Hey, quick post here.
I've got this plant in my bedroom that has leaves and vines around the room. It's green (no, I haven't killed it yet) and usually is in good health. I must admit that while busy with work and friends, I have neglected it at times. I came home a few days ago and noticed its leaves were drooping.
Naturally, I realized it had too much water so I threw it out the window....err, just kidding. No, I watered it (as obviously it needed water) and the leaves came back to life. Not only that, when you water it a lot (of which is okay for this plant), water gets soaked up and moves up the vines to the leaves where it forms little water droplets at the ends of each leaf and sometimes along the vine its self.
Life with Christ is very similar. When we're filled with his water (Holy Spirit), it will naturally move through us and be visible to others, even dripping on those around us. Oh I long to be so full of the Spirit that I just glisten with him and where others would desire the Spirit as well. Of course it's not water but rather love, peace, patience, kindness, mercy, grace, charity, humility, compassion, righteousness, etc. In that place, I find my Savior and He helps to show me my purpose -- to love Him and others. There's such a joy in being in the Spirit and being used for His purposes, not mine but His! That is as he calls and directs and provides for, not as I assume and try and fail and stumble.
For those who we don't chat on a regular basis, know this. Life has been hard for so long and I think it's because I like carrying my yoke. I like trying to do things and seeing my fruit. I regularly reject God on a daily basis so that I can do things my way and under my power. This is obviously foolishness but you don't see that until you believe it in your heart. I'm getting there but in the mean time, I think I'm going to start the Holy and needed practice of giving up stuff. Rather than a spirit of apathy -- "Oh, I just give up, I can't do it, this is too hard, etc.," this is a spirit of freedom -- "I give up on this and release this in the Name of Jesus Christ." It is for Freedom that Jesus came and as followers, we should embrace that freedom.
And the rubber hits the road in two avenues right now in my life.
1) I need to give up on the aspirations of becoming a leader or really of becoming anything. It is all as loss, it is all vain, it is all not of God. I'm not saying that being a leader or anything else isn't good, but if it's not what God's (audibly) calling you to right now, for-git-a-bout-it. As personal experience can testify, this issue of calling and desires for positions and authority can lead to great anguish and frustration, driving a wedge between you and other leaders, believers, and really God. These things become idols and our God is jealous, our spirits are able to worship one thing and God knows that. We will eventually realize it (and hopefully sooner rather than later).
2) I need to stop living life as if I am in control and pursuing what I want. Simply put, I need to be immersed in the word and prayer daily and more if possible. I don't and I reap the consequences -- my leaves are withered and I am disheartened ... and that's on good days. On bad days, I am angry and anxious, under attack and just going crazy. I think everyone's out to get me and that no one loves me.
Imagine it like this... we have beautiful temple courts inside our minds and it is in these places where we are to meditate on God and the Word and keep it near. These bad days feel like Katrina, a rush of flood waters carrying up the lies of my past and accusations of the enemy and layers of guilt and anguish just cover everything. If you've had the privilege of cleaning up after a flood, you know what I'm talking about. When we're in God and in the Word, there will be some protection against these floods ... but without, we are like lambs being leading ourselves to the slaughter, we are like children playing tag with knives, we are like people who are standing in the rain and scolding God for it despite the fact that shelter is near by. Should you find yourself here, know that God is the best "contractor" to clean up the flood waters (think ServePro). He will come in and clean things out, he will comfort us, he will make things new again! God will bring us comfort and help us move past these times, and as he sanctifies us, we can only hope that our trust and faith in him will grow and that we will stay closer to him.
So I don't have this down but I pray that I grow closer to God on a daily basis, enjoying the Word and his Spirit. This is the way he intended it and this is not the means to some end. The end must be God, otherwise you'll be chasing an idol and let me tell you that it will not satisfy!
As Donny says, "Stay Thirsty" for the Lord as only he can satisfy.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Resilience — an interesting concept
I liked this article and I wanted to keep it as well as share it with others so read it if you'd like. Very interesting.
Resilience and smart growth
By Robert Steuteville
We’ve written that New Urbanism and smart growth offer advantages in “sustainability,” a term that expresses the capacity of society and the environment to endure for the long term. Sustainability is a popular and useful word — yet one that also has shortcomings. It begs the question, for example, of what we want to sustain. Those who are invested in suburban, automobile-dependent living may contend that their way of life deserves sustenance — regardless of its impact on carbon emissions. The federal government’s recent bailout of bad mortgages is a policy that kept many suburbs afloat.
Sustainability implies judgments that divide people. We run the risk of sounding self-righteous when we argue that urban patterns are more sustainable than sprawl. So the question must be asked: Is there a less divisive and more precise way to make this argument?
Andrew McMurry, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, argues that “resilience” is a better word. “To be resilient suggests an inner toughness: the strength, as its etymology tells us, to ‘jump back’ to a previous state,” McMurry says in “The Rhetoric of Resilience,” published February 17 in Alternatives Journal. “Sustainability, by contrast, suggests a defensive posture: a desire to stay the same, to resist change, without the attractive ability to push back against change and win out.”
The idea of resilience is appealing because it gets beyond arguments that plague “sustainability.” Many who resist this term attack the science of climate change or projections of shortages of resources like oil. They are successful in casting doubt because both the best scientific judgments and the future are inherently in doubt.
Resilience, on the other hand, doesn’t carry that baggage. It is based on the idea of risk — a universally accepted fact of life. Nobody can say whether a house will burn down or a driver will be involved in an accident. Yet the need for fire and automobile insurance is rarely questioned from any political perspective. Insurance increases resilience. If the worst happens, it’s better to be covered.
Parallels with smart growth
I see many parallels between New Urbanism and smart growth and resilience. We don’t know what the future will be, but we suspect that it will be warmer and will include less oil. Maybe global warming skeptics are right — and maybe ExxonMobil is on target in assuring us that massive new oil reserves will be found in the near future. But how resilient are we if the skeptics or that company are wrong, or if any number of unforeseen problems jeopardize the current system?
The answer is: not very. The communities we have built in the last 60 years, especially in the US, are mostly dependent on car and truck transport. If this system fails because petroleum gets very expensive due to declining reserves, or if global warming or geopolitical forces impose constraints on oil use, we are in trouble. Efficient walking and mass transit are impossible in most places. Some will say the answer is alternative fuel vehicles, but what about the cost and the time required for making the transition? Counting on technologies that have not been developed or adopted on a broad scale is not resilient.
Walkable, mixed use communities, by contrast, have been around for thousands of years — and they work regardless of whose vision of the future turns out to be right. If the future demands more mass transit, walking, and bicycling, then compact urban places facilitate that change.
There are many who say that everything will work out just fine if we keep to the status quo. Most experts made similar arguments when housing prices were rising to unprecedented levels fueled by lax lending standards in the first half of the last decade. Don’t worry — be happy. But that attitude lacked resilience, and we have paid dearly for the shortfall.
So here’s to resilience, and to the hope that this concept gains wider currency in environmental and economic discussions.
This article is available in the April-May, 2010 issue of New Urban News, along with images and many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. http://www.newurbannews.com
Resilience and smart growth
By Robert Steuteville
We’ve written that New Urbanism and smart growth offer advantages in “sustainability,” a term that expresses the capacity of society and the environment to endure for the long term. Sustainability is a popular and useful word — yet one that also has shortcomings. It begs the question, for example, of what we want to sustain. Those who are invested in suburban, automobile-dependent living may contend that their way of life deserves sustenance — regardless of its impact on carbon emissions. The federal government’s recent bailout of bad mortgages is a policy that kept many suburbs afloat.
Sustainability implies judgments that divide people. We run the risk of sounding self-righteous when we argue that urban patterns are more sustainable than sprawl. So the question must be asked: Is there a less divisive and more precise way to make this argument?
Andrew McMurry, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo, Ontario, argues that “resilience” is a better word. “To be resilient suggests an inner toughness: the strength, as its etymology tells us, to ‘jump back’ to a previous state,” McMurry says in “The Rhetoric of Resilience,” published February 17 in Alternatives Journal. “Sustainability, by contrast, suggests a defensive posture: a desire to stay the same, to resist change, without the attractive ability to push back against change and win out.”
The idea of resilience is appealing because it gets beyond arguments that plague “sustainability.” Many who resist this term attack the science of climate change or projections of shortages of resources like oil. They are successful in casting doubt because both the best scientific judgments and the future are inherently in doubt.
Resilience, on the other hand, doesn’t carry that baggage. It is based on the idea of risk — a universally accepted fact of life. Nobody can say whether a house will burn down or a driver will be involved in an accident. Yet the need for fire and automobile insurance is rarely questioned from any political perspective. Insurance increases resilience. If the worst happens, it’s better to be covered.
