431 comments on DrumBeat: January 8, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
431 comments on DrumBeat: January 8, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”
—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I posted it, but the article makes no sense to me. Perhaps because I was raised in an atheist family, and in a largely non-Christian culture. To me, it looks like he's a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail. Of course a theologian is going to see it as a religious issue. How could he not?
Leanan,
I am not a Christian, but the article makes perfectly good sense to me. What is being done is an examination of the history of ideas. You can look at the Old Testament as history, and especially a history of ideas, quite apart from any religious perspective.
Prophets prophesy doom for various reasons, and I think it repays our efforts to understand these reasons.
I am a Christian, and I think I agree with this article entirely (and with embarrasment for what passes as Christianity today). This apocalyptic thinking is a theme that runs through certain segments of society. PO doomers and Apocalyptic Christians are pressed from the same mold. Both get a twisted sense of satisfaction from the idea of other people suffering and dying for their false beliefs.
For what it is worth, I am persuaded that the New Testament prophecies about the "end of the age" refer to the destruction of the Jewish temple, preisthood and 1000+ year old system of sacrifices at the hands of the Romans in 66 to 70 AD. The Jewish polity has never existed in this form again. For Jews this was certainly "the end of the age". By the way, the term "end of the world" is an unfortunate King James mistranslation of the Greek word which is the exact same word as the English "aeon" or "eon". Christians are living with the consequences of that mistranslation even today. Most modern translations have correctly rendered it "end of the age" or "end of the era".
I recently watched a History Channel documentary about the end times. It claimed the whole "Rapture" deal is an American invention, and of fairly recent vintage. Based on one man's flawed interpretation of the Bible.
But then, couldn't you argue that god wouldn't allow his word to be mistranslated unless that's what he wanted? Maybe it was the original authors who got it wrong, and this "mistake" is a correction. For only the chosen people, of course.
/the whole "Rapture" deal is an American invention/
This is in large part true. Apocalyptic fever is in large part absent from the writings of the historical church fathers and from modern-day Christians on other continents.
For what it's worth, only the looniest and strictest (American) fundamentalists think that a translation (namely the King James) can be directed by God. Everyone else recognizes that although God inspired the original scriptures, something is always lost when we translate it into our own language. If you translate Greek literally, it comes out as jibberish. Among other reasons, Greek does not use a syntax of word order as English does. A certain degree of "paraphrasing" is inevitable.
jesusneverexisted.com
and the bible was written by idiots.
I can't help smiling. This is true creationism.
They are trying to create a second reality, the determined rewriting of history to exclude elements they don't like. Some people never accept the most probable case, even when confronted with overwhelming arguments.
It's worth noting that the Jesus myth theory is quite new. The early opponents of Christianity didn't question Jesu existence. To be a believer of "the Jesus myth", one also have to ignore the evidence for the historical Jesus.
I'm sure everything fits well and you see confirmations of your theory everywhere.
True creationism.
You ought not to be so haughty about this, especially as the case you oppose is, contrary to your misrepresentations, very strong.
It is rather ironic when you say ‘the early opponents of Christianity didn’t question the existence of Jesus’, when in fact the mythicist case shows, convincingly, that the very earliest Christians, including Paul, had no conception of a historical Jesus at all. That came later, with the Gospel of Mark. In other words, it would be better to say ‘the earliest believers in Christianity didn’t question the historical non-existence of Jesus’ – he was the mythical Son of God, the intermediary between man and the divine, and not a historical person. Even the earliest apologists never speak of Christ as a historical person. One of them, in the Felix Menucius, even laughs at the idea that Christians worship a man nailed to a cross (and no, he doesn’t go on to say ‘because he was really the son of God’ – he just scoffs and leaves it at that, as if he is dismissing some sort of lunatic historicizing process that had then just begun).
You talk about the ‘evidence’ of the historical Jesus. Well, there isn’t any. None. Except the Gospels, which of course were not contemporaneous and are totally unreliable, for obvious reasons. And as I have indicated, earlier Christians appear not to be referring to a historical person. Look at Paul’s writing carefully, without historicist preconceptions. He never attributes sayings to Jesus, but to God or to Scripture. He never mentions anything about the historical details of Jesus’ existence. Why not? We all know religious nuts obsess on such stuff, if they believe in it. But Paul didn’t – because he wasn’t talking about a historical person.
But from your tone, I know I am talking to a closed mind on this. So if anyone else is interested in this, check out Earl Doherty’s Jesus Puzzle web pages at http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm Very extensive, very well argued. Unless you already have some emotional investment in the idea of a historical Jesus (and unfortunately far too many people do, even athiests), you will never accept a historicist interpretation again.
I have an intellectual passion for thruth and strongly feel it's unethical to lie, nor do i desire to subscribe to one.
Hebrew chapter 10, verse 5.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "
You probably have another interpretation of this verse, and several others. Also, i don't see what rationale you have for rejecting the gospels as a historical source. At least Luke's writing style is very detailed and exact, with lot of (unnecessary) historical references and facts.
Perhaps you should do some critical reading of Luke, not just read books written by people whom made up their minds prior to the investigation?
I have never met any scholars (or non-scholars) subscribing to the Jesu-myth theory without also being an atheist and strongly opposed to christian culture.
