world population

[Dr.Who]

So, it was meant to keep the Israelites segregated from everyone else, so that Christ could make his appearance?

Close enough.

But do you still think:

"It would be difficult to come up with an interpretation to the assertion that people who wear cloth made of two fibers should be stoned that didn't make the statement look ridiculous"

I noticed that when it came to the passage about not eating fruit from trees you still concluded that the problem was in the bible and not in your understanding. Why always arrive at the same conclusion? Could it not still be that you are missing something? What does fruit do when it falls to the ground and is not eaten? It makes MORE trees. When a huge population of people move into an area they are going to need MORE trees.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I said that the marriage laws cover the situations for breeders. Any gay person that has a child biologically can marry the biological parent of that child. If a single woman donates an egg and a single man donates a sperm they can get married. Why? Because they are the biological parents and they are not already married. See the laws are about breeding not about orientation. Ones orientation is irrelevant. Paternity and maternity are important.

So your position is that gay parents cannot share in the privilges you claim for yourself. I ask once again, is this what you consider to being loving others as yourself? Don't obfuscate, it's beneath you, at least have the courage of your convictions and own up to them.

 

[PLC1]

I don;t know if you missed it.

I think it is all inspried and to be taken as a whole but also interpreted and parts to be understood as figurative. Even the figurative parts are still inspired and useful for teaching.

Yes, the Bible is useful for teaching, and yes, parts of it are figurative and not to be taken literally. Inspired? I'm not ready to believe that, but who knows? Maybe one day, we'll know for sure.

I already have a list of atheists I plan to text in the next life to say "I told you so." Whether or not the true believers will be able to say the same to me remains to be seen.

But, I tend to be skeptical of what can't be proven.

 

[PLC1]

Close enough.

But do you still think:

"It would be difficult to come up with an interpretation to the assertion that people who wear cloth made of two fibers should be stoned that didn't make the statement look ridiculous"

I noticed that when it came to the passage about not eating fruit from trees you still concluded that the problem was in the bible and not in your understanding. Why always arrive at the same conclusion? Could it not still be that you are missing something? What does fruit do when it falls to the ground and is not eaten? It makes MORE trees. When a huge population of people move into an area they are going to need MORE trees.

No, I think both of those passages have been eroded by translation and retranslation. There is no reason not to eat fruit, and, if you need to plant more trees, save the seeds. Were they inspired to begin with? That is not shown to be the case, but one must wonder about your interpretation about mixing cattle. What, after all, did people know about mixing gene pools in those days? Maybe someone was trying to tell the people something, maybe.

 

[Dr.Who]

So your position is that gay parents cannot share in the privilges you claim for yourself. I ask once again, is this what you consider to being loving others as yourself? Don't obfuscate, it's beneath you, at least have the courage of your convictions and own up to them.

I have already explained. Any special privileges need to be removed from married couples so all citizens can share in the benefits of society equally. It would be unloving to want special privileges to be granted to several groups of people (straight couples and gay couples) but not to all citizens (singles and widows, etc)

The restrictions that bind married couples should only apply to those who would create children. Extending restriction to other couples who will not create children is intrusive. It is unloving to want people who will not create children to have to abide by laws that are for the protection of children who would be created by a couple.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have already explained. Any special privileges need to be removed from married couples so all citizens can share in the benefits of society equally. It would be unloving to want special privileges to be granted to several groups of people (straight couples and gay couples) but not to all citizens (singles and widows, etc)

So you DO support gay marriage, will you vote that way when given the chance? The perks are in the law and no one is even suggesting that they be removed.

The restrictions that bind married couples should only apply to those who would create children. Extending restriction to other couples who will not create children is intrusive. It is unloving to want people who will not create children to have to abide by laws that are for the protection of children who would be created by a couple.

This is disingenuous, there are no restrictions binding married couples worth mentioning. And marriage is not just about children, it is about love and committment, growing old together, sharing one's life with another person. You attempt to make marriage into just a baby game is beneath you, Who, you know as well as I do that it is far more than that.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, I think both of those passages have been eroded by translation and retranslation. There is no reason not to eat fruit, and, if you need to plant more trees, save the seeds. Were they inspired to begin with? That is not shown to be the case, but one must wonder about your interpretation about mixing cattle. What, after all, did people know about mixing gene pools in those days? Maybe someone was trying to tell the people something, maybe.

