Hurricane Trends from Roger Pielke - "no obvious trends".

Cardinal Czerny: The Time for Climate Denial and Populism is Over

Essay by Eric Worrall

According to Canadian Cardinal Michael Czerny, Hurricane Ian which recently struck Florida shows that people should stop listening to populist politicians and climate skeptics.

October 5, 2022 12:01 AM GMT+10

Extreme hurricanes show time of climate change denial is over, Vatican says

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Recent extreme weather events, such as the hurricane that devastated parts of Florida, show that the time for climate change denial and scepticism is over, a senior Vatican official said on Tuesday.

Cardinal Michael Czerny, a Canadian who heads the Vatican’s development office, made his comments at a news conference presenting “The Letter,” a new film on the climate crisis by two-time Emmy award winner Nicolas Brown.

“The time is over for speculation, for skepticism and denial, for irresponsible populism,” Czerny said.

“Apocalyptic floods, mega droughts, disastrous heatwaves, and catastrophic cyclones and hurricanes have become the new normal in recent years; they continue today; tomorrow, they will get worse,” he said.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/extreme-hurricanes-show-time-climate-change-denial-is-over-vatican-2022-10-04/

Exodus 23:1 tells us: “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.”

As WUWT has repeated detailed, there is no trend in Florida hurricane landfalls. Hurricanes worldwide are not getting worse (see the graph at the top of the page, or click here for more information). Likewise there is no significant global trend in heatwave or other extreme event intensity.

In my opinion Cardinal Czerny should spend more time consulting his bible, and do some basic research, before he makes any further sensationalist claims about climate change.

4.8 53 votes
Article Rating
452 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
markl
October 5, 2022 10:06 am

Another Catholic Marxist.

jeffery P
Reply to  markl
October 5, 2022 10:10 am

Jesus was a Marxist. And gay. And a spaceman from Planet Ten.

Seriously though, Marxist thought has infiltrated into all of our institutions. I see fewer things that are more incompatible than Marxism and Christianity. Or Marxism and democracy.

Last edited 1 month ago by jeffery P
Reply to  jeffery P
October 5, 2022 10:30 am

“…fewer things … are more incompatible than Marxism and Christianity”

Actually, they are the same ideology. Both are Collectivist. Both explicitly reject Reason. Both seek to control the human race. Neither allows any dissent from orthodoxy.

n.n
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 10:42 am

Christianity is not collectivist, does not conflate logical domains, is not a secular ethical religion (i.e. behavioral protocol). and does not cancel people… persons… human lives for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Christianity does not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) that denies individual dignity, agency, and conscience, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination.

R Taylor
Reply to  n.n
October 5, 2022 11:23 am

When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it must have already been like other large human organizations, and from that time lost its freedom to return to its earlier character. Fortunately, some remarkable thoughts seem to have survived in the written record of its origins.

Gunga Din
Reply to  R Taylor
October 5, 2022 3:33 pm

We have what’s written.
The Reformation was about returning to what it says rather than what others say it says.
“No time like the present!”

Last edited 1 month ago by Gunga Din
Campsie Fellow
Reply to  R Taylor
October 6, 2022 1:21 am

Oh no, not that Apostasy followed Constantine conspiracy theory, again.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  n.n
October 5, 2022 1:19 pm

Christianity … does not cancel people

You’re kidding, right?

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 2:19 pm

He’s either kidding, or hasn’t been around many Christians.

Asterix
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 9:43 pm

Apparently, neither have you. There is a difference between Christians and people who call themselves Christian.

Reply to  Asterix
October 5, 2022 10:15 pm

I have been around thousands. And no, there isn’t any difference: A Christian is anyone who says he is one.

HotScot
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 2:02 am

Is that something like identifying as a woman when you’re a biological bloke?

john harmsworth
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 9:10 am

By that measure, all politicians are honest That’s some real trans-substantiation there, my friend.

MJB
Reply to  Asterix
October 6, 2022 7:42 am

No true Scottsman…..

james Fosser
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 2:59 pm

Christianity … does not cancel people. How many women where burnt at the stake or ducked in ponds over the centuries?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  james Fosser
October 5, 2022 3:09 pm

Yeah, but that’s god’s will happening right there, so it gives burnings and duckings a free pass.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 2:08 am

When was the last time there was routine burning or ducking in the name of Christianity?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 5:48 am

When was the last time there was routine burning or ducking in the name of Christianity?

Looking at the gamut of Earth’s history, very recently.

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 6:40 am

I asked for the last time, as in, give me a date.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:43 am

Are you asking me for a date?
Sorry darling, I’m already taken xx

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 10:22 am

That’s about your level of ‘debating’.

LOL, it doesn’t even qualify as lightweight.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 1:30 am

It’s called a “joke”. Crack a dictionary and look it up for a definition.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 2:53 am

Jokes are usually funny.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
October 7, 2022 5:25 am

Oooh! Bitch!

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 4:01 pm

Not the first and not the last.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 9:14 am

I’d suggest it was during the Medieval Warm Period, but we all know that never happened, right? ( It was later anyway), maybe the Little Ice Age, but that didn’t happen either, wink, wink.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  john harmsworth
October 7, 2022 1:28 am

Oh no, none of that happened – just ask Mikey Mann and he’ll tell you that the global temps had flatlined for millennia before our evil see-oh-toos caused temps to sweep upwards to thermal chaos, wink!

saveenergy
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 12:41 pm

The last person to be burned at the stake in England for heresy was … Edward Wightman an English radical Anabaptist minister ( age 46 ), executed at Lichfield 11 April 1612.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  saveenergy
October 7, 2022 1:29 am

So, in the grand scheme of things, not that long ago. Although the other god-botherers, the muslims are still killing people for refusing to believe in a sky fairy.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 3:13 am

1746 Esther Anderson was burned at the stake for murder by a Christian court in Maryland, USA. There are later examples from Germany and South America – it was a popular form of capital punishment in many parts of the world up to the 19th century.

Gen Lee Schtiff
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 2:25 am

Do governments get a free pass for the 100’s of millions they’ve slaughtered?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Gen Lee Schtiff
October 6, 2022 5:50 am

Do governments get a free pass for the 100’s of millions they’ve slaughtered?

I hope not. I wouldn’t give them a free pass. Particularly the commies – they’ve been the biggest people killers.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 1:47 pm

“they’ve been the biggest people killers.”

The WEF totalitarians are going for the all time record.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2022 5:21 am

The WEF mob are just commies in disguise.

jeffery p
Reply to  james Fosser
October 5, 2022 3:29 pm

Please. That was centuries ago. If that’s your objection you shouldn’t be criticizing others.

sycomputing
Reply to  james Fosser
October 5, 2022 3:43 pm

How many women where burnt at the stake or ducked in ponds over the centuries?”

Could you point to the verse in any accepted text (Roman Catholic or Protestant) that requires burning women at the stake for any reason at any time?

Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 10:16 pm

Irrelevant. It was done by devout Christians. End of discussion.

PCman999
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 11:13 pm

“Devout Christians”? Ignoring “love thy neighbour” and listening to the hate filled ravings of some local crackpot is not “devout Christian”

Interestingly the Inquisition didn’t deal with any witches brought to them – judged to be mental cases if not just false accusations.

Witch burning was a protestant thing, and to be fair probably brought on by the mental effects of moldy bread and other food from the poor growing conditions of the first part of the Little Ice Age, combined with the panic and fear during the various plagues that were aided by the poor nutrition, lead people in desperation to follow any charlatan offering easy fixes.

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 3:20 am

You are misinformed or lying …. The execution burning of witches , warlocks , lepers Jews , adulterers and heretics preceded the 16th century protestant reformation ….You tacitly admitted as much yourself : ” the poor growing conditions of the first part of the Little Ice Age “

Richard Page
Reply to  Stuart Hamish
October 7, 2022 3:18 am

Burning at the stake was a common capital punishment for many serious crimes, not just those associated with the church. In the 19th century, several people were burned for murder, arson or other crimes in Germany.

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 1:26 am

Ho, ho, ho! “End of discussion”. When he can’t support his arguments with anything reasonable he wants to end the discussion.

HotScot
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 2:09 am

Prove it.

sycomputing
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 9:00 am

“Irrelevant. It was done by devout Christians. End of discussion.”

Devout Christians who by definition from their anti-Christ behavior prove themselves wholly (un)devout?

Why do you continue to shame the fine surname of Barber with this contradictory intellectual drivel? Think better.

Al Fields
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 11:26 am

It wasn’t. End of discussion

Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 1:03 am

Anyone who hasn’t seen this presentation on Weather Cooking should watch this:

Jtom
Reply to  james Fosser
October 5, 2022 3:56 pm

What Christianity says and what fearful people may do in the name of Christianity are two entirely different things.

sycomputing
Reply to  Jtom
October 5, 2022 4:43 pm

“What Christianity says and what fearful people may do in the name of Christianity are two entirely different things.”

Well said Jtom. And you’d think this crowd would be especially sympathetic to that argument.

After all, climate “science” can hardly be called Science regardless of the claims of those who practice it.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Jtom
October 6, 2022 9:22 am

The problem with that is that the officials of the various churches never seem to step up to denounce terrible things done in their name.
Very similar to the stony silence from the environmentalists when serous injustice is done to skeptics such as Peter Ridd. They typically just pile on or at best, ignore it. They are therefore complicit in the injustice.
By the same token, those who call themselves Christian and stand by when others are being persecuted stamp the name of their religion on those acts.

sycomputing
Reply to  john harmsworth
October 6, 2022 10:31 am

“The problem with that is that the officials of the various churches never seem to step up to denounce terrible things done in their name.”

It’s a problem, but not for Christianity as a belief-system. Simply from the fact that leaders claiming it don’t practice it isn’t the belief-system’s fault, any more than it’s Science’s fault that many who call themselves scientists don’t practice it correctly.

“By the same token, those who call themselves Christian and stand by when others are being persecuted stamp the name of their religion on those acts.”

Only to those anti-intellectuals who are already predisposed to criticize the belief-system for any reason they can find. Or, to those who are simply unwilling or incapable of reasoning properly. Yes, these are at-fault for their behavior and cause the name of YHWH to be blasphemed among the Gentiles, but it doesn’t follow from this that YHWH himself is to blame.

Other rational individuals who remain objective (and thus capable of proper thinking) rightly don’t blame the belief-system itself for those who claim it but behave otherwise to it’s tenets.

Last edited 1 month ago by sycomputing
Reply to  Jtom
October 8, 2022 12:32 pm

Yep. Any Christian who says or does something YOU don’t agree with…

isn’t a Christian.

See “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

sycomputing
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 8, 2022 12:53 pm

“See ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.”

Still can’t refrain from slaughtering your already nonexistent credibility while soiling the good name of Logic I see.

Show us the book that describes in detail the true Scotsman.

When you can’t, then see the “False Equivalence” logical fallacy.

Robert B
Reply to  james Fosser
October 6, 2022 1:14 am

Not a lot for heresy. Examples like Joan of Arc are the result of sham trials condemned by the leadership of the Catholic Church.i think that there was just three women under the terror of Mary I.

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
October 6, 2022 1:35 am

I’ve seen trivia Questions, including on the Chase, about which country was condemned to death for heresy. The real answer is none. It’s a stupid bit of fake history.

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  james Fosser
October 6, 2022 1:24 am

Sorry, but what has that got to do with Christianity? There is nothing in Christianity that says that people should be burned at the stake or ducked in ponds.

HotScot
Reply to  james Fosser
October 6, 2022 2:07 am

Certain religions have the ‘Moral Police’ who beat woman to death for not wearing headgear, today.

There are also gangs of them roaming English towns and cities enslaving, raping and murdering thousands of young white girls as young as 5.

Why not concentrate on that instead of attacking a religion that has largely done more good than harm?

john harmsworth
Reply to  james Fosser
October 6, 2022 9:12 am

Why women particularly? The Church didn’t discriminate on burnings. Not sure if that’s a credit they claim or not. Maybe they should put that on their brochures.

Gregory Kelly
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 4:45 pm

no, people cancel themselves by not believing

Greg61
Reply to  Gregory Kelly
October 5, 2022 6:36 pm

I cancelled myself about 20 years ago. A guest bishop came to our church and his sermon was all about how we should vote for the liberal party over the conservative party because catholic values. Never went back. There was a time in my youth when I went to church every day as an altar server. 7:15am mass every morning Monday to Friday, 8:00 am mass Sunday, or Saturday evening mass when that became a thing. Maybe just being a kid I didn’t realize the politics, but I do think things changed a lot.

sycomputing
Reply to  Greg61
October 5, 2022 6:50 pm

“A guest bishop came to our church…”

Unfortunate that you should allow someone else to interpret the text rather than doing so for yourself.

John Hultquist
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 9:00 pm

Prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) the church leaders believed their learned minds were needed to interpret the text(s). Maybe they were correct, considering the crazy things people now say is therein.
[Note the ‘s’ above.]

sycomputing
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 6, 2022 9:03 am

“Maybe they were correct, considering the crazy things people now say is therein.”

If only church leaders could be trusted. Unfortunately, church leaders too saying crazy things is not uncommon even from the rescue of Israel from Egypt to now.

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 1:34 am

That’s an interesting way of looking at things. I take it you don’t go to church. Otherwise you are just listening to someone else interpret the text for you.
But let’s get back to basics. Did you allow someone else to decide for you which books belong in the Bible or did you read all the books in the Bible and then decide for yourself, individually, book by book, which books are inspired? And then did you do the same for the seven deuterocanonical books? And then did you do the same for the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Gospel of Thomas and all the other books which were at one time considered by some Christians to be inspired?
And what made you disagree with Luther about the Book of Revelation and Hebrews being inspired?

sycomputing
Reply to  Campsie Fellow
October 6, 2022 8:48 am

“That’s an interesting way of looking at things. I take it you don’t go to church. Otherwise you are just listening to someone else interpret the text for you.”

Similarly interesting is your assumption that if I don’t go to church then I’m just listening to someone else interpret the text for me. Perhaps if I don’t go to church, then I neither read nor listen to anyone else interpret the text. Or, perhaps I don’t go to church but I read the text for myself, in which case by definition I’m the one interpreting it. Either way, with respect, that’s your first non sequitur.

The second one is like unto it: “But let’s get back to basics”

Why is it necessary to complete a doctoral level analysis on the issue of canon in order to evaluate the politico-philosophical claims of a random guest bishop against the recognized texts of the OP’s communion? After all, by his own admission he was a Roman Catholic, thus he already had legit access to pretty much every ancient religious text ever penned for the Christian tradition anyway, including all of those you mention in your comment.

(For the acronymically challenged: “OP” = “Original Poster”, “OT” = “Old Testament,” and “NT” = “New Testament”)

HotScot
Reply to  Greg61
October 6, 2022 2:15 am

It makes you no less a Christian, in fact it makes you more so in my opinion.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Gregory Kelly
October 6, 2022 4:55 am

I don’t believe and I haven’t been cancelled.
I’ve always enjoyed WUWT because people don’t get cancelled for having a different of opinion, unlike the censorious wing-nuts at thermageddonist sites such as SkS.

observa
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 10:00 pm

Not really as the only direct words from God were to Moses and the Ten Commandments so which ones do you have a problem with? Then apparently Jesus was the Son of God sent to teach by example so which examples and their interpretation by mere mortals do you have a problem with? Bearing in mind we know Jesus didn’t have a direct line to God (Lord why hast thou forsaken me?) unlike the Prophet Mohammed in Islam who had a direct line via the Archangel Gabriel apparently and that’s all in the Koran.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  observa
October 6, 2022 5:43 am

 the only direct words from God were to Moses and the Ten Commandments

Please tell me you don’t seriously believe that! You’re not one of those young earth creationists who believes Genesis is literal truth, are you?

starzmom
Reply to  n.n
October 5, 2022 3:25 pm

The best you can say is maybe it will recognize the error of its ways. Galileo was only unexcommunicated in the past 15 or 20 years or so, 400 hundred years after he died.

Anna Keppa
Reply to  starzmom
October 5, 2022 4:54 pm

“He was never excommunicated, but was summoned to Rome on suspicion of heresy, forced to abjure, and sentenced to life in prison; that sentence was later commuted to house arrest.”

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1428453#:~:text=He%20was%20never%20excommunicated%2C%20but,later%20commuted%20to%20house%20arrest.

KevC
Reply to  Anna Keppa
October 5, 2022 6:52 pm

twist the words whichever way you want, but the fact remains that he was cancelled (to use modern terminology) because to didn’t toe the line and go along with those in power (the church) at the time.. Fact is also that it has well and truly been proven that he was more correct than the church…

sycomputing
Reply to  KevC
October 5, 2022 7:02 pm

“Fact is also that it has well and truly been proven that he was more correct than the church…”

Agreed. As Galileo, so Martin Luther.

PCman999
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 10:50 pm

Anyone who can read can see for themselves that Martin Luther was wrong – he didn’t even get along with other protestants and the Orthodox would have nothing to do with him.

Matthew 16:25
Matthew 18

Just try and find “faith alone” in the Bible – in a proper translation that sticks to the Greek.

sycomputing
Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 9:21 am

“Just try and find “faith alone” in the Bible – in a proper translation that sticks to the Greek.”

Thanks for your input PCman999. I suspect deep theological discussions would be considered OT for Mr. Rotter, who is already squinting at me through one eye for killing him on an unrelated hill. I don’t want to suffer his ire.

(For the acronymically challenged: “OT” in this context = “Off Topic”)

Last edited 1 month ago by sycomputing
PCman999
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 10:59 pm

Galileo was actually wrong (believed that the planets went around the Sun in perfect circles) and ridiculed Kepler for suggesting ellipses.

He was allowed to teach his theories and only got into trouble when he personally insulted the Pope, who actually happened to be a friend of his from earlier days, in a book dramatizing his ideas.

If the protestants hadn’t been around spreading there errors and lies, with enticements of loose morality, polygamy, divorce, etc., (in direct contradiction of the Gospel and appreciation of human nature) and princes forcing their subjects into the new made up religions, the Church would have left the issue alone.

HotScot
Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 2:24 am

If the protestants hadn’t been around spreading there errors and lies, with enticements of loose morality, polygamy, divorce, etc.

Catholic Priest’s, on the other hand, were expected to remain celibate so it became normal practice to sexually abuse children.

sycomputing
Reply to  PCman999
October 6, 2022 9:25 am

“Galileo was actually wrong (believed that the planets went around the Sun in perfect circles) and ridiculed Kepler for suggesting ellipses.”

Once again, thank you PCman999 for this thy brilliant contribution to my poorly conceived comment.

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 1:40 am

Which bit of Martin Luther would that be? Would it be his opinion that the Book of Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews did not belong in the Bible? Or would it be his opinion that all Jewish synagogues should be burned to the ground?

sycomputing
Reply to  Campsie Fellow
October 6, 2022 8:50 am

“Which bit of Martin Luther would that be?”

It would be that bit where both he and Galileo were excommunicated…apologies to have confused you, I assumed the context was clear to everyone.

HotScot
Reply to  KevC
October 6, 2022 2:21 am

There was no ‘scientific method’ at the time. The only thing that united people at the time was religion.

Campsie Fellow
Reply to  starzmom
October 6, 2022 1:38 am

That was very clever for him to have been unexcommunicated, considering he was never excommunicated in the first place. One thing that can be guaranteed about Galileo is that many people have a very uninformed understanding of the whole affair.

john harmsworth
Reply to  n.n
October 6, 2022 9:07 am

Christianity proposes punishment for any who pursue personal interest ahead of the whole of society, and especially the poor and infirm. If that isn’t a collectivist philosophy, then I have no idea what it is.
It just always lacked any enforcement mechanism, so it paid lip service to those principles while partnering with the aristocracy to abuse the lower levels of society.
Hypocrisy served the purposes of the early church so well, it neve let go of it. To this day.

Philip
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 10:51 am

Christianity doesn’t force you to join or believe.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Philip
October 5, 2022 12:07 pm

Not any more. There is a shortage of stakes and firewood.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 5, 2022 9:02 pm

-steaks and flavored wood chips – ?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Philip
October 5, 2022 1:21 pm

It used to in the past, then thankfully some people fought back and told them where to stick their dogma.

Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 10:54 am

Both explicitly reject Reason.

Pascal, Descartes, Newton, Faraday, and a few million others might beg to disagree.

Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 5, 2022 2:23 pm

Hypatia, Servetus, Galileo and a few hundred others might agree.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 5, 2022 2:49 pm

If one were to read through the Christian Scriptures looking for examples of careful reasoning and exhortations to engage in reasoning one would find numerous examples.

A great influence in the life of Michael Faraday were books by a Christian hymnwriter, Isaac Watts, on the subject of reasoning and logic written more than 60 years before Faraday became a bookbinder and read the books.

Marxism and neo Marxism does not want people to reason and closely scrutinize its underlying thought and presuppositions.

sycomputing
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 11:23 am

“Both are Collectivist. Both explicitly reject Reason. Both seek to control the human race. Neither allows any dissent from orthodoxy.”

Thanks Ken. You’ve just opened my eyes to the fact that my neighborhood HOA is Marxist.

Your brilliance knows every bound.

Steve Case
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 12:33 pm

HOA = Home Owners Association.

Why do people use undefined acronyms?

sycomputing
Reply to  Steve Case
October 5, 2022 12:52 pm

“Why do people use undefined acronyms?”

Why, to give other people something about which to complain, and a problem to solve!

Nicely done, by the way. I knew it would be you that would rescue everyone.

Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 1:59 pm

I would like to second the thanks to Steve.

sycomputing
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 5, 2022 2:34 pm

Thank you Mr. Rotter.

And with that second, my proposition passes…

HotScot
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 6, 2022 2:29 am

Thirded.

roaddog
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:23 pm

For a moment I thought it was a new pool of women for Hunter Biden to draw from. Drop the “A”.

sycomputing
Reply to  roaddog
October 5, 2022 3:55 pm

“For a moment I thought…”

Ha!

Apologies to you – going forward I’ll do my best to limit my acronystic tendencies on WUWT.

Err, I mean, “Watts Up With That”…

🙂

HotScot
Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 2:28 am

Thankfully he did. I had no idea what HOA means, which rendered your post unintelligible.

sycomputing
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:54 am

“I had no idea what HOA means, which rendered your post unintelligible.”

Apologies to HotScot! I would never have concluded from reading your posts over the years that simple unintelligibility [sic] would lead to a freezing of you intellectually.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=neighborhood+hoa

HotScot
Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 10:37 am

“Thankfully he did. I had no idea what HOA means, which rendered your his post unintelligible.”

Wrong end of the stick here. My fault. My reply was directed at the OP.

sycomputing
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 1:19 pm

“My fault. My reply was directed at the OP.”

“OP” – HotScot, either please refrain from posting acronyms or define them after you do.

Thanks.

HotScot
Reply to  sycomputing
October 7, 2022 1:25 am

Commonly accepted on this blog. Understood by most, unlike HOA. Rarely, if ever discussed on this blog.

sycomputing
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 6:48 am

“Understood by most, unlike HOA.”

Just trying to minimize the opportunities for you to confuse yourself, HS.

(“HS” in this context = “HotScot”)

jeffery p
Reply to  Steve Case
October 5, 2022 3:30 pm

IDK

Richard Page
Reply to  jeffery p
October 6, 2022 7:16 am

WTF?

sycomputing
Reply to  Richard Page
October 6, 2022 9:42 am

“WTF?”

IKR? IOW, FWIW, AFAIC I’m LMAO and SMH at this thread.

OFC, I could be wrong…

Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 10:41 am
sycomputing
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 6, 2022 10:48 am

I shall die on whatever hill I choose!

Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 11:12 am

Booya, in your face. End zone dance….spike!

MarkW
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 12:01 pm

What is it about atheists and their utter refusal to actually understand that which they reject?

First off, there is no collectivism in Christianity. Your salvation is based solely your personal faith, no one else’s. When God calls on us to help the poor, he doesn’t tell us to steal from someone else in order to give to the poor He tells us to do it from our own resources.

As to rejecting reason, over and over again, we are told to read and meditate on the scriptures. Great minds throughout the ages have been firm believers.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 12:11 pm

I’m not sure how “firm” Descarte’s belief was. It was a rather pragmatic choice.

But then, what about the “great minds” of Plato, Buddha, and Confucius? Do you discount them because they weren’t Christian?

sycomputing
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 5, 2022 12:38 pm

“Do you discount them because they weren’t Christian?”

Well done Clyde! Your question models the brilliance of your “stakes and firewood” comment above, and thus reminds me of thine intellectual equal, Mr. Barber upthread.

Do you believe all addlepates think as one, or is it just the Ilks of Thee and Mr. Barber?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 1:25 pm

Was that supposed to be a witty rejoinder? It fell rather flat, just like the flat-earth ideology of religion.

sycomputing
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 1:46 pm

“It fell rather flat, just like the flat-earth ideology of religion.”

Golly Andy, I’m just crushed you didn’t like it. I guess now the question is whether or not my rejoinder falls as flat as you contradicting yourself:

Andy’s Exhortation:
“Don’t even try Ken – you’ll have the sky-fairy crowd shouting you down.”

Andy’s Practice:
“How does something that only exists in your fevered imagination call on anyone but you?”

“Was that the chap a virgin allegedly gave birth to? Chortle!”

Not a model of consistency are you Andy?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:05 pm

I’m not shouting down, just chuckling.

sycomputing
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:23 pm

“I’m not shouting down, just chuckling.”

Right! So you DID enjoy my witty rejoinder after all!

You’re not quite on the straight and narrow logic path are you Andy?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:34 pm

I’m not chuckling with you, I’m chuckling at you. There’s a big difference.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 5, 2022 3:21 pm

Thank you for demonstrating your biases.

Nowhere did I make any mention about other religions, but you assume that just because I praise Christians I must therefore be denigrating others.

Dusty
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 5, 2022 7:31 pm

I don’t suppose they spent any time thinking about the lives of anyone who were born long after they had died so I doubt that defect taints their reputations.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 1:01 pm

Hey, Mark, your ‘christianity’ is about BELIEF. We atheists are non-believers. Or Denialists, if you please….

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 1:08 pm

Don’t atheist BELIEVE that there is no God? If there is proof, please provide.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 5, 2022 1:40 pm

Do christians BELIEVE Apollo doesn’t exist? If there is proof, please provide.

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:23 pm

Andrew, that was pathetic.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 3:37 pm

Why was it pathetic? I’m just giving the “prove there isn’t a good” gang a taste of their own medicine. Now, are you able to prove Apollo doesn’t exist?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 5, 2022 1:41 pm

You can’t prove a negative, as any decent scientist knows.

sycomputing
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:05 pm

“You can’t prove a negative, as any decent scientist knows.”

Quite. For example, the claim “Andrew Wilkins is NOT a Christian” isn’t proved by the following quotes as evidence:

“How does something that only exists in your fevered imagination call on anyone but you?”

“Was that the chap a virgin allegedly gave birth to? Chortle!”

(With reference to the Roman Catholic in the head posting)

“His speciality? Believing a non-existent entity.”

(With reference to the Bible and the Communist Manifesto)

“Both tracts are built around pure fantasy. And both responsible for untold numbers of deaths.”

(Best for last)

“I would have thought any sceptic worth their salt would be an atheist.”

Bravo again Andy…QED yes?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:28 pm

Calm down dear!
Not entirely sure as to what you’re getting at, but you really need to take a chill pill.

sycomputing
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:32 pm

“Not entirely sure as to what you’re getting at but you really need to take a chill pill.”

And the inevitable submission. Ok Andy, I’ll leave you alone now.

Take care and all the best to you (I mean that sincerely).

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:41 pm

And likewise all the best to you. Like you, I mean that sincerely.

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:23 pm

Thank you for agreeing that you believe in something that can’t be proven.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 3:33 pm

I don’t believe there is no god. I know there isn’t. Just as I know fairies and witches don’t exist.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 2:35 am

Just as I know fairies and witches don’t exist.

How do you know that?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 5:52 am

Because of the evident lack of them. In the same way that I know that Scientology is a load of old guff (just like all religions).

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 6:45 am

What evident lack of them? Some people claim to have seen them. Because you haven’t doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

I have never seen a whale but I’m assured by others they exist. I have never seen a covid virus but ‘scientists’ went berserk over them.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:46 am

Take it from me: fairies don’t exist.
You can have that advice for free.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 10:40 am

Right, so opinion qualifies as fact now does it?

The earth wasn’t believed to revolve around the sun not too long ago.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 1:32 am

The earth wasn’t believed to revolve around the sun not too long ago

And science has told us that isn’t true. Just as science tells us gods are a figment of a lot of people’s imagination.

saveenergy
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 12:59 pm

“Take it from me: fairies don’t exist.”

Take it from me: The tooth fairy exists
I’ve got a mouth full of dentures to prove it

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  saveenergy
October 7, 2022 5:16 am

Lol!
Love it!

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 8:45 am

Brilliant – I said that fairies don’t exist and Scientology is a load of old rubbish and I get down voted. Have we got a Sea Org member on the thread?

jeffery p
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:08 am

There are people who believe they are witches. That word is not a pejorative to everyone.

HotScot
Reply to  jeffery p
October 6, 2022 10:42 am

Everything out with Andrew “Bubonic” Wilkins experience is a load of old rubbish.

Rick C
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 5, 2022 1:43 pm

There is a long list of things I don’t believe in due to lack of persuasive evidence. In addition to God, my list includes ghosts, space alien visitors, homeopathy, Bigfoot and catastrophic human caused climate change. Not believing that something exists based on lack of evidence is not the same as believing it does not exist.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Rick C
October 6, 2022 12:35 am

I feel a Rumsfeld moment coming on after reading that Rick…. 🙂

Frank Hansen
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 5, 2022 3:05 pm

No, definitely not. Atheists don’t believe that there is no god. They just find the proposition unnecessary and without merit.

jeffery p
Reply to  Frank Hansen
October 5, 2022 3:34 pm

Most athiests I’ve met are quite the opposite. But perhaps the vocal ones are just a$$hats? You know how liberals can’t tolerate other beliefs.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 5, 2022 3:09 pm

The burden of proof is on you. Just like climate change…

HotScot
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 6, 2022 2:33 am

A scientific theory is a belief.

sycomputing
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 1:22 pm

“We atheists…”

Hey Greg, apologies for jumping in uninvited, but that almost presupposes a Barber Collective. Is there any room in your box for a dissent from orthodoxy?

If not, what say you – doesn’t that mean Ken’s right, i.e., Atheism = Marxism?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  sycomputing
October 5, 2022 3:13 pm

???? Your ‘logic’ lost me completely. Marxism is just another religion…

sycomputing
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 3:16 pm

“???? Your ‘logic’ lost me completely.”

No worries Greg. You’re not the first.

Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 4:04 pm

So is Atheism, and probably the most intellectually lazy one of them all. At least agnostics show humility.

HotScot
Reply to  Charles Rotter
October 6, 2022 2:39 am

We agnostics are just hedging our bets. 😉

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 4:32 pm

Atheism is just another religion. You have your beliefs which you call knowledge. Your attempts to cancel Christians shows your intolerance of those who don’t follow your orthodoxy. And your comments are just enough to show you are a bit immature.

MarkW
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 3:22 pm

Hey Greg, you assume that belief is incompatible with region.
A bad assumption, but one that I have come to expect from atheists.

Rod Evans
Reply to  MarkW
October 6, 2022 12:39 am

What region do you have in mind Mark?

Jtom
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 4:05 pm

Atheism is indeed a belief. There is no way to prove there is a God, but neither is there a way to disprove the existence of one. Atheists have their own belief system and many are intolerant of what others may believe in.

jeffery p
Reply to  Jtom
October 6, 2022 8:13 am

Proof works the other way, doesn’t it?

We can’t prove there is not a climate apocalypse looming over us. We can say (definitively say, IMO) there is no scientific evidence to support a climate emergency or an imminent climate catastrophe.

Jtom
Reply to  jeffery p
October 7, 2022 9:04 am

You are trying to apply the rules of science to belief systems. They are called beliefs for a reason; they can neither be proved nor disproved.

The evidence of most belief systems is that we exist. Our very existence is pretty irrational given the complexities of life, entropy, and the myriad random mutations required to result in intelligent life. It’s like a random number generator correctly printing out pi to a million decimal places. Sure it can happen, but it won’t, regardless of how many billions of years it runs. That’s when you start to believe there is something more involved than just a random number generator.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 5, 2022 5:36 pm

As Bob Dylan sang, “You gotta serve somebody …” Go read the rest for yourself.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 1:23 pm

When God calls on us

How does something that only exists in your fevered imagination call on anyone but you?

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:26 pm

Getting testy Andrew. It is amazing how frequently atheists get upset when confronted by those who don’t believe as they do.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 3:39 pm

Testy? Moi?
Not at all. Right now my email has been blowing up with messages telling me that various god-botherers are getting all wound up. One even called me “pathetic”. Ho ho!

Richard Page
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 7:20 am

If it happens you’ll know and it doesn’t you won’t. It’s just the way it works.

jeffery p
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 8:14 am

Skype?

Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 2:29 pm

There is no collectivism in Christianity?

“It is easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.” — Jesus

“What must I do to [avoid Hellfire]?”
“Sell all that you have and give it to the poor.” — Jesus

“For the love of money is the root of all evil.” — from a forgery claiming to be the Apostle Paul

Ananias and Sapphira in the Book of Acts.
The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

Collectivism is all over the place in that religion.

MarkW
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 3:38 pm

Thank you for demonstrating how incredibly shallow your knowledge of the Bible is. It’s almost as if all you have done is read a pamphlet put out by others. And to think, atheists are always telling others how they are the deep thinkers.

In every one of your examples, you have not read the entire quote.

If you read the whole quote, you will find that Christ was talking about how those with many distractions will often lose sight of the important things.

In the next verse indicates that the problem is that the rich man was too attached to his possessions as put them ahead of God in his life.

Ananias and his wife were not killed because they failed to give all to the church, even Peter who was there declared that they had no obligation to do so. They were struck dead for lying.

In the tale of Lazarus, the rich man was punished for not being charitable. Charity is a duty for all, not just the rich. Nothing collectivist about that.

As I’ve stated before, almost every atheist that I have ever debated knows next to nothing about Christianity.

Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 10:23 pm

Excuse me. I was a devout Christian for decades. I studied the Bible diligently.

My knowledge is not “shallow.”

Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 11:22 pm

Ad hominem attacks are not welcome in any forum of decent, reasonable people — and should be especially unwelcome here, where we are SUPPOSED to be discussing science.

Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 11:28 pm

I have no interest in your exegesis, or your apologetics. The texts say what they say.

I could have quoted many more texts, but I just quoted a few things off the top of my head, not intending to get into a scholarly dissertation.

The reality is that the New Testament, and church teachings, are filled with altruism and self-sacrifice, and deprecating of the fundamental human right to Property. Same as Communism.

The concept may be new to you, but every Objectivist philosopher is well familiar with the Christian religion’s collectivism.

jeffery P
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 6:46 am

You take an antimaterialist quote from the Bible and then say that makes Christianity the same as a materilst secular, collectivist religion? I have problems with that interpretation.

Don Perry
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 4:45 pm

Not only firm believers, but many were clergy who made some of the most significant scientific discoveries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

jefferyp
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 12:40 pm

Christianity is not collectivist. It values the individual because humans have souls.

Richard Page
Reply to  jefferyp
October 5, 2022 2:10 pm

Hate to keep bringing this up but you are wrong. We ARE souls, we have bodies. Please get it right.

Reply to  jefferyp
October 5, 2022 11:30 pm

It is Collectivist. It denies the fundamental human right to Property. It also demands the full surrender of the individual to the will of the Church.

jeffery P
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 6:48 am

1) I am an agnostic. 2) You misunderstand completely.

jeffery p
Reply to  jeffery P
October 6, 2022 8:22 am

Ken, you probably know the content of the Bible began as stories passed on orally for centuries before written down. You probably also know the books of the Bible were edited and curated by a committee appointed by Constantine.

But you fail to understand what you read. What is the meta message? The message is “yeah your life sucks and while the rich and powerful have everything now, they’ll get what they deserve in the next life. The poor but faithful will also be rewarded.”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 5, 2022 1:28 pm

Jesus…

Was that the chap a virgin allegedly gave birth to? Chortle!

Richard Page
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 2:12 pm

Even your own mother was a virgin once upon a time.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
October 5, 2022 3:08 pm

She was, but she wasn’t when she gave birth to me. Did you do sex-ed at school?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:21 pm

This is a cheap shot because you do not want to engage in discussing the contrast between Christianity and Communism but merely belittle those who have different views.

From a historical perspective, who has done more for their fellow citizens, zealous Communists or devout Christians? Sadly a number of church leaders have adapted Christian teaching to fit into their Liberation Theology which is a poor counterfeit of the teaching of Jesus. Similarly climate alarmism is a poor counterfeit of the scientific practice of men like Michael Faraday.

Eric Worrall and WUWT are to be commended as one of the very few websites encouraging careful and courteous discussion of what climate change really means.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 5, 2022 3:31 pm

Nothing wrong with a bit of radical and discourteous discussion. It makes for more fun and can still debate the truth.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 3:02 am

The truth?

What does that look like?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 5:53 am

Well, one truth is that there is no god.

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 6:49 am

One mans truth is another’s lie. Truth is entirely subjective.

As with my last post, because God hasn’t spoken to you doesn’t mean he hasn’t spoken to others.

Just what that communication looks like is different to each person.

He’s never spoken to me, nor you apparently. Perhaps we are both deaf.

The difference is, I don’t mock people who claim he’s spoken to them.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:47 am

God hasn’t spoken to them because God doesn’t exist.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 10:43 am

Prove it.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 4:57 am

Make me

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 4:12 pm

I see you’ve found your preferred level. When you get out of pre-school do continue.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2022 3:56 am

Ooh! Get you!
*clutches handbag*

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 11:47 am

Some years ago I spoke to a biologist who is a top scientist in his field about proving the existence of God. Though not a Christian, he said to me that a scientist can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

There is something ridiculous in an insignificant human in the vastness of the universe trying to prove there is an eternal Creator God. He or she would need to have this God make himself known at their level of comprehension. If we cannot work out and grasp the complexities of weather and climate, how could we ever hope to have our finite and fallible minds address the question of God?

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:40 pm

And the atheists get testy when challenged on how little they know regarding what they have rejected.

Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 11:32 pm

And the Christians get REALLY testy when we atheists show how much more we know about their tenets and doctrines than they do!

HotScot
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 3:19 am

You don’t know enough about climate change to convince the general public it’s not a threat, but you know enough about religion to condemn it?

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 5:13 am

I know enough about climate change to convince members of the public it’s not a threat. In fact, I have done that with various members of the public, multiple times.
Next!

Reply to  HotScot
October 8, 2022 12:40 pm

I know quite a bit about both.

jeffery P
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 6:54 am

I see no evidence to back up that claim. Your disbelief seems based on highly skewed misrepresentations of doctrine. That make your beliefs as ignorant as those which you hold in contempt.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 11:53 am

This is a fallacious generalization. There are stupid or ignorant people among every group including Christians and atheists, uneducated and learned, young and old.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 6, 2022 5:55 am

And the atheists get testy

Moi? Testy? I rather think it’s the God Squad who are getting testy – I’ve had roughly 30 emails notifying me that commenters here have been replying rather furiously to my comments. The majority of them have been extremely testy. Such fun.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 1:18 pm

Don’t even try Ken – you’ll have the sky-fairy crowd shouting you down.

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:41 pm

Atheists sure do get their panties in a wad when challenged on their belief systems.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 3:43 pm

Mine aren’t in a wad. In fact, I’m not wearing any.

Art
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 7:28 pm

Too much information…

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 11:33 pm

I didn’t think that would be controversial here. We are SUPPOSED to be a science-oriented community.

HotScot
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 3:23 am

Judging by the hysteria over this and covid/vaccinations there aren’t many scientist’s here.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 6, 2022 5:46 am

And this is what amuses me:
Nearly all the sceptics on this site stand by the real and solid science that demonstrates CAGW is all a load of guff, yet at the same time so many of them are prepared to hang their hats on the evidence free existent of some sort of infallible god.

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 10:49 am

Your ignorance is profound. Most people on this site, in my experience, claim that CAGW is scientifically unlikely within the time frames claimed by uninformed alarmists.

What few of the informed say is “CAGW is all a load of guff” because they are well aware the climate changes and science evolves.

CAGW is, in fact, likely a racing certainty as the planet is very likely to cool at some time in the future. Another ice age would represent CAGW.

HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 11:34 am

*Assuming we keep tinkering with the climate.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 4:59 am

So Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is going to cause cooling.
Okay, whatever, I’m sure that makes sense in your mind.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 4:14 pm

Infallible God? You stand as evidence to the contrary.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2022 3:58 am

Me? I’m gorgeous.

Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 8, 2022 12:41 pm

Precisely, Andy. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I always THOUGHT that this was a science-oriented forum. Now that the Believers in Magic and Fairies are coming out of the woodwork, I’m not so sure any more.

james Fosser
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 2:57 pm

But both ideologies had the same intentions. To stop the herds from stampeding.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 3:26 pm

Christianity in the NT, as far as what you call “Collectivist” was entirely freewill giving motivated by love.
And when they gave in Acts, if it wasn’t one individual to another, it was laid at the Apostles feet, not the Governments.
When corruption arose on the part of the giver or the receiver, it was addressed.
(IE 2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this command: “If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.” (NET))
But the main purpose of Christianity is not to feed everybody or even their own. It’s to preach Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection and what that means.
1Timothy 2:3-6 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. ( KJV)

Communism is Government taking from people what they are earned and giving to those who have not motivated by fear.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 5, 2022 3:48 pm

People quoting from the King James Bible as though it’s the unsullied and original word of their god always amuse me. Don’t they know that by the time King James and his mates got their hands on it the Bible had been through countless revisions and censorship? Then James and his gang carried out their very own revisions, censorship, and additions.
It’s a fairytale re-written many times over.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 4:23 pm

How’s this?

KJV 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

20V 1 Corinthians 2:14 The merely intellectual man rejects the teaching of the Spirit of God; for to him it is mere folly; he cannot grasp it, because it is to be understood only by spiritual insight.

ABC 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

ACV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is unable to understand because they are evaluated spiritually.

AKJ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

ALT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural [or, unspiritual] person does not receive the [things] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know [them], because they are spiritually examined.

AMP 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

ASV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

BBE 1 Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.

BIB 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the naturall man perceaueth not the thynges of ye spirite of God, for they are foolyshenesse vnto hym: Neither can he knowe [them] because they are spiritually discerned.

BWE 1 Corinthians 2:14 The person who does not have the Spirit does not receive the blessings of the Spirit of God. He thinks they are foolish. He cannot understand them because only people who have the Spirit of God can test them.

CEV 1 Corinthians 2:14 That’s why only someone who has God’s Spirit can understand spiritual blessings. Anyone who doesn’t have God’s Spirit thinks these blessings are foolish.

CJB 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man does not receive the things from the Spirit of God- to him they are nonsense! Moreover, he is unable to grasp them, because they are evaluated through the Spirit.

CLV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the soulish man is not receiving those things which are of the spirit of God, for they are stupidity to him, and he is not able to know them, seeing that they are spiritually examined.

COM 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

CSB 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually.

CVB 1 Corinthians 2:14 Howbeit the naturall man perceaueth nothinge of ye sprete of God. It is foolishnes vnto him, and he can not perceaue it: for it must be spiritually discerned.

DBY 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned;

DRA 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.

EMP 1 Corinthians 2:14 But, a man of the soul, doth not welcome the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot get to know them, because, spiritually, are they examined;

EMT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

ERV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

ESV 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

ETH 1 Corinthians 2:14 For the man who is animal receiveth not spirituals, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them, because they by the Spirit are judged of;

GNV 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishnesse vnto him: neither can hee knowe them, because they are spiritually discerned.

GRT 1 Corinthians 2:14 psuchikos de anthrôpos ou dechetai ta tou pneumatos tou theou: môria gar autô estin kai ou dunatai gnônai, hoti pneumatikôs anakrinetai.

GSN 1 Corinthians 2:14 A material man will not accept what the Spirit of God offers. It seems mere folly to him, and he cannot understand it, because it takes spiritual insight to see its true value.

GWN 1 Corinthians 2:14 A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the teachings of God’s Spirit. He thinks they’re nonsense. He can’t understand them because a person must be spiritual to evaluate them.

HBR 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

HNV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

ISV 1 Corinthians 2:14 A person who isn’t spiritual doesn’t accept the things of God’s Spirit, for they are nonsense to him. He can’t understand them because they are spiritually evaluated.

J2K 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he understand [them] because they are spiritually discerned.

KJG 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

KJR 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of YHWH: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

LIT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

LVO 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now, an animal man receives not the thing of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually examined.

MAC 1 Corinthians 2:14 but the animal man does not receive the effusions of the spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

MGI 1 Corinthians 2:14 For a man who is natural does not receive spiritual [things], for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know that which is judged spiritually.

MIT 1 Corinthians 2:14 For an ordinary person does not receive what God’s spirit presents. Indeed, such presentations are considered nonsense. Such a person is unable to grasp these truths because they are spiritually ascertained.

MKJ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

MOF 1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man rejects these truths of the Spirit of God; to him they are ‘sheer folly,’ he cannot understand them. And the reason is, that they must be read with the spiritual eye.

MON 1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man rejects the teachings of God’s Spirit; for him it is folly. He cannot understand it, for it is spiritually discerned,

MRC 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a soulish man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he does not have the power to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

MRD 1 Corinthians 2:14 For a man in his natural self, receiveth not spirituals; for they are foolishness to him. Neither can he know them; for they are discerned by the Spirit.

NAB 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually.

NAS 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

NAU 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

NET 1 Corinthians 2:14 The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

NIB 1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

NIRV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Some people don’t have the Holy Spirit. They don’t accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. Things like that are foolish to them. They can’t understand them. In fact, such things can’t be understood without the Spirit’s help.

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

NJB 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural person has no room for the gifts of God’s Spirit; to him they are folly; he cannot recognise them, because their value can be assessed only in the Spirit.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

NLT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But people who aren’t spiritual can’t receive these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can’t understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

NRS 1 Corinthians 2:14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

OJB 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a person without hitkhadeshut (renewal) and ruchaniyut (spirituality) does not receive the things of the Ruach Hakodesh of Hashem, for they are sichlut (foolishness 1:21-24) to him, and he is not able to have personal saving da’as of them, because they are discerned in the Ruach Hakodesh.

PHP 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with they just don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things.

PNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the naturall man perceaueth not the thynges of ye spirite of God, for they are foolyshenesse vnto hym: Neither can he knowe [them] because they are spiritually discerned.

RKN 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

RNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the animal man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them because they are spiritually understood.

RSV 1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

RWB 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

TEV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God’s Spirit. Such a person really does not understand them, and they seem to be nonsense, because their value can be judged only on a spiritual basis.

TNIV 1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

TNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 For the naturall man perceaveth not the thinges of the sprete of god. For they are but folysshnes vnto him. Nether can he perceave them because he is spretually examined.

TRC 1 Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of God: For they are but foolishness unto him. Neither can he perceive them because he is spiritually examined:(can not perceive it: for it must be spiritually discerned)

TYN 1 Corinthians 2:14 For ye naturall man perceaveth not the thinges of the sprete of god. For they are but folysshnes vnto him. Nether can he perceave them because he is spretually examined.

TYO 1 Corinthians 2:14 For the natural man perceiveth not the things of the spirit of god: For they are but foolishness unto him. Neither can he perceive them because he is spiritually examined:

UPD 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him; and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually judged.

WAS 1 Corinthians 2:14 But a natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

WEB 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know {them}, because they are spiritually discerned.

WES 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man- That is, every man who hath not the Spirit; who has no other way of obtaining knowledge, but by his senses and natural understanding. Receiveth not- Does not understand or conceive. The things of the Spirit- The things revealed by the Spirit of God, whether relating to his nature or his kingdom. For they are foolishness to him- He is so far from understanding, that he utterly despises, them Neither can he know them- As he has not the will, so neither has he the power. Because they are spiritually discerned- They can only be discerned by the aid of that Spirit, and by those spiritual senses, which he has not.

WEV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him, and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

WNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 The unspiritual man rejects the things of the Spirit of God, and cannot attain to the knowledge of them, because they are spiritually judged.

WSL 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

WYC 1 Corinthians 2:14 For a beestli man perseyueth not tho thingis that ben of the spirit of God; for it is foli to hym, and he may not vndurstonde, for it is examyned goostli.

YLT 1 Corinthians 2:14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them, because spiritually they are discerned;

BGM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός annmsn δὲ δέ cc ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnmsc οὐ οὐ b δέχεται δέχομαι vipm3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngnsc τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ· θεός ngmsc μωρία μωρία nnfsc γὰρ γάρ cc αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν εἰμί vipa3s καὶ καί cc οὐ οὐ b δύναται δύναμαι vipm3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι cs πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς b ἀνακρίνεται. ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

BGT 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

BNM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός annmsn δὲ δέ cc ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnmsc οὐ οὐ b δέχεται δέχομαι vipm3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngnsc τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ· θεός ngmsc μωρία μωρία nnfsc γὰρ γάρ cc αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν εἰμί vipa3s καὶ καί cc οὐ οὐ b δύναται δύναμαι vipm3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι cs πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς b ἀνακρίνεται. ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

BNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

BYM 1 Corinthians 2:14 Ψυχικὸς ψυχικός anmsn δὲ δέ c ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnms οὐ οὐ xo δέχεται δέχομαι vipn3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngns τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ· θεός ngms μωρία μωρία nnfs γὰρ γάρ c αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν, εἰμί vipa3s καὶ καί c οὐ οὐ xo δύναται δύναμαι vipn3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι c πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς bo ἀνακρίνεται. ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

BYZ 1 Corinthians 2:14 Ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

GNM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός a–nm-s δὲ δέ cc ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος n-nm-s οὐ οὐ qn δέχεται δέχομαι vipn–3s τὰ ὁ danp+ τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα n-gn-s τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ, θεός n-gm-s μωρία μωρία n-nf-s γὰρ γάρ cs αὐτῷ αὐτός npdm3s ἐστιν εἰμί vipa–3s καὶ καί cc οὐ οὐ qn δύναται δύναμαι vipn–3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι cs πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς ab ἀνακρίνεται· ἀνακρίνω vipp–3s

GNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ, μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται·

GOC 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται

MET 1 Corinthians 2:14 Ο ψυχικός όμως άνθρωποςÀ1 δε δέχεται τα πράγματα του Πνεύματος του Θεού, γιατί είναι μωρία γι αυτόν και δε δύναται να τα γνωρίσει, γιατί πνευματικώς ανακρίνονταιÀ2.

MGK 1 Corinthians 2:14 Ὁ φυσικὸς ὅμως ἄνθρωπος δὲν δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ· διότι εἶναι μωρία εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ δὲν δύναται νὰ γνωρίσῃ αὐτά, διότι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνονται.

SCM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός anmsn δὲ δέ c ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnms οὐ οὐ xo δέχεται δέχομαι vipn3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns Πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngns τοῦ ὁ dgms Θεοῦ· θεός ngms μωρία μωρία nnfs γὰρ γάρ c αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστι, εἰμί vipx3s καὶ καί c οὐ οὐ xo δύναται δύναμαι vipn3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι c πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς bo ἀνακρίνεται· ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

SCR 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ· μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται·

STE 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται·

STM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός anmsn δὲ δέ c ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnms οὐ οὐ xo δέχεται δέχομαι vipn3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngns τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ θεός ngms μωρία μωρία nnfs γὰρ γάρ c αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν εἰμί vipx3s καὶ καί c οὐ οὐ xo δύναται δύναμαι vipn3s γνῶναι γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι c πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς bo ἀνακρίνεται· ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

TIM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός anmsn δὲ δέ c ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnms οὐ οὐ xo δέχεται δέχομαι vipn3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngns τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ, θεός ngms μωρία μωρία nnfs γὰρ γάρ c αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν, εἰμί vipa3s καὶ καί c οὐ οὐ xo δύναται δύναμαι vipn3s γνῶναι, γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι c πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς bo ἀνακρίνεται· ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

TIS 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ, μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν, καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται·

VST 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ου᾽ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ. μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν, καὶ ου᾽ δύναται γνῶναι, ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται.

WHM 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς ψυχικός anmsn δὲ δέ c ἄνθρωπος ἄνθρωπος nnms οὐ οὐ xo δέχεται δέχομαι vipn3s τὰ ὁ danp τοῦ ὁ dgns πνεύματος πνεῦμα ngns τοῦ ὁ dgms θεοῦ θεός ngms μωρία μωρία nnfs γὰρ γάρ c αὐτῷ αὐτός rpdms ἐστιν εἰμί vipx3s καὶ καί c οὐ οὐ xo δύναται δύναμαι vipn3s γνῶναι γινώσκω vnaa ὅτι ὅτι c πνευματικῶς πνευματικῶς bo ἀνακρίνεται· ἀνακρίνω vipp3s

WHO 1 Corinthians 2:14 ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ θεοῦ μωρία γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐστιν καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι ὅτι πνευματικῶς ἀνακρίνεται·

 DLZ 1 Corinthians 2:14 הֵן הָאָדָם הַטִּבְעִי אֵינֶנּוּ מְקַבֵּל אֶת־דִּבְרֵי רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים כִּי־הֵמָּה סִכְלוּת לוֹ וְלֹא יוּכַל לַהֲבִינָם בַּאֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה נְדוֹנִים בְּדֶרֶךְ הָרוּחַ׃
 
 HNT 1 Corinthians 2:14 אֶפֶס בֶּן־אָדָם בֶּן־בָּשָׂר וָדָם לֹא יַקְשִׁיב לְאִמְרֵי רוּחַ הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי־כְסִכְלוּת הֵם בְּעֵינָיו וְהַשְׂכֵּל לֹא יוּכַל כִּי רוּחַ אֵין בּוֹ אֲשֶׁר רַק עַל־יָדוֹ יִשַּׁפֵטוּ׃
 
 PEH 1 Corinthians 2:14 ברנשׁא גיר דבנפשׁ הו לא מקבל רוחניתא שׁטיותא אנין גיר לה ולא משׁכח דנדע דברוח מתדין׃
 
 !wd%vJPms-+Sxxx axwr%nccsa+Sxxx [dy%vNi3ms+Sxxx xkv%vNPms-+Sxxx al%vNp3ms+Sxxx l%Ps+S3ms ryg%Pc+Sxxx wh%pp3fp atwyjv%ncfse+Sxxx aynxwr%afpe+Sxxx lbq%vMPms-+Sxxx al%Pc+Sxxx wh%pp3ms avpn%ncfsa+Sxxx ryg%Pc+Sxxx avnrb%nccse+Sxxx PEM 1 Corinthians 2:14
 
 !ydtm Xwrbd Jdnd Xkvm fw hl ryg !yna Fwyjv Fynxwr Lbqm f wh Vpnbd ryg avnrb PES 1 Corinthians 2:14
 
 PHA 1 Corinthians 2:14 בַּרנָשָׁא גֵּיר דּבַ̅נפֵ̅שׁ הֻ֗ו֑ לָא מקַבֵּל רֻוחָניָתָ̅א֖֞ שָׁטיֻותָ̅א אֵנֵין֞ גֵּיר לֵה֖ ולָא מֵשׁכַּח דּנֵדַּע דַּב̅רֻוח מֵתּדִ̅ין֖׃
 
 %nccse+Sxxx PMH 1 Corinthians 2:14ברנשׁא %Pc+Sxxxגיר %ncfsa+Sxxxנפשׁא %pp3msהו %Pc+Sxxxלא %vMPms-+Sxxxקבל %afpe+Sxxxרוחניא %ncfse+Sxxxשׁטיותא %pp3fpהו %Pc+Sxxxגיר %Ps+S3msל %vNp3ms+Sxxxלא %vNPms-+Sxxxשׁכח %vNi3ms+Sxxxידע %nccsa+Sxxxרוחא %vJPms-+Sxxxדון
 
NOV 1 Corinthians 2:14 Animalis autem homo non percipit, quae sunt Spiritus Dei, stultitia enim sunt illi, et non potest intellegere, quia spiritaliter examinantur;

VUC 1 Corinthians 2:14 Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei: stultitia enim est illi, et non potest intelligere: quia spiritualiter examinatur.

VUL 1 Corinthians 2:14 animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei stultitia est enim illi et non potest intellegere quia spiritaliter examinatur

VUO 1 Corinthians 2:14 animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei stultitia est enim illi et non potest intellegere quia spiritaliter examinatur

KLV 1 Corinthians 2:14 DaH the natural loD ta’be’ Hev the Dochmey vo’ joH’a’ qa’, vaD chaH ‘oH foolishness Daq ghaH, je ghaH ta’laHbe’ Sov chaH, because chaH ‘oH spiritually discerned.

sycomputing
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 5, 2022 4:33 pm

“How’s this?”

Splendidly done, that’s how.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 6, 2022 4:46 am

Not splendidly done at all, I’m afraid:
Try this:
“In particular, the Greek text of the New Testament that they used as their base was a poor one”
Or this:
“Over 30,000 changes were made, of which more than 5,000 represent differences between the Greek text used for the Revised Version and that used as the basis of the King James Version”
That’s a lot of changes!
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-King-James-and-subsequent-versions

sycomputing
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 8:57 am

“Not splendidly done at all, I’m afraid:”

There now Andy, I promised to leave you alone after the last tossing about the intellectual room I gave you.

If you continue, however, to comment on my posts, I can’t promise to refrain from further bruising you. Take your original shame and don’t let’s add to it.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  sycomputing
October 7, 2022 1:25 am

after the last tossing about the intellectual room I gave you.

I can’t promise to refrain from further bruising you.

Chortle! What an inflated sense of your own abilities you have. I bet you’re great fun in a bar – announcing to everyone that you’re an intellectual heavyweight.
Now, how you do you justify 30 000 revisions and 5 000 differences as being faithful to the original?
I’ll wait…

sycomputing
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 7:26 am

“I bet you’re great fun in a bar – announcing to everyone that you’re an intellectual heavyweight.”

It’s not that I’m an intellectual heavyweight at all. Nay rather, it’s just that you’re such a light one.

🙂

“Now, how you do you justify 30 000 revisions and 5 000 differences as being faithful to the original?”

Faithful to the original what? Your own reference article appears to contradict you:

“The remarkable and total victory of the King James Version could not entirely obscure those inherent weaknesses that were independent of its typographical errors. The manner of its execution had resulted in a certain unevenness and lack of consistency. Because the translators’ understanding of the Hebrew tense system was often limited, their version contains inaccurate and infelicitous renderings. In particular, the Greek text of the New Testament that they used as their base was a poor one. The great early Greek codices were not then known or available, and the Hellenistic papyri which were to shed light on the common Greek dialect had not yet been discovered.”

sycomputing
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 10:32 am

Additionally, in case your objection is not that revisions from the original King James is problematic, but rather that we now have e.g., better manuscripts and understand ancient languages in more depth, congratulations and well done (no one will blame me for not considering you had this better objection in mind at the outset :-)).

While this is a much better question it’s still (in my view) pretty much meaningless. You could give it meaning if you’re able to by contrasting the original KJV with a modern text (e.g., NASB) and highlighting any significant difference in theology between the two.

(For those acronymically challenged, “KJV = “King James Version” and “NASB” = “New American Standard Version”)

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Gunga Din
October 6, 2022 4:40 am

Well this took me 30 secs to Google:
“The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text—while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators’ work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note”
All your typing was for nothing, it seems.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 3:24 am

the Bible had been through countless revisions and censorship?

Gosh, that sounds a bit like science.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 5:58 am

But I thought the Bible was the one infallible “Word of God” and hence should not be altered in any way? Or are you admitting that bible is inaccurate?

jeffery P
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 6:57 am

Depends on your branch of Christianity.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  jeffery P
October 6, 2022 8:49 am

It’s strange that the “one truth” has so many different flavours.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2022 4:20 pm

“In My Fathers house are many mansions.”

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2022 4:00 am

What a cop out.
You could swing that around with “In my father’s house there are many decrepit shacks”

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 7:00 am

I don’t think it says anywhere in the bible that it or the Christian faith is infallible, in fact, to my understanding it accepts fallibility.

Nor do I think the bible says it shouldn’t be altered.

But then I could be entirely wrong as I have never fully read the bible, have you?

Indeed, I’m not ‘religious’ other than I live my life to a set of Christian standards largely defined by the ten commandments, in a broadly Christian country. It’s not perfect but acceptable to me.

Are you now going to tell me you don’t bother with Christian values? Perhaps not if you conform to another religion I guess.

Or do you live to Christian standards, accept Christian values, live in a Christian community, yet seek to condemn Christianity?

It’s a bit like living in, and condemning a Capitalist society, but refusing to move to N. Korea because the conditions are unacceptable to you.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 8:53 am

I read most of the Bible when I was at school. Most of it is quite dull. Some of it is quite poetic. A lot of it is plain daft.
Western morals are built around Christianity and I tend to live by those morals, but that’s just an accident of history.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2022 11:40 am

But you don’t believe in god, so why would western morals mean anything to you?

You choosing to continue to live in a christian community isn’t an accident of history, it’s your choice.

Think yourself lucky. Had you been born in a devout Muslim country you would risk your life mocking that religion.

Perhaps you should count your blessings.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 5:11 am

Western morals (which were built around Christian morals) appeal to me, so I live by them. In the same way that I enjoy looking round churches and soaking in the history doesn’t mean I have to believe in the existence of a god.

Had you been born in a devout Muslim country you would risk your life mocking that religion.

I’m not mad. Risking your life for the sake of a theological debate is beyond stupid.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 5:59 am

To claim the bible is a scientific document is like claiming Mikey Mann’s hokey stick is truly accurate.

HotScot
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 6, 2022 7:10 am

Where did I say the bible is a scientific document?

I drew a parallel between science being constantly revised and censored, and your statement that the bible has been constantly revised and censored.

My understanding is that the bible is a collection of evidence from various sources over thousands of years faithfully documented and revised along the way.

What science do we have with that track record?

A scientific theory is no less a belief than the bible is. It relies on faith in data.

Assuming the scientific method itself emerges from science it too is a falsifiable entity. If not, it’s dogma.

Last edited 1 month ago by HotScot
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 6, 2022 11:23 am

“What science do we have with that track record?”
Any scientist who regards the Bible as some sort of record keeping gold standard needs their head examining.

HotScot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2022 1:30 am

Who said it was a record keeping gold standard?

You really should learn to learn to factually analyse passages of text and not conjure things up in your head.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 5:28 am

I have to say, this has been an absolute blast watching you get more and more upset. You really should calm down a bit.
Now, if you want a bit of a giggle that will put the god botherers noses out of joint, have a quick look at this pic

planet.png
Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 4:22 pm

Maybe you should only comment on topics you understand. Jesus preached individual actions and accountability, not collectivism.

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” — Samuel Clemens

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
October 7, 2022 5:24 am

Jesus preached

Some nutpot wandering around a dusty backwater claiming he was born to a virgin and is the son of god isn’t really someone I’d bother listening to. You might as well listen to what Ron Hubbard had to say.

Dusty
Reply to  Ken Barber
October 5, 2022 7:02 pm

Nothing inherently wrong with any of those which free will doesn’t fix, and that, sir is the difference between Marxism and Christianity.

Communism is anathema in the Church.

Bill Powers
Reply to  jeffery P
October 5, 2022 12:11 pm

Every natural disaster, not unlike every school shooting, is hyperventilated by the Faceless Cultural Elite through their water carriers at the legacy media. This “Ministry of Truth” amplifies and shouts out this centrally baked propaganda at the top and bottom of every hour. Their Leftist brainwashed sycophants at ABNCCBS MS/CNN deliver this disinformation condescendingly, lecturing we the great unwashed, only indirectly implying that we are the problem. They then translate this propaganda into every known language world wide in support of a Global leadership solution.

Marxist, Socialist, Fascist are all tired worn out nomenclature that if asked of 100 people would elicit 100 different answers. These ideological philosophies have all evolved into UN backed Globalism. The globalist, aka the Davos Dandies organized under the cloak of the World Economic Forum, have a plan they call “The Great Reset” all the major powers are aligned including China and Russia who are acting out their parts to deliver tactical solutions to the grander strategies.

The Goal, the vision if you will is One World Governance. They will not stop until we all live in a one world two class “Brave New World: where the Ruling Class rule and the Servant Class serve and the most frightening aspect of all, there will be no Free country to escape into. But first they need to take away our private held guns and reduce the population through abortion, sterilization (transgenderism), This all done voluntarily through indoctrination and pandemics that target the very expensive support requirements for the elderly and sickly. This is a synergistic plan. All the pieces work neatly together. Arguing over climate change is just the misdirection of the magic trick.

HotScot
Reply to  Bill Powers
October 6, 2022 3:34 am

Marxism, Socialism and Fascism are just good old authoritarianism dressed by the left in their terms to justify oppression. It’s now morphed into Collectivism which is the same old authoritarianism.

It’s been a feature of mankind since time began and will be defined again and again into the future.

john harmsworth
Reply to  jeffery P
October 6, 2022 8:59 am

They are both religions ( just like environmentalism) that leave little room for humanity. But Christianity is more honest about it where convenient and more hypocritical on financial matters. It’s at least possible for a sinner to make a buck under Christianity.
Look at the good cardinal. he’s doing ok.

Last edited 1 month ago by john harmsworth
Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  markl
October 5, 2022 11:43 am

POLACKS like him give us all a bad name.

HotScot
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
October 6, 2022 3:37 am

POLACKS?

If that’s a reference to Polish its uncalled for and counterproductive. There is no need to be rude.

Rich Davis
Reply to  markl
October 5, 2022 8:33 pm

Just following his Marxist anti-pope

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  markl
October 6, 2022 2:54 am

Has Cardinal Czerny found religion ? …… According to the Cardinal the time for speculation is over and yet he prophetically speculated that “tomorrow ” extreme weather events and climatic disasters ” will get worse ” …..Or he has studied the data and he knows hes lying . I have the impression Cardinal Czerny, Pope Francis and the St Gallen Mafia are cynically hitching the Catholic Church to the climate catastrophist bandwagon to consolidate their congregations, popularize the church and harvest souls….Study the climate data Cardinal : you shall know the truth , and the truth shall set you free

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  Stuart Hamish
October 6, 2022 2:57 am

“cyclones and hurricanes ” are one and the same Cardinal

Ivo
October 5, 2022 10:07 am

I would also point to Exodus 20:3 for suggested reading. “You shall have no other gods before me.”

Only a religious faith in the Golden Turd of CAGW could result in the Cardinal’s statements.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ivo
Stephen Skinner
October 5, 2022 10:16 am

What is Cardinal Michael Czerny speciality exactly?

paul courtney
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 5, 2022 10:27 am

Mr. Skinner: Applied Mendacity, evidently.
I attended a Jesuit U. in the ’70s, they were still scholars then. Now, like this guy, they spend more time forgetting history than studying it. Jesuits were trained to think for themselves above all. He and his friend the Pope are fine examples of highly educated nitwits who “follow the experts” instead of actually looking into the subject.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
October 5, 2022 1:29 pm

His speciality? Believing a non-existent entity.

Art
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 2:11 pm

I find it interesting that those who disparage others for “belief in a non-existent entity” have some strange beliefs themselves, like the spontaneous magical origin of the universe and life.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Art
October 5, 2022 3:06 pm

“spontaneous magical origin of the universe and life.”
Science will tell us where it all came from, but I bet you it wasn’t made by a big bearded bloke in a toga and sandals.

Jtom
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 4:18 pm

No, science will not, and cannot, tell us where it all came from, because the questions will always be, but what created that situation? What existed before? And what caused it to happen when it did?

The existence of the universe is irrational, and cannot be answered rationally.

HotScot
Reply to  Jtom
October 6, 2022 3:40 am

The existence of the universe is irrational, and cannot be answered rationally.

Well, at least by flawed and primitive humans who are still making scientific discoveries.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Jtom
October 6, 2022 4:35 am

Have you not considered that there has always been something there and doesn’t have to have had a beginning?
You need to get your head around the concept of infinity.

Jtom
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2022 9:10 am

That’s a belief! The science says the universe is 13.7 billion years old. What you are maintaining can neither be proved nor disproved!

Now stick to the science!

Art
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2022 2:05 pm

Evidence says it had a beginning, Andy. Scientific evidence, the kind of base we skeptics like to rely on.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Jtom
October 6, 2022 5:40 am

The existence of the universe is irrational, and cannot be answered rationally.

Who says its existence is irrational? Ancient man would have considered rainbows irrational and without explanation, but science has discovered the source of rainbows, just as science is continuing to discover yet more about the universe (all of which is very rational)

Jtom
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 7, 2022 9:12 am

Please rationally explain why the universe must exist.

Art
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 7:31 pm

No, science does not tell us where it all came from and is unlikely to. The more they try, the more impossible it all seems.. I would have thought you of all people would know that.

And just out of curiosity, what belief says that it came from a big bearded bloke in a toga and sandals?

Last edited 1 month ago by Art
HotScot
Reply to  Art
October 6, 2022 3:46 am

Science has only been around for five or six hundred years. Reading, writing and arithmetic have only been routinely taught in schools for the last 200 years or so.

And we’re supposed to have figured out the wonders of the universe in that short timescale?

Jtom
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2022 9:20 am

Science can never explain the why of the universe, only how things behave. It is the limitation of science, not our knowledge. Matter attracts matter. We call it gravity. We can measure it. That is science. Why does gravity exists (not how!) is a theological question. Science can not answer that question even though we know that it does exist.

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 5, 2022 3:43 pm

This much anger is usually the result of a guilty conscience.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 5, 2022 3:49 pm

I’m not angry, but I must admit to being guilty of all sorts of transgressions. Just ask my wife.

Dan Sudlik
October 5, 2022 10:23 am

When you know everything why should you bother doing research (sarc)

Bil
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
October 5, 2022 10:42 am

Just waiting for the playing of the Papal Infallibility card

Richard Page
Reply to  Bil
October 5, 2022 11:25 am

Ah the good old doctrine of infallibility. A doctrine which is expressed by the Pope as personal opinion, not solemnly proclaimed by the Church as doctrine, may be rejected as false, even on the matters of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. This also extends to any new doctrine introduced.
So if it ain’t established Church doctrine, it ain’t infallible.

starzmom
Reply to  Bil
October 5, 2022 3:31 pm

I am Catholic and you won’t hear that from me, especially on a topic such as this. In fact it is clergy such as this Cardinal who are actively driving me out of the Catholic Church.

saveenergy
Reply to  starzmom
October 6, 2022 12:35 am

Welcome to the real world

Pauleta
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
October 5, 2022 11:49 am

UN owns the Science®, that’s all we need now.

October 5, 2022 10:26 am

Apocalyptic floods

If they were Apocalyptic we wouldn’t be here now talking about them.

Andrew

Richard Page
Reply to  Bad Andrew
October 5, 2022 11:28 am

Is this representative of the holy Church actually informing us that the biblical apocalypse is now upon us? Somehow I think he’s just been caught up in the attention-seeking, headline-grabbing climate activist hyperbole. Silly man in a dress!

The Emperor's New Mask
October 5, 2022 10:36 am

It seems that Bergoglio has replaced the Bible with a new holy text: The Communist Manifesto.

Last edited 1 month ago by The Emperor's New Mask
Richard Page
Reply to  The Emperor's New Mask
October 5, 2022 11:29 am

I’d say he’s been overdoing the communion wine!

b.nice
Reply to  Richard Page
October 5, 2022 2:17 pm

“overdoing the communion wine!”

you mean the “communist whine” !?

Andrew Wilkins