Well, it's ironic that you pick something from Hebrews, because that is regarded by Jesus mythicists as one of the best examples of an epistle that is talking about a mythical and not historical Jesus. But, I do not intend to argue this with you. It's a Peak Oil site, after all. I posted because I want anyone who is curious about it to realize that the mythicist case is stronger than is usually portrayed, and is worth checking out. So if anyone cares about this debate, they should check out e.g. Doherty, where it is covered in great detail.
Have you ever heard of the historian Josephus? He was a contemporary of Jesus and an eyewitness to his existence and actions.
But in cases of invincible ignorance, I would not expect a person to look at the historical evidence.
No he was seen recently waiting for a train in Sydney.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070108/23/11zxi.html
I thought the concept of the Rapture was invented in Scotland in the late 19th century.
Everyone else recognizes that although God inspired the original scriptures, something is always lost when we translate it into our own language.
Ah, you haven't read Shakespeare until you've read it in the original Klingon...
Why does the meaning of the word 'god' shift for Christians depending on the situation? A quick example: the Bible was inspired by 'god'. Ok, but if 'god' is the all-knowing all-powerful creator of the universe, then all writing is inspired by 'god'. If Christians were to truly examine their various usages of the word 'god', they would realize that attributing anything to 'god' is the same as saying 'anything happens', which quite frankly is meaningless.
By the way why do Christians always assume in the face of strong evidence to the contrary that 'god' is benevolent? Or is 'god' really not very powerful? Or is Christianity, as as all religions, just a form of delusion?
God: My beliefs and I will follow the crowd and make some rather flat , exclamatory statements of which I am sure many will disagree.
First I wanted to find out about God. I had heard years and years of mostly nonsense from the pulpits. Since my religion had only been around a few hundred years (Southern Baptist,Missionary type) I doubt that they had as much knowledge about God as they thought. In fact I found lots of confusion and contradictions.
Therefore I reasoned that God had passed the Torah to the Jews and that since it contained the first 5 books of the Old Testament, and that God had made numerous covenants with them and stated that they were his 'chosen people' and since they had therefore been studying and debating about God for a couple thousand years THAT perhaps they had more insight and knowledge than some country bumpkin preacher who said he was 'Called' and with very little theological or historial perspective ansdwas going to tell me how I needed to live my life and how to take care of MY soul.
I figured it was more my outlook than theirs anyway and I was taking on very little of what I had not proven or experienced my own self.
After a long time I descended into the realm of Jewish Mysticism. There I found the apparent bedrock of the issue. This is what I will briefly speak to:
God is not God's name. The name of God is never pronounced by Jews but another word is substituted instead. The 4 characters in Hebrew that are the name or not known presently. One a year the high priest went into the Holy of Holies in the Temple and spoke the then known name of God. With the disapora the name was no longer known. Still not to this day as I read and study.
The word substituted is Adonai,,or what we anglicized it to. Its possibly greek and translates as LORD. The Jewish word for God is Elohim. This can be pronounced and is and we translate this as the word God. Yet that is not the name of God. The word God does not exist in Hebrew..its Elohim(the sound of it in English--transliterated I suppose). The word Adonai(or Lord) was not in the Hebrew until Elohim had finished with the total creation. After that he was referred to as Adonai Elohim. Very important such distinctions. Almost no one except Jewish scholars note such as this. We do a surface read and never truly understand what is really being stated. Its more like a novel I suppose to many. They read it and then simply trash it and call it nonsense..all the while never having gotten a glimmer of the underlying structure and nuances.
The 4 hebrew characters are not printable here unless the Hebrew font is used. They are referred to as the Tetragrammaton(from the Greek).
Aside: The name of Jesus Christ is not Jesus Christ either. There is no J in Hebrew, none in Latin and none in Greek(as I read). There was also no J in English for a long time , until about the 17xx or 18xx(not going to google it right now) and it was apparently derived from the French.
Jesus was really Ieosus or more yet like Yeshua (pronounced as it sounds)or even other slight variants. Christ is Greek and means Messiah. The rightful name of Jesus would then be Yeshua Ben Yosef. Son of Joseph. The sign that Pilate placed on the cross was INRI Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum. Some may disagree but if you look at the sign on the cross in any Catholic Church that is what you will see. It means Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews(as we have rendered in our theology..protestant and catholic I believe) NOTE: No Js!!!!!
As I said we toss about the name God. Therefore what we have done is nicely tied up God, put a name on the unnamable, put him in a merchandisable package and marketed him/her/adonai/whatever.
When anyone makes a statement regarding God such as "God wants us to love one another"....they are telling us that they know the mind of God. Clearly they do not. Preachers do not either. No one knows the mind of God or even if he has one.
God is not definable. God has no limits. God can not be labelled. Gods works can only be judged or realized and yet that does not define God.
Even my stating the above is a travesty for I have no knowledge EXCEPT what I experience myself that I can label as enlightenment and what works for me in that spiritual aspect , I cannot attribute to being true for any other. There is no universal salvation except that which is personal. Mere words can not save anyone. Its actions and others are not able to judge you on what your internal belief system is. Supposedly if you find yourself in a hot place you have chosen wrong.
Perhaps if you chose NO belief then you have nothing to think about. You are simply worm food and there is effectively no soul to translate.
I would suggest that anyone in search of THE TRUTH must investigate upon their own. This is where one departs from the dogma and bullshit of the various religious factions and delves into a personal realm of belief or not as they choose. Its a solidarity path IMO. You go it alone.
Basically in my opinion God(if you believe) does interact with his creations(humankind). How this is effected I am uncertain. I have looked very closely to Quantum Mechanics. It might be possible that the electromagnetic spectrum and energy forces (simplistic I know) might be a form of communication or networking , to put it in a vague light.
I simply believe this. Your thoughts and soul are yours to take where you wish. What comes back may depend on you and what you seek.
This I believe. Those who would place God in a box are those who would cheapen the spirituality and effectively place man's value upon God. This is when it all breaks down.
The worst sinners in the world IMO are the tele-evangalists who are nothing but destructive ego driven con men of the lowest ilk of the lowest scum sewers of the earth. They are not preaching the TRUTH nor the LIGHT. They are filth.
Notes: My wife is a Catholic. My mother is a Catholic. My son is a Catholic, my grandparents on my mothers side were all Irish Catholics.I am by choice a Baptist since the basic baptist creed is that NO ONE needs to come between the individual and his God/salvation. That all he needs is scripture and that is it. Each person is his own priest. No priesthood required and none needed.
Some other points:
1.God did not offer eternal life(heaven). He never placed it on the table. Jesus did,,big time. Look and you will NOT find it in the Old Testament.
2. Jesus told his disciples that he came ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF THE TRIBE OF ISRAEL. Not to the gentiles(us).
3. Jesus NEVER left the holy land(Israel) and in fact expressely told his disciples to NOT go to the gentiles.
4. Jesus NEVER wrote a single word down. His was an oral message.
5. The Jews never really professed a belief in a SOUL. The translations are not usually correct.
Here is the biggie:
6. Man was created by God from the earth(humus) and God breathed the spirit of life into his nostrils. God 'fabricated' woman from man and not from the soil and did not breath into her nostrils. In others words you could say that she derived from Adams DNA.
# 6 will cause many females to become outraged and absolutely NO preacher or priest will speak of this but it happens to be scripturally sound. Translate it your self or not. Thats what is says.
The point I make is that you are not being told the absolute truth about what the bible says. Most are being gulled by scoundrels.
I refer the reader to The Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter
As well as the Kaballah(in all its books) in many interpretations by noted scholars.
Also there are many websites devoted to the study of the Torah and other areas. The Dead Sea Scrolls as well as The Nag Hammadi and other
areas. Study of the Gnostics and Essenes are also of value.
IMO the phsical church needs to be more of a POINTER and less of a end unto itself. They become social clubs the longer they control peoples minds. They allow people to sit in pews, drop money in the collection plate and smirk at all the rest whom they consider lost.
The RCC is very serious in this area. I have sat thru the entire RCIA and spent many hours in deep discusssion with priests of the RCC.
The truest religion must have been among those early christians who were chained up and waiting to be fed to the lions for the amusement of the roman crowds or placed on many crosses lining the roads to Rome. Murdered and murdered and yet they held to their faith.
Here in Amurkah were get all pissed off if a sports event is blacked out on the TV.
Perhaps the hungry lions are waiting and we are being led unwitting to the coliseum. I will take whatever faith I can garner and hope for the best. Not a time for me to be shouting denials from the rooftops. Not on your sweet ass it isn't. I been heading down this path a long long time before I started noticing the price of gas and a back-water internet website called TheOilDrum.
I am not slighting in the least the masterful(perhaps arrogant?) work and endeavors that the owners and contributors make on this website. They are truly the modern day prophets crying in the wilderness of this 'fruited plain'. Mostly they go unheeded.
airdale - my story and I wrote it myself so I am sticking to it
everyone gets a chance to write their own
P.S. I do love the women folk. Really I do.
P.P.S.Please don't take it personal...I did not write the bible,
I just read it and try to make it thru.
Airdale,
Whew what a can of worms, religion and Peak oil. Leaving aside that one could argue even writing is vanity (i.e my mistakes may live on after me and your observation that Jesus left no written record though he perhaps wrote in the sand (some theologians I believe speculated he wrote in the sand the sins of those accusing the woman caught in the act of adultery), I'll make the following comments. My understanding is there is an Elohist and Yawhist writing current seen in the Old testament. Yahweh, also translated Jehovah, refers to the revealed name of God given to Moses at the burning bush. It relates to the concept of "being" and is translated now as "he who is" or "I am who am". This word, I think, was reserved in Jewish worship and held sacred. If the idea that God reveals himself as "I am" is not curious to you perhaps you should give it a second thought. Christ alludes to and plays off of this concept more than once in the Gospels. This is not chapter and verse but I will trust it is basically correct. When the pharisees challenge him saying, "You aren't yet 50 years old ... are you older than Moses", he replies "before Moses was I am" Both indirectly declaring his divinity and perhaps contrasting Moses' faithfulness with their doubt. Again when he is captured for crucifixion it is asked are you Jesus and it is related when he declares "I am" the soldiers fall back. You are right the name of God is His and ineffable still I wonder if the beginning of the Gospel of John was presented as an Eastern Koan or new age mysticism, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God", it might be given some thought. The Greek translation used for word is "logos" which also implies reason or rationale thought. Pope Benedict recently discussed this passage while reflecting on Christian Muslim relations basically asking the Muslim world in a round about way "Is there the possibility for rational discussion with you on the nature of God?"
