Religion as a Limiter

[Bloodcinder]

I thought about this because of something Soma said in the god thread (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showpost.php?p=14115&postcount=13).

I also think that religion prevents the ascension of thought... ...that I can not fully have a conversation with someone about 'self' (or the perceived ego that shapes every event in our life, by weights and measures [or standards of our own personal values]) with someone who is devoutly religious.

Let's for a moment settle on a concept. I know there is a difference between religion and faith. Let's exclude faith from the concept and focus only on religion. Religion is a set of principles held by a person to be absolute and transcendent in origin. I believe that definition will suit most people without argument.

Now, I used to be a person of religion. To an extent, perhaps I still am, since I believe that grace and love are the absolute principles by which the world is capable of running without chaos. However, what Soma said reminded me a lot of some things I learned in my "ethics class" in college, something which kind of shaped how my beliefs turned out in the end.

The question I will pose is the following: Does religion limit a person's ability to properly ascertain his own existence and that of others? I know very well that some people very pleased with their religion will say no, and I know very well that some people very pleased with their non-religion will say yes. My feelings are mixed.

I think that for the vast majority of people religion is a limiting factor in life. The preponderance of people in the United States who base public policy which affects other individuals on one particular religion is astounding. Nevertheless, religion does provide a handy backbone for a concept of morality which is generally beneficial. (Let's not delve into the foundations of morality (http://www.unitedempire.net/forums/showthread.php?t=283), though.)

Religion has been famously called a crutch or drug for the masses. I think that this is vacuously true. I believe that humans are biologically geared to seek the metaphysical, generally culminating in some sort of code based on their findings. This code generally conforms to the social norms inherent in human relations and upholds the majority culture.

However, not everybody who has religion follows it in such a way as to preclude all other possible outlooks on life. I know plenty of people, including my best friend, who very much have a perspective that is more traditionally religious than my own without being thoughtless automatons. But how do the various classes of people, those who can properly handle religion and those who cannot, affect the world, and do we give either too much credit or too much blame to religion?

To reword the original question and prompt the discussion, allow me to ask the following: Does an adherence to religion inhibit progress? Let's get it on.

[Arainach]

Prohibit? No. There are many documented great thinkers who held at least some religious beliefs throughout the course of time. But inhibit? Yes. All popular organized religions with the exception of several eastern ones such as Buddhism fear and discourage independent thought. They cull their membership specifically for gullibility and blind devotion, and most of their members are members because of being indoctrinated at young, impressionable ages rather than making educated decisions later in life. As such, I consider it indisputable that religion inhibits progress.

[deathofcheese]

Does religion limit a person's ability to properly ascertain his own existence and that of others? [...] Does an adherence to religion inhibit progress?Absolutely.

While it's not impossible to make great discoveries in non-religious fields while practicing one form of religion or another, they very point/object/goal of a religion (at least, my experiences with Christianity) seems to be to unite people into thinking and acting one way. I noticed it myself when it suddenly dawned on me that the Mass seemed very much like people reciting prayers because everyone else was and they didn't want to stand out by not doing the same. People are the sheep and the leaders are the shepherds. While people don't necessarily become 'mindless sheep', religion does 'pull the wool down over their eyes' very well.

For an extreme example of this, look up the documentary Jesus Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_camp) or anything that has to do with Scientology. Particularly in Jesus Camp, it's shown how that particular brand of evangelical Pentecostal Holiness brainwashes children and followers to listen for key phrases and instantly turn their brain off to prevent fruitful discussion that might eventually plant a seed of doubt or test the faithfulness of the person in question.

[Killer_Man_]

I do agree with that it prohibits thought to some people, I used to be a hardcore Christian till I got into confirmation class(see other thread). I then realized on how they want you all to believe and think of what the church mass does.

I still believe in my religion and my God, I just don't do organized religion or church.

[Gio Takahashi]

Does an adherence to religion inhibit progress?[/B] Let's get it on.

I think it depends on the religion for the most part. Most religion would inhibit progress, yes. For example, take a look at devout Christians and how they feel about various things, say, Homosexuality. Just one of the example here.

I generally approach thing with a very open mind, and don't let religion try to limit what I CAN do.

[Seegtease]

Yes, it inhibits progress. But whether a particular progress is good or bad is another question.

Even if I believe a book that is 2000 years old, and parts of it older, I don't think holding to such "old values or laws" is inhibiting any good progress. I believe this because being that I believe all of the Bible to be God breathed, and God being omniscient, I also believe that when it was inspired, God was not ignorant of the condition of the world 2000+ years later, and wouldn't allow the Bible to be written in such a manner that it would need to be changed later on to make up for changing times to allow for good progress.

But to the initial question - yes, it inhibits, but I don't believe it inhibits any good progress.

[Arainach]

*checks to see if LH requested no arguing in this thread*

No good progress, hmm? Religion has destroyed piles of good progress. Look at what Greece and Rome became in terms of science and technology. Then look at how it took Europe more than a thousand years to begin to approach that level again after the Christians started destroying all books and knowledge they didn't agree with. Christianity opposed the Heliocentric solar system model - are you going to tell me the space program isn't good progress? Darwin's theory of evolution, a favorite religious bashing-point, has contributed vastly to our understanding of biology and genetics, and some truly stunning medical breakthroughs have been the indirect result.

Care for me to go on?

[Seegtease]

Darwin's theory of evolution, a favorite religious bashing-point, has contributed vastly to our understanding of biology and genetics, and some truly stunning medical breakthroughs have been the indirect result.

And also indirectly resulting in the genocide of millions, but that side doesn't matter.

I should elaborate. My particular religion which is not the one or ones you are describing does not inhibit good progress.

[Arainach]

Oh, I'd truly love to hear this one. How is evolution responsible for genocide? And if you say anything about 'justifying a race as superior to another' try to remember that before evolution came around, that same shit was justified using the Bible.

Once again, saying "my religion" or "God" is responsible for everything good and nothing bad is, for lack of an eloquent term, fucking bullshit. Can't just separate them that easily.

[chefTENGU]

I had to succeed on a DC 25 Fortitude save to keep from blowing a blood vessel reading some of these posts.

