Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does a Christian owe their first loyalty to the Pope, or to God? If your conscience tells you one thing, and the Pope tells you another, which path should you follow?
Galileo followed his conscience. Even when given a direct order by the highest authority in Christendom, to recant his opinion that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, he chose conscience over obedience, divinity over temporal authority – until he was threatened with unspeakable pain.
I am not saying the church is always wrong. Most of the time, the church is a force for good. The moral authority which is the Christian church helped to create the modern world. The concept of a single god, a god of love rather than hate, a universe of order, in which the forces of chaos were chained in the abyss, gave the philosopher monks the peace to pursue their research into the innermost workings of creation – and the faith to believe that creation was orderly enough to be explored.
However, a papal encyclical which demands action on climate change would be tantamount to an accusation that people who doubt the urgency of addressing climate change are evil – are cynically exploiting the doubts of others, for their own selfish ends. Yet surely true evil is condemning millions to live their lives in endless drudgery, by denying them the opportunities inexpensive energy and affordable food might bring, on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence – defective models and failed predictions.
I do not doubt the sincerity of the Pope. I don’t even doubt the sincerity of most alarmist climate scientists. But sometimes scientists get it wrong. There was once another group of people who thought they were right – that the world was on the brink of a catastrophe which only their statistical models could foresee, that mass cruelty was the only path to salvation. Their sincere blindness almost plunged the entire world into darkness. The one regime which embraced this dark vision, even after others finally rejected it, is now a byword for evil. Yet arguably, those who believed were simply accepting the scientific consensus of the day.
The lesson is, or should be, that if you demand the infliction of unspeakable cruelty on a vast number of people, as many climate scientists, green politicians and activists in my opinion demand, with their vehement opposition to affordable energy, you had better be sure of your facts. You better have more evidence that such an abomination is an inescapable necessity, than a set of models which fail, again and again, to demonstrate plausible predictive skill.
If you believe in a creator, one day you will face, not the pope, but your creator. On the day of judgement, the opinion of the pope will count for nothing. All that will matter is whether you lived a principled life, and stood up for what mattered. Even if this sometimes means disobeying the instructions of the Pope, just as Galileo once did.
If you don’t follow the pope, but do consider yourself christian, then you are a protestant.
Addition: there are even other christian denominations that are neither protestant nor Roman-Catholic, e.g. The Coptic Church
And there’s the Mormon Church, where even Jews are considered to be gentiles.
I do, it’s the best comedy going.
Not true. Even Catholics are supposed to be “following” Jesus Christ – the living Son of God.
“Even Catholics are suppose to be following Jesus Christ”, wow, even Catholics? LOL. The Pope would be the first to say you must follow your conscience. Galileo’s claim the earth isn’t the center of the universe opposed Aristotle’s two sphere universe, who was a pagan. Galileo was forced to recant because of politics. But I am a little afraid of what the Pope’s encyclical will say as it will be framed under moral authority and not science and politics like Galileo.
To thyne own self be true. Some of us see devinity in the pure individual truth.
BTW, there are also Jews For Jesus and a few dozen other ‘edge cases’ outside your binary division. Little things like Eastern Orthodox…
This Pope is a Jesuit. Sometimes called “God’s Marines”. Some of them pushed “liberation theology” and other socialist leaning efforts. They also like being edgy… so I would expect him to be attracted to an ‘energized’ field with a saving the world through poverty narrative. Jusuits take a vow of poverty and set out to save the world…
He is just a man trapped in his paradigms…
Your right on the money.
My research indicates that Jesuit Order do not take any vows of charity, chastity, or poverty. They are a militant order that is able to work clandestinely in society, because they are able to marry. They are able to go any where they are ordered to go to carry out their counter-reformation mission, and bring back the world to Catholicism. Jesuits own hundreds of schools. Jesuits were formed in response to the reformation. They are a counter reformation order.
ref: Encyclopedia Britanica ref: John Adams letters
E.M. Smith, Actually “Jews for Jesus” are still “Christian” and they maintain their Jewish identity and customs. Among the ignorant there are many myths concerning Christianity. Here are a few well known historic facts to clear some things up for you:
Jesus is actually Jewish despite a myth that he was “catholic.”
The first so called “christians” were all Jews living in Antioch.
The New Testament is a book written by Jews, about jews, for Jews and the non-Jewish converts.
Jesus lived strictly by the Torah, the five books of Moses without exception.
“Christ” is not Jesus’s surname, but a title, meaning “Anointed”, the translation of the hebrew “Messiah”
“Jesus” was not his given name, but the hebrew “Yeshua” meaning “God’s salvation”
There was no “oral torah” in the first century, during the start of Jesus;s ministry, as there is today in Rabbinic Judaism. Jesus taught that any man who taught the traditions of man were actually form God were themselves godless .
In Modern Rabbinic Judaism rabbi’s teach the oral torah says if the rabbi tells you something is true but God (old testament) said is wrong, you have to believe the rabbi not God.
Obviously this is a self serving philosophy of men, not unlike the Roman Catholic church position concerning the “petrine supremacy” or “papal authority”, the authority to contradict the Old and New Testament, and even write reveal “new revaluation” from God even if that contradicts the old and new testament, and that the pope can never make a mistake, and that he has universal power over all men’s souls!
Your research that indicates the jesuits do not take vows of charity, chastity or poverty is incorrect. They do indeed take such vows. They also take a vow of obedience to their superiors.
Zeke,
adding to the comments, Jesuits do not get married and celibacy is certainly part of their commitment. They can’t even enter the order if they have any other obligations.
Jesuits are fully ordained Catholic priests but have have stricter rules such as taking vows of poverty, chastity and obedience.
The word “Catholic” is GREEK and refers properly to the Greek Orthodox Church and those in communion with her–the Russians, Romanians, etc. The Pope is NOT Catholic and hasn’t been for nearly 1000 years.
The Orthodox Church examined the controversy over evolution that so roiled the Papo-protestants and said, well the Bible is True and science is the search for truth, so if there appears to be a contradiction, then one or the other has been misunderstood–and further research will clear it up.
My loyalty goes to the head of the Church of England, and I’m not talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
As an ex Military man I agree. But as a Monark theu listen to “advisers”. Just listen to Charles.
Long live the Queen! Very long.
Oz is a constitutional monarchy with the sovereign of England being our Head of State.
Charles, who talks to plants, has declared that “deniers” should be thrown in jail at the very least . Historically, I guess, that would equate to hanging by monarchical decree.
You are welcome to your choice of allegiance but if you think deniers are dumb enough to follow suit then you underestimate our capacity for survival. Oz will become a republic if Charles ascends to the throne; deniers will surely see to that. 🙂
I do believe all of Australia are in agreement with you there. I’m also pretty confident that the Queen also understands this.
“Oz is a constitutional monarchy” Correct.
“with the sovereign of England being our Head of State.” No. The Governor-General is our Head of State. The High Court recognized this in a case about 1906 or 1907, when it referred to the Governor-General as being the “Head of the Commonwealth”. This was before Franco invented the term “Head of State” to disguise the fact he had usurped the position of the lawful King of Spain.
It is religion that is the cause of almost all the strife in the world, always has been. Perhaps it should be left off this blog. If not, be prepared for the most contentious thread WUWT will ever have, second only to solar threads.
The sentence: .. “It is religion that is the cause of almost all the strife in the world” .. is a generalization, and puts too much weight on religion being the cause of almost all the strife. .. On the contrary, racism, intolerance, greed, and the aggressive nature of despots and dictators is at the base of many conflicts.
By the way, there are some religions and sects that preach the opposite of aggression and war. For example, many devout Christians only follow the peaceful writings found in the first 4 books of their New Testament, and do not follow the many violent parts of the Old Testament (which are based on the Jewish Torah).
Peter, while humans would find a reason to kill each other even if religious belief didn’t exist, just take a look at all the news reports from around the world at the moment. Seriously, click on Google News and write down all the conflicts. How many have religion at their base? It’s very sad that a belief in something for which there is no proof whatsoever causes, and has caused, millions of deaths and suffering. Some would call it irony – I wouldn’t.
“On the contrary, racism, intolerance, greed, and the aggressive nature of despots and dictators is at the base of many conflicts.”
Racism, intolerance and greed are hallmarks of religion. Whether the aggressive nature of despots and dictators is due to their true religious beliefs or the use of religion as an excuse to act as they do makes no difference.
As an aside, I find that American Jews are some of the most tolerant people I know. They have been especially tolerant of the Christian holiday of Christmas that has been forced upon them each year. But then, they do own most of the jewelry stores.
Because some religions teach violence, all religions are bad?
That sounds an awful lot like, since some blacks are criminals, therefore all blacks are criminals.
Religion is just the result of man’s attempt to make sense of the unknowable. It is a conceptual artifact of humanity, and as such is not the primary cause of anything. It serves as a conceptual framework for all sorts of things which we find to be good and bad. And as we know, even non-religion is a religion — for instance, belief in rationalism and science in lieu of religion — because it is about the unknown and unknowable.
True, but it is the sons of the religion of secularism (the State) that have racked up the highest body counts.
I have no clue as to Mister Watts personal beliefs, nor do I need to know, but I have always appreciated his willingness to broach these issues despite the complaints of those who religion is just “temporal lobe insanity.”
This is to Tom in Florida, there was no direct reply link.
“Racism, intolerance and greed are hallmarks of religion.”
I would like examples of religions teaching that, if you would be so kind. Personally, I think racism, intolerance and greed are hallmarks of humans, not religions. If all religions disappeared tomorrow you would still be left with racism, intolerance and greed.
NancyG22, there is a human tendency to assign all evil things to the groups that you hate or fear the most.
Rationality doesn’t play into it at all.
Langenbahn Yes. Communist governments founded on atheism caused the deaths of more than 100 million of their own people during the 20th century – as documented in The Black Book of Communism Harvard Press
re: NancyG22 April 29, 2015 at 5:44 am
“Personally, I think racism, intolerance and greed are hallmarks of humans, not religions”
And that is why religion is the cause of all this. It is because religious beliefs are interpreted and acted upon by humans in the name of their religion for their own betterment. These human failures get stroked by religious righteousness and that is where it all goes wrong. History is full of heads of religions ruling the masses, decreeing who is worthy and who is not, shaming the masses into giving up their worldly goods for a chance at eternal life. History is full of battles and wars in the name of religions and gods. Pleasing the gods has been a human endeavor ever since gods were first invented.
It is a farce to blame religion for the strife in the world. Put the blame where it truly belongs – human nature and “church.” Belief in God does not cause strife, following church dogma amplifies human nature. It is neither training or “religion” that causes one child to take something away from another because it wants it and is bigger. It is innate to the human specie. It is not belief in God that causes the strife between Jews, Muslims, and so called “Christians(so called because they don’t even attempt to follow the teachings of Christ)”, it is the dogma of the church teachings that causes it, generally playing upon the innate nature of man.
If you are religious, you probably follow the word of God, spoken to you through your own sense of right, if you are Catholic, you probably follow the word of the Pope. We might have been able to gain a sense of civility and civilization by now if it hadn’t been for the institutions of church. I singled out the Catholic church above only because the article specifically talked about the Pope. The same is true of every other “high holy person,” be it a prophet, a Rabbi, an archbishop, or what have you.
The most deaths have been caused by governments and not religions. Specifically atheist communist governments. Tens of millions dead because of atheist communist governments.
Suggest you research the 30 years war (for starters) then move to the holocaust.
@James…so what religion did Germany have at its back as the reason for starting WW2?
The 30 years war was a dynastic power struggle, and Germany leaders during WWII weren’t Christian. They were pagans, trying to replace Christianity with the older tribal religions.
kokoda: The thinking of the haters goes something like this. A lot of people in Germany were Christians. Therefore everything bad done by Germany is the fault of Christianity.
@JGrizz0011 The 30 Years War had a total death toll, combat and civilian of 8M on all sides. If you were on a battle line on any of the sides, you count. If you were a peasant and they burned your fields and stole your food, your death by starvation counts. Communism had a 20th century civilian death toll of 100M and that civilian death toll does not include those that died of communist warfare. If you were a South Korean civilian and a communist military artillery shell landed on and killed you, it’s not included in this total.
There is no comparison.
NONSENSE! Religion may be a PRETEXT, but the Mongols’ wars of conquest, Tamerlane’s wars, the Napoleonic Wars, , and WW I and II were not brought about by religious disputes.
To which you can the tribal/clan warfare in Asia, Africa, and the Americas long before “religion” was organized enough to motivate warfare.
In your opinion, had there never been religion, the world would have been a peacefull place, no wars, no fighting?
You attribute to religion what is in fact basic human nature.
It has been religion that has given man a reason to tame their more base natures.
You really should learn a little something about what you hate before you seek to lecture others on it.
It is not religion itself, but the evil hearts of human beings who are seeking power, control & money – “the root of so many evils” (using religion as an excuse), which has led to all the strife in the world.
Scientists would probably be happy to leave religion out of the discussion, if the Pope would stick to his own business – that of saving souls, instead of sticking his nose into discussion on science (or the lack there-of) – which the good Pope knows absolutely nothing about.
Do not confuse the faith for the supposedly faithful.
Do you believe that a person was acting in the interest of his faith when he walks out of a house, having slaughtered all of the inhabitants, as doing what God told him? I don’t. I also don’t believe that when someone says they are acting in the interests of God or Allah and are destroying people and property for their own aggrandizement and power.
Religion, just like Tribal identity, statism, racism, and probably anything else ending is “ism” or “ist” has been used to justify many things that are at odds with humanity. Don’t buy into the propaganda that just because someone says they are doing something in the name of God or Christ that they are. Look at their actions and decide for yourself whether they are consistent with what their claims are.
Tom in Florida
“It is religion that is the cause of almost all the strife in the world, always has been.”
Actually no. Very few religions teach violence but all religions seem to resort to it at one time or another. Therefore it seems to me that the violence that religions instigate comes from another source. Race and nationalism are two other things that at various times also seem to express themselves through violence. Some might argue that capitalism is a form of violence — the competitive clash of businesses seeking dominance. (Socialism is actually the final triumph of Capitalism — one business (government) controls everything and allows no competition — monopoly at its absolute worst with dire consequences for the consumer.)
What all the above have in common is — human beings. Human beings have an instinct to dominate, stronger in some then in others. Large established Institutions are a ready made “path to power” for the worst of human kind.
The early Athenians realized what that originating source was. For a time, as far as their executive government was concerned they had a unique solution. Government positions were awarded by random lot. Nobody was appointed by another or ran for office. There was no “path to power” available. It was all just dumb luck.
Crazy, and ultimately the system was discarded. But those Athenians did correctly identify what the real problem was and attempted a correction.
Hey, this thing is only about 300 words long. Just stating a basic principle, not writing a thesis.
Eugene WR Gallun
People acting in the name of their religion or gods as justification for their deeds has been rampant since religion and gods were first invented. It doesn’t seem to matter what the official doctrine is. Simply trying to convert others is an act of tyranny. It doesn’t matter if it is done with violence and weapons or through shameless indoctrination of the mind, it is what makes the world evil.
Nope. It’s politics. More generically, it’s the desire to make people do what you want them to, whether they like it or not, in the belief that the end justifies the means. To accomplish this, any old method will do: politics, religion, propaganda. Socialist politics murdered 120,000,000 people in the 20th Century alone. Fascists and Socialists are fellow travelers on the political spectrum. Big government and consolidation of power is what characterizes them. “Left” and “Right” are misnomers.
Mankind has been at war with itself before there even were humans. Chimpanzees have wars and murder, for crying out loud. Many wars may have used religion as an excuse, but they all were wars about power, control, and money. Although WW-I and WW-II seem to have been started through the sheer ineptitude of the political class they still ended up about power, control, and money.
Popes have been found wrong so many times over the centuries that I wonder why we still listen to them.
I agree with Tom in Florida.
Good grief. Would it be too outlandish of me to suggest that people actually wait until a document has been published, so we actually know what’s really in it, before responding to it?
The response is to what has already transpired. It is hoped that the Pope will listen to that response before he goes down a path that damages more than just the Church.
However, as I read the tea leaves, I think his mind is already made up.
I take the following speculation as a response to a document that hasn’t been published yet, the contents of which, therefore, we do not know: “However, a papal encyclical which demands action on climate change would be tantamount to an accusation that people who doubt the urgency of addressing climate change are evil – are cynically exploiting the doubts of others, for their own selfish ends.” If you take it otherwise, so be it.
Agreed. The two popes before this wrote, of those I read, well-measured, thoughtful encyclicals with which I found almost nothing to disagree. And I am not Catholic. I am Evangelical, Protestant and Pentecostal. Ironically, that actually makes me more Catholic (or less “not Catholic”) than a lot of Catholics today.
Interesting perspective. Moderators be prepared for some heavy moderation.
CATHOLICS owe their loyalty to the Pope. Christians (in general) do not.
Nope. The Pope has 3 offices so to speak.
1) He is the Bishop of Rome. Just another of the many bishops.
2) He is the head of state of a very small country called the Vatican city.
3) He is the Vicar of Christ, a descendant of Peter, hand picked by Jesus Christ himself.
To whom do Catholics owe loyalty?
Loyalty? What is loyalty?
Catholics are not mindless robots. Catholics think for themselves and form opinions based on knowledge.
Catholics abide by the Apostles Creed which says nothing about loyalty to the Pope. Eric, I like you but you are wrong about that as are you Bill W.
That being said, Catholics have to be pretty careful when confronting the “Teaching Authority” of the “Church” on Catholic matters of Faith an morals. NOT SCIENCE. That is not within the teaching authority of the church. Sometimes the Pope is a spokesman for the Church on matters and Catholics are well to listen at those times. The environment is not one of those times. IMO.
Since the Christian Church and the Bible were created by the “Catholic” Church, it is reasonable to say that they know what they are talking about on “Christian matters. Incidentally, Christians were referred to Christian for the first time at Antioch.
In any event, the Pope will influence a lot of people to do something. I wonder what it will be?
Thanks Paul Westhaver. I wonder too.
Perfect response.
Good comment.
Well said Paul W.
Catholics believe in a promise made by God, that when the Pope teaches on matters of faith and morals, he will not err. The pope can err in everything else, but not that. This is a promised miracle. If you believe that God made that promise than you depend on the Pope’s guidance in such matters because it’s an article of faith that God’s going to come through.
The fog of war. So many terms being thrown around without defining any, which can only lead to further confusion.
The statement made that the problem is with human nature hits the nail on the head. There is a problem with people at a firmware level. This has given rise to many philosophies trying to account for this problem and its implications, some of which are logical and reasonable and insufficient; and others that are more ‘spiritual’ or even theistic but that fail to provide a solution. They both fell short of the needed upgrade to our firmware defect, also called the ‘fallen nature’.
I would define religions as philosophies in the second category. The problem here is that there is a fairly fundamental misunderstanding and that is allowing the issues of Vatican Inc. to be conflated with what is popularly called Christianity. The Christian writings, the New Testament, tell us that upon his resurrection Jesus became the head of the church, and that was defined as being the ‘body’ of believers. Believers, not subscribers. To think that by subscribing to the teachings of Jesus you become a Christian is quite incorrect. Jesus pointed out to one of the religious leaders of his day that you must be born again. This was the firmware solution. Until that time the rules and commandments served to constrain the damaged motivations of humanity in general. The willful act of submitting to God through Jesus to allow God to use his power to transform the individual at a fundamental level is what facilitates this ‘new birth’ whereby a new nature is imparted. All that remains is to renew, or renovate the mind to remove the shackles necessary when the old firmware was trying to drive the bus, and bring it into line with the capabilities and realities of the firmware upgrade, that comes with this new family one has been ‘born’ into.
All that to say, that statements such as the Christian Church and the Bible were created by the ‘Catholic’ church so we should observe their pronouncements on ‘Christian’ matters is a tad delusional. The Bible existed centuries before the Church of Rome – before the end of the first century in fact, and the Christian Church came into full swing on the day of Pentecost. Simon Peter was never in Rome (an eighth century pious forgery notwithstanding) and the teaching in Matt. about him being the rock upon which the church would be built and only he got the keys is again just another fantastically incorrect interpretation of what was clearly being said. That being the ‘rock’ was a type of understanding that went beyond typical flesh and blood knowledge or gnosis (the kind exemplified in this thread) and required spirit illumination –at the firmware level, and the ‘keys’ were how this type of ‘revelation knowledge’ or epignosis could be applied to open up any ‘gates’ that prevented progress or kept the individual bound.
So the Pope has a great gig. A lot of people buy into his shtick, and if they do they may, or may not, take his lead on global warming or climate change. As for the rest be they informed or just entrenched, they could give a rats. But please don’t confuse what that temporal outfit is doing with actual Biblical Christianity – they are chalk and cheese. When Jesus said his kingdom what not of this world, he really meant it.
When and where did God make that specific “promise?”
@jorge I cannot do a better job than the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen on WUWT. The guy who wrote this doesn’t understand Catholic ecclesiology or history. Galileo threatened with unspeakable pain…read your history. Anthony, I hope there is no more of this.
A good place to start
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table-of.html
Yeah, that’s mostly correct. Although he was threatened. Turns out though the threat was justified to a limited extent. Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley- hardly a papist – looked into the matter, and concluded the Church had the better of the argument. The Galileo Affair was a minor ecclesiastical kerfuffle elevated to the status of “the War between SCIENCE!!! and faith” by the Enlightenment propaganda. More on this later.
