Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lead by example Pope!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    You understand two atheists just defended your pope? It would be nice to not be insulted for a change.
    "My" pope? I'm not Catholic, I just respecet thoughtful thesists and agnostics/atheists. When did I insult you?

    Comment


    • #77
      It's the artificial segregation of humans from the rest of the animal kingdom that dooms the views of the Pope on environmental issues to irrelevance. The connection between overpopulation and environmental degradation would never go unnoted it it was caused by another species. The church's views on sex and reproduction are straight out of the Dark Ages. It unfortunately represents a flaw shared by many environmentalist who fail to see the connection between a belief in unlimited human behavioral flexibility and our failed attempts to address major issues.

      Amongst atheist the belief in the uniqueness of humans is as strong as it is in the religious. While it may seem that the debate over degree or kind is a arcane philosophical mater it is central to the flaws in traditional liberal, Marxist and religious dogma. Until we accept that a skyscraper and a termite mound different only in degree not kind a rational understand of our relationship to the environment is impossible.

      The idea that humans are the only organism capable of destroying the environment is an example of how dangerous the idea of the uniqueness of humans is. Microbes are by far the most significant biological force on earth and will likely remain so despite human advances in technology. Not only are microbes responsible for the oxygen that allowed complex animal life to evolve but were likely key players in the extinction of 90 percent of life on the planet 250 million years ago.

      You only need to look around you at geology to see the dramatic effect that simple organisms have had on the planets appearance. The organic limestone and shale layers, red rocks and soil where iron was precipitated by the presence of oxygen all are evidence of the planet changing effects of simple life forms. It is even likely that the "domestication" and genetic alteration of microbial life forms will be a significant factor in industry in the future.

      Ruling out humans as the most significant planet altering force leaves us with another misconception concerning the role of technology in environmental degradation. I would like to discuss the co-evolution of culture and physical adaptation but suffice it to say that tool use allowed the evolution of large brains not the other way around. Environmentalists, Marxists, traditional liberals and many religious people have all adopted a rather limited view on technology. Humans are not threatened by technology but exist because of technology. The exclusion of stone tools from discussions on the impact of technology reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be human.

      Not only do many people who hold to the idea of unlimited behavioral flexibility exclude stone tools from the list of significant technologies but the seem to largely ignore agriculture as well. There can be little doubt that agriculture is a technology and that it along with the domestication of livestock has alter the environment more than any other technology including the likely effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Farming of course is not limited to humans as it is well documented in insects and other animals who "intentionally" alter the environment as well, from beavers to nest builders. Technology and environmental alteration is evidently not uniquely to human but varies by it's intentionality (intentionality is often exaggerated) and degree.

      The significance of the technology of agriculture is not limited to it's obvious alteration of the environment but extends to the very nature of our current debate over environmental deterioration. Agriculture is the technology that not only allowed other technology to explode but it empowered the population explosion that threatens the environment in the same way any other imbalances in an ecosystem would.

      The carrying capacity of the worlds ecosystems for hunter gather societies is only a fraction of what agriculture allows for. Despite the romantic view of people living in harmony with the land archaeological evidence points to repeated periods of population growth and starvation in hunter gather societies. These cycles maintained the rather glib concept of a "balance of nature" that environmentalist are so keen on.

      New evidence suggest that unlike the view of a pristine wilderness the impact of hunter gathers on the environment was significant. There is little doubt that early americans played a role in the extinction of megafauna in North America. More significantly hunter gather practices such as selected burning undoubtedly promoted the extinction of some species in favor of others. All of the above is simply to dispel the idea of man living in harmony with nature when it is obvious man is an integral part of nature.

      As man was created by technology his future is dependant on technology. The denunciation of technology as a threat to the environment underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of life. The redistribution of wealth to the extent that it undermines the development of environmental friendly resources and encourage population growth is hostile to rationality. History dramatically shows that the best thing we can do for the poor is improve technology including the technologies that allow humans to control their reproductive rate. The inhumanity of traditional religious views on sexuality is self evident.

      Nothing I have written should be taken to mean we are not obligated to care for the poor and the sick but the devil is in the details.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #78
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #79
          It is so fascinating that our politicians are complaining that the Pope is espousing some views from the Bible, like taking care of the poor and dispossessed and now stewardship of the Earth and saying that he should only be interested in religious things! How much more religious can you get than being a responsible citizen of the Earth, which idea comes from the very trust that God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and that a Christian leader of over 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics in the whole world is actually a follower of Jesus’ words.

          They just don’t like the Pope taking up a view of Christianity which deals with mercy for the poor and dispossessed and stewardship of the Earth rather than sin and punishment. The American Politician’s criticism of the Pope won’t weigh too much with him, I think.

          The Pope is emphasizing his religious views and perhaps the American Politicians who criticize him should get out of the business of religion and deal only with politics and government.

          With Catholics making up ¼ of the American population the Pope’s views could affect the 2016 election in favor of the leftward side of the political spectrum, thus all of the squealing and squalling from the right wing politicians.

          Is it the job of the Pope to be led by the American politicians or to lead and guide them?
          Homo homini lupus

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Michele View Post
            First, it's not counterintuitive at all. The Pope's word is much more important in issues concerning the faith than in pastoral issues.
            That said, of course the Pope can "tell" - as in, invite, encourage, recommend - the Bishops to do this or that. The Bishop conserve remarkable latitude in responding.
            Alternatively, the Pope could write a bull or a motu proprio or something more binding. At which point you'd have Bishops bristling - US Bishops first, of course - and the same contributors here that find fault in his policies making such observations as "What, does he think this is the Middle Ages?! The Bishop of New Mexico knows much better than him what are the pastoral needs of his Diocese!" And so on.
            For the sake of argument, let's say the pope issues a bull stating that, since charity is a Christian obligation, Roman Catholic dioceses will have to lead by example. To that end the pope orders a separate collection for Catholic Charities, reduced funding from the Vatican to various dioceses in favor of greater funding for Catholic Charities, a bigger cut for the Vatican out of the dioceses' weekly haul, etc. Yeah, perhaps the bishops won't like it, but what are they gonna do -- impeach the pope? Secede from the Roman Catholic Church? There ain't a damned thing they can do about it. Laymen can do something, like voting with their feet or ignoring the pope, but clerics who've sworn to recognize the Bishop of Rome as their Supreme Pontiff infallible in matters of faith can't do a damned thing. So in reality there is absolutely nothing preventing the pope from mandating that his church practice what he's preaching.

            Nothing but a pair, that is.

            Originally posted by Michele View Post
            That said, there are Bishops who just need the encouragement and don't need an explicit order at all:
            http://www.vitatrentina.it/rivista/2...elli-immigrati

            A nice tall building in good condition given by a Diocese to a local administration for hosting refugees. Free of charge - the Diocese doesn't gain a penny.
            Since the diocese is not paying taxes on that property anyway, I fail to see how that has cost them anything.

            Originally posted by Jannie View Post
            It is so fascinating that our politicians are complaining that the Pope is espousing some views from the Bible, like taking care of the poor and dispossessed and now stewardship of the Earth and saying that he should only be interested in religious things! How much more religious can you get than being a responsible citizen of the Earth, which idea comes from the very trust that God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and that a Christian leader of over 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics in the whole world is actually a follower of Jesus’ words.
            Sewage systems and water systems have preserved and saved more lives than all other innovations that spring to mind -- combined. Sewage and water systems consume energy. What would the pope have us do, cut power to our sewage and water systems in order to reduce our "carbon footprint"?

            Another major league advance in the quality of human life: chemical fertilizers. Billions today have food because of chemical fertilizers. Many chemical fertilizers come from petroleum. Should we cease producing chemical fertilizers as a means of reducing our "carbon footprint"? Perhaps we should return to relying on animals for fertilizers: with all the methane they produce we'll have Alaska enjoying a tropical clime in no time.

            How does that Roman Catholic Church's adherence to the biblical exhortation "be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) jive with the pope's newly found environmentalism? Aren't all the newly born going to need water, food, and sewage services? What will the pope tell them? "Sorry suckers but you're born too late. You should have been born before environmentalism and social justice were grafted together." If the pope really cares about the poor maybe he'll send an unambiguous message about the Vatican's tolerance for child-molesters. Since actions speak louder than words he can start by excommunicating a couple of bishops.
            Last edited by slick_miester; 19 Jun 15, 11:36.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
              For the sake of argument, let's say the pope issues a bull stating that, since charity is a Christian obligation, Roman Catholic dioceses will have to lead by example. To that end the pope orders a separate collection for Catholic Charities, reduced funding from the Vatican to various dioceses in favor of greater funding for Catholic Charities, a bigger cut for the Vatican out of the dioceses' weekly haul, etc. Yeah, perhaps the bishops won't like it, but what are they gonna do -- impeach the pope? Secede from the Roman Catholic Church? There ain't a damned thing they can do about it. Laymen can do something, like voting with their feet or ignoring the pope, but clerics who've sworn to recognize the Bishop of Rome as their Supreme Pontiff infallible in matters of faith can't do a damned thing. So in reality there is absolutely nothing preventing the pope from mandating that his church practice what he's preaching.
              Infallibility has nothing to do with such an issue. Check that out yourself, I'm not going to write a treatise about it here.
              Bishops can and will object to the above. A bull is a possibility but the three last popes have issued, among them, just two bulls (that's for 1978-2015), each of them only dealing with the indiction of a holy year. A papal document having the impact of a bull, on this issue, would probably find the nearest precedent in 1869 (Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi).
              Add to the above, which would be entirely valid whoever the Pope is, that you seem unaware that this specific Pope is much closer to the risk of a schism than Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or Paul VI. The opposition within the curia and in the dioceses is very silent but very intense. The opposition even has much an easier job than any opposition before (save if you go back to the times of the anti-popes), because, you see, some of them claim, under their breath, that Francis is not the Pope; Benedict still is. Taking this latter issue in account, Francis is already as bold as he can be, IMHO.
              Just one article of the many you must have missed:
              http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-conservative


