Is the universe friendly?

@Synsensa Can I like what cannot be seen?
 
article said:
Pope Francis, for example, has said that he would baptize Martians if they came to Earth and asked.
I guess Pope Francis doesn't keep up with the news from NASA and JPL. But I guess if those probes stick around long enough, they can be considered Mars' first immigrants, and Pope Francis can go there on the first manned Mars mission and bless them.

(facetiously said; I would definitely not want any scientific endeavor tainted with unscientific rituals, and if Francis can't be bothered to get his backside over to Canada to apologize to the indigenous people for subjecting them and their ancestors to the hell of the residential schools, he certainly does not deserve to go to Mars)

article said:
Ham’s fundamentalist view of the Bible has led to odd exhibitions at his Noah’s Ark-themed attraction, including dinosaurs, which he believes lived alongside humans on a planet he claims is only about 6,000 years old.
Back when the Conservative Party of Canada called itself the Canadian Alliance, the leader was a man named Stockwell Day. Day jumped to federal politics after being in Alberta politics for many years (he was once my MLA and I had the pleasure of telling him off about the dire job prospects for graduating nurses because the premier kept blowing up hospitals and then building new ones that had no staff because the universities hadn't trained enough after there weren't many places for new doctors and nurses to work anyway; most of my typing clients at that time were nursing students who I'd had for their entire 4-year program and some of them had to leave not only the province, but the country to find a job).

Anyway, Day was one of these YECs who believed most sincerely that our planet is only 6000 years old. There were others in the party with similar beliefs... one of whom was given one of the science-related shadow cabinet portfolios. There is no universe in which it makes sense to put a YEC in charge of a portfolio involving fossil fuels. Yet that's what he did. It's scary to think that this man could have been our Prime Minister if the Liberals hadn't won the election of 1993.

Kinda like how Alberta might explode politically if Kenney and LaGrange don't back down over their Christian-centric, no-dinosaurs-allowed draft curriculum. There are even MLAs from their own party speaking against it now.

Most scientists believe Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and nearly all agree that dinosaurs were wiped out around 65 million years ago, long before the first humans appeared.
"Nearly all"? I would have thought that any scientist worth the title would have accepted these two things. What's next - there are some scientists denying that plate tectonics is a real thing? (yes, I know it hasn't been that many decades since continental drift was mocked - my Grade 4 teacher taught us about it in science - but there's been enough time for geology to grow up by now)
 
Well not according to some Christians.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters [...], the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Pope Paul III, year 1537, asked to pronounce about a recently discovered large group of people who had no access to Christianity before.
 
Pope Paul III, year 1537, asked to pronounce about a recently discovered large group of people who had no access to Christianity before.
the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property...
Well, that certainly worked out well, didn't it? /sarcasm
 
"Nearly all"? I would have thought that any scientist worth the title would have accepted these two things. What's next - there are some scientists denying that plate tectonics is a real thing? (yes, I know it hasn't been that many decades since continental drift was mocked - my Grade 4 teacher taught us about it in science - but there's been enough time for geology to grow up by now)

My mother was in grade school during the Depression, when she saw a map of the world she told her teacher it looked like N&S America were connected to Africa and Europe and had drifted apart.
 
Well, that certainly worked out well, didn't it? /sarcasm

If more people were like most popes, and fewer popes were like most people, maybe we'd have a better world by now. Yes.
 
If more people were like most popes, and fewer popes were like most people, maybe we'd have a better world by now. Yes.
Oh, you mean you think more people should hoard gold and jewels and furs and other costly doodads while poor and homeless people barely survive a few streets away?

O-kay...
 
Indeed. I love Cathedral mass. And I love the Missionaries of Charity that work from there.

I am not convinced. The popes do not have a great record of morality.

I'm surprised you think people in general do. It was a relative statement. It's additionally filtered by being comprised entirely of an extremely ambitious subset. Which does not our finest features expose.
 
Well, that certainly worked out well, didn't it? /sarcasm

The point was that a part of Christianity (about half of it, as of now) has guidelines about meeting civilizations that could not have possibly have had contact with the Gospel before.

A debate about how large is the population of descendants of indigenous people of the Americas north or south of the Rio Grande would be off-topic.
 
I am not convinced. The popes do not have a great record of morality.
The Showtime version was tamer than the other version when it comes to violence and gore, but the acting was superior. There's a reason why there are hundreds of fanfiction stories based on this series, and it's mostly because of the terrific rapport the actors had.

Another facet of this version's popularity is the humor. There's a scene in which Grandpa Rodrigo is literally stuck holding the baby on the papal throne because Lucrezia is busy elsewhere and there's nobody else around to look after little Girolamo. So when a bunch of cardinals come in, demanding Rodrigo's attention, he shushes them, telling them to be quiet or "you'll wake the child."

There are outtake reels posted on YouTube and they are hilarious.


But all that said... the historical Borgias were indeed ruthless and corrupt and not what Jesus would have approved (though Paul would have been just fine with the misogyny of the time).

A debate about how large is the population of descendants of indigenous people of the Americas north or south of the Rio Grande would be off-topic.
I don't recall looking for one. If I did, I might put it in the Canadian election thread, since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and discovering hundreds of unmarked graves of indigenous kids on former residential school grounds have ignited a bigger mess than usual and it will definitely affect the election.
 
Well, that certainly worked out well, didn't it? /sarcasm

A debate about how large is the population of descendants of indigenous people of the Americas north or south of the Rio Grande would be off-topic.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

I don't recall looking for one.

Ok, so what were you hinting at?
 
A debate about how large is the population of descendants of indigenous people of the Americas north or south of the Rio Grande would be off-topic.
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Your tags are mixed up. But I'll take a stab at answering what I assume you meant to ask:

Ok, so what were you hinting at?
Something obvious to any North American familiar with how the natives were treated by the Europeans. Their land and possessions were stolen or destroyed, they were forced onto increasingly worse land that made it difficult at best to support themselves, and finally some governments didn't even try to hide their genocidal intentions, whether physical or cultural.

In short, the very opposite of what they'd been promised when the missionaries and other Europeans came and said whatever it took to get their hands on the natural resources they wanted.
 
Top Bottom