Stoney

How can one adhere to a religion like Catholicism without accepting dogmas? One cannot. Christianity is a revealed religion, meaning one day someone came along and said, "I reveal to you the truth, here it is." One either believes or does not believe; there are no shades of gray. Those who believe "with critical sense" merely evaluate from their personal standpoint how and how much to believe, and also in what to believe. I can accept that not all Catholics are dogmatic, but this means that someone, in their small way, has thought it through and has surpassed the imposed dogma, has gone beyond catechetical teaching; in short, there must have been someone who realized that religious dogmas were too rigid, at some point in history, otherwise we would still be here believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This means that if today there is a minimal resistance to dogma, it is certainly not due to those who spread the Catholic religion, but to individuals who contributed their own perspectives; that is to say, in the final analysis, the freedom of thought is not the offspring of religion, but of the critical, a-dogmatic thought that opposed it.

In Flemish, it's not a matter of being foolish, but for sure if someone is a person willing to question themselves and engage in dialogue, to ask why things are the way they are, to confront others, and above all is not afraid of doubt, then it's hard for them to accept a belief, whether Christian or otherwise. The problem is that many call themselves Christians but are actually just looking for the support of a dogma, thus "sinning" from the weakness (human, for goodness' sake) that has always been the main characteristic of humanity: seeking solid and immutable principles to cling to in order to escape the mutability of life and events. What Odifreddi does with this book is draw a clear line between when it is permissible and human to seek personal certainties in religion, and when those very certainties are assumed to be universal and true regardless, and therefore imposed, for example with laws and teaching in schools. I'm in a hurry and I haven't reread my post, I hope it makes complete sense, goodbye.

Well, we’d need to determine exactly who the real pain in the ass is, me or the numerous DT fan-clones who infest the site with hundreds of reviews on albums that have sounded the same for 20 years... anyway, this time I don’t think it takes any rhetorical skill to show that this review has absolutely NOT critical tones, at least I hope so.

Nothing, in fact, I prefer it. Because if I say that I don't like it to someone who instead buys all the records, they won't consider me a "detractor."

Now I will do this: periodically I will come here and paste one of the many bullshit you wrote in the review, one at a time because I wouldn't be able to handle them all at once. Just because I like to mess with you. I already started with my previous comment, now I continue with "Chilling is even the very ending of Petrucci who this time wants to prove he is not only an ultra-technical guitarist but also a bearer of emotions." Here the key word is THIS TIME. Since 1991 this guy and all you fans have been annoying me with this story of "he is NOT ONLY ultra-technical BUT ALSO...", as if developing technique involved giving up everything else (and this is true in your microcephalic brains, evidently). The truth is that there has never been a shadow of technique or anything else here, so the phrase is poorly phrased. You should just stick to listening to MTV and buy Avril Lavigne's albums, since every attempt to elevate yourselves to something more complex miserably results in the exaltation of such filthy crap. Until next time.

Out of curiosity, I went to listen to "If You Could See Into My Soul" on YouTube, and I lasted a solid 12 seconds (which is way too much). The cover is definitely something horrible.

Many historical theses that have emerged lately argue that the Great Flood was a true cataclysm that occurred between 11,000 and 10,000 B.C. All ancient civilizations report in this timeframe accounts of a cataclysm, in the form of mythology; even civilizations as distant from each other as Sumer and pre-Columbian cultures speak of a universal flood. Everything suggests that beyond the myth, there is some truth.

In the chaos of the little phrases that make up the review in full bimbaminkia style of a 12-year-old in front of a Marco Carta performance, you truly say something beautiful: "it really seems that everything is truly in the right place at the right time!" There you go, very good, this is the turning point of any discussion that has ever taken place and that will ever take place on the topic of Dream Theater. Putting everything in the right place at the right time IS BANAL, IS CLICHED, IS MANIERISTIC, IT’S ANNOYING. Art is innovation, intuition, breaking the mold: no one would ever dream of praising a sculptor who made a statue using the same criteria as Michelangelo’s David because it wouldn’t make sense. It's time for you to understand this very simple, obvious truth instead of talking about detractors.

In the end, the truly absurd thing about this review is that as it's put here, it seems like priests never have sex. As far as I'm concerned, I believe it's absolutely right that priests do not marry and that they renounce love and sex, and the Church is right to be uncompromising on this; indeed, it should reintroduce medieval-style punishments for any priests caught in promiscuous acts with willing ladies. There are plenty of them, you know; it could be something like branding or flogging. Because if you put on a robe to distinguish yourself from normal people, with whom, by the way, you expect to be automatically recognized as a moral authority, and you talk about rigidity, holiness, and sacrifices, and then you even have the audacity to define masturbation and homosexuality as a "deviation," then you must experience what it means, not just fill your mouth with it.

So Dave Gahan had a malignant tumor and is already healed? It will be the tenth time he’s faced death, and in the end, he pulls through as if nothing happened. No way, he’s definitely not human… :D