I feel strange, it is not often that I agree with August on religious grounds. Anyway, bee fruitful and multiply was a good plan back in those days in the opast, but today, not so much.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is the credo that is spread by the church since centuries, and is held up until today. Due to the unimaginable suffering it causes in the third world, and the disruptive effect on efforts to stem sexually transported diseases like AIDS (or syphilis in earlier times), all accpeted under the preface of a churchian life-and-joy-opposing moral that put the focus on hellfire and keeping people in fear, this is to be condemnded, no matter what religion or belief stands behind it. It is wrong and inhumane in a Christian context, it remains to be wrong and inhumane in a Judaic or Islamic context, and it would be wrong if it would be proposed in an Buddhist or Atheist context. but no other instotution is as guilty in this context, as the Vatican. That is no bashing of something - that is a simple historic truth, and still valid even for the present.

True, but the Roman Catholic church is not the sole agent of overpopulation. People in non-Catholic cultures like to get busy and have lots of kids too. I've done some pretty exhaustive sampling and few if any of the Catholic women I have known take the "no contraceptive" edict seriously. The people in less educated societies may follow the Vatican's rules, but again, I'm pretty sure they would be popping out babies with or without the Pope's approval. The way to offset the obsolete concept of multiplying is education.

True, and I referenced to that in one of the posts above. But still, the Vatican propagated it over continents, and centuries, and still does. His voice is the loudest in the chorus. He also accepts to rise political conflicts internationally about it of which a local tribe here or there has not even knoweldge that they exist - the scale of interests is totally different. The local culture could be educated and that way be helped. The Vatican'S policy exactly tries to torpedoe that and wants blunt enforcement of it's own morals, and demands others to take them over as "the cure" to overpopulation. It is pure supremacism, accepting to doom people by the hundreds of millions as a punishement for them not complying with the church's moral inhibitent, anti-sexual teachings. Supremacism, mixed with prudery.

Well said Mike.

A bit OT but the title of the thread reminds me of this Finnish movie.

http://i.a.ua/kino/covers/7379/cover.jpg

"They held back the Russian Juggernaut in a frozen Hell!" :)

The Vatican propalated this doctrine officially (Unofficially it has been there for ever) mainly after the conflict with the protestants, when the church found itself sudenly divided in two and hence only half as powerful.

The true origin of it comes however from the jews (Not surprisingly, they put it in the old testament), the nation that has first used population increase as a means of power: More soldiers, more people to survive, more of their religion. The tactic was a typichal one of a hijacked nation, the way to cause enough trouble to their egyptian captors to ensure they would be released.

Islam has also been an expert in using it in recent times: More kids in their families means more muslims, ergo more power. No modern religion is free of that parasital doctrine, whose blindness and terrific consequences are easily understood. The most terrible perversion of it is that, like an arm's race, it forces almost everyone to do the same or risk being drowned in the overabundance of those groups which practice it.

Well here in southern Africa, kids are a kind of retirement policy,
the more you have the better you will be taken care of (by them)when you are older.(Actual monetary retirement policy's have yet to be widely accepted by much of the population.)

To blame it on religion is stupid. The truth is that every human society encourages population increase, including secular ones. There is power in numbers, that is a basic human instinct. It is not some Catholic plot like Skybird would have you believe.

That is a practice that is as old as man. What it doesn't account for is the much improved survival rate modern technology provides.

Well, if we have to kill 6.9 Billion people to make this work, you go first.

-S

Before you came along noone proposed genocide.

I agree in that the "power in numbers" is in most societies since ancient times, but what I want to highlight -and I think Skybird probably too- is that religions took it as flag for their own uses and make it be persistant even today, in the XXI century, where such ideas would otherwise probably have not survived to a reality check. Without churches backing up such suicidal ideas, it would be more easy to have public debates about limitating the growth of the human population to a sustainable level, something that would be much more desirable than the current situation.

Correct.

But half a year ago I was accused by somebody else of allegedly regretting that I could not send people disagreeing with me into the gas chambers anymore. If that went by without moderators stepping in, I am not surprised that this one also causes no action.

And some people complain and call it my weakness if I put them on my ignore list over such stunts - to compensate for the moderation. :dead:

Disagreements are not the problem. Some people time and again needing to play foul in order to make their points, using distorted quotes, suggestive language, telling lies about other board members and trying to damage the person instead of having a better argument - that is the problem. In other words: a sort of bad behavior that in real life in public places most likely would not be tolerated by people and would lead to people being kicked out of restaurants, cinemas, shops, whatever - at least in all the places and cities over here where I have lived so far.

Being clear in what one wants to say, and defending it, is one thing. Bullying behavior, telling lies about opponents not agreeing, playing cheats and tricks to damage them - that is something very different. But not in this forum, it seems.

Perhaps this old saying will help in that regard : "Stöcke und Steine brechen meine Knochen, aber Worte werden mich nie verletzen"

Skybird, with all due respect and before you dig yourself deeper into the hole..

While you make some good points, you ought to be aware that you aren't the victim here nor can you claim 'morale high ground'. Maybe you haven't noticed yourself, but you have a tendency to belittle, bully and show a general aggressive behavior against people that do not agree with your views.

The claim of 'civil behavior' that shines through your above post pales in comparison too what you really say in your other posts and not just in this tread. Calling people slow minded or sick and twisted does not make you a victim, nor establishes a base for assumed superiority.

Your hatred for everything Religious and your treatment of believers in said things do not make you look innocent or more educated. It just make you look like you have a limited 'horizon' and are too stubborn to accept that there are people who have a belief in something that has not much to do with science per se.

Furthermore, that you tell people to stay out of certain threads (not this one, tho but you do it on occasion) when they are in disagreement with you, does gives the impression that you are not interested in an open discourse, but solely use this board to propagate your own world view and do not want any criticism of said view.

Last but not least, as a staff member of the Radioroom, people may misinterpreted what you say and assume it is the position of the staff in its whole. Remember when AVG got blasted for taking a side in a political discussion last year? Some were fast to accuse the staff of taking side, when he was in reality voicing his own opinion. It got even worse after one guy got sent to the brig for using racial slurs and arguing about it.

Well considering it's implied (unless you geniuses know of another way), I simply said what you weren't saying. So super smart one, how would you do this any other way? :hmmm:

Funny how the topic pretty much died when I mentioned it. Everyone else seems to get it.

-S

I wouldnt do it in any way, I was not even the person exlaiming the wonderfuless of a lower population density. Besides, expressing a wish to have a lot lower population density does not mean that the person wants to kill off most of the population alive right now. At least have the honesty to admit when you are projecting what you want others to say instead of adressing what they actualy do say.

Then quit discussing it.

-S

I hope so, but not for the moment.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...an-bishop.html
And:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/wo...a7f&ei=5087%0A

And here is the fine bishop Williamson on 9/11.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=E7fjGxfNsKk