Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[warpspeedpetey]

You don’t seem to understand what the term ‘methodology’ means…

I know what it means and I have answered this question. Why can’t you accept it? Do you really not know how probabilities work, or that we are talking about prophecies from the Bible? Come on.

Are you suggesting that if everybody was living locally in a city the size of Texas that has a similar structure to New York that agriculture would not have to spread for hundreds of miles around the city? What about other industries like mining? The current world requirements have thousands of mines all around the world, how could we fit our mining needs if everybody was to live in one city the size of Texas?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I know what it means and I have answered this question. Why can’t you accept it? Do you really not know how probabilities work, or that we are talking about prophecies from the Bible? Come on.

I asked for his work and the methodologies used, you replied, “mathematics and probabilities.” Neither of them are methodologies as I demonstrated earlier, and you have not presented the work he drew his conclusions from as I have requested several times.

It doesn’t matter if it does. Going somewhere to work isn’t the same thing as living there.

If we all live there then we would need resources that are often sourced from agriculture and mining, if the resources are unattainable as they most certainly are in this situation then we couldn’t sustain out existence in that place. Living somewhere requires an amount of sustainability, not just cramming everyone in for a day and saying, “look, we did it.” People need to work in order to sustain the population.

Why are you going to such extremes to avoid admitting what I already proved? This is patently ridiculous. I live in Kansas and our farm was 28 miles from my house. I have family that live 50 miles from land they work. We have custom harvesters come through to work, and they travel thousands of miles from Mexico up through Canada following the harvest. So do migrant workers all over the globe. From Guys on Alaskan fishing boats to guys cutting the harvest in Mendocino County.

Mines on other continents couldn’t be used because there is nobody managing any kind of agriculture over there to supply the workers with food and fresh water. So now we’re still stuck with the problem of not enough resources to maintain the population on these two continents.

Miners don’t live in the mine, oil workers don’t live on rigs. They go to these places to work for however long the job takes and then go home. To the places they live. You just can’t bring yourself to admit you were not right can you? Next you will claim that they would use up all the air and die of asphyxiation!

Large quantities of a workforce are not flown internationally for mining purposes and there is not enough landmass on North and South America combined to maintain the resources required for the entire world population. It would be unsuitable for the entire world population to live on both of those continents let alone the state of Texas.

I presented the data that showed how many resources are required to sustain the population and showed that the landmass in America is not possible to sustain the worlds population. As you say it, “the math has shown that you are wrong”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I asked for his work and the methodologies used, you replied, “mathematics and probabilities.” Neither of them are methodologies as I demonstrated earlier, and you have not presented the work he drew his conclusions from as I have requested several times.

And I have answered several times. The answer to your question mathematics, and more specifically probability.

If we all live there then we would need resources that are often sourced from agriculture and mining, if the resources are unattainable as they most certainly are in this situation then we couldn’t sustain out existence in that place. Living somewhere requires an amount of sustainability, not just cramming everyone in for a day and saying, “look, we did it.” People need to work in order to sustain the population…Mines on other continents couldn’t be used because there is nobody managing any kind of agriculture over there to supply the workers with food and fresh water. So now we’re still stuck with the problem of not enough resources to maintain the population on these two continents.
…Large quantities of a workforce are not flown internationally for mining purposes and there is not enough landmass on North and South America combined to maintain the resources required for the entire world population. It would be unsuitable for the entire world population to live on both of those continents let alone the state of Texas.
…I presented the data that showed how many resources are required to sustain the population and showed that the landmass in America is not possible to sustain the worlds population. As you say it, “the math has shown that you are wrong”.

 

[caoindealbhan]

How would you go about figuring out who is a non-believer? Perhaps a written test with the coffee and donut hour?

 

[Kelley_Green]

You are *profoundly *ignorant of Church teaching. There is a WEALTH of teaching about the fallacy of same sex marriage from the Vatican as well as respected Catholic theologians. Merely one example: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The Church does NOT say, “This is wrong because we said so.” She says, “This is wrong, and here is why.”

