- advertisement -

Opinions on the economy please....

Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by Heather(CA), Jun 27, 2010.

  1. StillMamamia

    StillMamamia Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,195

    Bold is mine.

    1st bold - I agree with you on greed and poor economic systems.

    2nd bold - how do you know that it's not?
     
  2. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    I'm really great with people not understanding me -- I thinks weird and talks worse. I'm great with you if you disagree with me. I appreciate you taking the time to understand me before you disagree with me. Thanks.
     
  3. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Good point.
    I have never been given definitive evidence that it is true. The best I've ever seen is people stating it as true, like you might state that the sun circles the earth. It's just common sense, people tell me.
    It would, to be fair, be hard to prove definitively and objectively. It's a pretty big hypothesis, and there are a lot of unknown quantities. I think the best someone truly arguing for this proposition (and not just stating it as de facto the case) could do is reasonably speculate, with evidence such as "there have been a number of famines in the 20th century" or "overpopulation and depletion of resources led to two world wars and numerous cases of local fighting" followed by some statistics on resource scarcity. At that point, I'll confess I'd likely be hard to convince since my understanding of famine kind of links in with cases like Ethiopia, where I sat in my home watching pictures of starving children and then scraped my extra food into a trash can to throw in a landfill, like millions of other Americans. And my reading of history tells me Hitler didn't invade Poland because the Germans were crowded. . . .

    So I'll 'fess up that I'd be hard to convince, but I'd be open to anyone trying to actually make a case. I've not seen anything except "how can you be so stupid, of course that's the way it is, everyone knows that" from folks here trying to argue with me (not addressing those folks who were honestly conversing).
     
  4. StillMamamia

    StillMamamia Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,195

    Ok. So...it's not conclusive, LOL.

    I appreciate you answering. Others have not had the courtesy to do so in past posts.

    Now, I have a question which is itching me, so bear with me, yeah?

    Supposing;) that there is an overpopulation crisis. Would it not stand (and I'm trying to think from the POV of someone for whom God rules everything, so again bear with me) that, the Earth and all its creatures, being God's creations, deserve to be "saved" as well, and, humans, being servants of God, have the duty to make sure that God's creations/creatures are indeed saved, and should find ways to balance the overpopulation issue, by, perhaps, abstinence?

    I know this is totally OT, but I'm trying to understand IF there is an overpopulation crisis, how would a religious person (not you personally, generally I mean) who does not believe in birth control address (since abstinence can be used for birth control) this issue?

    Or can this not be answered because the supposed overpopulation crisis may not exist? Or is it simply an issue of "God will handle everything as He sees fit"?

    I have lots of other questions but they are even more OT.
     
  5. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Sorry if you've felt unanswered on these threads sometimes.

    I definitely see how your questions can follow from this line of discussion, but I think I've had enough air time and certainly no one wants me spouting theology or dogma here.

    I don't want to leave it unanswered, and it's thought-provoking, I can think of a few things I'd discuss on those lines. But my short answer would be that I don't accept the "running out of resources" hypothesis but that's not theologically based, that's just logic and evidence to me. If you were definitively in a situation that was "running out of resources" (e.g. fallout shelter with water purification that can only provide for twenty people, gotta live there for fifty years. . . .), then choices would be driven by considerations of morality and theology, and that would be. . . a whole other thread. . . on a whole other forum, probably!


    "
     
  6. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    I missed this earlier. One thing I have never been accused nor convicted of is being subtle. Even a little.

    Thanks for taking the bait on this one. Wanna reference where and when they came from so we can compare them with mine and we can trace them to a certain point in Jefferson's life. Tell ya what. My wife and son are asleep already and I've got an hour to kill.

    The first quote is taken out of context. It comes from a letter from Jefferson to John Adams date April 11, 1823. Jefferson begins the letter by attacking Calvinism and he condemns those who don't believe in the Creator even though the evidence of design is obvious. The quote comes from the last paragraph which was this:

    The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

    What Jefferson is saying is that the day will come when non-believers will scoff at the Virgin Birth. Seems he was right.

    The whole letter can be found here: Letter from Jefferson to Adams

    Now we come to the Jefferson quote that has been so completely twisted out of context that the Supreme Court eliminated prayer in public schools nearly 200 years after the founding of the country.

    The famous "wall of separation between church and state" quote is not found in the Constitution, nor the Declaration of Independence. The quote comes from a letter he wrote in response to a letter he got from the Danbury Baptists who were concerned that the First Amendment could be intrepreted to mean that "freedom of religion" was granted by government and thus "alienable" and not God-given ("inalienable"). The Danbury Baptists were concerned that if free expression of religion was alienable, then the chance could exist that the government could regulate it in the future. Jefferson's response was this:

    Gentlemen, The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.

    Taken in context, it is clear that Jefferson is assuring the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not establish a national religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. If this was Jefferson's only surviving writing on the subject, then there might be a smidge of doubt what he meant. Luckily for us, he also wrote this to Benjamin Rush:

    The clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.

