Wow, the Pope is about to amend the Roman Catechism to include 'ecological sins'

Have you guys heard about this?

I am speechless... the Pope has been completely captured by the Moloch and the zeitgeist of the secular/liberal/atheistic world

https://www.catholicnews.com/servic...ated-to-include-ecological-sins-pope-says.cfm

 

He said he'd be retiring within 2 or 3 years back in 2014. Tease of the century...

 

Thus might speak the climate change denyer as he pours his old sump oil, from his 4 litre 4x4 'truck', down the toilet, just to exercise his 'climate changing denyer rights'. Isa.24:17-20
Isa.24:5.

 

Apparently the Vatican, at the personal behest of Francis, has produced and released a book which recharacterizes the sin of Sodom as hostility, violence and "lack of hospitality" toward strangers.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/mobile...-reducing-sin-of-sodom-to-lack-of-hospitality

Would God utterly destroy a cluster of cities and their inhabitants merely for treating strangers poorly? I think not. But this certainly blends well with the current RC message concerning cross-border immigration.

 

There is some reason for him to enlighten some selfish bigots to the fact that Sodom's sins were more fundamentally universal than mere sexual deviancy.

Hear the word of the Lord,
you rulers of Sodom!
Give ear to the teaching of our God,
you people of Gomorrah!
“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.
“When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
When you spread out your hands,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even though you make many prayers,
I will not listen;
your hands are full of blood.
Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes;
cease to do evil,
learn to do good;
seek justice,
correct oppression;
bring justice to the fatherless,
plead the widow's cause. Isa. 1:10-17.

And your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it. Ezek. 16:46-50

It is those who try to make out that homsexuality is the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that are reducing the sins of those regions. Their sins were far more comprehensive and in fact more characteristically typical of Republican 'Trumpist wall building', capitalistic dogma regarding abandonment of the poor and needy and protection of the wealthy from taxation, while indulging in excess of food and reclining in prosperous ease, in their 'luxury ivory towers' . It was for this form of arrogant haughtyness, (according to scripture), that God removed the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was selfish, greedy, religious hypocrisy.
.

 

Nope

Try again?

So you think that the saints, fathers, the reformers and divines were all American Republicans?

What a way to expose yourself as a leftist political radical, who views the matters of God through the lens of worldly transient politics

 

With all due respect, Isaiah and Ezekiel were not addressing literal Sodom or Gomorrah. They were addressing their Israelite contemporaries, and calling them spiritual Sodom and spiritual Gomorrah as a way of shaming them. These prophets went on to lay out some of the prominent sins of their people Israel; this does not mean that the sins of literal Sodom and literal Gomorrah were identical (we have zero reasons to think that those cities' inhabitants were offering sacrifices and incense to the one true God, for example) to the sins of Judea and Samaria decried by the prophets.

Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude did not say that Sodom and Gomorrha were burned for giving themselves over to hypocrisy or for going after excess food and prosperous ease.

 

"Nope": I think the saints, fathers, the reformers and divines were all charitably disposed, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

Which is more than can be said of some Republican Senators including your President.

"Try again": So you disagree with Isaiah and Ezekiel concerning the nature, extent and consequence of the sins of Sodom or didn't you read what they have to say on the subject of Sodom's sins and those who emulate them.

I suppose you think that The Virgin Mary was a ''leftist political radical" when she declared "He hath put down the mighty from their seat and exulted the humble and meek. He filleth the hungry with good things and the rich hath He sent empty away."

Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? James 2:5-7.

Thus wrote a, "Worldy transient politician", that the Apostle James supposedly was, ( in your opinion, it would now seem to appear ).

Those of us who know and heed what he wrote do not consider him to have been so.
.

 

Ah. Well, you are onto me. Do be a good chap and come around tomorrow to dust my ivory tower for me, will you? I'll send my private jet for you at, shall we say, nine tomorrow? The caterer arrives at four and Trump's entourage at seven, so we must look our best. Ahem, harrumph.

 

Any city or home that doesn't welcome you--shake off the dust of that place from your feet as you leave. Truly, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off at Judgment Day than they. Matt. 10:14-15.

So inhospitality to the message of the Gospel was considered WORSE and a more serious transgression, by Jesus Christ Himself, than all that had been commited in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Truly, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on the Judgment Day than you! And Capernaum, though highly honored, shall go down to hell! For if the marvelous miracles I did in you had been done in Sodom, it would still be here today. Truly, Sodom will be better off at the Judgment Day than you." Matt.11:22-24.

"If a town welcomes you, follow these two rules:
(1) Eat whatever is set before you.
(2) Heal the sick; and as you heal them, say, `The Kingdom of God is very near you now.'
"But if a town refuses you, go out into its streets and say, `We wipe the dust of your town from our feet as a public announcement of your doom. Never forget how close you were to the Kingdom of God!' Even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a city on the Judgment Day. Luke 10:8-12.

But it would seem that some in here take inhospitality and selfishness, so lightly that they consider it a triviality and almost sinless, compared to illicit sexual pairing.

Jesus took a different view, apparently.
.

 

Though willing to be your servant in Christ's name, I will not be attending to the dusting of your ivory tower, my friend. You can dust it yourself or pay the going rate for someone to do it for you if you feel dusting to be below your dignity. As for meeting Trump and his entourage at ANY time, day or night, I have a yoke of oxen to try, a new piece of land to survey and a wife. All of which take quite definite precedence over the likes of him.
.

 

The sin Jesus refers to is not the sin of inhospitality. It is the sin of rejecting Jesus and the Gospel. That is a much more serious sin than either adultery or homosexual couplings, I'll grant you. (Part of the contrast Jesus makes is, Sodom and Gomorrah never had the chance to hear about Jesus.)

 

Have a look with the Scriptures, friend:

Jude 1:7—
“Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

 

As I said, you are reducing, their sin to that of sexual immorality, rather than including all their other vices, which were regarded by Christ, Isaiah and other prophets, to be serious enough to warrant considerably greater punishment for those who oppose the gospel, withold hospitality and refuse to listen to God's message but harden their hearts and oppress their soujourning neighbour, such as the inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida and any other inhospitable, narrow minded bigotted township anywhere else on earth, even in the USA.

In future read EVERYTHING the Bible has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah, not just the sexy bits.
.

 

But the implication is that had they heard the Gospel and seen the works of Jesus in Sodom, they would have responded more positively than Chorazin or Bethsaida. The crime was not just rejection of the Gospel. It was also about rejection of Christ in the poor, lame, blind and diseased.

And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Matt.25:41-46

Hardness of heart to those in need is a crime against Christ.
.

 

Our parish has a class in between the two Sunday services, and our rector almost always conducts the class. But about a month ago he announced that he had invited a local college professor (who is Anglican, I believe) to teach a 4 week series on the Creation. I wondered right off whether this fellow would be a 'young earth' or 'old earth' creationist, and figured we'd be studying Genesis and interweaving science with it.

Nope. Turns out, the guy is talking about ecology, the environment, pollution, extinction of species, and all that sort of thing. Oh, well.

Last weekend he listed a bunch of the problems facing the earth and asked people to suggest reasons why we have those problems, which he wrote on the board. All the others were calling out human vices like greed and apathy. I said, "entropy;" he stopped and looked confused, and then asked, "What do you mean?" I explained that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that all things tend to go from a highly ordered state to a lesser ordered, or disordered, state. I said that we live in a fallen world that is spiraling downward. He wrote "entropy" on the board, but he didn't seem pleased about it.

There's one more class session scheduled to be led by him on this subject, but I don't plan to attend. You see, although it's true that we all can do little things to care for the earth (avoid littering, recycle, plant a tree, etc.) it isn't really part of the Gospel message and it certainly wasn't Jesus' message. If I'm going to attend a class at church, I expect to be studying the Bible, and not a social issue that is already taught to everyone ad nauseum at the grade school, high school, and college levels.

 

It is a shame that this thread has changed it's topic. Thankfully @Rexion is steering it back to the topic.

A clear understanding of a reading of the creation stories suggests that we have been entrusted with stewardship of the world in which we find ourselves. The question is does that imply an unbridled dominion as if it is ours to do with as we please, or does it suggest a trust with and understanding that we have a responsibility to hand it on to a generation yet unborn?

The question of climate change is clear in the minds of many, however on examination neither simple nor straightforward.

1. The climate has always displayed a capacity to change. (eg ice ages)
2. Natural phenomena can pollute at a greater rather than we humans do. (volcanoes)
3. Since the industrial revolution we have seen growth in human populations, increasing carbon emissions, and significant deforestation all if which have a capacity to adversely affect the climate.

For us as thinking Anglican Christians the challenge is to fashion a response to this that embraces our understanding of our stewardship of creation in a meaningful and helpful way. Do we desire to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

 

I agree that hardness of heart toward those in need is a sin. And homosexual acts are sins. And it only takes one little sin to be "guilty of all" and unfit for the Kingdom of God. Yet it is not invalid to note that God has not dealt with all sins in the same manner; some sins truly are more serious than others. For example, murdering someone is more serious than swiping his lunch money when his back is turned.

Similarly, adultery is one of the most serious sins, for the penalty God set forth in O.T. times was death. What, just for spreading a little "love" with your neighbor's wife, death? Yup.

And similarly, a homosexual act is more serious than most other sins. How do we know that? From the Bible. How many sins does God refer to as an abomination?
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If we see the destruction of Sodom as punishment for their rampant homosexuality sins, we are recognizing that it was the most significant of their many sins in God's eyes. It was an abomination, a stench to His nostrils. It ranks right up there with graven images of false gods. Would that mankind were not so cavalier about either one! God's ways are higher than our ways. We should be mindful of His priorities (and any time He or we prioritize things, we by necessity minimize some and maximize others).

 

Dunno about that; I might need to go back to driving school. I'm all over the road here!

 

An economist named Martin Armstrong has gathered incredible amounts of data on varying subjects, including historical data going back in time as far as he can find it. It's a massive database. Included is information from studies of tree rings, ice core samples, etc. The data shows that atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature move upward and downward cyclically and in tandem, but not perfectly. To be specific, the temperature change always leads the CO2 concentration by several hundred years. This suggests some mechanism exists in nature whereby rising temps lead to greater CO2 levels, rather than the other way around.

There can be seen at least one period in earth's history when CO2 levels were ten times what they are now, but temperatures were not correspondingly, radically high.

A retired physicist, Andre Lofthus, has pointed out that facts known about our atmosphere since the 1950s proves that additional CO2 cannot retain additional radiant heat energy being emitted by earth back toward space. CO2 only has significant absorption of this energy within a narrow wavelength band extending from about 14.5 to 15.5 microns, whereas our planet emits radiant energy on a very wide band. Lofthus wrote, "By comparison, the center wavelength at which the maximum spectral radiant emittance occurs for the earth (based on Planck’s Law) is approximately 9.5 microns with significant amounts of energy contained in radiation with wavelengths that extend out to beyond 25 microns." In other words, CO2 is a 'bit player' in the overall heat absorption of our atmosphere. Measurements from about 1950 show that the CO2 level in existence at that time was already absorbing 100% (all) of the radiant energy within its narrow band, and doing so within 300 meters' distance in the atmosphere; and it is impossible to absorb more than all 100%. Thus, increasing CO2 cannot cause an increase in heat absorption and retention.

My conclusion is that the Vatican has been taken in by a widespread deception.