Does God want men to choose easy options ?

[Clare73]

What kind of energy does God want people to use so as to feed, clothe, or build themselves a roof where to live underneath ?

Would Jesus today choose to stay a carpenter, only using his own muscles of arms and own neurones of brain ?
Or would he choose easy options with petrol, electricity, etc.., even if polluting ?

Let's remind he resisted temptation (of easy option) to make stone become bread, even if probably not polluting

Jesus likely didn't look either for his disciples' affection through the gift of fossil fuel energy, the breakthrough of an oil deposit. Neither did he teach petrol extraction. If he did, it seems it's was not valuable enough to be written in the Gospel

Do you think, please, i go astray thinking quest for petrol, or any polluting energy, is a wordly quest that bears false testimony as regards christianism ?

Does God care as long as our choices are in agreement with Jesus' teaching?

 

[fhansen]

What kind of energy does God want people to use so as to feed, clothe, or build themselves a roof where to live underneath ?

Would Jesus today choose to stay a carpenter, only using his own muscles of arms and own neurones of brain ?
Or would he choose easy options with petrol, electricity, etc.., even if polluting ?

Let's remind he resisted temptation (of easy option) to make stone become bread, even if probably not polluting

Jesus likely didn't look either for his disciples' affection through the gift of fossil fuel energy, the breakthrough of an oil deposit. Neither did he teach petrol extraction. If he did, it seems it's was not valuable enough to be written in the Gospel

Do you think, please, i go astray thinking quest for petrol, or any polluting energy, is a wordly quest that bears false testimony as regards christianism ?

Jesus used tools, which were more sophisticated and better facilitated His carpentry work then tools which were available centuries before Him. Humans have the capacity to learn and increase their knowledge which leads to improvments in living conditons, productivity, etc. The same knowledge can also produce increasingly dangerous products: weapons, chemicals, etc. The knowledge, itself, is inert while human usage of it can result in harm or evil.

 

[com7fy8]

So, people now will plug in a car and get electrically recharged.

How is the electrical energy produced? How much fossil fuel is used to produce the electricity?

If it is wind energy, how much fuel was needed to produce the parts for the windmills? How did they get that energy?

And I am told solar takes energy to make the parts for the solar panels.

So, overall, how much fossil fuel is needed for using electrical energy in a house or car, versus how much electrical energy is used to produce power for making windmills and solar panels??

I understand nuclear can be used; but, of course, how much fossil is needed to build the nuclear plant?

And, of course, what happens to the environment if mining is done to get the minerals for solar panels and car batteries????

I hear there are conspiracies to cover up the facts about how much fossil is used via different ways of producing and using power. How would I know ?

 

[Tuur]

No and no.
btw, look up effectiveness of masks.
re surgeons who tried without masks for a few months continued without masks unless ordered otherwise. Many more infections happen when masked. Not popular, so if someone wants to know, they have to find out for themselves what was covered up for decades.
CO2 is required ..... sigh..... A lot of money made though tricking those paying for being tricked.

Grin. CO2 has been described as a pollutant. As to the other, the doctor putting a chest tube in me once did not like it when I looked down into the incision to see how it was done. Told me in no uncertain terms that I would get germs into my chest cavity and to turn my head.

 

[Tuur]

Anything that causes harm is a sin. It's hard to tell when humanity went so wrong that we need to produce so much electricity just to maintain the population.

Actually, as energy goes, electricity is pretty efficient for things it does well. It's so efficient that we don't notice how expensive it is until we try to heat using electric resistance. Electric resistance heat is one of the most, if not the most, expensive forms of heat around. When it comes to lighting, even incandescent bulbs are more efficient than the oil lamps humanity has used for thousands of years, and it's pretty efficient when it comes to motors to turn stuff. Greater efficiency means more efficient use of resources and less pollution.

What? Less pollution from electricity? Indeed. Prior to electricity, if humans wanted light and heat, they had to burn stuff. Oil lamps produce smoke, depending on the oil used. So does tallow. Wax has been prohibitively expensive at times., but it can produce some smoke. Wood fires produce smoke, to the point that when people went back to wood to help curb energy costs, some towns had to enact restrictions to deal with the pollution. You get smoke from coal, too, but less smoke for the heat than wood, which is why coal grates are tiny things compared to fireplaces. Even then, coal from home heating and industrial uses contributed to the Great Smog of 1952 in London. There's a reason gases were promoted as clean heat. Maybe not clean CO2 and CO wise, but you didn't have the soot you did from other stuff humanity has burned for heat and light. Since electricity had be used for efficient motors, heat pumps (where they can work) are more efficient that burning gases to keep warm.

Now: Consider going back to oils for lighting and wood to keep warm. Let's throw in coal, too. Imagine the amount of pollution we'd see in our cities when everyone has a wood or coal fire to heat and cook over, and burning oil lamps to see by.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Actually, as energy goes, electricity is pretty efficient for things it does well. It's so efficient that we don't notice how expensive it is until we try to heat using electric resistance. Electric resistance heat is one of the most, if not the most, expensive forms of heat around. When it comes to lighting, even incandescent bulbs are more efficient than the oil lamps humanity has used for thousands of years, and it's pretty efficient when it comes to motors to turn stuff. Greater efficiency means more efficient use of resources and less pollution.

What? Less pollution from electricity? Indeed. Prior to electricity, if humans wanted light and heat, they had to burn stuff. Oil lamps produce smoke, depending on the oil used. So does tallow. Wax has been prohibitively expensive at times., but it can produce some smoke. Wood fires produce smoke, to the point that when people went back to wood to help curb energy costs, some towns had to enact restrictions to deal with the pollution. You get smoke from coal, too, but less smoke for the heat than wood, which is why coal grates are tiny things compared to fireplaces. Even then, coal from home heating and industrial uses contributed to the Great Smog of 1952 in London. There's a reason gases were promoted as clean heat. Maybe not clean CO2 and CO wise, but you didn't have the soot you did from other stuff humanity has burned for heat and light. Since electricity had be used for efficient motors, heat pumps (where they can work) are more efficient that burning gases to keep warm.

Now: Consider going back to oils for lighting and wood to keep warm. Let's throw in coal, too. Imagine the amount of pollution we'd see in our cities when everyone has a wood or coal fire to heat and cook over, and burning oil lamps to see by.

The problem appears to be over population. Humanity needs more technology, because we continue to increase the population to unsustainable levels.

Since there's no way of lowering the population that is of a social consensus in nature, it doesn't happen.

It's just a progression of how human nature will eventually make the planet uninhabitable.

 

[Tuur]

The problem appears to be over population. Humanity needs more technology, because we continue to increase the population to unsustainable levels.

Since there's no way of lowering the population that is of a social consensus in nature, it doesn't happen.

It's just a progression of how human nature will eventually make the planet uninhabitable.

Well, now, Genesis 1:28 aside, what do you think is an appropriate human population?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, now, Genesis 1:28 aside, what do you think is an appropriate human population?

God knows, and according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, a mass extinction event like the flood is not the plan.

We must continue living on, but justifying sin results in a worse future.

 

[peter2]

Does God care as long as our choices are in agreement with Jesus' teaching?

I believe God cares about many things : sparrows, the hairs of our heads (Lk, 12, 6-7)
But i 'd add, since He prescribed men to subdue the earth (Gn 1, 28), my feeling is that it's earth that's actually subduing mankind, through tornadoes, cyclones, cataclysms.

However, i hope this concern for environment is not distracting men from the Word of the Gospel

 

[Clare73]

I believe God cares about many things : sparrows, the hairs of our heads (Lk, 12, 6-7)
But i 'd add, since He prescribed men to subdue the earth (Gn 1, 28), my feeling is that it's earth that's actually subduing mankind, through tornadoes, cyclones, cataclysms.

The destiny of the earth is to be destroyed by fire (2 Pe 3:11).
We aren't preserving it for anything.

However, i hope this concern for environment is not distracting men from the Word of the Gospel

 

[peter2]

The destiny of the earth is to be destroyed by fire (2 Pe 3:11).

Yes, but shouldn't the destroying be left to God to perform ?

 

[JustaPewFiller]

Jesus used tools, which were more sophisticated and better facilitated His carpentry work then tools which were available centuries before Him. Humans have the capacity to learn and increase their knowledge which leads to improvments in living conditons, productivity, etc. The same knowledge can also produce increasingly dangerous products: weapons, chemicals, etc. The knowledge, itself, is inert while human usage of it can result in harm or evil.

That is an excellent point.

