Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10431713 - 05/31/09 09:34 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Well Bob, let’s just be honest.

You launched a diatribe before basing your argument off my posts without reading them.

Wither or not I am hatefilled and arrogant I hardly think is an issue at hand here. People get angry when you proceed with 6 posts bashing something off of their own misconstruing. 

The bishops don’t give advice. It was a statement issued by the bishops not advice. Pherhaps the best way to explain it to you would be this, your father issues a statement: “Come home before 11 or I will beat your ass with a rubber hose” Now, I guess you could see that as advice but I think advice is the wrong way to look at it.

The issue of wither the Vatican has directly said anything or not is moot. There exists the whole reason for hierarchy in the church. It makes it so that everytime a priest wants to take a dump he doesn’t have to ask the Holy See.

Actually, something you may not be aware of is the fact that the pope is just another bishop.  He is the bishop of Rome, which is historaclly important since it was Peter’s place.

So in essence what we have here are a bunch of bishops (remember the pope is a bishop) giving a statement.

Quote:

As for the rest of your post.  “Please direct me to where I said that 'obama-racist haters' made up the rules that obama couldn't be honored.”



Gladly Bob, here you go:
And the Vatican didn't even speak on this issue.  To me, it seems like an argument born out of the minds of strict republican Obama-haters.

Quote:

Quote:

You may very well be a skitzophrenic for all I know




Why?  I find it insulting…



Why not? Why do I have to give you proof? You find it insulting? I found it the same way. Out of the blue someone drops a “blah blah blah skitzo” for no reason and with no argumentation or documentation. I too was insulted and am glad you have enough empathy to understand that.



Quote:

As for the second half of your post, your arguments are not as logical as you claimed them to b




Actually  my last post was not horrible reasoning as you say. Alot of those scientitist made a lot of their discoveries by being Catholic and some of the discoveries were made while in mass. Maybe you would do so well to look a few of them up and see that a few of them attribute their discovery directly to feverent prayer .

I can’t do all your research for you. :shrug:

More than that you could argue quite clearly that Christianity is the institution that gave us our modern view that the world is order and that it is governed by rules and laws. What I am proving here is that science and education are not mutually exclusive with religion infact it is WITH religion that it has historically flourished!

Now on Galileo, you're once again incorrect.  He was not jailed all for his views on the universe. To explain the whole case would take a book and indeed there are books out there. So let me sum it up. The pope was an admirer of Galileo and sponsored most of the observatories of the day. Galileo added many important ideas to support Copernicanism but many of his proofs were wrong and he infact was not a decisive factor. The whole world was divided between what moves around what. Infact, the greatest and most respected astronomer of the period, Tyco Brahe, supported geocentric theory (which by itself persuaded many astronomer until after he died).

Galileo one day got a visit from the haed of the inquisition, they agreed that Galileo had a good case but that he still had things to figure out. So they agreed that Galileo would not teach his heliocentric theory as fact yet and that would be that.

Fast forward several years, the current pope dies and a new one is elected. The new one , Pope Urban VIII, was a huge fan of Galileo. He had even written a poem for Galileo.

Then Galileo thought “Well this pope is a big fan of mine so what the hell…” He published a book in 1632 “Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems” directly against the ‘advice’ of  not to until he had solid proof. He began lecturing and teaching on wrong grounds. For example he said the tides were caused by the rapid movement of the earth around the sun. He als said the planets moved in circles (even though Kepler by this time had published his rules and they were known. You do know kepler right? He discovered that the planets moved in ellipsies.)
What’s even stupider is that in his book he had a dialogue between two people, one himself and the other was the pope. He named the pope Simplicio (stupid in Italian) and he, Galileo, would make grand statements showing how Simplicio was a moron.

Then Galileo made his final mistake. He ventured far out of his realm of science into scripture. He argued that scripture had to be constantly reinterpreted to stay relevant. He had been warned years past to not do that since this was the age of the Reformation (when all the protestants were angry because Catholics didn’t follow the Bible enough).
So he was taken to court were he flat out lied about having an agreement before to not teach and promote his theory. He got called out on his lie when they found documents, he continued to lie. He then said his book was not in support of heliocentrism.

Galileo was an ass and made an ass of himself. He was never tortured and got to visit his daughters and continue his research at various places.

And this is the only time that the Church has ever condemned a scientific theory.

Enough history lesson for you? The only thing I am proving to you is that science and religion are not engaged in the epic sruggle that you seem to think they are. Believe me, if this were true I would renounce the church today.


Edited by CowFarmer (05/31/09 09:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10434028 - 06/01/09 09:06 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

I was speaking of homosexual acts from the beginning.  The church separates the two (homosexuality and homosexual acts) in an attempt to save face. 

See Merium-Webster's definition:

homosexuality
One entry found.

   
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty 
Pronunciation: \ˌhô-mə-ˌsek-shə-ˈwa-lə-tç\
Function: noun
Date: 1892
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

So no, you're wrong, I didn't change my argument.  The church just makes bizzare distinctions.

You're also wrong to say the catholic church doesn't believe that homosexual acts are a sin.  Which is funny considering you berrated me for knowing nothing of catholic dogma.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/01/09 09:09 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10434138 - 06/01/09 10:05 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

No CowFarmer, you're incorrect.  I made one post in reply to your post - not six.  The other posts were replying to others who replied to me.  If you would have replied to me earlier, perhaps there would not have been so many, but what does that matter anyway?  BTW, you're the one that made being hate-filled an issue - I was only pointing out your hypocrisy.

Something tells me your understanding of church hierarchy isn't accurate.  From wiki:

Quote:

While the Church considers Jesus to be its ultimate spiritual head, the spiritual leader and head of the Church organization is the pope.[




So my question to you is, who makes the 'rules' of the church?  Do these bishops getting together and issuing a statement comprise a new rule of the Catholic church that must be followed?

Quote:


Gladly Bob, here you go:
And the Vatican didn't even speak on this issue.  To me, it seems like an argument born out of the minds of strict republican Obama-haters.




Thank you, now compare the two statements and realize that they aren't the same.  Nowhere did I say that obama-racist haters made up the rules that obama couldn't speak at the university.  I said it seemed to me that 'strict republican obama-haters' were the only ones making an argument out of this.

Quote:

Why not? Why do I have to give you proof? You find it insulting? I found it the same way. Out of the blue someone drops a %u201Cblah blah blah skitzo%u201D for no reason and with no argumentation or documentation. I too was insulted and am glad you have enough empathy to understand that.




Because it's a character assasination.  Nowhere did I refer to you or anyone else on here as skitzophrenic.  For me to say that somebody who claimed to talk to God in a burning bush as possibly being prone to auditory and visual hallucinations is not out of the blue.  For you to call me skitzophrenic for not agreeing that the Catholic church should determine policy at universities is something all togetherly different.

Quote:

I can%u2019t do all your research for you.




You're the one who made the claim that Catholicism was responsible for their great discoveries.  Prove it if you believe it.

Your stories of Galileo sound like church propaganda.

Frome wiki:

Quote:

By 1616 the attacks on Galileo had reached a head, and he went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre.




Doesn't sound like the church is very pro-science to me.

From wiki:

Quote:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.




Read that last part about the Pope telling a scientist what not to advocate.  Now look at your statement:

Quote:

He ventured far out of his realm of science into scripture




So why is it acceptable for the church to reach out of their realm of scripture into science, but a scientist cannot reach out of their realm of science into scripture.  Hypocrisy?

More from Wiki:

Quote:

To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book.[89] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[90]
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future




So, care to give me some more 'history' lessons?

Quote:

Galileo was an ass and made an ass of himself.




Didn't you say in your last post that Galileo was a great scientist?  Now you're calling him an ass?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10434412 - 06/01/09 11:50 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

> I was speaking of homosexual acts from the beginning.

No you were not... Quoting your own words:
Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexuality because they believe it is a sin.  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




By the context of what you wrote, the first definition you provided is the one that applies: "the quality or state of being homosexual".  The second definition you provided does not makes sense in the context of what you wrote.

You were speaking about the "legalities" in the eyes of church for the school to be teaching about the origin of homosexuality, not about homosexual acts.  Nice try.

Even if you were speaking about homosexual acts, why would the church forbid a professor to teach about them?  Murder is sin in the eyes of the Catholic church, so should ND be prohibited from teaching about murder?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10434920 - 06/01/09 01:45 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Take what I said as you want, but homosexuality also includes engaging in sexual acts, which was what I was referring to.  The fact that you choose the churches definition of separating the two sides of homosexuality (homosexual desire vs. homosexual acts) is just that, your choice.  I, on the other hand, consider a homosexual person or a person that engages in homosexuality as one who engages in sex with a person of the same sex, and I thought most other people did, too.  Well, at least the people at Merriam-Webster do, so I could at least say I'm in good company.

But anyways, the church says that homosexuality (engaging in sex) is 'illegal' in their eyes because it is against the natural law.  For a professor to say homosexuality (the act of having homosexual desires or engaging in homosexual acts - it makes no difference) is natural, is going against church teachings.  To teach studens that sex has a purpose besides pro-creation  would be going against church teachings.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10437489 - 06/01/09 10:01 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Bob,
To define ‘rules’ for a Catholic is somewhat tricky.

Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible). Tradition is basically just church teachings and what has been done historically (No women as priests, priests cannot marry, Jesus is man and God, etc…).  This is where Catholics are set apart from Protestants and others. Years ago Luther decided Sola Scriptura (Only Scripture).
The Vatican is very important to a Catholic because it is the home to the archbishop of Rome.

The pope is just a bishop but he is very critical because he is command of historically the starting place of the whole church.  We also believe that the pope is God’s spokesperson on earth. That said the pope must follow the Bible as well, he can’t just decide to add or subtract a commandment or two.

So how are rules made? They are made through Tradition and Scripture (and tradition but I’m just trying to give you general idea).



This whole issue as I said is about rules. From what I understand you said it is being blown up because of republican-obama haters/ racist-obama haters whatever. But I’m arguing that that is not it at all. The bishops issued that statement in 2004 and it would be expected that a catholic institution would follow it when it is so clearly set-up just for that situation. There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.

Quote:

Because it's a character assasination.  For you to call me skitzophrenic for not agreeing that the Catholic church should determine policy at universities is something all togetherly different.




:crymeariver: :wink: That’s actually not at all why I called you a skitzo. You made a shot in the dark and so did I. Tit for tat. I am not trying to assassinate you or your character, trust me.

About Galileo, what I said is the true story. It’s no more church propaganda than looking at your weather forecast. If you want to talk propaganda then I believe yours would fall beatifully under athiest propaganda. The story of Galileo has been fabricated to make it look like a light side vs. dark side episode. Some people state that Galileo was tortured and placed under strict house arrest for life because of his views. I have proven to you that this is not the case. (Your source actually agrees too, btw.)Refer to my last post to see what really happended after the whole debacle.

If you disagree there are two very good historians who wrote about this, Gary Ferngren and Thomas Lessl. The story of Galileo has evolved like a game of telephone. Everytime someone tells it the story changes a bit. I would much more trust those two guys than Wikipedia, which is generally not a very trustable (or acceptable) source and is very suscetiple to the ‘telephone’ game effect.

Why was Galileo told not to advocate anything? Simple, as I already stated the world was very divided. The most prominent astronomer of that time was an advocate of geocentric. Galileo’s proofs and theory’s had holes in them and were not fully conclusive ( look at my past post for examples). As far as I know, this in no way means he was not allowed to continue researching nor was he being threatened with a ‘ban’. He messed up, that’s that. He advocated his theory as fact, he made fun of the pope, he lied in court and continued lying after documents had been found, he tried to make an idiot of the court by saying that they read his book wrong and he promoted heresy.
This is not the way it happened:

Galileo- "OMG, hey guyz I have a theory I just made up, the earth revolves around the sun! IT'S AWESOME"
Church- "WTF, we're going to put you on the rack until you say that your theory isn't absolutely true and say that you were jking!"
Galileo- "OW, the rack hurts, ok I was jping."
Church- "Good now go to your house and never step outside again!"

He was incredibly smart, yes, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t an ass. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Why was he not allowed to venture into scripture? Well because what he was teaching was heresy and it was a very, very bad time to promote heresy. As I said the Protestants were riding the Catholic’s hard because they said Catholic’s did not follow the Bible enough. He could NOT have picked a worse moment. I mean, it was the REFORMATION. He knew what was going on in the world at the time and more than that he had been REPEATEDLY warned for YEARS. (Let's also remember that he followed his promise for several years then when he thought that the new pope was a joke he broke his promise!)

Infact it is thought that if the incident of Galileo happened a few years before or after the reformation then this whole debacle would have never occurred.

Look buddy, I'm not trying to convert you or anyone here. What I am trying to do is set the record straight. I cannot stand militant atheism no more than I can stand fanaticism. You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts and don't try to make other people look like idiots for their beliefs.

That's not so wrong is it?


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10437595 - 06/01/09 10:20 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

CowFarmer said:Since you have such a deep seated love for evolution I�m sure you know Mendel, the guy who spent his whole entire life as a monk, invented the backbone for evolution. FYI, I made my list short for you to the most prominent ones so you wouldn�t have to spend so much time googling them and trying to prove me wrong.




Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.

By the way, it's misleading to list all those scientists who were Christians. Virtually everyone used to be Christian. It wasn't until the 19th century that people realized dinosaur fossils belonged to prehistoric animals, not dragons or Biblical creatures. They were ignorant, not by choice, to the revelations of science and modern humanism at that time. If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.

Speaking of which, what's the status of creationism and evolution as taught in Catholic schools? I never went to one is why I ask.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: THC Titan]
    #10437722 - 06/01/09 10:41 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

THC Titan said:
Quote:

CowFarmer said:Since you have such a deep seated love for evolution I�m sure you know Mendel, the guy who spent his whole entire life as a monk, invented the backbone for evolution. FYI, I made my list short for you to the most prominent ones so you wouldn�t have to spend so much time googling them and trying to prove me wrong.




Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.

By the way, it's misleading to list all those scientists who were Christians. Virtually everyone used to be Christian. It wasn't until the 19th century that people realized dinosaur fossils belonged to prehistoric animals, not dragons or Biblical creatures. They were ignorant, not by choice, to the revelations of science and modern humanism at that time. If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.

Speaking of which, what's the status of creationism and evolution as taught in Catholic schools? I never went to one is why I ask.





Actually Mendel is thought of as the father of heredity and did important work for genetics (He crossed different strains of pea plants and mice and so on.). http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php

Evolution is largely atrributed to Darwin but if he didn't know about heredity then he could have never written his book. ( E.g. This pea plant crosses with that one which gives it a better chance of surviving.)

Not everyone used to be a Christian but yea it was wide spread. The reason why I picked those scientists was because not only are they incredibly famous but also were pretty devout. I doubt that Newton would have not been a Christian, he was quite a strong advocate. Infact it could be said he based a lot of his discoveries off of his idea of God. That God created the universe and set well defined laws that could be observed. Either way it's speculation, you can't just say if then he might not have, we'll never know.

Catholic schools teach biology, chemistry, geography and every other science just as any other school (I've never heard differently and I've known of a few). They also teach religion, as a seperate class.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineTHC Titan
Spoonman
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 590
Loc: FL, USA
Last seen: 11 years, 1 month
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10439109 - 06/02/09 02:32 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

CowFarmer said:
Quote:

THC Titan said:
Mendel's work is the backbone of genetics, not evolution. Natural selection is the backbone of evolution and that was Charles Darwin.




Actually Mendel is thought of as the father of heredity and did important work for genetics (He crossed different strains of pea plants and mice and so on.). http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.php




That's what I said.

Quote:

Evolution is largely atrributed to Darwin but if he didn't know about heredity then he could have never written his book. ( E.g. This pea plant crosses with that one which gives it a better chance of surviving.)





Here you are quite wrong. Gregor Mendel: father of genetics. Charles Darwin: father of modern evolutionary theory. Darwin wasn't aware of Mendel's work when he wrote The Origin of Species, and created his own (flawed) hypothesis on heredity. Besides, like I said earlier, Charles Darwin introduced the concept of natural selection which is not dependent on the nitty-gritty details of genetic heredity, but rather, the observable phenotypes. That is why Darwin is clearly the father of evolutionary theory.

Quote:

THC Titan
If Newton had all the evidence we have today...he might not be a Christian.




Quote:

Not everyone used to be a Christian but yea it was wide spread. The reason why I picked those scientists was because not only are they incredibly famous but also were pretty devout. I doubt that Newton would have not been a Christian, he was quite a strong advocate. Infact it could be said he based a lot of his discoveries off of his idea of God. That God created the universe and set well defined laws that could be observed. Either way it's speculation, you can't just say if then he might not have, we'll never know.




I said the same thing as you - he might or might not have been. Nevertheless, he was a product of his time, and people used to use God even more to explain the unknown. His actual theories of what he could empirically test were achievements of science, not theology (although he did write a lot on religion).


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10446349 - 06/03/09 10:08 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Before you talk about militant atheism, you should know I'm not an atheist.  The simple fact that I believe the church is hypocritical and has no place in speaking on behalf of science or determining university policy shouldn't be grounds for saying I'm promoting militant atheism.

Quote:

Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible).




This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.  So if catholics could go against scripture, why can ND not put their own spin on the bishops' statements or ignore them completely?  After all, they should be ultimatley following the word of God and not the word of men.

Quote:

There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.




So how is this any different?  Some bishops issue a statement and ND has the right to 'interpret' it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about?  Just interpreting things however it suits their agenda?   

And the pope is not just a bishop.  He's the leader of the catholic church.  His word trumps the word of other bishops.  Had he spoke on this issue, the doctrine of papal infallibility would have made his word binding for the whole church.  Of course, the decree of papal infallibility was made in 1870, while ND was founded in 1842, so I'm not sure I would agree they should have to be bound by papal infallibility either.

Quote:

About Galileo, what I said is the true story.




I think you had too much of the kool-aid. 

You still failed to explain how the church had authority in even saying what Galileo was or was not allowed to theorize about.  Even if his theory did have holes in it (apparently not as many as the church's theory, btw), what authority did the church have to silence him because of his beliefs?  Why did they make him stand trial and make a heretic out of him instead of just scientifically proving him to be wrong in his assertations?  Why was the pope pretending to be a scientist in the first place?  Why did it take the church until 1992 to clear Galileo of wrongdoing?

You know what?  It doesn't even matter.  You've already admitted that the church went against science in a previous post.  That's good enough for me.

Quote:

You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts and don't try to make other people look like idiots for their beliefs.





Do you believe in God?  Do you have correct factual evidence for that belief?  Of course not, so why put stipulations on what I'm allowed to believe?


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/03/09 10:47 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineCowFarmer
Moo
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/07/09
Posts: 337
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: supernovasky]
    #10448828 - 06/03/09 06:59 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

----Before you talk about militant atheism, you should know I'm not an atheist.  The simple fact that I believe the church is hypocritical and has no place in speaking on behalf of science or determining university policy shouldn't be grounds for saying I'm promoting militant atheism.

Fair enough,I'll admit I assumed. Still doesn't change anything though.

-----Catholics are obliged to follow Tradition (capital T) and Scripture (Bible).



This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.


Nope.


Quote:


So if catholics could go against scripture, why can ND not put their own spin on the bishops' statements or ignore them completely?



Nope. Not the way it works.
Quote:


After all, they should be ultimately following the word of God and not the word of men.




Nope. Skewed history, skewed facts, skewed analysis. Catholics are Tradition and Bible, I've said it once, now I'm saying it twice.
Quote:



Quote:

There has been a lot of in-fighting with Catholics recently about what to follow and how to follow it, especially with abortion.