              Since the diocese is not paying taxes on that property anyway, I fail to see how that has cost them anything.
              Really? Think about it. You have valuable property. There is a market for sales and rents. You loan it in a free-of-charge commodate. Think.

              ---

              As to the rest, sorry. It's out of topic. The topic here is the position of the Pope concerning the refugees and immigrants in general. If you feel like it, talk about life and the world and the meaning of all things with the nearest parish priest.
              Last edited by Michele; 19 Jun 15, 12:24.
              Michele

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                It is so fascinating that our politicians are complaining that the Pope is espousing some views from the Bible, like taking care of the poor and dispossessed and now stewardship of the Earth and saying that he should only be interested in religious things! How much more religious can you get than being a responsible citizen of the Earth, which idea comes from the very trust that God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and that a Christian leader of over 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics in the whole world is actually a follower of Jesus’ words.

                They just don’t like the Pope taking up a view of Christianity which deals with mercy for the poor and dispossessed and stewardship of the Earth rather than sin and punishment. The American Politician’s criticism of the Pope won’t weigh too much with him, I think.

                The Pope is emphasizing his religious views and perhaps the American Politicians who criticize him should get out of the business of religion and deal only with politics and government.

                With Catholics making up ¼ of the American population the Pope’s views could affect the 2016 election in favor of the leftward side of the political spectrum, thus all of the squealing and squalling from the right wing politicians.
                Since the libturds are marching lock-step to the mentally [email protected] bits of this encyclical, why are they ignoring this bit?
                120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.[97]

                http://w2.vatican.va/content/frances...audato-si.html


                Originally posted by Jannie
                Is it the job of the Pope to be led by the American politicians or to lead and guide them?
                Neither.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Michele View Post
                  Infallibility has nothing to do with such an issue. Check that out yourself, I'm not going to write a treatise about it here.
                  Bishops can and will object to the above. A bull is a possibility but the three last popes have issued, among them, just two bulls (that's for 1978-2015), each of them only dealing with the indiction of a holy year. A papal document having the impact of a bull, on this issue, would probably find the nearest precedent in 1869 (Apostolicae Sedis Moderationi).
                  Add to the above, which would be entirely valid whoever the Pope is, that you seem unaware that this specific Pope is much closer to the risk of a schism than Benedict XVI, John Paul II, or Paul VI. The opposition within the curia and in the dioceses is very silent but very intense. The opposition even has much an easier job than any opposition before (save if you go back to the times of the anti-popes), because, you see, some of them claim, under their breath, that Francis is not the Pope; Benedict still is. Taking this latter issue in account, Francis is already as bold as he can be, IMHO.
                  Just one article of the many you must have missed:
                  http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...l-conservative
                  So you're saying that Pope Francis, despite the fact that he is at the very least the titular head of the Roman Catholic Church, lacks the political capital to effect the kind of change he is urging upon the world within his own organization. So what it all boils down to is that this pope is no more relevant than your average street corner preacher. The only difference is that he wears a ridiculous white outfit. In short, there's absolutely no reason for me to care one whit about what he has to say.

                  Originally posted by Michele View Post
                  Really? Think about it. You have valuable property. There is a market for sales and rents. You loan it in a free-of-charge commodate. Think.
                  I was under the impression that that building was fallow, unused. Was I incorrect? If not, then it cost the diocese absolutely nothing to "lend" it to the local authorities. After all, it wasn't like they were paying taxes on it.

                  And that's another thing: how is it that an institution that pays no taxes has stones big enough to tell those that do pay taxes what to do with their money? Are you honestly not detecting a whiff of hypocrisy in such a circumstance?

                  Originally posted by Michele View Post
                  As to the rest, sorry. It's out of topic. The topic here is the position of the Pope concerning the refugees and immigrants in general. If you feel like it, talk about life and the world and the meaning of all things with the nearest parish priest.
                  No, the topic is the pope talking out of both sides of his mouth -- which is a stunt at which he has proven himself exceptionally talented.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Since the libturds are marching lock-step to the mentally [email protected] bits of this encyclical, why are they ignoring this bit?
                    120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.[97]

                    http://w2.vatican.va/content/frances...audato-si.html
                    \
                    Actually I agree with you on that bit. Why do American politicians want to interfere in religious matters such as abortion and contraception? When they want the Pope to stick with religion?

                    If we'd all stick to separation of church and state we'd all be better off.
                    Homo homini lupus

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The EU is saying the same as Pope Francis, they also have the power to persuade members to comply.
                      EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini says Europe has a moral duty to tackle the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        There are moral duties and there are moral duties. They should be figuring out how to get these illegals back to where they came from.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          There are moral duties and there are moral duties. They should be figuring out how to get these illegals back to where they came from.

                          Pruitt

                          I am in total agreement.

                          Malta is doing what it can but it is only a tiny island.



                          During 2014, 569 irregular immigrants were brought to Maltese shores, a decrease of 71.7 per cent over the preceding year, the NSO said.

                          Of the 569 persons brought ashore during 2014, 67.5 per cent were of African origin while a further 32.3 per cent were of Asian origin. Almost a third of all African visitors were Somali nationals (30.7 per cent) while 20.8 per cent were Sudanese nationals. The majority of Asian nationals arriving by boat during 2014 were Syrian, with 72.8 per cent.

                          In 2014, the Office of the Refugee Commissioner filed 1,352 applications for international protection, a decline of 39.8 per cent over the previous year.

                          More than half of these applicants were males aged between 18 and 34. The majority, 69.7 per cent, were Africans, of whom 44.6 per cent were Libyans and 13.6 per cent Somalis. Another 26.9 per cent originated from Asia, predominantly from Syria (84.3 per cent).

                          The Office of the Refugee Commissioner processed 1,735 applications in 2014; 72.6 per cent were granted a positive decision, while the remaining applications were rejected. Two-thirds of the applicants who were granted asylum were of African origin.

                          A decrease of 49.0 per cent was registered in the resident population of open centres and other institutional households. The majority of the persons residing in open centres and other institutional households were residing in Ħal Far (60.2 per cent) while more than a quarter were residing in Marsa (26.6 per cent). The majority of the residents were males and 22.1 per cent were Somalis.
                          http://www.independent.com.mt/articl...ent-6736137561

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Nikki View Post
                            The EU is saying the same as Pope Francis, they also have the power to persuade members to comply.
                            EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini says Europe has a moral duty to tackle the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.
                            Of course she says that. Right now they're piling up in Italy.
                            ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                            BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                            BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                              So you're saying that Pope Francis, despite the fact that he is at the very least the titular head of the Roman Catholic Church, lacks the political capital to effect the kind of change he is urging upon the world within his own organization. So what it all boils down to is that this pope is no more relevant than your average street corner preacher. The only difference is that he wears a ridiculous white outfit. In short, there's absolutely no reason for me to care one whit about what he has to say.
                              First, nobody says you have to care about what he says. Do as you wish.

                              That said, no, he counts for more than the average street preacher, but he isn't an absolute tyrant either. I'm sure you can conceive of some half-way position between the two - especially if you read any of the references I mentioned.


                              I was under the impression that that building was fallow, unused. Was I incorrect? If not, then it cost the diocese absolutely nothing to "lend" it to the local authorities. After all, it wasn't like they were paying taxes on it.
                              So you know the details of the Italian tax laws now? (Hint: you don't).
                              And even assuming that the building was empty and unused - think. Suppose you have a car you dont' use. You can
                              a) sell it,
                              b) give it away for free.
                              Can you detect the difference? Think. I'm sure you can.

                              And that's another thing: how is it that an institution that pays no taxes has stones big enough to tell those that do pay taxes what to do with their money? Are you honestly not detecting a whiff of hypocrisy in such a circumstance?
                              I am detecting the fact that you do not not know the Italian laws concerning taxation, and yet you insist on ranting on about it.

                              No, the topic is the pope talking out of both sides of his mouth -- which is a stunt at which he has proven himself exceptionally talented.
                              Well, that may well be the topic from your POV. It's not, from mine, so don't expect me to follow you down that path. Meanwhile, I do recommend that you gather more information about topics you want to talk about.
                              Michele

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                As luck would have it, I was about to jump into the pope’s new environmental encyclical when I stumbled on an old story out of Israel. It seems that *archaeological researchers found plaque on the teeth of people who lived 400,000 years ago.
                                One researcher told the Times of Israel that the plaque contained soot, indicating that early humans suffered smoke inhalation when they cooked meat inside caves. “As in other cases, progress was associated with environmental damage,” the researcher said.
                                Too bad Pope Francis didn’t see the story before releasing his severe critique of modern life. The history lesson might have tempered his *approach.
                                http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...al-corner.html
                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X