The Death Of Plastic Bags...

[TheWall]

I know in Japan it is a civic duty to not litter.

[Sparko]

It's beyond the pale pathetic. It shows that, at his core, he's a nihilist and that the quote in his signature, applies to him more than anything else. Also, hell is where he's destined if there is such a place.

You are starting to sound like Charles.

[One Bad Pig]

I often see this meme from atheists that Christians don't care about their environment exactly because of this attitude. This is the first time I've actually seen a Christian say this. This is a very sad position to hold. Very irresponsible.

It's actually a very atheist position. Our planet will be quite uninhabitable well before the sun reaches its red giant stage, and the eventual heat death of the universe is a fairly noncontroversial extrapolation of current and past conditions.

[Adrift]

Did I say that we shouldn't be good stewards? I'm making a factual claim. But, the earth and all its works will pass away, it is the human soul that is immortal, and therefore infinitely more important...

That's an incredibly gnostic perspective. I guess I was wrong when I told carpedm that's not something you hold to. As Paul points out in 1 Cor. 7:31 it's not the earth that will pass away, but its present condition. We look forward to the day when the earth will be glorified in the sense that our bodies will be glorified. A new heaven and earth does not mean the destruction of the previous heaven and earth, but of a renewal and restoration of the present earth.

Rom. 8:19-23 tells us,

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

That's not the language of destruction, but pointing back to the time when God said that creation was very good, and will be restored to it's proper order.

Second of all, the idea that we are merely immortal souls is neo-platonic. The proper view of mankind that the Bible espouses is one of soul AND body (or some would say soul, spirit, and body). Our body is part of who we are, which is why there's so much significance on our bodies being glorified at Christ's return.

And yes, you were suggesting that we shouldn't be good stewards. How else is one to read "We are not going to save the planet, the planet like the universe is slated for death" in reply to being a good steward as Christian3 was suggesting? You might as well say, "We are not going to save the body, the body like the universe is slated for death."

[Adrift]

It's actually a very atheist position.

[seer]

That's an incredibly gnostic perspective. I guess I was wrong when I told carpedm that's not something you hold to. As Paul points out in 1 Cor. 7:31 it's not the earth that will pass away, but its present condition. We look forward to the day when the earth will be glorified in the sense that our bodies will be glorified. A new heaven and earth does not mean the destruction of the previous heaven and earth, but of a renewal and restoration of the present earth.

Rom. 8:19-23 tells us,

19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

That's not the language of destruction, but pointing back to the time when God said that creation was very good, and will be restored to it's proper order.

Second of all, the idea that we are merely immortal souls is neo-platonic. The proper view of mankind that the Bible espouses is one of soul AND body (or some would say soul, spirit, and body). Our body is part of who we are, which is why there's so much significance on our bodies being glorified at Christ's return.

And yes, you were suggesting that we shouldn't be good stewards. How else is one to read "We are not going to save the planet, the planet like the universe is slated for death" in reply to being a good steward as Christian3 was suggesting? You might as well say, "We are not going to save the body, the body like the universe is slated for death."

Yet we do have the language of destruction in Scripture:

2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


Revelation 21:1

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

[mossrose]

I have absolutely no problem with what seer said. God is going to destroy this current earth with its sin-curse, as well as the heavens, and create a new earth and heavens free from the curse.

That's why I said previously that sovereign God will take care of the destruction of this planet and all others, and our puny efforts will do nothing to either destroy it before His timing, or change His timetable.

I am also not saying that we are not to be good stewards and do what we can to look after our little bits of it.

[seer]

I have absolutely no problem with what seer said. God is going to destroy this current earth with its sin-curse, as well as the heavens, and create a new earth and heavens free from the curse.

That's why I said previously that sovereign God will take care of the destruction of this planet and all others, and our puny efforts will do nothing to either destroy it before His timing, or change His timetable.

I am also not saying that we are not to be good stewards and do what we can to look after our little bits of it.

Exactly...

[Zara]

I have absolutely no problem with what seer said. God is going to destroy this current earth with its sin-curse, as well as the heavens, and create a new earth and heavens free from the curse.

That's why I said previously that sovereign God will take care of the destruction of this planet and all others, and our puny efforts will do nothing to either destroy it before His timing, or change His timetable.

I am also not saying that we are not to be good stewards and do what we can to look after our little bits of it.

