Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:CS Lewis referred to himself jokingly as a ‘lapsed atheist’ and I kind of feel it describes me pretty well.

I was raised with no religious upbringing, and most of the time I still default to an atheist view, but more and more I have moments where I sense something greater. Now, I’m not at all interested in the God depicted in most religions, fixated on humans and their moral behaviour, because I just don’t see any evidence of a God that cares at all about what we do.

But when I see the scale and beauty of this universe, sometimes I get a glimpse of something greater.

Sounds sort of like deism.

A little bit of interesting reading for folks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2267426

Without meaning to get preachy, this to me serves as a good arguement for Religion being a load of stuff and nonsense, as having been pretty well documented, we can follow the evolution of these cults fairly accurately. And some of the decisions etc are just plain daft.

MDG, I'm not sure if you're simply being overly casual in your comments, or if the contempt you seem to have for religion is as real as you seem to make it out to be, but poiting out the ridiculous or tragic or silly aspects of religion ignores the aspects of religion and spirituality that are postiive. We get it, some or even many religions have flaws.

I look at it this way: love is responsible for horrible things, it leads to jealousy and angst and loss and remorse. Abuse and neglect and rape and all manner of sins are committed by those in the throes of some combination or love or lust. Still, I would not deny the power and wonder that is both love and sex.

I'm not here to defend organized religion, but I think that many people are willing to concede the flaws of the structure while respecting their beliefs, and many of your posts seem overly thrilled with the idea of demolishing religion more than anything else.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Sounds sort of like deism.

Maybe related, but I like the idea of revelation. The idea of reasoning one's way to God is just a little boring .

Polonius, I'd say you are partially right.

I do have nothing but contempt for religions, yet nothing but respect for faith.

I just fail to see why someones life should be restricted by the views of another just because that other person claims to be speaking for God.

But as I said, each to their own. I have strength of conviction for my views, and I do not fool myself that people of faith have similar in their own views.

Hold on, quick edit. I think it's more accurate to say I have nothing but contempt for the organisers of Religion. Take the Pope. Position of power, yet not answerable to anyone. It seems to me being head or a head of a major religion is akin to being a Dictator. You can say what you want, and have a lot of people meet your will. Surely, surely we as a species should be moving beyond such lunacy?

You must know a guy that will do the same stupid thing every time he finds himself in a situation. Do you have that mate that will not back down from a scuffle at the pub with another guy. You sit there and you watch and you know exactly what’s going to happen and are watching it all play out as you expected, but you aren’t controlling events, your idiot mate is still making his choice.

Yes, but I didn't create him. I do not have absolute and certain knowledge of his actions, nor did I have knowledge of those actions before he even existed. I also don't have the ability to fundamentally change him into the sort of person that wouldn't do such things. God has all those abilities and far more (if he is omnipotent and omniscient).

The argument is that removing free will is the greatest of evils. That a central part of humanity and life is the ability to choose our course of action, and that includes the ability to choose an evil action. While life might be happy and full of puppy dogs and rainbows if only God stopped us from murder and theft, what kind of people would we be? How could we grow and develop into mature, responsible people if we were stopped by God from ever doing anything wrong?

I think the rift between us here is that the god you describe is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. God doesn't need to stop us from murdering and thieving. God created existence with those very concepts and actions as possibility. Why? Why create murder and then create murderers. God knows what we will do before we do it, if it doesn't it's not all knowing. God created us with the intention of crafting our exact actions, if he didn't he's not omnipotent. Every facet of existence was shaped by god, that includes things that exist only conceptually such as killing and murder. An omnipotent being could create an existence that functions so vastly differently from this one that we could not even imagine it. Literally.

Given that, why create the universe as it is?

If god knew that a person would be a murderer and created them as such then god created a murderer intentionally. And thus later punishes the individual for the flaws that were crafted intentionally. That is unless you are saying god can make mistakes, but then that's impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient being. It also strains the imagination to think of a being that is all knowing having free will itself. Does god? Does it not know the actions it will take? God exists outside of time does it not?


Then again the idea of an all knowing all powerful being is one that is by definition contradictory. An all powerful being has no power if it is all knowing, and an all knowing being has no knowledge if everything in all of everything is under its control.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Polonius, I'd say you are partially right.

I do have nothing but contempt for religions, yet nothing but respect for faith.

I just fail to see why someones life should be restricted by the views of another just because that other person claims to be speaking for God.

But as I said, each to their own. I have strength of conviction for my views, and I do not fool myself that people of faith have similar in their own views.

Hold on, quick edit. I think it's more accurate to say I have nothing but contempt for the organisers of Religion. Take the Pope. Position of power, yet not answerable to anyone. It seems to me being head or a head of a major religion is akin to being a Dictator. You can say what you want, and have a lot of people meet your will. Surely, surely we as a species should be moving beyond such lunacy?

Mmm, but there's a problem differentiating religion and faith. Or rather, that one will inevitably lead to the other. I mean, if five people all have similar views about faith, and they get together and start talking about what they have in common then suddenly you have a religion. The 'faith is fine, religion is bad' is a rhetorical dodge. It's like arguing that you have no problem with cars, just with driving.

You're also ignoring the good that's come out of religion. Religion stored most of our art and knowledge for a very long time. The anti-slavery movement in the US was primarily led by religious groups.

My parents were raised catholic, I was baptised. I haven't been to church in years. I think of myself as a lay person, and the closest I will put myself to a religon is buddism. I believe god hates us all, but some more than others. She (I said it.) also loves us, and tests us on earth. The more good we do, the more she will show her love. The more evil we do, she brings more of her hate upon us. The greatest sin is theft. Theft of life. If you kill a man, you take his right to live, to be happy, to have a lover. You steal his children's right to a father, his lovers right to a friend and partner. I believe the catholic church is the greatest lier , as Anung said of one of the passages they don't want us to see. I believe the leaders of organized religon are mostly powerhungry. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in one god. Why are we killing each other over little details? We'll all find out when we die anyway. That is my take. If you don't like it, too bad. Have your own take on it. Youe entitled to it.

I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

I cannot help but wonder what the world would be like if the excuses of 'Gods will' and 'God says so' were entirely removed from the vocabulary of the human race.

Again I would like to raise the nature of the position of Pope. Apparently, because somebody once said so (Peter or Paul I think?) they are Gods representative on Earth, because Jesus said so. Now, this isn't what annoys, insults and scares me. What does that, is that it is a non-democratic position then held for life, and ultimately answerable to no one. Now think about that. Leaders of the Free World tend to meet with the Pope as part and parcel of position. Why I ask? How is the position of Pope any more tolerable to Democratic countries than any other Dictator or 'President For Life'. I even extend the same question to the Dalai Llama. Not elected. Just appointed. Whether or not they have done any evil, deliberately or otherwise, they are nowhere near Democratic leaders.

Thus, surely they should be shunned and sanctioned as much as the next tinpot despot?

Ahh see, now y'all got me think'n bout my religion now.

I actually kind of see life as a test. Not that serious "Do or Die tests" but a simple test.

A test of what? Morals. Believe in God or not, is rape a good thing? Even if God said "Rape is ok", would that make the option good?

No. I don't think so. People make mistakes. I, for example, have gotten in some fights at my school. Now, God isn't going to blast me to hell because I have been a bad soul. He wants me to say, "Hey, even if many of those fights were justified, were they right?" of course not. Many of those people I fought are some of my closest friends now. God wants me to realize that what I do is wrong, and that I should be sorry for it. Now, many people who hear this say, "So, a rapist gets away with what he does, pretends to be sorry, and goes to Heaven?" No, this is not how the system works.

ShumaGorath, all of your posts make absolute sense. But try to bear with me for a second. God does not create murders. He creates people. Normal, everyday people to the stuff of legends. He gives them weaknesses, I believe at least, to test that person's resolve. If I wanted to, I could kill, rape, steal etc. But, in the end, what happens? I am probably going to get jailed, even possibly killed, etc. Now, I'm not going to say weak people are murderers, but it certainly at least takes some restraint to hold in violent and/or negative feelings.

God doesn't know how these people will live their lives. God does not plan out every persons lives. God simply creates people, I believe, to test them. To see if those people can, at least, avoid the dark, "evil" inner feelings. Now, God does not take joy in this. He doesn't take amusement in this. God loves his children like a father to his sons/daughters. He wants them to succeed. He wants people to go to Heaven, but after the Devil's traitorous actions, he had to guard his followers from the Devil's actions.