@peter2

When I think of "living the hard way" we just have to look to history.
1. The hardest way would be living a hunter / gather society. Where all we have is what we can hunt/kill or gather. I'm going to assume fire is ok.
2. Next hardest would likely be primitive agrarian. No wheel, no herd animals. Probably lots of hunting and gathering still happening.
3. Next would agrarian with some advancements. We have herd animals. We have some tools, the wheel, maybe we have weaving or even a loom. (I'll leave it up to you we can use metal or the tools have to be stone or wood).

Is one of the these 3 what you are envisioning as the "way to live"?
The "easy way" and the "hard way" are honestly too nebulous for me to get my head around. "Easy" and "hard" vary by each person's viewpoint of what is "hard" and what is "easy".

Can you give an example of what a day in your "living the hard way" would be like? ie - Do you have some shelter or sleep under the stars? If you have shelter what it is? What are you wearing and how did you get it? What are you eating and how did you get it?

To give you an example of what I mean by "the hard way" not being concrete enough. I would think living like #3 in my example was "hard". Someone living a hunter/gather life would think #3 on my list was living "easy".

 

[peter2]

The destiny of the earth is to be destroyed by fire (2 Pe 3:11).

Actually, Clare, i don't see any link between this piece of Scripture, and the fact earth is seemingly subduing mankind, through cataclysms, whereas God prescribed men to subdue earth

 

[peter2]

Can you give an example of what a day in your "living the hard way" would be like?

Not necessarily so hard, as regard agricultural work, and meals
I mean : Many vegetables have got a huge quantity of seeds.
I'm not sure anyone 's already tried to sow a huge quantity of seeds on soil, year after year., instead of inverting the soil to get huge vegetables in quantity, people could just collect from soil what is needed for 3 or 4 meals, even small vegetables, if quantitative, and sow some seeds instead where the vegetables for meal were, that is, on a 4m2 surface each 2 days.
I have no idea as for the shelter, but i assume wood could be the proper material, if we let it grow, and build shelter at nature's pace

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but shouldn't the destroying be left to God to perform ?

That's not our call. . .God gets to call that. . .and if we are the source of its destruction, then that was God's call.

It will happen only the way God wills it to happen, and only at the time God wills it to happen.

 

[Clare73]

Actually, Clare, i don't see any link between this piece of Scripture, and the fact earth is seemingly subduing mankind, through cataclysms, whereas God prescribed men to subdue earth

2 Pe 3:11 is not in agreement with your feeling (post #29).

 

[JustaPewFiller]

Not necessarily so hard, as regard agricultural work, and meals
I mean : Many vegetables have got a huge quantity of seeds.
I'm not sure anyone 's already tried to sow a huge quantity of seeds on soil, year after year., instead of inverting the soil to get huge vegetables in quantity, people could just collect from soil what is needed for 3 or 4 meals, even small vegetables, if quantitative, and sow some seeds instead where the vegetables for meal were, that is, on a 4m2 surface each 2 days.
I have no idea as for the shelter, but i assume wood could be the proper material, if we let it grow, and build shelter at nature's pace

Thank you, that gives a rough idea.

I mean no disrespect, but you would face some significant challenges with your methods.
I would strongly encourage you to learn all you can about growing crops in whatever area of the world you are in along with primitive carpentry / living off the grid skills before attempting it.

 

[peter2]

2 Pe 3:11 is not in agreement with your feeling (post #29).

Could you please tell me, Clare, to what extent it's not ?

That's not our call. . .God gets to call that. . .and if we are the source of its destruction, then that was God's call.

Could you also tell where in the Scriptures you find such ideas

 

[peter2]

I mean no disrespect, but you would face some significant challenges with your methods.

i don't feel disrespect, thank you. i guess the challenges would mostly come from men, don't you think ?
Anyway, i 'd rather these challenges, but these from men, to the challenge of struggling against earth's cataclysms

I would strongly encourage you to learn all you can about growing crops in whatever area of the world you are in along with primitive carpentry / living off the grid skills before attempting it.

i think the learning would be pretty short in time, with these parameters of mine, #34, since i have no knowledge of any epoch when man was wise enough to wait for nature to reconstitute itself, and collect just what he needed. Caïn was already cultivating the soil, whereas his parents didn't. And what's more, i believe Adam and Eve didn't transmit their methods