dimreepr

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.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70827-this-is-rather-as-if-you-imagine-a-puddle-waking

There’s a huge disparity between creating a government and choosing one; just because the question is simple doesn’t mean the answer isn’t complicated. I think perhaps you’re confused as to the intent of that quote; does the right of a society/country to self governance equate to an individual’s right to it?

Then why join the debate? Did you expect us to all fall at your feet without question? Or do you think an ad hom is a valid argument?

More than you it seems, given this rebuttal.

Time won’t change the reality but it will change our understanding of it. The truth won’t change but, over time, the letters might. See above. The two are fundamentally apposed, more knowledge will only further our understanding of that simple truth. TBH I don’t think science really cares. The only real point of reference is philosophy and both science and, to some extent, religion have, more or less, left that behind.

I think eventually it must, when a case can be made, and won, for expensive cosmetic surgery (not included: as a result of injury or birth defect), then a collapse seems inevitable; even the NHS can’t last if they always live beyond the budget. So maybe that conversation would be not so much interesting as excruciating.

Nice post. The founding fathers IMO set up an almost perfect system for that time and culture; we need to understand why and apply the wisdom to the modern world (a task beyond me but I’m sure it can be/needs to be done).

Don't try to understand too quickly, now you've read them go back to what you do understand and build on that, remember understand the lesson you're on before you move to the next. As to the topic question All you really need is passion so yes. This site is very good place to start on your journey, just ask and the kind members here will be happy to help. Enjoy...

Very good question and a little tricky because there are rules and people have used them to lord it over others but then all societies have those problems. I don’t think the two can be resolved as a whole, sure you may be able to find a convoluted way to reconcile two aspects and marry them and maybe even a few threads intertwine. The biggest obstacle to any meaningful reconciliation is the texts are out of their time and culture. So the only practical way to satisfactorily tackle the question is emotionally not easy without cognitive dissonance.

Yes but it hurt.

Protection from the wacko’s with easy access to guns is easier access to bigger guns.