Please educate yourself.

You’ve proven my point by virtue of your own conduct. Is the Church teaching you to meaningfully embrace your free will, lead a healthy life IAW scripture, and to lead by positive example? OR is the Church teaching/ encouraging you to control, manipulate, and inflict yourself upon others? The evidence of what you’ve learned is in your very own conduct & link.

Where exactly in gospel does Jesus command anyone to abandon control of themselves and control others? Read the Bible, not the interpretation of the Bible handed to you. That’s what you’ve cited. Divinely inspired declarations from hetero men speaking to hetero men embellished even further throughout the centuries by hetero men.

How many human beings have been wrongfully accused, ostracized, beaten, tortured, burned at the stake, beheaded, hung, murdered, had their property confiscated, imprisoned, mutilated in psychiatric hospitals and persecuted in every conceivable way men could devise… in other words, how many commandments have been broken, including the new covenant, by way of the religious birdie in the ear (sanhedrin) using secular authority as catspaw (pontius pilot) on the pretense of leviticus? Pray very hard your unborn child isn’t gay.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

They already do to an extent, which is why ‘honor killing’ or depriving a child of medical care is not a legitimate legal defense.

They haven’t lost their ability to reproduce by virtue of being gay. They do at times resort to using surrogates within the gay community. Nearly every gay child historically came from a hetero pairing, so that does tend to diminish the theory that it’s all nurture. Gay couples have also yielded hetero children that aren’t confused about their identity. There’s an element of random chance going on in genetics.

1. These are stories that reinforce confirmation bias within society. Truth: hetero’s have no clue what it means to be gay.
2. Many of the fears of gay trace to leviticus. The more I’ve listened to over the top reactions the more I realized it has to do with males who struggle coming to terms with their own sexual feelings. Not to my personal standard imposed upon them, mind you, but to civilization and religious standards. I feel a good deal of empathy for males today because there seems to be 2 extremes as role model, neither of which are healthy for the vast majority of males. Ultra chastity denying all sexual feelings, and wanton abandon pursing vice in free society; a multi billion $ porn industry. What’s most needful for these young men are healthy male role models getting legitimate platform whereas our culture tends to fixate on extremes & attention seeking of sensationalism. Normal is ‘boring’, and that has more to do with what we as a society value or fail to value.

Throughout history there’s no shortage of males blurring lines linking sexuality with violence and/or predatory behavior. Although leviticus does not command that I as a woman abstain, my natural proclivity for hetero orientation makes that command obsolete. Sacrificing lima beans for lent has no meaning to me when I care not for lima beans.

I do not feel that any meaningful conversation can take place until hetero males quit being bashful & tight lipped about their own feelings that have nothing to do with the outside world around them. To resurrect the 50’s or puritan austerity will yield another round of repression and backlash we saw in the 60’s. First Adam hid. Then Adam pointed his bony finger of denial at Eve (and single mothers, and liberals, and gays, and blacks, and mexicans, and all others failing to be ‘like minded’). Then Adam blamed God. Adam has many thorns in his heart that I endeavor to help heal. How is it possible to heal him when the devil whispers in his ear against his doctor? The defense of marriage act is a misnomer for the defense of denial act. No sacred union is realized in any marriage until both parties involved comprehend the sacredness of their lives and their reproductive capacity. It’s best articulated by long time happily married couples, having mastered the art of honoring the beloved.

1. The posits you posted are a catch 22. Would gays have the stigma of being unchaste & licentious if social norms & legalized oppression were not steering them into the behavior in the first place? … High suicide rates among gays has more to do with their feelings of persecution inflicted by hetero population.
2. Healthy separation of church and state:… The authority vested in the church being abused by manipulating secular law is inconsistent with scripture. It’s not the worlds job to uphold my faith. It’s my job to uphold my own faith, willingly, with full consent and graciously accepting the consequence of those sacrifices I make in practice of my faith. Lashing at protestants for failing to uphold my standard of lent betrays my own lack of faith. Protesting a steak house on friday demanding legislation be declared to observe my faith properly only betrays my own weakness/ lack of faith/ self discipline.
3. Pure legal boundary issues alone, it’s secular & religious law inflicting itself on gays, and not the other way around. It’s hetero’s intrusion into their lives, not homosexual intrusion into the personal lives of hetero’s.

1. Just because I am not gay, does not mean I cannot argue against it as a destructive lifestyle.
2. I don’t appreciate being labeled as someone who has issues with their sexuality. Argue logic. Ad hominems do not add to the debate. You are not debating the issue here and instead are stereotyping those who argue against homosexuality as people with sexual issues.

I am all for sex not returning to

puritan austerity

. I am for parents talking to their kids more about it, and for more discussion. Something such as Theology of the Body needs to be promoted as it discusses the reasoning on sex and stuff.

1. I’m pretty sure two gay people can live together in compliance with the law. If they are having many sexual partners, that is their own decision. The state is not running gay couples apart from each other. The real issue of this debate is public and moral recognition of their status. They can get their visitation rights via lawyers. Given the vast expansion of acceptance of the gay movement since the 1970s, one should expect such suicide statistics to go down.
2. Gay marriage is a civil issue. Lent abstinence is a pure religious issue. The Church has not called for the removal of meat being served on Fridays in Lent. Your mixing apples and oranges.
3. Yes, society discriminates against gay couples. It also discriminates against individuals. We discriminate against non-citizens. What a gay couple wants to do in their home…can stay in their home. What I care about is the fact they are trying to get the public to okay their lifestyle and give them tax benefits they don’t deserve.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Are we in service to the truth or not? When every position of the Church and right wing agenda has made habit of instigating malevolence, then follow through denying the offense with accusations of persecution when it is they out of control with themselves, my ear is being abused too often with false cries about wolves every which way.

Next comes the accusation of disloyalty, as if it is Eve’s job to be loyal to something OTHER than the truth. Something OTHER than God? :compcoff:
How truthful is this?
youtube.com/watch?v=teau7ubQTNM

If it is unclear to hetero’s why God made gays and too many are unwilling to do the homework, shouldn’t we just resign ourselves to the fact they exist and refrain from partaking in the behavior? Why is that insufficient? What’s more, how prepared are you (through policy) to remove a gay child from the care of their biological hetero parents contributing to their suicidal feelings? No clear cut lines of law can parse hetero from homosexual, but the needs of the children must come first.

Before another 17 month old boy is beaten to death for ‘acting like a girl’, I think it wise that men examine the darkness in their own hearts more intensely. Whatever it is you’re afraid of, I’ll listen, I’ll roll up my sleeves, get my hands dirty wrestling that demon to the ground with you. I can stand by your side for that, but not the rest of this insanity posing as manhood. When men are in the act of blindly swinging punches at ghosts, it’s not the rest of the world with the problem. We need you (collectively) well.

Does God change God’s mind, do people change God’s mind, or perhaps it is we who fail to understand again and again? New Covenant. Not old.

I am not “instigating malevolence.”

I am defending the good of society. I am not the one who removed the disorder in 1973 due to intense-gay-political activism and not science.

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

I watched the Youtube video. I don’t think the world would be better without gay people. We are all a fallen people with our faults, and disorders. However, acting on one’s own disorders is sinful and bad for society and the individual. It does matter who we go to bed with, and I agree it does matter what we do. We should defend the bedrock of society against the eroding forces.

Who is arguing that gay people don’t exist? They exist as all sinners and imperfect people exist.

As for the treatment of gay people, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The moral law of the Old Testament continues. The Sacrificial Law is void. Jesus talks about divorce between a man and a woman. He doesn’t mention divorce between a gay couple because such an arrangement is not recognized.

 

[Wowbagger]

Therein lies the problem with the Church. They aren’t actually teaching, they’ve only laid down mandates based upon “because I’m the daddy and I said so” which truly is NOT teaching. If I understood comprehensively why a given thing was wrong, I wouldn’t do it for conscientious reasoning and would be empowered as an individual to identify ‘evil’ no matter which cloak it may be wearing.

Fair play to the Church, though: when it teaches on issues of faith and morals, it speaks with the voice of God. If there’s anybody in the cosmos who can lay down a mandate for his unruly, unwise, ignorant children (that’s us) it would be Him.

The others are right: members of the Church – theologians, bishops, and so forth – do, for the most part, present pretty sound cases for what the Church teaches with magisterial authority. But even if they did not – even if the Catechism was nothing but a list of prescriptions and proscriptions – we’d still be wise to obey it. Because it’s from God, and even if God doesn’t think we’re capable of understanding one of His teachings fully, we do trust that God loves us and would not lead us astray. My grandmother lived before Humanae Vitae and before the Theology of the Body. And she was a fairly simple woman in the first place (smart as a whip, but not trained in theology). She never had the remotest idea why the Church said she couldn’t use birth control. But she trusted Christ, she trusted the Church to whom Christ gave the Keys to the Kingdom, and she trusted those many wise people and saints who have themselves trusted the Church. We are all feminine before the authority of God.

Or, if we don’t believe that the Church teaches with the authority of Christ (on issues of faith and morals), we’d be wise to leave it, because we’d be better served by a faith that’s more honest about its competence.

Whatever your feelings on the authority of the Church, Kelley, I would appreciate it if you’d stop casting aspersions on us “heteros.” You wrote earlier, “Truth: hetero’s have no clue what it means to be gay.” If that’s true (and, for the most part, it probably is), then grant me another Truth: gays have no clue what it means to be hetero. And Truth: women have no clue what it means to be a man. You may cast yourself as my “doctor” and psychoanalyze my sexual demons when you have a degree after a nice long interview with me. Further, groundlessly accusing me of racism against Mexicans is not a particularly good way to persuade me that you have any idea what you are talking about.

I will, however, pray for you, as I hope you will do for me.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

And I have answered several times. The answer to your question mathematics, and more specifically probability.

So when I defined the term methodology for you and demonstrated that mathematics and probabilities are disciplines and not methodologies you just weren’t paying attention or didn’t care? What about the request for the work he did, surely you don’t think that mathematics and probabilities is an accurate answer to that request?

The first question was whether or not everyone could live in Texas. Clearly they can. Overpopulation is a myth. Now you are essentially claiming that if people live in one place they cannot travel to another to perform work.

No, I am claiming that if everyone lived in one place no other place is suitable for work because there would be nothing over there to sustain them, there would be no docks for ships to pull up, there would be no air fields for planes to land, no organized method for constructing materials required to set up a mine. All of the things they need would be required to have been brought over and due to the weight of the mining machinery, getting it off of a boat would require a crane and a dock. You are equating the situation where everybody lives locally to the situation we currently live in.

That is patently ridiculous and a clear attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong. People go all over the world traveling across continents to do contract jobs and then return home right now in the world we live in. I have a friend that just came back from teaching English for a while in Korea. Millions of troops travel overseas for tours of duty. It is entirely feasible that people could live in a city the size of Texas and do the same thing if they wanted too. Just like people live in New York City. Your contentions are obviously false.

You ignore the bulk of my argument and just suggest that because people don’t all live locally that if absolutely everyone did live locally nothing would change in regards to international travel and just about every other kind of behavior.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So when I defined the term methodology for you and demonstrated that mathematics and probabilities are disciplines and not methodologies you just weren’t paying attention or didn’t care? What about the request for the work he did, surely you don’t think that mathematics and probabilities is an accurate answer to that request?

I cited his book. If you want to read it, then go buy it. I cannot post the entire thing here. Yes, the answer I gave regarding methodology is accurate. You did not demonstrate anything that changed that.

No, I am claiming that if everyone lived in one place no other place is suitable for work because there would be nothing over there to sustain them, there would be no docks for ships to pull up, there would be no air fields for planes to land, no organized method for constructing materials required to set up a mine. All of the things they need would be required to have been brought over and due to the weight of the mining machinery, getting it off of a boat would require a crane and a dock. You are equating the situation where everybody lives locally to the situation we currently live in.

You ignore the bulk of my argument and just suggest that because people don’t all live locally that if absolutely everyone did live locally nothing would change in regards to international travel and just about every other kind of behavior.

Everyone in the world can clearly live in a city the size of Texas, they can go anywhere in the world they want and build whatever they want. In fact, we have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. You are just stunningly desperate to avoid admitting that you were wrong. The math disproved you days ago and you keep making up ridiculous excuse after excuse. Overpopulation is a complete myth. …the mining machinery would be too heavy…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I cited his book.

That’s the problem, you cited the book but you didn’t specifically site the work, make a reference to where in the book the work is shown or quote the work he performed.

If you want to read it, then go buy it.

I don’t want to and nor should you expect me to. You made a claim and I requested the supporting evidence, until that evidence is given I will dismiss your claim as an unsupported assertion.

I cannot post the entire thing here.

Fine, then reference the work he performed and I will happily read through it.

Yes, the answer I gave regarding methodology is accurate. You did not demonstrate anything that changed that.

So when I demonstrated that mathematics and probabilities are disciplines and not methodologies, you didn’t notice or…?

Everyone in the world can clearly live in a city the size of Texas, they can go anywhere in the world they want and build whatever they want. In fact, we have been doing exactly that for thousands of years.

Those things we’ve been doing for thousands of years are true except for the minor detail of 6.9 billion people living in Texas or even living on one continent, that has never happened before and has a pretty big impact on whether anywhere else was colonized or ever lived in, the scenario your making requires the materials to make a city 345 times the size of new York and that means that everyone couldn’t just magically appear there, they would require massive efforts over a huge period of time to construct the city. If people lived there nowhere else in the world would be colonized to any helpful degree for intercontinental resource gathering.

You are just stunningly desperate to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

You seem to presume to know everybody else’s motives, feelings and beliefs, what led you to conclude that you have better knowledge of what i am doing and what my intent is than I have told you? Is it some kind of superiority complex or something else?

The math disproved you days ago and you keep making up ridiculous excuse after excuse.

You repeat this over and over and i have to explain to you over and over why the math did not disprove my argument. Even if I’m wrong the math you presented is incorporated into my argument as much as it is yours so this statement would be false regardless.

Overpopulation is a complete myth. …the mining machinery would be too heavy…

Are you suggesting that without a dock and a crane to unload the cargo we could transport mining equipment to other continents? Do you know how much equipment is required to set up an efficient mine?

 

[jmcrae]

What it is in you makes you feel entitled to play God with others lives?

It is God Himself who has made it so that it is heterosexual couples who pair off.

Again, there is nothing about homosexuality that requires pairing off - you can do homosexual actions by yourself, you can do them with one partner, you can do them with two partners, or with many partners. The actions that are typical of homosexual relationships do not require that they be paired off. Nor is there any child resulting from these actions who would require that the partners be in a stable relationship, or even living together at all.

So, again - what do homosexuals need with marriage?

Simply to ape heterosexuals and to appear to be “normal couples” in a kind of relationship that doesn’t require that there be couples. There could be any number.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s the problem, you cited the book but you didn’t specifically site the work, make a reference to where in the book the work is shown or quote the work he performed.

I cited the book. There is not enough room to post it here. You refuse to look up the citation. I cannot make you do it.

Those things we’ve been doing for thousands of years are true except for the minor detail of 6.9 billion people living in Texas or even living on one continent, that has never happened before and has a pretty big impact on whether anywhere else was colonized or ever lived in, the scenario your making requires the materials to make a city 345 times the size of new York and that means that everyone couldn’t just magically appear there, they would require massive efforts over a huge period of time to construct the city. If people lived there nowhere else in the world would be colonized to any helpful degree for intercontinental resource gathering.

You seem to presume to know everybody else’s motives, feelings and beliefs, what led you to conclude that you have better knowledge of what i am doing and what my intent is than I have told you? Is it some kind of superiority complex or something else?

You repeat this over and over and i have to explain to you over and over why the math did not disprove my argument. Even if I’m wrong the math you presented is incorporated into my argument as much as it is yours so this statement would be false regardless.

Are you suggesting that without a dock and a crane to unload the cargo we could transport mining equipment to other continents? Do you know how much equipment is required to set up an efficient mine?

You were disproven by the math days ago. The entire population of the earth could live at the population density of New York City in an area the size of Texas. First you claimed it was not possible. then I proved it was mathematically. You still denied it. With a little patience you admitted the math but then started asserting farcical nonsensical objections that deny our ability to do things we already do every day and have for thousands of years. It is clear to me that you simply cannot admit that the world is not overpopulated and you will posit any outlandish story to protect your cherished belief.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I cited the book. There is not enough room to post it here. You refuse to look up the citation. I cannot make you do it.

No and I shouldn’t have to, you did not cite the page the work was done on or even a copy of the work that has been printed on the net. Your citation is not enough to be considered supportive. Find the math somewhere and then tell me where I can find it.

You were disproven by the math days ago.

No, my argument incorporated the math you presented.

The entire population of the earth could live at the population density of New York City in an area the size of Texas.

As I have repeated, there is not enough resources anywhere in the world that surrounds a state that size that could supply 6.9 billion people. Without enough resources people could not sustain life in that location. Therefore by any meaningful definition of the term ‘live’, it is not possible for the worlds population to live in a city the size of Texas.

First you claimed it was not possible. then I proved it was mathematically. You still denied it.

This is just false, reference which post I denied the math you presented, I looked, I couldn’t find it.

With a little patience you admitted the math but then started asserting farcical nonsensical objections that deny our ability to do things we already do every day and have for thousands of years.

Some of the things we do today would not be possible if everybody lived in a city the size of Texas. The world would not be colonized if everybody lived in one small area.

It is clear to me that you simply cannot admit that the world is not overpopulated and you will posit any outlandish story to protect your cherished belief.

It is apparent to me that you are blatantly ignoring my refutation. I even presented the math on how many resources are required for each human that proved we could not sustain the population on any continent let alone in one of the states in the USA.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Some of the things we do today would not be possible if everybody lived in a city the size of Texas. The world would not be colonized if everybody lived in one small area.

Yet everyone did live in one small area a few thousands of years ago, and here we are discussing it across continents. This is just another lame excuse. I don’t see how you can keep making such obviously false statements, even to protect your cherished belief.

It is apparent to me that you are blatantly ignoring my refutation…

Of course I am. Claims that we cannot perform actions that we clearly already have are not refutations. They are excuses. Big difference. One presents a logical reason an argument is faulty. The other is a desperate attempt to protect your cherished belief that the world is over populated. You cannot admit to being wrong no matter what the cost.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yet everyone did live in one small area a few thousands of years ago, and here we are discussing it across continents.

By “everyone” I’m confident you are not referring to 6.9 billion people, I know this because the human population didn’t hit even 1 billion until the 19th century. The human population has never been anywhere near the size that it is and any historical existence of the human population being grouped would be a fraction of the population today. That’s why we can’t talk about your proposed state sized city as if what we know now would be no different. The hypothetical here would change everything, including history.

This is just another lame excuse. I don’t see how you can keep making such obviously false statements, even to protect your cherished belief.

