New Pope Thread

I was thinking of "Letter from the Birmingham Jail". What's offensive is that you would think I would think the above. But let's both calm down.

Okay, I'll admitt you've convinced me a bit. True, the bible doesn't dictate these things.I just think those catholic cardinals who genuinely are celibate etc, aren't really guilty of over-population. I just don't think they're to blame on that basis. They most certainly are not better than you, nor will their pomp or words make them. Please don't think I am for their cause, I just initially thought you were targeting a sect of religious people for this problem. I apologize if I have misconstrued what you meant.You are correct, that they THINK they decide what sins are etc.. But in reality none of us decide, because what God says is a sin (against his will), is a sin. So, you win that point, in that this "issue" isn't really mentioned biblically so I have to be honest, and admitt that it is almost opinion versus opinion, YET I think God, as ever, can solve the problem and told us what to do in order to not get the problem, by advising our ways, pertaining to life. the fruit of our doings are now what we see prevail. If we don't do it God's way then we receive the reward. According to them, but as I said earlier, I think only Christ gets to tell us what sin is and I stand by that. We are all sinful according to Christ. I wouldn't know. I just thought you were saying that the pope and his men should say "yes, yes, fornicate by all means, but with condoms on". Can you see how that might make their position a bit odd pertaining to who they're supposed to be? I think me and the catholic are both Christians, and even if we are strongly FOR things or against, we can't play fast and loose with scripture when it suits.Now if it was up to me, then certain ppl here would go to heaven. IT ISN't = mike's opinion is irrelevant when God decides. It's like when Percy ridded Buz, I sought to say how it was wrong IMHO yet I respected the fact that Percy is the boss and therefore I don't decide what is sin at the site, even if I think I do.

I'm afraid you're simply mistaken about this. Human population growth follows a logistic curve, not a monotonic exponential.

You are correct but are quibbling. The world's population of people is currently growing at an alarming rate, not decreasing. The rate will eventually slow only when we run short food and water. Short of a nuclear war or a large asteroid impact the human population is in no danger of decreasing dramatically.

Let's not be disingenuous and pretend that the most noteworthy consequence of the actions of a man known as a civil rights martyr wasn't his assassination, ok?You mispoke, either out of malice or error; now you're trying to backpedal. Well, that's fine.

No. The point I was trying to make was that MLK assumed the consequences of civil disobedience (arrest by the corrupt Southern authorities of the time) willingly and without complaint, in pursuit of his campaign to improve civil rights. The only malice here is in your immediate , unwarranted assumption that I was alluding to his assassination, or worse, that I somehow thought such a crime was justifiable.Would it have helped if I had used "Gandhi" or "Thoreau" instead of "MLK" ?I shall take care to be extermely explicit in the future if my posts are going to be maliciously misconstrued in this fashion.

Well, therein lies the debate. Is the plateau of the logistic curve being approached ? Are population levels at this plateau sustainable ? Interesting debate topics, with sound arguments on both sides, but no firm conclusions (except in the mind of Paul Ehrlich and his acolytes, perhaps). But we are getting off topic.

quote:

---

I wouldn't know. I just thought you were saying that the pope and his men should say "yes, yes, fornicate by all means, but with condoms on".

---

Maybe you don't realize, but they belive that nobody should ever use any birth control, including married people.So, the Church would rather have people have so many children that they can't take care of them rather than use birth control to control the number of children they want to have.

There is always abstinence. Yes, I can almost hear your "hah". However, it is a materially possible (if difficult) option.Unrealistic ? Yes, many think so. But, as I've said, the Church teaches much else that many think of as unrealistic. Should it change to suit these individuals, or reamin the same to suit the millions of members that at least try their best to follow along ?If the Church were to permit contraception, would that remove your issues with it ? Somehow I doubt it, but please do refute my doubts if you wish.

quote:

---

I just thought you were saying that the pope and his men should say "yes, yes, fornicate by all means, but with condoms on".

---

You make that sound as if it would be a bad thing.

Does that justify those consequences? That he expected them? I'm pretty sure he had at least half an idea that his actions were putting his life at risk, too. He went ahead, anyway. (That's what a badass he was.) And, as it turned out, the consequence of his actions was his assassination. Does it let his assassin off the hook simply because King more or less expected it?I don't think it does. People are responsible for their own actions. The police that locked up King are responsible for what they did, even if King accepted that consequence willingly.Neither Newdow nor anyone else should be expected to just shut up and take it if their views are unpopular. That's not how it works in America. People don't get to lynch you because you "don't know your place." Unpopularity of views is never just cause for coercion, no matter what. You merely alluded to Martin Luther King, in the context of the consequences of having unpopular views. I presumed you were referring to the most famous consequence of King's views. An entirely reasonable inference to make. If you don't like that, you need to be clearer next time. Ok?

It's not even theoretically possible. You can choose to be abstinent, but you can't choose to never have sex. Particularly for women the threat of unwanted sexual intercourse is always possible.In that reality the church's stance against contraception is simply criminal.

Mr. Newdow is entitled to his views. He is also entitled to be free of criminal acts against his person.He is not entitled to be taken seriously by a majority of society.At most the POA is a mild endorsement of monotheism. I can see how a strong atheist might object to it, but what's wrong with sitting quietly or not saying the two offending words ? Must it be a media event ? Agreed one hundred percent, so drop this line of discussion if you don't mind. The difference between MLK and Newdow is the former was dealing with serious issues of state-sanctioned human rights violations affecting a large segment of society, and Newdow is dealing with (IMO) relatively trivial issues involving his personal opinions. By the way, as you know, MLK was an ordained Baptist minister and motivated by the convictions resulting from his faith - would you like to see this fact excised from MLK historical material ?Are all strong atheists as hypersensitive to the slightest expression of religious sentiments as Newdow? In my experience, no. So we are back to the question of why such hypersensitivities need to be accommodated.

Hey "dude", you might want to hold on backspace before posting

quote:

---

There is always abstinence. Yes, I can almost hear your "hah". However, it is a materially possible (if difficult) option.

---

True.And we see how well that works.

quote:

---

Unrealistic ? Yes, many think so.

---

Very unrealistic.

quote:

---

But, as I've said, the Church teaches much else that many think of as unrealistic. Should it change to suit these individuals, or reamin the same to suit the millions of members that at least try their best to follow along ?

---

I think it should change to reflect reality and to be much more responsible WRT the impact it's policies and edicts have upon the environment and the Earth's people.

quote:

---

If the Church were to permit contraception, would that remove your issues with it ? Somehow I doubt it, but please do refute my doubts if you wish.

---

It would go a long way towards increasing my respect for it, yes.It's not my only issue with the Church, though, no.