dimreepr

Even in England I still have the right to do both I just have to prove I’m worthy of that right.

There are non lethal versions of both so is your right to, potentially lethal, entertainment worth a life?

What's different about your guns?

Call it what you will but it’s noble to fight/die for the right to education for all, the right to be considered equal etc... I can’t think of anything noble in fighting (and others dying) for the right to kill; the gun has no other purpose than to injure or kill.

No it’s not; people die FOR rights not because of them. Edit... Besides that doesn't answer the question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33647535 How many more people have to die before your shame overcomes your need to hold on to the privilege of owning a lethal weapon?

The rest possibly means that one should follow societies rules such as “thou shall not kill” or “thou shall not steal” and to teach otherwise is immoral. Congrats...

Why would he need to say “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets” if people didn’t think he was? And given that “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” could easily mean, he doesn’t want to destroy their lives but show them a way to fulfil them.

Only the new testament and “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” seems to be teaching tolerance. I’ve always thought the old testament was only included to provide an example of how not to do it.

That very much depends on the intelligence of the individual.

How do you know? If we can't understand the message? For instance isn't tolerance taught in the bible?

A debate is seldom furthered by automatic gainsay. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/institute

A little out of context but the chefs orders only come into play when he’s not alone ergo an institute.

This doesn't contend my point, it reinforces it. It’s not religion but the institution of which there’re many.

I'm not trying to defend such atrocities nor am I trying to defend religion (I'm an atheist) I'm defending peoples right to choose.

TBH I think the current pope, pretty much, does get it but he’s hamstrung by the politics of the institution and therein lays the problem. On an individual bases I think religion mostly helps it’s the institution that hinders people’s lives. There are many people whose lives have been profoundly affected by religion becoming better for it like Richard Coles a vicar who’s openly gay and living with his partner, that’s progress at least. Denying people the opportunity of betterment is as bad as denying people the opportunity of education.

Just because the Pope doesn't get it doesn't mean humanity can't and god doesn't have to exist for the book to be real.

No, what I’m saying is his understanding of religion is flawed; if a chef buggers up a recipe is it the recipes fault?

Or maybe find another excuse, but how is that religions fault?

Neither.

How can it be? Catholicism may be the largest version of religion but it’s by no means the only one, therefore the Popes views can’t represent all of religion.

Things done in the name of religion doesn’t always equate with its intention. If a recipe isn’t followed properly the result can be unpalatable.

Indeed, however that doesn’t give anyone carte blanche for complete dismissal, context often allows limited understanding and it certainly doesn’t mean the books are wrong.

Time: “I’m so gay” If that was written in 1940/50 it would mean I’m happy but a few years later it would mean I’m homosexual. Culture: “I had faggots for lunch” In one culture that would mean I ate an offal meatball in another it means I attacked a homosexual. To add to the ambiguity translate the above into a language that has no word, or concept, for an offal meatball. Given that how can anyone possibly fully understand a book written in a different language and culture, centuries ago?

Since I haven’t mentioned Buddhism in this thread, perhaps you should read again and maybe think again, before deciding what opinions I have.