lamyal

Pardon the lacuna. As promised - one's own GP essay. The very first.

“Our efforts to save the environment are doomed. Do you agree?”

The green wave has swept over the world- “Environment” is the in word. Yet amidst all efforts to save the environment, that is, actions by the general public and governments of the world to reduce environmental problems, it could be possible that it results in naught. Various environmental problems continue to surface, and remain unresolved. These include the high carbon emissions, the depletion of the ozone layer, and oil spills, to name a few. Definitely, efforts have been put in to solve these problems, but one questions the effectiveness of these efforts. As one would later demonstrate, many efforts to save the environment were wasted, ineffective, “doomed”. One is therefore inclined to agree to a large extent where the above statement is concerned.
“Carbon Emission” has become synonymous with “Environmental Problems”- and not without reason. This is perhaps the greatest environment problem faced in the world. Carbon emission, to date, can only be reduced, not removed, which makes it the largest environmental threat, as it would remain ongoing even after half a century. Indeed, various strategies have been put into place to counter this problem, such as the Kyoto Protocol. However, then USA President George W. Bush did not embrace the protocol, under the excuse that his country did not mainly contribute to the carbon emission. With the lack of participation of the world superpower, the Kyoto Protocol was not fully effective in saving the environment. In addition, the 2009 Copenhagen Summit also attempted to regulate the global carbon emission. Then, all eyes were on the world leaders, especially upon the new USA President Barack Obama, to arrive at a consensus on a resolution to save the environment. “Nopenhagen!”, however, as the disappointed citizens of the world exclaimed, in response to the lack of decisiveness of world leaders which retarded the implementation of an effective strategy to reduce carbon emission. From this, it could be seen that even the attempted involvement in saving the environment by various governments around the world was unsuccessful. The efforts were minimalised. It is seen that the attempts by governments to save the world are barely capable of saving the environment.
How effective, then, would be the efforts of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)? Would they be better off than governments in saving the world? Not necessarily. One prominent NGO which initiated a rather ineffective concerted effort in saving the environment would be the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Their implementation of an annual Earth Hour was with the best intentions, but not with the best of results. The idea of switching off all unnecessary electrical appliances was commendable, yet the subsequent actions people took nullified whatever beneficial effect this Earth Hour could have made. For example, by lighting candles instead of electrical bulbs, there would actually be an increase in carbon emission, as noted by The Christian Science Monitor, a paper that covers current events. The fact that paraffin, a heavy hydrocarbon, is highly componential of candles, by burning candles, a large amount of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is given off. Moreover, Earth Hour saw motorists driving in the dark for the fun of it, causing an influx of petroleum exhaust, as reported by a Vietnamese newspaper. This shows that in an attempt to solve an environmental problem, ironically, the problem worsened.
Nevertheless, not all efforts to save the environment ended in failure. Case in point: The Montreal Protocol has seen a rather effective process of allowing the ozone layer to recover. Established in the 1980s, the Montreal Protocol aimed to phase out and eliminate halogenated hydrocarbons (mostly substances containing bromine or chlorine), which are known to deplete the ozone layer. Several revisions have been made to the treaty, and it is believed that within the next century, the ozone layer could recover. The seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, commented that “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol”. Yet although this comment shows the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, it is not without a sting. It is also implied that no other international agreement has achieved success in saving the environment. Therefore it still stands that most efforts in saving the environment are ineffective.
In conclusion, efforts exerted by either the many governments around the world, or non-governmental organisations, mostly remain ineffective. It is evident that the lack of spontaneous decisiveness by to save the environment by the citizens of the world result in the ineffectiveness of environment-saving efforts. As such, our efforts in saving the world are doomed, and it would remain so unless everyone is truly living an environmentally-conscious life. If, and only if, everyone is aware of their actions, and how their actions could affect the environment, be it in using candles, or joy-riding, with a mindset of removing aspects of their life that would murder the environment, there could just be hope, that the environment could be saved.

Ranked second in class, by just one mark. Pitiful.

Invidia is made complete with luxuria.

Jealousy and Lust, not the best combination.

As a self-indulgent sin, as invidia, luxuria mainly destroys the soul,and is potentially deadly (in a physical sense) to others.

If eyes are the windows of the soul, luxuria would be the curtains. One becomes blinded by lust, driven by it, consumed. Only one path remains for the individual:

Death.

In the Absolute Truth, as seen in Job 31:1, "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl".

It is then understood, that to guard oneself from luxuria, one has to protect one's eyes. Especially for the males of the species; as highly visual creatures, it is pertinent to see what only is respectable.

As such, it seems highly ironic that in order to protect the females from lustful men, the men have to be protected from lustrous women.

Simple.

"Envy rots the bones", so says the Absolute Truth (Proverbs 14:30). Definitely true, since the green-eyed monster consumes one from the inside out.

Unrighteous desire.

Desire becomes a sin when one wants something that belongs to another just because it belongs to another. Of course, desire can also evolve into lust(which we would come to eventually), but we have a date with "envy".

Invidia, as envy is known, is "spite and resentment at seeing the success of another", defined by Princeton University. There is no outward benefit, no innate pleasure, unlike luxuria(lust) and gula(gluttony). However, in spite of (pardon the pun) the absence of such stimuli, people are inclined to commit this sin. How so?

What I could discuss about this is limited, until luxuria and superbia rolls along. It would be better, perhaps, to have a better understanding of the two before we continue with invidia.

So why do invidia first?

Simple. This single post is able to show how foolish it is to embrace invidia. This acts as a deterrent.

I am,
your most humble servant.

Original word used: Gula.

In malay, "gula" means "sugar". Coincidence? Maybe.

Gluttony is a sin based on excessive-ness. Eating in itself is a righteous pleasure, something C.S Lewis would call a "need-pleasure". However, the extravagant, excessive nature of gluttony is a sin that would certainly hasten one's doom. Physically, of course.

Gula means eating to excess. This is different from "abundance". In the Absolute Truth, feasting is socially permitted. Modern translation: partying. Feasts display an abundance of food, meant to fill, to allow people to enjoy themselves. However, eating to excess holds a much more negative connotation. This can only occur when there is no justifiable need to eat, insofar as it becomes "eating for the sake of eating".

We have had a brief overview of 'ira', which affects one's mentality. "Gula", on the other hand, affects one's physical well-being. Over-eating is definitely bad for health. Yet if it is only so, how would it qualify as a cardinal sin?

Only one reason: gula harms one's spiritual well-being as well.

In gula, the individual's focus is upon food, definitely not good news for his spiritual life. Being food-centered, a new religion arises, where food becomes god. The irony is, the more food with which one fills oneself with, the more spiritually empty one becomes.

There is one thing to take note: some people picture gula as a sin whereby an individual continuously eats, with endless feasting and what not. This is not the case. Might one introduce "gourmet gluttony"?

If one spends a fortune for a morsel, does it not become extravagantly excessive? This would also cost lives. To commit gula is to become food-centered, and this cannot be measured in food quantity, but rather to understand one's stand on food. If one values food above what really counts in life, it is evident that gula is not only a spiritual sin, but also a social sin. This cannot be socially acceptable. "Slob" is the word to describe such people.

Does one live to eat, or eat to live?

7 is a recurring number in the human world. Popular novels (Harry Potter), games (Halo), even in computer programs (Windows 7)! Of course, one place where the number 7 appears is in the Absolute Truth (Revelations). However, this seven-part series that one shall commence upon is not exactly in the Absolute Truth, but on a related topic.

The Seven Deadly Sins.

One would not wish to go through all of them at once, so be patient.

Anger. In the old classification, the word used was "ira".

Ira, latin, is the root word of "Ire", "Irascible", "Irate" et cetera. All negative connotations.

One feels that "Anger"(the English word, I mean), is very vague. There is obviously "good" and "unhealthy" Anger, but in the seven deadly sins, "ira" is purely negative. What one wishes to express is that anger is not what would kill you, but ira.

Anger in itself is a pure emotion, if used correctly it is beneficial. Anger is necessary in some situations. Take for example Matthew 21:12.
However, ira brings devastation, death and the ilk. People of Ancient China feared the wrath of the Emperor, who would, in his anger, kill not only an individual but the 9 generations of the individuals family i.e. everybody related to him. Ira sparks fear, and hinders effective leadership.
Anger, on the other hand, has the potential to increase productivity, to bring people back onto the right track. It is a matter of handling it.

Therefore, one wishes to dissolve the misconception that Anger is evil. Righteous anger cannot be evil, otherwise it would be a blatant contradiction. Ira is the deadly sin. Remember that.

In brightest day, through Blackest Night,
No other Corps shall spread its light!
Let those who try to stop what's right,
Burn like my power, Green Lantern's Light!

The Green Lantern Corps Oath.

Simple analysis, nothing compicated: First line is a contrast. In other words, it refers to all time, all places. However one must draw the attention to the use of capitals for Blackest Night. Therefore this does not refer to an event, but THE event. When the age begins to end, the Night arrives, the Darkest moment ever. In Christian terms, the Endtimes.
Revelations describe the Endtimes more explicitly than the other 65 books in the Absolute Truth.

Second line means only one Corps would be seen in the Blackest Night. Similarly, the Armies of Heaven would appear at the End, ending all evil with "fire from heaven" (Rev 20:9b) Which is parallel to the last line.

Interesting use of parallelism, key theme is light. Apt, since this is the Green Lantern Corps oath. The use of "Brightest", "Blackest", "Light", and "Burn", relate to degrees of light.

Honour, Righteous.

I am, your most humble servant.

O Fortuna.

The medieval Latin Goliardic poem has a few interesting , in search of a better word, concepts. My favourite of which is this: "egestatem, potestatem, dissolvit ut glaciem".

Egestatem, or poverty, is usually viewed as negative. Potestatem (root word potestas, from which the english word "potent" is derived) of course, means power. In the world, power is everything positive, and more. Eoin Colfer understood this, and so did his creation Artemis Fowl, for the Fowl motto in the Artemis Fowl series is "Aurum Potestas Est" or "Gold, Power is." Interesting thing, power. People have varying concepts of power, one of which is monetary wealth. Now, referring to the poem, positive power is paired with negative poverty. Why is it so?

The next part, as the more perceptive of you might have noticed, means to melt as ice, which is why the english words "dissolve" and "glacier" exist. For poverty and power to melt as ice, would mean that positive and negative do not last. Here we have reached the heart of the poem. Fate, or fortune, changes the status of life.

In this world everything will pass, for "Heaven and Earth will pass away" (Matt 24:35a, Mark 13:31a, Luke 21:33a). In the Absolute Truth, it clearly states that nothing would remain forever, with the exception shown in the second part of the mentioned verses "but My Words will never pass away". So how is this related to the poem? Should not everything pass away because of fate? If, and only if we assume the poem to be true, then this would be the only possible reason: His Word is Fate itself.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End" (Rev 21:6) With this verse from the Absolute Truth, one feels that the previous reasoning is not sufficient. Perhaps it is better to claim that fate is controlled by His Word, since this verse does not equate His word, but shows its transcendental properties.

Therefore, the human idea of Fate is no more than saying that there is no constant but change, and this change is in the control of a Being much higher than we.

Basis for this post: Dr Jonothan Sarfati's Creation Seminar at the Church of Singapore(Bukit Timah), 21 November 2009.

I was not present on that day, a pity, that. Still, this is a topic after my own heart. I have heard a recording of the seminar, and am intrigued. I wish to make my first discussion on this : the theory of millions of years.

A recurring point made was that of the theory of millions of years. The Solar System in which we live in is believed to be approximately 4.5 Billion Years old. The creation of the Sun and the Planets followed. Yet if the world has existed for millions of years, where do humans come in? By accepting the Bible as truth (which I would, and for all following discussions the Bible shall be Absolute Truth, keep that in mind), death only came in as a result of sin. Romans 6:23, states that "The wages of sin is death", which means that death exists because sin does. So, if the theory of millions of years stands, then fossils of prehistoric flora and fauna should have been formed before the arrival of man (believed to have been around 2 Million Years ago). Yet if so, death precedes Mankind, which cannot hold true as the Bible records that Original Sin was committed by Man.
The discussion does not provide sufficient depth. The best way to prove the "Millions of Years" theory untrue would be to, again, refer to the Absolute Truth. The Book of Job mentions the Behemoth (Job 40) and the Leviathan (Job 3, 41) , legendary monsters (in the eyes of men). The behemoth was mentioned to be a herbivore, an enormous creature. Such a mention reminds one of the Sauropoda, or the Sauropods, the infra-order of dinosaurs inclusive of the Brachiosaurus and Apatosaurus. The leviathan could be another name for the marine reptiles from the Mesozoic Era, such as the Pliosaur. The Bible could be holding extraordinary information: it would suggest that Man and Dinosaur co-existed. This more or less disproves the aforementioned theory.
That aside, a question remains; where did the dinosaurs go to? Of course, we know that they became extinct and turned into fossils. This question is a "how" question. One strongly believes that a space rock caused the extinction of dinosaurs, rather than the biblical Flood of Noah. Then how did all other animals survive?
The extinction of dinosaurs may not spell mass extinction. One species may become extinct while others remain. Man are, perhaps, the most unaffected when a species other than our own becomes extinct. This should explain why Man lives, while the prehistoric reptiles do not. Coming back to the meteor extinction theory, it is not impossible that a meteor could destroy only dinosaurs. The biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) could have been caused by a meteor shower. I shall explain more on that another time. The other query that a person might have is that how a meteor, or meteor shower, could kill all the dinosaurs. This could be easily explained with plate tectonics, and more time. So I shall abbreviate. If all the continents were one land (Genesis 1), localised extinction could easily occur. With the death of the dinosaurs explained, one shall explain fossilisation.
Fossils are remains of dead organism, usually skeletons or organisms preserved in amber or ice. The latter could be instantaneous, and so does not involve the millions of years theory. The former would be more difficult to explain. Here, it is mere assumption. There could be intense heat and pressure to hasten the fossilisation process, similar to the formation of gemstones. Yet, as I said, this is assumption, and I am unable to prove this.

Verdict: The theory of millions of years is, so far, not plausible, but cannot yet be fully proven wrong. Inasmuch as one would like to believe it wrong, one still has to make logical and fair deductions. Time is limited, and I do not have enough to discuss further. I might not be returning to this topic, so make do.

I am, your most humble servant,
Lovell

This is my first post here, welcome.

All posts, henceforth, would be formal.

The creation of this page would be owing to the need to exercise one's ability to think, and to prepare for one's promotion to a post-secondary student.

Therefore, here, you might expect to read some essays, or written thoughts, by yours truly.

I am, your most humble servant,
Lovell.