So how is this any different?  Some bishops issue a statement and ND has the right to 'interpret'



Nope. Incorrect reasoning, incorrect foundation, incorrect conclusion.
Quote:

  it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about? 




Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

Just interpreting things however it suits their agenda?




Nope. Not even close.
Quote:

 

And the pope is not just a bishop.


Quote:

  He's the leader of the catholic church.


Yes, spirtual leader. Stated above in a previous post.
Quote:

  His word trumps the word of other bishops.


Over-generalization, and not always.


Quote:

  Had he spoke on this issue, the doctrine of papal infallibility would have made his word binding for the whole church. Of course, the decree of papal infallibility was made in 1870, while ND was founded in 1842, so I'm not sure I would agree they should have to be bound by papal infallibility either.




Nope. Wrong again. No where close to correct. Incorrect reasoning, incorrect foundation, incorrect conclusion. Nope. Not really a choice. More than that, once again you speak on things for which you don't understand

I'm going to post this source right here, for fun.
lol, source?
Quote:





I think you had too much of the kool-aid.




Oh no, character assassination :crying: .
Quote:

You still failed to explain how the church had authority in even saying what Galileo was or was not allowed to theorize about.


Nope. I explained it. Read my posts, bob.
Quote:

  Even if his theory did have holes in it (apparently not as many as the church's theory, btw)


Nope. Church's theory on what? Which one? When? What does it matter? Galileo wasn't brought to court for his theory nor because of how many holes... Don't worry about it though....

Jesuits were one of the largest groups of leading astronomers. Brahe was pro geo... I've said all this before.


--------what authority did the church have to silence him because of his beliefs?


Read my past posts, he commited several errors. You can go to Washington D.C. and go ahead light up a crack pipe in front of Capital Hill and pull out a gun and shout on your megafone "ITS MY RIGHT, BITCHES IN CAP HILL CANT SILENCE ME!" Don't complain when you get shot. Terrible argument, everything depends on political climate. It used to be okay to grow hemp, kill horse stealers, put babies on stakes, now it's not.


-------Why did they make him stand trial and make a heretic out of him instead of just scientifically proving him to be wrong in his assertations?


Again, read my posts, bob. Kinda funny how to alotmost? of these statements made by you were answered, before.

----Why was the pope pretending to be a scientist in the first place?

Nope. When did I state that? Who stated that? Where? Source?lolofcnotdawg


-----Why did it take the church until 1992 to clear Galileo of wrongdoing?
Nope. No wrong doing, at least my mind. That though would be a political matter, your politics most likely differ from mine. I also don't believe in reparations. The last pope was a peace maker, he thought it was the smart thing to do. I don't think it should have happened. :shrug: politcs brah.

------------You know what?  It doesn't even matter.  You've already admitted that the church went against science in a previous post.  That's good enough for me.


Yep, I've admitted the Church went against science.... Nice job just breezing through EVERY OTHER point I made. There has to be at least a dozen unrefuted points I made proving that without Christianity western scientific knowledge would have been held back several centuries, maybe millenia.

Bob, I'm glad that's good enough for you. Guess what, with this post, it's good enough for me too.

--- Do you have correct factual evidence for that belief? 

For what belief, bob? For my personal religious beliefs? Of course I do, but is this the place for that question or an answer?

----Of course not, so why put stipulations on what I'm allowed to believe?----

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You don't have a right to spew libel or slander. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. Stipulations and rules are bundled together with society. Get over it.

However, I never put a single stipulation on what you can believe, I merely ask that you don't spew BS.


Edited by CowFarmer (06/03/09 07:33 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10449408 - 06/03/09 08:48 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Take what I said as you want, but homosexuality also includes engaging in sexual acts, which was what I was referring to.  The fact that you choose the churches definition of separating the two sides of homosexuality (homosexual desire vs. homosexual acts) is just that, your choice.  I, on the other hand, consider a homosexual person or a person that engages in homosexuality as one who engages in sex with a person of the same sex, and I thought most other people did, too.  Well, at least the people at Merriam-Webster do, so I could at least say I'm in good company.




One can be a homosexual without engaging in homosexual acts.  This isn't rocket science.  Even the dictionary, which you quoted, gives distinction between the two.  Based upon the context of your statement, which I quoted in a previous post, you were clearly speaking of homosexuality as a state of being, rather than homosexual acts.  You can try to weasel out all you like, but your original statement doesn't make sense if you pretend that you were talking about homosexual acts rather than homosexuality as a state of being. 

To illustrate, I will change your wording to be very un-"clear":
Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexual acts because they believe they are sin.  So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexual acts are not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




Uh, what?  People are born doing homosexual acts?  See, doesn't make sense.  You are clearly speaking about being born as a homosexual being, which is not a sin in the eyes of the church.  It is the homosexual acts that the the church has a problem with. For example, being a murder is not sin, but performing murder is.

Man up and admit you lost this round.

Quote:

But anyways, the church says that homosexuality (engaging in sex) is 'illegal' in their eyes because it is against the natural law.  For a professor to say homosexuality (the act of having homosexual desires or engaging in homosexual acts - it makes no difference) is natural, is going against church teachings.  To teach studens (sic) that sex has a purpose besides pro-creation would be going against church teachings.




And here you go again, changing the meaning of what you original said.  I'll quote you, again, so that we can keep you honest:

Quote:

So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexuality is not, in fact, a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?




How did you get from your original premise that a psych professor cannot teach about the origin of homosexuality (i.e. "people are born that way") to your new premise that "homosexual acts are natural and have a purpose"?  I clearly showed, by quoting Catholic law, that it is fine for a professor to teach about the origins of homosexuality (state of being, not the act of homosexual sex) being unclear.

I fail to see why you keep pretending that you said something other than what you said.  The record is clear.  The context is clear.  You were wrong.  Admit it, or drop it, and move on, but quite insinuating that I am misrepresenting what you said.  What you said may not be what you meant, but that isn't my problem.  It is what you wrote, and it is what I debated against.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10452435 - 06/04/09 09:35 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Even the dictionary, which you quoted, gives distinction between the two.




Yep, and it also shows that the word encompasses both meanings.

Quote:

The catholic church also has a moral standing against homosexual acts because they believe they are sin.




Makes perfect sense to me. 

Quote:

So can ND students not hear a psychology professor teach that homosexualtiy (being homosexual and engaing in sex with others of the same sex) is, in fact, not a chosen lifestyle, but that people are born that way and are innocent?





Both meanings inserted makes perfect sense.  If you only leave being homosexual in there, it's stil fine because I think of a homosexual person as one who engages in sex with others of the same sex.  You can't dismiss my argument on grounds of me not thinking of a homosexual as somebody who only thinks of having sex with others of the same sex but not actually doing it.

Quote:

For example, being a murder is not sin, but performing murder is.




Good analogy.

Quote:

origin of homosexuality (i.e. "people are born that way")




How are those two the same thing?  People being born as homosexuals constitutes the origin of homosexuality?  I think the origin of homosexuality would more aptly be discussed in the context of genetics (i.e. the mutation that causes people to be homosexual in the first place).  People being 'born that way' is much closer in meaning to it being natural.  If people are born that way (i.e. without the intervention of mankind) then that means, in my mind and I'm sure many others, that it is a natural thing.  So for a professor to say that people who are homosexuals are born that way is the same thing as saying homosexuality is natural.  No contradiction there and no change in argument as you suggest.

But go ahead and put effort into misinterpreting what I say.  It wasn't unreasonable to think that being homosexual encompasses engaging in sex with others of the same sex and it wasn't unreasonable for me to equate "being born that way" with something being "natural".


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Edited by pothead_bob (06/04/09 01:48 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: CowFarmer]
    #10452681 - 06/04/09 11:01 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Gee CowFarmer, so many good, well-thought, logical points, where do I start in my rebuttal?  :rofl:

Just kidding.  How about at the beginning:

Quote:

Still doesn't change anything though.




That you think my arguments are militant atheist?  Because I don't agree with the catholic church?  Haha, whatever.  The militant atheist movement is a drop in the pond compared to the militant religious movement that has been going on for millenia.

Quote:

This right here is a contradiction in itself considering catholic church tradition goes against scripture in certain instances.

Nope.




"Anyone who rejects Me and persistently sets Me at naught, refusing to accept My teachings, has his judge however: for the very message that I have spoken will itself judge and convict him at the last day." [John 12:48]

Now remember those words of Jesus because they directly warn mankind to follow him and him alone. 

"Jesus is the Rock and Peter is "a stone". 1Cor.10:4 and Jn.1:42

Catechism 552: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."284 Christ, the "living Stone",285 thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

Wait... Peter is the unshakeable rock and Jesus is the stone?  Looks like the church was trying to grab more power and control than they should have.

Flee riches. 1Tim.6:11 

And yet Roman Catholicism is the wealthiest religion in the world.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me,teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mk.7:7)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col.2:8) Mk.7 Mt.15


You pointed out yourself that the catholic church demands scripture AND tradition be followed with equal authority.  But here's catechism 82 anyway:

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

1
1 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions
2
through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3
They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4
For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving,
5
for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.


That was 1 Timothy 1-5.  Everything created by God is good?  Nothing to be rejected?  And yet, priests can't marry and the church doesn't consider everything made by God good (premarital sex, homosexuality).  Abstinence from foods?  The catholic church orders abstinence from eating meat on Fridays during lent (as if fish weren't a meat).

Call no man your Father. (Matt.23:9)

Priests are called father.

Do good to enemies. (Lk.9:52) Rom.11

Do I need to point out the obvious contradictions to this?

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1Tim.2:5)

But the church will be happy to become a middle man against the authority of God.

Mary had other children. (Ps.69:8, Matt.13:55-56)

Catechism 499: The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

Look, I proved my point.  The church is hypocritical.  Feel free to try and prove me wrong otherwise with something besides a "nope, noway, incorrect, incorrect basis".

Quote:

After all, they should be ultimately following the word of God and not the word of men.

Nope. Skewed history, skewed facts, skewed analysis. Catholics are Tradition and Bible, I've said it once, now I'm saying it twice




Actually, that is the way it works.  See 1Tim.2:5 if you don't believe me.

Quote:

it however they want.  After all, isn't that what the catholic church is all about? 

Nope. Not even close.




A lot closer than you give it credit.  See the above argument for proof of that.

Quote:

Over-generalization, and not always.




Prove it.

Quote:

I'm going to post this source right here, for fun.
lol, source?




Okay... from your source:

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17%u201319; John 21:15%u201317).

More proof that the pope is not just another bishop. Explicitly states pope is infallible in a special way.  What special ways?  Here are the teachings of the First Vatican Council:

Quote:

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority%u2026.")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)





Cannot get any more clear than that.  The Pope... is Infallible... when he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole church.  Had the pope said that the bishops' document concerning not honoring people not in line with catholic morales should be upheld by the whole church, then that decision would be considered infallible.  Just what are you trying to argue against anyway?

Quote:

Nope. Church's theory on what?




That the earth was the center of the universe.  They must have believed that if they were refuting Galileo's theory.  And so you know, the church (more specifically the pope) had NO authority in telling Galileo what he could and couldn't theorize about.  You DID NOT prove me otherwise.  The Jesuits were astronomers?  Who cares?  that doesn't explain Galileo being tried for Heresy.  He should have just had his theories dismissed by the astronomers.  Do you also rationalize away the recent murder of George Tiller?

Quote:

You can go to Washington D.C. and go ahead light up a crack pipe in front of Capital Hill




You're just being ridiculous now.  This, in no way, shape, or form is a valid analogy to Galileo claiming the earth wasn't the center of the universe.

Quote:

Nice job just breezing through EVERY OTHER point I made.




Most all points you made were malarchy.

Quote:

For what belief, bob? For my personal religious beliefs? Of course I do, but is this the place for that question or an answer?





Really?  You have factual evidence that God exists?  Then go write a paper which will settle the debate once and for all


Quote:

However, I never put a single stipulation on what you can believe, I merely ask that you don't spew BS




Really?  No stipulations?

Quote:


You choose what you want to believe but do it on the correct facts




If you're going to respond to me, all I ask is that you do so with logical arguments and not simple, second-grader-esque 'nope's and 'incorrect's.  After all, you're the one who righteously mentioned that debate should be a tool for expanding knowledge.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 19 days
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: pothead_bob]
    #10456222 - 06/04/09 09:39 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

>  it's stil fine because I think of a homosexual person as one who engages in sex with others of the same sex.

It doesn't matter what you think.  We are debating about the church, and the church has clearly delineated a difference between being homosexual and performing homosexual acts.

> You can't dismiss my argument on grounds of me not thinking of a homosexual as somebody who only thinks of having sex with others of the same sex but not actually doing it.

Yes I can, and I have.  Again, it doesn't matter what you think when we are discussing how the church views the issue.  You tried to use the church's viewpoint to support your argument; therefore, it is a fallacy to substitute your own (differing) viewpoint at a later time in place of the original premise you made with respect to the church.  You have tried to do a slight of hand, and I continue to call you out on it, and you continue to pretend that you have done no such thing.

Quote:

How are those two the same thing?  People being born as homosexuals constitutes the origin of homosexuality?  I think the origin of homosexuality would more aptly be discussed in the context of genetics (i.e. the mutation that causes people to be homosexual in the first place).  People being 'born that way' is much closer in meaning to it being natural.  If people are born that way (i.e. without the intervention of mankind) then that means, in my mind and I'm sure many others, that it is a natural thing.  So for a professor to say that people who are homosexuals are born that way is the same thing as saying homosexuality is natural.  No contradiction there and no change in argument as you suggest.




I have no idea what you are blathering about here.  Nobody knows for certain what causes people to become homosexual.  It could be genetics (i.e. you are born that way) or it could be nurturing (i.e. you learned to be that way).  Regardless, the church has said that the 'origins of homosexuality are unclear' which means that (in the eyes of the church) we don't know what causes it.  Again, "not natural" in the eyes of the church relates to the act of homosexual sex, not to the being a homosexual.  Something your mind cannot separate, but which the church clearly views as two different things.  Perhaps you should look up equivocation.

Just because somebody is born in a certain way does not make it natural.  If a person is born without arms or legs because of some random genetic mutation, is that natural?  No, it is not, as long as you use the proper definition of the word "natural" within this context.  Knowing you, that is asking a little too much.

Quote:

It wasn't unreasonable to think that being homosexual encompasses engaging in sex with others of the same sex and it wasn't unreasonable for me to equate "being born that way" with something being "natural".




Ah, I believe we have finally identified the problem: because you were arguing in context of the church's beliefs, it doesn't matter what you find reasonable, all that mattes is how the church views the issues.  You cannot substitute your beliefs in place of the church's beliefs to argue about ND and its teaching ethics with respect to the church's beliefs (which you conveniently changed to your own beliefs).


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinepothead_bob
Resident Pothead
Male

Registered: 04/12/08
Posts: 1,811
Loc: Your computer screen
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: President Obama's Notre Dame Speech [Re: Seuss]
    #10458892 - 06/05/09 11:18 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Again, it doesn't matter what you think when we are discussing how the church views the issue.




But it's not just me thinking that.  It's so widely believed that a homosexual is someone who has sex with others of the same sex, that homosexuality and egaging in homosexual acts are interchangeable that it's in the dictionary.  I could understand where you are coming from if I just made up the fact that homosexuality means that, but I didn't.  If I said the church believes butter is a sin, and then argue that I thought butter meant engaging in homosexual acts, then I could see where you are coming from because I would probably be the only person in the world who would hold that definition.  But that isn't even close to the case.

Quote:

I have no idea what you are blathering about here. 




Well then maybe you should read your last post because you are the one who tried to accuse me of changing my argument from a professor teaching of the 'origin of homosexuality' (which I never said) to what is 'natural'.  I'm 'blathering' about not changing my argument - proving your accusation wrong.  In response to your analogy, you have a skewed definition of 'natural', which is once again funny considering how you arrogently claim that my definitions of words are incorrect.  If a person is born without legs and arms, that is natural unless that defect was brought on by human intervention.  That is what natural means - no human intervention.  If homosexuality was a chosen lifestyle, that would mean that intervention of man was required (i.e. making the decision to be homosexual).  Now, it may not be normal to be born without legs/arms, but it would most certainly be natural.  Do you understand the difference?  So, once again, there was no disagreement between what I said in those two different posts - no change in argument. 

Quote:

Ah, I believe we have finally identified the problem: because you were arguing in context of the church's beliefs, it doesn't matter what you find reasonable, all that mattes [sic] is how the church views the issues.




Arguing in context?  I'm not sure what you mean, but simply put, I was pointing out a fact.  The church believes homosexual acts are sin, as you say and the catholics will agree.  Homosexuality clearly includes the acts of sex between members of the same sex - a fact I've been trying to point out to you this entire time.  I said the church finds homosexuality a sin.  There was no conflict in what I said as hard as you may try to fabricate it.  What do you actually believe I was talking about when I said 'lifestyle' and 'homosexuality'?  Having homosexual desire, but no sex?  Please.

What you've been doing is completely derailing the topic of this thread over semantics, continuously arguing about what I meant by the word homosexuality, all to prove that I know nothing of church dogma (which was funny, considering you first argued homosexual sex was not a sin, which is not right), when I've clearly proven that I know more than you give me credit for during the conversation of this thread.  Will you not conceed to the fact that, even if remotely in your mind, that it is possible that saying homosexuality means being a homosexual which means engaging in sex with others of the same sex?  I will admit that (although highly unlikely) it's possible to be homosexual without actually having homosexual sex.  But that proves nothing because it doesn't change the meaning of what I said in the first post.  Now, to prevent generating this controversy, I should have said, for a professor to teach that the homosexual lifestyle (having not just homosexual desire but also homosexual sex) is not a chosen lifestyle, but people are just born that way.  But I didn't say that and I think it's unreasonable to require that for my analogy to be valid so long as it was implied.  It's not unreasonble to believe a homosexual lifestyle includes homosexual sex.  It doesn't change the fact that when I said 'homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle', I was implying a lifestyle of homosexual sex and not just a lifestyle of homosexual desire.  Is that really so impossible for you to believe?  Believe me, I was aware of the church's stance of 'accepting homosexuals who deny the naturalness of their "condition"', but condeming homosexuals who fulfill their desire with sexual acts.


--------------------
No knowledge can be certain, if it is not based
upon mathematics or upon some other knowledge
which is itself based upon the mathematical
sciences.
  -Leonardo da Vinci (1425-1519)

Speak well of your enemies.  After all, you made them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains   North Spore Bulk Substrate, North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The first black president...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Le_Canard 4,932 69 01/30/07 01:48 PM
by Syle
* Obama Warns Pakistan on Terrorism elbisivni 828 5 08/01/07 07:52 PM
by Penguarky Tunguin
* Obama offers universal health care plan lonestar2004 1,330 18 05/30/07 12:20 PM
by lonestar2004
* Obama launches 2008 White House bid zorbman 2,259 16 01/17/07 08:14 PM
by zappaisgod
* Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
( 1 2 all )
wingnutx 2,486 35 08/19/03 09:18 AM
by shakta
* Young Republican National Federation president allegedly puts sleeping mans penis in his mouth.
( 1 2 3 all )
TheHateCamel 7,136 40 09/21/07 02:08 AM
by LucidDream
* Recent Gore speech
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 3,649 66 08/11/03 11:18 PM
by pattern
* Opinions on Chavez speech at the General Assembly?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
TheHateCamel 5,037 70 09/29/06 12:39 AM
by Economist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,708 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.044 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.