Religion

Nitram

(27,757 posts)

11. I'm afraid the author wasn't very clear about that.

Thu Jun 18, 2015, 09:07 AM

Jun 2015

He emphasizes the negative, pessimistic, dark foreboding aspects and then says there are no clear solutions. I believe the Pope has offered a number of clear solutions, from increased aid to the poor, sharing of profits, emphasizing the value of people and the environment over profit, and decreasing carbon emissions. I agree it is partly a spiritual issue, but it is also an economic, social and scientific issue.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pope Francis wants to roll back progress. Is the world ready? [View all] cbayer Jun 2015 OP

No, he doesn't ann--- Jun 2015 #1

In some ways he does and I agree with him. cbayer Jun 2015 #2

Sorry, not getting the ann--- Jun 2015 #7

I think we are talking past each other. cbayer Jun 2015 #9

Yes ann--- Jun 2015 #12

Again, I think I am not being clear. cbayer Jun 2015 #15

Then, why ann--- Jun 2015 #21

I didn't write that. It's the title of the article. cbayer Jun 2015 #25

So what tech would you like to "rollback"? How would you do that? Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #27

Blah blah blah AlbertCat Jun 2015 #28

Blah blah blah cbayer Jun 2015 #30

I'm with you, it reads like a typically delusional hit piece n/t tech3149 Jun 2015 #3

A typically delusion hit piece on whom? cbayer Jun 2015 #5

on the pope of course tech3149 Jun 2015 #10

Well, it's not. It's is an entirely supportive piece on the pope and his stand on climate change. cbayer Jun 2015 #13

If that is the case ann--- Jun 2015 #22

It's been pointed out below that I may have misread the intent of this author. cbayer Jun 2015 #24

On environmentalists, and on the Pope for siding with them muriel_volestrangler Jun 2015 #16

Right-wing source? D'oh! n/t trotsky Jun 2015 #18

While the site and some of it's authors may have a conservative bent, this author cbayer Jun 2015 #19

There's no 'may' about it; First Things is primarily known as right wing muriel_volestrangler Jun 2015 #20

While that wasn't my take on it, I believe you. cbayer Jun 2015 #23

In other words, you're caught red-handed and utterly wrong skepticscott Jun 2015 #35

Here is what the encyclical itself says about climate change Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #31

It's a shame he did all that as a setup for an anti-abortion attack Lordquinton Jun 2015 #41

I don't think Mr. Armstrong read it in it's entirety. cleanhippie Jun 2015 #48

First, if you think that the encyclical was about abortion Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #51

Anti-abortion talk is hate speech Lordquinton Jun 2015 #57

I notice that you did not actually respond to what I wrote -- and boast of not reading it Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2015 #62

This is so hilarious Lordquinton Jun 2015 #64

He sure does. trotsky Jun 2015 #4

On the contrary, the Pope is right on the money. Nitram Jun 2015 #6

That really is the point of the article. cbayer Jun 2015 #8

I'm afraid the author wasn't very clear about that. Nitram Jun 2015 #11

He was very clear about it, but not until one reads past the first few paragraphs. cbayer Jun 2015 #14

Of course he wants to roll back progress, he and his Church are active opponents of progress Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #17

�People no longer seem to believe in a happy future,� AlbertCat Jun 2015 #26

What do you understand about the catholic's view on end times? cbayer Jun 2015 #29

Do you think it predicts a happy future or not? AlbertCat Jun 2015 #32

You apparently care. cbayer Jun 2015 #33

You misunderstood. cleanhippie Jun 2015 #49

If you feel you can clarify it for him, please feel free. cbayer Jun 2015 #52

Lost in translation? Possibly. Reading with an agenda can often lead to that. Lordquinton Jun 2015 #59

Why the hell do you care? You've always told us that you're an atheist. mr blur Jun 2015 #38

Pope wants you to give up using your cars, and having your abortions. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #34

�valuing one�s own body in its femininity or masculinity.� trotsky Jun 2015 #36

Concern for the protection of nature Lordquinton Jun 2015 #37

Retrace our steps aka-chmeee Jun 2015 #39

I don't understand your response, but I'm pretty sure that is not what he was suggesting. cbayer Jun 2015 #40

The Pope is no saint, yet. safeinOhio Jun 2015 #42

This Pope has really safeinOhio Jun 2015 #43

While Rand was indeed an atheist her ideology that guides neolibs is Objectivism, not atheism. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #44

Atheism takes no position on economics, but she safeinOhio Jun 2015 #45

I note that you have changed the argument. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #46

Atheism can and does disagree with the god part safeinOhio Jun 2015 #47

I'm with you. cbayer Jun 2015 #54

I never thought my opinion of the papacy could sink lower Yorktown Jun 2015 #50

Do you believe that scientific and technological progress can be equated with the progress of cbayer Jun 2015 #53

Spot on. okasha Jun 2015 #55

Exactly. Equating them makes no sense. cbayer Jun 2015 #56

This message was self-deleted by its author Lordquinton Jun 2015 #58

You are making the exact same error than the Pope Yorktown Jun 2015 #60

I don't understand the meaning of "progress" here, our problems are mostly caused by our short- Humanist_Activist Jun 2015 #61

I don't think it's an all or none proposition. cbayer Jun 2015 #63