Heh.
The document released Thursday was a stinging indictment of big business and climate doubters, and aimed to inspire courageous decisions at U.N. climate negotiations this year as well as in domestic politics and everyday life. Citing Scripture and his predecessors, the pope urged people of every faith and even no faith to undergo an awakening to save God’s creation.
“It is not enough to balance, in the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment with progress,” the pope wrote. “Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter of redefining our notion of progress.”
Environmental scientists said the first-ever encyclical, or teaching document, on the environment could have a dramatic effect on the climate debate, lending the moral authority of the immensely popular Francis to an issue that has long been cast in purely political, economic or scientific terms.
Few thoughts…
The Pope is certainly an important global person as the leader of the Catholic faith, but for those of us who aren’t Catholic, he’s just another fellow Christian. He does not even speak for all of Christendom – much less all of humanity.
The Pope also has about as much credibility or authority to speak on the economic and scientific issues surrounding climate change as I do. Sure, his opinion is interesting, but that doesn’t make it right.
It is also clear that the Pope is a rather strident Marxist. His comments could have been printed in Pravda in 1978 and not been out of place.
It is extremely entertaining to watch the radical environmentalist Left, which has spent a lifetime undermining any proposed moral authority the Pope has on things like abortion, birth control, men-only management, homosexuality, etc., now fawning over him and claiming that he has given moral authority to their cause.
The Pope embracing a non-biblical faith…very, very disappointing.
I don’t recognize the pope’s authority on any matter I’m interested in. That doesn’t stop me, however, from being glad he released this document. Perhaps it’ll convince people who do recognize his authority to do the right thing.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still a-ok with me.
when it comes to this subject , I don’t look to the pope or IT guys or fast food entrepreneurs for deep insight although Francis does have a chemistry degree .
Pretty sure he would more than hold his own in a “Bible Off ” with you kev
And , despite what Owen says , this Pope is the most popular religious person on the planet ( the Lebron of Holiness)
For me , it’s 97-3 when it comes to actual scientists believing that man is a problem, not a solution to the environment
I’m fine with that
By that I mean actual scientists ( not folks who get on Google and misstate studies and call it science )
Those are the 3 that form the entire universe of scientists against science .
Doubt Francis clout at your own risk , you experts on everything .Filks are listening to him .
You call him Marxist.
I call him not sitting on his comfortable ass as the poor of this world suffer .
Mark,
Would you attend a “bible off” between me and the pope?
I can give away the entire debate . I believe bible is inerrant, truth unchanging. Pope does not, he believes the pope’s can change, add, or delete the bible.
I wonder, if Christ was walking this earth today, if he’d be in a disagreement with what the Pope’s been saying.
But then again, how much he’d be agreeing with what Kevin says.
It is extremely entertaining to watch the radical right, which has spent a lifetime promoting the proposed moral authority the Pope has on things like abortion, birth control, men-only management, homosexuality, etc., now turning on him and claiming that his moral authority is nothing special.
If humans destroy the planet, there is no proof someone or something will come to save our asses. There is millions of years of proof, however, that climate change is real, the causes are real, and the outcomes are real. Denial of this is certain death. The poor and defenseless will be first.
Well, I am glad you support the Pope and his absolute statement that abortion should not happen at all.
That was in the document, you know.
The Pope comments are Marxist (Owen )
The Pope is against any abortion (Dan )
So being Pro Life is Marxist ?
Kev, you need to make up a bunch of central committee meetings in K’town or the closest
Gulag
Kevin,
What version of the bible do you use? The new, improved and changed version?
Given the history of Marxist darlings like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, it is rare finding a Marxist against extermination of a certain segment of an innocent population.
So the Pope is a rare Marxist by being against child extermination by speaking against abortion policy. He’s not popular at the liberal political correctness except when he supports the warming cult.
Kevin,
What version of the bible do you use? Are you saying there are no liberal Catholics? I’m sure you are hesitant to answer either one of these questions because you don’t want to get caught up in your own hypocrisies again and again and again.
Jade,
I read several translations. NIV is probably the best because it is closest to the ancient source language. There is a few issues in NIV where we discuss going back to the ancient language to capture the concept where english may fail to get the really fine nuance. One of those areas is the different types of love expressed in the original Greek and Hebrew. NLT is on other end of scale and uses more target language, which can lose the true meaning in translation in some passages, but can be useful for new Christians in understanding.
Did I say there was no liberal Catholics?
Depends on what you mean by “liberal Catholic” as well? If you mean a Catholic that does not read their bible and replaces what they think with the bible…that’s one thing.
If you mean one that understands the bible but rejects God’s Design on Marriage, embraces abortion, and understands “cheerful giving” to be oppressive taxation and wasteful government welfare programs…that is another thing altogether.
One is willful neglect.
The other is open rejection.
Kevin,
No you didn’t say that that’s why I was asking. You did say “He’s not popular at the liberal political correctness except when he supports the warming cult.” I was trying to clarify what you meant. I didn’t want to read between the lines. Also, I was trying to clarify what bible version because of the statement you made above “Pope does not, he believes the popes can change, add or delete he bible.” Is it fare to say that you believe, based on the bible, Jesus appeared to various disciples after his resurrection, Jesus’ plea that his executioners be forgiven “for they know not what they are doing” and do you believe John’s Gospel “let any one of you who is without sin be he first to throw a stone at her”?
I believe in the gospels.
Your question pre-supposition misstates the gospel. That line is spoken by Jesus after the leaders of the church were still going to stone a woman for adultery AFTER she repented of her sin under the Old Testament ceremonial law. ( showing that grace replaces the law when the Holy Spirit dwells within. If she stood there and said, I ‘m going to keep up my adultery , then the Law would apply.)
Jesus was demonstrating the church should show grace and mercy as Christ forgave when someone has amended their ways and is sorry for their sin.
In this case, if someone is living contrary to the gospel, and is not sorry, then correction is in order. Christians should say something if their fellow Christian embraces open sin. The instruct in Matthew 18 should be followed.
In this case, in event if a “bible off” between me and Pope, there are several things the Roman Catholic Church embraces that is contrary to gospel. I’ll say salvation is not of yourself, Jesus is only way. Pope will say, it’s that plus required good works, making salvation of yourself in conflict with gospel.
Pope will quote church’s authority through ages to change bible. I will quote Corinthians where those that preach another gospel are in big trouble with Jesus.
So it’s not about casting stones, but correcting ongoing sin. The casting stones quote is what to do after someone amends for their sin, Matthew 18 is the path for ongoing, open, sin of your fellow Christian.
Kevin,
My “pre-supposition” wasn’t meant to be exact or an contextual interpretation but I appreciate you trying to enlighten me on what you assume I don’t know. The three gospel quotes listed above didn’t appear in the bible until 300 to 500 years, respectively, after the earliest know versions. They were added.
Jade,
Source?
Kevin,
You are the biblical expert you don’t already know this. There are multiple sources. Do your research.
Jade,
I’m suppose to research every crazy claim you make? That would take a full time staff.
I will quote biblical manuscript expert Abu Atallah:
“Now I was even more curious and inquisitive. Is there any old Bible manuscript? What is the oldest manuscript of the Bible? I was struck when I found that there are 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament [Injil], plus over 10,000 Latin and at least 9,300 other early versions.
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). The bottom line is the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability. There are enough quotations from the early church
fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. You know they can put the whole Bible together from all these quotations. It is also the testimonies and witness of more than one person about the Bible. So you can see it is impossible to change or corrupt the Bible. Even if we say that some manuscripts have been changed, what about the thousands of other manuscripts? The manuscripts were not all in one language or in one place, so if they had changed some of the Arabic [75 manuscripts], there were the Latin [10,000 manuscripts], the Ethiopic [2,000 manuscripts], the Syriac Pashetta [350 manuscripts], the Bohairic [100 manuscripts], and the Persian [2 manuscripts]. So you can see that this is quite unfeasible to do. I really encourage you to read the Bible for yourself. I know many people who read it and they believed that it is indeed the word of God. Read it and if you have any further question I will be more than glad to answer it.”
If you have some source the bible has been changed, you are going to have to quote it. There is overwhelming evidence there is many, many texts to correct errors in scribing and translation over the years….the Dead Sea Scrolls being one of the most recent.
The position of demonizing the accuracy of the bible, especially the gospels, is not something a Christian would generally do.
Kevin,
I have researched all of your really crazy claims proving most wrong. I’m not sure how you can stand living a life of such denial. I appreciate your continued ridiculing it’s very Christian of you.”The position of demonizing” wasn’t done by me but thanks again I appreciate another effort to manipulate my words in an effort to make me look like a jerk. This is your tactic when you know I’m about to blow another one of your B.S. statements out of the water. If you listen close you can hear the whistling of the incoming B.S. seeking missiles. You may want to make some effort to minimize the damage because the proof exists in written form straight from.The gospels I listed were added, as I said, 300 to 500 years after, respectively, the earliest known versions of the bible. It’s funny how you ridiculed the pope but you actually worship gospel that is truth changed (added). The hypocrisy continues.
Point out your source, then. I gave you an excellent source indicating your claim is incorrect.
Name 1 claim I made that you proved me wrong on.
Kevin,
You gave one quote from one man that has nothing to do with the three gospels I mentioned. How do you think it proves the verses existed. I’m being specific and have limited my argue to these three quotes. How can you translate something that doesn’t exist until 300 to 500 years later.
Many of the manuscripts to compare against date back to 1st century.
Nearly all the Greek and Hebrew texts, and many of the Latin texts date before the time you reference and do have the gospel text we are talking about in them. It is impossible to alter all the copies in manner you indicate. So what I reference is important because it debunks your claim completely….such as it was.
Again, source?
Kevin,
There is never going to be an answer good enough for you. However, the verses mentioned above are pointed out in the footnotes of the NASB and the ESV versions of the bible. The NIV actually Italicizes the verses in question. Not that I’m questioning them, merely pointing out they didn’t appear in early versions no matter Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Latin or whatever language. They were added. Not sure why you wouldn’t know this or why you would try to deny what is agreed upon by biblical scholars and disclosed in most recognized versions. There are other sources. You could try Bart D. Herman’s Misquoting Jesus or The Harper Collins Bible Study. I don’t/didn’t really on them. There are literally hundreds of sources. Google it. Worshipping added text and then claiming the bible is truth unchanged while criticizing the Pope seems unfair. Furthermore, I can’t recall this Pope ever trying to change, add or delete anything from the bible. I also can’t recall the Pope saying the bible is truth changing. Kevin, to say things like this about a Christian leader is wrong. These a blatant lies. Not a Christian thing to do.
Jade,
Those footnotes were clarified from discovered manuscripts, not that they were added by someone. Discovery of what was lost is more appropriate to describe the issue.
The Pope is obligated to previous flawed Papal authority, which augments, adds, deletes, and distorts certain parts of the gospel.
Galatians 1:8New International Version (NIV)
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
The pope does not teach Christ crucified and risen for your sins as the way to salvation. He teaches the Council of Trent that it’s Jesus PLUS good works on your part, one earn salvation. That is contrary to the gospel.
( excluding the false doctrine of purgatory for this discussion for now.)
It’s so serious, the warning is repeated in Galations 1:9
Unless the Pope has repudiated the Council of Trent, which he has not, it’s our duty to criticize the Pope for not teaching the gospel in truth.
To say you cannot criticize a Christian leader when he continues to teach false doctrine or a false position flowing from the doctrinal error is as much of a sin as the false doctrine itself.
So if it’s a duty to correct the Pope’s doctrinal errors. It’s certainly permissible to correct/criticize his political errors.
Unless the Pope has repudiated the Council of Trent, which he has not, it’s our duty to criticize the Pope for not teaching the gospel in truth.
No Kevin, it’s probably more like you thinking you know more than the Pope that you think it’s your duty to criticize the Him. You can criticize, but it doesn’t make you right. Your cult can believe what you want. Our constitution allows for you to do that.
Kevin,
I get it, as a member of WELS you are obligated to discredit all other non members. Unless the Pope is considered by Jesus to be one of the condemned, you probably shouldn’t judge him. You are not able to see into the Popes heart (1Samuel 16:7) therefore shouldn’t judge.
Jade,
Again, we can judge by actions. If someone is hitting your neighbor over the head with a stick. We can judge that to be wrong.
If someone is saying something offensive, liberals especially delight in judging that action wrong.
Actions show where the heart is.
Actions are a reflection of the heart. If someone says, or teaches, Jesus is not the only way to heaven, the gospel is clear, they deny the absolute truth and do not have the gospel in their heart.
Pat,
Criticizing the Pope has been a sacrament in the liberal religion of secular humanism for decades. So it only should be done with proper liberal credentials?
Kevin,
But you’re not a liberal.
And yes, we can judge what is wrong, as others judge you.
I truly believe from your rants that you, are truly evil.
Pat,
We all do evil. That is why we cannot save ourselves. Only some of us are forgiven for the evil by having an active relationship with Jesus.
Those that replace Jesus with their good merit, or themselves, is the warning I was imparting. If speaking the truth is “evil” in the eyes of the lost, it still does not diminish absolute truth.
Kevin,
What you say is according to what you choose to believe based on your WELS indoctrination. And the WELS beliefs are those according to how Martin Luther translated the bible.
Martin Luthers beliefs are those that helped bring about the mindset of Nazi Germany and the extermination of Jews and Catholics.