This is topic What the fuck is the Church doing in forum Karp Park at The Azure Heights Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.math.miami.edu/~jam/azure/forum/buzz/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007686

Posted by Psybro (Member # 290) on 10-14-2003, 06:40 PM:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

The Catholic Church is very kindly informing people in Third World countries that condoms are not effective against AIDS, even though they, well, are.

What total cunts.

For the record, I am a confirmed Catholic.

[ 10-14-2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Psybro ]
 
Posted by MK (Member # 1445) on 10-14-2003, 07:39 PM:
 
What kind of agenda are they pushing now?
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-14-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
What kind of agenda are they pushing now?

Read the news article.

The church won't back down until something is proven with out a shadow of a doubt. They never wanted to admit the world wasn't the center of the universe until we got science to prove them wrong.

So they can just claim anything and say god is on their side and you will go to hell if you don't agree with them.

They don't do it for convenience. They do it because they want the bible to be right and are trying to use scientific data to back up their claims.

The priest in the article doesn't even give an alternate solution to the problem. Even if condoms are 15% effective and there is noting else, it is in your best interest to wear a condom.

Also, if the people of South Africa will resort to raping virgins to cure Aids, I'm sure they won't mind wearing condoms to help the cause. Someone should donate a bunch of condoms to South Africa.
 
Posted by Jman (Member # 618) on 10-14-2003, 09:15 PM:
 
Whats a church?
 
Posted by cfalcon (Member # 19) on 10-14-2003, 10:50 PM:
 
I knew right what this was about when I saw the excellent topic.

I went to a Baptist elementary school. One of the things they told us is that condoms don't prevent AIDS because the latex mesh is too big to prevent a virus from slipping through. I thought about this, and decided that while that may be true, surface tension has to count for something, and certainly condoms have to help out.

I have also heard this "ineffective condom" myth from other hardcore Christians.

Basically, a lot of these people believe that the scientists are attempting to kill people by lying to them OR that there is, generally speaking, a vaguely conspiracy-ish theory (consisting of all the "secular humanists) that doesn't want to admit the truth.

Of course, condoms *don't* prevent AIDS, in the same sense that seatbelts don't save lives. Both of these things only show up when you look at a large number of cases- in that case, condoms are *VERY* effective at preventing AIDS (not 100%, though, giving fundamentalists (and now Catholics) their line of reasoning), and seat belts...

Well, seatbelts are still for pussies. But, *statistically*, they are helpful.

You see a lot of this whole "Religious people denying the truth" in the world. It's actually connected to strong beliefs in general, not just religion- scientists had sneering response to the implications of Einstein's physics on the origin of the universe: the universe could no longer be unchanging and eternal. One of the jokes, that it all started with a "big bang" became the accepted name of the new theory. But, it had a hard fight, in part because it was a lot more friendly to the whole "God created everything" theory- and a lot of the top scientists were opposed to that, strongly.

But, far and away, the people making the idiotic life altering decisions in the face of facts are usually the hyper-religious.

Anyway, this topic really ticks me off because the churches are willing to sacrifice real living humans in the hopes that a few of them behave in a more moral fashion- but then, that's pretty much quintessential of fanatics.
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 10-15-2003, 12:03 AM:
 
okay, me and my friend were talking about this the other day, and I just had the notion to write this.

if you're going to have a belief system, then Logicology is the belief system of choice. it's based on facts and sensible thought patterns, unlike "god exists because I have no evidence of it", or what have you. and don't give me that "can't be proven or disproven" bullshit because gods in general are just such a shitty bullshit copout that it pisses me off. what the hell.

we invented logicology in order to smite all the gay other religions down ebcause they're so stupid and self brainwashing, with Logicology all you do is think about stuff. that's it.

that karp park logo gets funnier every time I see it. Yes, that's how seldom I check the boards.
 
Posted by LanderZRPG (Member # 1615) on 10-15-2003, 12:07 AM:
 
Just call it Logic. Logicology would be like "the study of logic".

And that's exactly what I've believe in for.... oh, 4 years, now? Something like that...

Go read William Golding's "Thinking as a Hobby". Very insightful into the lines of Logic.
 
Posted by LanderZRPG (Member # 1615) on 10-15-2003, 12:12 AM:
 
And now a reply regarding the topic:

quote:

"Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."

Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".


.... So, if I was to ignore the previous line (which is the only time they give any reasoning behind why the hell they're making this claim) [which says that Condoms go against sex and procreation, which the church likes], what you take out of this (or even if you take note of the previous fact, hmmmmm) is either that condoms spread AIDS, or that AIDS afflicted people should not have sex. However, according to the previous line...

quote:

The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend.

So, theoretically, it cannot be that AIDS-afflicted people are encouraged to not have sex, since that would go against sex and procreation. And since this "-450x smaller than sperm- virus" is so conveniantly good at getting around in condoms, it shouldn't have any problem passing into the body of the afflicted's sex-partner.

So, are they [the church] trying to say that scientists are passing AIDS around through condoms, or something? They don't say it, but it seems to be implied, judging by this logic.
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-15-2003, 01:31 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
and don't give me that "can't be proven or disproven" bullshit because gods in general are just such a shitty bullshit copout that it pisses me off. what the hell.

Logically that fact that it can't be disproved is the reason it makes sense.

Seriously, a supreme being isn't that far fetched. Think of it in scientific terms and think of God as pure energy that the universe is made of. Energy can be manifested into anything, so god can take part of his self and manifest it into you. Its possible scientifically so you can't out right deny the theory all together and claim god isn't logical.

A group of people claiming that god created a set of rules for them to live by isn't logical. There is not even the slightest reasoning to back up the bibles claims. The fear of hell, could be the biggest one, was introduced by the bible.
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 10-15-2003, 01:37 AM:
 
Not to mention the bible was a work of fiction
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-15-2003, 02:41 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
"god exists because I have no evidence of it"

"the world exists because I have no reason for it"
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-15-2003, 02:48 AM:
 
alex: Logically that fact that it can't be disproved is the reason it makes sense.

Well, not the reason, but it certainly facilitates it. I mean, "I'm right and you're wrong" makes sense logically.

Think of it in scientific terms and think of God as pure energy that the universe is made of.

Those are pseudoscientific crackpot terms.

There is not even the slightest reasoning to back up the bibles claims.

Nor your pure-energy-as-God argument. And your statement's so hyperbolic it's obviously based on your opinion and not fact, so it's dismissable. Not even the slightest? Nothing that even remotely coincides? Even if it were bogus that'd be hard to swallow.

Also, agreed with everything in cfalcon's post.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-15-2003, 03:36 AM:
 
Regarding the actual science here, this is actually true about lambskin condoms, which are gross anyway.

Also semi-recent tests have shown that Nonoxynol-9, the most common spermicide, is really shitty and doesn't even do a very good job at killing sperm. It can actually increase the chance of the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

As for Logic vs. Religion...it is not necessary for religions to be illogical, although most of them seem to make a point of it. However, there's nothing to prevent you from believing in a particular set of supernatural beliefs and being completely logical at the same time.

There's nothing illogical about the concept of some great mystical space Santa creating the universe.

EDIT: For clarification purposes, latex condoms do a very good job of preventing the transmission of HIV.

[ 10-15-2003, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 10-15-2003, 05:10 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
"god exists because I have no evidence of it"

"the world exists because I have no reason for it"
what the hell did you just say

try making sense next time
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-15-2003, 07:54 AM:
 
OK, you have officially forfeited the right to found "Logicology".
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-15-2003, 12:01 PM:
 
LanderZ: So, are they [the church] trying to say that scientists are passing AIDS around through condoms, or something? They don't say it, but it seems to be implied, judging by this logic.

