Says the earth to humanity:
You are utterly dependent on me. You can work with me or work against me, but I will always win if we are in conflict. I can destroy you and I will destroy you if you are disrespectful. (Sometimes even if you are respectful.) I do not require you for my existence. You do require me.
I will continue to exist whether all my oil and natural gas and minerals are depleted, whether the ice caps melt, whether climate changes drastically alter my surface. You may not continue to exist if these things occur. I don't care whether you exist or not, for I do not need you. I can heal myself, even when I am scarred and wounded. I don't mind your helping to make the scars and wounds less painful, but when you are gone I will continue to exist.
I am what I am and I am beautiful and full of life's joys, as well as sorrows. I am here for you to enjoy and use, not to use up, not to deface, not to squander. I am here to teach you, to give you ideas, to show you my mysteries and tease you into understanding them. I am here to flood your heart with awe and wonderment, to give you a place from which you can view the stars, to challenge you to be in relationship with me.
I am the earth. I am the original Sacred Text, wordless yet holding all of the answers to life's questions. You ignore me at your peril.
28 comments:
Wow! Did you come up with that yourself Ms. Kitty?
Well, I'm sure it's not original with me, but yes, I didn't get it from anyone else.
That is very impressive. I doubt very much that one can segment the
universe that way, so that one thinks of the Earth in isolation. The mechanics would get messy if you tried to separate the systems, since they interact, e.g. Earth's moon with the earthly tides. Taken strictly, it leads to pantheism, which I think is not what you have in mind. But it works for a strong metaphor to make people notice, picking up on your earlier response to the
warming issues. Goodness, that is prosaic; your version sounds much better.
LinguistFriend
It's not just metaphor. The earth does actually say these things to us, through natural law and consequence. We have to pay attention when killer storms pass through, when our dependence on fossil fuels creates a barrier between us and our source of light, when disrespect for the earth's power ends a life, when we get cross-wise with the planet in a myriad of ways.
Truly, it is our primary Sacred Text. There was nothing before it that we can know and all subsequent texts are secondary to it.
Well when I finally get idiotic U*Us to responsibly acknowledge that Creation Day is not a "cult" it would be a great piece to present during a future observance of Creation Day.
I'm probably going to be sorry I asked this, but what's Creation Day? Surely you don't accept Bishop Ussher's calculation of it?
:I'm probably going to be sorry I asked this, but what's Creation Day?
Creation Day was an inter-religous celebration of Creation that took place whenever the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" put in an appearance in th skies above our planet. It was celebrated twice before an unmentionable fundamentalist atheist "Humanist" U*U minister put a damper on things by falsely and maliciously labeling it as a "cult" of the "manipulative and secretive" kind. . .
:Surely you don't accept Bishop Ussher's calculation of it?
Definitely not. I am reasonably confident that God is some billions of years old. . .
Beautifully said, Ms. Kitty. From your firespirit friends in OR.
Well UUA President Bill Sinkford ignored me at his peril so I had to bring him down to earth with a bit of a wind storm myself. . . ;-)
I won't bite you if you choose to delete this particular post but I would prefer that you did not suppress it. Bill needs a wake up call as do a fair number of other U*Us who spout religious language that George Orwell would recognize as "pure wind". . .
I think your post says more about you than it does about Bill Sinkford, EA, so it stands.
My post says plenty about President Bill Sinkford. One need only contrast his words with his actions or lack thereof to see that he is an outrageous hypocrite when it comes to the issue of "waging peace" to say nothing of other issues. President Sinkford hasn't made the slightest effort to practice what he preaches in his Holiday message with respect to yours truly. Au contraire. . . . He most certainly is a hypocrite and I am not the only person to perceive his obvious hypocrisy by any means. President Sinkford was clearly warned that he would be strongly and publicly criticized by me if he failed or refused to live up to U*U principles and ideals and now he is bearing the fruits of his negligence and hypocrisy.
No, EA, you are speaking volumes about yourself, regardless of what you think you are saying about him.
So tell everyone just what you think I am saying about myself then Kitty. I am on very solid ground in terms of what I am saying about President Sinkford. There is no question that he has failed miserably to practice what he preaches in his hypocritcal Holiday message. I have the emails to prove that. . .
What I hear you saying about yourself, EA, with your repeated statements about Bill Sinkford, is that you are a vengeful, angry, grandiose person who expects people to behave the way he wants them to.
Now this argument is over and I will delete any further posts from you if they continue to be in the same vein.
Does that mean that you are banning me from responding to the accusations that you just leveled at me Kit? I have said my piece about Bill Sinkford but I expect to be able to respond to your accusations about me.
Yep. Too bad. I have not accused you; I have said what your posts reveal about you and I suspect that any person reading them would agree.
PS. You did invite me to say what your posts revealed about you.
Wow! I triggered this with an innocent question, and then forgot to come back and check for the answer. I don't really understand all of what EA has to say about this Sinkford chap, but I do find a certain irony in the idea of a UU hierarchy suppressing what it considers heresy. :) (Unless I misunderstood EA's answer entirely.)
Joel, to get more of an idea of what EA is talking about, I have read his web pages and considered what he has to say both on his blog and in his messages to Sinkford and other UU ministers. You might want to do the same, so that you get a clearer picture of who EA is and what his charge has been, if you care that much.
It's interesting to me that EA lives in Canada and is not part of the UUA, but rather part of the Canadian Unitarian Council. Bill Sinkford is the president of the UUA, not of the CUC; consequently EA's accusations of him are a little odd, though of course he has the right to call anyone to account whom he feels is acting wrongly.
EA is seen, both by the ministers and other leaders he's come in contact with and by other bloggers, as a difficult guy to deal with. I am too far from the situation he is complaining about in Montreal to offer any opinion there, but I do think he's off base when it comes to his critique of Sinkford, who has done nothing to EA personally, as far as I can tell, and who, legitimately, I think, refuses to get embroiled in a conversation with EA.
I imagine Sinkford feels it would be fruitless, judging from what I have seen as EA has attacked and hammered at bloggers who have challenged his way of dealing with things. I think his manner is more the problem than the idea and experience he has had.
Robin, you poor guy. I'm sorry you are so angry and vengeful. Your posts will be removed every time they bash me or other people. This is my blog, not yours.
Too bad.
Post a Comment