Parallels with smart growth
I see many parallels between New Urbanism and smart growth and resilience. We don’t know what the future will be, but we suspect that it will be warmer and will include less oil. Maybe global warming skeptics are right — and maybe ExxonMobil is on target in assuring us that massive new oil reserves will be found in the near future. But how resilient are we if the skeptics or that company are wrong, or if any number of unforeseen problems jeopardize the current system?
The answer is: not very. The communities we have built in the last 60 years, especially in the US, are mostly dependent on car and truck transport. If this system fails because petroleum gets very expensive due to declining reserves, or if global warming or geopolitical forces impose constraints on oil use, we are in trouble. Efficient walking and mass transit are impossible in most places. Some will say the answer is alternative fuel vehicles, but what about the cost and the time required for making the transition? Counting on technologies that have not been developed or adopted on a broad scale is not resilient.
Walkable, mixed use communities, by contrast, have been around for thousands of years — and they work regardless of whose vision of the future turns out to be right. If the future demands more mass transit, walking, and bicycling, then compact urban places facilitate that change.
There are many who say that everything will work out just fine if we keep to the status quo. Most experts made similar arguments when housing prices were rising to unprecedented levels fueled by lax lending standards in the first half of the last decade. Don’t worry — be happy. But that attitude lacked resilience, and we have paid dearly for the shortfall.
So here’s to resilience, and to the hope that this concept gains wider currency in environmental and economic discussions.
This article is available in the April-May, 2010 issue of New Urban News, along with images and many more articles not available online. Subscribe or order the individual issue. http://www.newurbannews.com
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Sam Harris is an idiot
I watched what I believe where most likely excerpts of Sam Harris' TED conference appearance and I am deeply disappointed. Though I am largely unread and have not heard a lot that Harris and some of his counterparts have to say about religion, I am going to respond. In my opinion, I've heard enough.
Harris, in the 3 minutes I heard, tries to generalize all religions as bad and a distraction from the real issues facing the world. More than a distraction, he goes on to state that because of religion, we have suffering and horrible acts committed against people. His answer, throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of all religion — we can make up our own moral code.
Harris seems bright but I would have to guess that the real reason why we find ourselves in the situations he describes is because we have already thrown out those moral codes and decided to do whatever the hell we want. In short, the assumption that they're (religions) all bad so choose mine seems to break his first presupposition - that they're all bad. Secular humanism is a religion, and the god is society and really ourselves and how we can be self actualized to "do good" according to our definition. And our definition can change and be corrupted (thinking Nazi Germany)... but the secular humanist trap is that we can look forward into the glorious future and do better, that we don't have to be condemned to repeat the past. Great ideas, but we always do. Why? Could it be that there is something larger at play? Could it be that we always screw it up? There's always someone trying to take the reigns and achieve their ends?
Harris doesn't like Christianity (according to what I saw) because we discriminate against homosexuals and because people believe things counter to what Christians believe. Yes Christians believe that God wants us to live a certain way to achieve certain ends, notably to be more like Jesus. Few find this attractive or desirable and, again, make it about themselves — how can I be a better person/Christian. Jesus' call is to come and die and find your life in him, according to his rules (love of, grace from, and relationship with and submission to Jesus). Christians don't get to make it up, they get to follow and submit to Christ. This is based on love and a real relationship with a God who is not seen.
Yes, it is crazy to the world but we ask the Lord to meet us and he does. We see glimpses and realize that our world isn't quite the way we all thought that it was. We realize what we thought was solid was hollow, what we thought was red was blue, what we thought was right side up was upside down. This makes absolutists and scientists nervous and elicits the harshest of responses. We were told to expect this and we keep the faith because we know that our God doesn't need letters after his name or publications and approval from peers to be "trustworthy" or have university/institutional credibility. (Similar to street cred but amongst those academics who live their whole lives in the ivory tower).
And to address the criticisms on the rejection of homosexuality and the adherence to a moral absolutism in a era of relativism, let me address the second first. If I disagree with Harris, does that mean that we should get rid of my opinion and his as well because we can't find agreement on it? This is his logic, if there's disagreement, there must be no universal truth. I think it's quite simple — there is a universal truth and someone just doesn't happen to know what that is. I think this is an easier argument to make and the issue would become who is right and who's wrong.
This is something that I think makes sense to Harris as he pleads to push his religion of anti-theism and secular humanism. Christians believe they're right (even though most are confused at best about what they believe, specifically how to arrive at belief, what is that belief in, and what should we do with that belief once we have it). That's our problem and besides the point. Simply put, we believe in an absolute truth with an absolute morality that revolves around the idea of sin. Homosexuality, the practice of it, is considered wrong and therefore Christians oppose it. Not the people but the practice of the act.
Is the rejection of homosexuality a stumbling block — yes. Can we, in a utilitarian manor, just remove this stumbling block by saying that this practice is permissible? No, we can't. And why? Because Christians don't believe that morality is relative, they believe it is absolute. In short, that we don't get to make up the rules, we get to follow Jesus so that we can find greater joy in life. Following Jesus is more than rules, it's about following the personhood of Jesus. This is a complicated subject for those who don't know him, and for those who have trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of following someone who's died and been resurrected and now lives in heaven.
And regarding homosexuality (I promise that I'm not dodging the question), the Christian should say that the practice of homosexuality is a part of the fallen nature of man and should be abandoned for the sake of following Christ. All Christians have to abandon things at the foot of the cross and so do gay people. In the simplest words, homosexuality is wrong because that's not how God designed us to live our lives. It's wrong in the same way as sin is wrong because living in sin is not what God desired for us, or not how he designed us for toward the end of living our lives. Christianity says that you are not your sin and that you can step out of it to follow Jesus and to become more like him — the call for all Christians.
And some people really enjoy their homosexuality and identify with it as being a part of who they are. All I can say is that most people really enjoy stuff and identify those things with who they are, some are more socially acceptable than others. The social acceptability of an identity means nothing to God, it has no bearing on his perspective as social acceptability is something we've created, not him.
I know it is hard for those who struggle with this, who enjoy this, who live this life. All I can say is that is that there are better things than self-seeking lust or a mutually gratifying sexual relationship and that the best thing is Jesus. You may disagree but you don't really know because you've never tried it and you can't really try it without giving your life to it. People come to the cross to become Christians not because they want to try something new but because they realize that what they were doing doesn't really work anymore and they are at the end of their rope, they're done trying to do whatever they think (or whatever other people think) is right or good. Christ meets us at our end, invites us to die to our self and find a new life in him and his ways. This is what it means to be a Christian — there are no other understandings that are biblical.
And how does the homosexual respond? My thought is that they befriend real Christians and try to learn as much about Christ as possible. Secondly, they take a real hard look at their lives and in the words of Doctor Phil, ask themselves "how's that working for you?" Finally, they would need to come to terms with the fact that Christians are to die to themselves, all of themselves, and that would mean that they give up their ambitions, their property, their dreams, to Jesus and allow him to guide and direct them however he pleases. Jesus doesn't just call people to give up their homosexuality, he calls them to give up everything. You might think this isn't fair, and you're right, it's not. It is really really really hard for gay people to give this up, but the reward is worth it.
And it's not fair for another reason. If it were fair, we'd all die for our sins as a punishment for our depravity. Jesus, showing mercy for us in our state of depravity, died on the cross so that we could be restored to a right standing with God. This brings comfort and this frees us from the slavery of the world to do good, to love, to help, to impact. When Christians show the love of Christ, people are blessed and people see the grace of God. While the Christian can live a selfless life because they're following God, the secular humanist is incapable of living a selfless life because they're following themselves or someone else. The selfless life isn't the objective and you can't achieve it by utilitarian means. No, it is the fruit of being a Christian.
Though some are well intentioned, they fail to live by their own standards and then what? They can try again but they will continually fail. This might not be a problem for some but for others, they will struggle to figure it out and they will fail even at that. Eventually, you wonder why you try and then you stop trying, and then you just do whatever you want and sin comes into full bloom. The ethic is functionally gone (their original goal) and they prove our point, that we will always choose a relativistic outcome to achieve our goals over any and everyone else. This proves that relativism doesn't "work" and ends at "I will do nothing, I don't care, and if I can't get what I want, I just want to die." I can't think of a worse life to live.
Harris, in the 3 minutes I heard, tries to generalize all religions as bad and a distraction from the real issues facing the world. More than a distraction, he goes on to state that because of religion, we have suffering and horrible acts committed against people. His answer, throw out the baby with the bathwater and get rid of all religion — we can make up our own moral code.