Why is everyone just ok with destroying the place - atheists evil by-and-large, this form of Christianity, evil. It's all just evil. Don't destroy it. Please. Please don't destroy it.

Adrift is the only sane person here.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why is everyone just ok with destroying the place - atheists evil by-and-large, this form of Christianity, evil. It's all just evil. Don't destroy it. Please. Please don't destroy it.

Adrift is the only sane person here.

When you destroy a car to build something new, is that an evil act?

[mossrose]

Why is everyone just ok with destroying the place - atheists evil by-and-large, this form of Christianity, evil. It's all just evil. Don't destroy it. Please. Please don't destroy it.

Adrift is the only sane person here.

You have no concept of what I am talking about, so it's best to not let your ignorance show by voicing it.

[Teallaura]

I can't imagine the use in other types of plastics increasing so dramatically that it'd seriously compete with grocery store bags in the amount of non-biodegradable waste that we accumulate. That seems unrealistic to me. I'm not saying people don't use grocery store bags for other things, but in my experience most people throw most of them out when they get home. I mean, I keep a few in a drawer for the bathroom trash, but I throw away most of the ones I don't use. Perhaps a 5 year study could be performed to calculate the real cost in waste reduction pre-plastic grocery bags, and post-plastic grocery bags.

And most of the people I know save and reuse them (which reminds me, I need to make plarns out of my stash...)

I think your first sentence is part of the problem. We literally dig up hundreds of thousands of metric tonnes of just filler material while burying plastic waste. Those horrible drink rings are awesome pot fill for container plants - and much better than bottles - and I plan to try then as aquaponic media in a few years. Granted, not an option in San Francisco - but most cities aren't built on sandy fault lines. Remember, a lot of filler is used under light construction or reclamation efforts where stability isn't critical.

Grocery bags - spin the darn things and you have degradable tarp material - most of what gardeners dispose of is just torn, not degraded. But those bags do degrade in sunlight - and all you need is an adapted spinning machine (industrial - this is one task near impossible by hand but a high speed machine can do it).

[Adrift]

Yet we do have the language of destruction in Scripture:2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Source: The Early Christian Letters for Everyone: James, Peter, John, and Judah by N. T. Wright, Westminster John Knox Press, 2011

Here, at the end of this passage, we have a statement which in older translations of the Bible came out one way, but which, with all the biblical manuscripts we now have, almost certainly needs to be changed. In the older versions, this passage ends with the warning that 'the earth and all the works on it will be burned up.' A cosmic destruction: the end of the physical world! Is this really what Peter wrote? If so, it's the only place in the whole of early Christian literature where such an idea is found.

But in some manuscripts of the New Testament, including two of the best, the word for 'will be burned up' isn't there. Instead, there is a word which means 'will be found', or 'will be discovered', or 'will be disclosed'. Perhaps 'will be found out' would be another way of getting at the meaning. What I believe has happened is this. Several early scribes, faced with 'will be found', thought to themselves, 'That can't be right! It makes no sense! Surely he meant "will be burnt up". And so the change was made. (You can see that there was confusion, because there are several other manuscripts which try out other options as well).

And look at the difference it makes! As with the rest of the New Testament, Peter is not saying that the present world of space, time and matter is going to be burnt up and destroyed. That is more like the view of ancient Stoicism - and of some modern ideas, too. What will happen, as many early Christian teachers said, is that some sort of 'fire', literal or metaphorical, will come upon the whole earth, not to destroy, but to test everything out, and to purify it by burning up everything that doesn't meet the test. The 'elements' that will be 'dissolved' are probably the parts of creation that are needed at the moment for light and heat, that is, the sun and the moon: according to Revelation 21 they will not be needed in the new creation. But Peter's concern throughout the letter is with the judgment of humans for what they have done, not with the non-human parts of the cosmos for their own sake.

© Copyright Original Source

Revelation 21:1

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

But I already covered this in the previous post about what actually passes away. It's the present condition of the world, not the world itself,

Source: The Book of Revelation by G. K. Beale, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1999

is not any longer" is further explained in 21:4: "death will not be any longer, neither will there any longer be mourning or crying or pain." The virtually verbatim parallels between 21:1 and 21:4 shows that the latter develops from the former . . . Furthermore, the connection between the two verses is confirmed in that they are respectively introduced and concluded by the same formula expressing the dissolution of the old order, "the first heaven and the first earth passed away" in v 1 and "the first things passed away" in v 4. This means that the sea is a part representing the whole of the cosmos, but not so much in a geographical sense. Rather, the evil nuance of the sea metaphorically represents the entire range of afflictions that formerly threatened God's people in the old world. Uppermost in John's mind would have been tribulations resulting from oppression by the ungodly world. There will be no trial over which to weep in the final order of things.

