Originally posted by Rockpuck

Whats wrong with encouraging eco-friendly attitudes? Seriously?

Nothing. That is great.

Question is: do we (ATS and conspiranoids alike) believe the Church organizations are upholding these new laws themselves? Such as, pollution and excessive wealth?

Quotemeremortal?unquote
quotethe vatican is clutching at straws to try and keep its dwindling amount of church goers on side.

priests are a commodity to the vatican too, as they are 'the men on the ground', gathering the monies which further enrich the head of the catholic church.

why is there a shortage of priests? many have been retired due to old age or child abuse cases. this, the latter, makes many young people feel afraid to join a church that has a "stigma-NOT a "stigmata"

if i was a young man and wanted to follow a spiritual life in a church, i certainly would not pick the r.c. (not in caps)!

unless i were a very hungry,ladder climbing person. then i would be the same as all the others in the vatican(not in caps)- wouldn't I? wanting to move up the ladder in order to gain power.

no wonder the r.c.(not in caps1) has lost its followers!

the vatican seem to be showing some jealousy of John Paul II by trying to debunk his beatification of Padre Pio , also they are trying to do the same with John Paul II, as pretty much all catholics around the world would regard him as a possible saint , as he fits the criteria.. unquote

Does anyone have an answer to any to any of these questions?

I personally agree with meremortal and think the Vatican is clutching at straws.


My Mother is a very catholic LAdy but NOW she only cares about her Priest as he seems to be a special person. She even has doubts about the Vatican and she is 78 so thats saying a lot from a Irish Catholic Lady I think.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Whats wrong with encouraging eco-friendly attitudes? Seriously?

Nothing. That is great.

Question is: do we (ATS and conspiranoids alike) believe the Church organizations are upholding these new laws themselves? Such as, pollution and excessive wealth?

Priest cannot hold their own wealth generated through the Church, however, through family ties they may retain as much wealth as they desire.. however, it is expected that all of it is left to either a family member or the Church its self, but no less then 10% to the Church.

As for the church being a leading cause of pollution ......

Originally posted by Rockpuck
As for the church being a leading cause of pollution ......

Having "Dominion over the earth and all that is in it" sounds nasty, like "We own it, if we abuse it that's OUR right."

Sure isn't like what I'd prefer, which would go something like;

"We have Stewardship over the earth and all that is in it, to protect it for the generations after ours."

Sometimes a little change in the wording can make a great difference, don't you agree?

Well it sounds as if they are covering their buts for the coming global and catastrophic events about to befall mankind. If they were truly out to save souls and make change, they would open the vaults and enlighten the secrecy of a thousand years.
They know the dangers about to come and want to make sure that after it is all said and done that they will still have a patronage to follow and take orders. Zombies? Global contamination fro weather modification?

"It wasn't me"

I read the news article but it seems they are never as clear as they could be. Does anyone have a link or a document by the Vatican that lists or says clearly that these are now being considered Mortal and clarifying what it considers "excessive wealth" or if it even uses those terms. Until I see it in an official release it is not catholic doctrine as much as it is moral guidance.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
however, it is expected that all of it is left to either a family member or the Church its self, but no less then 10% to the Church.

Indeed, I am quite aware of this. That contributes to the reason people feel The Church has alot of money

That and they own a whole country and whatnot...

And the Mormons own Marriots and Safeway I believe?

Anyways, you can believe the priests don't claim the money that's fine with me, but the 10% mandatory donations (church pressure) goes places my friend, and alot of it isn't going back to the community

As for the church being a leading cause of pollution ......

I'm confused. I didn't say anything like that. I didn't say they were a big cause of pollution. I didn't say anything. I just asked if people thought they themselves upheld these new moral standards... err divine law.

Churches are constructed with material and means that I am sure breaks some of these new rules, as one example.

Here they are coming out with new sins, and here I was just starting to get good at the old ones.

It's tough work being a sinner.

Well I decided against my better judgment to pipe up here and just relate a little on the subject of the "new sins", one in particular which is "green related".

Let me preface my post by saying that I have friends that are agnostic, evolutionists, Muslim, Jewish and Christian. I know that each person that belongs to a sect, religion, belief system or has casual theories can and have in each of them good and bad. I personally don't care what someone may subscribe to as long as the path walked is in accordance with avoiding harm to one's fellow man and attempting to be a good person.. With that said, let me move forward to the concept of the new Sin "Thou shall not pollute the Earth".

One thing I don't quite understand is why regardless of faith or belief (or non-belief system) that everyone is all pushed out of shape with the prospect that a God or Deity or Alien (or whomever you may consider may have had a hand in man evolving) would not want "us" to try and take care of the earth. And since this topic has "Christian overtones", I'll address it as such. Because for years environmentalists and Christians have been at odds. In light of what I've read in the Bible (and other spiritual books), environmentalist, Christianity and numerous other faith's probably line up more closely than one might suppose.

As several other posters had previously brought out that in Genesis 1:26-31, it does say (paraphrasing here) "that man have 'dominion' over the earth and 'rule' the earth". I personally believe that the terms "dominion" and "rule" have been extremely twisted by many to perhaps infer the right of humans to use and abuse earth's resources. Errr.. Hello..? That would be a wrong interpretation in my opinion...! I think it's also high time that we, as Humans, look honestly at ourselves to find out exactly where our environmental responsibilities lie. I mean really, if those that do believe that Adam and Eve were created to populate the earth, then it falls to reason that they were also instructed to keep the "Garden of Eden... well... a paradise-like Garden.

