail but am prepared to live
and/or die with the consequences of my actions and without excuses or
justification. I hope all those upholding life with one hand and
activily participating in or concurring with the dealing out of death
with the other are just as ready. Blue or red or whatever shade.
Happy Happy,
Gustl
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