This conclusion is supported by the echo of Isa. 51:10-11, which metaphorically equates the removal of the waters at the Red Sea deliverance to the removal of sorrows at the consummation of the ages (see further on 21:4). The absence of the sea in the Apocalypse's new creation may represent an element of escalation in contrast to the pre-fall cosmos, which contained within it seas. This is true regardless of whether "sea" is understood literally or figuratively, though the above discussion shows that, in all likelihood, "sea" is figurative for old-world threats. Therefore, the presence of a literal sea in the new creation would not be inconsistent with the figurative exclusion of the sea in 21:1.

The allusions to Isa. 65:17 in vv 1 and 4b and to Isa. 65:19 in v 4b confirm the preceding analysis. In Isa. 65:16-19 and 51:10-11 the emphasis is not on the passing away of the material elements of the old world but on God's doing away with "the former affliction" due to oppression during captivity, so that "there will be no longer" "the voice of weeping and the sound of crying."

Like Rev. 21:1,5, Jewish writings reflecting on Isaiah 65 (or 43) also conceived of the new creation as a renewal or renovation of the old creation (so Jub. 1:29, 4:26; 1 En. 45:4-5; 2 Bar. 32:1-6; 57:2; 4 Ezra 7:75; Targ. Pal. and Jer. Deut 32:1; Targ. Hab. 3:2; a like renewal but not necessarily in allusion to Isiah: Targ. Onk. Deut 32:12; Targ. Jer. 23:23; Targ. Mic 7:14;b Sanhedrin 92b, 97b). In 2 Pet. 3:5-7 the new creation after the flood is regarded as a renovation of a formerly devastated earth, and in 3:7-13 it is likened to the coming new cosmos (cf. Matt. 24:35-39). Other passages that more generally refer to the destruction of the old world and creation of the new world, also in allusion to the same Isaiah texts, include 1 En. 72:1; 91:16; 2 Bar. 44:12; Irenaeus, Contra Haereses 5.36.1).

© Copyright Original Source

[Teallaura]

I haven't lived in a town yet that didn't have trash all over the streets. It doesn't have to be in plain view like 75 up through Michigan or nothing, but I think Americans get desensitized to how bad the issue really is. I got MAJOR culture shock living in Germany where the streets are so clean you could practically eat off them in most cities and towns, and recycling in that country is like a religion. I remember coming home to the US, and the first thing I noticed was the litter everywhere. We just don't see it because we live in it.

I have cousins that vacationed in Germany - this wasn't one of their observations - and they really love Germany.

The clean up crew I mentioned - they were after the small detritus. Our roadsides haven't been pigsties since I was a kid and the anti-litter campaigns started.

No, I can't say I've ever priced bags in bulk, but then, churches have fed the needy for centuries before the advent of plastic. I'm sure alternative methods can be developed in the absence of plastic bags. And of course I was using a bit of hyperbole when I said that plastic bags are near eternal. As we all know, plastic simply does not break down very well. At least, not as well as many organic materials. Unfortunately our consumerist culture trades convenience for our environment and health. I'm all for ways of helping society become better stewards of their environments.

A bulk of paper bags is around $45 here - which is enough to feed a family for a week. A similar bulk of totes would feed them for more than a month. Where, exactly, are the alternatives? Soup kitchens?

Remember, where these bans have gone into effect, the purchase of garbage bags increased dramatically. Those will not be donated - and many won't even be reused. If they are, it will be as trash bags - meaning they are heading straight for a dump where they don't degrade very fast. This is not a winning solution - at least not in my area where the grocery bags are heavily reused.

[Sparko]

There are biodegradable plastic grocery bags out there.

And the plastic grocery bags we currently use are actually more environmentally friendly than the alternatives: cloth reusable bags and paper bags. The Danish even did a study on it.

---
======
Kroger's Feel-Good Ban On Plastic Bags Is Worse Than Pointlesshttps://www.investors.com/politics/e...n-environment/

The Danish Report: https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publicatio...93614-73-4.pdf