Pope takes sides in a science debate

Pope Pepe the First is about to rule.


YNoLc2A.jpg



 
Lovebug said:
How great that people are standing up for Catholicism now that Francis makes it convenient. For years it was quite the opposite, was it not? Yeah, Francis says things that liberals think fits their agenda. Good on him.
So to your question. Who elected him to pope? Other humans. Now look at the crowds every time a pope comes around. Who's ring are they eager to kiss? Whom do they admire, bow to?
Don't get me wrong, this happens outside the catholic church too. TV evangelists have almost as big a crowd as the pope. Idol worship.
So calm down, Francis is cool as a man. I just don't care for the fanfare or the fact that all the sudden a pope is cited because this one comes across as a liberal and happens to align with climate changers.
Click to expand...

No, it was not. Perhaps you don't remember the popularity of John Paul II, and he took a more conservative stance than Frank. Liberals appreciate Frank's message of mercy with less emphasis on the hard line. He stresses social teaching and inclusion. Perhaps you don't remember his comment "who am I to judge?" about homosexuals. I for one am thrilled that he's trying to move away from the more conservative messages of judgmentalism and harshness.

He is elected by the College of Cardinals. It would take too long to post the history of the papacy but maybe if people researched it there wouldn't be so many misconceptions about the church.

I don't like him because of climate change; that's an issue I barely pay attention to. I like him because I feel he really connects with people in a way other Popes haven't. He lived the life; he wasn't a "career religious."
 
Darth Omar said:
I dont care who ruled on it, it's nonsense.

SCOTUS ruled that the EPA was only able to regulate CO2 emissions from factories and power plants. Why not regulate bovine flatus? How is exhaling any different? Why not attach a carbon tax to every child produced?

It quickly gets absurd because CO2 is not a pollutant. It just isn't. Even SCOTUS can't make it one.
Click to expand...

"Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt"

That is a maxim that applies here.

Your ignorance is not a substitute for an informed opinion. Me, I try to keep my mouth shut if I don't know anything about a topic.

Since you have never spent a single, solitary nanosecond reading the Clean Air Act, or have the dimmest awareness of the science and statutory authority pertaining to pollution, I guess you could be excused as a bellowing ignoramous.

The legal definition of a pollutant is any substance that can cause adverse impacts to the environment or human health. It is therefore not limited to what you are thinking of - toxic metals and synthetic chemicals.

Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is a known, fully vetted, and well documented risk to humans and the global environment. The green house effects of CO2 when present in excess amounts was empirically proven in the laboratory over a century ago --- and its risk to humans and environment have been studied and confirmed over and over for half a century. The highest court in the United States has determined that CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant based on the weight of evidence, and based on a careful reading of case law and statutory intent.

You are simply wrong. And your opinion and assertions don't matter, no matter how often you type them. They are still, and always will be wrong.
 
Cypress said:
your opinion and assertions don't matter, no matter how often you type them. They are still, and always will be wrong.
Click to expand...

Point of order: Trump took a giant shit on the Paris Accord and the climate alarmists @ EPA, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Looks like you're the one whose opinions are irrelevant in the real world. :rofl2:
 
christiefan915 said:
No, it was not. Perhaps you don't remember the popularity of John Paul II, and he took a more conservative stance than Frank. Liberals appreciate Frank's message of mercy with less emphasis on the hard line. He stresses social teaching and inclusion. Perhaps you don't remember his comment "who am I to judge?" about homosexuals. I for one am thrilled that he's trying to move away from the more conservative messages of judgmentalism and harshness.

He is elected by the College of Cardinals. It would take too long to post the history of the papacy but maybe if people researched it there wouldn't be so many misconceptions about the church.

I don't like him because of climate change; that's an issue I barely pay attention to. I like him because I feel he really connects with people in a way other Popes haven't. He lived the life; he wasn't a "career religious."
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You love abortion and gay marriage, don't you, Christiecrite?
 
christiefan915 said:
No, it was not. Perhaps you don't remember the popularity of John Paul II, and he took a more conservative stance than Frank. Liberals appreciate Frank's message of mercy with less emphasis on the hard line. He stresses social teaching and inclusion. Perhaps you don't remember his comment "who am I to judge?" about homosexuals. I for one am thrilled that he's trying to move away from the more conservative messages of judgmentalism and harshness.

He is elected by the College of Cardinals. It would take too long to post the history of the papacy but maybe if people researched it there wouldn't be so many misconceptions about the church.

I don't like him because of climate change; that's an issue I barely pay attention to. I like him because I feel he really connects with people in a way other Popes haven't. He lived the life; he wasn't a "career religious."
Click to expand...

You like him because he is a liberal. You say so
I for one am thrilled that he's trying to move away from the more conservative messages of judgmentalism and harshness.
Click to expand...
, I said so
Francis says things that liberals think fits their agenda
Click to expand...
, but you desperately are trying to disagree with me.
 
Lovebug said:
You like him because he is a liberal. You say so , I said so , but you desperately are trying to disagree with me.
Click to expand...

TBT I don't consider AGW a religious issue. And I liked him since 2013, several years before he spoke out on AGW, and for the reasons I stated above.

If I'm disagreeing with you it's on Church topics you're unfamiliar with and have mistaken ideas about. I've never pretended to be a devout Catholic but was raised in the Church and I know what's right and what's wrong with what people say.
 
christiefan915 said:
TBT I don't consider AGW a religious issue. And I liked him since 2013, several years before he spoke out on AGW, and for the reasons I stated above.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You love abortion on demand and gay marriage, Christiecrite.

You think Catholicism is a "Cathoteria" that gives you the option to take what you want and ignore the rest.

I pray that you will see the error of your ways and repent. God is not fooled.
 
God bless America said:
Bullshit. You love abortion on demand and gay marriage, Christiecrite.

You think Catholicism is a "Cathoteria" that gives you the option to take what you want and ignore the rest.

I pray that you will see the error of your ways and repent. God is not fooled.
Click to expand...

Oh please, give me a break. :rolleyes:

You left out the part where I said I never pretended to be a devout Catholic... like some here do... but that didn't fit your narrative.

I may take your comments under advisement after you've also criticized your right-wing pals for their cafeteria beliefs, otherwise you're just being selective.
 
Covfefe said:
Stewardship of the Earth, ring a bell?
Click to expand...

What the scriptures actually declare about mankind and mother earth. God created the earth...it belongs to Him not man. God directed mankind, "So God created man in His own image (God is a spirit, therefore that image is spiritual in nature -- ), in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and SUBDUE IT, have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds in the air, and over every living thing on the earth.'" (Genesis 1:27-28)

The earth is a physical creation man is a spiritual creation with a living soul given by God in His own image. The earth was never created to be mankind's permanent home. The earth and its heaven (the atmosphere/heavens) will one day cease to exist in this physical realm (Mark 13:31)

God is eternal as God is a spirit, but the world He created will wear out and be cast away (Heb. 1:10-12)

The physical world is temporary -- 2 Cor. 4:18. The earth and the elements will melt away in fervent heat -- 2 Peter 3:12

Therefore...when anyone attempts to worship the created (man or earth) instead of the creator....its paganism.

Indeed man should and must be a good steward of the land in as much as he can, but to suggest that mankind can control the weather by counting carbon output is more than just nonsense...its paganistic by design in order to usurp the authority of creation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top