I think it's more along the lines of that scientists are too hasty to jump to conclusions, even despite their contradiction of God's truth. I'm sure there're hardliners in the church, but they're probably smart enough as a whole to realize that science has wrought about 99% of our lifestyle today. Although I thought the Church was capable of better than all this after the spontaneous Galileo thing...

quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
"god exists because I have no evidence of it"

"the world exists because I have no reason for it"
what the hell did you just say

try making sense next time

maybe you lost your way, this isn't sC's cesspool
 
Posted by starCaliber (Member # 268) on 10-15-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
hay fagot i liek my cesspewl
 
Posted by Dweedle (Member # 1209) on 10-15-2003, 04:19 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
"god exists because I have no evidence of it"

"the world exists because I have no reason for it"
what the hell did you just say

try making sense next time

try reading it critically next time
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-15-2003, 07:16 PM:
 
Rolken: Those are pseudoscientific crackpot terms.

Hey if you believe in god then its not that far off.

But yea, I was claiming god was scientifically possible so I would have to come up with real science.

There is not even the slightest reasoning to back up the bibles claims.

Rolken:Nor your pure-energy-as-God argument. And your statement's so hyperbolic it's obviously based on your opinion and not fact, so it's dismissable. Not even the slightest? Nothing that even remotely coincides? Even if it were bogus that'd be hard to swallow.

You're right. saying not even the slightest would mean no proof. At least there isn't anything legitimate.
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 10-15-2003, 09:19 PM:
 
well it was a bad analogy in any case
 
Posted by MewtwoSama (Member # 12) on 10-15-2003, 10:13 PM:
 
posting in a thread dweedle posted in
[That Guy]
 
Posted by Dweedle (Member # 1209) on 10-16-2003, 02:31 AM:
 
sup mang
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-16-2003, 03:39 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by starCaliber:
hay fagot i liek my cesspewl

it's a cesspool in the most uplifting sense of the word

coaselk: You're right. saying not even the slightest would mean no proof. At least there isn't anything legitimate.

I'll ignore the flippancy with which you assert this - but even despite a lack of proof, can you really expect there to be? I mean, we barely have evidence that Jesus existed, and yet I don't think many people dispute that. If you do, uh, let me know. But if we have such a dearth of even circumstantial evidence of Jesus's existence (such that everyone jumped to believe in a box with his brother's name that was faked), how can a similar lack of evidence for the Bible be assumed to imply that it was not inspired?

But yea, I was claiming god was scientifically possible so I would have to come up with real science.

[Confused]

Mr K: There's nothing illogical about the concept of some great mystical space Santa creating the universe.

Yea. A lot of people seem to confuse logic with reasonableness. To say "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong" is impeccable logic, but few would consider it reasonable (maybe Char42 or coeldhe456). Of course, that's pretty much what most religion is when you tear away all the fluff, but obviously it gets pruned up to appeal to the dimwitted. Reasonableness has a lot more subjective gray areas that allow crap to get through - although the average American doesn't have enough of a BS filter to toss out the illogical either, and in theory that's pretty cut-and-dried.

[ 10-16-2003, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Rolken ]
 
Posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey (Member # 1182) on 10-16-2003, 03:58 AM:
 
quote:
To say "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong" is impeccable logic
what
 
Posted by Tghost (Member # 1418) on 10-16-2003, 04:07 AM:
 
also, if there is a god, there would be no [PBJ Time!]
 
Posted by Boodabonzi (Member # 2958) on 10-16-2003, 04:42 AM:
 
I confessed to a priest that I used condoms and that my ex had the morning after pill when the fuckers broke and he basically just said "Hey you're young, shit happens, confess all this again when there's a chance you won't go back and do it again." He pretty much confirmed my faith that God isn't a retard.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-16-2003, 08:12 AM:
 
Bipperbopper: He pretty much confirmed my faith that God isn't a retard.

What does that priest's opinion have to do with God?

Ikuse: well it was a bad analogy in any case

Actually, it was perfect.

Rolken: To say "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong" is impeccable logic
MMM: what

Given that Rolken is always right, anything that contradicts him is wrong. That's clean logic.

It doesn't defy logic that Rolken is always right, but it does defy reason.
 
Posted by Fluorine (Member # 2904) on 10-16-2003, 10:40 AM:
 
To say "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong" is impeccable logic

That's not logic, that's just a proposition. You need a conclusion. "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong, therefore I'm right" is impeccable logic, because it's always true ("False and False, therefore True" is also valid, if you were wondering).

Edit: you could also say "I'm right, therefore anything that contradicts me is wrong". But not and, because if you use and, P&P=P, and the result depends on the value of P. On the other hand, if you use therefore, P->P=True no matter what P is.

Here is another example of a totally logical argument:

God exists
God does not exist

therefore, God exists

Which is symbolically represented by:

(God exists) & not(God exists) -> God exists
P & not(P) -> P
False -> P
True (because P -> Q is false only if P is true and Q is false)

The problem with logic is that you can't get any new knowledge from it. Logic works on whatever propositions you already have, and determines the values of other propositions that are just a composition of these existing propositions.

Basically, you can't start thinking about nothing. You have to assign an arbitrary value to at least one proposition. And that's where the fucking problem is: what values can you reasonably assign to what propositions?

Some people will say that "there has to be a beginning to everything" and "something can't just be created randomly" are obviously true, and therefore will come to the conclusion that God is a logical necessity (which is impeccable logic, but based on the potentially false assumptions I mentioned). Some others will take every sentence in the Bible and say it is true (which isn't really logical since there are contradictions in the Bible). Others, like me and most people in this thread, will prefer to say that things everyone can see, hear or touch exist, and develop ideas uniquely around that.

Most Bible freaks will prefer to trust the Bible rather than trust their own senses, or will use flawed logic to conciliate both. Of course, most people here will agree that it isn't reasonable, but it has indeed nothing to do with logic.

[ 10-16-2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Fluorine ]
 
Posted by SDShamshel (Member # 791) on 10-16-2003, 10:58 AM:
 
Jesus was never born.

Also, we never used to mathematically study the stats of Pokemon and get into arguments over which was statistically better.

But really, I'm a big, big fan of logic and all, but logic will only take you so far. Sometimes, it's just better to let yourself off from it. Call it faith, or religion, or whatever, but because our human minds our limited, we can't be logical about everything. If we are, our logic is bound to be flawed eventually, and flawed "logic" is no better than believing in fairies that set people on fire at night.

[ 10-16-2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: SDShamshel ]
 
Posted by Boodabonzi (Member # 2958) on 10-16-2003, 11:45 AM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Bipperbopper: He pretty much confirmed my faith that God isn't a retard.

What does that priest's opinion have to do with God?

he's God's vessel you ignoramous
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-16-2003, 12:23 PM:
 
But yea, I was claiming god was scientifically possible so I would have to come up with real science.

Rolken: [Confused]


Then what were you calling pseudoscientific?
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-16-2003, 12:42 PM:
 
Fluo: That's not logic, that's just a proposition. You need a conclusion. "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong, therefore I'm right" is impeccable logic, because it's always true ("False and False, therefore True" is also valid, if you were wondering).

There's no therefore involved. I'm right and you're wrong, and that's the way it is, period. And, uh, sure, the whole point of logical systems is to derive conclusions, but I figured you could figure out the implied "therefore whatever you just said is right if I agree or wrong if I disagree." And although I'm sure fancy symbols are nice and all for complex problems, you can be descriptive and self-consistent without them, which are really the only requirements (and technically not even the former).

The problem with logic is that you can't get any new knowledge from it. Logic works on whatever propositions you already have, and determines the values of other propositions that are just a composition of these existing propositions.

I emphatically disagree. Whole fields of expertise are devoted to working out composite propositions - say, engineering. Sure, it's not pure 100% incontrovertible fact, but the computer I'm typing on (which is also not 100% incontrovertible fact) gives me a good deal of faith in their conclusions. It only becomes problematic when there's no error checking mechanism.

Fluo: Some others will take every sentence in the Bible and say it is true (which isn't really logical since there are contradictions in the Bible).

And then people like coenoex take the opposite tack and say that nothing in it is true and fail to see the resemblance. It's convenient how one's opinion is always the correct one.

Him: Jesus was never born.

Ok, so your proposition goes along the lines of:

Some dude (Paul, John, whoever) decides he wants to start a religion. But, in contrast to every religious visionary before, he gives himself almost no importance; instead, he gives it to an imaginary guy who just died, because, you know, he's selfless like that. So then he gathers up a few more religious nutballs, and they're like, hey, good idea, we'll pretend we saw him too and write about it. Or maybe they all communally decided, or whatever. But the fact remains that they're pretty obviously defrauding everybody, and they know it.

Or...

Some Jesus dude is born behind a bar to a drunk whore. Discontent with his life, he claims to be the Son of God, walks around all high and mighty and convinces a few screwballs with his charisma that he really is. He goes on a power trip, orders people around, delivers revelational orders, and finally the Jews/Romans get pissed and kill him. His dudes are all despondent that he's gone, so they start teaching new guys and write some stories they remember, which get a little better in the telling, but they're absolutely convinced that this guy is It so they don't think of themselves as frauds.

It doesn't make sense to choose the former. Or did Mohammed, Joseph Smith (olol) and the others not exist either?

[ 10-16-2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Rolken ]
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-16-2003, 12:44 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
But yea, I was claiming god was scientifically possible so I would have to come up with real science.

Rolken: [Confused]


Then what were you calling pseudoscientific?

Pseudoscientific means the opposite of real science.
 
Posted by SDShamshel (Member # 791) on 10-16-2003, 01:22 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:


Elian: Jesus was never born.


One, I'm not Elian.

Two, sarcasm.
 
Posted by Ikuse (Member # 3037) on 10-16-2003, 06:06 PM:
 
I'm staying away from this thread, it's bad for me.
 
Posted by Psybro (Member # 290) on 10-16-2003, 06:54 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikuse:
I'm staying away from this thread, it's bad for me.

I thought you did the off
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-16-2003, 07:43 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
quote:
Originally posted by ceoalex316:
But yea, I was claiming god was scientifically possible so I would have to come up with real science.

Rolken: [Confused]


Then what were you calling pseudoscientific?

Pseudoscientific means the opposite of real science.
Yea, so what don't you get?
 
Posted by ceoalex316 (Member # 338) on 10-16-2003, 07:51 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rolken:
And then people like coenoex take the opposite tack and say that nothing in it is true and fail to see the resemblance. It's convenient how one's opinion is always the correct one.

I never said that everything was false, I just said that there is nothing to back up the claims of the Bible. Then corrected my self and said that there isn’t anything legitimate to back them up.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-16-2003, 08:24 PM:
 
9: That's not logic, that's just a proposition. ... "I'm right and anything that contradicts me is wrong, therefore I'm right" is impeccable logic, because it's always true...

Right, that's what I was saying. In order for logic to work, everyone has to agree that certain things are true. Once all the givens are settled, then you can get to work.

One of the many problems with pure logic is that it doesn't always give you the "best" answer. If your stated goal is to keep a room full of kids from consuming the Oreos you've left with them, there are a number of completely logical ways to deal with the problem...

You could announce a punishment for those who eat the cookies. You could lock the cookies in a safe. You could kill all the children.

All of these are completely logical ways to achieve the desired effect, but each is going to produce very different results.

Plus, Star Trek teaches us that Kirk can defeat Spock and computers and such if it means he gets to bang some green chick.

The problem with logic is that you can't get any new knowledge from it.

You can make "discoveries" that you already "knew" and figure out if you're being a hypocrite. The latter is something I wish more people would do, because people hold inconsistent beliefs all the time. That dumb kid who couldn't wrap his mind around the whole "under God" thing springs to mind.

Bipperboppper: he's God's vessel you ignoramous

Or...is he???

Maybe it's a trick by Mr. Satan. You shouldn't base your opinion of God based on some guy who only claims to be Close Personal Friends with Him.

