by John Doe 36 Replies latest jw friends
Sorry, Burns, but your defense of "look at the context..." sounds a lot like a JW trying to defend a WT doctrine or policy that can easily be shredded...
Wouldn't it be easier to admit that the Pope was a big poopie head in at least this one instance?
I'll take that as a tacit admission that you're full of beans.
Take it however you want.
BTW, here is the full text of his comments where this quote was excerpted:
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=26693
BTS
Blondie:"The Pope blames atheists for global warming. Pope Benedict is claiming atheists are responsible for the destruction of the environment. The Pope made the claims in a recent speech given at the Vatican."
Dear Mr. Pope,
Have you ever heard of Portland Cement? Seems they have been cited as the MAJOR source of CO-2 emissions.
So, according to what you have said, this company must be the greedy materialistic atheists to which you are referring.
What I am wondering is, does your atheists-causing-global-warming theory trickle down as far as the brick layer masons as well?
Did these same brick laying masons build your vatican complex?
You realize, of course, that such a proclamation could put a lot of brick masons out of work.
Could it be that the time has come when masons will be ostracised because of their evil underhanded ways and ruining the earth?
I think you could be the first to set a fine example by bulldozing the vatican city and planting some trees instead.
Maybe you could hold your court in the groves, like the Druids before you.
You need to be careful about being the pot that called the kettle black, if you know what I mean.
Just some thoughts.
Cameo-d
Wasn't this the same Pope who gave some Bishop a pass over some anti-Semetic remarks a while back?
Actually, "inconsiderate use of the environment" began, at least in America, with Christians believing they had a God-given right to exploit the land without giving heed to their effect on other cultures and the ecological system (see Manifest Destiny). It stems from the primitive belief that Man is here to dominate the earth and "subdue it," beliefs encouraged by the archaic mindset of Biblical authors.
Here's a crazy idea: individuals either care for the environment or not, regardless of their respective religious or non-religious motives to do either.
Actually, "inconsiderate use of the environment" began, at least in America, with Christians believing they had a God-given right to exploit the land without giving heed to their effect on other cultures and the ecological system
I recommend you reconsider and reexamine this. The abuse of human and environment alike predates the arrival of Europeans by millenia.
This is an excellent resource:
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X
Mass extinctions, large scale environmental engineering, resource-driven societal collapses.... All these things have been around for a long time in N America.
BTS
There is fairly good evidence that the ancient civilizations of the Kuala Limpur pretty much trashed their rich natural environment by irrigation engineering outside the reasonable sustainability of the land. Thus, the great temple city was abandoned. Not Christian, but certainly not atheist either.
Largely CATHOLIC Brazil is most certainly the greatest destroyer of the vital tropical rain forests on this planet.
It is also ironic that much human devastation in places such as overpopulated Bangledesh and even areas of India itself are plainly the result of over-population. The Catholic Church has long been vehemently opposed to any sort of birth or population control, and this is completely inexplicable to me - given the human suffering of being in abject poverty with 11 starving kids. Not to mention the environment in general.
Sorry, but while I liked his predecessor, this Pope gives me the creeps...and it does not help that he looks a lot like Uncle Fester on the Addams Family.
To deny the sanctity of creation opens a door to exploitation and misuse
How is that statement any less offensive than the pope's? You think that by neglecting to say atheist that makes it OK? Your statement is exactly the same as saying that being a christian leads to murder and extremism. And just because you have such difficulty with English comprehension, Monty, that isn't a statement of my personal belief, it is merely there to point out the absurdity of your defending such a ridiculous position.
I recommend you reconsider and reexamine this. The abuse of human and environment alike predates the arrival of Europeans by millenia.
This is an excellent resource:
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X
Mass extinctions, large scale environmental engineering, resource-driven societal collapses.... All these things have been around for a long time in N America.
I concede you may be correct with this: have you ever read Jared Diamond's "Collapse"? My point is, however, that environmental domination has been historically encouraged by traditional Christianity (contrary to the stewardship principles present in other parts of the Bible). I think Manifest Destiny is one of the largest examples of this, on a collossal scale.
My argument is better restated that Christianity does not have the most prominent role in unsustainable use of the environment (cultures around the world have shared in this for eons as you bring out), but that it is a very ignorant thing to say that atheists have done so. In fact, I would say that athiesm and agnosticism breeds a better understanding of science, since only then does everything stand on its own merits... there's no universal scheme to obfuscate the search for truth; natural processes are revealed for what they are, without being malformed to fit Biblical doctrine. This is not to say that science and athiesm/agnosticism has not exhibited environmental and human exploitation, but that Christians are some of the first ones to rationalize using earth's resources unsustainably, since, if the Earth is going to be burned in fire or whatever, what's the point in leaving anything for future generations? In fact, it seems that most monothiestic religions believe similarly.
Some Christians rightly place more importance on the themes of a stewardship role of the Earth, but it is by no means a consistent message throughout the Bible. it seems to vary author by author.
