🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <73t94i$rg4@news-central.tiac.net>,
   demas@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas) wrote:
>In article <3661cb50.0@news.mho.net>,
>Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net> wrote:
>>In article <73sebh$5re$10@paperboy.ids.net>,
>>   zarlenga@conan.ids.net (Michael Zarlenga) wrote:
>>>
>>>Ok, so, tell us ... what percentage of the world's poor - you know,
>>>the people you claim are so intimately influenced by the Catholic
>>>Church's "be fruitful and multiply? message - are born in wedlock?
>>>
>>>Must be damn close to 100%, hunh, if the Catholic Church's messages
>>>are to blame.
>>
>>Well Catholics aren't perfect either. Ever heard of the term "cafeteria 
>>Catholic"? Someone who picks & chooses what they'll follow. So they could be 
>>kept totally ignorant of modern birth control methods ( because the church 
>>tells them that ) and be having babies in, and out of wedlock, who the heck 
>>knows?
>
>Gee Melissa you seem to want to have it both ways.  First you want 
>them to hear a message and follow it "religeously" then you want 
>them to disregard the messages they think they don't like. 

I don't want them to do anything, except quit encouraging things that will 
eventually lead to global disaster. They're setting the stage for the self 
fulfilling prophecy of an apocalypse. I think it's time they rethought a few 
things that they rigidized their policies on 1000 year ago. Just like they 
recently forgave Galileo for his "heresy" of saying the earth was round and 
wasn't at the center of the solar system. Every few hundred years or so, it 
pays to rethink some things, no?

Their church is being abandoned by more modern people in many places like the 
U.S. who are fed up with such attitudes and primitive stereotypical thinking. 

>Traditionally, high birth rates were for economic benefit of the 
>parents as the children could help raise more food etc, and the
>high birth rates were needed to counteract the high death rates.

I understand that. In biblical times, there were about 1 million people in the 
world. It took until 1900 to reach the first billion ( 1000 million ). Now 
we're at what? 5.6 billion?! YOU CAN STOP NOW!

>I suppose that you could say that improvements in medicine and 
>medical treatment are really responsible for overpopulation.  If 
>we had more famines and pestilance, that would be better.  I suppose
>it's all those pesky missionaries, speading health and nutrition, 
>reducing the death rate that is at fault for the poverty.

That's the negative way of thinking about it. That people should freely screw 
up and depend on the riders of the apocalypse to regulate their population. We 
now have the means to do better, and do it in kinder ways. Why not advocate 
them? Why should be have to have wars, famines, and holocausts to regulate the 
population, when we have condoms and birth control pills?

>So, these missionaries (RCC and others) that spend money providing 
>relief are actually spreading poverty, but if they didn't spend the 
>money, then they're at fault for keeping their money and not helping
>the people.

>I think I'm getting the hang of your way of thinking.  :-)

What I'm suggesting is that it's fine to be missionaries and help the poor, but 
that the RCC needs to rethink their policies of advocating things that 
counteract those good deeds. As it is now, the left hand is helping and the 
right hand is hurting. Why not come up with more modern policies that would 
only help intead of making the problems worse at the same time?


That's my opinion  - Melissa

"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.

To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
in my email address.