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

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I have already responded to your position.

You have not cleared up the assumptions this hypothetical is based on, you have not responded to my questions regarding the colonization of the rest of the world, you have not responded to the math that suggests the hypothetical is impossible when looking at resource requirements. There is plenty you have not responded to.

I do it in nearly every post as plainly as I can.

No, you don’t respond, you just try to parade around telling everyone that you are right and I am wrong without ever explaining why or responding to the bulk of my argument.

**The math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong. ** I just pointed this out in post #144. You are just arguing in circles now. Every one can do the math, and every one can see the empirical evidence. And demonstrate for themselves that you are wrong.

I’m sure that they can but that doesn’t make you right until you explain your position rather than assume everybody agrees with you based on the evidence and the math. That’s the way this works, you can’t just present evidence and math, avoid explaining why they prove me wrong and then parade around telling me they do.

I invite everyone who cares to to do the math, and look in their cupboards at the goods from all over the world. That’s the end of the argument for reasonable people.

Until we clear up the assumptions this hypothetical is based on, what we can find in our cupboards has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… you can’t just present evidence and math, avoid explaining why they prove me wrong …

You need me to explain to you how math works? You cannot divide the area of Texas by the worlds population? I do not believe you. You need me to explain to you the complete process of how we produce goods all over the world, and then deliver them tens of thousands of miles away to cities all over the world? I do not believe you. These are just another set of lame excuses to avoid admitting that you are obviously wrong.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You need me to explain to you how math works? You cannot divide the area of Texas by the worlds population? I do not believe you.

This is not what I’m asking you to explain and you should know by now that I have no problem with everybody ‘fitting’ into Texas and agree that the math supports this notion.

You need me to explain to you the complete process of how we produce goods all over the world, and then deliver them tens of thousands of miles away to cities all over the world? I do not believe you.

This is also not what I’m asking you to explain, I’m asking you to better explain the hypothetical to show that if everybody lived in Texas such massive importing would be possible.

These are just another set of lame excuses to avoid admitting that you are obviously wrong.

Do me a favor and just once quote my entire post and actually evaluate what it says, judging by your reaction you have absolutely no idea what I’m saying, it doesn’t look like you’re even bothering to read it.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This is not what I’m asking you to explain and you should know by now that I have no problem with everybody ‘fitting’ into Texas and agree that the math supports this notion.

This is also not what I’m asking you to explain, I’m asking you to better explain the hypothetical to show that if everybody lived in Texas such massive importing would be possible.

Do me a favor and just once quote my entire post and actually evaluate what it says, judging by your reaction you have absolutely no idea what I’m saying, it doesn’t look like you’re even bothering to read it.

The claim is that everyone can live in an area the size of Texas. Not that they can only fit into Texas. The math is very clear on this, they would be at the entirely acceptable population density just like New York City. Unlike your continual claims, you are indeed denying the math. As to the rest, as usual, the math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.** I have already explained this multiple times. Denying the math and the empirical evidence that clearly disprove your position is just a farcical excuse to avoid admitting you are wrong.

 

[michelleds]

Does anybody know why it’s important to agree or disagree that the world’s entire population can live in an area the size of Texas? and why that might have anything to do with the OP’s question?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The claim is that everyone can *live *in an area the size of Texas. Not that they can only fit into Texas. The math is very clear on this, they would be at the entirely acceptable population density just like New York City.

The population density isn’t the problem, it’s the population size, it’s too big to live there.

Unlike your continual claims, you are indeed denying the math. As to the rest, as usual,** the math and the empirical evidence prove you wrong.** I have already explained this multiple times. Denying the math and the empirical evidence that clearly disprove your position is just a farcical excuse to avoid admitting you are wrong.

Would you care to clear up the assumptions that the hypothetical is based on? That would certainly help to alleviate some of the confusion to do with the resource requirements and our ability to maintain a reasonable resource intake.

If you do plan on responding to this request, here are some of the key details which would matter.

1)Did the city that everyone would live in magically appear or was it built over a large expanse of time?

2)Was the rest of the world colonized and later moved into this city or did everybody simply live and grow together throughout human history and slowly once settled the population began to build a city that eventually ended up as 345 times the size of NYC?

1. How viable is maintaining resource production outside of the two continents that are accessible by land based travel? Are there docks and a large enough amount of workers to maintain the massive flow of resources?

These three points should clear up a lot of confusion that may be a result of a misunderstanding.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Does anybody know why it’s important to agree or disagree that the world’s entire population can live in an area the size of Texas?..

