That Lady Was So Fast She Killed Herself

[kuronosan]

Plow, you're the master of circular logic.

Ask yourself something for a moment - why was so much emphasis placed on Lot being savable and his family being saved when it turns out his daughters were just as sexually deviant?

Do you know why? Because the Old Testament hates women. Lot's wife was charred for looking back. Lot's daughters were whores. Eve is the reason paradise was lost.

It goes on and on and on and on. Women have been the oppressed sex in the bible for ever and ever. Yet it preaches tolerance. Protestants take this interpretation literally where oppressing those who are 'different' or who don't believe the same should be cast out. This is what most people take away from Sodom and Gomorrah's story.

I'm well aware of the mechanics of apneal ejaculation but let's be realistic here. For two daughters to constantly take turns having sex with their father and him to NEVER take notice is to believe that Jesus never had children. It's plausible, sure, but highly improbable.

Knowing what we know about the reproductive system, we'd assume they would have had to simply have guessed that they were ovulating and that they both just happened to get pregnant at the same time, right? Wrong. That's such a high coincidence that BOTH would end up that way from only a single time that it's evident it's merely a story. Which is what most of what the bible is.

Catholics don't really literally interpret the bible, at least progressives don't. Protestants believe all the same things that the Catholics do. The only difference is they don't believe in confession, and they don't seem to believe in religious tolerance.

[AidenCarby]

It's scary, the amount of sense that post just made lol. Kudos

[Plow]

Protestants believe all the same things that the Catholics do. The only difference is they don't believe in confession, and they don't seem to believe in religious tolerance.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a78...aha_oh_wow.jpg

[Plow]

Also, sorry, I was just loling about the implication that a man couldn't have sex while asleep, I have no interest in arguing your literal interpretations.

[Stiker]

Protestants believe all the same things that the Catholics do. The only difference is they don't believe in confession, and they don't seem to believe in religious tolerance.

Uh...no. This isn't even close to being right. Depending on which Protestant sect you are referring to, they all differ from Catholicism in so many different ways.

Methodists, for instance, also have a very different belief in Communion. The bread and wine are only symbols of Jesus' body and blood. Not like the Transubstantiation that Catholics believe at all, which states the elements actually do become the body and blood. Furthermore, there is no belief in the need for First Communion or any other restrictions in being allowed to take it. It's an open table in the Methodist Church and any and all can receive it if they wish.

Now Church of Christ is even more different than that. They have restrictions on when you can take Communion and that is being baptized (and their baptism beliefs run much like the Baptist faith).

That's just one example. Every church has so many varying beliefs on the sacraments alone that to say Protestant faiths believe nearly the same thing as Catholics is beyond laughable.

And as for religious tolerance, that is false as well. Yes, the more fundamentalist faiths tend to preach "be saved or be burned", but others very much believe in religious tolerance and differing paths to God.

[Pirian]

And as for religious tolerance, that is false as well. Yes, the more fundamentalist faiths tend to preach "be saved or be burned", but others very much believe in religious tolerance and differing paths to God.

As long as you aren't gay! Am I right or am I right?

[Stiker]

As long as you aren't gay! Am I right or am I right?

Again, depends on who you are talking about. There are varying beliefs on that as well.

[Yugl]

Except that they never said that. And this isn't HS, lol.

The place where you learn it is of little importance. The end result, that is, the formula, is strictly followed because you assume it works in other scenarios (i.e. just because it happened once, it will happen again). You also assume that independent variables are not endogenous to the dependent variable.

As for Sylvr and the other guy who mentioned that science looks for errors, you realize that the entire scientific process itself is one huge belief system in of itself right? Science demands that you adhere to this process and that whatever comes out of it be the standing law so far in as it was conducted thoroughly. What science does is essentially accommodate itself such that it can include new instances of contradiction.

If you're not following, I'll simply the logic question for you: "how would I be able to prove science wrong"? The fact is that it technically has been disproven a long time ago. The methodology demanded of science yields results. Many of these results have been proven wrong over time. However, do we discard the scientific method? No. We blindly continue to follow the methodology because once contradictions are formed, science says "Oh well uh... new science! Now with Kelvin scale!". Moreover, in addition this blind trust, there are also leaps of faith in science. For instance, temperature for a long time was calculated using arbitrary scales (Note that you cannot say a temperature 2x is as hot in Fahrenheit and Celsius until you include thermodynamics and Kelvin scales). Yet, they were widely believed in without establishing it at the ratio level (The only point at which you can assert a true 0 scale that is unarbitrary). As you can tell, I'm not invested in these type of sciences, so I cannot give more modern examples, but I assure you that at some point in the game, you're making assumptions or leaps of faith. Overall, the situation is two dimension: belief where people are incapable of devising better information and broadening the basis of findings and continued belief in the process itself despite the potential of yielding false results.

I'll leave it at that as my explanation. PMs if desired.

[Eratosthenes]

Science demands that you adhere to this process and that whatever comes out of it be the standing law so far in as it was conducted thoroughly.

No. It doesn't.

The methodology demanded of science yields results. Many of these results have been proven wrong over time. However, do we discard the scientific method? No.

Because when it disproves things, IT'S WORKING! This is exactly why scientists don't claim absolute knowledge about anything: it could be disproven in the future. They have no blind faith that their results are the final answer.

Go back to school.

[Pirian]

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Cadsuane]

The place where you learn it is of little importance. The end result, that is, the formula, is strictly followed because you assume it works in other scenarios (i.e. just because it happened once, it will happen again). You also assume that independent variables are not endogenous to the dependent variable.

As for Sylvr and the other guy who mentioned that science looks for errors, you realize that the entire scientific process itself is one huge belief system in of itself right? Science demands that you adhere to this process and that whatever comes out of it be the standing law so far in as it was conducted thoroughly. What science does is essentially accommodate itself such that it can include new instances of contradiction.

If you're not following, I'll simply the logic question for you: "how would I be able to prove science wrong"? The fact is that it technically has been disproven a long time ago. The methodology demanded of science yields results. Many of these results have been proven wrong over time. However, do we discard the scientific method? No. We blindly continue to follow the methodology because once contradictions are formed, science says "Oh well uh... new science! Now with Kelvin scale!". Moreover, in addition this blind trust, there are also leaps of faith in science. For instance, temperature for a long time was calculated using arbitrary scales (Note that you cannot say a temperature 2x is as hot in Fahrenheit and Celsius until you include thermodynamics and Kelvin scales). Yet, they were widely believed in without establishing it at the ratio level (The only point at which you can assert a true 0 scale that is unarbitrary). As you can tell, I'm not invested in these type of sciences, so I cannot give more modern examples, but I assure you that at some point in the game, you're making assumptions or leaps of faith. Overall, the situation is two dimension: belief where people are incapable of devising better information and broadening the basis of findings and continued belief in the process itself despite the potential of yielding false results.

I'll leave it at that as my explanation. PMs if desired.

Temperature scales only exist as definitions and are hence not really subject to belief or disbelief, and calling it arbitrary is redundant since any scale is arbitrary by definition. Whether the celsius scale is "true" or "false" or "believed in" are quite meaningless distinctions. Your argument's pretty fucking thin here.