Global Warming

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The application of your quote is quite different in context. Luke 9 49-50 states:

49
Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company."
50
Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you."

The application here is quite different. The person who is "not against you" is indeed for you when they are in substance using the same authority of God to cast out demons. So we can gather that Protestants do share the same Lord when God is demonstratively performing miracles, even though they are not Catholics. It makes them as much our brother, even though seperated. The p***age I gave is quite different in context.

I accept your contextual interpretation. However, there is an extensive comprehension of this principle. And I find a good example of this principle inside your relationship with your spouse. Somewhere you had traced a line to have a mutual respect and a happy marriage. Even because she is a buddhist, she is not against you, and you as a catholic, you are not against her. In fact, even if you are rooted in two distinct traditional religions you find a way to compromise.

In brief, someone from an other religion, from an other opinion, culture, is not necessary my enemy.

What you may call conservative, the grouping of certain individuals within us, does not necessarily mean they are conservative. A gay conservative is an oxymoron. A lot of conservatives who have in their daily lives the principle are also realists knowing that the necessary changes or metamorphesis of actual procedure into the favorable tried and true conservative principles are not going to happen in one day.

Seriously and with a pragmatic manner, the conservatives have a very large spectrum with very distinctive opinions, on any issue. This is the same thing with the liberals. An ****geneous block of conservatives is something that does not exist. The proportion of gays into the conservatives is the same as the liberals. A rabbit is a rabbit, and a gay is a gay. This is the same thing with all the other ratios about any issue. They are not better and not the worst.

If it took Rome about 766 years to reach its zenith of glory from 753 BCE to 14 CE, we cannot expect with opposition to maintain conservative policy making. Unfortunetly, because the nature of compromise is prevalent in our system... absolute conservative is not possible in a political system and the City of God will last and not the City of Man. Augustine's "City of God" tried to demonstrate the contrast between such.

City of God, city of man (the two camps distinctive and opposed). I had read this exposition when I was in college. Dostoevsky also wrote about this issue (Church vs. Government, and vice and versa) in the Brothers Karamazov.

However, you as a Catholic should be in your principles and beliefs a conservative and promoting such conservativism to the best of your ability.

I agree with the ***essment of the Pope about the environmental issue, with his predecessor also. The Church acknowledged the urgency.

The environmental responsibilities are important as Benedict has laid out, but do not expect the political system in its fight against global warming to be the savior of the world.

Same thing about the abortion. Remember? Any issue cannot be win without the number. I expect that my fellow citizens can do something.

An issue cannot be won without a very large consensus favoring this issue. The war is with the mentality first. By changing the mentality the ballots will express the new mentality. The problem is that there is to much quarrelers and so less workers into the field. In brief, with all the religious scandals, disputes, and foolishness among the believers, everywhere, the credibility of religious people is not very high.

The apocalypse has some very interesting aspects about the end of the world as well as other end time prophecies from the O.T.. The world will eventually end, we cannot stop that. Christ will eventually come also. We must as conservatives do what we can on all playing fields for the environment, but bridges need to be built to overcome the various obsticles. Some bridges as you propose for charity to unwed mothers are costly and only promote the bad behavior because it sends the message that a bailout for wrongful living can be had, treating only the symptom but not the cause. In the same way, over taxation and gross spending by the government in the name of the environment is a madhouse way of getting to the objectives. As is, most environmental charity groups administration costs are absolutely a travesty.
Friends of the Urban Forest's adminstration costs are 25.4 percent.
The National Parks Conservation ***ociation's adminstrative costs are 20.7 percent.
NARAL Pro-Choice American Foundation's administration costs are 21.6 percent.

Compare to Food for the Poor, inc--faith based Services is a whomping 3.2 percent.

Now where is GreenPeace's administration costs? It does not even meet the 10 accountability standards to be listed in the CFC. Why is adminstration costs so large in these environmental charity groups?

Check out the above charities administration costs. Lists from A to Z is here:
http://www.charitablechoices.org/Categories/all.asp

It seems to me that most religious based groups adminstration costs are around 12 percent.

Greenpeace Fund is registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) en***y and promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, gr***roots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations. Contributions to Greenpeace Fund are tax-deductible.

Taken from their site, listed on the bottom when you try to donate.

It seems you got a whole networking of a bankrupt environmental religious organization. Its preaching in public education, helps lobbying, and supports those environmental organizations which probably take their donations and turn around and support Democrat campaigns. But besides saving whales, its seems like merely a front for the DNC.

1) Why are we doing a preventive war if the Lord will come anyway (Iraq, Afghanistan)?
2) I am not a member from any of those private organizations. However, I followed the works of a scientific team in the South Pole (live).
3) There is a worldwide consensus on this issue, a consensus from the world scientific community, composed from scientists from all countries.
4) The problem is that we are living in a world with a short vision and with the laziest mentality. We only react when we are in a deep trouble.
5) I think americans should take the reports of the NASA very seriously. This is not Greenpeace.

In short Trinity, I am not sure which religion is going to win out with you... environmentalism or Catholicism. If you think government is the answer, then environmentalism is your religion of choice and not Catholicism. The world is going to end, and catastrophically at that too. We should do our best for our environment, but not at the expense where we bankrupt our livelyhood.

When people will be sick into a large scale, the wars for the natural resources and the catastrophic weather on each continent, this will take care of our economy.

Anyway, if the Pope is worried by this threat, I am also worried. Unless our last two popes were idiots.

Concerning my ap***ude to address all the complexity of many problems and without losing my attention on the essential, and because I do not polarize my mind, I am still a free thinker, even like a catholic. I am not a guy who need a chaperon.

Trinity