I can. We are in engaged in an intellectual endeavor, a search for truth. Like all endeavors, we have goals and processes by which we achieve these goals. We make claims, present evidence, refute it and so on until we reach a solution. When a solution is reached that irrevocably disproves one parties position, one admits it and moves on to the next issue of disagreement. Often though, if it is a cherished belief, a circumstance called cognitive dissonance arises where the party is unable to let go of a disproven belief and experiences a mental discomfort by which they are prevented from admitting the position wrong. Now we see this everyday here and it is rather unimportant in the long run. However in this particular case the other poster has challenged my contention that Christianity is mathematically verified by Messianic Prophecy, as every single Christian believes, earlier in the thread. A contention that requires evidence and its reasonable examination. If the evidence that unequivocally disproves the other posters position in this tiny, unimportant matter can just be ignored regardless of its certainty, than examining Messianic Prophecy as a mathematical verification of the Truth of Christianity is impossible, much less any other intellectual discussion where acknowledging evidence is important. So in order to have any particular conversation rationally, standards of rationality must be upheld. Support your claims, recognize evidence, avoid purposefully fallacious arguments, etc. If we do not do these things in some reasonable manner than it is impossible to derive meaning from our conversation about the OP.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Does anybody know why it’s important to agree or disagree that the world’s entire population can live in an area the size of Texas? and why that might have anything to do with the OP’s question?

Yeah, the other guy is ignoring what I’m saying, so I’m trying to encourage him to actually quote and respond to my comments.

Hopefully that gives you a good rundown of the situation.

 

[michelleds]

so then, if I understand correctly, the sticking point between the two of at this point is the word “live”. You say they can all live, he says they can all exist.

is that correct?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

so then, if I understand correctly, the sticking point between the two of at this point is the word “live”. You say they can all live, he says they can all exist.

is that correct?

Close to because the word live generally means ‘can sustain life’. My main discrepancy is the resource requirements for such an existence and the inability to maintain resource (name removed by moderator)ut. I completely accept that we could ‘fit’ everyone into Texas.

 

[michelleds]

Petey, then, must define his word “live” from the original hypothesis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The population density isn’t the problem, it’s the population size, it’s too big to live there.

That is nonsensical. The population is clearly not “too big” to live in an area the size of Texas at the density of New York City. That’s exactly what the math says.

Would you care to clear up the assumptions that the hypothetical is based on?..

No, I am not denying the undeniable empirical evidence, you are. You may not want to admit the contradiction in that, but its plain to see. We can clearly produce and distribute goods globally. We do it every day.

See here? You claim that you are not denying the math or the evidence, but in this very post you do both. In the red print you resort to a nonsensical statement to deny the math, and in the black print you deny the empirical evidence that we see every single day. You have been arguing in circles for a while now.

 

[michelleds]

Petey, please just define what you mean by “live” in your original hypothesis.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yeah, the other guy is ignoring what I’m saying, so I’m trying to encourage him to actually quote and respond to my comments.

Hopefully that gives you a good rundown of the situation.

I keep responding to what your saying. My quoting is no excuse for you to deny the math or the empirical evidence. This is a thread where your post is available in full directly above my response. The full text of what you say is clear to everyone.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

so then, if I understand correctly, the sticking point between the two of at this point is the word “live”. You say they can all live, he says they can all exist.

is that correct?

No, I mean live as in I live in New York City.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… My main discrepancy is the resource requirements for such an existence and the inability to maintain resource (name removed by moderator)ut…

You cannot deny the empirical evidence. We clearly produce and distribute goods globally. There is no discrepancy to be had. There is no other possible opinion.

 

[michelleds]

You cannot deny the empirical evidence. We clearly produce and distribute goods globally. There is no discrepancy to be had. There is no other possible opinion.

Except for the following fact: if the world’s population lives in Texas, where will the 1000s of acres of wheat, corn, rice come from? what about cattle and hogs?

Texas is 268,580 square miles.

here’s a fact for you: in 2010, 557 million acres of wheat were planted. This is just over 870 thousand square miles. This is roughly the size of Greenland.

Therefore, your premise is false.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

How so? If Walmart fails to carry a brand of milk I like, I go to another store and by it.

Of course. The comparison I am drawing does not contradict this point: that just as eHarmony was not denying its services to gay men and lesbians, so too traditional marriage, legally preserved, does not deny marriage to them if marriage means the faithful, exclusive, and permanent (until death) union of one man and one woman.

One can, of course, deny that that definition of marriage should continue to be our society’s, but the facts remain that in most states and at the federal level that is the definition now, and that by that definition a gay person is not legally excluded - it’s just that entering a marriage could never make them happy due to the fact that they’re not sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

I’m not concerned with forcing people to accept homosexual behavior as moral. I do not believe that. I only ally with homosexuals as far as I believe they should be treated with dignity and respect, and the same legal constitutional rights that you and I enjoy should be enjoyed by them. I am not concerned about winning the culture war. One reason that the gay community really stays away from the church as they preceive us as their enemy. I do not want to be a stumbling block to people.

Yes, I agree. It is sad that we - at least, I’ll speak for my own church here - don’t do a good enough job at making them feel welcome and loved. While the Catholic Church, at least, does ask more of gay people than it does of most other people in society, and while that fact makes it harder to see the love that lies in Christ’s call to welcome suffering and death (take up your cross, lose your life for My sake, etc.), the fact nonetheless remains that our obligation to show that love to them is in no way mitigated.

So on a personal/cultural level, I agree that culture wars are not spiritually productive or helpful. As an orthodox Catholic with plenty of gay friends (though admittedly I myself am heterosexual), I truly believe that the Catholic Church - not to mention Christ - loves and wants to welcome gay people as with everyone. When gay people feel differently, that is my failure - the failure of everyone in my church - as a Catholic and a Christian.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

“Organic bodily union”, what is that? It appears to be a term with no direct meaning but is supposed to imply heterosexual sex.

Call it what you will - organic bodily union, vaginal intercourse, etc. - but you must admit that physically - and, unless you take an anthropologically dualist view, therefore spiritually and socially - vaginal intercourse is quite objectively distinct from other kinds of sexual activity - oral sex, anal sex, no matter the gender of the parties involved.

As concrete evidence of this, let me point out something unrelated to gay issues: legally speaking, in the majority of legal/social traditions, only vaginal intercourse was/is considered consummation for a marriage.

After all, no other sexual expression can result in new human life. It’s always made sense to treat as different the kind of relationship whose physical consummation and expression is exclusively that type of act… please note that everything I said in my “conclusion/summary” above (about this not being as mechanical as it might seem) applies here, too.

The term “procreative potential” appears to have the same problem as already mentioned, some couples lack this potential regardless of their genders. There are also couples with no intent to have children, I would suggest that they do not have “procreative potential” even if they are fully functional. Perhaps a survey should be given to everyone trying to get married that questions their intentions regarding children.

I guarantee you that this reasoning does not lead to denying marriage to infertile couples, and I encourage you to read the section that addresses this exact objection in the article I linked to.

Not at all, you appear to be extremely reasonable in our exchanges, which always helps.

Thank you - you too. It’s a relief when discussing an issue as highly charged as this one.

So you don’t want “marriage” to be changed to permit equality among homosexuals and heterosexuals but you are quite happy to fight for equality as long as they are under a separate institution that permits the same benefits as marriage does for heterosexuals. Here’s the problem now it’s just come to a problem of semantics, any opposition doesn’t mind them having the benefits of marriage but rather doesn’t want the term marriage to incorporate others. I don’t really understand why a separate institution should be set up that offers the exact same legal attributes as marriage but incorporates people who do not currently fit into the accepted definition of marriage. Why is the institution of marriage so exclusive, why can’t we change that?

Again, for the above reasons I don’t think this is a matter of equality vs. inequality.

But you’re not wrong: we as a society can legally change the institution of marriage (otherwise this debate wouldn’t be happening), and I agree that it doesn’t make sense to set up an entirely separate institution whose legal characteristics parallel those of marriage.

Rather, I maintain that the kind of rights (hospital visitation, etc.) that gay couples want for each other really ought to be available between any consenting adults or sets of adults. I suppose that these practical matters then actually are a matter of freedom: of states and organizations’ dictating things that should be left to the judgment of mature adults.

Why do you consider it destructive to, “dilute the uniqueness of this type of relationship?” The relationship between married couples I personally feel is completely separate to the institution of marriage itself. So the relationship that is being diluted appears to be the heterosexual relationship. How does permitting gay marriage dilute the heterosexual relationship?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. Changing the structure of marriage wouldn’t dilute every heterosexual relationship but rather the legal - and therefore social - uniqueness of the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman. But again, I think I misunderstand your question.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Except for the following fact: if the world’s population lives in Texas, where will the 1000s of acres of wheat, corn, rice come from? what about cattle and hogs?

Texas is 268,580 square miles.

here’s a fact for you: in 2010, 557 million acres of wheat were planted. This is just over 870 thousand square miles. This is roughly the size of Greenland.

Therefore, your premise is false.

You can refer to the thread for my reply to his claims. I don’t intend to have the same conversation twice.