Voluntary Human Extinction

  • Thread starter Thread starter djamu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DOUAY-RHEIMS Genesis ch1 vs27-28
]
Click to expand...
]
And God created man in his own image(the soul not the body); to the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them.
Click to expand...
And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea,and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

No where does it say to only increase so far and many or increase at a slow pace. Or to only multiply by two (sorry could not stop myself)😃 .
 
KathleenElsie said:
DOUAY-RHEIMS Genesis ch1 vs27-28
]
Click to expand...
I can think of a couple of passages referring to our responsibility to limit our multiplying:
“Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, 'til there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the Earth!” Isaiah 5:8 KJV

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God; ‘Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you… Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgements in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.’” Ezekiel 5:7-8 KJV And those judgements are verily harsh. I won’t even repeat them here in case someone is eating while reading. Woe indeed.

We can’t assume that instructions, such as “be fruitful and multiply” given before our fall from grace and banishment from the Garden of Eden apply afterward. In Genesis 3:16, God told Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children . . .”

This punishment has been absorbed by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and no longer applies. Now, where contraception is available, we needn’t bring forth children in sorrow.
Click to expand...
 
lesuknight said:
I can think of a couple of passages referring to our responsibility to limit our multiplying:
“Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, 'til there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the Earth!” Isaiah 5:8 KJV The greed of keeping and preventing others from the the land that was given to all by GOD. This is what is being spoken of here. Fencing the land and planting it with the best of the best. But the land produced only bad harvests because it was not used for Gods glory and purpose. This has nothing to do with human procreation.

“Therefore thus saith the Lord God; ‘Because ye multiplied more than the nations that are round about you and have not walked in my statutes, neither have you kept my judgments, neither have you done according to the judgments of the nations around you:… therefore, thus sayth the Lord God Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.’” vs 9 And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.Ezekiel 5:7-8 KJV And those judgments are verily harsh. I won’t even repeat them here in case someone is eating while reading. Woe indeed. The abominations were not procreation. These judgments were because Jerusalem turned away from Gods laws.

We can’t assume that instructions, such as “be fruitful and multiply” given before our fall from grace and banishment from the Garden of Eden apply afterward. In Genesis 3:16, God told Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children . . .”

Conception not contraception. Yes childbirth is painful yet it is the most wonderful gift not a judgment any longer.

This punishment has been absorbed by Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, and no longer applies. Now, where contraception is available, we needn’t bring forth children in sorrow.
Click to expand...
I continued to use the KJV as it is the same as the Douay-Rheims in the cases I cited.

Contraception in the form of birth control pill is an aborficant. It can and does both prevent fertilization and stops a baby from implanting after life has begun. The pill kills women and babies. So contraception is an abomination IMHO.

God Bless
 
KathleenElsie said:
Contraception in the form of birth control pill is an aborficant. It can and does both prevent fertilization and stops a baby from implanting after life has begun. The pill kills women and babies. So contraception is an abomination IMHO.
Click to expand...
Apparently we are now finding measurable level of estrogens building up in waterways, presumably from widespread use of birth control pills (and large amounts of estrogen being passed in urine) that it is now affecting fish, and their sex traits, and their ability to reproduce. So for everyone who thinks they’re saving the planet through contraception, it’s not that simple!
 
KathleenElsie said:
I continued to use the KJV as it is the same as the Douay-Rheims in the cases I cited.

Contraception in the form of birth control pill is an aborficant. It can and does both prevent fertilization and stops a baby from implanting after life has begun. The pill kills women and babies. So contraception is an abomination IMHO.
Click to expand...
Kathleen, you might enjoy this poster about the evils of contraception:
omsoul.com/pdfs/Rose-Dandelion_Poster.pdf
 
Mirdath said:
(by the way Les, I think it’s incredibly cool of you to pop up out of nowhere to discuss the movement 😃 )
Click to expand...
Thanks, Mirdath, but I have to confess I had help. Google has a feature called “Google Alerts” which will search websites, blogs, and discussions for whatever you ask for, and deliver the results daily. You have to sign up for gmail, but that’s easy enough.
 
ribozyme said:
Although I mentioned it earlier in this thread, do you have any comments on this link Les?
creationontheweb.com/content/view/4803/
It is about your own movement from a creationist perspective.
Click to expand...
Thank you for asking, ribozyme. Yes, I’ll be happy to comment.

The writer sees creationism and evolution as mutually exclusive. However, it’s my understanding that Catholic doctrine has no disagreement with evolution: that’s how God did it – and continues to do it. A “day” in creation wasn’t 24 hours. Please correct me if I’m misinformed on this.

He sets up a straw man argument: “VHEMT is really just a form of evolutionary pantheism. ‘Mother Earth’ is the goddess of creation, and we are to protect and pacify her in every way.”

There may be VHEMT Volunteers who worship Mother Nature as the goddess of creation. We have no official detailed dogma as a religion might, and a wide variety of perspectives may be found in The Movement. Some identify as Christians, nihilists, humanists, misanthropes, and so on. The only unifying principle is that we should voluntarily stop breeding.

That said, protecting and pacifying Nature as if it were some vengeful Pagan god is not a view I’ve heard of and it’s certainly not mine. Because we are the species which Earth’s biosphere needs protection from, it’s more a case of not destroying God’s creations.

There’s a false dichotomy between voluntary human extinction and Christian beliefs in the essay. We agree in principle, as he states:

“As redeemed Christians, we are to be good stewards of God’s creation. After all, in the Garden of Eden, we were required to tend it with care, not abuse it (Genesis 2:15).* Our humble and intelligent care for the environment and for our fellow man can be a great witness to the power of the gospel of Christ.”

Sounds good to me. Causing the extinction of tens of thousands of God’s creatures surely violates our divine duty.

An eventual extinction of the human form is a part of God’s plan, as the apostle Paul explains, comparing our earthly existence to that of a house:

“…if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God… whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” II Corinthians 5:1-6 KJV.

I hope this helps.
 
While you may interpret some scripture passages in an interesting way, the Catholic Church is clear in it’s interpretation of the command to be fruitful.

In the Catachism of the Catholic Church:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. **So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 **“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
(Bold emphasis mine.)
 
Bobby_Jim said:
Apparently we are now finding measurable level of estrogens building up in waterways, presumably from widespread use of birth control pills (and large amounts of estrogen being passed in urine) that it is now affecting fish, and their sex traits, and their ability to reproduce. So for everyone who thinks they’re saving the planet through contraception, it’s not that simple!
Click to expand...
You would presume wrong, it has nothing to do with Birth control pills. It comes mainly from the Pesticides used in farming and many industrial chemicals, they resemble and act like estrogen. So maybe it is that easy because we use those high output farms that require the pesticides and other chemicals to feed the ever growing population.
 
I found it interesting that the author didn’t know that a women’s hieght of sexual arrousal was at the time right before ovulation and releasing of the egg. Yes, our basic instinct is to procreate.

Also nothing about the reason to have sex or make babies is to love.
 
So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”
Click to expand...
The Bishops know and understand the scriptures far better than I, but I wonder if their unmarried perspective prevents them from understanding other aspects of marriage.

My experiences as a teacher and a parent have convinced me that not everyone has what it takes to be a parent. They might do well enough in a marriage, but raising a dog might be the limits of their parenting abilities.

Telling everyone, including those who don’t want to parent, that they should have children or they must never get married is worse than unrealistic. Do we want a society in which everyone takes on the incredibly difficult duty of parenthood?

Can you think of people who should never be responsible for raising a child?
 
Extinctions come and go, but idiocy lives forever.

Here, the culture of death merges with total nihilism.

These people are just not thinking long term. Why push for voluntary human extinction when entropy will take care of the matter all by itself? And before we even reach a state of total entropy, the sun as part of its normal lifecycle will turn into a red giant, leaving the earth’s biosphere with no bio at all, being enveloped in the sun’s outer layers. What planet will they worry about then? They’ll have to go seek extinction in another stellar system entirely.
 
Mirdath said:
In 50 years, there won’t be any more edible fish in the ocean. If you don’t believe me, check it out – cod are now severely endangered. Cod, the macaroni and cheese of the sea. Meatless Fridays are about to get a lot harder. In fact, at this rate, we’ll be lucky if there’s anything to eat at all as we sit in our closet-sized living rooms looking out at the seas of high-rise apartment complexes we’ll have to build to fit us all into the Future.
Click to expand...
Actually this sounds exactly the same as what my science teacher was saying 30 years ago. I at that time lived on a 1/4 acre plot 2 bedroom, 1 bath house with my parents, brother and sister. I now live on 15 acres, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house with the same number of people. I don’t like to eat fish with very few exceptions and find it quite easy to eat either beans, pasta with veggie based sauces or cottage cheese to be fine alternatives for meatless fridays. I actually have never understood why eating fish is okay on meatless fridays as fish IS meat. Eating fish is penance I suppose.

There might be some places on earth that have too many people for the area or comfort (depending on your point of view) but the planet is a long way from being nothing but high rises with people piled on top of each other.
 
lesuknight said:
The Bishops know and understand the scriptures far better than I, but I wonder if their unmarried perspective prevents them from understanding other aspects of marriage.

My experiences as a teacher and a parent have convinced me that not everyone has what it takes to be a parent. They might do well enough in a marriage, but raising a dog might be the limits of their parenting abilities.

Telling everyone, including those who don’t want to parent, that they should have children or they must never get married is worse than unrealistic. Do we want a society in which everyone takes on the incredibly difficult duty of parenthood?

Can you think of people who should never be responsible for raising a child?
Click to expand...
In order:

No.

Usually, if someone is a lousy parent, they’ll be lousy pet owners too.

If someone is not open to - or capable of - being a parent, what makes you think s/he is suited to be married? The main criterion for parenting is the ability to put another persons needs ahead of your own wants and needs. If you can’t do that for a child, you’re not likely to make anyone a good spouse.

Yes. They aren’t very good spouses or pet owners either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top