Religion can be inhibiting. It depends on the individual. The majority of people who consider themselves religious, I believe, do use their religion as a crutch and an excuse to stop thinking. However, this is a terrible misuse of religion and goes strictly against its purpose.

Religion is about giving structure to one's faith, providing food for thought and access to other religious thinkers in the interest of furthering our understanding of the divine.

And Deathofcheese, remember you're only getting the Mass as it's existed since Vatican II. Traditionally, the service is held entirely in Latin, with no responses from the congregation whatsoever. The mass is not some sort of hypnotic mind control.

[Seegtease]

If you really believe in Dawin's theory of evolution, there is no good reason not to eliminate the weakest humans to cause progress to occur at a faster rate. If you're trying to survive hiking in a snowstorm, and you slow your pace to the fat guy in the back, you're endangering everybody. Rather, it's best to kill off the weak. As you said in the oil thread - it may be painful now, but it will pay off much more greatly in the long run.

Darwin's theory has all kinds of roots tied to his own racist views (which were common in his time). Also feeding the ideals held by a certain Nazi ruler.

There is no way to justify genocide through the Bible, sorry.

[Arainach]

That's the ill-named 'social darwinism', which is totally unrelated to Darwin's theory and represents a mindset that predates Darwin by thousands of years.

And tell that 'can't justify it using the Bible' thing to people who used it to justify slavery, war, eliminating the jews, eliminating the blacks, and all those other nasty things one thinks of over the course of time.

[chefTENGU]

No good progress, hmm? Religion has destroyed piles of good progress. Look at what Greece and Rome became in terms of science and technology. Then look at how it took Europe more than a thousand years to begin to approach that level again after the Christians started destroying all books and knowledge they didn't agree with. Christianity opposed the Heliocentric solar system model - are you going to tell me the space program isn't good progress? Darwin's theory of evolution, a favorite religious bashing-point, has contributed vastly to our understanding of biology and genetics, and some truly stunning medical breakthroughs have been the indirect result.

I will respond to this in full once my anger subsides. I'm so full of rage my fingers might break my keyboard.

[Seegtease]

And tell that 'can't justify it using the Bible' thing to people who used it to justify slavery, war, eliminating the jews, eliminating the blacks, and all those other nasty things one thinks of over the course of time.

I would if I could, Ary.

[Arainach]

I think the point you're missing is this:

This thread is about religion as a limiter. Your personal brand of spirituality may be magical, wonderful, and all about what Jesus taught (which really was kind of nice). Unfortunately, no organized religion has ever followed that even remotely closely. Religion has and continues to impede and limit good progress.

[chefTENGU]

Arguments like yours, Ary, are quick to forget that the actions of people do not necessarily reflect the true beliefs, dogma, or doctrine of their religion.

You see... there's this thing in religion called sin. It's used to indicate actions which the religion frowns upon. In my religion, we believe that no one is above sinning. Not even people who apparently think or act like they are.

[Arainach]

All of the things I described (book burnings, opposition to heliocentrism, opposition to evolution, justification for genocide) have been, through the course of time, professed, encouraged, and acted out by those in the highest and lowest levels of organized religions. Especially the Catholic church, which has gotten considerably better in the last 30 years but for the majority of existence has been the single greatest source of repression - of women, blacks, homosexuals, jews, muslims, etc. - on this planet.

[Seegtease]

Religion in general? In that case, I'd agree with you.

My religion? No.

[Bloodcinder]

*checks to see if LH requested no arguing in this thread*
Arguing is fine.

...for lack of an eloquent term, fucking bullshit.
But being harsh is not.

If you really believe in Dawin's theory of evolution, there is no good reason not to eliminate the weakest humans to cause progress to occur at a faster rate.
False. Keeping the weak around helps the gene pool and natural selection.

I tend to agree with what Zeit is saying, but Ary has a point, however rudely put: religion in general is the topic, not specific religions, or true religions, or false religions, or any stipulations like that.

[chefTENGU]

All of the things I described (book burnings, opposition to heliocentrism, opposition to evolution, justification for genocide) have been, through the course of time, professed, encouraged, and acted out by those in the highest and lowest levels of organized religions. Especially the Catholic church, which has gotten considerably better in the last 30 years but for the majority of existence has been the single greatest source of repression - of women, blacks, homosexuals, jews, muslims, etc. - on this planet.

Forget it. I'm not going to attempt an intelligent debate here.

I'll just close by mentioning that it might help if you did some actual research into Church history, instead of merely re-hashing the drivel that vehement church-haters are wont to regurgitate into the popular consciousness ad nauseam.

You might learn about people like St. Augustine and the importance of his thinking on the early Church, particularly in his admonition against a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You might also hear about the true aspects of the inquisition, and may even be amazed to know that they emphasized forgiveness and reunion with the Church, until Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain demanded control of the inquisition within their borders, then abused it as a way to persecute other catholics.

You may also find the fact that the Catholic Church has ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION particularly enlightening. Since 1946, the Church has accepted Darwin's famed theory as the best explanation of the origin of the human species and our earthly bodies. And believe you me, anyone who tells you different, be it a teacher or a priest even, is dead wrong.

[Seegtease]

If you say religions in general, LH, the answer is overly obvious. There are way too many religions out there that really have some backwards thinking, and true Christians and atheists can actually agree on this. If you say religion in general, there's not much to discuss.
Double Post
Can't give you any more Karma atm, but chef - even though I don't agree with your beliefs exactly, I really do admire your personal faith and passions about it.

[Killer_Man_]

The only time religion gets a bad is people who are the bleeding heart ones who go out and say FOR -insert god- and then goes onto mass murder, wars and etc.

[Bloodcinder]

Forget it. I'm not going to attempt an intelligent debate here.
Don't let him get to you, buddy. If you mirror his anger, you'll just feel worse in the end.

If you say religions in general, LH, the answer is overly obvious. There are way too many religions out there that really have some backwards thinking, and true Christians and atheists can actually agree on this. If you say religion in general, there's not much to discuss.
True, but I'm less concerned with true Christians than I am with typical Christians.

The only time religion gets a bad is people who are the bleeding heart ones who go out and say FOR -insert god- and then goes onto mass murder, wars and etc.
That's the point: religion can make it possible to justify anything. Depending on what it justifies, it can be good or bad. The question is: do the majority of religions justify the good or the bad? That's another way to ask it. Does religion justify the inhibition of progress?

[Arainach]

Forget it. I'm not going to attempt an intelligent debate here.

I'll just close by mentioning that it might help if you did some actual research into Church history, instead of merely re-hashing the drivel that vehement church-haters are wont to regurgitate into the popular consciousness ad nauseam.

You might learn about people like St. Augustine and the importance of his thinking on the early Church, particularly in his admonition against a literal interpretation of Genesis.

You might also hear about the true aspects of the inquisition, and may even be amazed to know that they emphasized forgiveness and reunion with the Church, until Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain demanded control of the inquisition within their borders, then abused it as a way to persecute other catholics.

You may also find the fact that the Catholic Church has ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION particularly enlightening. Since 1946, the Church has accepted Darwin's famed theory as the best explanation of the origin of the human species and our earthly bodies. And believe you me, anyone who tells you different, be it a teacher or a priest even, is dead wrong.I'm a student of both church history and actual history, and I'd simply point out that the Church's track record points more and more to them ignoreing people like Augustine and supporting people who advocated the opposite.

Also, 1946? Wow, only 80 years late on that one. As I said, the Catholic Church has gotten better recently, but for much of its existence it has been one of the most damaging organizations in the world.

[SomaticCorpse]

K, first of all... Use of the Catholic church as an appeasing example of all that is good and virtuous in religion is a bad idea.

I highly recommend reading "Galileo's Daughter", so you can get a sense of what it was like for 'scientists' back in the days of the Inquisition. In fact, as I recall, all authors, printers and booksellers could be excommunicated and (probably) killed for committing heresy, in textual form.

"When Galileo wished to publish a book which argued for the Copernican system, he attained the required stamp of approval from the religious authority (a requirement for all books published in Italy at the time [He talked, personally to Pope Urban VIII, a dear friend.]) but circumstances led Pope Urban VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Urban_VIII) to ban it and denounce Galileo as a heretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy), even though he was a devout Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism)." - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Daughter)

"On 31 October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_31) 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992), Pope John Paul II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II) expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Council_for_Culture)." - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_controversy).

So, 360 years later, the church finally concedes it was wrong... Not a good example.

While I feel that religion is good, in some ways, it does tend to inhibit the progression of man. Had Johannes Kepler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler) lived in Italy, he would have probably been excommunicated and his works 'black-listed', as well. So, not only would heliocentric principles have been black-listed, but the fundamentals of planetary rotation would have, as well. (In other words, the pretense of the elliptical orbit.)

The issue becomes: The Church (proper) does what it can to support the doctrine of the times... ...and recants, later, when it finds itself 'wrong'. It inhibits the progression of the sciences, and through the transitive property of algebra, the progression of man :-p

Also:
Thomas v.3, Jesus says:
...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty. - The Gospel of St. Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas)

It challenges the establishment of church and the finding of God, solely within the confines of a religious building/property. Is it why it's kept out of the Bible. [Source] (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_the_Gospel_of_Saint_Thomas_kept_secret)

[Arainach]

I'm not using it as an example of all that's good and virtuous in religion, I'm using it as an example of all that's typical in religion.

[Bloodcinder]

MOR TAL KOM BAAAT!

[chefTENGU]

The point I'm trying to get across is that the Catholic Church is an institution that is very much interested in thought, reason, and the advancement and betterment of both individuals and all mankind.

Saying "HA HA LOOKIT THEY KEPT CLINGING TO ARISTOTELIAN THINKING AT A TIME WHEN MOST OTHER PEOPLE WERE! WHUT FAGS!" Is a bad argument to make. It's only valid if people never make mistakes. Religions tend to be full of, you know, PEOPLE, so the fact that errors and mistakes (even tragic ones that seem incredibly silly to us 400 years later) are bound to happen.

Are you saying that you've never made a mistake? Or that no scientist has ever made one, either? Popular prevailing scientific thinking can be QUITE inhibitive to radical new ideas or progress.

The bottom line, though, is that in the end, whether you're talking about progress in understanding science, God, or just the people around you, a lot of it comes down to trial and error. For fuck's sake, the scientific method is built on it (although it uses fancier words like "experiment" and "hypothesis"). So is theology; biblical scholars (at least in the Catholic Church) study ancient history, cultures, and languages to cut through all the bullshit people have built up over the centuries in order to find the truth behind the biblical Word. When disagreements arise, debate ensues. Just like in science.

I'm damn proud to be a Catholic (and goddamn fucking proud to be an Irish one, but that's beside the point). My Church is what preserved the knowledge, thought, and culture of Rome and Greece at a time when mankind was more interested in warfare than in literacy. It's what made the Renaissance possible in the first place.

Religion does not inhibit progress. People do through the choices they make. An atheist can quash free thinking as zealously as any religious fanatic.

What makes me so upset, is that people should KNOW better by now. Arguments that try to throw out a rich and vibrant 2000 year history, all the time ignoring anything positive while pretending every bit is terrible and needs to be done away with. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, although I'm not accusing anyone here of doing it intentionally.

You really ought to know if you're so interested in history, that for every Galileo debacle there's 2 or 3 Gregor Mendels (ZOMG, WHAT? A CATHOLIC PRIEST THAT ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS? INCONCEIVABLE).

No matter how long it takes, the Truth always comes out in the end. On an entirely personal note, I can't see any clearer proof of the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit on the Church and all of humanity.

[Bloodcinder]

Everything in the last post.
QFT/FTW. I'm glad somebody finally said that.

[deathofcheese]

(Assume this is karma++)

Wow. A-fucking-mazing. I wish I could see the world and the Catholic Church like that. I'd probably be a hell of a lot more happier.

[Arainach]

The point I'm trying to get across is that the Catholic Church is an institution that is very much interested in thought, reason, and the advancement and betterment of both individuals and all mankind.

Saying "HA HA LOOKIT THEY KEPT CLINGING TO ARISTOTELIAN THINKING AT A TIME WHEN MOST OTHER PEOPLE WERE! WHUT FAGS!" Is a bad argument to make. It's only valid if people never make mistakes. Religions tend to be full of, you know, PEOPLE, so the fact that errors and mistakes (even tragic ones that seem incredibly silly to us 400 years later) are bound to happen.

Are you saying that you've never made a mistake? Or that no scientist has ever made one, either? Popular prevailing scientific thinking can be QUITE inhibitive to radical new ideas or progress.Generally, scientists don't kill people who disagree with them.I'm damn proud to be a Catholic (and goddamn fucking proud to be an Irish one, but that's beside the point). My Church is what preserved the knowledge, thought, and culture of Rome and Greece at a time when mankind was more interested in warfare than in literacy.Are you fucking kidding me? Study some history. Catholic monks wrote prayers over ancient scrolls; it was the MUSLIMS who preserved Greek and Roman knowledge and literature.It's what made the Renaissance possible in the first place.An interesting concept. While much of the art was dedicated to the church, "what made it possible" is a number of things. One of the more popular theories is that it took the black death to get people to stop thinking about church and spirituality and actually get something worthwhile done.Religion does not inhibit progress. People do through the choices they make. An atheist can quash free thinking as zealously as any religious fanatic.But the entire point of a religion is unified thinking, the exact opposite of progress.You really ought to know if you're so interested in history, that for every Galileo debacle there's 2 or 3 Gregor Mendels (ZOMG, WHAT? A CATHOLIC PRIEST THAT ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS? INCONCEIVABLE).The oppression of Galileo was done by the church as a body, not by an individual. Scientific progress was made by Mendel the man, not the church. Mendel managed to come up with ideas in spite of, not because of, the church. In fact, when he became more involved with the church, his focus became more managerial and his scientific publication ceased.

[SomaticCorpse]

I was using Galileo as a simplified example of the atrocities that the 'collective' institution of faith has harmed towards 'progression'...

You could have easily used Keppler, as an example, if you had actually read the sources I cited. You see, Keppler was from another country, and even though he supported Galileo and Copernicus, he was relatively unscathed from the Inquisition.

Now, why do you think that is!? If you knew of the discernible problems between Roman Catholicism and the Catholicism of eastern European countries, you'd have had a good argument that the church was progressive, in some senses.

It's easy to assume that people are just wanting to bash the institution of religion, but you have to understand the principles and examples that the past has given us...

Have you ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials!? This period seemed to be a regression in man, when cognitive faculties were not quite used. Though, that statement is a bit biased; mostly because a man was crushed to death, by the weight of stones... ...he died, because he refused to recant that he was a witch.

Perhaps, you were unaware of the Decree of Theophilus in 391 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria#Decree_of_Theophilus_in_391) ?

I'm sure I shouldn't have to remind you of Joan of Arc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Joan_of_Arc)...

Or perhaps, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara) has been long forgotten?

Although, not a concrete point to progression, Pope John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis negated the pretense of women holding high and prominent roles in the Catholic Church. So, women are equal, just not as equal as men... ...as the church currently views it. In other words, since Jesus picked men, so do we... A promotion of sexism, no matter the sense of validation.

...and the greatest collection of literature was never held by the church (proper), but by Rome. Funny enough, it was located in Egypt. Library of Alexandria, anyone!? So, that argument is quite fallible...

Also, if the dear church did have a citing of preserving literature, why didn't it include all the books of the bible!? One would think, that an institution whose sole responsibility to deliver the word of God, would do it fully.

Progression can stem from many points... ...and individuals are the victims of the non-progressional views of the church. Sure, there may have been individuals that promoted progression, but the church (as a whole) has not done it as fast as any other institutional body.

Also, WTF was the church during mass-genocide? Wasn't it located in one of the three Axis Powers? Hmmm... How did they help, exactly, then!?

You can be proud, all you want... Arrogance is, by no means, a complete validation for what's happened in the past, when you weren't around. Things that occurred, to oppress any individual or groups of individuals, who would progress mankind - this is the topic of debate.

Your pride doesn't hurt nor help the progression of anything, but yourself...
And I don't mean to be offensive, when I say this, but I do have to point out that 'self' is not at the heart of topic, nor the pride of 'self'.

[Gio Takahashi]

The point I'm trying to get across is that the Catholic Church is an institution that is very much interested in thought, reason, and the advancement and betterment of both individuals and all mankind.

Saying "HA HA LOOKIT THEY KEPT CLINGING TO ARISTOTELIAN THINKING AT A TIME WHEN MOST OTHER PEOPLE WERE! WHUT FAGS!" Is a bad argument to make. It's only valid if people never make mistakes. Religions tend to be full of, you know, PEOPLE, so the fact that errors and mistakes (even tragic ones that seem incredibly silly to us 400 years later) are bound to happen.

Are you saying that you've never made a mistake? Or that no scientist has ever made one, either? Popular prevailing scientific thinking can be QUITE inhibitive to radical new ideas or progress.

The bottom line, though, is that in the end, whether you're talking about progress in understanding science, God, or just the people around you, a lot of it comes down to trial and error. For fuck's sake, the scientific method is built on it (although it uses fancier words like "experiment" and "hypothesis"). So is theology; biblical scholars (at least in the Catholic Church) study ancient history, cultures, and languages to cut through all the bullshit people have built up over the centuries in order to find the truth behind the biblical Word. When disagreements arise, debate ensues. Just like in science.

I'm damn proud to be a Catholic (and goddamn fucking proud to be an Irish one, but that's beside the point). My Church is what preserved the knowledge, thought, and culture of Rome and Greece at a time when mankind was more interested in warfare than in literacy. It's what made the Renaissance possible in the first place.

Religion does not inhibit progress. People do through the choices they make. An atheist can quash free thinking as zealously as any religious fanatic.

What makes me so upset, is that people should KNOW better by now. Arguments that try to throw out a rich and vibrant 2000 year history, all the time ignoring anything positive while pretending every bit is terrible and needs to be done away with. THAT is intellectual dishonesty, although I'm not accusing anyone here of doing it intentionally.

You really ought to know if you're so interested in history, that for every Galileo debacle there's 2 or 3 Gregor Mendels (ZOMG, WHAT? A CATHOLIC PRIEST THAT ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS? INCONCEIVABLE).

No matter how long it takes, the Truth always comes out in the end. On an entirely personal note, I can't see any clearer proof of the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit on the Church and all of humanity.

Best.

Post.

Ever.

at least in this thread

Thank you Chef for that awesomesauce post. What I'm sick of is when people see science as anti-religion. I ask, what's so damn anti-religion about science? What is science again? EH? WHAT'S THAT?



a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3.any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4.systematized knowledge in general. 5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6.a particular branch of knowledge. 7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.




The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.


Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

I've been to catholic schools all my life, and from what I've learned Catholic (and not just catholic, mind you!) encourages science, therefore, encourages human progression and advancement.

At the same time, as much as we can try, there are just certain things that not even science can truly answer, but only theorize.

Sure there will be some studies that the church won't agree with, but does the church, now, discourage science? No, I don't think so. Does it inhibit progression? No, I don't think so.

[Killer_Man_]

That reminds me when I went to my Lutheran School and as well public highschool.

The way the former taught was we did what was out of the science book as fact even though we 'knew' better cause of creationism.

The latter taught more so, that the book was right but no one knows for sure if God created the universe and evolution. Blah blah blah blah.

The latter didn't want to offend anyone and make sure to cover the bases and just says just answer it the way the book says and believe what you think is right.

[chefTENGU]

Generally, scientists don't kill people who disagree with them.
Generally, neither do catholics. Or any christians, for that matter.

Ary, you do realize this is the same sort of logic some people in this country use to say every person in the middle east is a bloodthirsty terrorist that wants to convert America to Islam by the sword, right?

Are you fucking kidding me? Study some history. Catholic monks wrote prayers over ancient scrolls; it was the MUSLIMS who preserved Greek and Roman knowledge and literature.
Who were the only people capable of writing during the middle ages in Europe? Monks, noblemen, and royalty (since at the time, there was almost no middle class to speak of). Out of those three, which one was the only one that had the time or inclination to copy ancient texts? I believe the answer is obvious. Believe it or not, they didn't just copy the Bible. After the fall of Rome, it was the Church that preserved and protected what didn't get lost in the fires of conquest.

An interesting concept. While much of the art was dedicated to the church, "what made it possible" is a number of things. One of the more popular theories is that it took the black death to get people to stop thinking about church and spirituality and actually get something worthwhile done.
It is generally accepted that the Renaissance began in Italy, for a number of reasons, not the least of which being access to the ancient ruins and texts that had survived from the Roman period. Who were the only ones that were able to read any of it? Why, it was the clergy (and anyone with the money to pay for an education rounded out by a study of Latin... which would have come from a catholic priest or monk). Why it took a thousand years for the Renaissance to finally set in has more to do with the political climate of the period than anything else.

But the entire point of a religion is unified thinking, the exact opposite of progress.
If unified thinking were the point of religion, why does the Church keep the college of cardinals? Why does it change anything at all? Like, you know, how priests aren't allowed to get married? It didn't start out that way. And when someone comes up with a bad idea like say, plenary indulgences, it gets thrown out when its adverse effects become apparent (sorta like how someone had the bright idea to use DDT to solve all of our pest problems... and see how that turned out?).

The Catholic Church is just as interested in progress as the scientific community. On the road, there will always be setbacks, but that shouldn't stop anyone from trying or pressing onward.

The oppression of Galileo was done by the church as a body, not by an individual. Scientific progress was made by Mendel the man, not the church. Mendel managed to come up with ideas in spite of, not because of, the church. In fact, when he became more involved with the church, his focus became more managerial and his scientific publication ceased.
Galileo was brought up as an example of how the Church has such an awful reaction to anything new and revolutionary. I brought up Mendel because his ideas, too, were new and revolutionary. He is considered by the scientific community to be the father of the study of genetics, and he is discussed in every high school biology class.

So, if the Church is so afraid of new ideas, why didn't they give Mendel the same treatment they gave to Galileo? It was in their power. The man lived according to his role within the Church, and he always had superiors to answer to. He could have been condemned or intimidated into silence... but that's not what happened.

As you have said, the more involved he became with the church, his scientific life ceased. No shit? Doesn't that strike you as a matter of course? When people take on new responsibilities in their careers that they never had before, it kind of makes it difficult to pursue their hobbies to the same extent as they used to. I think this is what happened to Mendel. Can you say that as you've grown as a person, and in your career, that you have the same time to follow your interests?

You could have easily used Keppler, as an example, if you had actually read the sources I cited
Well, you caught me. You're right, when I saw the pedigree of the source, I ignored it. Wikipedia is a great source for information on pop culture, but for more serious things that tend to be open to debate and interpretation, it seriously falls short. Stephen Colbert illustrated this quite well on his show.

So, forgive me for not following your link.

Have you ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials!? This period seemed to be a regression in man, when cognitive faculties were not quite used. Though, that statement is a bit biased; mostly because a man was crushed to death, by the weight of stones... ...he died, because he refused to recant that he was a witch.
I thought we were talking about the Catholic Church, not religion in general. I prefer to speak for my own faith, which is entirely different from that of the Pilgrims.

Perhaps, you were unaware of the Decree of Theophilus in 391?
Since you went through the trouble of posting the link, let me share with you a direct quote from it:

"The Serapeum once housed part of the Library, but it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction. Notably, the passage by Socrates Scholasticus, unlike that of Ammianus Marcellinus, makes no clear reference to a library or library contents being destroyed, only to religious objects being destroyed. The pagan author Eunapius of Sardis witnessed the demolition, and though he detested Christians, and was a scholar, his account of the Serapeum's destruction makes no mention of any library. Paulus Orosius admitted in the sixth book of his History against the pagans:
Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement."

So they had the decency to empty the temples before knocking them down. How dare they.

I'm sure I shouldn't have to remind you of Joan of Arc...
Of course not. A French military hero and cannonized Saint of the Catholic Church who was captured and put do death by England out of spite for the humiliating defeat she brought them.

You see, time and again throughout history, secular authorities will use religion as a convenient scapegoat or excuse for their own wrongdoing. Here is one such case. The Spanish extermination of Native American peoples is another.

Or perhaps, this has been long forgotten?
As I have admitted time and again, no human being is above making a mistake. Not even a pope.

And before you bring up the issue of papal infallibility (and drag this thread off-topic), I'm going to tell you you that it doesn't work the way you probably think it does. The criteria under which it can be invoked are extremely limited and it has only been invoked twice in the entire 2000 year history of the Church.

...and the greatest collection of literature was never held by the church (proper), but by Rome. Funny enough, it was located in Egypt. Library of Alexandria, anyone!? So, that argument is quite fallible...
I never said the Church held "the greatest" collection of literature ever. I merely stated the fact that it became the repository for ancient Roman texts after the Roman empire was torn apart by barbarians. So, my point still stands.

Progression can stem from many points... ...and individuals are the victims of the non-progressional views of the church. Sure, there may have been individuals that promoted progression, but the church (as a whole) has not done it as fast as any other institutional body.
On the contrary, as humanity has sped up its progression, so has the Church. The Church's progress has always been comparable to that of the world in which it existed. With technological and scientific innovation, more research may be done where it wasn't possible before, spurring on our understanding. This merely reinforces my point that the greatest inhibition to mankind's progress is man himself. When monarchs and rulers stopped thinking that their own civilizations were the epitome of human existence, it opened the door for reason to prevail.

Although, not a concrete point to progression, Pope John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis negated the pretense of women holding high and prominent roles in the Catholic Church. So, women are equal, just not as equal as men... ...as the church currently views it. In other words, since Jesus picked men, so do we... A promotion of sexism, no matter the sense of validation.
Also, if the dear church did have a citing of preserving literature, why didn't it include all the books of the bible!? One would think, that an institution whose sole responsibility to deliver the word of God, would do it fully.
Also, WTF was the church during mass-genocide? Wasn't it located in one of the three Axis Powers? Hmmm... How did they help, exactly, then!?
The first two statements would confuse the debate with off-topic discussion. Feel free to make threads for those if you wish to delve into them further.

The third is merely silly, and has nothing to do with the issue of progress.

[Gio Takahashi]

Have you ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials!? This period seemed to be a regression in man, when cognitive faculties were not quite used. Though, that statement is a bit biased; mostly because a man was crushed to death, by the weight of stones... ...he died, because he refused to recant that he was a witch.

I would like to state, for the record, that the religion in question during the Salem Witch Trials were the Puritans, not catholic. Kinda irrelevant to the catholic discussion now. Also, it was mostly women, but at the time it was such horrendously superstitious period where even claiming one woman is a witch will very likely mean death.

I can understand that in some cases in the past, especially during the middle ages, that the church had quite a bit of fun with persecuting people that would go against their beliefs. then again, there were persecution of those who followed religion. That can be an example that at one point, religion, in a way, did held mankind back, but I believe that can mostly be blamed on the people's superstition, the Renaissance certainly changed that.

[SomaticCorpse]

If you want a specific thread about Catholicism, then make one!

As I recall, this one's title is "Religion as a Limiter"... Just because you're Catholic and I start on a Catholic annotation, does not imply that the entire post is about Catholicism! Put your pride back in your pants, and back to the discussion!

Now, since everyone's going off-topic with this whole Catholic thing... Yes, I knew the Salem Witch Trials were the Puritans; i.e.: This is a 'Religion as a Limiter', not the Catholic Church bashing extravaganza.

...and I'm sorry to say, but if someone brings up the Catholic church, it will become a focal point, but not the entire point. Otherwise, we'd just be going off-topic.

Religion, as progressive... How anyone could have brought about any other point, and hasn't, is beyond me. For example, the assimilation of other religions into Christianity.

I mean, really... What does the Easter Bunny have to do with Easter, other than it's a pagan symbol of fertility? Don't believe me!? Hmmm, never heard the phrase of "f*cking like rabbits"?

And Halloween? As in 'All Hallow's Eve' or also known as 'Dia de los muertes'... You think that's not a pagan assimilation? Then you should do your own research of the Druids and Celts, and where the 'jack-o-lantern' really came from.

It really sucks that I have to play the good cop and bad cop, here.

And that Stephen Colbert used Wikipedia that it isn't a good source for open debate? Wow, how we let others think for ourselves... Granted, it may not be the best source for information, but if you don't trust it, there's always Google!

And the point I made about WWII and that the Vatican was in a country that was part of the Axis powers, relates to progression, because of the mass genocide. You don't think that genocide is inhibitive to mankind? Really, I'd like to hear how genocide's not relevant to this... ...the church, in full faith, could have taken a stance against it.

[Gio Takahashi]

If you want a specific thread about Catholicism, then make one!

As I recall, this one's title is "Religion as a Limiter"... Just because you're Catholic and I start on a Catholic annotation, does not imply that the entire post is about Catholicism! Put your pride back in your pants, and back to the discussion!

The current trend of the thread is basically catholicism, even though it's part of a religion as a whole.



Now, since everyone's going off-topic with this whole Catholic thing... Yes, I knew the Salem Witch Trials were the Puritans; i.e.: This is a 'Religion as a Limiter', not the Catholic Church bashing extravaganza.

The main point that I just made is that the salem witch trials took place somewhat after the end of the Middle Ages, and it came from the mass superstition and fear of the "witches". While the Puritans did carried out the persecutions of the witches, it was all based from mass hysteria and fear. That is what inhibits mankind. this isn't something you'd see exactly.


Religion, as progressive... How anyone could have brought about any other point, and hasn't, is beyond me. For example, the assimilation of other religions into Christianity.

I mean, really... What does the Easter Bunny have to do with Easter, other than it's a pagan symbol of fertility? Don't believe me!? Hmmm, never heard the phrase of "f*cking like rabbits"?

And Halloween? As in 'All Hallow's Eve' or also known as 'Dia de los muertes'... You think that's not a pagan assimilation? Then you should do your own research of the Druids and Celts, and where the 'jack-o-lantern' really came from.

I'm sure most of us know the origin of the "pagan" part of certain holidays. (IE Christmas Trees for christmas, Easter bunnies, Halloween [although it's not a christian origin holiday as compared to Christmas and Easter.], etc.)

Most religions, today aren't exactly as close minded and anti-tolerant as it used to be. Even though some people still get all panicky and upset over "paganism" if it's not christian to them. That sort of thing pisses me off.

Today, it is part of a celebration, an official holiday. Even people who are athiest will still celebrate Easter and Christmas. (not so much for Easter, but definitely more so for Christmas). That is "paganism assimilation" comes from. I'm not sure if it even should be called that. I really hate that word.

And that Stephen Colbert used Wikipedia that it isn't a good source for open debate? Wow, how we let others think for ourselves... Granted, it may not be the best source for information, but if you don't trust it, there's always Google!

I think wiki is a fine source for debate, though not scholar debate, but there's nothing scholarly about Mediator's Hut. You just need to keep in mind that there's bound to be some slight discrepcancies within wiki article, but the chance of that is low, and I rarely see it.

And the point I made about WWII and that the Vatican was in a country that was part of the Axis powers, relates to progression, because of the mass genocide. You don't think that genocide is inhibitive to mankind? Really, I'd like to hear how genocide's not relevant to this... ...the church, in full faith, could have taken a stance against it.

Isn't the Vatican somewhat neutral from Italy government? Then again, I'm not exactly sure of Vatican's relationship with the government, except that it's separate.

[deathofcheese]

Religion, as progressive... How anyone could have brought about any other point, and hasn't, is beyond me. For example, the assimilation of other religions into Christianity.

I mean, really... What does the Easter Bunny have to do with Easter, other than it's a pagan symbol of fertility? Don't believe me!? Hmmm, never heard the phrase of "f*cking like rabbits"?

And Halloween? As in 'All Hallow's Eve' or also known as 'Dia de los muertes'... You think that's not a pagan assimilation? Then you should do your own research of the Druids and Celts, and where the 'jack-o-lantern' really came from.Easter is a Christian holiday, but the Easter bunny is completely separate from the Easter holiday. Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb (or thereabouts) while the Easter bunny only symbolizes young children waking up to find chocolate bought by their parents. I don't really think there's any relation at all except a pagan tradition that we still celebrate as something that coincides with the religious holiday of Easter.

Yes, Halloween is a pagan holiday, but the religious holiday is the day after that, All-Souls day. Again, Halloween, and all the celebrations, traditions and symbols that go with it, is completely separate from the actual religious holiday that comes the next day. It's kinda like Mardi Gras which was a French holiday to "get all the sin out" the day before Lent started. It was one last big bang before you have a month of heavy-duty prayer and fasting (which is generally considered to be not fun, and explictly precludes anything that is fun).
And the point I made about WWII and that the Vatican was in a country that was part of the Axis powers, relates to progression, because of the mass genocide. You don't think that genocide is inhibitive to mankind? Really, I'd like to hear how genocide's not relevant to this... ...the church, in full faith, could have taken a stance against it.I'm not a history buff, nor have I ever looked into what the Catholic church did during WWII. However, yes, Vatican City is a separate country that just happens to be in the middle of Rome. Like I said, IANAH but I would think that something would've been said about how war was bad period, not which side was bad and good, and that if the church had known about the Holocaust (and believed the news; remember, many groups that could've done something about it didn't believe it, even though they had heard about it), they would've said something condemning about it immediately.

[Arainach]

The church did know. Everyone knew.

For comparison, the church spoke out against Hitler's euthanasia policies - and he stopped.

[Seegtease]

but there's nothing scholarly about Mediator's Hut.

Sorry, not really in the discussion but just had to say I love this comment.

[chefTENGU]

As I recall, this one's title is "Religion as a Limiter"... Just because you're Catholic and I start on a Catholic annotation, does not imply that the entire post is about Catholicism! Put your pride back in your pants, and back to the discussion!

Now, since everyone's going off-topic with this whole Catholic thing... Yes, I knew the Salem Witch Trials were the Puritans; i.e.: This is a 'Religion as a Limiter', not the Catholic Church bashing extravaganza.

...and I'm sorry to say, but if someone brings up the Catholic church, it will become a focal point, but not the entire point. Otherwise, we'd just be going off-topic.
I mentioned the Catholic Church because in my estimation it is a prime example of how religion does not inherently limit progress. Also, because it immediately became the target of criticisms, as so often happens in debate like this. The rest of the thread up until now has been me proving my point, so my responses were entirely on topic.

Religion, as progressive... How anyone could have brought about any other point, and hasn't, is beyond me. For example, the assimilation of other religions into Christianity.

I mean, really... What does the Easter Bunny have to do with Easter, other than it's a pagan symbol of fertility? Don't believe me!? Hmmm, never heard the phrase of "f*cking like rabbits"?

And Halloween? As in 'All Hallow's Eve' or also known as 'Dia de los muertes'... You think that's not a pagan assimilation? Then you should do your own research of the Druids and Celts, and where the 'jack-o-lantern' really came from.
I don't see your point. Sorry.

And the point I made about WWII and that the Vatican was in a country that was part of the Axis powers, relates to progression, because of the mass genocide. You don't think that genocide is inhibitive to mankind? Really, I'd like to hear how genocide's not relevant to this... ...the church, in full faith, could have taken a stance against it.
Genocides have occurred since people began splitting into races. They continue to this day (Sudan, anyone?) regardless of how much the Church (or any other group) condemns them. I really don't see how the pope (who has no army to speak of, aside from a few Swiss pikemen) could have convinced Hitler to "You know, please stop, like, killing Jews, communists, homosexuals, Slavs, catholics, and anyone else who disagrees with you" while under Mussolini's thumb. It took the combined might of the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union to put a stop to it.

But it's not like he was powerless. There are plenty of accounts of catholic priests, nuns, monasteries, etc. brining aid to those on the run from the Nazis. But don't take my word for it, this blog (http://paxalles.blogs.com/paxalles/2008/06/jews-thank-pope.html) has a nifty little article snippet that you might find interesting as an example.

And yes, genocide is bad. No one's arguing that. But that by itself doesn't stop progress. If it did, you can bet your sweet ass we'd be doing a lot more to stop what's been going on in Sudan for years now, other than trying to annoy Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir to death with wave after wave of hippies sending him indignant letters. Did you know they threatened to cut off our supply of Coca-Cola by ceasing their exports of gum arabic to our country if we kept bringing it up? True story. The Washington Post reported on it a while back.

In fact, if you're really sick and twisted, you could make the case that the Holocaust aided our progress with the medical findings Dr. Mengele's crimes against humanity provided. Yes, it is unsettling to think so, which is why there was a huge debate over whether his findings should have been kept or destroyed after the war. In the end, they were reluctantly disseminated throughout medical science after the families of the victims decided that the lives his research could save would give the horrors their loved ones suffered some meaning.

.
.
.
And just in case anyone's wondering, Vatican City is a sovereign nation, independent of Italy.

[SomaticCorpse]

Assimilation of the other religions, was the point to the induction of Halloween and the Easter Bunny into Christianity. These were not facets of Christianity, before the eventual conquering of the Irish tribes and Germanic tribes.

Being an Irish Catholic, I shouldn't even have to point out where the whole concept of Halloween came from, but I digress that this knowledge isn't 'common', in today's world.

Just Google Samhain (http://www.google.com/search?q=Samhain) and you'll see the induction of Celtic and Druid customs, into Christianity.

And you'd be very proud to know, that the Jack 'o' Lantern (http://www.pumpkinnook.com/facts/jack.htm) has Irish roots, in religion.

Or you can read here (http://altreligion.about.com/cs/alchemy/a/mpreviss.htm) about the assimilation of the Easter Egg and Bunny into Christianity.

Instead of bearing down, against Pagan religions, the church assimilated their customs, with their own.

The point being: this is religion as being progressive.

Assimilation v. Domination is pretty much synonymous with: Progressive v. Regressive

I don't know how else to spell that one out for you, if you still don't get it.

The other complexity of religion as a limiter, is the different views of 'being saved' and how each secular religion views their method as right, and the others wrong. Now, I understand that not all secular religions view the others as wrong, but most do.

For example, Catholicism v. Baptists v. Pentecostals v. Presbyterians v. who-ever...
Each has their own views of divinity and the proper 'route' to being saved and entering heaven.

The complexities of limitations that this brings about, is the arrogance and audaciousness that each sect believes their method to be the absolute method for being saved. For example, Baptists see baptism as being the divine method, Catholics the taking of communion, the Pentecostals - speaking in tongues...

I'm not saying that this is a true limitation, but one who has studied varying religions reaches a cross-roads of 'who exactly is right and who's methods are completely unvalidated?'

[chefTENGU]

Oh, ok. I wasn't sure what exactly you were getting at by mentioning the assimilation of pagan traditions into mainstream christianity. It's sorta like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" line of thinking. You take the pagan beliefs out, but keep the holidays, since everyone appreciates a good holiday. At least, when you have the proper mindset...
Just as an aside, I really want to take out a lot of the crap people nowadays dump into celebrations like Christmas. A holiday is supposed to be about celebrating with friends and family, not stressing out and dreading the next one...

I want to make one thing clear, and it's that I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone that the Catholic Church is 100% right about everything and that everyone should belong to it. I've already admitted several times that it isn't, and I don't think all the kinks are worked out yet. What I am trying to get across is the idea that it's just as progressive as anything else people influence.

I've only spoken about Catholicism specifically because it's the religion I'm the most familiar with, and I wouldn't want to do a disservice to anyone else's faith.

I'm not saying that every religion is progressive, just that it's always going to come down to the people who belong to it. Essentially, it doesn't matter what you believe or what God you pray to, or even if you believe in God at all. Everyone has the potential to either advocate progress or to preserve the status quo.

That being said, I'm going to go aside for a bit, but bear with me.

Consider the last thing SC mentioned in his post, about various religions and what each requires for their own version of salvation. Now, the Eucharist is the most important sacrament to Catholics, but you may be surprised to know that it is not necessary for salvation. Baptism is the absolute requirement. However there are three different methods by which it may be achieved:

Baptism by Water is the traditional method, where an infant or an adult is officially inducted into the Church.

Baptism by Blood is a very rare occurrence these days, but any non-catholic who dies for the sake of Christ is considered to be baptized by virtue of his or her martyrdom.

Baptism by Desire affects anyone who was trying to become catholic, but dies before they can be baptized. However, it also extends to cover any person, regardless of religion, who lives according to Christ's principles, whether he or she is aware of it or not.

Essentially, you don't have to be catholic, just a good, compassionate person, and salvation is yours. Of course, the Church sees conversion as the most direct route, but a lifetime of goodness will work just as well.

Granted, you can still run into catholics who will tell you "convert or burn," but I assure you, those individuals are sorely mistaken (and really ought to read the Catechism and learn some basic things about their own religion). Here's where that potential I mentioned before lies.

It is people who limit their own thinking by refusing to empathize with fellow human beings who happen to be different in some way. The limitation is in terrorists (of any religion) who spill innocent blood, in scientists who dismiss revolutionary new ideas out of hand, or in an autocratic government that quashes any discontent with its system or calls for change.

Like I said before, it's not religion that impedes human progress. It's human beings that do.

[Z]

I don't have anything constructive to add to this debate but I just wanted to comment that it's been a very good and informative read so, well done to all involved so far ;)

It's been a while since I've seen chef this... "heated" I guess is the best word, hehe :D

[Bloodcinder]

So you're saying the Chef's back in the kitchen?

[Seegtease]

I am going to post every time I want to give Karma and I can't. GIO TAKAHASHI.

[Bloodcinder]

It seems like the karma rules are a limiter. We need to blame Buddhism, I guess, as a religion inhibiting our progress. I'm willing to do whatever dharma is necessary to bring this about.