Harris seems bright but I would have to guess that the real reason why we find ourselves in the situations he describes is because we have already thrown out those moral codes and decided to do whatever the hell we want. In short, the assumption that they're (religions) all bad so choose mine seems to break his first presupposition - that they're all bad. Secular humanism is a religion, and the god is society and really ourselves and how we can be self actualized to "do good" according to our definition. And our definition can change and be corrupted (thinking Nazi Germany)... but the secular humanist trap is that we can look forward into the glorious future and do better, that we don't have to be condemned to repeat the past. Great ideas, but we always do. Why? Could it be that there is something larger at play? Could it be that we always screw it up? There's always someone trying to take the reigns and achieve their ends?
Harris doesn't like Christianity (according to what I saw) because we discriminate against homosexuals and because people believe things counter to what Christians believe. Yes Christians believe that God wants us to live a certain way to achieve certain ends, notably to be more like Jesus. Few find this attractive or desirable and, again, make it about themselves — how can I be a better person/Christian. Jesus' call is to come and die and find your life in him, according to his rules (love of, grace from, and relationship with and submission to Jesus). Christians don't get to make it up, they get to follow and submit to Christ. This is based on love and a real relationship with a God who is not seen.
Yes, it is crazy to the world but we ask the Lord to meet us and he does. We see glimpses and realize that our world isn't quite the way we all thought that it was. We realize what we thought was solid was hollow, what we thought was red was blue, what we thought was right side up was upside down. This makes absolutists and scientists nervous and elicits the harshest of responses. We were told to expect this and we keep the faith because we know that our God doesn't need letters after his name or publications and approval from peers to be "trustworthy" or have university/institutional credibility. (Similar to street cred but amongst those academics who live their whole lives in the ivory tower).
And to address the criticisms on the rejection of homosexuality and the adherence to a moral absolutism in a era of relativism, let me address the second first. If I disagree with Harris, does that mean that we should get rid of my opinion and his as well because we can't find agreement on it? This is his logic, if there's disagreement, there must be no universal truth. I think it's quite simple — there is a universal truth and someone just doesn't happen to know what that is. I think this is an easier argument to make and the issue would become who is right and who's wrong.
This is something that I think makes sense to Harris as he pleads to push his religion of anti-theism and secular humanism. Christians believe they're right (even though most are confused at best about what they believe, specifically how to arrive at belief, what is that belief in, and what should we do with that belief once we have it). That's our problem and besides the point. Simply put, we believe in an absolute truth with an absolute morality that revolves around the idea of sin. Homosexuality, the practice of it, is considered wrong and therefore Christians oppose it. Not the people but the practice of the act.
Is the rejection of homosexuality a stumbling block — yes. Can we, in a utilitarian manor, just remove this stumbling block by saying that this practice is permissible? No, we can't. And why? Because Christians don't believe that morality is relative, they believe it is absolute. In short, that we don't get to make up the rules, we get to follow Jesus so that we can find greater joy in life. Following Jesus is more than rules, it's about following the personhood of Jesus. This is a complicated subject for those who don't know him, and for those who have trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of following someone who's died and been resurrected and now lives in heaven.
And regarding homosexuality (I promise that I'm not dodging the question), the Christian should say that the practice of homosexuality is a part of the fallen nature of man and should be abandoned for the sake of following Christ. All Christians have to abandon things at the foot of the cross and so do gay people. In the simplest words, homosexuality is wrong because that's not how God designed us to live our lives. It's wrong in the same way as sin is wrong because living in sin is not what God desired for us, or not how he designed us for toward the end of living our lives. Christianity says that you are not your sin and that you can step out of it to follow Jesus and to become more like him — the call for all Christians.
And some people really enjoy their homosexuality and identify with it as being a part of who they are. All I can say is that most people really enjoy stuff and identify those things with who they are, some are more socially acceptable than others. The social acceptability of an identity means nothing to God, it has no bearing on his perspective as social acceptability is something we've created, not him.
I know it is hard for those who struggle with this, who enjoy this, who live this life. All I can say is that is that there are better things than self-seeking lust or a mutually gratifying sexual relationship and that the best thing is Jesus. You may disagree but you don't really know because you've never tried it and you can't really try it without giving your life to it. People come to the cross to become Christians not because they want to try something new but because they realize that what they were doing doesn't really work anymore and they are at the end of their rope, they're done trying to do whatever they think (or whatever other people think) is right or good. Christ meets us at our end, invites us to die to our self and find a new life in him and his ways. This is what it means to be a Christian — there are no other understandings that are biblical.
And how does the homosexual respond? My thought is that they befriend real Christians and try to learn as much about Christ as possible. Secondly, they take a real hard look at their lives and in the words of Doctor Phil, ask themselves "how's that working for you?" Finally, they would need to come to terms with the fact that Christians are to die to themselves, all of themselves, and that would mean that they give up their ambitions, their property, their dreams, to Jesus and allow him to guide and direct them however he pleases. Jesus doesn't just call people to give up their homosexuality, he calls them to give up everything. You might think this isn't fair, and you're right, it's not. It is really really really hard for gay people to give this up, but the reward is worth it.
And it's not fair for another reason. If it were fair, we'd all die for our sins as a punishment for our depravity. Jesus, showing mercy for us in our state of depravity, died on the cross so that we could be restored to a right standing with God. This brings comfort and this frees us from the slavery of the world to do good, to love, to help, to impact. When Christians show the love of Christ, people are blessed and people see the grace of God. While the Christian can live a selfless life because they're following God, the secular humanist is incapable of living a selfless life because they're following themselves or someone else. The selfless life isn't the objective and you can't achieve it by utilitarian means. No, it is the fruit of being a Christian.
Though some are well intentioned, they fail to live by their own standards and then what? They can try again but they will continually fail. This might not be a problem for some but for others, they will struggle to figure it out and they will fail even at that. Eventually, you wonder why you try and then you stop trying, and then you just do whatever you want and sin comes into full bloom. The ethic is functionally gone (their original goal) and they prove our point, that we will always choose a relativistic outcome to achieve our goals over any and everyone else. This proves that relativism doesn't "work" and ends at "I will do nothing, I don't care, and if I can't get what I want, I just want to die." I can't think of a worse life to live.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
E2: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious
So PBS put this series out a few years back called E2: The Economies of Being Environmentally Conscious. It is a wonderful series that shows leaders who are inventing and implementing their way to solve problems that affect our environment and economies. Yes, it is liberal and yes it is progressive. Furthermore, I'll add this — it makes sense and provides hope, not a saving hope but a hope that people can think and can act in ways that bring about solutions to problems that put down the poor and could endanger our way of living.
This is why I became a planner and this is why I will probably change jobs at some point. I enjoy trying to solve crazy problems by inventing stuff and helping to save the world and I hope I get to participate in both. The Lord guides our steps and controls our destinies, and for some, we will play a role in creating and making. For some fewer, our efforts and his inspiration will result in the opportunity to bless countless folks in ways that are meaningful and productive. Playing a part in something like that would really be a great way to provide for myself and others, something that I might really enjoy — even as just someone who is wired to solve problems and make things.
Some thoughts on global warming, environmentalism, and recycling.
1. Global warming, like most science, is hard to comprehend and harder still for the average person to know that it's real. Most science doesn't need to be easy to explain or comprehend because the rest of us do other things and we could care less. And for Global Warming, we would care less except that there is a cohort of militant scientists, politicians and media folks who have made this a major issue that deserves a place at our dinner table. And since most are not versed in science, we have two choices: 1) take the scientist's conclusions at face value because they would know best, or 2) doubt the scientist's conclusions in favor of the opinion held by a minor group who doubt or are concerned about conspiracies and those who don't want change.
Now whether or not Global Warming is really an issue is anyone's guess. If you can't trust the scientists then who really knows. I'm inclined to trust the scientists but know full well that people will try to use this to manipulate the behavior of many, some with the hope to solve the problem, others with the hope of manipulating people to gain power, and a few who hope to do both. I do believe there are people out there who strive to gain power and influence and could care less about such issues as liberty and democracy. The real danger is utilitarianism, a philosophical persuasion that would lead us to do anything to achieve specific ends.
My opinion is that there are people out there who want to control others and they will stop at nothing to achieve their end and come to power. Though this is true, so often they take what is reasonable and try to make it unreasonable, striving to be marginalized (by conservatives and some in the church) in order to secure the approval of a select few who will fight for their cause in a larger attempt to try to take down or marginalize the institutions they provoked. In other words, it's a trap. There's nothing bad about reducing our use, using things more smartly, or even recycling and reusing things (all conservative concepts at least on face) but because they do these things for different reasons that what conservatives believe, there seems to be a backlash amongst conservatives against what honestly should be no-brainer changes to our daily lives. My conclusion is to try to be a better steward of what we've been given and we'll experience the reward, notably in saving money and being more thankful for what we've been given in the first place. Do this publicly and you've eliminated one of sevearal reason why liberals and rational people have chosen to be upset at the church — a win win.
