Green Gospel Vs Christ’s Own Words… “Do Not Worry About Tomorrow!”

Comment:

The “green” movement has been so successful in spreading its propaganda, that there are actually people who worry about the future of the earth. I know of one lady who has told her married children that she doesn’t want grandchildren, because that is damaging to the planet. Crackers. This is the mindset of a pagan. No follower of Christ can be a “green” fanatic. It’s a whole different gospel.  

Christ spoke clearly about the Christian attitude to ‘green issues’ when he said: “Be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall wear. Is not the life more than the meat and the body more than the garment?  Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they? And which of you, by worrying, can add one hour to your life?  … Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow, yet they labour not, neither do they spin. But, I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed as one of these… O ye of little faith…  Be not solicitous for tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.”  (Matthew 6:25 ff)

Share your ideas about what might be the correct Catholic response to the scare-tactics employed by the disciples of the “green” movement.  Perhaps you agree with Pope Francis on this?   Good, me, neither!  What, then? 

23 responses

  1. The problem is, when you think back to the extreme winter weather we had a few months ago and now the extreme summer weather, it’s giving the green movement a field day. They are getting their message across and I think more people are believing them nowadays.

    I’ve always been a skeptic, but it’s hard to find a scientist who will speak out on the skeptic side, for the reasons given in that video.

    As a Catholic, I just say I don’t accept that human beings can control the weather, end of!

    • Only 100 years ago your forebears would have said only God could could take a sheep, and make a complete replica, oh! how we live and learn.

      • Dano,

        I think they’ve moved on from cloning animals to cloning humans. That’s next! So much for respecting nature! LOL!

      • Dano

        Only God can create a sheep, or anything else for that matter, out of nothing. We can’t, and never will be able to. All the scientists have done is to tinker with the building blocks which God has created, in some infernal experiment, without thought or care of the consequences.

    • Science has been saying for years about the very gradual deterioration of the Earths Magnetic Field . We are told that this Magnetic Field is unique to our Earth because it deflects most of the Damaging Suns rays around our Planet and back into space . Also the Suns Energy throws up flares which we know affects our weather . That Man has had an adverse effect on Earth is irrefutable I E Plastic in the Oceans Etc . What I will not accept is the likes of Al Gore Leanordo Di Caprio and that reptile Patrick Harvie telling me I cannot drive my 1Litre car while they drive big Gas Guzzlers have homes all over the World and their so called Carbon Footprint is at least between the hot Air the Talk 100,000 times mine . Also as regards to Coal . Hitler ran his Panzers in World War 2 on fuel extracted from coal . Surely 90 years on from then all those Scientists would have found a cleaner way to use coal rather than Plant Thousands of Windmills which in the last 2 Months at least have not turned once . As for Nuclear Fusion it is without doubt the cleanest energy the biggest trouble of course is getting rid of radioactive material.

  2. This six minute video is very interesting indeed. He shows that CO2 is essential and not the problem at all. He also talks about the motives for scientists pushing climate theory when they know it’s not true.

  3. I think we should respect God’s creation and the endeavours of man. In other words, we should use things for the reason for which they were created or made. Don’t litter, treat nature responsibly, use forks to eat and not as a diy tool etc. However, this is a very long way from the present mania of complete reverence for nature (except unborn babies of course) and yes, it is pagan.

  4. What a riot that John Stossel brought on a NASA scientist to defend the climate change fantasy! It turns out that NASA debunked this fraud 5 years ago: https://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html#

    Here’s another debunking, much more thorough (see also the articles linked in the header): https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/nasa-debunks-global-warming-theory/

    So Pope Francis, the Church’s first “green” Pope (i.e. a puppet for the tyranny of the New World Order), has committed himself to his bully pulpit on this subject, along with his insane and nauseating stance on the Islamicization of Europe.

    The correct Catholic response, in my opinion, is to publicize the truth, and at this late date, to get in the faces of those who persist in repeating this lie. That is, use the tactics of the left against them.

  5. Here’s an interesting article from a climate scientist who actually attended the Vatican’s 2015 global warming conference: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/scientists-say-pope-francis-is-misguided-on-climate-change-as-environmental

    This fellow is, I’d say, pretty good at delivering velvet-gloved smack-downs:

    As I read the entire Laudato Si, again and again I found myself in strong agreement with Pope Francis’ concerns about treating the earth properly and being stewards of God’s creation. I hope that people in other countries will heed his words about the sin of degrading the environment and start building facilities to avert pollution. Perhaps the price the Pope had to pay to get the UN to endorse his encyclical was to throw in a few paragraphs about climate change. I’m inclined to forgive him for that because I know the climate is going to keep right on changing no matter what anybody says.

    But just to point out his basic kindly mistake, Francis didn’t have to insert anything “to get the UN to endorse” his encyclical (which I call his “recyclical”). Francis was already committed lock, stock and barrel to being a UN mouthpiece.

    • RCA Victor,

      I totally agree with you – Pope Francis only had to remind the world that God is in charge, quote Matthew’s Gospel on that, and put these so-called scientists, who are only spouting what the governments want to hear so they can keep themselves in employment, in their place.

      “Recyclical” – LOL! Love it!

  6. The msm recently featured the ‘plight’ of a particular Pacific island, where tonnes of plastic bottles and other assorted plastic waste were being washed ashore every day.

    Now, I shouldn’t think there’s much need for heating on a Pacific island, but this material could surely be burned to produce electricity to power air-conditioning units etc.

    But what about the toxic gases, emitted from the burning process? (you may well ask). In my seafaring days I served on a huge oil tanker, which had an ‘inert gas system’ to prevent the risk of explosion in the cargo tanks. When I first became aware of this, I immediately thought back to my high-school science classes (Argon, Radon, Neon etc.) but I soon learned that the ‘inert gas’ was actually smoke, extracted from the ship’s main boiler flue. I also learned that this stuff is very corrosive, hence the tanker was equipped with a ‘scrubbing system’ to remove much of the sulphur dioxide etc. from it before it gets pumped into the cargo tanks.

    If you’re still with me, the interesting thing about this is what was used to ‘scub’ the gas – nothing more basic than sea water. And what is an island surrounded by? Instead of all this hand-wringing about plastic waste material, the technology already exists to benefit from it. All that’s needed is the will to do so.

  7. Oh boy, Pat McKay, I’ve read that comment of yours 4 times and I’m none the wiser. what you suggest seems a real solution to the pollution problem so I would like to understand it. Would you say it in simple terms for this dumb blonde?

  8. Sorry, Helen, I’m struggling to think of ways to simplify it.

    If you want to know more about inert gas systems on ships (especially oil tankers), this link may help https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-safety/protection-against-explosion-the-i-g-system/ Hope this doesn’t complicate things even further…

    Otherwise, suffice to say that if the Pacific island decided to collect and burn that plastic material arriving on its shores (to produce heat that could be used for steam-turbine generated electricity), it would have an unlimited supply of local sea water to ‘scrub’ the combustion gases before these were released into the atmosphere (sent up the lum, in other words).

    Any clearer?

  9. I think we all know why there’s no will to benefit in any way from plastic waste.

    Those behind the green tyranny prefer to keep us ‘in our place’ and on the guilt trip. ‘Too many nasty human beings in the world…..behaving irresponsibly…..breeding like flies….eating, drinking and breathing too much…..occupying too much land….polluting the poor old planet…upsetting the climate’… etc.

    Mostly the same old spin we’ve been getting for the past 50-odd years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: