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.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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!

I got into this a bit with my other post, but I think you're being very dismissive of context. Context can tell you what words in the original greek meant, and how many people mistranslated them. They can tell you why certain behaviors occurred. They can explain things that appear complex. I mean, there are hundreds of companion readers to things like the Illiad, are they all utterly unnecessary, or can they add to a persons understanding of the text?

Much of the interpretation and context is provided through scholarship and history, not gut instinct and revelation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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.

To be fair, the term was invented to describe Greek city-states, who did the same thing.

But you see, this is the thing.

You used the example of Tax Planning. An expert in that has studied cases of precedence etc.

But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

And going back to me example of Historical Relevance. I believe it was the King James Bible that was the first English translation (and possibly non-Latin. Not sure about that bit though). So sure, in the court of Charlemagne, scribes etc would have been able to read and write. Goes with the job one might say (buggered if you're an illiterate scribe after all!) but as you say, your average Peasent had no need to read, and thus, the Priest was indeed highly relevant to them, as they could explain their religion to them and guide them (even if it wasn't always in a good direction!).

But in the modern day, do we have need of them? Obviously, I feel not. I don't need a clergyman to go through different interpretations for me, I have the Interwebs for that. Indeed, we're doing it right now, after a fashion. So again, I see the clergy's relevance being further and further eroded, and embrace this as a good thing. I cannot stand blind faith, for that is not faith at all. Well, in my opinion.

You see, I can't respect a persons opinion if they have never bothered to take so much as five minutes to question it. From what I see, many religions (and I see what you mean about good/bad religions, in terms of levels of dogma rather than what they are preaching) aren't terribly keen on people questioning their beliefs. Far better for those in control to just keep telling people they are right.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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.

To be fair, the term was invented to describe Greek city-states, who did the same thing.

Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Modern liberal democracies have almost always moved closer to Universal Sufferage, but the two are not bound together. You can have everybody able to vote but only approved party members on the ballot, for example.

Even today, not all adults (and no children) can vote. Non-citizens, felons and the insane are all prohibited from voting.

Yep.

Although it's worth noting, in ancient Greece and early America the majority of the population was unable to vote.

The power did rest in the hands in the people though, relative to everything else at the time.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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.

I can see that, and I used to feel that way. Then I debated a Priest and lost badly. Flexibility, the kind that comes with contextual truth, is an amazing thing.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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!

I recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It basically covers the course of religious evolution (primarily the Abrahamic religions, but also some of the Eastern ones) from the beginning of recorded history until now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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!

Certainly you're correct. In fact, I'd go further and say we could put literally any spin on any text given sufficient time and flexibility. But that's really the point of accepting some specific thing as having relevance. It allows for communal interaction by holding out a given ideal against which decisions can be rendered without violent conflict.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

And a mathematician is simply a person who has learned a specific interpretation of the world.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:But you see, this is the thing.

You used the example of Tax Planning. An expert in that has studied cases of precedence etc.

But to me, a Priest isn't that sort of expert. He's just learnt a specific interpretation, be that right or wrong. To me, that is hardly an expert.

Well, most clerics actually have studied multiple interpretations. You realize that Catholic seminary is five years of education after 4 years of undergraduate work? They learn the history of the regions in the bible, the languages spoken, and millenia of interpretation by other thinkers. How can that not help? I guess I'm not sure if I'm being unclear or if you're simply very entrenched, but I think if I were to read, say, Revelations, it's helpful to know what the symbolism used in that work were commonly known to refer to back then.

And going back to me example of Historical Relevance. I believe it was the King James Bible that was the first English translation (and possibly non-Latin. Not sure about that bit though). So sure, in the court of Charlemagne, scribes etc would have been able to read and write. Goes with the job one might say (buggered if you're an illiterate scribe after all!) but as you say, your average Peasent had no need to read, and thus, the Priest was indeed highly relevant to them, as they could explain their religion to them and guide them (even if it wasn't always in a good direction!).

But in the modern day, do we have need of them? Obviously, I feel not. I don't need a clergyman to go through different interpretations for me, I have the Interwebs for that. Indeed, we're doing it right now, after a fashion. So again, I see the clergy's relevance being further and further eroded, and embrace this as a good thing. I cannot stand blind faith, for that is not faith at all. Well, in my opinion.

Ok, so you don't need a priest. Good for you, although by bringing up the knowledge available online you seem to already be eroding your position that scripture can stand on it's own. If reading a persons thoughts online is helpful, wouldn't reading an expert's thoughts be equally helpful?

Now, I don't get this sudden detour into discussing blind faith. Are you implying that if I were to ask a priest to discuss a passage of the bible, I'm relying on blind faith? I don't understand why you think having trained experts around to discuss a matter that many people find important, and are supported solely by those people, is a bad thing.

You see, I can't respect a persons opinion if they have never bothered to take so much as five minutes to question it. From what I see, many religions (and I see what you mean about good/bad religions, in terms of levels of dogma rather than what they are preaching) aren't terribly keen on people questioning their beliefs. Far better for those in control to just keep telling people they are right.

Well, as long as you keep painting all religious people with the same brush, I think you're just as guilty of having blinders on. I again reference the Catholic Church, specifically the Jesuits, as prizing individual knowledge and understanding of faith as more important than ritual.

I think you assume that every church is as bad as the worst examples of Christianity, and I hate to break it to you, but most aren't. I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many mainstream clerics that encourage blind faith.

dogma wrote:I can see that, and I used to feel that way. Then I debated a Priest and lost badly. Flexibility, the kind that comes with contextual truth, is an amazing thing.

I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

Polonius wrote:I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

Yeah, in MDG's defence there are blind spots in theological teaching, like there are in all forms of learning. People can be as educated as possible, but there will still be some level of natural bias in there somewhere.

Not that that means any learned religious authority should be dismissed, but that they should be listened to along with many other sources.

Polonius wrote:
I'm an intelligent and educated man, but the average Jesuit Priest could demolish me in any spiritual debate you put him to. At least in the Catholic Church, priests have knowledge that is both incredibly broad and deep.

I like to see myself as both of those things. That's why losing to a Priest was such a significant experience. In fact, it may have been the only real religious experience I've had in my entire life.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2324437

According to this, the definition is closer to ideal of citizenry, rather than pure mob.

Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, Democracy means "Rule of the People", not "rule of every single one of the people." It stood in opposition to tryanny (the rule of a single man) or Oligarchy (the rule of the most powerful and/or wealthy).

Actually it meant rule of the mob, and was used as a term of criticism.

Wouldn't that be an Ochlocracy?

::EDIT:: Oops, Ninja'd into irrelevance.

Polonius wrote:
Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

Just as an example of this. My father became a minister at age 34. He finished undergrad with a BA in political science and economics. After that he got his MBA, and managed a bank for a few years. Then he married my mom, went to seminary, and started floating from parish to parish. The paths to clergy are many and varied.

Polonius wrote:http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2324437

According to this, the definition is closer to ideal of citizenry, rather than pure mob.

Yeah, I remember there was all kinds of discussion about rule of the citizenry vs rule of everyone, with citizenry naturally being assumed to be more responsible. From somewhere in my reading there I remember something about democracy being a derisive term as it would include all those other people, but I can't remember where I read that and am certainly no expert on the matter. I'll drop the point.

Well, there are blind spots in all education and learning, but I think that most mainstream clergy are much broader in education than MDG and many others seem to think.

Absolutely. There is a lot more debate and grey areas in modern religion than most folk outside the system assume. I was just pointing out that even though such debate exists, it doesn't guarantee a system that comes up with the right answer as often as it might. By 'right answer' you can assume I mean either 'the answer that properly considers all relevant factors and discards none' or 'the answer the sebster thinks is correct', whichever takes your fancy

Orkeosaurus wrote:Wouldn't that be an Ochlocracy?

::EDIT:: Oops, Ninja'd into irrelevance.

That's probably the word I was thinking of. And it is a glorious word. Just say it 'ochlocracy'. It's no 'oligopsony' but it's pretty awesome.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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.

I think it's nice that you pretend to do more than pay lip service to the fact there is more to world than your Christian surroundings but all it is doing here is showing how little you truly understand about (Tibetan) Buddhism, the Dalai Llama, and his role in the socio/religious aspects of the Tibetans. Have you ever heard the Dalai Llama? Have you read any of his writings? You try to hold an apple up to an orange and tell us that they are both oranges by virtue of both being fruit and that you hate oranges so this apple must be an orange and so you must hate it as well.

Here is a good little story. One of my professors was having breakfast with the Dalai Llama and a woman there told the DL that she was having trouble dealing with her 14 year old son and wanted to know what advice he had for her. Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.

'Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.'

Wow...super words of wisdom and help...

I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

!? wrote:I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

When exactly were the only a few religions, and the fake ones obvious?

!? wrote:

Ahtman wrote:'Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.'

Wow...super words of wisdom and help...

You would be happier if he lied and pretended to be an expert on child rearing? He wasn't mean and he didn't tell her to go away or anything of that nature and was empathetic toward the problem but he is not a an expert on child rearing and readily admits so. I don't see why this is a problem for you. You want to talk about the Four Noble Truths or the state of human rights between China and Tibet he'd be a great person to talk to. You want to know if someone has some mystical way of dealing with teenagers, especially one with no experience raising children, you'll need to look for someone else.

!? wrote:I liked it when there was only a few religions, you could tell the real one from the fakes. Now you've got all these little sub-religions and groups messing about with people's minds and putting them off the subject.

Is this sort of like the retcon of the 50's where people pretend it was a simpler time and happier but ignore all the repression of individuality, treatment of women as second class, bigotry, and xenophobia that actually was a part of that time?

To the OP:

Did you know Kevin Smith is a hardcore Christian?
Dogma was about celebrating his faith, but gently poking fun at it.

My personal beliefs are crazy right now.
Like many of you, I have drifted away from Religion, but yet have continued to develop a Spiritual side. That said, I believe in a lot of decent Human Spirituality, like love, compassion, forgiveness and acceptance. These are the things which make our mortal lives worth living.
We do them to exist in a nice environment, and to ensure others are content too.

I like to consider the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Shinto, Buddha, Vishnu, Anansi and a whole host of different denominations. IMO, it's all the same language, just a different dialect.

Love, Peace, Harmony man.

Humanity is what has contorted and disrupted the message. If there is a God (I reckon there's a good chance there is), I think he's having a very bad time watching us blow the feth out of each other saying "He doesn't get it..... He doesn't get it..."

When I first saw the title of the thread I thought. “Wow how long before this thread gets locked”. But it’s great to see people having a “discussion” rather than an argument. As usually these kinds of threads devolve into that. (And it still may)

Anyway, I am a “born again” Christian. Before I became a Christian I was a die-hard atheist, and much more so than what I have seen posted by some of the people that have posted in this thread so far. I was very similar to Paul of the new testament, in that I used to approach people that “claimed” to be Christians and “test” them by trying to debate them. I used all my knowledge that I had learned from my own experience in attempts to break down their beliefs and to reinforce my “unbelief”.
I endorsed the “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” lifestyle and lived the “sex drugs and rock and roll” lifestyle. And then something miraculous happened. I found God. How can someone that was so totally against the idea of God even existing, let alone expressing faith in Jesus Christ happen?

Grace.

Listen to the song Amazing Grace. “I once was lost, but now I’m found” It is so true.

I don’t claim to have all the answers, in fact I believe it impossible to have “all the answers”. Isn’t it a bit foolish of us to think that we can understand all the aspects of an All Mighty God? I feel perfectly fine with saying that I will never know why God allows certain bad things to happen, because I have a relationship with my Creator and that I know that He is real. I have no problem with the questioning either. It’s perfectly natural as human beings to wonder about the deep mysteries of God and life.

I’m not sure if that makes me religious or not, but I know it makes me a man of faith.
GG

Ahtman wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: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.

I think it's nice that you pretend to do more than pay lip service to the fact there is more to world than your Christian surroundings but all it is doing here is showing how little you truly understand about (Tibetan) Buddhism, the Dalai Llama, and his role in the socio/religious aspects of the Tibetans. Have you ever heard the Dalai Llama? Have you read any of his writings? You try to hold an apple up to an orange and tell us that they are both oranges by virtue of both being fruit and that you hate oranges so this apple must be an orange and so you must hate it as well.

Here is a good little story. One of my professors was having breakfast with the Dalai Llama and a woman there told the DL that she was having trouble dealing with her 14 year old son and wanted to know what advice he had for her. Well he replied "I'm celibate. I've never had sex let alone children." He let her know that he didn't have some mystical magic fix to make a teenager suddenly not act like a teenager and the best thing to do would be to talk to other parents.

Hold on a minute skip. I introduced the Dalai Llama as another explain of the religious equivalent of a dictator for life.

I have tried not to judge individual religions, as I feel my stand point is one where I have to ignore all religions equally, lest I become a steaming great pile of hypocracy.

Wow. First of all, let me say that I'm very glad that this didn't get locked and that som many people can have such a liveley discussion about this topic.

malfred wrote:Or maybe it's like being a parent. You know they're going to mess up, how they're going to
mess up, why they're going to mess up, but you let kids do it anyway and only make yourself
available as a last resort.

That's a very nice way to put it Malf

Polonius wrote:Freewill isn't a gift, by the way. It's the whole reason I believe that god created us: so that there would be those that chose whether or not to seek him out. In my view, God was lonely. Creating beings that could freely chose to leave or accept him offered him the possibility of a certain companionship that he otherwise lacked. that's the whole reason the offer includes eternal life in paradise: it's not a reward for those that believe, but a way to only let in the people that want to go to the party. I mean, if you knew there was a god, why wouldn't you ask him favors?

Likewise, the counter offer isn't eternal damnation, it's simply death. Separation from the divine would result, not in fires and devils, but in a fairly simple lack of existence.

But then he would "damn" a whole lot of people. Just think of the many tribes in Africa who don't know about "him/her". Also, imagine this: You die and you go to heaven. And then you're sitting there on you're cloud, doing whatever you do up there and you look down, and see World War 3 happening. Maybe it just happens a week or so after you die and you see how it affects all the people you've known and loved. And God still doesn't lift a finger. Could you "live" with that? For an eternity?

sebster wrote: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.

A lot of Religions also did quite a good job in destroying art and knowledge or at least hiding it. The whole Galileo thing for example.

Tek wrote:To the OP:

Did you know Kevin Smith is a hardcore Christian?
Dogma was about celebrating his faith, but gently poking fun at it.

Yes, I'm aware of that and I'm sure he wouldn't be very happy if he knew how his movie changed my vies on my former Religion. I guess it must sound weird to some people, if I say that it was basically an american comedy with a lot of cursing which got me to change my vies on the topics, but that's the way it happened, I already talked about the details.

My personal beliefs are crazy right now.
Like many of you, I have drifted away from Religion, but yet have continued to develop a Spiritual side. That said, I believe in a lot of decent Human Spirituality, like love, compassion, forgiveness and acceptance. These are the things which make our mortal lives worth living.
We do them to exist in a nice environment, and to ensure others are content too.

I like to consider the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, Shinto, Buddha, Vishnu, Anansi and a whole host of different denominations. IMO, it's all the same language, just a different dialect.

Love, Peace, Harmony man.

Humanity is what has contorted and disrupted the message. If there is a God (I reckon there's a good chance there is), I think he's having a very bad time watching us blow the feth out of each other saying "He doesn't get it..... He doesn't get it..."

Good point you god there, but I'm still thinking, if he really is up there saying "he doesn't get it..." he's saying that for a long long time now. And that's the main reason why I can't get my head around the whole concept. I don't even have to talk about the crusades or witch burnings, WW2 and the Holocaust should've been the last straw.

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.

My qualm has always been the why. I believe that a omnipotent being could make 1+1 equal refrigerator if it saw fit. Being all powerful means no limitations, being confined to "logic" such as that is a limitation that isn't even totally concrete in the existence that we know, let alone something that could be created by an all powerful being.

What I've always wondered is why. Why even bother creating a world where people can run their little robot lives to become good or bad people (despite having their lives pre determined by their creator). Why not just create good people? I mean in effect that is whats being done, if our actions are pre determined by the all mighty then the course of my life is going to end just as it was designed too. Why even create the concepts of good and evil at all? Why does a god need to be worshipped?

You'll note I also never argued about a just god. Just the existence of one as per our frame of reference. Its also very possible that an all powerful being can simply defy logic via its being all powerful. So really this is all kind of balloons.

I'm an atheist, if you ask me religion has done far more harm than good and I've simply never had a belief in any divine being and even if such a being did exist I still couldn't find it in me to fall to my knees and venerate it.

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 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?

Indeed they may well do. This is mentioned in the book of Romans 2 v14-16. To summarise the Gentiles are a 'law unto themselves' (where the common phrase comes from), and if they act according to their good conscience the 'law' defends them even though they had no knowledge of the Mosaic covenant (10 Commandments).

Interestingly this expires on hearing the gospel, but that is fair however because belief in Jesus Christ is a far easier pass criteria than a just life.

The exact mechanics of salvation are a mystery, because it is obvious through promises in the Old Testament that it predates the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and it is also clear that not all those considered righteous were Jews either. This is touched on in the book of Hebrews. I think the easiest way to explain, though not absolutely correct; is that salvation through faith is the only guaranteed way of entering heaven, but God is less doctrinal than he looks and allows exceptions.

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. 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!

We are closer to each other in thinking than I would have reckoned. To many churches being called 'religious' is all but an insult, faith is the real thing. The Bible backs this up wholeheartedly; the best example is in the first book of Corinthians 13, the whole chapter. This includes the iconic 'love is kind' passage and is a favourite at weddings. In a nutshell to have the processes of religion without a gentle heart is futile.
Most people of faith will however answer yes if asked if they are 'religious' as coloquially the differences between religion and faith are not understood and saying that one is not relgious, even if theologically correct sounds a bit like denial.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

A church is not a building, it is a community. It is merely a pick up in the language that we now, and have for many centuries, refered to a religous building as a church.
Churches are needed as it allows people of the faith to network, after all living a faithful life can be hard, there are many pressures.
These communities require some form of leadership, how this is organised determines the type of church community you have. Some groups have elders, some just have a priest, some import priests and in major denominations the preiest selection process becomes political. After all large numbers of worhippers become both a powerbase and a moneypot.

The parts of the church that are really thriving, work on this system. Pentecostals, evangelicals and the charismatic church in particular. This can lead to other problems, some of the indie churches are very good and well lead by well meaning individuals and groups, others are seriously dodgy. A good rule of thumb is look to see how important the offereing is made to be, if its half the service and speaks almost incessantly of the 'double helping, pressed together, shaken and running over', just go. I have noted with some amusement that those churches that dont worry about the financies and dont go preaching the offering never end up having to worry about money, those that do have problems. There is good faith in this, God is a reaasonable bloke, but if your faith is all about reaching a financial target he will make it difficult, you will have to pray for it and finally get it, after all its the only way their faith will grow. Of course assuming the whole leadership is actually honest and not on the take. If you dont worry about money it comes and faith grows. I have seen time and again, in my own life especially, that those who don't worry wont need to, the promise of Jesus in Matthew 6 v25ff 'consider the lillies in the field....' holds true time and again.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
but as long as no one has yet appointed themselves literally 'holier than thou' then is all good with me

This is the clincher, anyone from just about any faith thinks that they have an advantage over the rest of humanity. Inviting people to join can lead to misunderstanding, as can trying to live to the standards set down by the faith. Others will just hate you for even trying no matter what you say. This all assumes you follow a faith fairly.
When many dont; the fanatics, paedo priests and TV evangelist conmen are remembered and everyone else is tarnished with the same brush used to tar them.

This post has been deleted by Modquisition as flaming

Never mind me.