The Pope’s advisors are on record
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/4/28/on-encyclicals.html
Sorry, wrong link, I meant this:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/4/29/theres-the-science-and-theres-the-vatican-science.html
Ron Clutz,
I read the article and the PAS statement. It is in fact a repeat of the IPCC statements of which we are all familiar. There is nothing substantially unique about anything they said, they have simply accepted the wave of pseudoscience from the IPCC, the Royal Society etc etc… all the BS that we have been bitching about for 10 years.
I blame myself for not making a strong enough case for reason. I blame the IPCC. The Vatican does not have the budget of the UN/USA/EU or will to conduct a study to combat the propaganda. The PAS is populated by Nobel laureates, some atheists, who are leftists.
Catholics are not bound by this statement. I hope they chose to ignore it.
Paul, thanks for your assessment of this development. Of course, it is all part of the build up to Paris COP.
I have been working on an alternative narrative with the oceans as the climate maker.
FYI there is more here:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/the-climate-water-wheel/
Thanks Ron.
I would have thought that the question of whom Christians owe their loyalty to was a subject more appropriate to a site whose topic is religion than to one whose topic is science and the politics of global warming.
Yes, what the pope is likely to say is relevant to this site’s focus: it has political ramifications. But I personally would prefer that the nature of our respective relationships with our Creator to be left as a subject for other sites.
Actually, global warming is a religion…
It is based on a religious belief (ie a thing that isn’t true, but people believe),
it has a dogma based on that religious belief,
a heirarchy of authority figures to preach that dogma,
and a system of punishments for those that breach the dogma.
Amen to that!
Religious beliefs are things that can’t be proven, that doesn’t make them false.
In addition, Hivemind, it has the Earth Charter. Produced and promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong and Stephen Rockefeller with the intention of replacing the Ten Commandments with its 16 Principles, Earth Charter is taught in many, many schools around the world. All principles are directed toward saving earth through global governance. The United Nations has approved it. Stephen Rockefeller and others paraded the document itself to the UN ‘chapel’ in an box imitative of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark rests in the chapel. The Earth Charter Directorate is headquartered in Costa Rica. One of David Suzuki’s daughters is director. Funding comes in large part through Mikhail Gorbachev’s Green Cross International.
imoira…This comment is more important than the entire article and all of the other comments combined.
The jerks are working together against us. Pushing the new religion.
Given that religious belief could be temporal lobe insanity, then I’m tempted to say that they will simply listen to the voice in their head, no matter what the head of the Catholic Church may say.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but when you die you won’t be meeting anyone – not even a mythical being who will review your performance on earth. I can understand primitive people making up such stories, but how on earth any free-thinking well-educated modern person can buy into them is beyond me.
Richard, I’m 56, and I’ve never met an intelligent, religious believer.
Then you’ve never met my dad.
Regardless of belief, unadulterated Christianity works as a behavioral guide and philosophy conducive to civil society.
Wow, GoBJC, that’s a pretty bold statement! Are you categorizing “them” because their need to believe in a creator automatically means than no other thought process they follow can be valid? I feel pretty much the same way about most atheists and agnostics, and can better substantiate that claim because they all seem to be libs and hence their worldview deliberately rejects most observations of the real world, including the lack of CAGW. Where does that leave us? Are you the ONLY intelligent person? (BTW, if pressed I would be forced to claim to agnosticism myself, since my “religious” belief is that we are all sims in a very advanced computer game!)
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
That seems improbable. Is this a sampling error?
What is your definition of intelligent?
Do you meet many people who are different to you?
How do you know if they are religious or intelligent anyway?
Yours curiously,
Another stupid, religious believer
John and Cube, it’s quite simple really. To be ‘intelligent’ one practices using rationale and logic. There is absolutely NOTHING rational or logical in believing in something for which you have no proof or evidence. It’s as simple as that! You can initially believe something, but if no evidence or proof comes to light after a reasonable amount of time, then you should give it up. It’s not intelligent to carrying on believing it. The possible existence of Jesus Christ is a great example: There is NOTHING other than Tacitus and Josephus (both possibly got at) to indicate that such a man ever existed (other than subjective contributors a few hundred years down the line). Now, if there was such a man who performed miracles and did many of the things that have been said, then a lot more would have been noted about him AT THE TIME. But it wasn’t. Thus there is nothing intelligent about believing Jesus Christ ever existed. The lack of evidence is astounding.
M Courtney. I never said you were stupid – that’s for you to decide. I said I’ve never met an intelligent, religious believer. As I say above, ‘intelligence’ is using logic and rationale. It is not logical or rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Intelligence (to me and many others) isn’t knowledge, it’s been able to use your brain to work something out, the ability to learn, and problem solving. If you carry on believing in something when everything is telling you otherwise, then that’s not intelligent thinking.
Well the fact that the church exists is evidence, isn’t it?
Crackpots claim crazy things all the time but something about the Resurrection of Jesus was persuasive enough that the Church grew until it became politically useful to the Roman empire.
Other claims didn’t have the support of the people at the time.
This is similar to temperature records. Modern climatologists are so sure they know best that they discount the things that were seen 100 years ago and lower the historical temperatures.
Your faith in the foolishness of others is equally strong.
You should say this to these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Also, I dispute your definition if intelligence. It is too narrow.
Not sure a reasonable person could believe anything, bar their own four walls, from such a position.
Cardinal Newman may have been religious (and eventually a Catholic) but his philosophy is still sound.
TGOBJC,
“It is not logical or rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.”
Please cite your evidence for abiogenesis.
True you could not have net Newton.
Dear Ghost of Big Jim,
Re: “It is not logical or rational to believe in something for which you have no evidence whatsoever.”
You might want to consider whether the irreducible complexity in such things as the bacterium flagellum and the almost SPOOKY design revealed in the make-up and function of the cell (see Dr. Stephen Meyer’s books/video on youtube) among other evidence…, makes a belief in a Designer logical.
Certainly, you can still choose not to believe, but the belief in a Designer is rational.
Praying for –> YOU!
#(:))
Janice
@Ghost…then you haven’t met very many people; and I am an Atheist.
Ghost: Haters got to hate.
Some of the most intelligent people I’ve met have been or are religious believers. Some of the most brilliant scientists have been or are religious believers. If you can’t meet someone who is intelligent, a religious believer and a scientist, you could try reading works by Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastics for starters. I hope this helps.
imoira: Ghost defines intelligent as being someone who agrees with him.
Mark, that is childish beyond belief. If you want to discuss, discuss, but don’t write such puerile nonsense. Try and debate. I clearly defined intelligence, and it isn’t someone who agrees with me! And for others, I only define intelligence as it is defined! Look it up.
Kokoda, silly reply, as you don’t know me. Indeed, because of what I do, I have met very, very many people. The most intelligent person I have ever met was a manual worker (though he should have been a detective). I have read Thomas Aquinas, about 10 years ago. I have also read the Bible, have you? I have also read Dawkins. But reading such stuff doesn’t make you more intelligent, just more knowledgeable. You don’t seem to understand the difference.
Ah, Janice. You are so sad.
M Courtney. If you’re interested, read up on how Constantine is responsible for Christianity, it’s very interesting. Oh, and he was very mad. He wore different hats, and got his madness from drinking wine from lead vases. The existence of churches isn’t evidence for a god!!! All it is evidence for is Christianity.
Ghost: You declared that anyone who believed in a God, couldn’t be intelligent.
I stand by my statement.
Sorry if the truth offends you.
Mark, anyone who believes in a god (when there is zero evidence for such a supernatural entity) isn’t using rationale and logic, ergo is unintelligent as defined by ‘intelligence’. The truth doesn’t offend me, why should it? I don’t understand why you said that. What truth? You said, “imoira: Ghost defines intelligent as being someone who agrees with him.” You made a mistake, as I didn’t say that! You can apologise for your mistake, or you can again ‘stand by your argument’ which is, yet again, a puerile response. It matters not a jot how you dress it up, Mark. Your one-liner was quite simply incorrect. Go look up ‘intelligence’ and you’ll see your mistake.
I have just noticed your “haters got to hate”! Again, a silly, childish thing to say. What on earth is wrong with you? I don’t hate. Funnily enough, my wife says I’m the only person she knows who doesn’t hate anyone. It’s a very negative emotion. She’s wrong though, as I do hate people who kill children. I don’t hate Christians, Muslims, Jews, or any religious believer. I just don’t think they are ‘intelligent’. That’s not ‘hate’. Quite why you think it is, is a matter for your mind.
So, Ghost, since you’ve apparently decided to ignore the absense of evidence of abiogenisis which is absolutely necessary in the absense of a Creator, how do rationalise this belief in something with absolutely no evidence for it? Perhaps one’s beliefs in what’s ultimately unprovable either way is not a valid litmus test of intelligence.
I could equally (and honestly) say that I am 54 and have never met an atheist who wasn’t a self-absorbed amoral, elitist who, rather than truly believing that there is no God, was actually mad at Him for not intervening in some past event in their life or the lives of others.
However, my statement would place morality within the sole province of the religious (not a viewpoint that I believe) as you have placed intelligence within sole province of the atheist.
The truth is no one worldview has exclusive ownership of morality, intelligence, elitism nor any other vice or virtue.
TGOBJC….perhaps that is because your intuitive faculty is underdeveloped…true religious understanding is not based on just belief, but involves intuitive non-conceptual insight which is beyond the normal conceptual thinking process to apprehend.
Intelligence as defined by Merriam-Webster (important to note as not all definitions are equal):
“(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)”
My initial observation is your statement of having “never met an intelligent, religious believer” is way too broad, as intelligence is based on situations. One can be intelligent in one area of life and lacking in another.
My next observation is your proof of lack of evidence in the existence of Jesus is based on historical evidence, which is hardly an exact science and is prone to many faults. Neither of us can prove Jesus existed, but that could be said of many other people in the history of mankind. You have a point on why should one want to believe in the existence of a person that is in question, but that can also be said about a great many things and in the case of Jesus brings into the fore front of the conversation “why do we exist” and “is there a purpose beyond our individual happiness or the greater good of mankind.” Man’s purpose has always been a trying situation to figure out.
In regards to your 5:45am reply below- the fact that you are here to comment is all the proof needed.
The universe is a bit bigger than all of us.
