Noah was a righteous man and he walked with God. But now, the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and it was filed with violence. God said to Noah that he was planning on ridding the earth of corrupted flesh, and that that should serve as a warning to Noah. However, to spare blameless Noah, God gave him instructions to build an arc which would keep him, his wife, his sons, and their wife's safe. God was planning on unleashing a flood that would destroy all evil from the world. However, in return for God sparing Noah's life, Noah would have to take upon his arc a male and a female of all creatures that walked the Earth and provide enough food for all. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but Noah and the rest of the creatures on the boat remained safe. When the earth was once more dry, God called them out and Noah built an altar to the Lord, presenting an offering from each of the creatures. God was so pleased he vowed never to strike down upon the earth again.
Since I am failing to think of what animal fascinates me, I suppose I shall ponder the answer to the latter question. In many respects, the world did end when God unleashed the flood on earth, except for the small life inside the bottom. From them sprung the entirety of life anew. In that instance though, the world ended in neither fire nor ice. To ask if the world will end in fire or in ice is like asking the impossible. If the world were to end in fire, humanity would burn as flames engulfed the earth. However, if the world were to end in ice, it could be a fire so intense that we fail to register the burning flames and instead feel only the blinding ice and cold. Like a fire that turns the cool blue color of ice, while in actuality is hotter than the red flames typically associated with fire. I find it fitting that I am currently reading a book that touches on a similar subject -- the statement my book is attempting to say is that there is an inherent malevolence in everyone. While there are the "good" vs the "bad", there is benevolence in the good, and malevolence in the good.
Asking if the world will end in fire or in ice is like asking if the world will end in hatred or in desire. Fire and ice, and desire and hatred, are opposites for practical purposes, but perhaps they may be more interconnected than we believe. In many cases, hatred spurns from desire, as does ice from fire, and in that respect, there is no good without evil, and no evil without good. Back to my book, there is a clear villain, yes, but more often than once I found myself rooting for him and against the "Team Good" -- why? For him, his hatred of mankind was rooted in his desire to attain the "ideal" mankind. And to remedy this, he was prepared to burn the world to the core, as if he was playing God.
I realize now after looking back that this incoherent jumble of words lacks a clear train of thought, and for that I apologize. I suppose what I was ultimately attempting to say in answering that question was that, in the end (whenever that may be, and for whatever reason) I believe the world will end in neither for nor ice, but instead in a mixture so powerful of the combination of all of the forces of evil and good that our demise will be instantaneous. There is nothing in this world that has no consequence, or has no attachment to another force or being, and for that, there can be no fire without ice and no ice without fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment