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

The last 250 years is really to focus for a discussion in this area. This period starting with and around the industrial revolution has seen a number of changes in relation to human behavior and attitude to the resources of the planet. Contributing factors include:

1. Urbanisation
2. Significant population increase
3. Increase in airborne pollution through manufacturing processes
4. Increase in land and landfill pollution resulting from urbanisation, manufacturing processes
5. The rise of plastics and other products that do not break down quickly
6. Increase in sea pollution significantly impacted by plastics
7. Deforestation of vast tracts of the earth, reducing the planet's capacity to deal with cardon.

 

We are all 'unfit for the kingdom of God' though, or do some people think that their 'fitness' qualifies them for entrance and other's 'unfitness' disqualifies them?

The statements of Jesus that I have quoted make clear that there are many 'sins' which will 'disqualify' us and result in judgement, particularly if we deny them or judge others more strictly than ourselves. Some of those sins were considered by Jesus to be worse than the 'sin' of Sodom. Inhospitality seems to have been one of them. Inhospitable people rarely seem to feel guilt over their 'sin' and hardness of heart though, much less change their ways. The fictional Scrooge was a most unusual example.

For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord. Jer.6:13-15.

The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them? Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely. For they have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, Jer.8:9-12.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good. Neither hath Samaria committed half of thy sins; but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. Ezek. 16:49-51.

In thee are men that carry tales to shed blood: and in thee they eat upon the mountains: in the midst of thee they commit lewdness. In thee have they discovered their fathers' nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter. In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.

There is no shortage of things that the God partially revealed to us in the Old Testament considers 'abominations'. Any deed which renders the doer 'unclean' in fact, including charging interest on loans, incest, lewd behaviour, taking bribes, violent acts against others and payment to others to commit violence or exact revenge, adultery with someone else's wife, pride, living in abundant idleness and eating pork, lobster or prawn coctail.

It is indicative of a seared conscience if not ALL of these 'abominations' may seem equally serious to some of us in here.

Christ went to pains to point out that while we are content to lable others as 'sinners' yet imagine ourselves 'righteous' we are 'failing to be justified'. Whereas if we honestly admit we are not perfect ourselves, and are willing to cut others some slack, we ARE more justified than those who suppose themselves 'righteous'.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. Luke 18:13-14.

 

But the question should be, "Why are we seeing such rapid climate change since the 18th century industrial revolution and the prolific combustion of carbon based fuels"?

When added to 'Natural Phenomena', is this accelerating the affects of climate warming and leading inexorably to the situation described in Revelation 8:7, Revelation 8:9, Revelation 10:6, Revlation 16:21.

If we are not part of the solution, we are definitely part of the problem. The whole human race is part of the problem. Those of 'The Redeeemed' who refuse to be part of the 'Solution' i.e. will continue to deny responsibility for their behaviour and continue in their 'profligate consumption and abuse of the riches of the earth', like the rest of sinful humanity, will doubtless suffer the same physical fate as the unrepentant 'sinners' of Revelation. It will be our climate change denying politicians, the God's of this age, however that bear full responsibility, but who elected them? US, mostly.
.

 

The real question should be, "Why are certain groups of people so eager to convince us that we are seeing such rapid climate change since the 18th Century, and to deceive good people like you and I?" And the answer is: for money and for control of the populace.

You may have heard the saying that 'there are lies, d@** lies, and statistics.' They are using misleading statistics to advance the claim that earth is warming rapidly (but it isn't). And they use false logic in saying that because CO2 levels have risen at the same time that temperatures have (allegedly) risen, therefore the former must be causing the latter.

Here is an example of temperature statistics being adjusted to fit the narrative:
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/ra...qvbRDqiYhms8KKndEfe8f3-EEpaHGnPldN8OBX1GpVj8M

For those who prefer to watch a 15 minute video rather than read a page of info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=45&v=St6E1cF00GA&feature=emb_logo

Volcanic and solar activity have much greater effects upon global temperatures than anything man can accomplish:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-extinction-rebellion-propaganda-exposed/