Mr. Big Jim: Most of what we encounter in our life is based upon our perceptions. I look at my husband, and I can see him sitting in his chair, I can hear him talking, and I can see him moving his hands about. However, is that really proof of his existence? Might I not be imagining his existence, based upon something I’ve read in a book? Can I believe my eyes, can I believe my ears? Does New York City really exist? I’ve talked to people who say they’ve been there, I’ve seen pictures. Yet, what if all of those people are lying about it, what if the pictures are fake? Evidence is based upon our view of reality, proof is largely based upon a collective agreement of what constitutes reality. Humans can be easily deceived into either believing, or not believing, something, based upon our frail and faulty perceptions. Easy enough to talk about rationale and logic, but so much of what we accept as rational and logical is based upon proxy measurements of something other than what we really want to measure. If a person believes in love (or bravery, or familial ties), are they now devoid of intelligence? Not everything can be quantified or measured, yet love and bravery are very real.
Out at work, someone was asked if he ever heard voices. He said, “well, yes, I hear your voice right now”. The interviewer sighed, and asked if he ever heard voices when nobody else was around. He said, “Well, yes, when I’m in my plane, I hear voices over the radio all the time.” Rational, logical, and extremely annoying.
Prove it.
As a Catholic, my loyalty is to God. If the pope tries to throw the Catholic church’s lot in with warmism \ gaiaism \ nature worship then that will violate a fundamental tenet of Christianity – Matthew 6:24: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” .
The catholics owe their loyalty to the Pope only when he is addressing issues regarding the catholic Faith and morals.
When the Pope speaks about profane issues, for example, policy or climate change, I, as a devout catholic, am in no way bound by his opinion since he is not divinely inspired in such matters and he may err and lead the faithfuls astray
The case of Galileo was clearly an abuse of power, though I disagree with the article when it says “he was threatened with unspeakable pain”.
If the Pope Francis addresses the climate change issues, this will be an obvious abuse of power too and an abuse of the confidence of the lay people are placing in him.
If the Pope issues an encyclical on that subject, certainly I will protest to this to the local bishop and to the Vatican.
I am afraid that the AGW lobbyists in the Vatican have succeeded in building a wrong opinion in the Pope’s mind, and that’s not the first time this happens. For example, I remember that Paul VI welcomed a delegation of the communist Vietcong, while declining to speak with the catholic president of the South Vietnam Republic.
In addition, the Pope is accountable before God when he tries to sway the people and peculiarly his faithfuls on subjects that he is not competent to address and that have nothing to do with the salvation of their souls.
l said Jack.
To whom does a Christian owe their loyalty?
A Christian (whether of Catholic flavor or not) owes their loyalty to the principles Jesus (Yeshua) left us. First and foremost to love God, and likewise love others as yourself (love as an action i.e.: treat others as you’d want to be treated). Next on the list would be to avoid judging others (be inclusive), this seems to be particularly difficult for many as all too often The Commandments are still used to berate and exclude others instead of a standard for self-awareness as to one’s own shortcomings and need for Grace and instill a sense of humility. Following close behind would be justice, mercy, and faithfulness (weightier matters) and of course no list of Jesus’ principles could leave out being charitable. Being true to these principles is (should be) the shining light that leads to (by means of example) the last on my list: spreading the good news. (Of course, there’s more that could be added but alas there’s work to be done.) Oh yea, diligence and being productive.
And who came up with the one about Papal Infallibility? Hey, it was the first pope!
Now let’s get back to executing the EFT for the right of way, patents and sole rights to build the first entirely solar powered bullet train from L.A. to N.Y. Here are the numbers to my bank account in Zurich, and yes that is a bargain at $84mm, but I’ve got other projects that are starving for cash.
No it was not. It was promulgated by Pope Pius IX in 1870. In part it was the Papal response to the Italian conquest of the Papal States. The doctrine only applies when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra.
Well Pope John-Paul II exonerated Galileo in 1979, so, hey, let’s let bygones be bygones!
No doubt Galileo will be comforted by the Pope’s actions.
As I understand it, the papal decision was that the tribunal acted improperly, which it did. This is not the same as an exoneration. Galileo was guilty of insisting that the Church must wade into the scientific controversy between the geocentrists and the heliocentrists in advance of there being definitive scientific proof settling the matter (the final proof came with the observation of stellar parallax in the 1800s, several centuries later). The Church preferred to keep its options open and insisted that good Catholics could only state that the evidence thus far supported one or the other theory more than its rival. Without definitive proof, definitive claims were improper. I believe all of Galileo’s work was redone using the accepted formulation and quickly republished in Rome under that restriction. Anonymizing the power relationships and the specifics of the situation, it would be hard to find a scientist who wouldn’t support the Church’s institutional position of attempting to keep its theology out of a matter of scientific controversy.
Galileo suffered at the hands of the tribunal because he was an insufferable jerk to them and they let personal animus color their actions. No matter how he acted, this was wrong of those long ago churchmen and St. John Paul II recognized it and gave the Church a penance for that sin.
I used to be a catholic a very long time ago until I got better. But I did have to acquire a lot of info about catholicism from the jesuit schools I was forced to attend. Catholic doctrine insists upon the primacy of conscience not papal edict. Doesn’t matter what the pope says, if it violates your conscience you cannot obey. If you are not a catholic then the pope doesn’t matter anyway.
NB not all christians are catholics as you seem to think. In fact there are those who think that catholics are not christians
And let’s not forget the Deists, who don’t believe in Jesus Christ, but believe in a God whose existence is apparent not only in the bounty of creation, but also in the way it works, everything working in unison, even where heads are banging.
If I have the choice to be Christian or scientist, I’d choose to be Illuminati and tear down these lying and murdering churches. What remains must be reality and truth.
