I didn't say that "WWII was influenced to any great extent by religion".
Try to read properly next time.
When you start talking sense I'll read it.
I am well aware of liberation theology. I am also well aware – and have pointed out more than once – that the Catholic hierarchy rejected it and, indeed, did sweet FA to challenge (or help priests on the ground) challenge Latin American fascism – unlike communist eastern Europe.
Indeed, there are questions about the new pope and whether he even shopped two priests with liberation theological stances to the dictatorship.
The Pope could have pulled the trigger himself - it would still be irrelevant. I stated that despite its many crimes the Catholic Church (along with other major religions, I might add), has also served as a socially beneficial agent. As evidence I introduced Liberation Theology, which has gained not just millions of followers but also praise across the globe (including America - the very nation it has fought bitterly against).
If you were genuinely interested in pursuing the truth you'd just agree and from thereon we might possibly have an intellectually stimulating discussion about what can only be described as a radical, not to mention - extremely encouraging, ecclesiastical development which is re-shaping South America for the better.
Instead you childishly attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting that because a handful of high-ranking Catholics in Rome threw a hissy fit, Liberation Theology and Catholicism are now on a completely different page. Which, no doubt, will come as a shock to the thousands of Argentinian, Chilean, Bolivian etc. priests who consider themselves Catholic, are based in Catholic churches, deliver Catholic mass three times each day etc.
This may come as a surprise to you but when the judge sends you to prison he doesn't give your concept of mathematics - which exists in YOUR HEAD - freedom to return home. As I said - inseparable.
Sorry, but you are still conflating knowledge with the people who have that knowledge. Knowledge (in this example mathematics) cannot behave well or badly, if the judge imprisons me for my antisocial use of it, it is I who will be imprisoned, not the knowledge. The knowledge is still extant and could, for example, be used by another person for purposes of good.
According to your view, there must be good knowledge and evil knowledge. That, to me, is a nonsense and is the route that Pol Pot took.
In which case, by your own 'logic', I was either talking sense – or your replied to something that you now admit you didn't read.
Mind, there seems to be the tiniest flaw in the 'logic' that says that you have godlike enough powers to 'know' whether something makes sense before reading it, thus making it feasible to decide whether to actually read it or not on the basis such knowledge.
Really? Are you not aware of any number of horrific (and quite terminal) experiments conducted on human beings which have been rationalised in scientific terms?
That is not 'killing in the name of science'. I have already stated that some people abuse the scientific process for evil purposes (including countless religious people).
What I'm saying is that you don't see those who accept the evidence for climate change waging war on the idiots who deny its existence. You don't see rallies with hordes of tank-topped, bespectacled men holding up placards saying 'behead those who insult the peer-review process'. Compare that with the major religions who have always killed in the name of their 'God', and continue to do so.
Sorry, but you are still conflating knowledge with the people who have that knowledge.
You said that before. And before that. Is this some kind of Chinese water torture?
According to your view, there must be good knowledge and evil knowledge.
Your interpretations of my words are precisely that and I can't put them more simply. Impasse.
To be honest, I'm struggling to grasp your disconnect. Nothing I have said is particularly (pardon the pun) heretical. Robert Oppenheimer, Richard Feynman and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky wrote at length about the troubling indivisibility of science and scientist. If you are interested the American version of the Open University (TCC) runs an excellent course on Science (which the resourceful should have no difficulty locating) and devotes an entire module to this thorny question.
That, to me, is a nonsense and is the route that Pol Pot took.
In which case, by your own 'logic', I was either talking sense – or your replied to something that you now admit you didn't read.
It was biased rhetoric (primarily through omission). I guess there's some internal logic within your own warped frame of reference but beyond that ...
Mind, there seems to be the tiniest flaw in the 'logic' that says that you have godlike enough powers to 'know' whether something makes sense before reading it, thus making it feasible to decide whether to actually read it or not on the basis such knowledge.
Seems like the Guides leadership is out of touch. The new Superman film has been marketed via churches in the USA on account of its Christian-like message. Churches were given film clips, ideas for sernons, etc and it's been a huge box office success.
Not as big as Titanic, which if you believe was essentially about god murdering 1,500 people by flicking an ice cube at them.
Also, if religion is the foundation of morality, how does the mafia as devout Catholics work?
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan