Comments on: Subduing the Earth http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31667 OMGF Thu, 14 Feb 2008 03:03:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31667 No, one aberrant reading or one span of a couple weeks of weather (hot or cold) does not a global phenomena make. That's why we base our findings of global warming (and athropogenic global warming) on ice core data, global average temps, etc. No, one aberrant reading or one span of a couple weeks of weather (hot or cold) does not a global phenomena make. That's why we base our findings of global warming (and athropogenic global warming) on ice core data, global average temps, etc.

]]> By: Chris Swanson http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31666 Chris Swanson Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:35:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31666 Good crap on a stick! I just looked, and according to Wikipedia, the highest temp ever recorded in Fairbanks is 99. Ack! Of course, that was back in 1919, so we can't blame it on global warming. :) Good crap on a stick! I just looked, and according to Wikipedia, the highest temp ever recorded in Fairbanks is 99. Ack! Of course, that was back in 1919, so we can't blame it on global warming. :)

]]> By: Chris Swanson http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31665 Chris Swanson Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:33:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-31665 You know, I know this is a rather old article, but I do feel the need to make one comment. The article states that people in the Artic Circle are having to use air conditioners. Listen, I spent a summer living in Fairbanks once. It was 90+ degrees for three weeks straight, and extremely humid. This is what happens when the sun doesn't set for several months. It's not global warming, just climate. You know, I know this is a rather old article, but I do feel the need to make one comment. The article states that people in the Artic Circle are having to use air conditioners. Listen, I spent a summer living in Fairbanks once. It was 90+ degrees for three weeks straight, and extremely humid. This is what happens when the sun doesn't set for several months. It's not global warming, just climate.

]]> By: Caunion http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-27957 Caunion Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:20:16 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-27957 Interesting enough, the rather obscure Eastern Orthodox Church is planning to make a new type of sin. Sin against the environment. You're welcome to read more here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n34_v114/ai_20063986 Interesting enough, the rather obscure Eastern Orthodox Church is planning to make a new type of sin. Sin against the environment. You're welcome to read more here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n34_v114/ai_20063986

]]> By: Catholic Schools http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-24743 Catholic Schools Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:58:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-24743 I think at one stage the catholic church was considering making littering a sin. Trival as that sounds I think that would suggest some kind of environmental undertone within the church. I think at one stage the catholic church was considering making littering a sin. Trival as that sounds I think that would suggest some kind of environmental undertone within the church.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19566 Ebonmuse Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:01:15 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19566 An update on another of the topics discussed in this post: the National Association of Evangelicals stood behind Richard Cizik at this week's meeting, rejecting a demand by 25 religious right leaders to silence him from speaking out on global warming (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/14/evangelical.rift/index.html?eref=rss_politics" rel="nofollow">source</a>). Good for the NAE! I'm glad to finally see <i>some</i> evangelical Christians who care about something other than sex. Dobson, Perkins and the rest, however, will continue to richly deserve all the scorn they get. An update on another of the topics discussed in this post: the National Association of Evangelicals stood behind Richard Cizik at this week's meeting, rejecting a demand by 25 religious right leaders to silence him from speaking out on global warming (source). Good for the NAE! I'm glad to finally see some evangelical Christians who care about something other than sex. Dobson, Perkins and the rest, however, will continue to richly deserve all the scorn they get.

]]> By: Robert http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19499 Robert Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:06:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19499 Just to put a nail in the obedience issue: <blockquote> The Roman Catholic Promise of Faith and Obedience: Form 1: I believe that the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church is God's teaching, without exception. I believe that the Pope is the supreme teacher and leader chosen by God to have authority over the entire Universal Church and over each individual Christian. I promise the Most Holy Trinity, I promise Jesus Christ suffering on the Cross, I promise the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the angels and saints, to always believe and follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,and to never fail in true obedience to the teaching and leadership of the Pope. I promise to pray for, defend, and obey the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. Form 2: I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches. And I solemnly promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ, and successor of blessed Peter the head of the apostles. I solemnly promise and swear that with God's help I will firmly retain and confess whole and immaculate to my dying breath this true Catholic faith, which I now profess freely and hold truly, and outside which no one can be saved. May God have mercy on the Holy Roman Catholic Church through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. </blockquote> Just to put a nail in the obedience issue:

The Roman Catholic Promise of Faith and Obedience:

Form 1:

I believe that the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church is God's teaching, without exception.

I believe that the Pope is the supreme teacher and leader chosen by God to have authority over the entire Universal Church and over each individual Christian.

I promise the Most Holy Trinity, I promise Jesus Christ suffering on the Cross, I promise the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the angels and saints, to always believe and follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,and to never fail in true obedience to the teaching and leadership of the Pope.

I promise to pray for, defend, and obey the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church.

Form 2:

I acknowledge the holy, Catholic, and apostolic Roman Church as the mother and teacher of all churches.

And I solemnly promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Christ, and successor of blessed Peter the head of the apostles.

I solemnly promise and swear that with God's help I will firmly retain and confess whole and immaculate to my dying breath this true Catholic faith, which I now profess freely and hold truly, and outside which no one can be saved.

May God have mercy on the Holy Roman Catholic Church through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19473 Ebonmuse Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:49:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19473 Apropos of the earlier discussion on whether there are things that Catholics are required to believe, I present the following story from Pam Spaulding's blog: <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1000" rel="nofollow">Wyoming church to couple: if you support gay rights, no communion for you</a>. The article concerns a Catholic church that has decided to deny communion to a gay couple that has publicly supported marriage equality. Jarrod, do you still hold the position that Catholics are permitted to think freely and to question any church proclamation they choose? If so, how do you square that position with this obvious evidence that the church intends to use communion as a weapon of spiritual blackmail against Catholics who take political positions differing from those held by the church hierarchy? Apropos of the earlier discussion on whether there are things that Catholics are required to believe, I present the following story from Pam Spaulding's blog: Wyoming church to couple: if you support gay rights, no communion for you. The article concerns a Catholic church that has decided to deny communion to a gay couple that has publicly supported marriage equality.

Jarrod, do you still hold the position that Catholics are permitted to think freely and to question any church proclamation they choose? If so, how do you square that position with this obvious evidence that the church intends to use communion as a weapon of spiritual blackmail against Catholics who take political positions differing from those held by the church hierarchy?

]]> By: bassmanpete http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19205 bassmanpete Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:23:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19205 Jarrod, I would agree with you that some respondents have read into what Cardinal Biffi said more than he did say. However, where I part company from him (not that I was ever in step in the first place) is when he states that respect for nature is a relative value. To me, if you don't have respect for nature, you don't have respect for yourself nor for any god that MAY have created it all. If you want to show a creator that you value it's creation, surely the best way is to appreciate & respect that creation in your behaviour, deeds & just sheer joy in revelling in it and not just turn up on Sundays to sing songs, say words and basically suck up to the supposed creator? Jarrod, I would agree with you that some respondents have read into what Cardinal Biffi said more than he did say. However, where I part company from him (not that I was ever in step in the first place) is when he states that respect for nature is a relative value. To me, if you don't have respect for nature, you don't have respect for yourself nor for any god that MAY have created it all.

If you want to show a creator that you value it's creation, surely the best way is to appreciate & respect that creation in your behaviour, deeds & just sheer joy in revelling in it and not just turn up on Sundays to sing songs, say words and basically suck up to the supposed creator?

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19185 Jarrod Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:46:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19185 Ok, responding to the person who seems to be the only one here capable of making reasonable objections rather than wild ad hominems... Ebonmuse: While I cannot really know the entirety of the Cardinal's thinking on this matter, I think he singled those views out not because he feels that they in and of themselves are immnently threating, but rather because the current popularity they enjoy in many circles could be used as leverage against Christian belief. I'm sure the Cardinal could have said 'The AntiChrist will be a communist,' but communism doesn't carry a ton of weight anymore. His point is not that they are evil, but that the popularity of them could be used as a lure to bring Christians away from faith in the name of compromise. Your point about the antichrist being an ideology is moot; he specifically mentions what this ideology will be: the reduction of Christianity to a system of principles no different than any other. Therein lies the (supposed) danger of these politically popular ideas: Christians will be enouraged to abandon one of their beliefs in the name of ecumenism, etc. Obviously these things aren't categorically at odds with Christianity; JPII was a big fan of ecumenism, just not the sort that requires Catholics to give up cherished beliefs. As for him attributing such things to the 'antichrist,' I'll agree with you that it was a rather unfortunate choice of words given its association with fundementalist fanatacism (think the Left Behind books), but I'll go back to one of my earlier points. I sincerely doubt that too many Catholics are going to hear even the gist of this speech; I myself did not until you brought it up, and I actually try to keep up with Church news. Furthermore, despite the extraordinarily insane connatations evangelicals associate with that word, not nearly as many Catholics feel the same immenent threat from some prophetic anthichrist. A lone Cardinal's mention of him/her/it is not going to send the Catholic world up in arms against environmentalism. If any of what I said above is not crystal clear, please let me know, as I feel this particular dispute about what he means when he attributes things to the 'antichrist' is key to understanding how he was misquoted. As for your earlier arguments about belief, dogma, etc., I'd need more space than this and will try and address them on that open thread you spoke of. Sorry for the inconvenience. Ok, responding to the person who seems to be the only one here capable of making reasonable objections rather than wild ad hominems...
Ebonmuse:
While I cannot really know the entirety of the Cardinal's thinking on this matter, I think he singled those views out not because he feels that they in and of themselves are immnently threating, but rather because the current popularity they enjoy in many circles could be used as leverage against Christian belief. I'm sure the Cardinal could have said 'The AntiChrist will be a communist,' but communism doesn't carry a ton of weight anymore. His point is not that they are evil, but that the popularity of them could be used as a lure to bring Christians away from faith in the name of compromise. Your point about the antichrist being an ideology is moot; he specifically mentions what this ideology will be: the reduction of Christianity to a system of principles no different than any other. Therein lies the (supposed) danger of these politically popular ideas: Christians will be enouraged to abandon one of their beliefs in the name of ecumenism, etc. Obviously these things aren't categorically at odds with Christianity; JPII was a big fan of ecumenism, just not the sort that requires Catholics to give up cherished beliefs.
As for him attributing such things to the 'antichrist,' I'll agree with you that it was a rather unfortunate choice of words given its association with fundementalist fanatacism (think the Left Behind books), but I'll go back to one of my earlier points. I sincerely doubt that too many Catholics are going to hear even the gist of this speech; I myself did not until you brought it up, and I actually try to keep up with Church news. Furthermore, despite the extraordinarily insane connatations evangelicals associate with that word, not nearly as many Catholics feel the same immenent threat from some prophetic anthichrist. A lone Cardinal's mention of him/her/it is not going to send the Catholic world up in arms against environmentalism.
If any of what I said above is not crystal clear, please let me know, as I feel this particular dispute about what he means when he attributes things to the 'antichrist' is key to understanding how he was misquoted. As for your earlier arguments about belief, dogma, etc., I'd need more space than this and will try and address them on that open thread you spoke of. Sorry for the inconvenience.

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19180 Jarrod Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:30:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19180 Alright, this ought to be a fun one to reply. I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the point of it, because of fun people like Robert and Ipetrich, but I'll continue because of the few reasonable souls who bother frequenting such discussions. Robert: As seems to be your norm, you enjoy these rather pathetic ad hominem attacks rather than actually addressing what I'm saying. I'm not simply 'defending this idiot of a cardinal'; I simply wanted to make sure that he was being properly quoted. I'm a big fan of reasonable, logical arguments, and I'd prefer it if my fellow thinkers were actually making them. Taking a quote out of context and using it as a straw man is a horrible way of arguing. If the man popped up and said "environmentalism is evil," I'd applaud you for rightly criticizing him. But I really don't think that's what he said and am voicing that view. As for learning more about atheism, you can learn by asking questions and proposing challenges, you know, instead of just asking. Your responses and arguments have shown me plenty about both what you believe and the type of people who tend to believe it. Also, I never asked you to 'further my development as a catholic.' Where do you keep getting these ideas? When I said, do you know everything about atheism, I meant, do you know all of the arguments for/against, all the reasoning and thought on the matter, etc? You didn't answer my phrasing of that argument in terms of science. Does this mean you concede, or just don't like addressing things that make sense? Oh, and please explain to me how the section of the article you popped out furthers your point of view. Really, it's opaque to me. Ipetrich: I'm still here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd address me directly when making these objections. The difference between this cardinal's rantings and those of that wonderful Limbaugh (that was meant sarcastically, for those of you who will assume otherwise) is that Limbaugh actually pops up and says stupid things like 'feminism is evil'; the cardinal did not say 'environmentalism is evil.' I'll further that explanation in my next post to Ebon. Question: Where does this whole thing about 'keeping us in business' come from? Where is the conclusion that such a statement was his real meaning coming from? Unless you bother substatiating this line of thought, you seem to be as adept at pulling things out of your ass as many theists are. (cont'd in the next post...) Alright, this ought to be a fun one to reply. I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the point of it, because of fun people like Robert and Ipetrich, but I'll continue because of the few reasonable souls who bother frequenting such discussions.
Robert: As seems to be your norm, you enjoy these rather pathetic ad hominem attacks rather than actually addressing what I'm saying. I'm not simply 'defending this idiot of a cardinal'; I simply wanted to make sure that he was being properly quoted. I'm a big fan of reasonable, logical arguments, and I'd prefer it if my fellow thinkers were actually making them. Taking a quote out of context and using it as a straw man is a horrible way of arguing. If the man popped up and said "environmentalism is evil," I'd applaud you for rightly criticizing him. But I really don't think that's what he said and am voicing that view.
As for learning more about atheism, you can learn by asking questions and proposing challenges, you know, instead of just asking. Your responses and arguments have shown me plenty about both what you believe and the type of people who tend to believe it. Also, I never asked you to 'further my development as a catholic.' Where do you keep getting these ideas?
When I said, do you know everything about atheism, I meant, do you know all of the arguments for/against, all the reasoning and thought on the matter, etc? You didn't answer my phrasing of that argument in terms of science. Does this mean you concede, or just don't like addressing things that make sense? Oh, and please explain to me how the section of the article you popped out furthers your point of view. Really, it's opaque to me.
Ipetrich:
I'm still here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd address me directly when making these objections. The difference between this cardinal's rantings and those of that wonderful Limbaugh (that was meant sarcastically, for those of you who will assume otherwise) is that Limbaugh actually pops up and says stupid things like 'feminism is evil'; the cardinal did not say 'environmentalism is evil.' I'll further that explanation in my next post to Ebon.
Question: Where does this whole thing about 'keeping us in business' come from? Where is the conclusion that such a statement was his real meaning coming from? Unless you bother substatiating this line of thought, you seem to be as adept at pulling things out of your ass as many theists are.
(cont'd in the next post...)

]]> By: lpetrich http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19093 lpetrich Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:21:13 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/03/subduing-the-earth.html#comment-19093 Jarrod's defense of Cardinal Biffi remind me of Rush Limbaugh followers' defenses of their hero -- "What I meant was..." Thus, Rush Limbaugh's vilifications of feminism are often "explained" by his followers as denunciations of belligerent, "radical", in-your-face feminism. The fact is, Cardinal Biffi didn't say anything like "ecumenism, environmentalism, and pacifism are all well and good, but don't forget to keep us in business, because gawd will get awfully pissed if you don't". If that is what he meant, then why didn't he say that in the first place? Jarrod's defense of Cardinal Biffi remind me of Rush Limbaugh followers' defenses of their hero -- "What I meant was..."

Thus, Rush Limbaugh's vilifications of feminism are often "explained" by his followers as denunciations of belligerent, "radical", in-your-face feminism.

The fact is, Cardinal Biffi didn't say anything like "ecumenism, environmentalism, and pacifism are all well and good, but don't forget to keep us in business, because gawd will get awfully pissed if you don't". If that is what he meant, then why didn't he say that in the first place?

]]>