Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

15432Re: [TGC] Re: [gaiapc] Vatican Workshop

Expand Messages
  • Steve Kurtz
    10 Nov, 2017


      On Nov 10, 2017, at 9:04 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      Steve

      It is not about denying oneself enjoyment.  It is about enjoying responsibly and with moderation. 

      Protected sex is responsible. (vs unprotected) Fewer unwanted children result. Fewer abortions result. 
      Adequate nutrition is good.  Too much food is bad. 

      Apples and oranges. Sex in the animal world is not subject to mental gymnastics and rationalizations. Indeed most human sex fits that paradigm.

      Self-discipline has nothing to do with sexual taboos and other fundamentalist/patriarchal  aberrations. 

      Please show references from science that support your claim. It is utter gogmatic hogwash.
       
      It has to do with healthy sexual relations

      Show scientific source for your claim, please. Animals do what nature intended, and the history of supposed celibate priests supports my position that it is abnormal and can lead to perversions, rapes, child molestations, etc.

      and the intrinsic value of human bodies.

      No different than any other life form!! If you claim otherwise, please give scientific references. Anthropocentrism and the Anthropic Principle are similar.



      This issue is not unrelated to "the great change."  IMHO, moving toward gender balance and inclusion in all dimensions of human life, both secular and religious, is crucial at this point in human history.  It is a "sign of the times." 

      I know this is a sensitive and controversial topic.  The Vatican is learning that they cannot pontificate about these matters in patriarchal terms.  It is a new frontier for biology, psychology, anthropology, ecology and, of course, theology. 

      The only sure principle is to support freedom of conscience for people to make decisions, and act accordingly, as long as actions are within the law of the land.



      Nothing is sure except death. Laws are tribal, and they vary all over the planet. Note the honor killings and gang rapes of victims in some cultures. Religions are a sickness that are the Achilles Heel of homo-superstitious IMHO.

      Steve

      Luis

      On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:
       

      Luis,


      Does that logic apply to all pleasures in your belief system? I doubt that character is built by denying oneself enjoyment from the beauty of nature, art, cinema, varied foods and beverages, architecture, etc. 

      The taboo of sexual activities for pleasure is an anthropogenic creation which is, IMHO, endemic to many fundamentalist and orthodox religions. The philosophy of expanding the (tithing) flock reinforces competitive breeding (unprotected sex) just as missionaries attempt to convert non-members. Rape of women of other sects is another sick method of ‘polluting’ the gene pool of outsiders.

      Steve

      On Nov 9, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      Steve, as we have discussed before, I am concerned that "pleasure without risk" is a double edge sword.  It sounds good, but does not build character.  Self-discipline builds character.  That said, I want to reiterate that I fully respect other opinions and freedom of conscience.  

      Luis

      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [gaiapc] < gaiapc@...> wrote:
       

      Luis,


      Re: Don, I never said that people should not have sex.  What I said is that people should have sex responsibly,


      But what about *protected* sex? Is that not responsible? Pleasure without risk of pain to any parties?


      Steve



      On Nov 9, 2017, at 8:00 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [ gaiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      Don, I never said that people should not have sex.  What I said is that people should have sex responsibly, meaning that both the man and the woman assume responsibility for the children they bring to the world.  We are rational animals, not just animals.  I know, it is a controversial subject.  The world would be much better if people understand that there is no free lunch in life, and this includes sexual relations.  This is my personal opinion, which I don't push on anyone, as I believe in freedom of conscience.  Hope no one is offended by me saying what I believe.

      Luis

      On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Don Chisholm donchism@... [gai apc] <gaiapc@...> w rote:
       

      On 2017-11-08 7:48 AM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] wrote:
       
      I know, but posted this because there are .  Some of the "solutions" seem naive to me, but apparently are reasonable to them.  This is a group of highly talented and awesomely learned people.  Could it be that we are missing something?  

      DC:  Luis, you pose an interesting question.  I think that what is being missed here is the deep and penetrating imprint of growing up in a religions environment for the, perhaps 80% of those who largely accept the doctrines - whichever brand, Catholic, Hindu or Muslim.   You are an example of a kind and intelligent person who goes to a great deal of effort to make this world a better place, but ......  you still oppose abortion.  In an email a few days ago you said:  
      <<
       While we must respect freedom of conscience, my take is that the solution is to foster responsible parenthood, not to foster irresponsible sexual relations by the illusion that pills and abortion can get us off the hook.  Both the boys and the girls must be held accountable.  The main problem is that, in most regions of the world, the boys can do it free of charge. >> 

      For me, that is like asking horny young people to not have sex is like asking rivers not to flow - or something contrary to biological nature.   

      So for me it's not much of a stretch to (think) that I understand why <<
      so many brilliant minds in the Vatican academy>> skip over a few of the issues that are obvious to many other.   

      I suppose we all have blind spots.  Like most others, I don't know what mine are, but I don't deny they're there likely there!:-)

      Don 



      These people cannot possibly be so misinformed as to think that population growth and energy density are irrelevant factors.  Are they just being doctrinaire?  Perhaps they think that we just have to keep struggling with the issues, doing what can be done without recurring to fixes that are not "good for people" based on their understanding of human nature?



      Luis

      On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Steve Kurtz kurtzs@... [thegreatc hange] <thegreatchange@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
       

      Luis,


      You know what those on these lists think! Few if any are optimists.

      Steve


      On Nov 7, 2017, at 11:21 PM, Luis Gutierrez ltg4263@... [g aiapc] <gaiapc@...> wrote:


      FYI, this is the latest "green" wisdom coming from the Vatican:

      Declaration of Workshop on 
      Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility ~ 
      Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health

      Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican City, 2-4 November 2017
      http://www.pas.va/content/acca demia/en/events/2017/health/de claration.html

      Predictably, politically incorrect issues such as population growth and energy return on investment are not mentioned, so it is hard to understand how any of the "Proposed Solutions" can be feasible; but this is a good summary of the majority "optimistic consensus" endorsed by Pope Francis and many highly capable people.

      The minority "pessimistic consensus" is that, with world population still growing, and "clea n" energy alternatives being incapable of sustaining the load, the future is grim even if most people experience "ecological conversion."

      What do you think?

      Luis


      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)



      -- 
      
      
      




      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)





      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)





      —————————————
      Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
      Voltaire (1770)

    • Show all 20 messages in this topic