Massive amounts of money can be profited by pushing the Climate Change narrative. 'Carbon credit' penalties are massive, yet do we know who is profiting by receiving the money? The largest financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, are busy peddling "green bonds," lousy investments which will make the non-savvy purchasers feel full of inner warmth but make their pocketbooks more empty. Al Gore, an icon of the movement, has become enormously wealthy since leaving politics and entering the film industry. Now they are using a young, naive, inexperienced but articulate (with a script) girl to push their message. (Next year I suppose we will be encouraged to take the wise advice of muppets or cartoon characters?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohBiFEHl7s&feature=emb_logo
(In 2018 the Church of Sweden tweeted, "Announcement! Jesus of Nazareth has now appointed one of his successors, Greta Thunberg,")

Oh, but 11,000 climate experts have endorsed the climate change dogma! But has the media bothered to check the credentials of these 'experts'? Few know that one of the endorsing experts on this list of 11,000 is (I kid you not) Mickey Mouse, of the 'Mickey Mouse Institute for the Blind.' Meanwhile, many genuine climatologists complain that they cannot get their work published for the simple reason that they and their research disagree with the 'climate change' narrative.

But of course, I'm just a layman, so what do I know. Therefore here is one more link, a documentary (1.25 hours long) that ties it all together in the words of people with credentials. 'Climate change' truly has "become a new form of morality," as this documentary states and as the existence of this discussion on an Anglican site evinces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=253&v=oYhCQv5tNsQ&feature=emb_logo
I wish to highlight the fact that it is a new form of morality, and not a Biblical form.

 

And there are still people who believe the earth is flat, that we are living on the inside of a 'Dome', that God deliberately made the earth look old to fool us and that innoculation and vaccination are government plots. It is amazing what some people will believe, isn't it.
.

 

I try not to use the alarmist words as the debate has enough heat in it already. I also think it is important not to push to hard on causalities as this area is fraught with complexities. Simply ask the question Is human behavior helping in exacerbating this issue?

In Australia at the moment we have devastating bush fires, far worse than is usual. The Greens have immediately blamed the government for their inaction on Climate Change, and the Government has taken aim at the Greens for their continued opposition to hazard reduction burning. Sadly we are aware that a number of these fires were deliberately started by humans for reasons we cannot understand.

So how should we respond?

 

I think it may be sensible to stop pumping billions of tons of EXTRA carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to add to what is already there and what is inevitable i.e. natural causes. No one can deny that the human race is ADDING greenhouse gasses to a delicately balanced ecosystem. We simply do not know how devastating the effects of that may be. It is gross stupidity to continue doing something that may be harmful until it proves too late to undo the damage which may have occurred. Like filling your face with cream puffs day after day, week after week, until you are a 36 stone o-beast-ity and too fat to get into the Emergency Room for heart surgery.
.

The Book of Revelation might provide some predictive clues on the effects of global warming and climate change yet to come.
.

 

It's easy to find temperature graphs with an upward curve posted on the web. Trouble is, the graphs are based on numbers that have been adjusted to get the desired curve. Raw numbers tell a different story.
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/nasa-tampering-with-reykjavik-raw-temperature-data/

As for the recent fires in AUS, unfortunately we cannot draw firm conclusions from isolated incidents. I could as easily point to the recent record snowfall of 30 feet (nearly 10 meters) in Iceland as 'proof' that the earth is cooling, but it's a "one-off"... anecdotal evidence.

Climatologists' estimates have yet to take into account the recent discoveries concerning nitrogen release from near-surface bedrock.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/58
Bedrock nitrogen release rates vary over time, and nitrogen helps all plants to grow. This will affect the rate at which CO2 is utilized and converted to O2. No one has adequately analyzed, let alone created a trend line, of this highly relevant factor. Until they incorporate this data into the predictive models, those models are as accurate as sticking a wetted finger in the air to see which way the temperature is trending.

Man-made CO2 output should be treated as a virtual non-issue. Plant life flourishes on CO2. Increasing the CO2 concentration feeds the trees, crops, grasses, etc. As the plants use the CO2 they in turn produce more O2. Besides, CO2 is a relatively small player among the 'greenhouse gases' (water vapor far and away exceeds CO2's capability to affect temps). And the greenhouse gases in the aggregate are small players in comparison to solar activity. Solar activity is cyclical in nature and causes temperatures to wax and wane correspondingly with the amount of solar flares (sunspots). Solar activity, in turn, can't hold a candle to the effect of some massive volcanic eruptions or a significantly large meteor strike.