    Jefferson's position is clear. No National Religion. But he also said in a letter to Samuel Millar:

    I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises.

    Personally, for many, many reasons, I believe that Thomas Jefferson would weep due to the many, many civil liberties we Americans no longer enjoy that he and the Founding Fathers fought so hard for.
     
  7. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    Ok ... fine ... it's just not physically possible to have too many people on the planet - it can support an infinite number of people ..... somehow.

    I'm guessing the same way all the zillions of cubit feet of animal flesh fit into a boat.
     
  8. Karenwith4

    Karenwith4 Approved members

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    Why do you repeatedly do this?
    Intelligent people can disagree with one another without mocking each other's religion.
    I find your tendency to make this sort of comment really incredibly offensive.
     
  9. StillMamamia

    StillMamamia Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,195

    I had to reread Swellman's post a few times to find the religion link, and honestly couldn't see it. Is it the boat reference? The fish ? I still don't see it, sorry. What I am reading is that the planet can support an infinite number of people but it sure would be like sardines in a can - tight for space, unbearable. etc, etc.

    Well, that's how I read it, but Swellman can be very subtle in his (hers??) poking at times:D, so I am not sure. Or may I'm just na?ve.

    In any case, I think overpopulation IS a big problem, not because of what others tell me or what I read, but because it's enough to go to places like Africa and see it first hand - way too many people. Talk about sardines....
    Too many people, crappy economic situations and very slow (if any) improvement in "distribution". There is greed of course (as humans, this is our biggest snafu, IMO). (just using Africa as a ex. because that's where I've been).

    ETA - I just realized maybe it's not overpopulation. Maybe it's poor distribution of people!..............naaah, still convinced there is a population crisis.
     
  10. emm142

    emm142 Approved members

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,883
    I'm pretty sure Swellman was referring to all the pairs of animals fitting in Noah's ark.
     
  11. StillMamamia

    StillMamamia Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,195
    Hmmm...I guess the animal flesh part made me think otherwise. I figured dead animal flesh.:eek: I guess I should brush up on implied responses 101, LOL.
     
  12. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    I was but I was poking fun at Lisa ... I forget to put smilies like the ole wink, wink. Maybe she will be incredibly offended like others but we've PM'd before about similar stuff and I would only hope she would take it in the way it was intended.
     
  13. emm142

    emm142 Approved members

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6,883
    I thought it was fairly obvious that it wasn't intended to be deadly serious.

    And now I will go back to my previous position of reading with interest and not posting anything. :p
     
  14. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Paula - way too many people? There's not a single extra human being in Africa.
     
  15. StillMamamia

    StillMamamia Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,195
    Bad example, maybe? India then?

    We're talking about the possibility of overpopulation, not whether human beings are extra, as in "leftover" extra, the implication being their worth.

    Let's not read what there is not. I'm doing my best not be vague here, yeah? My bad.
     
  16. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    I think the ark joke is kinda representative of this whole line of discourse, Swellman. I'm not mad at you, but I'm Catholic. You're not making fun of me when you make fun of a literal reading of Noah's Ark, you're making fun of my friends who live good lives every day despite being thought of as idiots by people who don't take the time to really understand what they're saying. They pay a big price for thinking for themselves.

    So I'm afraid even with winks I wouldn't find it funny. I don't think you're trying to be mean or offensive, I just think you're trying very, very hard to throw out distractions and not address the actual concerns, and I think it's a little thin, and I do wish you'd stick to picking on me. Tell me I'm a hypnotized slave spitting out babies for the Pope's global army of domination, that'll work.
     
  17. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    First, Illinifan, I accept your apology. It was quite gracious.

    Second, I don't know that we completely disagree about Jefferson. I know he wasn't an athiest. I know that he didn't intend to establish a national religion. I *think* we agree on those two things. What I'm not sure of is what you think he would disapprove of that the government is doing today with respect to religion. (Wow. That was an inartfully formed sentence, but I'm too tired to rephrase.)
     
  18. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    There is not a single extra person in India.

    There is not a single extra person in Wichita.

    There is not a single extra person in London.

    I recognize you believe the solution is in the coming generations, not this one.
     
  19. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    I honestly don't understand. Is your opinion based on the fact that you think there are enough resources to support an infinite number of people or that you think God wouldn't give this planet more people than it could support? Are those two things the same thing to you? Or is is based on the fact that you always think one more person is a blessing from God? That humans should not limit how many people are here?

    And how is it different from me having 30 kids that I can't afford and thinking, "Oh, God will provide."? (That is a serious question, not snarky.)
     
  20. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    I have to agree with you here in regards to Thomas Jefferson (among many of our founding fathers) who would weep due to the many, many civil liberties we Americans no longer enjoy.... Having said that, I also agree with hawkeyegirl above in regards to questioning how that relates from the "religious" portion of the question... What would Jefferson be upset about in today's world in regards to religion (if you, in fact, believe that)? Don't want to ASSume anything. :)
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice