Thread: What is a proper punishment for destroying The Earth?

I think man will be the same in the future and it's inbuilt into our genes to self destruct.

I also think man will have self destructed in a far shorter timespan than 500 years.

So I shouldn't beet yourself up about it just don't fight the inevitable. The punishment is self destruction and you can see it going on all around.

Incidentally, I don't believe what I just wrote, but it's an argument believed by many.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Phew! Thank God I'm not Catholic and that one of the issues my denomination has with Catholicism is the way the pope just goes around declaring new sins. I guess I'll get a pass for this one.

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

One of the finest off topic rants to date! Made me smile!

Agreed, very tasteful!

Am I going to be punished now, or in 500 years? (I'm not good at hypothetical situations, too concerned with details).

I respect the environment as much as possible because I love nature, the outdoors, animals etc. I just can't bring myself to litter, or throw something away that is still useful, or dump chemicals into the groundwater, or whatever. But if the climate is changing, there really isn't much I can do.

This reminds me of the old fable of the bullfrog and the scorpion. Poignant, but true.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

But if the climate is changing, there really isn't much I can do.

This reminds me of the old fable of the bullfrog and the scorpion. Poignant, but true.

I just hope that the bullfrog and the scorpion don't lose their habitat or else I might start getting a good night's sleep in the summer.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well I am, if only because you cannot actually stop being a catholic. At least according to the church.
Once you're baptized, your soul belongs to them . The only thing you can do is stop practising catholicism.
You can be excommunicated (which is kind of a reverse baptism) but that is a severe punishment that is / was only used in the most extreme circumstances.

It was considered worse than burning at the stake, because in that case you still got your afterlife if you repented. Incidentally, that was the whitewash argument for torture. Catholicism hinges on confession, guilt and repentance. So if you were tortured for a couple of days you would regret having committed your sins.
Thus you'd confess (if only to make it stop) and repent, and your soul was saved from and afterlife on the bbq. (hey I am not making this up)

The way the pope is defining new sins has raised an interesting point for me.
If it wasn't a sin when you were doing it, will you get punished for it?
If it wasn't a sin earlier, then why would it suddenly affect your afterlife if you did it aftyer it became a sin? What if the pope was wrong (infallibility is rarely invoked these days).
What if that sin gets repealed later on because it wasn't actually so bad? Do the people in purgatory suddenly get a note from the administration, saying 'An administrative error has been made. You will be transferred to heaven shortly. Here is a voucher for a free bowl of porridge.

It also works the other way around: what if someone did something then that is considered a sin now? If someone happily torured people under absolution from the pope, and then went to heaven, did they get transferred to hell when the church acknowledged that the whole inquisition was a bit over the top?

...



Ok sorry for being OT.

Thats pretty much the exact same questions Martain Luther had some while back. His resolution of the question is basically that....The pope can't make up new sins. If it ain't in the bible instituted directly by God man can't decide its a sin, of course the ten commandments we have are pretty comprehensive

I am not Catholic, but I suspect the issue in Rome was whether or not environmental destruction falls under an older category of sins.

But regardless, I think we can agree that avoidable destruction of the environment in any way is not a moral thing. To me the "sinfulness" of an act that causes greenhouse warming would depend upon whether or not it is in excess of need, i.e., gluttony.

This begs the important question, is it a sin to fart, if that fart is the result of gluttonous overeating?

But what if you pass a very stinky fart, one loaded with sulfur compounds? Sulfur creates aerosols, which have a cooling effect. So are stinky farts permissible, but ordinary odorless, methane and CO2 laced farts sinful?

Scott

Originally Posted by beezaur

I am not Catholic, but I suspect the issue in Rome was whether or not environmental destruction falls under an older category of sins.

But regardless, I think we can agree that avoidable destruction of the environment in any way is not a moral thing. To me the "sinfulness" of an act that causes greenhouse warming would depend upon whether or not it is in excess of need, i.e., gluttony.

This begs the important question, is it a sin to fart, if that fart is the result of gluttonous overeating?

But what if you pass a very stinky fart, one loaded with sulfur compounds? Sulfur creates aerosols, which have a cooling effect. So are stinky farts permissible, but ordinary odorless, methane and CO2 laced farts sinful?

Scott

Hey, why waste a perfectly good stinky flatus on the environment? I dutch-oven the wife using the dooner with mine (yes, I'm a romantic sod)

James.

Originally Posted by beezaur

This begs the important question, is it a sin to fart, if that fart is the result of gluttonous overeating?

But what if you pass a very stinky fart, one loaded with sulfur compounds? Sulfur creates aerosols, which have a cooling effect. So are stinky farts permissible, but ordinary odorless, methane and CO2 laced farts sinful?

Well this is rather easy, not only are the stinkies permissible. they are in fact redemptive. However, I think we shouldn't be so narrow minded. It's all about balance, dynamic equillibrium if you will, so we need both kinds of farts.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Thats pretty much the exact same questions Martain Luther had some while back. His resolution of the question is basically that....The pope can't make up new sins. If it ain't in the bible instituted directly by God man can't decide its a sin, of course the ten commandments we have are pretty comprehensive

As a further aside: The Roman catholic church itself broke away from the original Christian Church in 1053A.D. I would say it has steadily gone downhill ever since.

The original Christian church is still going strong, it is called Eastern Orthodoxy.

Jusy a FYI for anyone who uses the Roman Catholic church (or protestant denominations, for that matter) as a basis on which to judge Christianity.