 

If man-made CO2 has such a devastating effect on temperature, perhaps someone can explain why global temps have been so much higher so many times in the 2,500 years prior to industrialization?

 

Correlating the graph in the previous post with this graph, it can be seen that earth is currently below the 4000 year average temperature. So why all the hype and hysteria in the media?

 

Even if we take the adjusted (skewed) temperature data touted by the IPCC as 'gospel,' that data (and the temperature models used to generate predictions for the future) fail to take into account the much larger, overarching effect of cloud cover. Here is a scientific paper by Finnish researchers which discusses the issue:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

This information is independently confirmed by researchers at Japan's Kobe University. “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just-published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

The upshot is that human-generated CO2 has a negligible effect on global temperatures.

Folks, do the reading. Don't take the word of the mass media and the rich 'movers and shakers.' P. T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute." We humans are being played as suckers. It's time for us Christians to be, as the Bible says, "Wise as serpents, yet harmless as doves."

 

Essentially as a philosophical pragmatist I believe we need to respond to the best evidence that we have. That is not a claim for absolute truth, but rather based on the best available evidence humanities current contribution to the care of this planet we like to call home for the moment is on the wrong side of the ledger. That is all I am saying.

 

You're right about that, and for proof one need look no further than the effects of Fukishima.....

 

I agree, but hasn’t the Church of England been saying that since the 16th century (and the Orthodox since at least 1430 with St. Mark of Ephesus and the rejection of reconciliation to Rome under Papal rule, if not 1054, or 840, or in the case of the Oriental and Assyrian church, centuries earlier?)

The last Pope of Rome who was really good, in my opinion, was Pope St. Gregory the Great, who reigned around AD 600. And before him, most of his predeccessors I disliked until we come to Archbishop St. Celestine, the stalwart ally of Pope Cyril of Alexandria against Ecumenical Patriarch Nestorius the Nestorian. And up through Celestine, they were usually decent, except for Archbishop Victor, who was the first to try the whole Papal Supremacy bit, and got told off by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. But he did at least promote the cause of vernacular liturgy by introducing Latin services, and Latin became the third major liturgical language of the Church, after Greek and Aramaic (which was spoken with our Lord and his disciples in the Gallilean dialect with some use of Hebrew, which was not at the time a vernacular language in Judaism; Hebrew is also written, and has been since around, I believe, 400 BC, in Imperial Aramaic characters; and then of course St. Thomas set up the Eastern church which wound up using the Eastern Aramaic dialect that became known among its Christian users as Syriac).

 

Plant more trees! Build nuclear-reactor powered desalinization plants and vast aqueducts, and turn the deserts of the Outback into a lush rainforest.

Or, if that’s too hard, expand the peat bogs in Northern Europe. They are directly connected with ice ages owing to their ability to trap carbon and actually pose a risk of a massive thermal “snapback.”

Really, the CO/2 mix is controllable with vegetation and rather robust. The only thing that really worries me is the accretion of certain types of toxic chemicals which are destructive to certain forms of life, like mercury, which also has the side effect of making a steady seafood diet unsafe for children. Now I love mercury, but it belongs in ornamental fountains and thermometers and scientific instruments, and not the ocean*

*I am in the process of acquiring both a fume hood and respirator to construct a safe, hermetically sealed mercury display vessel and then safely transfer mercury into the vessel, which will then be placed in a protective outer shell, without risk of poisoning myself from droplets, vapor and so on.** If I should fail in my precautions, unlikely given these measures are normally found together only in a BSL-3 laboratory, and I could safely work on most viruses except ebola within such a setup, well, I doubt any of you will notice because let us face the music and admit I am already pretty darn eccentric. But watch the footnotes; twenty or more asterisks and you will know I had a lab accident.

** Actually not; although I wish to do this desparately it seems certain that persons of lawful authority would justifiably seek to prevent me from conducting such a work in a residential neighborhood.

 

What is the mean temperature shown on this graph? What temperatures do the peaks above and below it represent? Why is the data I mention excluded. Without it the graph is pretty useless.

Q. Are Earth global average temperatures getting warmer?
A. Yes.
Q. Is weather becoming increasingly unpredictable and extreme?
A. Yes, (but we do have more computational tools to measure predict it).
Q. Is the population increase of human kind affecting the ecosystem of planet earth?
A. Yes, in many significant ways.
Q. Are we doing anything signifcant to address the ecological sins of mankind.
A. No, never have done anything worthwhile ourselves about sin, that's why we needed a Saviour.
Q. Are we likely to do anything significant about our sin against God, our neighbour, God's creatures and our environment, and our miserable failure to tend it and care for it? Gen.2:15.
A. Again No!

cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;

This is not so much a curse as a prophesy and a prediction of what will happen because of man's irresponsible disobedience to God's directives. It is a prediction addressed to the entire human race, not just the Adam and Eve of the story. It is demonstrably true and enexorably coming to pass as the water covers the sea.

Fortunately, so is the prediction that it will all be replaced after this Heaven and Earth has been 'wrapped up' like a worn out garment, and destroyed. Ps.102:25-26, Isa.51:6.
,

 

Coincidentally, I will be reading that passage (actually I'm reading the entire 3rd Chapter of Genesis) this a.m. as a lector at church. Interesting timing!

You mentioned "ecological sins" in a favorable manner in your post. Are you, then, in agreement with Francis that ecological harm is sinful?

Amen, and thank the Lord! If we are really anywhere near the time of the 2nd Advent, all of the ecological concerns may become moot so soon as to make them of little consequence. There is some reason to think that the generation which has witnessed God miraculously reconstitute the nation of Israel (the valley of dry bones?) after two millenia of nonexistence "will not pass away until" His return takes place.

 

I don't recall mentioning anything sinful in a 'favourable' manner.

All sin is destructive and offends God and his Creation. What offends his creatures and his creation, is offensive to Him.

Do you imagine ecological harm to be sinless then?

The earth dries up and withers,
the world languishes and withers;
the heavens languish together with the earth.
The earth lies polluted
under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed laws,
violated the statutes,
broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore a curse devours the earth,
and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt;
therefore the inhabitants of the earth dwindled,
and few people are left. Isa.24:4-6.

Ecological sin is the most serious corporate sin of mankind. Everyone, from National leaders down to the individual, tries to relinquish themselves of responsibility for it and seeks to blame some other cause than themselves. Just like Adam and Eve tried unsuccessfully to do with God. That is what sin and human nature are always like. That is why we have a problem. That is why we NEED a Saviour.

Try telling that to God at the judgement seat after tipping your old 4x4 sump oil down the toilet for a lifetime.
.

 

Chief among those crimes, he added, are acts that "can be considered as 'ecocide': the massive contamination of air, land and water resources, the large-scale destruction of flora and fauna, and any action capable of producing an ecological disaster or destroying an ecosystem."
Francis I​

Does the violence we commit on the environment amount to a breach of the tend commandments, or simply a failure to understand the importance of the stewardship[ of creation as accounted in the early chapters of Genesis?

 

Now, now. I have never, ever thrown waste oil down the toilet! I always throw it in the ditch where it belongs.

(Just kidding!)

But seriously, ecological harm has never in the history of mankind been considered a sin (for thousands of years it was not considered, period!) until very recently. The passage you quote in Isaiah is translated differently in the King James:
Isa 24:3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.
Isa 24:4 The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa 24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
The phrase, "the earth is defiled," refers to the nations and peoples having corrupted themselves and their fellows through sin. The types of sin indicated here are transgression of the laws (commandments), changing the (lesser) ordinances to suit their own desires and legitimize their wrongdoings, and violating the covenantal agreements God has made with His people. In no way did Isaiah mean that the people were being held accountable for water pollution and air pollution; they were guilty of polluting themselves spiritually.

I'm trying to picture God being angry with the Israelites for leaving their refuse lying about in the wilderness during their 40 year journey. Or chiding them for not recycling their manna. Or holding them spiritually accountable for having irresponsibly large herds and flocks which emitted excess methane gas with their farts. Nope, I don't see it.

We never received an 11th Commandment: Thou shalt be environmentally conscious. I looked in the O.T.; it's not there.

I don't believe that Jesus ever chided His disciples for littering. He certainly didn't bring up any environmental issues in any of the recorded sayings of the N.T., nor did Paul counsel Timothy to avoid polluting the land, water, or air. None of the early fathers wrote about it. No, it was never brought up, let alone cited as a sin. Environmentalism is a social issue, and pollution is a social wrong. Sin is a spiritual issue that is wrong before God. Two very different things!