There have been many books I have read that have caused me to stop and ponder, some have caused me to understand another view, and some have caused me to wonder why they were ever written. Few books have ever caused me to alter my view of myself and the world around me. One of those books was entitled, “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn. The synopsis of the book and the series is that there are two types of people who have inhabited the earth, they are “takers” and leavers”. The takers believe that that the earth was created for man to conquer and to rule over. They believe that everything on the earth is theirs for the taking and the destroying in pursuit of man’s God given status. The leavers believe that man is just one part of the earth and not the end all, be all. The leavers believe that we as men have an obligation to care for the earth and its inhabitants and to live in it in a way to try and disturb it as little as possible.
The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind.
The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.
The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. The Daily Mail
The sad thing about the takers is that they are everywhere. They have permeated every level of society and they espouse all types of beliefs. Takers can be Christians, Communists, Capitalists, Socialists, Libertarians, Agnostics, Atheists, or any other sect, denomination or political affiliation. The difference between the takers whether they are capitalist or communists is not the use or destruction of the resources, but the distribution of that destruction. Both believe that it is man’s to do as he pleases and if nature gets in the way, then nature has to go.
The reason that I am singling out the Pope is because of what he represents to so many people. The Pope for many people is the human representative of God on this earth, so he carries a lot of weight. For this man to come out and basically declare the destruction of the earth at the hands of man “scare-mongering” is more than I can take quietly. If he were just some old man giving his personal opinion that would be one thing, but when you have a billion people listening to your every word then I would have hoped he would have chosen them more wisely. By doing so, he is giving the other takers of this world spiritual cover, the same type of spiritual cover that was given to the invaders that destroyed indigenous people all over the world in the name of progress and conversion and the same type of cover that allowed the Nazis to ethnically cleanse Europe.
The Pope would have us to believe that the world is man’s to destroy if he chooses and that the other things that the same God that created him created are less than man and thus can be extinguished for the good of mankind. What the Pope and the other takers have failed to realize is that we live in an ecosystem and if you destroy one part of it you weaken and eventually destroy all the other parts. Man cannot subsist in the world without the rest of the environment being intact, if that were in fact the case why are the other plants and animals here? I don’t know what Bible the Pope reads, but the one I read says that man is to tend the earth and be a steward. Does a steward destroy the thing he was given to protect and take care of?
The second problem I have with the Pope is his reliance on science over God. He states that the world should rely on the opinion of science to make its decisions, well Pope if that were in fact the case you would be out of a job. Science does not support the existence of God or the Bible, so here you have a man who is sworn to uphold the word of the Bible and he is asking us to believe those who have done all in their power to destroy the word of the Bible. I’m sorry but I am a little confused. If the scientists say that we can destroy the earth with no repercussions we should believe them, but if they say that the Bible is a lie we should not believe them? So when it is convenient or when they justify the superiority of man we are to follow their opinions.
This is precisely the problem with the modern Church, they have come to rely too much on the wisdom of man and they are following the world. Instead of leading the world to peace, tolerance, and love of our fellowman, the Church has become the home of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred. Our temple has been turned into a “den of thieves” and a home of hypocrites. According to the takers there is only one right way to live, their way. I disagree.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
.
I have to say that you’ve all gotten the wrong end of the stick on this matter, and that a good case can be made that the Pope’s statement has been wilfully misrepresented by the Daily Mail. Here is what the Pope actually said.
…
by Steev on Wed Dec 12th, 2007 at 03:13:44 PM PST
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."The Pope believes that it is still hype and not fact…
.
May I suggest to quit reading the British press or don’t take it at face value. Pope Benedict is not a scientist rather sends a religious message. He calls for developed nations to lower energy consumption en underdeveloped nations not to undersell their (energy) resources.
Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.
…
The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth’s energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency.
The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."what the Pope said can reach your conclusions. You should consider taking a close look at what the document says.
I have and while it may not be fully represented by the daily mail article, the bottom line is still the same. If given a choice the earth is man’s to rule and to conquer, if it comes down to nature or man, then nature will suffer…
science doesn’t support the existence of the Bible?
The creation theory, the flood, and the virgin birth?