4
4elise
Guest
I’m glad you do…
I agree praying is where we begin and THEN my belief in God compels me to act! (not put my head in the sand) Peace, my friend!
- Status
I agree praying is where we begin and THEN my belief in God compels me to act! (not put my head in the sand) Peace, my friend!
T
TEPO
Guest
You should try putting your head in the sand…:thumbsup:Kidding, Kidding.
4
4elise
Guest
From the Catholic Coalition on climate change:
Take Action Resources
*
“A solution on the economic and technological level can be found if we undergo in the most radical way an inner change of heart which can lead to a change in life-style …”
—H.E. Archbishop Celestino Migliore*
A good list of suggested ways to make changes here: catholicsandclimatechange.org/take_action.html
And a few quotes to help inspire us that others have also recognized that as individuals our action matters!
***How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~Anne Frank
*
Live simply that others might simply live. ~Elizabeth Seaton
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not. ~Dr. Seuss
Being good is commendable, but only when it is combined with doing good is it useful. ~Author Unknown**
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. ~Edward Everett Hale**
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little - do what you can. ~Sydney Smith
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. ~Edmund Burke
Nobody can do everything, but everyone can do something. ~Author Unknown
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. ~Nelson Henderson*
Take Action Resources
*
“A solution on the economic and technological level can be found if we undergo in the most radical way an inner change of heart which can lead to a change in life-style …”
—H.E. Archbishop Celestino Migliore*
A good list of suggested ways to make changes here: catholicsandclimatechange.org/take_action.html
And a few quotes to help inspire us that others have also recognized that as individuals our action matters!
***How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~Anne Frank
*
Live simply that others might simply live. ~Elizabeth Seaton
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not. ~Dr. Seuss
Being good is commendable, but only when it is combined with doing good is it useful. ~Author Unknown**
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. ~Edward Everett Hale**
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little - do what you can. ~Sydney Smith
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. ~Edmund Burke
Nobody can do everything, but everyone can do something. ~Author Unknown
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit. ~Nelson Henderson*
E
Ender
Guest
Good … but does this mean that you accept that “climate change” is not a moral issue but merely another problem that presents us with the challenge to act morally by attempting - in whatever way seems best to each of us individually - to mitigate or eliminate its harmful effects?
If you agree then as far as I am concerned this debate is over because we will have resolved the issue raised by the OP as to whether there is a way to put Catholic faith into action on this issue: there is no specifically Catholic response.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
Well… let me see if I can explain this in a way that makes my point clear without once again muddying the waters -
- I believe climate change is a problem.
- I believe that man’s actions are impacting this problem adversely.
- As a Catholic my faith calls me to view creation as God’s gift to mankind both for today and for the future.
- As a result of this view I believe my faith calls me to act in such a way that cares for creation,
- I believe that because MMCC is adversely impacting creation (God’s Gift) therefore I a morally bound to do something about it because of my Catholic faith I am compelled to act as you say to mitigate or eliminate its harmful effects
My Catholic faith compels me to respond (to act) because of the teaching of the Church regarding creation - so yes, I believe there is a Catholic response - action.
Now… the debate on what that action should be - for people of faith - can be framed as they are on the web site of the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change:
Code:
* Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action
* Poverty—concern for those least able to bear the burden
* The Common Good—promotion of solidarity over self-interestThis response is unique - it is not the response that one would necessarily find among oil industry executives, or everyone in government, or even among those in the environmental movement - it is other centered. So… yes ---- I do believe there is a way, and that it is the best way to respond to this issue - as Catholics.
E
Ender
Guest
If I consider my actions prudent, am concerned for the poor, and work for the common good, is mine not also a Catholic response even though I work directly to counter your efforts? And if it is then how can there be A Catholic response. We’re still stumbling over this definition. For me, if there is a Catholic response, then it must be the same for everyone; it certainly can’t encompass directly opposite actions. There is, for example, a Catholic response to abortion: it must be opposed; there is no alternative position. Climate change (immigration, health care, welfare, etc) are not moral problems as there is no such thing as a Catholic position on any of them; they are all problems that require our attention but they are all prudential. What you are describing are virtues that we should apply to everything in life - you are your brother’s keeper; we are obliged to act morally but in trying to solve social problems we are not wrestling with moral questions, we are seeking prudential solutions.
Ender
4
4elise
Guest
I don’t think we are far from understanding each other, really -
I was thinking last night, and anticipated your response that indeed what is proposed as the Catholic response to climate change on the web site is the Catholic response to all problems that require our attention:
- Prudence—thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned action
- Poverty—concern for those least able to bear the burden
- The Common Good—promotion of solidarity over self-interest
We Catholics need to be reminded too that we are our brothers keepers, and that our actions should reflect this knowledge.
We need to challenge ourselves to look at our actions against this standard to see if what we are doing, what we are supporting as action meets this criteria. It is human nature to be self oriented it is Christian nature to be our brother’s keepers.
J
JimG
Guest
Prudence, poverty, the common good.
Prudence: It would be imprudent to advance macro economic and tax policies which will adversely affect entire nations, regions, and the global economy.
Poverty: Concern for the poor, along with prudence, means that we do not punish the poor or make their condition worse by artificially increasing energy costs resulting in concomitant price increases for food and necessities. Corporations will not be hurt by policies requiring them to ‘go green;’ they will simply find ways to profit from the green movement. If they can’t sell oil, they will sell windmills and solar panels. Energy costs for the poor will, however, be higher.
The Common Good: Again, concern for the common good would seem to require that we do not destroy the economy of a nation, or a planet, in order to save it.
Prudence: It would be imprudent to advance macro economic and tax policies which will adversely affect entire nations, regions, and the global economy.
Poverty: Concern for the poor, along with prudence, means that we do not punish the poor or make their condition worse by artificially increasing energy costs resulting in concomitant price increases for food and necessities. Corporations will not be hurt by policies requiring them to ‘go green;’ they will simply find ways to profit from the green movement. If they can’t sell oil, they will sell windmills and solar panels. Energy costs for the poor will, however, be higher.
The Common Good: Again, concern for the common good would seem to require that we do not destroy the economy of a nation, or a planet, in order to save it.
4
4elise
Guest
Prudence - I believe means that we also factor the issues you put out and try to take the long view on the potential damage caused by climate change - not just one or the other.
Poverty: - again - I think that the Catholic concern for the poor means, not only those impacted here in the US by measures to address the issue - but the impact of not taking action on the poor of the world.
The Common Good - yes - no nation’s economy should be destroyed - yet no one nation’s people should have value over another - climate change, unchecked has the potential not only to destroy the economy of a nation - but nations.
T
TEPO
Guest
4elise,
I have a scenario for you:
When the next election comes up we will have two candidates; one lib. and one con.
the lib wants more than anything to prevent the harmful effects of MMCC, while the con. has little to no interest in MMCC. Rather the con. wants to end abortion as his main focus. Who do we vote for, or what is the ‘Catholic response’?
Furthermore, isnt it true that acting politically is the proposed ‘Catholic response’?
I have a scenario for you:
When the next election comes up we will have two candidates; one lib. and one con.
the lib wants more than anything to prevent the harmful effects of MMCC, while the con. has little to no interest in MMCC. Rather the con. wants to end abortion as his main focus. Who do we vote for, or what is the ‘Catholic response’?
Furthermore, isnt it true that acting politically is the proposed ‘Catholic response’?
C
Contarini
Guest
I think it’s both. If you mean that ecological destruction is God’s punishment for some other behavior that has nothing to do with our treatment of creation–that seems to be a somewhat arbitrary picture of God. I don’t think God metes out vengeance arbitrarily–I think that God often allows our actions to have their natural consequences.
But clearly mistreating God’s creation is a great sin. Sorry that I can’t oblige you on this one!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You have provided no evidence or argument showing this. You can’t prove that something happens “inevitably” simply by pointing to a couple of instances where it has allegedly happened. I think that you are greatly exaggerating the correlation even in the cases you cite, by the way.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But this isn’t very good exegesis. The problem with the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men” wasn’t that they were not “mature.” That seems a rather weird interpretation to me. Indeed, the marriages per se are not listed as the problem. Rather, these marriages produced the “nephilim”–superhumans who committed acts of violence which brought down God’s judgment. Again, the text never indicates that their “popularity” was the problem. The one specific sin that is listed is “violence” in v. 13. And that fits the picture of ancient “heroes” that we get from other literatures–they were of great size and power and tended to express this through violent behavior toward those weaker than themselves, although sometimes they used their strength more righteously.
I think that’s a misreading of the text. The fact that the Sodomites lusted after men seems to be given as an *example *of how far gone they were rather than as the cause of their destruction (also the way same-sex lust is treated in Romans 1). Ezekiel 16:49 says that the sin of Sodom was arrogance, luxury, and failure to help the poor and needy. Generally the Old Testament assumes that sexual decadence, urban living, great wealth, oppression of the poor, and idolatry all go together.
—So what sins has man committed today that are “so great” , or that our hearts pour out evil “all the time”…
Using is not the problem. Abusing is the problem.
I don’t think it’s an either/or. Why do you set these things up against each other? But I do think it’s odd that you list Hollywood among the “real problems.” The decadence of Hollywood is a symptom of our twisted values, but I would hardly list Hollywood along the other things you name (or alongside the great sin of abusing God’s nonhuman creation).
Edwin
W
WinterWH
Guest
Climate change is normal and natural. Climate change has been going on for millions of years. We don’t know the reason why, but it started long before man existed on this planet.
There is no data, no indication at all, that man is responsible for any of it. Not climate change and not global warming.
The proposals for cap and trade, Kyoto and other forms of taxation and regulations merely hurt the poor.
The French get four times as much energy from nuclear power as the United States as a percentage of the total. The United States should increase it’s energy from nuclear by several hundred percent; that would help the poor right away.
The Chinese are buying up all the oil and coal that they can from all over the world. Meanwhile the United States is restricting it’s development of domestic oil and coal and the poor are suffering from higher costs as a result. We have to import oil, which not only increases costs but also makes us vulnerable to political instability and supply interruptions.
There is no man-made climate change and no evidence to back up that assertion. And all the “action” that has been proposed is just going to hurt the poor and the middle class.
Discussion of so-called ecological destruction belongs in another thread.
There is no data, no indication at all, that man is responsible for any of it. Not climate change and not global warming.
The proposals for cap and trade, Kyoto and other forms of taxation and regulations merely hurt the poor.
The French get four times as much energy from nuclear power as the United States as a percentage of the total. The United States should increase it’s energy from nuclear by several hundred percent; that would help the poor right away.
The Chinese are buying up all the oil and coal that they can from all over the world. Meanwhile the United States is restricting it’s development of domestic oil and coal and the poor are suffering from higher costs as a result. We have to import oil, which not only increases costs but also makes us vulnerable to political instability and supply interruptions.
There is no man-made climate change and no evidence to back up that assertion. And all the “action” that has been proposed is just going to hurt the poor and the middle class.
Discussion of so-called ecological destruction belongs in another thread.
4
4elise
Guest
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
The University of Illinois conducted a survey of more than 3000 scientists (the scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments - so these are real scientists working in this field)
The questions asked (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and (2) has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
To your comments on the French question:
And your comments about our need to import oil - is exactly why clean energy makes sense - wind and solar and a means to get it to market…
It is a matter of weighing the short-term challenges against the long term risks -
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
**I believe this is one way in which ‘the enemy’ can keep us divided! The liberals want to help the environment yet at the same time want to support abortion. The conservatives want to save the children but ignore the environmental concerns. Both issues need to be addressed. But by emphasizing one issue over another the confusion sets in. This keeps the Christians/Catholics divided . The issues are obviously important and discussed by the Vatican. It is the ‘world’ that is keeping us divided on the issues… **
T
TEPO
Guest
I agree whith you wholeheartedly. The world hated Jesus first, and so the world hates us.
So we should’nt accuse each other of acting immoral on either side??? Since we all only want to live our lives as instruments to which God does his works through? :newidea:
T
TEPO
Guest
Sorry, but once you convert to Catholocism, then I will be happy to discuss Bible text with you. Until then, I will not!
B
Bill_Cherry
Guest
An interesting video on you tube,…fairly current
youtube.com/watch?v=MHoJCBPfZco
youtube.com/watch?v=MHoJCBPfZco
W
WinterWH
Guest
From several sources:
Significant omission: over 10,000 were polled, and less than a third responded. They didn’t ask if there is a continued threat. In fact, they didn’t ask much did they?
A survey, “found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role”. If they don’t believe it in today’s climate (pardon the pun)of political correctness they won’t be getting any research funds and likely would be out of a job. So a big whooooptodo…on that finding. I’m only surprised it’s not 99.9%.
This is a particularly ridiculous example of how to get the answer you want from a poll, by carefully choosing the wording of the questions. And it’s so transparent it’s laughable. No-one with a brain will be fooled.
I’m a skeptic but I would certainly answer yes to the first question - of course temperatures have risen. I might even say yes to the second question - the real question is, how significant is man’s role, and is it due to CO2 or other factors.
Code:
If I didn't know a thing about AGW I would believe the skeptics based on these comments. The pro's have very little knowledge and prefer to attack the skeptic rather than have any meaningful conversation. However, I have been studying the CO2 cycle years before the invention AGW. AGW is garbage. Man’s contribution to greenhouse CO2 warming is .117% that's one tenth of one percent or in other words, the ability to raise the earth temp by .0001% . If we cut our CO2 by 1/2, that would result in a .00005% change in temp."Writing in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Doran and Zimmerman conclude, “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” "
Or
We know best how to keep our jobs
“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.” This quote demands a correction. NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE understands the scientific basis of long term climate processes. Freeman Dyson put it best when he said that climate is the most complicated subject he could think of and climatologists were hiding behind their computer models sending out predictions of doom and gloom.
Code:
There are several layers of self-selection going on with this survey which, taken all together, make the results questionable to say the least.
If you look at the education of a meteorologist and a climatologist you will find that the two disciplines bifurcate rather late in the process. Those who find the arguments for human generated climate change compelling will tend to want to specialize in it and when they hang out their shingle it will say "climatologist". Those who find the arguments less credible are likely to chose a different specialization.
Code:
I would like to know the number I scientists that want there to be a correlation between human activity and global warming. Oh remember, it was about global warming, not just climate change.- Status