Archaeologica.org

Rokcet Scientist wrote:Latest feat:
untold millions of AIDS dead in Africa because the church disapproves of condoms. The holocaust was a picknick compared to that.
And it's going on right under our noses.
As we speak.
Religious terror never stops.

Without taking sides in this 'debate', I suggest you get your facts right-only the ROMAN CATHOLIC church disapproves of condoms. I doubt whether Africa's entire population are RC, and why would non-Catholics take any notice of Papal Bulls anyway?

ANY religion, Bob.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:Latest feat:
untold millions of AIDS dead in Africa because the church disapproves of condoms. The holocaust was a picknick compared to that.
And it's going on right under our noses.
As we speak.
Religious terror never stops.

Without taking sides in this 'debate', I suggest you get your facts right-only the ROMAN CATHOLIC church disapproves of condoms. I doubt whether Africa's entire population are RC, and why would non-Catholics take any notice of Papal Bulls anyway?

RK:
"A rose would smell as sweet if called by any other name."
William Shakespeare

Newsflash; it's been 500 years since the Vatican was the ONLY Christian church. Blaming it for AIDS is about as puerile as blaming the Americans.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Newsflash; it's been 500 years since the Vatican was the ONLY Christian church. Blaming it for AIDS is about as puerile as blaming the Americans.

Read it again, RK:
I don't blame the church for AIDS, I do blame the church for hundreds of millions of unneccessary victims to AIDS. But the subtle difference might evade you.

So, in the course of three posts, the number of AIDS deaths in Africa has risen from 'untold millions' to 'hundreds of millions'-according to YOU.
Not only did you fail to specify which church you were referring to, you underlined your own stupidity by comparing it to the Holocaust.

Rokcet Scientist wrote: The Holocaust was a picknick compared to that

But the subtle difference might escape you.....

Blame the government, they have the cure for AIDS,some cancers etc etc...call it conspiracy theory, call it fact...up to you!

Okay, so I'm going to break the promise I made myself NOT to get involved in any of your ridiculous arguments concerning religion. BUT this is too much. The problem of AIDS in Africa has nothing to do with religion, or even the government, as we know it, but it has everything to do with the tribal mentality of the men. Anything that would lessen their enjoyment of sex is refused, and I've been told that condoms do have a somewhat negative effect. They have no respect for women and believe that the whole mess is because women are so inferior. They believe it is their right to have sex with as many women as they can and want. Even when medicine is available many of them refuse to take it. I don't even want to go into what those men do to baby girls, thinking that it will cure their problem. They have a problem alright, it's between their ears.

why would non-Catholics take any notice of Papal Bulls anyway

As a former Catholic I don't pay much attention to papal bull, either.

Your kind have shed too much blood in god's name throughout history for it to merit anything but scorn.

unfortunately this is too true and it does not make me happy but saddens me instead. those people who have done so, and i will limit those involved to after Christ's death to the modern age, i would doubt their own faith and belief. but i would not extrapolate that mentality to ALL christians nor would i assume that such an attitude exists in all believers.

instead,i would ask you to use your intelligence and discern the difference between true believers in Christ and those who use God's name to further their own ends.

i do not think you would want to be includedin the blame for Hitler's actions nor do i want to be blamed for something i had no part of nor condone.

untold millions of AIDS dead in Africa because the church disapproves of condoms.

it is easy to use misguided actions by some or many as an excuse for your rejecting christianity and remaining in your own beliefs, but it boils down to the fact that you still have a choice. though, that choice is not between your ways and bad christians, it is between following God or evil. what other people do is their responsibility and what you choose is yours.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:So, in the course of three posts, the number of AIDS deaths in Africa has risen from 'untold millions' to 'hundreds of millions'-according to YOU.

100 to 200 million DEAD are the latest official estimates.
Is that enough for you...?

Not only did you fail to specify which church you were referring to,

I didn't 'fail' to specify which church, RK. I didn't specify on purpose. Because it is IRRELEVANT which church. What's important that it is a CHURCH!

you underlined your own stupidity by comparing it to the Holocaust.

Of course! "The Holocaust" (mind the capital H!). How could anything ever be worse than what was done to those poor jews.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:100 to 200 million DEAD are the latest official estimates.
Is that enough for you...?

'Estimates' is a polite term for 'guesses'; ie, they don't actually know!

Rokcet Scientist wrote:I didn't 'fail' to specify which church, RK. I didn't specify on purpose. Because it is IRRELEVANT which church. What's important that it is a CHURCH!

And as I pointed out, only one faith condemns the use of condoms. So in your haste to use sweeping generalisations to make sensationalist points, you undermined your own argument. There is no such thing as 'the church', and hasn't been since the Reformation.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:

Rokcet Scientist wrote:100 to 200 million DEAD are the latest official estimates.
Is that enough for you...?

'Estimates' is a polite term for 'guesses'; ie, they don't actually know!

Nobody can know until it's all over, RK. That's in 30/40 years from now. Until then we'll have to make do with estimates.
And is it important whether it is ONE hundred million dead people or TWO hundred million..........?

Rokcet Scientist wrote:I didn't 'fail' to specify which church, RK. I didn't specify on purpose. Because it is IRRELEVANT which church. What's important that it is a CHURCH!

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:And as I pointed out, only one faith condemns the use of condoms. So in your haste to use sweeping generalisations to make sensationalist points, you undermined your own argument. There is no such thing as 'the church', and hasn't been since the Reformation.

So, RK, you apparently don't see the wood for the trees anymore.
You need glasses.

Oh, my eyesight's fine...good enough to see that you don't actually have an argument, just a penchant for sensational generalisations.
WHO made these estimates, and how did they arrive at those figues?
If I was the leader of a faith (not 'church') which didn't condemn the use of condoms, I would be less than chuffed at being tarred with the same brush as the Roman Catholic faith, which does; so specifying which faith-or church in your words-IS particularly relevant.

RK Awl-O'Gist wrote:Oh, my eyesight's fine...good enough to see that you don't actually have an argument, just a penchant for sensational generalisations.
WHO made these estimates, and how did they arrive at those figues?
If I was the leader of a faith (not 'church') which didn't condemn the use of condoms, I would be less than chuffed at being tarred with the same brush as the Roman Catholic faith, which does; so specifying which faith-or church in your words-IS particularly relevant.

Of course it is. To you! Because from it you derive the 'right' to shirk your co-responsibility.