The problem here I think may also lie in (at least with Christians) is that Christians who demonstrate an interest in the environment, may also fear that they are being aligned with liberals, with whom they do not share other social beliefs. Environmentalism is a valid outgrowth of faith in and respect for their God. Standing up for good stewardship of our environment does not "de facto" align Christians with liberals though. I believe that perception has kept Christians from becoming more active in conservation and environmental preservation issues.

But here's a little unknown scripture from the bible that you rarely hear get mentioned and it is in Revelations 11:18 which says: But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. What I read into that scripture is that I believe the Bible is greener than some may think and the Christian God does not look favoringly upon those that are "ruining the earth".

And I'm not going to stand on a pulpit and preach that we should all recycle or use reusable batteries to keep the mercury out of the landfills where it leaches down into your drinking water. Nope.. won't do it.. because I think you all already know that you 'could be' doing a bit better in trying to keep this earth of our's "green" regardless if were a Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, Christian and/or evolutionist.

Now, perhaps the Vatican believes that there aren't that many really reading the Bible any more and need a little help with "tuning ones common sense meter". In reality the Bible has been rewritten by interpretation thruout history to adjust to whatever agenda they feel is needed at that time.. Does this make it right? Well, I really don't have an opinion on that.. I'm just pleased that they no longer are burning people at the stake for owning copies of the bible as they did several hundred years back... I think that there are good and bad aspects in any belief system... and if these "new sins" help quell someone from throwing their garbage out of the car that then hits my windshield.. well then I'm not opposed to it..

Because in the end, while you may cry and complain about the so-called "new-sins".. theres really nothing new about "common sense"... I'm getting off the SoapBox now.. Thanks for hearing a different slant to an old story about treating one another with respect, taking care of our "only" earth, and of course the common sense factor.. Which just coincidently might become a new sin all in it's own.. "Thou shall not go against common sense"

Johnny

[edit on 11-3-2008 by JohnnyAnonymous]

You rock Johnny. More wisdom in the little finger than most have in their heads.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Whats wrong with encouraging eco-friendly attitudes? Seriously?

Encourage eco-friendly attitudes. Fine. But DO NOT elevate tossing a candy wrapper on the ground to the level of a 'cardinal sin'. And the 'share the wealth' crap is straight from the Marxist Cardinals in the Vatican and is nothing more than political posturing. It's VILE and it shows a severe lack of theological understanding on their part.

Encourage eco-friendly attitudes? Sure.

BUT the church is in the THEOLOGY business and it shouldn't be mixing popular lines of thought with theology ... and it shouldn't be trying to raise these popular lines of thought to the level of 'cardinal sin'.

That was just what JP1 wanted to do. He saw the wealth of the vatican and wanted to distribute it. He was shut down in short order. Mafioses wouldn't have it, linked at the hip.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by jpm1602]

This is the itch I gotta scratch:
The Pope (if I inderstand it correctly) is God's representative on earth and in some way inherits (when he is voted in by the Cardinals) the same authority as the very original "Son of God" ergo JC. By virtue of this "divine" sucession the Pope now recieves direct revalations from God himself as speaking as if he (the Pope) is the present Son of God on earth.
The problem then becomes,, "Papal infallability" if the Pope cant be wrong because God is omnipitant (all knowing) then why didnt the Pope know about these sins before .."varily I say to you, there is nothing under the sun that is new to the "Father". Well appearantly JC isnt or wasnt the authority and so neither is the Pope. Or something smells all the way to heaven's gates,,,Riddle me that Batman

Suppose you made it to heaven by not committing any of the old sins, but you are guilty of some of the new ones.

Does that mean you get kicked out of heaven?

Maybe heaven is over crowded?

I've only been awake for about an hour, and I have sinned already!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Whats wrong with encouraging eco-friendly attitudes? Seriously?

Encourage eco-friendly attitudes. Fine. But DO NOT elevate tossing a candy wrapper on the ground to the level of a 'cardinal sin'. And the 'share the wealth' crap is straight from the Marxist Cardinals in the Vatican and is nothing more than political posturing. It's VILE and it shows a severe lack of theological understanding on their part.

Encourage eco-friendly attitudes? Sure.

BUT the church is in the THEOLOGY business and it shouldn't be mixing popular lines of thought with theology ... and it shouldn't be trying to raise these popular lines of thought to the level of 'cardinal sin'.

Cardinal sins? .. I thought it lined up with er.. whats the word.. thinking back to my Catholic education here.. started with a V..

Anyways.. I had considered blatant littering a sin, even a crime, for as long as I can remember. Its an act done with conscious knowledge that it is wrong (er, sin defined no?) ..

As for "sharing the wealth" .. The Church and all major monotheistic religions require 10% of all your wealth per year to be shared among the community..

But whatever. I know your old school, but even so, you are the last person I would have expected to have an issue with these "new sins" < what ever that honestly is supposed to mean. Its the church reiterating that its wrong.