I thought you tended to be skeptical of things that cannot be proven? Yet there you are making a very unprovable statement (bolded). There could be lots of reasons to not eat the fruit of certain trees and you just don't know what they are. The passage did not spell out the reason but it did generally say that it's purpose was to increase the harvest in the fifth year.

Did you even do any research before you declared that there was "no reason"? I just did some and I found this:

"23-25. ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised; three years . it shall not be eaten of-"The wisdom of this law is very striking. Every gardener will teach us not to let fruit trees bear in their earliest years, but to pluck off the blossoms: and for this reason, that they will thus thrive the better, and bear more abundantly afterwards. The very expression, 'to regard them as uncircumcised,' suggests the propriety of pinching them off; I do not say cutting them off, because it is generally the hand, and not a knife, that is employed in this operation" [Michaelis]."
http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-23.htm

Now I will check with a gardening site to see if it is true:

I found this:

"Fruit tree likely produce flowers by the second year spring. The flowers would develop into fruit if you allow them (too early). Pinch off these flowers allow the tree another full year to develop a strong root system. They will grow to be stronger and healthier."
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ree&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Is this another example where you thought the bible was ludicrous yet it turned out to be right on? Will you continue to think that your own understanding is better in every single instance one by one until there are none left to dispute? If so do you approach every branch of thought the same way, or just the bible? What would happen if in many instances you gave the bible the benefit of the doubt and reserved your skepticism for a select few? At least that way you would have enough time in your life to thoroughly examine them all.

I do have to admit I read the passage incorrectly and commented on it here, thus throwing you off. I thought that it referred to trees they found already growing there and in reading the passage again it clearly says they are planting the trees.

I even found further reason to always read multiple versions of a passage. It tends to show us the range of possible meanings for the words translated. Here is one version of that passage:

Leviticus 19:23
"When you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it fruit trees, you shall take away the firstfruits of them: the fruit that comes forth shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of them."

Contrast and compare that to this:

Leviticus 19:23
"And when you have come into the land, and have put in all sorts of fruit-trees, their fruit will be as if they had not had circumcision, and for three years their fruit may not be used for food."

Both translators accurately captured the intent of the passage. But the range of possible meanings for the words in the middle leave us modern readers not quite sure about what it means to think of the fruit as either not having circumcision or being taken away. I have no doubt that a person hearing the words at the time they were spoken or reading the original in the original language would have no such problem. You and I need to do some work - not always but sometimes.

 

[Dr.Who]

So you DO support gay marriage, will you vote that way when given the chance? The perks are in the law and no one is even suggesting that they be removed.

Well that is a 'nuts' comment about what I wrote?

And I am suggesting that they be removed. I have been suggesting that for at least a year here.

This is disingenuous, there are no restrictions binding married couples worth mentioning.

You mean like the restriction against having sex with people other than the spouse? Or the one about not abandoning wives and children? Or the one that biological fathers must support children? Or the one that inheritance automatically goes to wives and children unless other wise specified?

Those are the most basic of restrictions and they have been mentioned here multiple times.

And marriage is not just about children, it is about love and committment, growing old together, sharing one's life with another person. You attempt to make marriage into just a baby game is beneath you, Who, you know as well as I do that it is far more than that.

Marriage is most certainly about all of that. But marriage laws are not about any of that. The laws are there to protect children and dependent spouses.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And I am suggesting that they be removed. I have been suggesting that for at least a year here.

It still remains outside of the scope of the discussion since we are talking about the Law as it exists and is administered.

You mean like the restriction against having sex with people other than the spouse?

There is no law like that, please give us a quote of the US Law if you think there is.

Or the one about not abandoning wives and children? Or the one that biological fathers must support children? Or the one that inheritance automatically goes to wives and children unless other wise specified?

And do those laws apply to heterosexuals who have no children, yes, they do. Just in the same way that they should apply to all consenting adults whether they have children or not. Those laws are part of the marriage law in America and anyone who wishes to marry is voluntarily subjecting themselves to the whole extent of the law--even the parts that don't at this moment apply to them specifically. Any gay people who subsequently have or adopt children will get all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as everyone else. That's called equality. Why do you think that some people do not deserve equal protection under the law?

Marriage is most certainly about all of that. But marriage laws are not about any of that. The laws are there to protect children and dependent spouses.

If what you say were true, then the laws would not be written the way they are. As written the law applies to consenting adult couples who decide to form a contractural agreement, there are no requirements for children to make the marriage valid. People marrying for love are completely and legally encompassed by the US marriage law. Your arguments to the contrary are just that: contrary. Why shouldn't people be allowed to have equal protection under the law?

 

[PLC1]

I thought you tended to be skeptical of things that cannot be proven? Yet there you are making a very unprovable statement (bolded). There could be lots of reasons to not eat the fruit of certain trees and you just don't know what they are. The passage did not spell out the reason but it did generally say that it's purpose was to increase the harvest in the fifth year.

Did you even do any research before you declared that there was "no reason"? I just did some and I found this:

"23-25. ye shall count the fruit thereof as uncircumcised; three years . it shall not be eaten of-"The wisdom of this law is very striking. Every gardener will teach us not to let fruit trees bear in their earliest years, but to pluck off the blossoms: and for this reason, that they will thus thrive the better, and bear more abundantly afterwards. The very expression, 'to regard them as uncircumcised,' suggests the propriety of pinching them off; I do not say cutting them off, because it is generally the hand, and not a knife, that is employed in this operation" [Michaelis]."
http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-23.htm

Now I will check with a gardening site to see if it is true:

I found this:

"Fruit tree likely produce flowers by the second year spring. The flowers would develop into fruit if you allow them (too early). Pinch off these flowers allow the tree another full year to develop a strong root system. They will grow to be stronger and healthier."
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ree&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Is this another example where you thought the bible was ludicrous yet it turned out to be right on? Will you continue to think that your own understanding is better in every single instance one by one until there are none left to dispute? If so do you approach every branch of thought the same way, or just the bible? What would happen if in many instances you gave the bible the benefit of the doubt and reserved your skepticism for a select few? At least that way you would have enough time in your life to thoroughly examine them all.

I do have to admit I read the passage incorrectly and commented on it here, thus throwing you off. I thought that it referred to trees they found already growing there and in reading the passage again it clearly says they are planting the trees.

I even found further reason to always read multiple versions of a passage. It tends to show us the range of possible meanings for the words translated. Here is one version of that passage:

Leviticus 19:23
"When you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it fruit trees, you shall take away the firstfruits of them: the fruit that comes forth shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of them."

Contrast and compare that to this:

Leviticus 19:23
"And when you have come into the land, and have put in all sorts of fruit-trees, their fruit will be as if they had not had circumcision, and for three years their fruit may not be used for food."

Both translators accurately captured the intent of the passage. But the range of possible meanings for the words in the middle leave us modern readers not quite sure about what it means to think of the fruit as either not having circumcision or being taken away. I have no doubt that a person hearing the words at the time they were spoken or reading the original in the original language would have no such problem. You and I need to do some work - not always but sometimes.

OK, so you can interpret those passages as a kind of farmers almanac telling people how to increase yields of fruit trees. Does that make it inspired?

The way it is written, it appears to be just what it is: Ancient writings that have been translated from dead languages. If it really means what you say that it might, and I have no reason to doubt that it does, it could very well be instructions for growing fruit.

I suppose it is possible that god told the ancient Israelites how to grow crops, but it seems much more likely that, if it really was such instruction, it was based on someone's experience in farming. When we read instructions for growing a garden today, we don't take it as the word of god.

But you have done a good job of making some passages from Leviticus less silly than they appear at first reading.

 

[Dr.Who]

It still remains outside of the scope of the discussion since we are talking about the Law as it exists and is administered.

We both see the law as it is and then you add that it should be changed to include gay marriage and I say it should be changed to not give special privileges to only some people. We are both talking about how the present law should be changed.

There is no law like that, please give us a quote of the US Law if you think there is.

There are still places in the US where there are laws against adultery. But that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the fact that under fault-based divorce laws the penalty for adultery is that one can be divorced more easily.

And do those laws apply to heterosexuals who have no children, yes, they do. Just in the same way that they should apply to all consenting adults whether they have children or not. Those laws are part of the marriage law in America and anyone who wishes to marry is voluntarily subjecting themselves to the whole extent of the law--even the parts that don't at this moment apply to them specifically. Any gay people who subsequently have or adopt children will get all the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as everyone else. That's called equality. Why do you think that some people do not deserve equal protection under the law?

Yes they do apply to hets who have no children - it is not feasable for the state to know which hets are going to have children and which will not so they extend the law to hets without children. It is not fair to them but that is the way it is and must be. For the sake of children and potential children the law must make it hard to divorce and set regulations on when and how that can happen. There is zero reason to extend the laws making divorce hard to couples that will never produce children. If those couples that will never produce children adopt a child then the adoption laws must ensure that the kids will continue to have a stable home.

If what you say were true, then the laws would not be written the way they are. As written the law applies to consenting adult couples who decide to form a contractural agreement, there are no requirements for children to make the marriage valid. People marrying for love are completely and legally encompassed by the US marriage law. Your arguments to the contrary are just that: contrary. Why shouldn't people be allowed to have equal protection under the law?

The laws are better the way they are than the way you propose even though there needs to be changes. In most cases gay couples don't have equal protection because they just won't be making any children to need laws to protect.

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, so you can interpret those passages as a kind of farmers almanac telling people how to increase yields of fruit trees. Does that make it inspired?

The way it is written, it appears to be just what it is: Ancient writings that have been translated from dead languages. If it really means what you say that it might, and I have no reason to doubt that it does, it could very well be instructions for growing fruit.

I suppose it is possible that god told the ancient Israelites how to grow crops, but it seems much more likely that, if it really was such instruction, it was based on someone's experience in farming. When we read instructions for growing a garden today, we don't take it as the word of god.

But you have done a good job of making some passages from Leviticus less silly than they appear at first reading.

No the fact that the passages can make senses does not make them inspired. But it sets aside the idea that they are not inspired because they are silly.

So what criteria should one use to decide of something is inspired?

We may not be able to prove it but we can look at things that point to it:

If an author claims a book is inspired that is better than one that does not make the claim. If another book claims a first one is inspired that strengthens the case. If a person provides testimony that they saw Jesus perform miracles and that Jesus says the books are inspired then that strengthens the case (stc). If a person provides testimony that hey witnessed a miracle consistent with a book that claims inspiration then that stc. If a book makes a prophesy and it seems to have been fulfilled that stc. If a person has it revealed to them that a book is inspired then for that person it becomes indisputable. This is off the top of my head, I am sure the list could be lengthened. I doubt it could become iron clad. Suppose that is why it is faith. It is based on evidence but not proven.

 

[numinus]

Actually it IS those "Christian/Catholic Moral Values" that cause the a lot of the problems in the Sub-Saharan Africa (this is where most of the problem exist).

A lot of stigma exists with birth control in the christian/catholic nations of africa, due to the well known immorality issue the church places on birth control.

A prime example of this is Mozambique, where recently the Archbishop in Mozambique told the nation that condoms cause AIDS.

Another problem was the french, Ex-French colonial countries in West Africa still have current the old laws of their french colonists. The french anti-contraceptive law, enacted in 1920 and still in effect after the independence of France's former colonies in Africa, banned advocacy for, knowledge of, or use of family planning methods. [1]

In 1965 the nation of Chad passed even stricter anti-conception laws in conjunction with the french laws retained after their 1960 independence. This occurred shortly before the Muslim uprising that lasted a decade after which the dictatorial Tombalbaye's overthrow and death. The laws remained however.

It's a real mess there, but for the most part, yes, it is those "conservative" values if that's what you call the religious nuttery that's at root of most of the problems.

The Islamic states of North Africa have had a more progressive lean toward family planning as can be seen on the reduction of HIV as a secondary achievement except in those countries that still observe those strict french laws.

Remember it isn't because of a lack of morality in those reproducing, but the faux-morality of not offering them education in family planning due to religious extremism of the Catholic church in Africa. They're the ones who lack morality.

[1]Wolf, B;Anti-contraception laws in sub-Saharan Francophone African: sources and ramifications;Medford Mass., Tufts University, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1973

Get your facts and logic straight.

Baptized catholics in the african sub-continent amounts to a mere 17% of the total population.

And yet, you blame the population problems of the entire african continent on the catholic church's teaching against artificial contraception -- despite the fact that the catholic church has invested a lot of logistics and manpower to promote RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH.

You assume therefore, that the people who DO NOT follow the pope when he preaches responsible parenthood and fidelity to one's spouse, would fasten a condom IF the same pope would only say so.

Whoever gave you your 'facts and logic', it seems that you have been foolishly misled.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We both see the law as it is and then you add that it should be changed to include gay marriage and I say it should be changed to not give special privileges to only some people. We are both talking about how the present law should be changed.

Not quite, you are doing away with all marriage law basically, all I'm doing is trying to make the current law abide by the requirements of the US Constitution. Already 3 States have done so, while no States are even considering doing away with marriage law in its entirety.

There are still places in the US where there are laws against adultery. But that was not what I was referring to. I was talking about the fact that under fault-based divorce laws the penalty for adultery is that one can be divorced more easily.

I think that you will find that those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court when the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. The fact that adultery can be used in a divorce proceeding is irrelevant--adultery is not against the law, it's just a prejudicial activity in a divorce.

Yes they do apply to hets who have no children - it is not feasable for the state to know which hets are going to have children and which will not so they extend the law to hets without children. It is not fair to them but that is the way it is and must be. For the sake of children and potential children the law must make it hard to divorce and set regulations on when and how that can happen. There is zero reason to extend the laws making divorce hard to couples that will never produce children. If those couples that will never produce children adopt a child then the adoption laws must ensure that the kids will continue to have a stable home.

Perfect, those laws apply to all who marry, fine, that's the way it should be. So anyone who signs the contract should get the same benefits, rights, responsibilities, and privileges: That's Called EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW and it is required by the US Constitution. Why you are arguing against this is beyond me, I have to assume that you have no valid argument so you are arguing against the US Constitution for lack of a real argument. Sterile heteros and gays who have no children will be treated equally under the law, heteros who have children and gays who have children will be treated equally under the law, and all the children of the gays and heteros will receive equal protection under the law. What's the problem?

The laws are better the way they are than the way you propose even though there needs to be changes. In most cases gay couples don't have equal protection because they just won't be making any children to need laws to protect.

And most sterile heteros don't need the protection either, but since we can't predict which couples--gay or straight--will eventually be parents, then all who marry should be treated equally under the law as the Constitution requires. Pretty simple, Who, it's just equality without reference to religious dogma.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not quite, you are doing away with all marriage law basically, all I'm doing is trying to make the current law abide by the requirements of the US Constitution. Already 3 States have done so, while no States are even considering doing away with marriage law in its entirety.


I think that you will find that those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court when the sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional. The fact that adultery can be used in a divorce proceeding is irrelevant--adultery is not against the law, it's just a prejudicial activity in a divorce.


Perfect, those laws apply to all who marry, fine, that's the way it should be. So anyone who signs the contract should get the same benefits, rights, responsibilities, and privileges: That's Called EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW and it is required by the US Constitution. Why you are arguing against this is beyond me, I have to assume that you have no valid argument so you are arguing against the US Constitution for lack of a real argument. Sterile heteros and gays who have no children will be treated equally under the law, heteros who have children and gays who have children will be treated equally under the law, and all the children of the gays and heteros will receive equal protection under the law. What's the problem?


And most sterile heteros don't need the protection either, but since we can't predict which couples--gay or straight--will eventually be parents, then all who marry should be treated equally under the law as the Constitution requires. Pretty simple, Who, it's just equality without reference to religious dogma.

We can still predict which gay couples will create children - none of them.

And marriage is still a regulation that should be imposed on people as little as possible. Only when there will be children or the state cannot tell when there will be children should the regulations be imposed. In instances where there are special privileges those special privileges should be removed.

The laws are already equal in that everyone who wants to create children falls under the jurisdiction of the laws -either as breeders who are married or as breeders who are unmarried. Even the gay people when they breed are under the law so it is equal - except for the special privileges which need to be revoked in any instance in which they don't need to exist for the regulation of breeding.

As an analogy, if we make business laws to regulate businesses for the protection of customers then it would make no sense to apply those business laws to those who do not operate businesses. But everyone can decide to operate a business.

Now about gay people who want to marry other gay people to protect the children they won't be creating and then they claim that they are being treated unfairly: as soon as they start creating children the marriage laws should apply. As long as they are not creating children they are being treated with the most amount of freedom from marriage laws one could want. They are willing to give up their freedom from marriage laws so that they can gain some of the benefits that have wrongly been given to married people - that is silly. All of us should be advocating the removal of wrongly given benefits.