I didn't mean it as an anti-immigrant rant; I meant it as a summary of the present political situation. Catholics tend to assume that only a growth birthrate can be obedient to God/holy; hence, the interest in extra-terrestrial human settlement.
Also, if overall human population growth is inevitable it would be an empirically observable way of determining whether the Catholic faith is real or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects.svg
Population growth is not inevitable. And the Catholic faith is real, but probably you meant the object of that faith. Even if it was inevitable that wouldn't prove anything. There is no inherent link between population dynamics and the existence of a particular deity.
I didn't mean it as an anti-immigrant rant; I meant it as a summary of the present political situation.
Sure, I wasn't accusing you of anything, just presenting my perspective of that situation.
True it wouldn't prove anything but it would empirically suggest it (like rubies, emeralds, sapphires and diamonds tends to empirically suggest the existence of the Trinity for instance). I'm trying to ask the hardest questions possible so I might have more to reply later. In medieval times most children tended to die of disease and the population was very minuscule, so there was plenty of room to grow for the time being at least; consequently, many people (including the Church) usually thought of anything less than the maximal possible birthrate as unnatural. When I said "tend to assume" in a Catholic sense I was speaking of the massive confusion wrought by the traditional vs. Francis split in the Church, which is going on right now. With regard to you're last questions, that is the whole circumstantial cause of this discussion.
Sounds to me like you answered your own question, at least in part. It wouldn't be the first time the church had to readapt its teaching to keep up with society and further knowledge. So why would they still place such value in maximal birthrates, now that we know that our world and resources are not unlimited? Population dynamics are not fixed, so we can adapt.
I don't know what the trinity has to do with gemstones, but ascribing value to an object does not make that empirical evidence for your belief; that sounds like circular reasoning. Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. In this particular example, what information would you observe/acquire and how?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone
" In modern use, the precious stones are emerald, ruby, sapphire and diamond, with all other gemstones being semi-precious."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemology
"but ascribing value to an object does not make that empirical evidence for your belief; that sounds like circular reasoning."
Wouldn't that make the scientific method circular reasoning then?
Wouldn't that make the scientific method circular reasoning then?
No, because the scientific method is about observing and describing, not ascribing value. Value is subjective, science strives to be objective (though throughout its history, plenty of people have abused sciencey language and arguments to justify fallacious opinions).
But maybe I'm misunderstanding your point again. Still, nothing about gemstones has any link to the trinity, so I remain confused.
Would you say that classifying gemstones as major/minor as objective or not? If you answer this yes, then I was not ascribing value in the sense of a currency. Ruby, emerald, sapphire, and diamond seemed to suggest Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God to me. Although perhaps I was leaping to the conclusion that classifying gemstones as major/minor was objective to begin with.
Ruby, emerald, sapphire, and diamond seemed to suggest Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God to me.
This is what I meant. It's your subjective interpretation. I don't have a problem with it, just to be clear; all I'm saying is that this is not empirical evidence.
And no, it doesn't look like the distinction is objective. In the end any kind of classification is somewhat arbitrary, even scientific ones; however, 'precious' and 'semi-precious' appear to be defined in part based on rarity and 'beauty', which are relative and not inherent to the stones themselves.
Wouldn't this be a possible way to help solve climate change (send Earth's surplus greenhouse gases to Mars), which the present world political order seems incapable of addressing?
It's a lot easier and cheaper to have plants/algae filter it. To roughly quote Neil deGrasse Tyson, "If we have the capability to terraform Mars into Earth, then we could terraform EARTH back into Earth."
Catholics tend to assume that only a growth birthrate can be obedient to God/holy;
Why is that, anyway?
The command from Genesis to "multiply" / "become many".
So why would they still place such value in maximal birthrates, now that we know that our world and resources are not unlimited?
As stated earlier in the thread, kids tend to inherit their parents' beliefs. A trend toward replacement isn't growth, and the Church lags globally against competing religions. And on the small scale, telling individual families within the Church that God wants them to have lots of babies practically guarantees future growth. Contrarily, the Shakers were an anti-sex sect that gained some popularity in the early 1800s, with a peak of 6000 believers. Members had no children. Current membership in the last remaining Shaker village is 2 as of 2022.
Ruby, emerald, sapphire, and diamond seemed to suggest Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God to me.
Amethyst was also on that list since antiquity until massive deposits were uncovered in recent centuries. This seems to suggest that the Trinity was a Quaternity. Pope Pius XII came close to adding Mary.
