Not sure what to add about lenses.
Certainly I have . . . in some respects . . . as all of us do . . .
ONLY our OWN lens with which to view things.
Our OWN lens will no doubt have components . . . as say in a multi-component large telescope . . . of many other lens 'manufacturers.'
Yet, each composite whole will be unique to each individual. Even our understanding of God's 'components' or, try as we might, of God's very unique whole lens . . . is idiosyncratic to each ourselves.
As finite beings, with unique histories, bounded in this time and space, it can be little more than that.
And that little more can only be by outside intervention--by God's breaking through into our time and space . . . and our minds, hearts, souls . . . with HIS TRUTH via Holy Spirit's injected snippets of said Truth.
I suppose the same could be said of satan's injection of lies as truth though to a far lesser degree.
Nevertheless, you make a good point.
I realize that most . . . RC's hereon certainly . . . will likely be more than a little incredulous to read that I earnestly indeavored (and still do) to find a logical, Biblical, true-to-current realities 'out' for the Pope and this encyclical. It's microscopically conceivable to me that I might find such an out on reading the whole thing. I very much doubt it.
And, interestingly, none of those on the other side have dealt a shred with my points--much less logically and much, much less true to the context our era provides. But, imho, the replies against my perspective are not all THAT true to what I read in the encyclical--particularly when considered alongside the realities in our era.
If my lens . . . if my logic . . . if my perspective is that far out of whack vis a vis current realities, it should be somewhat doable, if not easy, to show it logically. I've not observed that happening.
One might say . . . welllll, Quix, your lens, your a priori assumptions etc. soooooooooooooo stack the deck . . . yada yada yada.
I disagree.
1. I read word choices, phrases which are parallel to, in concert with, if not identical to globalist word choices, phrases, goals that I've studied for 44 years.
2. What real cause is there to label one set of such phrases etc. BLACK and a very similar set WHITE? Please show me. I've seen no logical justification for such divergeant labels of such identical word choices and phrases.
3. I've stated that whatever the Pope is saying, trying to say, hinting at, postulating, challenging the world to rise to--however one wishes to put it--whatever he is saying--he IS SAYING IT IN A CONTEXT WHERE GLOBALISM HAS BEEN IN CONTROL FOR AT LEAST 100 YEARS. That's just a fact.
4. No one, on the RC side, that I can recall, has even given passing lip service to noting and understanding that fact.
5. Certainly there are FREEPERS who do not believe such facts about globalism. It boggles my mind that such could be the case on such a conservative website--yet, it is. Blindness, being poorly informed, willful blindness etc. seem to abound in our era--even on FR, sadly. Thankfully, such ranks are diminishing by the day as yet another headline trumpets the wonderous glories of 'culling the populace by abortion' a la Ginsburg etc.
6. No one, on the RC, side, has said a thing, that I can recall, about how serious and comprehensive a factor it is that said satanic globalism IS AND HAS BEEN the reigning power over the globe for so many decades with increasing levels of overt control; increasing tyranny; increasing brazenness. No one.
7. Welllll, it's a fact, or it's not a fact. One could say, PERHAPS--BY SOME WILD STRETCH--that globalism is only 51% in control of the globe . . . or whatever percentage. But to say that satanic globalism is not at the door is maximally idiotic, imho. And, personally, how anyone could say anything lower than 85% or so with OThuga in power and brazen headlines assaulting us every few days about yet another globalist goal or accomplishment or tyrannical method . . . well . . . boggles the mind would be a weak phrase.
8. Does ANY Bible believing, remotely prophetically astute Christia believe that the satanic global government will NOT be in wholesale power and tyrannical control in this era? If so, then, my understanding of Scripture would assert that they don't really believe The Bible--plain and simple.
9. IF they do believe The Bible plainly as written, then it is inescapable to me that the ruthless satanic global government WILL be increasingly in thorough going and comprehensive control over the planet in this era in which Israel became an overt Nation again in the Holy Land.
10. And, certainly the news headlines have INCREASINGLY AFFIRMED THAT VERY THING over the whole of my life--well at least, since 1948--I was born in 1947.
11. So, to me, at some point the above issue is a matter of basic Biblical and basic geopolitical reality testing. Folks either are aware of those realities and accept that they are real, or they aren't &/or they don't.
12. If folks do not realize that basic geopolitical reality vis a vis tyrannical satanic globalism, then there's no dialogue to be had regardless of what lens one actually uses or professes to use.
13. IF one realizes that reality, then one MUST consider the encyclical in light of that reality. There's no alternative. We deal with life as it IS vs as we fantasize that it is. The folks in the assylum deal with "life" as they fantasize that it is.
14. When we consider the encyclical against the realities of this era vis a vis globalism . . . then we have a problem.
15. Please, someone, anyone . . . what OTHER options are there than these?
B) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is in denial about them. That's not overly likely but is somewhat plausible. All kinds of reality is distorted in the name of organizations; the status quo and certainly of !!!!RELIGION!!!. C) The Pope IS aware of those realities but is deceptively playing an intellectual game for whatever purpose(s). One would hope that's not very likely. Yet, a number of Popes have done worse for various reasons. b) a way of helping parisioners cope. c) a way of buying time for intellectual, religious maneuvering with the globalists to try and cobble together whatever concessions or delays one can vainly engineer. d) a way of buying time to vainly await some miraculous intervention to preserve the organization, the power, the perspective of the Vatican. 3) A kind of schizoid sort of fractured response to reality. Yeah, "A" is true and should have response "B" but that is sooooo distressing, we'll just respond with "Z" and pretend that's sane and normal. And when folks are incredulous, we'll just insist that they don't understand our dictionary or that they have the context terminally wrong. I sure hope THAT'S not true. 4) I don't know what OTHER REALISTIC possibilities there logically are. And I have other things to do than try and arrive at a truly exhaustive list. But the options are NOT endless. They are VERY FINITE. And I have not read any convincing ones from ANY RC proponent.
Alamo-Girl, Christian harmony and lack of discord, contention etc. are great Biblical priorities. However, they are not the Supreme Biblical priority. I don't know that they are even in the top 5 or the top 3.
The TRUTH IN LOVE is, to my mind, a rather high priority. And many times, the truth is not FELT to be love, when it actually is. My guess is that you still believe that regardless of whether you believe in a particular application or example of that, or not.
To me, satanic globalism is such a hugely important Biblical End Times issue of serious Eternal Life/Eternal Death import to millions of souls . . . it MUST NOT be dealt with in a slippery, diplo-speak slicing and dicing fashion.
The facts are brutally, starkly true. We have a Supreme Court Justice speaking of culling the undesirables out of society by infanticide. Worse, THERE'S NO UPROAR remotely equal to the outrageous position she's taken. And that's just ONE amongst several HUNDRED starkly brutal facts about this moment in global history.
Folks may wish to read the encyclical as though such facts do not exist or are not true--but it won't fly for any seriously thinking and any seriously aware Christian Conservative.
Given that such global and globalist facts ARE TRUE, then the encyclical MUST be read in that light.
Those facts do NOT provide even the Pope a lot of wiggle room.
He can pontifically CLAIM all the wiggle room the magicsterical encourages him to claim. He can clutch tightly all the Pontifical power still at his disposal. He can use all the propaganda resources of the Vatican to spread the view through the Vatican lens far and wide over the globe.
In the end, it won't matter. Scripture is clear. ALL PEOPLE GROUPS, NATIONS ETC. WILL COME UNDER THE IRON THUMB, THE IRON BOOT, THE GUILLOTINE of the global government.
So, anyone--Mark OMalley?--anyone--PLEASE tell me . . . what hope has this encyclical--EVEN GIVEN THE BEST LIGHT INTERPRETATION--WHAT HOPE does this encyclical have of effecting redemptive results of the slightest sort lasting another minute once the global government decides to lower the boom on all matters on which the encyclical touches?
Yes. Indeed. Pope Benedict acknowledges all that in spades: He says globalism is already a fait accompli, one which threatens to continue to run downhill unto total societal chaos worldwide unless it can be re-humanized according to Christian principles and moral criteria.
THIS is what the Encyclical is ALL ABOUT.
I do not lay globalism at the feet of the Catholic church and certainly not at the feet of this Pope.
Man's desire for one world governance has always been there, but Daniel reveals that only a few attempts will actually succeed. A one world governance today would be a neon sign flashing that Christ is coming again, soon.
Future history converges to that very end. Just look at the hugely successful marketing of global governance by the Star Trek programs. People are being prepared to accept it, suspending reality as if they were watching a movie, expecting it to cure all kinds evils (e.g. love of money) they refuse to accept personal responsibility for, and all without batting an eye.
I see no reason for Catholic or Protestant to cease evangelizing the world, trying to turn it into place where God is loved surpassingly above all else and as a distant second, where every man loves his neighbor as himself. Notably, if they were to succeed, that itself would be a one world religion and a one world governance, a moral and ethical one.
The difference of course is that the one world religion and one world governance that will precede Christ's return will only start out looking peaceful and Star Trekky. Within a few short years it will be revealed as Satanic. (Revelation, Daniel)
And that, too, is according to God's will.
The Pope is pulling for a one world government couched in phony “religious” justification - socialism. He simple lacks the courage to some right out and state he’d like to see world wide socialism. THIS is what caught Obama’s eye - plus Hispanics are typically Catholic. That’s a doubly hit for Obama - letting Catholicism promote socialism and get the Hispanic vote in addition to a Hispanic U.S.S.C. who is another racist and socialist.
Quix globalism is a Satanic imitation of the true globalist rule of Christ in the Millennium. The devil has never had an original thought in it’s head it has always been a perversion of the mind of God.
You might want to consider John 13:35 and John 17:21 on this topic, as well as Acts 2:44 and Acts 5:12.
Not to mention Romans 14:4...
Just sayin'...
Cheers!