For the record, I don't think that all scientists or even a large contingency of scientists are making this global warming thing up in an effort to try to manipulate or control the world. I seriously doubt that and even if it were true, I think a few would blow the whistle and that such a whistle would be loud enough for most of us to hear it. I'm not a scientist and so I defer to them. I hope they can figure a way out of this one that doesn't result in a totalitarian state. We should strive to do something about this and the best way to do that would be to stop debating the existence of it and start working on solutions that solve the problem without taking away our freedom as well.
2. Environmentalism is about being a good steward. We all should be environmentalists but the real problem here is that no one wants to be told what to do, much less compelled under penalty of law to be forced to do something. We can be environmentally conscious without it becoming a control issue! Furthermore, we can show people how to do it without the entrapping of what at times can seem to be the religion of environmentalism. Like most things we do, there's a risk of idolatry. Does this mean that we abandon environmental care because it could be an idol? No, this means that we try to place it under Christ and do it in a way just like we do most of the other things that we do like eating, drinking, shopping, etc. The important things are a) don't become a Judaizers and expect everyone to the second conversion to be environmentally conscious, b) share your knowledge with others so that they and what they steward can prosper, and c) remain humble, not assuming you've got it all figured out or that there's only one way to do something.
3. Recycling. To this end, it is so easy to claim that recycling is just something that you do stupid! Surely, I could say something like that as well and I won't try to make arguments for why you shouldn't do it, you've probably got enough reasons as it is. No, continuing on this point from before, I think it's important to realize that other people are watching you and expect you to respect their systems and not only fit in but be progressive. This is essentially part of your witness as a "good" human being. Now, we know that recycling is not really talked about in the Bible and that there are is a more important thing, i.e. salvation, to be talked about. This all said, if you fail to show that you realize and do what is (in their opinion) stupidly simple and a public responsibility, you have lost your credibility. To be a good witness, we've got to be acceptable and even exceptional in the view of others. The limit is, of course, where we make those things idols, support other people's idols, or otherwise live unbiblically.
In a recap, being "green" can help us be a good witness through our good stewardship, helping us share Christ with others. Being "green" can also benefit us financially, improve our quality of life, and help reduce our impact on the environment.
(For those who are interested, recycling reduces the amount of waste entering landfills that pollute groundwater and waste land resources. They also can replace virgin material used in products, reducing the consumption of virgin materials or natural resources. Not all resources are renewable so using recycled product can save money and improve the quality of the final product. Most people don't notice or realize the savings or improved quality of the product. Most people also don't realize what are the consequences of throwing another water bottle into a landfill (I can't). Even though you may not see the benefit of doing "what's right," there can be a cumulative effect and that's what counts to most who value the practice. Reducing and Reusing are two ways to seriously save money and improve the waste stream and are perhaps more important than recycling.)
This is why I became a planner and this is why I will probably change jobs at some point. I enjoy trying to solve crazy problems by inventing stuff and helping to save the world and I hope I get to participate in both. The Lord guides our steps and controls our destinies, and for some, we will play a role in creating and making. For some fewer, our efforts and his inspiration will result in the opportunity to bless countless folks in ways that are meaningful and productive. Playing a part in something like that would really be a great way to provide for myself and others, something that I might really enjoy — even as just someone who is wired to solve problems and make things.
Some thoughts on global warming, environmentalism, and recycling.
1. Global warming, like most science, is hard to comprehend and harder still for the average person to know that it's real. Most science doesn't need to be easy to explain or comprehend because the rest of us do other things and we could care less. And for Global Warming, we would care less except that there is a cohort of militant scientists, politicians and media folks who have made this a major issue that deserves a place at our dinner table. And since most are not versed in science, we have two choices: 1) take the scientist's conclusions at face value because they would know best, or 2) doubt the scientist's conclusions in favor of the opinion held by a minor group who doubt or are concerned about conspiracies and those who don't want change.
Now whether or not Global Warming is really an issue is anyone's guess. If you can't trust the scientists then who really knows. I'm inclined to trust the scientists but know full well that people will try to use this to manipulate the behavior of many, some with the hope to solve the problem, others with the hope of manipulating people to gain power, and a few who hope to do both. I do believe there are people out there who strive to gain power and influence and could care less about such issues as liberty and democracy. The real danger is utilitarianism, a philosophical persuasion that would lead us to do anything to achieve specific ends.
My opinion is that there are people out there who want to control others and they will stop at nothing to achieve their end and come to power. Though this is true, so often they take what is reasonable and try to make it unreasonable, striving to be marginalized (by conservatives and some in the church) in order to secure the approval of a select few who will fight for their cause in a larger attempt to try to take down or marginalize the institutions they provoked. In other words, it's a trap. There's nothing bad about reducing our use, using things more smartly, or even recycling and reusing things (all conservative concepts at least on face) but because they do these things for different reasons that what conservatives believe, there seems to be a backlash amongst conservatives against what honestly should be no-brainer changes to our daily lives. My conclusion is to try to be a better steward of what we've been given and we'll experience the reward, notably in saving money and being more thankful for what we've been given in the first place. Do this publicly and you've eliminated one of sevearal reason why liberals and rational people have chosen to be upset at the church — a win win.
For the record, I don't think that all scientists or even a large contingency of scientists are making this global warming thing up in an effort to try to manipulate or control the world. I seriously doubt that and even if it were true, I think a few would blow the whistle and that such a whistle would be loud enough for most of us to hear it. I'm not a scientist and so I defer to them. I hope they can figure a way out of this one that doesn't result in a totalitarian state. We should strive to do something about this and the best way to do that would be to stop debating the existence of it and start working on solutions that solve the problem without taking away our freedom as well.
2. Environmentalism is about being a good steward. We all should be environmentalists but the real problem here is that no one wants to be told what to do, much less compelled under penalty of law to be forced to do something. We can be environmentally conscious without it becoming a control issue! Furthermore, we can show people how to do it without the entrapping of what at times can seem to be the religion of environmentalism. Like most things we do, there's a risk of idolatry. Does this mean that we abandon environmental care because it could be an idol? No, this means that we try to place it under Christ and do it in a way just like we do most of the other things that we do like eating, drinking, shopping, etc. The important things are a) don't become a Judaizers and expect everyone to the second conversion to be environmentally conscious, b) share your knowledge with others so that they and what they steward can prosper, and c) remain humble, not assuming you've got it all figured out or that there's only one way to do something.
3. Recycling. To this end, it is so easy to claim that recycling is just something that you do stupid! Surely, I could say something like that as well and I won't try to make arguments for why you shouldn't do it, you've probably got enough reasons as it is. No, continuing on this point from before, I think it's important to realize that other people are watching you and expect you to respect their systems and not only fit in but be progressive. This is essentially part of your witness as a "good" human being. Now, we know that recycling is not really talked about in the Bible and that there are is a more important thing, i.e. salvation, to be talked about. This all said, if you fail to show that you realize and do what is (in their opinion) stupidly simple and a public responsibility, you have lost your credibility. To be a good witness, we've got to be acceptable and even exceptional in the view of others. The limit is, of course, where we make those things idols, support other people's idols, or otherwise live unbiblically.
In a recap, being "green" can help us be a good witness through our good stewardship, helping us share Christ with others. Being "green" can also benefit us financially, improve our quality of life, and help reduce our impact on the environment.
(For those who are interested, recycling reduces the amount of waste entering landfills that pollute groundwater and waste land resources. They also can replace virgin material used in products, reducing the consumption of virgin materials or natural resources. Not all resources are renewable so using recycled product can save money and improve the quality of the final product. Most people don't notice or realize the savings or improved quality of the product. Most people also don't realize what are the consequences of throwing another water bottle into a landfill (I can't). Even though you may not see the benefit of doing "what's right," there can be a cumulative effect and that's what counts to most who value the practice. Reducing and Reusing are two ways to seriously save money and improve the waste stream and are perhaps more important than recycling.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Why am I not surprised? ...and for your viewing pleasure!
Seriously, why am I not surprised? BTW, the top ten cities were 1) Austin, Washington, Raleigh, Boston, Houston, OK City, DFW, Tulsa, Seattle, and Baton Rouge??? Where's Portland? Yeah, not on there.
Least desirable was Detroit, Cleveland, Dayton-OH, Tampa/St.Pete, and Riverside/San Bernardino-CA.
That reminded me of this photo
And, while looking for that photo, I found these as well.... for your viewing pleasure
and this from an internal memo at safelite...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)