Rolks: Pseudoscientific means the opposite of real science.

Well, "opposite" is the wrong word, but, eh, close enough.

Ikuse: I'm staying away from this thread, it's bad for me.

Aw c'mon...give it a try. Thinking ain't so bad once you get used to it!
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-17-2003, 03:45 AM:
 
Ooh, look, more religious BS.

"The Anglican leaders called for creation of a commission to make a yearlong study of how to deal with deep theological disagreements between individual churches in the decentralized 77 million-member Anglican Communion."

They're creating a committee to decide on truth? Insult the Mormon prophets all you want, but at least we claim to have some basis behind our theology. This is either the last futile attempt to sew up a fractured institution or an admittance that truth doesn't matter on the behalf of millions of Anglicans.

Of course, the vast majority of the religious really don't care to philosophize so long as their religion makes them feel good, and I'm sure many Anglicans won't even care what their church is doing; few to none would if gays weren't an icky issue.
 
Posted by Boodabonzi (Member # 2958) on 10-17-2003, 07:03 AM:
 
quote:
Or...is he???

Maybe it's a trick by Mr. Satan. You shouldn't base your opinion of God based on some guy who only claims to be Close Personal Friends with Him.

what should I base it on then oh enlightened one?
 
Posted by LanderZRPG (Member # 1615) on 10-17-2003, 12:05 PM:
 
Meh, most of it (not all, but most that I can recall) I got out of pamphlets and such when I was reseaching marijuana effects in Socials 11, when we were doing 'political parties', and most of the rest when I was head of the school's Mission Possible team (Cancer prevention group).

I'll take a look, online, but most of my previous sources didn't merit enough use for me to bring to University with me.

Edit: Crap, this did get lost in the wrong thread [Frown]

[ 10-17-2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: LanderZRPG ]
 
Posted by Ancient Egyptian Cat-Gonk (Member # 14) on 10-17-2003, 01:15 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SDShamshel:
Also, we never used to mathematically study the stats of Pokemon and get into arguments over which was statistically better.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we did on the odd occasion..
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-17-2003, 06:41 PM:
 
Rolken: They're creating a committee to decide on truth?

Well, not really. They're working out what the rules for their religion are, not what's fundamentally true in the universe. Which way the pastor faces when they hold mass isn't an issue of "truth".

Bippo: what should I base it on then oh enlightened one?

I dunno, you're the one that believes in the Space Santa. Aren't you supposed to talk to Him directly or learn from The Word of God in the Bible directly or something? Can you really trust his self-appointed proxy? Can you ask OJ's lawyer to find out if he's guilty?
 
Posted by Rolken (Member # 7) on 10-18-2003, 02:56 AM:
 
Mr. K: They're working out what the rules for their religion are, not what's fundamentally true in the universe. Which way the pastor faces when they hold mass isn't an issue of "truth".

Well, technically they're only arguing about a rule, but it boils down to that they're deciding whether gays are fundamentally bad or not.
 
Posted by Mr. K (Member # 2) on 10-19-2003, 11:57 AM:
 
This has to do with interpreting the Bible, which should only very rarely be included in the same sentence as "truth". IMO, the widely-varied interpretations of the Bible work to discredit all Judeo-Christian-based organized religions, but you can't really blame one specific religion for interpreting things in a particular way.

This isn't in the same league as saying something like condoms don't prevent the spread of HIV.

[ 10-20-2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
 
Posted by veloS (Member # 2636) on 10-20-2003, 10:56 AM:
 
Catholism is so screwing up christianity. <ducks>
 
Posted by Boodabonzi (Member # 2958) on 10-20-2003, 12:52 PM:
 
Yeah my religion is based around the clergy, sorry.
 
Posted by veloS (Member # 2636) on 10-20-2003, 01:02 PM:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boodabonzi:
Yeah my religion is based around the clergy, sorry.

STFU, u had teh sex. Oh wait [PBJ Time!] [Embarrassed]
 


Karpe Diem