Your ability to ignore my argument is astounding, you have no addressed any of my points and instead repeated that because the NYC can do it, a city 345 times the size would be just the same. You have ignored the resource requirements of the population, which I presented with mathematical proof and instead had a dig at the ability to move mining equipment intercontinentally without the other continents being colonized.

Of course I am. Claims that we cannot perform actions that we clearly already have are not refutations.

So you are acting like a completely different situation would be the exact same as the situation we currently have? Ok, why should we accept this assumption? Should we perhaps analyze what would be different before concluding that nothing would be different except a giant city would magically appear in Texas and the rest of the world is still colonized and equally developed as if the entire world operated the exact same as it did today without the magic city appearing? Because honestly, the resources and time required to build that city would take away from every other city on the globe which would make the resulting reality very different than the one we currently inhabit. The time spent would be many many years and require thousands of people at work every day, which would again change our reality from what we currently know. This hypothetical has a lot of requirements that if we do not agree on then we would simply talk past each other. I assumed you were inferring with tis hypothetical that every human existed as a group for the entirety of human history as that is really the only logical way for everyone to live in the same city in this age, with this population.

They are excuses. Big difference.

Your opinion of what they are might be due to your ignorance of them.

One presents a logical reason an argument is faulty.

What you call “logical reason” appears to be a massive assumption, which by definition makes it illogical.

The other is a desperate attempt to protect your cherished belief that the world is over populated.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

You cannot admit to being wrong no matter what the cost.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Could you support this claim with evidence?

Yes, this conversation. You were wrong when you stated, the world is overpopulated. I pointed out that the entire population of the world can live in an area the size of Texas. At first you denied the math and then you denied the word “live” could really mean live a meaningful life. Then I pointed out that such an arrangement would have the population density of New York City. At this point a rational person would have recognized the obvious truth of the statement and simply agreed or dropped it. instead you began to “invent” reasons that the statement wasn’t true. Reasons disproven by our own experience at that.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes, this conversation. You were wrong when you stated, the world is overpopulated. I pointed out that the entire population of the world can live in an area the size of Texas. At first you denied the math and then you denied the word “live” could really mean live a meaningful life. Then I pointed out that such an arrangement would have the population density of New York City. At this point a rational person would have recognized the obvious truth of the statement and simply agreed or dropped it. instead you began to “invent” reasons that the statement wasn’t true. Reasons disproven by our own experience at that.

So you didn’t want to clear up the assumptions we might be working on here because we are obviously basing this hypothetical on different assumptions.

Where did I deny the math? This is the second time you’ve claimed this and this is the second time I’ve requested a quote of me denying the math. I checked and I cannot find one instance of me denying the math? Do me and yourself a favor and stop lying to support your argument.

When did I deny the word “live” really could live a meaningful life? This whole time I’ve been trying to tell you that the word “live” requires sustaining life for a duration of time, which requires resources, which are unattainable for a population that size living in the state of Texas. I even presented the math for the lack of resources surrounding Texas in post 100.

The rest of it appears to be a rant about you declaring victory despite the fact you have admitted ignoring what I’m writing.

 

[frankiej]

I have recently written about morality and faith on my blog. it would be great if anyone could take the time to read it and leave comments with your opinions

frankiejatheism.blogspot.com/

many thanks
Frankie J

 

[AndyF]

Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?

Let’s start with those Catholics who take communion and should be going to confession prior.

Of the masses at differing parishes I attend, the stats are practically even with 90% of the congregation going to communion. One would find it difficult to correlate millions of Catholics who have only venial sins on their conscience, with the evidence of the broad acceptance of capital punishment and abortion, let alone the adopted secular lifestyles of shacking up and fornication.

The absence of large groups of clerics providing penitential service to provide for such a large weekly group is significant in some way. In order to provide for this majority, an evening twice weekly penitential service such has was common prior to the 50’s and is only seen now in the last week of lent would be necessary. These weekly services were has large a crowd has was seen in the mass.

Andy