Church is just another synonym for a legalized mafia.
the pope probably takes his name from St Francis of Assisi ?
Yes, he does. The first to do so.
Indeed, as others have said, what the Pope has to say is only binding on Roman Catholics.
Some relevant Scripture (used by Protestant Corrie ten Boom and her family to justify hiding Jews in defiance of an order of the “King,” the occupying Germans in WWII):
“Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brother and sisterhood of believers, fear God,”, honor the king.”
I. Peter 2:17.
Controlling principle: obey God first of all.
Application to AGW: God is all about TRUTH. Serving the Enviroprofiteers’ wholly unproven, assertions about CO2 is not to serve truth, it is to serve l1es.
And it most certainly is NOT to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).
********************************************
********************************************
Re: “I’ve never met an intelligent, religious believer.”
Ghost of Big Jim Cooley
I’m sorry about that, Ghost. There are many out there. I almost said, “But, Big Jim, you’ve met ME!” ….. then, I realized… . Well, watch out, Big Jim — I’m praying God sends 3 intelligent (in your view), sincere, believers in Jeshua (Jesus) your way in the next 24 hours!
#(:))
P.S. Blaise Pascal was a pretty logical, rational, fellow. Read his Pensees. They may prove enlightening. 🙂
Voltaire: his idea was to represent God as a transcedent number i, so it would be a zero or one. He struggled to find out what it can be. People who believe in God has to be aware that this is a very relative issue.
It means too that faith has some value but religion is only a way of life
Great Read. He was a truly beautiful man.
“Galileo followed his conscience.” I would have to disagree–Galileo followed the evidence and correctly concluded the earth orbited the sun. Whatever his conscience may have been saying to him, it was the evidence with which he wrestled and which gave him the basis for drawing his conclusion.
Perhaps Galileo should be recognized as the founder of the Socratic Club which was partially responsible for giving us C.S. Lewis.
“… for giving us C.S. Lewis,” who gave us the highly logical:
Given: Jesus’ claims about himself (for instance, that he was God incarnate).
He was, therefore, either:
1. A Liar
2. A Lunatic
3. Telling the truth (i.e., Lord).
Take your choice… you must make one. To not choose is intellectual dishonesty.
{Source: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis}
…or he didn’t exist in the first place.
If you reject the historical record of Jesus’ having lived, then you will have to reject the record of many other historical figures for whom there is much LESS recorded history.
The historicity of Jesus is not a genuine issue.
It is only a feeble excuse, used by someone who will not (not merely can not) believe in what Jesus taught for getting up from the chess table and refusing to play.
It is, in short: intellectually dishonest.
You’re better than that, Big Jim’s ghost.
Janice, the historicity of a Jesus Christ is indeed a ‘genuine’ issue – as there is so little evidence for it (practically zero). Your attempt to bring in the ‘vague evidence for other historical characters’ is as valid as your sad attempt at ‘better than that’, as this is a man who is supposed to have performed incredible miracles, and said many (!) things. Sorry Janice, but if you actually look for evidence that Jesus existed, then there’s virtually nothing. Josephus and Tacitus are feeble, and as I said, got at. It’s highly likely (from what I’ve read) that such a man never existed, but was a good story. As I said elsewhere, read up on Constantine. If it weren’t for him then Christianity would have remained a minor religion, to die out. Christianity’s foundations lay on someone for which there is scant evidence, on Matthew’s incorrect assessment of Isiah’s writings, and a mistranslation of that as well.
Regretfully, I am going to have to leave this argument. I was enjoying it, too. Try and have an open mind, Janice. You never know what might fall into it.
I’d say, Jim, that the advice you’ve offered to Janice, might come in handy in your own case.
Oh, thank you, Alan Robertson. That was very kind of you to support me.
Hey, remember when I really thought your name was Luther Wu? That is so funny!!
I’m not around much, so I miss “talking” to you on WUWT, but, in case you see this: I admire your dry wit, insightful and helpful remarks, and, your brevity <– how do you do it?! I try… .
Janice
Well as a Christian but not a catholic, I have never followed the pope, never really hear or read much of anything about him.
As a Christian, my morals and ethics come straight from the Bible. Things about the observations of nature come from science. It is up to me to be guided as to what is true, what is theory, and what is hyperbole (globull warming comes to mind for one that is untrue).
Just tell it as it is.
We have traitors in all high positions including God’s earthly representative who not only betrayals human civilization but also his religion.
UN Agenda 21 also has a religious Agenda.
One World Governance, One World Religion.
Just Google it and have a read at http://green-agenda.com
I think this information will shake up the Catholic Sheeple more than the Galileo reference.
The Agenda is set a long time ago and those comitted to its roll out won’t be discouraged by a possible negative outcome of the Paris Meeting.
They will continue to push through their scheme at any price. That is unless we stop them.
Just tell the Catholics what they can expect: Their Catholic Religion to be replaced by a Global Religion paying tribute to Gaia. Just like the ancient tribes who paid tribute to trees, animals etc. Animism we have called this rudimentary form of religion.
I don’t think the average Catholic is going to take this crap.
Let’s have the Vatican’s CO2 output be governed by Obama’s EPA. What a hoot that would be!
BTW: My sister, my older sister was actually a nun (or close to one; I was too young to remember) for a brief period of time after high school. She and the other nuns in training used to have this little jingle they repeated to themselves: ‘When you’re old and feeling blue, and there are no boys left for you, join the convent and see the world!’
I’m not making that up. Oh, am I going to pay for this.