Even then, forget organized religion for a moment. Is worship of God bad? even then, is what the Ten Commandments at least say bad? Don't kill, Don't wish for another man's wife etc. The church isn't trying to act dictatorial, they simply wish to pass on the love of the Lord onto others.


P.S. This, IS NOT a flame. Everyone here has made PERFECT SENSE. It is 100% understandable. I am not trying to say, "Worship God or burn in hell." I'm simply trying to show that religions aren't bad. They are just, different. Hopefully this doesn't come across as a flame. I mean no offense. none. There is nothing wrong with Atheists, people who don't like religions, or even people who hate them.

ShumaGorath wrote: I think the rift between us here is that the god you describe is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. God doesn't need to stop us from murdering and thieving. God created existence with those very concepts and actions as possibility. Why? Why create murder and then create murderers. God knows what we will do before we do it, if it doesn't it's not all knowing. God created us with the intention of crafting our exact actions, if he didn't he's not omnipotent. Every facet of existence was shaped by god, that includes things that exist only conceptually such as killing and murder. An omnipotent being could create an existence that functions so vastly differently from this one that we could not even imagine it. Literally.

No, the God I describe is omnipotent and omniscient. He simply left us with a universe with the safeties turned off. Now you can argue that God, being all powerful, should be able to create a universe where man can grow and become mature and responsible while still being free from the consequences of his actions. I could reply that omnipotence doesn’t mean the ability t deny basic tenants of logic, God can be God all he wants but 1+1 will always equal two, and a person whose actions cannot cause repercussions will never become a full human being. Then you can reply that if He is all He says he is, then He should be able to create a universe where we can grow into great people without having any of that pain or misfortune. But then I reply that it’s rising above suffering and hardship that makes us, and suddenly we’re in the middle of a theological debate that’s occupied religious thinking for centuries.

But really, why bother? If you want to talk about the problems of an omnipotent, omniscient and all caring God, and compare it to the real world you don’t really need to delve into such piffle. Just ask about the tsunamis, or children born with conditions that cause them to die moments after birth. There you have hardship and suffering completely beyond the control of man, so free will never enters the issue.

At which point you get the simple reply, why does God have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving to be God, and deserve worship?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

Not every religion is based around sin, punishment and Hell. Even those that feature such ideas don’t spend that much time on them.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

So it’s as if, being a human organisation full of people with varying points of view and principles, a church can result in good as well as evil?

Cryonicleech wrote:Ahh see, now y'all got me think'n bout my religion now.

I actually kind of see life as a test. Not that serious "Do or Die tests" but a simple test.

A test of what? Morals. Believe in God or not, is rape a good thing? Even if God said "Rape is ok", would that make the option good?

No. I don't think so. People make mistakes. I, for example, have gotten in some fights at my school. Now, God isn't going to blast me to hell because I have been a bad soul. He wants me to say, "Hey, even if many of those fights were justified, were they right?" of course not. Many of those people I fought are some of my closest friends now. God wants me to realize that what I do is wrong, and that I should be sorry for it. Now, many people who hear this say, "So, a rapist gets away with what he does, pretends to be sorry, and goes to Heaven?" No, this is not how the system works.

ShumaGorath, all of your posts make absolute sense. But try to bear with me for a second. God does not create murders. He creates people. Normal, everyday people to the stuff of legends. He gives them weaknesses, I believe at least, to test that person's resolve. If I wanted to, I could kill, rape, steal etc. Now, I'm not going to say weak people are murderers, but it certainly at least takes some restraint to hold in violent and/or negative feelings.

God doesn't know how these people will live their lives. God does not plan out every persons lives. God simply creates people, I believe, to test them. To see if those people can, at least, avoid the dark, "evil" inner feelings. Now, God does not take joy in this. He doesn't take amusement in this. God loves his children like a father to his sons/daughters. He wants them to succeed. He wants people to go to Heaven, but after the Devil's traitorous actions, he had to guard his followers from the Devil's actions.

Even then, forget organized religion for a moment. Is worship of God bad? even then, is what the Ten Commandments at least say bad? Don't kill, Don't wish for another man's wife etc. The church isn't trying to act dictatorial, they simply wish to pass on the love of the Lord onto others.


P.S. This, IS NOT a flame. Everyone here has made PERFECT SENSE. It is 100% understandable. I am not trying to say, "Worship God or burn in hell." I'm simply trying to show that religions aren't bad. They are just, different. Hopefully this doesn't come across as a flame. I mean no offense. none. There is nothing wrong with Atheists.

You said He. perhaps God is a She? Not to piss anyone off, but what if? What if the churches lied about go being a man? Just food for thought.

God is typically portrayed as Male in the Bible. This sort of rubs off onto your vocabulary, rather than being latent sexism on behalf of the poster.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:God is typically portrayed as Male in the Bible. This sort of rubs off onto your vocabulary, rather than being latent sexism on behalf of the poster.

The ancient greeks, believed in a Great Goddess before Zeus. They did so because of women giving birth, before they learned of mens part in it. Damn. Religon confuses me.

Golden Eye, you may be right. I've just simply referred to God as Him simply because it's what is said in the Bible. I don't want to be sexist, but if the Bible is right, then God is male.

It's an interesting theory though. I guess I'll never know.

It's an odd idea, that God would either be male or female. It assumes he has form at all, for a start.

Roman and Greek Gods are another reason I do not believe.

Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condeming all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

But thats enough. As I said, I have strength of conviction behind my beliefs, and being happy with that, it's not my place or my intention to belittle those of others.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I dunno. A group of people discussing their beliefs, to me, does not a religion make.

A religion is about restricting what people believe in, cajoling, threatening and bullying the congregation into doing so through the use of Hell or other divine punishment.

This is where you go off the rails, I think. You're defining religion as something that's bad, and than saying "see, religion is bad!" I'm also not sure that religions restrict belief any more than any other force in the world. It's clear that you simply hate religion, and that's fine, but I think you're being very unfair in your definitions.

Now, good can come from anything. For example, most of the 20th Centuries biggest technological leaps came from the various War Efforts. Whether the end ever justifies the means is an open question I leave entirely to the individual to answer for themselves. You used the example of religious leaders being instrumental in ending the slave trade. True enough, but it was also religious leaders who justified it as well.

So, religion can be both bad and good. That's all some of us are arguing here. They are human organizations, and have flaws and failings just like any other.

I cannot help but wonder what the world would be like if the excuses of 'Gods will' and 'God says so' were entirely removed from the vocabulary of the human race.

Probably a lot like our current world. People crave authority (see the Milgram experiments, among others), and if not based on religion, it can be based on pretty much anything.

Again I would like to raise the nature of the position of Pope. Apparently, because somebody once said so (Peter or Paul I think?) they are Gods representative on Earth, because Jesus said so. Now, this isn't what annoys, insults and scares me. What does that, is that it is a non-democratic position then held for life, and ultimately answerable to no one. Now think about that. Leaders of the Free World tend to meet with the Pope as part and parcel of position. Why I ask? How is the position of Pope any more tolerable to Democratic countries than any other Dictator or 'President For Life'. I even extend the same question to the Dalai Llama. Not elected. Just appointed. Whether or not they have done any evil, deliberately or otherwise, they are nowhere near Democratic leaders.
Thus, surely they should be shunned and sanctioned as much as the next tinpot despot?

Wow, again man, you seem to just have a real vendetta here. First off, get some history straight. In the Bible, Jesus calls Peter the rock on which he'll build his church, and that he will have certain spiritual authority. As time passed, Peter became the first bishop of rome, which eventually became the first among equals, and finally the head of the Catholic Church. Second, the Pope is elected, it's just that only Cardinals may vote. Third, the Pope, while technically sovereign of the Vatican, doesn't really rule any people that don't accept his leadership. I don't see meeting with the Pope as being that different from say, meeting with the Owner of a large corporation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Roman and Greek Gods are another reason I do not believe.

Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condeming all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

But thats enough. As I said, I have strength of conviction behind my beliefs, and being happy with that, it's not my place or my intention to belittle those of others.

Christian teaching says that if you were never exposed to the word then you aren't expected to have accepted Jesus. You still would have known right from wrong and would be judged on those grounds. And remember that 'accepts Jesus' isn't a key element of all Christian groups, for most 'leads a good life' is a much bigger idea.

And yeah, Gods are transitory. It's a good argument against dogmatic, absolutist religion, not against all religion.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Add in that for an apparently loving deity, the Christian God is clearly some sort of bastard for only letting a few in on the secret, thus condemned all humans who lived and died before having the word spread to them to burn in the firey pits of hell. Or do they get a special Heaven pass because they missed the memo?

something along those lines was one of the things that got me, back in the day. I found myself thinking "if not knowing gets you a free pass, then wouldn't it be better to never tell anyone else, so they got in to"

it seems to me that organized religions lose a lot of force if one discount the existence, or perhaps importance of an afterlife.

one reason i believe i stopped looking for a religion was deciding I'm not bothered by the idea of going "poof" when i go.

Keep in mind that to the Greeks, the Gods and Goddesses that we know and love were just one class of gods. Plato and Aristotle often discussed a creator god that was closer to our conception of the Divine. In addition, while the names are often transitory, the archtypes of gods are shared by nearly every culture. I think that seeing how similar gods make appearances in different times and regions shows that the idea of the divine has some lasting power.

sebster wrote:
Maybe related, but I like the idea of revelation. The idea of reasoning one's way to God is just a little boring .

Exactly. If you can reason your way to everything why not just spend your free time sitting alone in a room. Though I suppose there are plenty of people throughout history that have done exactly that.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Entire Civilisations and Empires have come and gone, and the Gods they believed in with them. Thus, it would seem Gods are just as transitory as man.

God is a word which denotes a concept. The concept has been referred to by many words, and continues to be so denoted today. What has come and gone are the specific means of denoting a higher power, not the concept of a higher power itself.

Polonius wrote:Third, the Pope, while technically sovereign of the Vatican, doesn't really rule any people that don't accept his leadership. I don't see meeting with the Pope as being that different from say, meeting with the Owner of a large corporation.

The pope's hat is way cooler.

But when you have Millions of devout Catholics looking to the Pope for guidance, thats dangerous. If we don't like the stuff coming out a President or Prime Ministers mouth, it's a matter of scant years until we can get shot of the bugger.

But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

And having a bunch of Cardinals doesn't make things democratic either. I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

But at to the Religion thing, I do agree that the exact definition is the important thing, so here goes with my take (feel free to disagree, but do keep it in mind when reading my posts. With any luck they'll appear more considered and less rabid )

Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing. It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

Actually, Mad Doc, you may have a point there.

Now, I'm not "switching sides" but the man does have a point. Kudos to you, sir.

Is the point of debate.

Don't want people to change their minds, just examine their own stand point.

Oh, and I forgot to thank Polonius for correcting me about the Pope and Jesus and that. Always nice to know when you have the wrong end of the stick so you can change it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing.

This is an honest question, not a jab. Do you believe that a religion must be organized around self-acknowledged God?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

Again, not meant to be insulting. Reading a holy text properly requires a vast amount of training because reading a holy text properly requires a vast amount of contextual knowledge. It isn't enough to know what the Bible says. You also have to know what other versions of the Bible say, and the nature of the world depicted in the Bible.

In many ways it is like reading a book on theoretical physics. I can read the book. I will even understand most of it. But I will never understand all of it, because I can never experience the things which are being discussed within it. The best I can do is open my mind in order to experience the model as portrayed. The role (well, in my view) of the Priest, Rabbi, Imam, etc. is to aid the individual in maintaining that open mind.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

I think you would make an excellent Priest MDG.

See, I don't buy the contextual thing about scriptures. To me, that smacks of an established order desperately flailing for relevance in an increasingly educated world.

Though I do have a book I keep meaning to read. I studied Theology at A Level for a bit (sadly my Teacher left, and was replaced with a rather, erm, convinced Christian. Course took a turn away from what I wanted) and when I worked for the same school, one of the Receptionists I shared an office with was a Christian. So we used to have religious type natters, exploring things in our own way. She gave this book which is about the relevance of the Ten Commandments in the modern day. Now I don't seek or expect revelation from this book, but I am expecting an interesting read, whether I agree with it or not!

But should a scripture, regardless of it's religious attachement, require a third party to interpret it? I say not. To me, that is reminiscent of things like Tea Leaf Reading and 'Psychics'. Read something, anything, and I bet you I can put a different spin on any particular passage. Cynical of me I know, but hey, this is an open, friendy debate, so I guess it's only fair I admit when I'm perhaps not being entirely open minded!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But when you have Millions of devout Catholics looking to the Pope for guidance, thats dangerous. If we don't like the stuff coming out a President or Prime Ministers mouth, it's a matter of scant years until we can get shot of the bugger.

But not the Pope. Or the Dalai Llama (put him in deliberately to try and shift my emphasis off the Catholic Church. I begrudge all Religions equally!). The world is stuck with their thoughts until they pop their clogs.

Well, a lifetime appointment has it's advantages. The US Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and about none of those members are elected by anything close to universal sufferage. I guess I just don't see why that alone is enough to earn your ire.

And having a bunch of Cardinals doesn't make things democratic either. I always felt Britain and America had a cheek calling themsleves democratic before allowing ALL members of society, regardless of class, gender or creed vote.

Well, you're shifting goal posts a bit here then. You're confusing universal sufferage with democracy, much as you've been confusing abusive religion with religion. Maybe democratic is the wrong word, but the Pope is elected by a body, not self appointed.

But at to the Religion thing, I do agree that the exact definition is the important thing, so here goes with my take (feel free to disagree, but do keep it in mind when reading my posts. With any luck they'll appear more considered and less rabid )

Religion. To me, Religion is any faith with Vicars, Fathers, Priests etc. To my mind, anything which relies on a more or less self appointed person to tell others how to the live their lives is not a good thing. It is also a fundamentally outdated model. As I am sure you are aware, Priests etc were for hundreds of years, the few people that could read and write. At this point, you know, fair enough I suppose. But as education has improved so vastly, what role do they have that is genuinely relevant? If I have my copy of the Holy Text, I am more than capable of reading it for myself and making my own mind up.

Hmm, this is a confused paragraph. I think you've got a decent start at a definition, in which you call any faith with dedicated clergy as a religion. I guess that works well enough. You seem to be confused, if you think that only priests were the only people that could read or write. Even at the height of the Western European Dark Ages, there were plenty are areas in the world with rich academic traditions. Even in the court of Charlemagne, I'd imagine there were scribes and heralds that could read. For most people, there was no reason to read and not much to read even if they could.

As for the need to have clergy, I'm studying to become a tax attorney. Now, anybody can buy a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and do their own tax planning for corporate mergers. Yet nearly all businesses consult with an expert on the subject when something comes up.

To use a more clever analogy: we all have copies of the 40k rules, yet there are people who are sought out for their wisdom in interpreting those rules. Is that inherently bad?

My point, as you've no doubt guessed, is that clergy, particularly in Jewish and Protestant traditions, often spend much of their time conveying and relating the lessons of the scriptures to the laity. A good cleric can bring the lessons of the past into the modern era. Add on to this the social and para-psychological duties they often perform, and I don't think that it's a completely redundant position.

But Faith. Faith is good and healthy. That to me is your own personal view point, possibly shared and developed with others, but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me, even if I don't think your beliefs are positive or well considered. Each to their own!

Except I think you keep dwelling on a pretty specific subtype of religion and cleric: that of the fire and brimstone style type that precludes any interpretation or practice outside of their own. I think if you look at the actual practices of most religions, you'll see that they offer advice and help and support, and maybe they have their particular brand of message, but they don't necessarily insult or bash the others. There has been some pretty amazing ecumenical work done in the last 25 years in many areas, in which the Catholic Church has dramatically opened up it's world view and begun accepting and endorsing other creeds, most notably Judaism. The Catholic Church is also having talks with some branches of the American Lutheran movement about reconciling much of the schism there.

And, finally, part of being a cleric is that you are holding yourself out as a man of god. Part of that is to literally act a bit, well, holier than the average guy. Most people want their lawyers to look and act like lawyers, and likewise they want their priests to look and act like priests.