GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: popes encyclical  (Read 1962 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #35 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:34:39 »
The Pope comments

8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage”, we are called to acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation”. He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: “For human beings… to destroy the biological diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins”.  For “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God”

Do we find these catholic bashers launching tirades against the Orthodox and Patriach Bartolomew in particular?
Of course not. They just want to snipe at the Catholic Church. Anything will do as a pretext.

Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
« Last Edit: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:39:05 by mclees8 »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #35 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:34:39 »

Offline 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8784
  • Manna: 270
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #36 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:38:26 »
But I agree that it was foolish of the pope to come out with this.  I would hope that he realizes that following his advice would condemn about a third of the world population to remaining abysmally poor with little hope of improvement.  Their only hope in that regard is cheap energy that is consistently available.  The only two sources that fit that are fossil and nuclear.  Wind and solar simply don't cut it.  And so far biofuels have only exacerbated the CO2 problem while raising the cost of available energy.


I guess I'm not sure of which advice you are speaking.  I have read the document in fits and starts.  He doesn't every bring up wind power and solar power is mentioned, but he tempers it referring to (if I remember correctly) needs to advance the technology to make the transition affordable.  There is mention to nuclear but I'm not sure it's with regard to power, though I agree that nuclear power is the way to go.  Fossil fuels are bad for the environment, but each to it's own degree. 

Here is an excerpt of something of interest:

52.The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case where ecological debt is concerned. In different ways, developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. The land of the southern poor is rich and mostly unpolluted, yet access to ownership of goods and resources for meeting vital needs is inhibited by a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse. The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development. The poorest areas and countries are less capable of adopting new models for reducing environmental impact because they lack the wherewithal to develop the necessary processes and to cover their costs. We must continue to be aware that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”.31 We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.

31 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good (15 June 2001).


The U.S. has perhaps some of the best environmental conditions of any country with any significant population in the whole of the planet .  That comes directly from the availability of cheap, consistent supply of energy.  It takes energy, and relatively lots of it,to clean the air, clean the water and remove the waste. It will take lots of energy to raise the standard of living of the peoples across the planet.  And that will happen only if there is lots of cheap energy available.  The needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable will be met much more quickly with cheap fossil fuel. It would help if more nuclear energy was being made available.  And it wouldn't have to be nuclear energy derived from Uranium either.  It could be from the Thorium cycle, which does not have some of the nasty waste problems of the Uranium cycle.

The simple truth is that if the U.S. completely stopped the production of all CO2, the change in CO2 levels around the planet would not be enough to change the temperature even a fraction of a degree over the next 20 years or so.  Moreover, CO2 is simply not the hugely influential greenhouse gas it is made out to be.  Plain old water vapor, humidity in the air, is an order of magnitude more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.  Water vapor makes up over 95% of all greenhouse gas.  All the rest of the greenhouse gases together account for the other less than 5%.


I have heard about water vapor being the major contributor as well. I have been personally skeptical of climate change.

What do you make of this article?

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

They claim that because water vapor is condensible it is more warmed by the greenhouse effect and less a contributor. They also claim that having more water vapor in the air could create a cooling effect. Anyway read the article, and comment if you would.


That article begins with the following statement: 

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.

First of all water vapor accounts for about 95% of the warming effect, not 60%. 

Second those two statements are contradictory.  Water vapor can't account for about 60% of the warming effect and not control the Earth's temperature.  It is not the only controlling factor, but it is the main one. When it says, "but is instead controlled by the temperature", that is true in a sense.  there is interaction between the temperature and the degree of greenhouse effect.  But it is true generally of all other gases as well.

I think most are aware that the greenhouse gas effect has to do with the ability of a gas to transmit energy [light] at the different wave lengths. The greenhouse gas readily transmits energy at the wave lengths arriving from the sun.  That heats up the earth and causes the earth to radiate energy back out to space.  But the re-radiated energy is at wave lengths that tend to be blocked by the greenhouse gas.  Hence the total incoming radiated energy is greater than the total outgoing radiated energy and the temperature increases.  That is exactly how the glass in a greenhouse works and why the gases that operate this way are called greenhouse gases.

Some of what the article says is true.  There are some not so straightforward interactions going on in all of this.  The temperature of the gas itself influences the wave length effect of radiation transmission.  In the case of water vapor, there is the difference between the effects on radiation of absorbed water vapor in the atmosphere and the condensed water of the clouds.

The last two statements in the article should be noted.  The authors closes with the following:

Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

The fact that this is an active area of climate science research is an admission that the climate science is not a done deal as so many of the global warming advocates like to say.  And it is a good part of why all of those climate change mathematical models don't work very well.  They haven't predicted the climate over the last couple of decades.  As near as I can tell, they can't even postdict it very well.  That is, they can't predict, with their models, what is happening even knowing the answer ahead of time.  And it should be obvious that this is not the only active area of climate science research.

It is certainly not a science well enough established to justify committing billions or even trillions of dollars to the cause. That is especially true when the cause will generate a terrible negative effect on the overall economy of the planet in addition to just the moneys being diverted from other actions with positive results.

Just my thoughts.
« Last Edit: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:42:24 by 4WD »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #36 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 07:38:26 »

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #37 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 12:28:29 »
But I agree that it was foolish of the pope to come out with this.  I would hope that he realizes that following his advice would condemn about a third of the world population to remaining abysmally poor with little hope of improvement.  Their only hope in that regard is cheap energy that is consistently available.  The only two sources that fit that are fossil and nuclear.  Wind and solar simply don't cut it.  And so far biofuels have only exacerbated the CO2 problem while raising the cost of available energy.


I guess I'm not sure of which advice you are speaking.  I have read the document in fits and starts.  He doesn't every bring up wind power and solar power is mentioned, but he tempers it referring to (if I remember correctly) needs to advance the technology to make the transition affordable.  There is mention to nuclear but I'm not sure it's with regard to power, though I agree that nuclear power is the way to go.  Fossil fuels are bad for the environment, but each to it's own degree. 

Here is an excerpt of something of interest:

52.The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case where ecological debt is concerned. In different ways, developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future. The land of the southern poor is rich and mostly unpolluted, yet access to ownership of goods and resources for meeting vital needs is inhibited by a system of commercial relations and ownership which is structurally perverse. The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development. The poorest areas and countries are less capable of adopting new models for reducing environmental impact because they lack the wherewithal to develop the necessary processes and to cover their costs. We must continue to be aware that, regarding climate change, there are differentiated responsibilities. As the United States bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”.31 We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family. There are no frontiers or barriers, political or social, behind which we can hide, still less is there room for the globalization of indifference.

31 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good (15 June 2001).


The U.S. has perhaps some of the best environmental conditions of any country with any significant population in the whole of the planet .  That comes directly from the availability of cheap, consistent supply of energy.  It takes energy, and relatively lots of it,to clean the air, clean the water and remove the waste. It will take lots of energy to raise the standard of living of the peoples across the planet.  And that will happen only if there is lots of cheap energy available.  The needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable will be met much more quickly with cheap fossil fuel. It would help if more nuclear energy was being made available.  And it wouldn't have to be nuclear energy derived from Uranium either.  It could be from the Thorium cycle, which does not have some of the nasty waste problems of the Uranium cycle.

The simple truth is that if the U.S. completely stopped the production of all CO2, the change in CO2 levels around the planet would not be enough to change the temperature even a fraction of a degree over the next 20 years or so.  Moreover, CO2 is simply not the hugely influential greenhouse gas it is made out to be.  Plain old water vapor, humidity in the air, is an order of magnitude more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.  Water vapor makes up over 95% of all greenhouse gas.  All the rest of the greenhouse gases together account for the other less than 5%.


I have heard about water vapor being the major contributor as well. I have been personally skeptical of climate change.

What do you make of this article?

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

They claim that because water vapor is condensible it is more warmed by the greenhouse effect and less a contributor. They also claim that having more water vapor in the air could create a cooling effect. Anyway read the article, and comment if you would.


That article begins with the following statement: 

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature.

First of all water vapor accounts for about 95% of the warming effect, not 60%. 

Second those two statements are contradictory.  Water vapor can't account for about 60% of the warming effect and not control the Earth's temperature.  It is not the only controlling factor, but it is the main one. When it says, "but is instead controlled by the temperature", that is true in a sense.  there is interaction between the temperature and the degree of greenhouse effect.  But it is true generally of all other gases as well.

I think most are aware that the greenhouse gas effect has to do with the ability of a gas to transmit energy [light] at the different wave lengths. The greenhouse gas readily transmits energy at the wave lengths arriving from the sun.  That heats up the earth and causes the earth to radiate energy back out to space.  But the re-radiated energy is at wave lengths that tend to be blocked by the greenhouse gas.  Hence the total incoming radiated energy is greater than the total outgoing radiated energy and the temperature increases.  That is exactly how the glass in a greenhouse works and why the gases that operate this way are called greenhouse gases.

Some of what the article says is true.  There are some not so straightforward interactions going on in all of this.  The temperature of the gas itself influences the wave length effect of radiation transmission.  In the case of water vapor, there is the difference between the effects on radiation of absorbed water vapor in the atmosphere and the condensed water of the clouds.

The last two statements in the article should be noted.  The authors closes with the following:

Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

The fact that this is an active area of climate science research is an admission that the climate science is not a done deal as so many of the global warming advocates like to say.  And it is a good part of why all of those climate change mathematical models don't work very well.  They haven't predicted the climate over the last couple of decades.  As near as I can tell, they can't even postdict it very well.  That is, they can't predict, with their models, what is happening even knowing the answer ahead of time.  And it should be obvious that this is not the only active area of climate science research.

It is certainly not a science well enough established to justify committing billions or even trillions of dollars to the cause. That is especially true when the cause will generate a terrible negative effect on the overall economy of the planet in addition to just the moneys being diverted from other actions with positive results.

Just my thoughts.


All that was very interesting. Most knowledgeable.  I wonder what the temp is in heaven? Peter said our life here is but a vapor. It cannot compare with eternity.   Sure is hot here where I am. It will be the mid 90's today. Should I complain now that man is the blame for our sun burns.  Where is the focus of my faith that this world is not our home but heaven for all who believe. Will our eternal home have climate problems?       ::pondering::

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #38 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 12:37:07 »
Quote
' As the United States bishops have said, greater attention must be given to “the needs of the poor, the weak and the vulnerable, in a debate often dominated by more powerful interests”. '
good, they can start by selling their mansions around the country and giving the money to the poor.  That would also cut their costs for heating, cooling and housekeepers.  Maybe they should learn to clean and cook for themselves too.
Indeed. The Vatican bank could cut a check and feed all the poor in a major city in the U.S. so as to put action behind this rhetoric.
Sell the private Vatican jet and fly commercial. Sell the Vatican helicopter too. All the limousines. Have the Bishops live in the Rectory with the other priests in every American parish. Cardinals too. After all they remember what those residences were like so they'd be right at home there.
Remove all the gold icons from all the American RC churches that have them and give that money from the sale of that precious metal to the poor in that parish. Start homeless shelters sponsored by the church. Food kitchens.

Jesus Christ did not have a place to lay his head. And he and his disciples walked wherever they went.

Christ-like. Right?

Yep, just like the pastors who walk around in $1000.00 suits, live in palatial mansions, and fly in 64 million dollar private jets.  All completely necessary to spread the good news of Jesus Christ I am sure.


Theres one thing we agree on        ::preachit::

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #38 on: Sat Jun 20, 2015 - 12:37:07 »

Offline Swiss_Guard

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Manna: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Global Immoderator
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #39 on: Mon Jun 22, 2015 - 19:14:10 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #39 on: Mon Jun 22, 2015 - 19:14:10 »



Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #40 on: Tue Jun 23, 2015 - 09:45:06 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.

Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent. You will have to explain what you mean by the moral codes. Babylon doe not live by Gods codes but by  their own understanding

The church that lives in Babylon should know better and have bee called to come out. Therefore if they do not heed the Lords call they will also be of the same judgment with Babylon. What is Babylon but the unbelieving world. So they will be judged for Not believing Christ.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6262
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #41 on: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 12:41:04 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.

Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent.

So Mike, what do you think, do you and Catholics share a platform together?  If not, which of us is lost?

Your post seems to indicate that you are saying that Catholics are lost, and in that sense you are "brinking" which is against the forum rules.  Really I am this close to reporting your post to the moderator. ::Hooked::

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #42 on: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 13:17:52 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.
Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent.
So Mike, what do you think, do you and Catholics share a platform together?  If not, which of us is lost?

Your post seems to indicate that you are saying that Catholics are lost, and in that sense you are "brinking" which is against the forum rules.  Really I am this close to reporting your post to the moderator. ::Hooked::
huh... I remember you did that to me.

'seems to indicate'?  you 'seem' to not believe (or know) a lot of what IS in the Bible.
interesting comment about Peter... maybe you'll come to understand it.

Offline Catholica

  • Modal Globerator
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6262
  • Manna: 174
  • Gender: Male
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #43 on: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 13:42:41 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.
Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent.
So Mike, what do you think, do you and Catholics share a platform together?  If not, which of us is lost?

Your post seems to indicate that you are saying that Catholics are lost, and in that sense you are "brinking" which is against the forum rules.  Really I am this close to reporting your post to the moderator. ::Hooked::
huh... I remember you did that to me.

'seems to indicate'?  you 'seem' to not believe (or know) a lot of what IS in the Bible.
interesting comment about Peter... maybe you'll come to understand it.

You seem to not even know how to read a forum post, considering you attributed something Mike wrote to me.  You shouldn't therefore trust yourself to read the Bible correctly if you have trouble with simple forums like this one.

Offline mclees8

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5210
  • Manna: 135
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #44 on: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 14:47:29 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves

Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.

Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent.

So Mike, what do you think, do you and Catholics share a platform together?  If not, which of us is lost?

Your post seems to indicate that you are saying that Catholics are lost, and in that sense you are "brinking" which is against the forum rules.  Really I am this close to reporting your post to the moderator. ::Hooked::

Hooked  ???  Since when did I ever say Catholic's are lost.  There are no catholic or protestant in Gods kingdom  Many in this thing we call Christianity are caught up in belief systems of one kind or another but God is the only judge of them.  In this world there are those who believe in Christ and there are those who do not.  Those who know Jesus we pray that is unto salvation for Jesus said not all who say Lord Lord will enter the kingdom. One of the greatest false belief systems is that God sees with  Protestant catholic eyes.   So If you think I should be reported I pray it is valid and not persecuted without a cause
« Last Edit: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 14:53:25 by mclees8 »

Offline skeeter

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: popes encyclical
« Reply #45 on: Thu Jun 25, 2015 - 21:05:24 »
Quote
Catholica   Winsome

Are your eyes so blind you can not see. Are your ears so stopped up you cannot hear. Can you not now even hears yourselves
Ah, good old mclees. Still posting in the floaty, quasi-religious rhetoric of a Tibetan guru.

Quote
You post this statement of some patriarch saying each one of us needs to repent of ways we have harmed the planet.  Does each  one of us mean all men of the world? True men are to be blamed but not all men no Christ. If all men then were of Christ then all men need to repent. But if not all men were of Christ does the lost world that denies Christ of what do they need to repent except they need Christ. The unbelieving world is coming to judgement.  Man has sinned indeed but the only sin they need to repent of is not believing in Christ.

 ::doh:: 
While I thoroughly disapprove of P. Francis' sticking his nose into "green politics" on principle, the truth is that actual abuse of the planet is subversive to God's plan, considering that He gave man dominion over the earth. Treating any gift given by God like crap is at disrespectful to the One who gave it, whether you believe in Christ or not. Believing in Christ is not a carte blanche to break the things He gives you. And I likewise disagree with the statement that the only sin man needs to repent of is disbelief in Christ. Simon Peter believed in Christ, but our Lord found occasion to correct him more than once. And certainly, Peter's panicked denial of Christ when challenged is something in the nature of betrayal from an otherwise decent and believing man. If the only sin worthy of repentance was disbelief in Christ, why did our Lord bequeath us all of the moral codes contained within the New Testament, specifically for Christians? Seems like a waste of paper if the only sin worth repenting of was simple disbelief in Him.
Dis regarding your sarcasm before Jesus rose again Peter was not of full understanding. I see you also lack full understanding. The lost are the lost and the saved are the saved. they do no share the same platform together. The lost will not be judged for bad works or evil but their unbelief.  They all have space to repent.
So Mike, what do you think, do you and Catholics share a platform together?  If not, which of us is lost?

Your post seems to indicate that you are saying that Catholics are lost, and in that sense you are "brinking" which is against the forum rules.  Really I am this close to reporting your post to the moderator
.
huh... I remember you did that to me.

'seems to indicate'?  you 'seem' to not believe (or know) a lot of what IS in the Bible.
interesting comment about Peter... maybe you'll come to understand it.
You seem to not even know how to read a forum post, considering you attributed something Mike wrote to me.  You shouldn't therefore trust yourself to read the Bible correctly if you have trouble with simple forums like this one.
are you attempting to say that what I highlighted above (from post 41) isn't what you posted?

I'm not  attributing what he said to you.  I'm addressing your reaction to your assumption about what he posted.