Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o

Well, I read: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth; and SUBDUE it.” (emphasis is mine)

But, if you want me to buy your feel-good pablum, you’re going to have to do a really tight job of defining EXACTLY what it means “not to endanger” while at the same time “allowing to subdue”.

No drilling for oil? No burning fossil fuel of any kind? No dumping at sea? No eating meat? No GMO? No air travel? All of those things can be, AND HAVE BEEN, proscribed for us unwashed masses by our betters in the environmental grievance industry and at the UN... to which chorus the good pope is also lustily lending his own voice.

Who draws the line, and where? You? The Pope? Obama? Kofi Anan? Who?

Tell me what you believe in enough detail that it becomes clear, before you bind up that burden and lay it on my shoulders because Popo said so and you agree.

And then show me how you bear the burden yourself! Do you walk everywhere you go, wear only hemp clothing, use no electricity, waste no water, ... ?

Jesus said of the Pharisees, “they...tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” That defines not only the Gaia worshipping secular humanists with which the pope has chosen to ally himself (as have you, apparently). I’m afraid it also applies to the Pope himself.


69 posted on 05/12/2015 1:54:54 PM PDT by Nervous Tick (There is no "allah" but satan, and mohammed was his demon-possessed tool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Nervous Tick
I don't think it's been spelled out what kinds of environmental modification would constitute a sin, because that would require technical specifications which are outside of the competence of the teaching Magisterium.

I do know that deliberate (not just collateral) damage for the sake of harm (for instance deliberate destruction of cropland so as to cause directly-intended starvation to populations in time of war) would be a sin, because it would be targeting things that noncombatant populations need for their survival.

As to the very sensible questions, "No drilling for oil? No burning fossil fuel of any kind? No dumping at sea? No eating meat? No GMO? No air travel? " I think those are considered prudential questions, which is to say, they would be outside of the competence of the clergy.

This ties to you other sensible question, "Then who decides?"

It would have to be a whole lot of people acting responsibly within the sphere of their competence: me to my kids (don't damage the trees in the public park), a municipal ordinance (no throwing trash on city property), the county (no dumping construction rubble into stream beds), the TVA--- I'm a Tennesseean --- (reforest denuded slopes), --- many things handled by public authorities on the basis of subsidiarity.

Roughly, "subsidiarity" means "conducted at the lowest, most local level of organization that can adequately do the job."

106 posted on 05/12/2015 2:55:21 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Who is the one who fears the Lord? God shows him the way he should choose. Ps 25: 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: Nervous Tick

Good post.


121 posted on 05/12/2015 3:39:45 PM PDT by Finny (Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. -- Psalm 119:105)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson