that's his MAIN blindspot, and it stems from his indoctrine-ation where he says: 'when god gave dominion to man over nature and animals' errrr, no mate. that is justpatriarchal myth writ by a self-appointed elite group of men, not 'God' Indigenous peoples didn't share that myth. they didn't don't see Nature as a 'thing' to be dominated over, but as an organism they are part OF you people, religious and secular wit yer power-over beliefs are the BANE of Planet Earth. you have no empathy for the natrual balanceof life, and thus degrade life for all wecan see this extremely clearly but are waiting for you to see it, beforeits too late it is simple. ANY sepcies that over runs is a danger to the balance. if there are too many squirrels there has to be a culling. natrually before a mindset of ma fuked it up Nature found a dynamic balance. now if a species gets overbearing they have to cull them. but for themSELVES they dont see tis, caus they think the sun shines outta there 'godly' arses... Some people would argue that war wasmade to cull us.but that is an awful solution. war is horror. but rather self-regulation is a way to go. but is it any wonder people like yousel arte aginst abortion. no,you'd rather see people crushed togther in degrading circimstances whilst othrs have vast spce etc to live it is all wrong, and is informed by dodgy myths and beliefs. SEE directly theproblem. have the GUTS to see it with YOUR eyyes not with some @god's@ some Hebrews made up thousands of years back who really represents the Sun-------errr they were desert people u knowwwww! the sun can be very crule when its just sun. we need trees, rain, animals, space, QUALITY of life. dontya think?....do youuu like being cooped up, no food, no space, no MEANING...?
If making babies is so important, certainly it would have been one of the ten commandments. If making babies is so important, Jesus would have said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, and also make lots of children." If making babies is so important, we would have heard all about Jesus' divine pronatalist message. We probably also would have heard about his own large family. Instead, Paul the apostle said that it was better to stay single. What do you think of that? You're saying not only that marriage is better, but having lots of children is even better than that. For some unknown reason.
Wonderful! So cities can just keep growing UP then, huh, and everything will just take care of itself? You can fit several houses into one acre of land. However, how many acres of wheat does it take to make all the bread that those families will consume in one year? Not to mention that they won't be eating just bread, but vegetables and fruits, and probably meat. Cows take in much more food than they put out, so they're using more than they need to. People can be stacked up in apartments. Crops cannot be stacked up. How long until farmland can no longer produce all it needs? The rainforest is being cut down at an alarming rate so that selfish humans can sustain their selfish expansion. The land is often worthless after a few years. There are many places in the world already that have practically no fertile soil, or no rain or water. Certain types of fish have been nearly depleted because of the demand for them. Making animal species extinct is not such a good idea. I'm sure you're one of those people who would claim that homosexuals are self-centered. What do you call people who destroy without being able to rebuild, and take without replenishing, just to be able to support large families? Suddenly that isn't selfish anymore?
If a populous world is our destiny, why not encourage and embrace it and adapt? post title: If a populous future world is our destiny, what right do we have to go against nature to oppose our many neighbors who would naturally prefer to become so populous in order to all live? Why would you hate for people to think outside the box? Why should everything be decided by self-appointed know-it-all "experts" who propose some one-size-fits-all non-solution? Why do you hate for there to be far better alternatives to needlessly disparaging human life? Isn't it logical to suspect that the world really isn't "over populated" after all, if there are yet ways that even more people could possibly survive and thrive? Shouldn't such things be explored in any honest discussion of the matter? You hate alternatives to the usual group-think propaganda? Why? Blah blah blah? And the rhetoric of the population phobics isn't "blah blah blah?" So what then makes for the difference? If the world was perhaps headed for 800 billion or more people living all at once, we should encourage and embrace it, since it then must be our destiny. Surely the majority of those 800 billion people of the future, would easily greatly outnumber our paltry burgeoning billions of today, so why not go along with the "majority vote" for life? And does it not matter much that they would be our own offspring? It's not like they are aliens that popped out of another dimension or something. Have you ever heard those "everybody could live in Texas" examples? If everybody supposedly might need 1000 square feet or 100 square meters, then everybody in the world could build their homes in Texas and live on the ground level, and use the rest of the U.S. to grow food, the example often claims. Therefore, the world isn't "crowded." Is such an example a recommendation that the world should live so close together? Of course not, although I think it does advocate that it shouldn't be much any problem for world population to grow larger and somewhat denser. I of course would prefer to live in a world in which the entire planet is populated to "everybody could live in Texas" density, if it ever became necessary for so many people to be able to live at once. If the entire world was to shrink into the space of Texas, then there should be room for enormous population expansion as every place also populates to the same high density. But that would be a gradual, natural growth process, not a "let's move everybody to Texas" because "we can" scenario. It would be far better than denying people their God-given right to procreate, which is said to be but one small step from denying the right to live. If one has no right to live, how would they then have any rights at all? But then considering that most humans prefer to cluster in families, not only could there be living space on ground level land for 800 billion, but over a trillion people, and several trillions of people counting normal family clustering. Gee, was that about the only point of your post here, some bogus population scare tactic claiming that a mere 800 billion people would be about like "standing room only?" Better go back and check your math. "Standing room only" is above a quadrillion people, and that's only if it doesn't occur to anybody "Hey, we can build upwards and find more space." Anyhow, either scenario is quite unlikely, so what relevance do they have in any serious or "scientific" population discussion? Sounds like a mere opinion. If people were born into such a world, in which 100s of billions of people were naturally burgeoning into trillions of people, they wouldn't know any different and it would be quite "normal." Most people seem largely unaware, don't care, or aren't seriously worried about supposed "over population" of humanity. Similarly, in a future hypothetical world of 800 billion, probably even less people would be worried about it by then, at least percentage-wise. Perhaps to suggest that in the "good old days" that there were once "open spaces" not inhabitted by humans, children would look at you funny and wonder if you lived way back in the "days of the dinosaurs." The world is far less crowded than would be a bus with but just 1 passenger. Just how much "elbow room" do you really need? Here's a great example of just how uncrowded the world is, even with its present huge human population. People too quickly forget how huge the planet is, and that it once took months for pioneers to travel out West in the U.S., or that people were couped up on ships for months, to reach the New World. Overpopulation: Lifeboat Earth Actually it is not. And who gets to decide that "limit?" Who can we trust? Only God can decide such things for humans. The same God who specifically commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And come on. Open your mind a little. If we could conceivably stuff more people into the planet, then why must we trick or con people out of having their children again? What if most people really don't want to, or aren't much worried, about "living in harmony" with the rest of the living things on earth? What do I care about spotted owls and snail darters? Do spotted owls pay me rent or reduce my taxes? Maybe many humans think it more important to go along with nature in not resisting our natural increase, welcoming our children to happen when they happen, not poisoning our bodies directly with bizarre and experimental contraceptives, and living in harmony with the proper outlet for our powerful reproductive urges within marriage. Nature can't "think" and so couldn't "care" how populated humans may become. But if nature could think, and since God put the seed in the plants and animals themselves (Genesis 1:11) so that life would naturally be abundant and grow to fill most every available niche automatically, wouldn't nature prefer for humans, nature's creatures too, to grow more and more abundant, and to fill even enormous cities and expanding towns with more and more people? I have read somewhere that maybe humans adapt "too well" to their environment. Well in nature, any species that adapts very well to widely varying environments, tends to proliferate. Some of God's creations become far more abundant than others. And yet do we have a grass "overpopulation" problem? Or maybe a tree "overpopulation" problem? Why not? Grass and trees are practically everywhere. So why can't humans possibly come to live practically everywhere? Isn't really about racism or fashionable hatred of humans inspired by "doctrines of demons?" (a Biblical phrase) Who around here, is advocating human shelves in which each person only gets but 6 feet, with another neighbor living just 2 feet down and another neighbor 2 feet above? Why do you suppose that vertical cities were even mentioned by that other guy? So it couldn't possibly come to that, even if more and more people refuse to deny life by using awkward, anti-life "birth control" far into the future. The idea of stacking people into the sky in highrises, is to provide spacious accomdations that would allow for families to continue to have their children, even if humans someday come to crowd the ground level fairly tightly. Rather than telling them that they can't breed anymore, simply let them be free and stack people into vertical cities. Most demographers don't even expect world population to double even once more, so sci-fi ideas about how to stuff more and more people into the planet, are largely sci-fi and not actually very likely, especially within the forseeable future, the practical limits of anything we could possibly currently be intelligently planning for. Right now, the most practical idea, is simply to use the countryside to house increased populations, since that could easily absorb numerous additional billions of people, in relative comfort and safety. That of course means welcoming some population-driven urban sprawl, and building more cities and towns, so that human populations can both increase, and the poor can have more affordable housing. We can easily accomodate our natural increase, by allowing human residential territory to expand more widely over the land of the planet and allowing rural or countryside areas to shrink a little as the planet naturally urbanizes to better be able to hold more people. So rather than suggesting that any reforms be done to reign in greedy corporations along with their unaccountable CEOs, or that any reforms be done to reduce poverty, say like eliminating income taxes and property taxes for most people so that they could save a little money for emergencies and for their future, you only want to eliminate the poor? So do the rich have more right to live and breed, than the poor? Why? I often find that the poor are often kinder, and can understand simple matters of truth, more easily than many rich or overly "educated" people can. For some reason, poor people seem more easily persuaded as to the great value of each and every human life, and the virtues of having big families or welcoming "all the children that God gives." They don't seem to have so many "educational" objections. I would hate for the rich elites to lose their spacious golf courses where they go to waste the day away, rather than doing any real work? Not. What makes you think that the poor would even want to wait at the gates of the rich, for something? Too much land hoarding by the rich? I say let the rich keep their huge, empty mansions. But not excessive land they might be hoarding and yet using for nothing, say like in the form of ridiculously huge wildlife refuges. What about all the needy people? I wonder how many poor people live in shantytowns in developing countries, because they are wrongfully denied title to their land, and can't build nice homes, lest government thugs, who often control the newspapers to help squash any public outrage or revolts, come bulldoze their homes merely because they are unsightly. I often say that the income taxes and property taxes should be eliminated for most people, so that people can be free and not be burdened by insideous taxes designed specifically to steal their wealth, prevent any accumulation of savings, deny the right to own property—a communist ideal, make people more dependent on government, and undermine the work ethic. But maybe exceptions could be made so that huge, unaccountable corporations, and people who own far more land than a single family could possibly need, could continue to pay such taxes. Actually, the elimination of unjust property taxes would help protect the poor in an increasingly populous world. Under the current system, aren't farmers forced to sell out as the growing cities encroaches upon their land? The land value rises and they can no longer afford the property tax. Under my reform, the city could grow up around the farm, and it could remain a farm, since it was there first, and then the heirs may choose to cash out later, selling the land for housing developments, after the farmer passes away. And the heirs can buy up new cheaper land farther out from the growing cities, and farm again if they want. So what exactly is "the trash of the world?" Is it self-defining, in that anybody who continues to breed in an increasingly populous world, is now automatically labeled "trash?" Or was that meant to perhaps be a racist term? And would it only apply conveniently enough for us, to foreigners and immigrants, or would you mean for it to also include American "trailer trash?" Such broad steotypes are rarely accurate. As all people who have big families aren't stupid, and not all foreigners or people who happen to currently live in a trailer park are stupid. Like I have said, poor people tend to have big families for various reasons. Perhaps they, like other people, also love their children. They say of the poor that children are their only wealth, sometimes sex their only recreation, and that for poor people the cost of contraceptives is out of the question. I encourage large families worldwide, for the pressing concern that more and more people would be glad to live. That means most of the people in the world should be breeding, and having as many children as they naturally can, or "all the children that God gives." Earlier marriage for those who are ready and know who they want to marry, should be encouraged, so that more people might be happier, have more natural and proper outlets for their powerful reproductive urges with a larger proportion of the world's huge population actively breeding and closer generational spacing so that parents may live to see their many great-great grandchildren, and have more reproductive time to have larger families. Even if they currently live in overcrowded shantytowns or in the most populous of regions or countries or "technically" don't have room for another child. Housing conditions can always be improved later, but people can't just have their children later, after their fertility is waning with advancing age. Humans are already confined to the "dome" of the planet. With now 6.5 billion of us, to confine us to anything smaller, would be barbaric and inhumane. Humans get their value imputed to them by God, and we value ourselves. Therefore, each person is worth just as much, no matter how enormous the overall population levels may grow. Therefore, your proposal makes no sense. If people keep breeding, then we must scoot over a little and make room, even if it might someday mean stacking people into vertical cities. Why do you only blame the people who keep breeding? Aren't you also a human? Don't you continue to take up living space every day you continue to live? I find it difficult to imagine that when the population phobics talk bad about "those other people" who keep breeding, that they could only be talking about "those other people" over yonder somewhere, because I am "people" too. What's the difference? I think they are talking about me, especially since people, like me, who ask too many uncomfortable questions of know-it-all rich elites, surely wouldn't be welcome in their tiny little "worker bee" utopias where a few poor people are allowed to exist merely to serve as slaves to prop up the rich lifestyles of the rich elites. Oh, but there is no "we" that can get together to decide what the population level should be, nor is there any moral nor practical means by which to enforce it. Why do you suppose that in a world with now over 3 billion human penises in it, that we can somehow get people to stop breeding? The very lax population controls of the Bible are plenty. Get married first, and provide for and love your children, and train them in the ways of God. As long as children can somehow be provided for, there is no need to limit their numbers. Who are these "poor" people anyway? Compared to certain rich people in the world, aren't we all "poor?" More of us might find ourselves to be suddenly "poor" if we don't tell the lib-tard DemocRATS to stop forever raising our taxes to pay for all their stupid tax-and-spend social programs. We have a fraudulent economy these days, based upon funny paper fiat money created out of thin air or debt, and purposely designed to be "inflationary." So unless you have a stash of gold or silver somewhere, and of course you can guard it from theft, maybe you are among the "poor" if the government or power mongers out there decide to "inflate" the little money you think you have? Such matters as population size, can not morally be made by humans. While some liberals or feminists may try to claim that how many children they have is nobody's business but their own, if that was ever true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had big families? Wouldn't society be forced to grow denser? Therefore we are all affected and it is a very public matter how much we breed, not merely a "private" matter. My point is that the effects of human population growth are largely positive, so it is society that should encourage more childbearing, for the good of individuals, for the good of families, for the good of society, and of course the good of the many. It is society that should welcome women to breastfeed their babies in public, even if they fail or choose not to cover up, because we all share a natural global goal or desire to enlarge the human race, evidenced by the many great reasons people have children, and in our powerful reproductive urges that the world's burgeoning billions naturally enjoy in being designed by God to be constantly "in heat," able to breed year-round, for decades. The great quantity of human life, can only morally be decided by God. What if I went to my neighbor's door, and said to him, "I really don't think you should be having a 9th child into your little 3-bedroom house," after perhaps he posts a rabbit sign announcing their 9th child in his yard. "You're making the planet grow more and more crowded." Well, if he was a nice pronatalist, like me (well except in this hypothetical example?), he might say, "Look, I know that's a concern, but these children live in my home with me, not in your home with you. See this fence here? This side is my property, and I am allowed to provide for my children on this side, see here?" What choice would I have, but to listen to children playing outside, and to slowly watch my neighborhood becoming increasingly crowded with children. But in time, the children move away, and if every lot on the street already has a house, the population density of established neighborhoods generally doesn't go up all that much. The cities just get bigger and more towns grow larger and start also becoming cities. I heard somewhere that China has so many cities with over a million people, that smaller cities are considered "rural." Well that of course is one way to look at it. A pronatalist society could always promote some level of increased "crowd tolerance." Of course had my hypothetical neighbor been mean, he could just punch me in the face, for saying such a stupid thing. Society, or countries, or whatever, simply has no right to limit the quantity of its members. Every child of a member, also is automatically a member. Citizenship is heredity, as it obviously must be. Surely nobody would stand for their children to be born as country-less refugees with no place to go? The idea of human populations expanding exponentially, seemingly "unchecked," must have been God's idea from the start, because if humans are designed to multiply, and children inherit that ability, shouldn't they also be expected to also multiply? The real restraint on how fast babies may be added to the world, isn't really resouces, but the limited numbers of parents to raise them. As countries gain more women of childbearing age, of course they should be encouraged to add more and more people to their numbers, faster and faster. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Well why not complete that saying then? If so, then you can't stop people from having babies. Especially, you can't stop your many neighbors from having babies. Such vital matters can only be morally decided by "a higher power." Our "higher power" is God, who specifically commands people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What can that possibly mean? Surely that means that each successive generation is supposed to grow larger and more populous, and that over time, the world is supposed to grow fuller and fuller of people. It doesn't mean each individual family will grow large, because obviously God doesn't give everybody big families. But big families are somewhat more likely when people don't rebell and use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as the commandment to people to multiply would imply they shouldn't do. Sure, sex within marriage may be for pleasure too, but it's main procreative purpose should not be hindered or perverted. As most every child would be glad to come to life and be born, and more and more people would be glad to live, if at all possible. Of course I support a much different standard for mere animals, not created in God's image as people are. I don't imagine that there can be "unlimited" numbers of people in the world, and unlimited numbers of every other kind of creature too. For pets, their "higher power" is their owners or masters or "pack leaders" as I hear that pets often regard their human companions. Since pets can't provide for their growing numbers, of course I would encourage people to get their pets fixed if they don't plan to breed them. People may morally decide such things for mere animals of far less intelligence, but never for their "equal life value status" neighbors. But when pets are fixed, they remove so much that they no longer even desire sex. That's okay because animals don't have "human rights." They don't need offspring when they have us for families. But even there, I don't support any definate or arbitrary limit on the number of animals that may share our world with us, as I don't believe pet owners should be coerced into getting their pets fixed, only encouraged to do so if they don't plan to breed them. Pet populations probably greatly exceed their "natural" "carrying capacity" already, due to the help of human intelligence and humans feeding them. They can increase further, only by finding more humans to adopt more pets. So if our pets could know what they should want, they would want for humans to go on having big families, since more people = more pets.
Arguing With Religious Fundamentalists Is Like Banging Your Head Against A Wall! It's A Terrlible, Terrible Waste Of Time!
I notice that Pronatalist has twice now refrained from answering my specific questions, based on the Bible, specifically, those examples of Jesus and the New Testament. If Jesus never fathered children, and nor did Paul, who wrote nearly HALF of everything in the New Testament (more than any other single author), where is the great imperative or commandment to replicate? Paul specifically said it is better that men and women remain single, because being married detracts from the GREATER OBJECTIVES at hand. It is a DISTRACTION. If marriage is a distraction, then what is the CHILDBIRTH, that comes from this marriage? PRONATALIST! I am not a stranger to the Bible, or Christianity. I'm sure if you actually read my replies to your rhetoric, you would see very clearly that I see very clearly. And I am also capable of seeing dogma for what it is, and reading between the lines of a humanly-derived text. Jesus, when speaking about many things, went above and beyond the text supplied by the Old Testament (Torah, Pentateuch, etc). You demonstrate a very limited view of both the Bible, and the Holy Spirit. Apparently, for you, the Holy Spirit is confined to BIOLOGY. Hard to imagine that the very breath of God (as the Holy Spirit is supposed to be) is subject to the whim of living carcasses!
Jesus slept with naked men, and there is documentary proof of that! Sex with men has been part of several spiritual practices that flourished in the times of Jesus.
Okay, now, Buddha, sleeping with naked men and having SEX with them are two different things! Now, be reasonable! Don't make hasty conclusions, like a lot of your detractors! I assume you're referring to Secret Mark, and the young man in the linen gown?
Yes, but what makes you think someone would sleep with a naked man without there being a sexual implication. You also have to view the above in the light of the following: - That for 300 years after the death of Jesus, there were hundreds of sects that worshipped Jesus, who practised sex between men as a spiritual thing. They were called Gnostics. - That sex between men has been documented to be part of several spiritual practises in the ancient and medieval times. - That most men do have a sexual need for men, and in a society which did not put it down (no religious sanctions to begin with --- in fact no religion to begin with, just spirituality!), and where sex between men was known to be almost universal, it would be the most likely thing to deduce from a man who sleeps next to a naked man. - And why are you biased against believing that! I mean if Jesus slept next to a naked woman, you wouldn't think twice before assuming that he had sex with her. Or that if Jesus was married, you would not think twice before assuming that he loved his life and was not under any pressure to marry her.
I won't say that Jesus was overwhelmingly attracted to women. I won't say that. I also wouldn't deny that he was attracted to other men. Apparently, the disciple that Jesus loved was another man. Love doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, though.
you see with a lot of gnostic sects (errr ok it goes XXX now. gunight chillen....) the idea regarding homosexuality, and spunk orgies. yes, orgies where they would smear each other in cum and offer it up. etc....(The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Christian Myth, J.M.Allegro), was bascially because they viewed the material world as evil--made by an evil 'Demiurge', and so their idea was NOT in any way to prolong this evil via bringing children into the world hence the above but i am noy suggesting that. i am more for ealizing how extraordinarily amazingly wonderfull this world is and to really really take this shit seriously what we are doing to it say you are bringing up a child. and thre is danger for that child. you dont um and arr do you. you, if caring. loving. amd inte;ligent IMMEDIATELY are response-able aren't you. othrwise it is gonna be irreversable danger for the kid
There are two very strong reasons to believe that Jesus loved men: - That several sects of Gnostics believed that Jesus used to sleep with men. - That the Church sought to banish this information from public way back in the beginning days of Christianity. If there was nothing unusual about this, why would they want to hold this away from people. According to the letter that Mark found, the Church representative (I forgot his name) had written that "people ought not to know everything about Jesus", and that is why he said such an information should be held from people.
Oh, please! EXPLOIT MY WEAKNESS, ENEMIES! I'm apparently making references to a mythological Christ-character. No wonder I'm crazy! Well, I guess you can just FILE ME AWAY and write yourself a TICKET TO HOLLYWOOD!
That information about Gnostics has come through the Church. And you have to take everything with great helpings of salt. Apparenlty, Gnostics were the most important enemies of the Church in those days.
Now that was certainly a bit of fun! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think 'sexual' love is one of the most powerful love on the physical plane. This can get transformed into spiritual love -- if it is really pure. But 'sexual' love is not a bad thing which we have to look at from the eyes of the religion.
I see no reason to believe that Jesus did not really exist. You could as well say that Buddha never existed!