As for the validity of scripture, I would just point out whoever records things like this, I mean read the thing. Lot sleeping with his two daughters, Judah mistaking his daughter in law for a prostitute, Absalom after revolting against his father King David having intercourse with his concubines on the roof of the King's Palace. Who would preserve these things? There are many more examples, say Jeramiah's whole prophecy about "hey you're about to lose this war".
As for atheists, there are very few actual intellectual atheists. If one wishes to better oneself and conceives of that which they wish to improve in themselves, more intelligence, money, strength have they not defined their conception of God? There are many, like I often am, who give fate or God the finger because of, rarely, other's suffering and, most often, that someone or thing hurt us, perhaps a stubbed toe.
As regards Jewish Christian relations I would implore the assistance of Israelites who are dealing with these same questions on such a deeper level. I have the luxury of distance.
I would argue that God has declared in numerous ways that he wants us to love Him and each other. This does not imply I have a full understanding of God just as I may not know my boss but know what he expects from me. This tenant, though I would not speak for other religions, is I suspect at the core of the all the great world religions.
Per disclaimer, yes I am ostensibly Catholic, missed mass last week and might hit you in the nose for absolutely no reason. But all that is really irrelevant as to the question of does God save (the translation of Jesus being "God saves"). A question for a peak oil era and one for 100 years from now.
ZPDM123,
You said "the translation of Jesus being "God saves"
I ask. Have you translated the Hebrew characters for the name?
I thought that EL was the approximation for God. El Shaddai, Micha el,Gabri el,etc. (note the EL)Will have to check.
As to your comments. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Name of God. yah hey vau hey..in english. We then create the word Yahweh and once more try to put limits and labels upon our God. Granted we need a word to describe yet why does it become our most favorite cussword?
The Jews honor the name. We desecrate it.
This discussion could consume the whole TOD website and still not even get started. I just wanted to express my views since so many were expressing theirs.
My personal experience is that some type of entity exists(God is real). It wants ,in fact demands to be worshiped. I worship it with truth as far as I can and ask forgiveness when I falter. What it is is way beyond my (or possibly human) comprehension but the effects it can produce are knowable and can be witnessed. I do not put a real name to it. I just believe in it.
It makes my life more understandable and peaceful. I do the best I can with what it gives me and beyond that I cannot go.
In closing I believe that much of the scripture is not realized. Its read just on the surface like a novel.
Year before last I spent 3 months on just the first few verses of Genesis Chapter 1. The first verse in Hebrew.."Berashith Bera Elohim Ath Ha Shamaim Va Ath Ha Aretz"....can according to Hebrew scholars be translated 16 different ways. Since the Torah was given without vowel points, no spacing and in one continuous stream..so to speak. That is classic bilblical hebrew as put down in the 'Bera' scroll portion.
Note the Jews do not use the Greek names given to their scripture that we use.
The word Elohim is plural. Its says then "GODS" created. On just this one point I spent days and days of study and searching. Interesting that what we with English pass over without a single thought can have such numerous possibilities such that a facile interpretation can easily render a false impression or misunderstanding.
The mystics believe that the Torah mutates and is alive in that sense.
I am a poor judge of these matters and not that good of a scholar. What I do find is what I seek and that is what I term 'enlightment'.
May you find it as well or savor it if you have already. Without something to cling to in this world that is hastening towards a destructive path I would perhaps go mad indeed. I do not foist it on others but if discussed I will speak on it or if asked.
Yesterday a friend(from church) discussed with me a woman of approx 40 yrs of age who had been self-militating herself for some time. Her chest area was covered with numerous scars from using a razor blade on herself. As well as her arms and other areas. He asked me how did I obtain peace with myself since he observed that I had a very bad childhood yet was coping with my life. This woman was seeking my friends help. I could offer little. I believe that she had been badly led astray by religion and dogma. It promises so much by its priesthood(preachers,etc) yet in the modern world seems to deliver so very little and IMO can be very destructive to one. I have seen it time and again. I sometimes attend therefore the gathering together but remain mostly outside the mainstream. I go for the fellowship of neighbors since it is a wonderful method of communication with your neighborhood and community. On occassion a young person will stand before the rest and sing. Sometimes such faith can bring tears to your tired old cynical eyes and then later you see the kid grown up and on hard drugs. Or cut his throat in the county park at the age of 14. (both have happened) Our world cries out for compassion but its in very short supply. We can do almost nothing. We just watch as it circles the drain and try to salvage ourselves or our close ones.
Airdale,
Appreciate your heartfelt response, will consider it more.
Here's a picture of "The One" we pray to:
Any questions?
How ya like me now?
Keep on strokin' ?
Seize the day ?
Ha ha --funny not.
Airdale,
I think you are to be commended for doing your own homework. When it comes to Peak Oil we should all do our own homework--and lots of it. Now in regard to the teaching of the Jews (and of course Yeshua was Jewish) it is noteworthy that Judaism is a strictly ethical religion; in other words, what you DO matters, what you "believe" or "have faith in" is squat.
According to Jewish doctrine, the virtuous gentile stands equal with the virtuous Jew at the gate of heaven. (And sinners won't make it through the metaphorical gate, regardless of denomination.)
I am a proponent of ethical religions such as Judaism and Buddhism: In regard to Peak Oil, what we do (Conserve, discuss respectfully, communicate with others, economize, localize and produce) matters. What we "believe" (as opposed to our actions) does not matter.
Thus, I don't think the nature of your religeous beliefs (or mine) matters. What matters is how we treat people, what we do, how we behave. Arguments over details of belief often detract attention from more important issues of what we should do.
I hereby nominate Don for sainthood.
He stands shoulder to shoulder with Frank Sinatra.
Now we see why:
To do is to be .... Aristotles.
To be is to do .... Socrates.
OObe DooBe Doo ... Sinatra.
:-)
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
airedale
A very well written, passionate & incisive comment. 2 things resonate with me in particular:
"Basically in my opinion God(if you believe) does interact with his creations(humankind). How this is effected I am uncertain. I have looked very closely to Quantum Mechanics. It might be possible that the electromagnetic spectrum and energy forces (simplistic I know) might be a form of communication or networking , to put it in a vague light."
'Conventional' religious types would call me an atheist, but what I really believe is that consciousness creates the world - not the other way around. Therefore we attempt to create god because god IS us, and we don't have souls because the soul has US. Trying to put it the other way around, as the vast majority of churchgoing Christians do, looks to me like a crowd of children waiting in line to sit on Santa's lap at the mall.
"Those who would place God in a box"]
Are you familiar with Doug Pinnick by chance?
The Rapture is American and yes, church hierarchies do not encourage popular religious fancies. Apocalyptic thinking is endemic in Christianity, always has been.
A useful and amusing older work is Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millenium. In paper, in used bookstores, once popular college text.
For a more recent and much more humane take on some of the same notions simply listen to Bob Marley sing 'Get Up, Stand Up'. Examination of most any popular religious music, from anywhere or time, would show more of the same.
As for the article being discussed the preacher gets where he wants to go by stacking premisses one atop the other until the construction can't be taken seriously.
I think the great defensive lineman, and ordained minister, Reggie White was on to something. He bailed on Christianity, learned Hebrew, and read the Torah.
Learning Hebrew and reading the Torah in no way implies a person has "bailed" on Christianity. A great many Christian scholars have studied ancient Greek and Hebrew in order to better understand the messages of the Bible. The Bible has many apparent contradictions which could only be resolved by an understanding of ancient literary styles.
I have seen in the arguments put forth by atheists certain straw man or should I say straw god tactics. The worst is the argument that if God is all loving then why is there war, disease, poverty, etc. They conclude that if evil exists then God doesn't. The usual believers response about free will is just as lame. God created order out of chaos and the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology are the way order is maintained. With out these laws then existence would not be possible. People run up against the limits of these laws, bang their heads, and call it evil.
The Torah evolved as a way of maintaining order in a community and is an ancient example of the rule of law. Most ancient societies were governed by the principle of might makes right. Their kings could do no wrong because the king decided what was right or wrong. The Torah put forth a power greater than the king as a decider of right or wrong. A Hebrew king could be wrong if he violated any of the 613 commandments of the Torah. The stories of the Bible are mostly about the mistakes made by their kings.
Let's consider what Jesus said about good and evil. In Matthew 28 he talked about those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the prisoner, and cared for the dying. Those who did those things were practicing the true religion. What is important is not that evil exists but in how we respond as individuals and as nations to those who suffer. Peak Oil is a new challenge for believers in God. Climate change is a new challenge for believers in God. I believe we Christians must advocate the case of those most victimized by Peak Oil and Climate Change. It looks like more than a billion people will lose their homes and livelihoods to PO and CC in the next few decades. We could choose to build walls and gun towers to keep these people in their place or we could use those energies in creating new communities in new locations for and with them. Its what Yeshua ben Yosef would do.
"But then, couldn't you argue that god wouldn't allow his word to be mistranslated unless that's what he wanted?"
Nope. God gave man free will. That includes any mistranslation of the bible. We are allowed to translate it into a nursery rhyme, we can Seuss it or Bork it, if we so please. The copyright has long expired and there are no legal, spiritual or whatsoever consequences for abuse, maybe with the exception of looking silly/stupid.
Free will also includes the fact that the bible is not the word of god but the word of man inspired by god. And inspired man can err just as much as non-inspired man. Probably even more. The bible itself says so, if I am not mistaken in its dislcaimer to be beware of false prophets.
Careful not to be too credulous about the "Jewish temple, priesthood and 1000+ year old system of sacrifices" ...
Well I am not a Christian and the entire article is nothing more than religious gobblygook. How anyone can take such nonesense seriously is beyond me.
That being said, I am the very epitome of a doomer. My doomerism is based on science! I have read "Overshoot", have you? I have read "The Spirit in the Gene", have you? Both books clearly lay out the scientific evidence that we are deep into overshoot and collapse is inevitable. But for all you wide eyed optimists out there who think we doomers have a screw loose, I invite you to read just one short essay, Energy and Human Evolution Price lays out the scientific evidence and reasoning behind his, and my, doomerism. The cornucopians must refute his argument if they hope to make an argument of their own. I have never seen that done, not once!
I have, on this list, referred to this essay many times in hopes of getting just one person to try to refute it. That has never happened.
And by the way, I have read most of the books that argue the opposite side as well. I found Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" to be absolutely laughable. A nine year old child could refute every argument in that book. And I have read, and have quoted from Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" many times. He argues that every facet of the environment is getting better and better. He argues that we will not run short of oil for hundreds of years because once oil gets above $40 a barrel, it will become economical to produce oil from our very vast reservoir of shale oil.
Nuff said.
Ron Patterson
All the sources mentioned above by Darwinian get a thumbs up from me.
None based on the mushrooms-induced fantasies of "holy men."
Thanks, Ron, you stated my position much better than I could have.
I keep coming across the assumption that people who warn about the bad things that may happen are for some reason accused of wanting the bad things to happen.
So let me state it myself: I don't want bad things to happen. I like my life just the way it is.
At the same time, for purely objective, scientific reasons, I think that collapse is inevitable. But, and please pay attention here: I hope I'm wrong. That's right, I hope that my evaluation of the current and likely future state of the world is incorrect. I really do. One of the reasons that I spend time here at TOD is to see if anyone has any rational reason for me to revise my "doomerism".
So far, nada, IMHO. Please keep trying, though...
Ditto. Darwinian does a masterful job articulating the reasons why resource scarcity is likely to cause worldwide suffering and death.
Scientists are trained to evaluate and weigh the importance of variables likely to affect an outcome. Additional information is analyzed to decide if it strengthens or weakens the general assumption. Just because the trajectory of evolutionary biology, tenets of behavioral genetics, and geological imperatives support a view of societal entropy and a massive correction towards a realistic long term carrying capacity that does not mean that "doomers" (an overgeneralized term, anyway) have a psychological dysfunction compelling them to irrational predictions.
Neither is it reasonable to assert that doomers have some sado-masochistic desire to see and experience suffering. Equally unreasonable is the idea that most doomers are futilitarians.
Such statements are absurd and irresponsible.
Self-serving instinctive reactions (a very low level of cognition) that attempt to discredit reasoned arguments based on the highest levels of cognition (synthesis and evaluation) are blatant attempts to derail the discussion to protect an emotively based paradigm.
I can buy into the idea that a sufficient resource scarcity would be likely to cause more worldwide suffering and death than already exists.
But on the rest, is there really a scientific way to peg "probable" resource scarcity?
Or is the doomer thing resting on an assumption of severe scarcity, without that scientific proof?
Or is the doomer thing resting on an assumption of severe scarcity, without that scientific proof?
The "doomer thing" is resting on plain arithmetic : WHEN YOU KEEP SUBTRACTING FROM A FINITE QUANTITY IT ENDS UP AT ZERO.
Hey b3, don't take it out on the mushrooms!
They could cleanse some cornocopian minds!
peace
I don't get it. So you are saying doomers are hippies?
Each one of use, as individuals, are doomed. Civilization is not doomed because what we currently have does not merit the name. The fact that millions, maybe billions of us, may be doomed before our time because of a massive and rather sudden collapse because of exhaustion of easily obtainable resources, energy, water, etc. would not necessarily be a bad thing within the context of the eventual renewal of the planet. We only consider collapse a tragegy within the context our own self centered view that we are the end all and be all, perhaps created in God's image.
We are just one little planet going around one sun in a universe of billions and billions of suns. It is said that the entire universe may have been created within a millisecond. We need to get over our feeling of significance, a feeling that God would weep if all this turns to shit within a relatively short time frame. Mass extinction has occurred before and will probably occur again. It would probably be helpful to just get over it and ourselves.
tstreet, that's one of the most insightful comments I've seen on here for awhile.
I as a doomer(not really but you all insist on labels) agreed with Ron as well.
I am a Christian and I see a whole lot of Christian bashing going on so whenever a real Christian speaks I would expect a lot of latitude and no cries of 'we don't want a religious debate here'.
You can't have it both ways.
That said: I have been going to church most of my adult life. I have very personal views that are not exactly mainstream evangelical. I believe mostly in transcendentalism of the Emerson/Thoreau variety but not of the diehard variety. They just speak to me of a reasonable interpretation.
I am a doomer but not an apocalyptic doomer.
Over on another thread Don Sailorman made the comment that he considered those who tried to predict the future ..arrogant. I know he will likely refute this but in essence that is what he said.
It seems to me that senior editors and contributors are using technology on this website to precisely attempt to predict the future.The future that is of supreme importance as affected by petrochemicals and its products.
I don't call that arrogant.
Here is his post:
*********************************************************************
I agree entirely.
The doomer perspective to me seems to be based on arrogance--a totally unjustifed arrogance of "knowledge," the idea that the behavior of complex systems such as societies under stress can be predicted. Any claim to knowledge of the future is highly questionable.
As Yogi Berra is alleged to have said: "Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."
******************************************************************
As I said, seems to me that this is what a lot of this website is about. Trying to determine the future of a complex system and making predictions based on knowledge.
I don't think trying to access the future is ARROGANT. I also recall a poll which showed that the majority of members did not have a cornucopian outlook for the future.
I could write a large post concerning this topic as I was indoctrinated in the fundamentalist ideal; however, the bible is filled with references of future events that allow for the interpretation of these events in a manner consistent with Peak Oil. I am of the opinion that if one applies science to the Bible, it becomes at least plausible that the events outlined in the book have relevance. I can provide a detailed review of each of these items, but Daniel Quinn's Ishmael got me down the path. To preface these items, please no laughter as no matter what anyone says about the stories of the Revelation and the Interpretation of Hal Lindsey in the "Late Great Planet Earth", the world would not have as much problem with religion if the world's most prolific supply of Oil was not located in the Middle East. If there is a God, he is an extremely funny guy.
1. The Story of Cain and Abel is about God telling the World to maintain the Hunter Gatherer Shepherding Lifestyle of Abel and not to rend the ground to grow what you want lifestyle of Cain. Cain gets 4 curses for the problem; one is that he is denied the Strength of the Earth. The Strength of the Earth is Oil. I could provide more backup on the other curses and why I think they apply, but there seems to be no ability to mix science and religion in any context by either side of the argument.
2. The prophecies of Ezekiel appear to be one of areas that deal with transportation where the following quote was taken from Ezekiel's Wheels
... So God might have been saying, that after he scatters the 12-tribes, when the time of modern transportation comes, they will be a nation again.
Another possible meaning is that the descendants of the people he scatters will be those who invent and manufacture automobiles and airplanes. But it may mean that the people who will be using these modern machines will receive a similar judgment to that of the Israelites!
Included in the book of Ezekiel are prophecies about World War III and the time of God's judgment upon the whole world. And according to Revelation 9, World War III will start at the Euphrates River-- Iraq. Could it be about oil? It is something to think about.
This vision also serves the purpose of confirming that only the God of Israel and Judah knows the future, and determines the destinies of nations.
I know this is a science based site, but the fastest way for people to change their minds about how to live is through religion, so if we scientists can utilize the book to get it done, let’s do it.
And you wonder why so many that post to this site dump on Christians? 'Hey, let's interpret when we want, but not when you want' is the mantra of the fundamentalist, a word which you used to describe yourself.
Go away!
I read your other response about God and you appear to have no background in religion, so you summarily dismiss it. That is fine and maybe in a different world it would be OK, but we are in this world where religion plays a large roll in shaping societies. If religion can be bent to purposes that are beneficial to the survival of mankind then we should do it. If all you can say is that religion is stupid and contradictory then you have no business in the discussion. It is beyond your capabilities to understand. However, from where I sit as close in observer of religion that most people who go to church do want the world to be a better place and are in fact educated. They can be convinced, given the correctly scoped message. I believe the message is defensible from a science as well as scripture base.
It just might be beneficial to support alternative interpretations of the good book that are valid in science and are valid in scripture. It helps all mankind.
The reason I am a Doomer is that I walk in both worlds and they are both ignorant. I became a Geologist, because I could not fathom the world being 4000 years old, but whatever you think of the bible it has and still does command a great deal of influence, so learn it and fight fire with fire.
I became a Geologist because I believed in evolution, but I got pissed at Science when they attacked Intelligent Design. My God the fundamentalist’s backed down and had to promote a science based approach to God's creation. Instead of embracing the victory, science screamed heresy and claimed it was a strawman for the Creation Story. Science won and then they acted like religious zealots. They could not understand the victory and accept the Intelligent Design. Think about the discussion over that curriculum. The discussion of how the Creator made the Earth would have had to include a great deal of Science and much progress toward bringing religious people into the realm of Science to learn how their beloved Creator created would have been accomplished.
But what did Science say to Religion, the same thing that Religion used to say to Science.
GO AWAY!
I read your other response about God and you appear to have no background in religion, so you summarily dismiss it.
I have no background in alchemy or astrology and I don't need to to dismiss lunatics.
But there is no way one can argue with a religionist : You reject the axioms of his epistemology, and he rejects yours..
I'm not sure. Sounds like it could be Westexas after a few good rounds of Golf. Or Bowling. I'm not sure. What do those people do? In Texas, I mean. I spent a good deal of time over the holidays with a guy that had spent a good deal of time in Saudi working for ARAMCO. He told me the only people in the world who could deal with the Saudis and their "thang" were from West Texas. I shit you not.
I like South America, or the Greek Isles. Australia, I've got to check out.
Where you from, Partner? Maybe we can hang out. Discuss bankers.
Where you from, Partner? Maybe we can hang out. Discuss bankers.
Likely not!
I am a "cheese eating surrender monkey" :-D
I'm not sure what that means. Can I get the full quote?
I was just saying. I know who you are. Wink. It's too bad. We could have been a decent team in another world. Somebody spanked you and you never recovered. Marathon Man. Children Of Men. Got any teeth?
Don't fuck yourself. You know who I am. You know my name. I scurry too fast? I don't think so. I've been trying to get caught. Apparently, WT is retarded.
You'll have to make up your mind someday, Oil CEO, Hugo Chavez, James Bond...
Haven't tried Benedict XVI yet?
> posted it, but the article makes no sense to me. Perhaps because I was raised in an atheist family, and in a largely non-Christian culture. To me, it looks like he's a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail.
The author is making the assumption that doomers believe that they are doomed. However, this is incorrect, since doomers believe a collapse is inevitable, they believe its vital to construct sustainable lifeboats. Another words the author got the concept of doomerism backwards. Doomers by a large are those that are willing to take personal action in order to save themselves instead of hopeless waiting for gov't or industry to take action. Those that believe their gov't, some technological mircle or even God is going to save them are fatalists, since they simply ignore the crisis ahead and choose to do nothing.
The only group of doomers not preparing, are those that are already retired (age > 65) which is understandable. Although, there are some 60+ folks that are still preparing for their children and grandchildren. Doomers are also the group that sounded the alarm bells over declining energy resources and population overshoot, and that its important to adopt to a sustainable system as soon as possible.
Hey, pardner, as one of the old farts here (68) I take offense at that. Well, not really but I am one of the best prepared people here. Interestingly, in my rural community, it is the people over 50 who are most concerned about peak energy and resources. Few younger people seem to care. My guess is that we oldsters have a better historical grasp and, perhaps, better educations. I also know that most of us have been working toward self-sufficiency and sustainability for a lot of years because that's what it takes to live in the boondocks.
As an example of the age gap, a friend put on a canning demonstration last year. The attendees said, "Oh, isn't that interesting." But I never saw a rush to buy canning equipment at our local general store. And, for those who care, people need to figure on canning 300+ quarts of fruits and vegetables per person per year.
>Hey, pardner, as one of the old farts here (68) I take offense at that. Well, not really but I am one of the best prepared people here.
Well of course I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I look towards wise and experienced folks, such as yourself for information, since much of the old ways have completely disappeared in the high-tech modern age.
>As an example of the age gap, a friend put on a canning demonstration last year. The attendees said, "Oh, isn't that interesting." But I never saw a rush to buy canning equipment at our local general store.
That very true, but I suspect that none of those attendees would be concidered as doomers. I believe they are probably followers of environmentalism or just interested in country lifestyles. Its very likely that older folks are indeed more aware of the problems. The majority of folks 60+ years I discussed with, believe a crisis is comming, but also believe that it won't arrive until after they pass on and therefore it makes no sense for them to prepare. Second, the majority of these folks are not in physical or financial condition required to change lifestyles. Regardless of age, very few are will to change lifestyles from pencils and keyboards to pitchforks and barns.
For me, the change isn't all that hard (although the learning curve is steep). I have no problem switching to rural living and I believe I'll be much happier anyway. I think if even energy crisis wasn't an issue, I would still relocate. Who needs to put up with the traffic, the congested streets and the megamalls? The only reason to remain in urban areas is for jobs, which will quickly disappear when energy shortages begin along with rising crime and drug abuse.
TechGuy,
I don't want to let the cat out of the bag that we discussed some of this stuff in the past, but the real issue many people are going to have to confront are the psychological ones. Men will find they have few useful country skills while women will lose their support network of friends. Men will try to BS their way through it but the reality is that if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. This isn't a joke. My experience is that most relationships of city people moving to the country break up after 5-7 years. It's a hard life.
Todd
I can attest to that. Mine lasted a bit longer. Maybe 10 years but we dropped the divorce and are living our lifes as best we can.
My plans are a return to my home county when it gets bad. My wife has too many health issues to even try. My son is in total denial. My daughter never speaks to me.
Most of this because I have a hard time with their chosen lifestyles and that is the destructive life I sensed long ago when I lived in the burbs and hated being crowded together. After that I only brought land with acreage and built my own houses or brought farm houses.
It is extremely difficult to find a wife who can cope with rural life. Only back in the 60's and 70's were there willing companions to be had who had the desire, or so they said so, to by into the 'back to the land' movement.
Most communes I heard of folded.
It takes a lot of skill and energy and motivation. Yet the payoff is there. Eating very good food, fresh air, good water, no noise pollution. The list is endless.
When you harvest some vegetables you grew yourself you have just eliminated every middleman in the food chain.You have eliminated almost every cost that would have been placed upon the product.
If you saved your own seed and used organic methods then all cost disappears except sweat equity--and you don't have to pay to get on a treadmill for exercise..so its good for your health to till the soil.
You are Adam in the garden again and as close to what the Creator originally might have intended. Til the soil...yada yada...(of course after the fall from innocence--Adamic Covenant-2nd one)
You, the dirt , a seed,the sun and voila, food. Simple yet so very very far from the mind of our society that some can not even discuss it nor imagine it.
The cost to fire up the car and run to WallyWorld?
What is the EROEI on that? 1 to 10,000 or some enormous power of ten?
I submit that even though its said and forthrightly stated that in Amurkah , "we have the worlds best food" ...I say we have likely the filthiest and world's worst most contaminated products. Oh lots of it and at rapidly escalating prices yet its geneticaly engineered for shelf life,eye appeal and transportablity and not taste or health. Or highly processed such that you become obsese or suffer onset of serious health problems.
OK InfinitePossibilites...your turn.
Same here; very difficult for my wife living out away from her friend/famiy network,& they are within 10-20 miles.
>I don't want to let the cat out of the bag that we discussed some of this stuff in the past, but the real issue many people are going to have to confront are the psychological ones.
Hi Todd,
That is not a problem for me since I am not married. I do agree with your assesment though. Overall, very few people will bother to make a transistion anyway. The only group of people that will make any effort to change, is folks such as yourself and I, that don't believe our system is sustainable, nor can a sustainable system be achieved on a national or global effort, do to social, political, population, and environmental factors. I would imagine that our group is extremely small.
>My experience is that most relationships of city people moving to the country break up after 5-7 years. It's a hard life.
Although your assesment of 5-7 years doesn't differ much from young couples remaining in the city either. These days divorce rates are extremely high. The majority of friends, coworkers, etc that are under 40 already have at least one divorce under thier belts. Some are already working on their second divorce. These days most younger folks are required to work long and hard hours to meet ends and it takes a toll on marriages.
Few younger people seem to care. My guess is that we oldsters have a better historical grasp and, perhaps, better educations.
This may be a reason but I think the main cause is that the youngsters (of whatever era, not just ours) have some "feeling of immortality" which allow them to tackle life problems with optimism.
This is delusional but used to be rather helpful as long as the whole tribe wasn't imperiled.