Organised Religion: more harm done than good.

Kopf

The "religion is bad" post was abominably terrible, everything from its title to its contents, so I decided to post my own thoughts in a seperate thread.

I have a big problem with organised religion. Religion is, as we are taught in school, one of the main reasons wars have been faught throughout time. One only has to look at the crucades, the many bloody wars that took place during the reformation, the violence inflicted by conquistadores after they arrived in the Americas, the Reconquista and the horrific Spanish Inquisition just to take a few examples, to see the violent suffering precipitated by religion and religious belief.

Religion has also been instrumental in violent and dispicable suppression of intellectual thought throughout the ages. This has dissipated in modern times, since such measures are not tolerable any longer.

However, this brings to bear another ill of religion - especially Christianity, from my experience. It is fundamentally opposed to free thought. Indeed, the concept of free thought and free thinkers was set up in response to this.

Religion also seeks to dictate how we live our lives. In some cases I find this totally acceptable - if everyone truly lived by God's 10 Commandments, this world would certainly be a much better place, and probably indeed be a utopia. Unfortunately that is not the case.

And, unfortunately, it is not the case that the ten commandments are the only dictations of lifestyle handed down by the church. We need look no further than our own Archbishop John Charles McQuaid to see one example of use of power in such a way as to make life rather unpleasant.

This brings up another terrible issue with religion - its binding with government. When religious law was enstated in Iran, music was banned. Islamic law in Saudi Arabia persecutes many -- having said that, I'm sure there are many people quite happy to live under Islamic law, but also very many born into it who are not so happy. Fundamentalist Christian views are very dear to George W. Bush and this has brought about a very dangerous situation. He views the current war on terrorism as a war of good versus evil, essentially the last war to be waged on earth before the apocalypse and the coming of Christ.

We can all be sure that this war on terrorism has great potential to be the last war on earth, and indeed to bring about apocalypse, due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and their indiscriminate and massive destruction.

The coming of christ, obviously one of the things assuring him that he is right (apart from God whispering in his ear), we cannot be so sure about.

Imagine, the destruction of this beautiful world, its civilisation, art, and all its intelligence, in a quest of folly....

These are my main problems with organised religion. It segregates people, persecutes people, breeds violence and suppresses intellectual thought and creativity.

I have absolutely NO problem with personal spirituality; indeed, I imagine religion has helped many, many people through times of terrible pain, both emotional and physical... It's just a shame that it's obviously inherent in the human condition to form groups of like-minded people, and attack people who differ from your beliefs.

It's also a shame that nothing can be done to change this: religion is here to stay.



afterword - I hope this AT LEAST serves as an example of how to start a proper, intellectual debate, instead of "religion iz bad, hers y: luk at northern ireland and 9/11 and everything, people die, so its bad *CRYING*"

I'm not going to say "nothing personal to that poster".. cause it is personal. For God's sake, at least put some thought and research into your post before making it. This is serious stuff.

And as I hope was pointed out in the other thread, the troubles in NI weren't based on religion, they were (obviously) based on the difference of interests of nationalists, who happened to mostly be catholic, and unionists, who happened to mostly be protestant. Therefore religion became an easy way to target people.

Excelsior

Kopf wrote:

The "religion is bad" post was abominably terrible, everything from its title to its contents, so I decided to post my own thoughts in a seperate thread.

Excellent. And thank you for them. As I'm waiting for my Friday night to begin I thought I'd take the free time and respond.

Kopf wrote:

I have a big problem with organised religion. Religion is, as we are taught in school, one of the main reasons wars have been faught throughout time. One only has to look at the crucades, the many bloody wars that took place during the reformation, the violence inflicted by conquistadores after they arrived in the Americas, the Reconquista and the horrific Spanish Inquisition just to take a few examples, to see the violent suffering precipitated by religion and religious belief.

When I was an atheist I would have passionately agreed with you. Then I heard for the first time what Christianity actually was and after I became a Christian I would have gone into a state of not-yet-thought-about-this agnosticism, if you know what I mean.

At this point though, having spent a lot of my spare time this summer thinking about it, I would mildly agree with you. Wherever spiritual views are organised into a structure and a hierarchy, a slow rust and then a full-out rot begins. While none of the wars you listed were actually caused by religion, religion has been a vital tool, easily warped, for the manipulations of the greed or the fear that lies behind the wars you have listed and the many more you could list.

Kopf wrote:

Religion also seeks to dictate how we live our lives. In some cases I find this totally acceptable - if everyone truly lived by God's 10 Commandments, this world would certainly be a much better place, and probably indeed be a utopia. Unfortunately that is not the case.

I'll avoid defending Christianity as much as I can in this post and won't elaborate on the fact that the Bible is clear when it gives the 10 Commandments that they can't be kept. What I can agree with you is that religion always seems to be tending towards offering propositions and laws to mark out boundaries. The power it can exert because of its claims to be divinely sourced can turn this boundary construction into a tyranny and we have seen that within the last 50 years in Ireland. As a Christian, what happened in the name of Jesus in terms of moralism is a source of great anguish.

Kopf wrote:

This brings up another terrible issue with religion - its binding with government. When religious law was enstated in Iran, music was banned. Islamic law in Saudi Arabia persecutes many -- having said that, I'm sure there are many people quite happy to live under Islamic law...

The Taliban actually tried to ban dancing! The poorest country in the world and their response was to ban parties. Soccer also fell under the wrath of Allah. Very unreasonable of him, if you ask my opinion.

Kopf wrote:

Fundamentalist Christian views are very dear to George W. Bush and this has brought about a very dangerous situation. He views the current war on terrorism as a war of good versus evil, essentially the last war to be waged on earth before the apocalypse and the coming of Christ.

The thing that drives me crazier than anything else- Christian fundamentalism. 1 John offers the clear proposition: God is love. These fundies claim on one hand to hold the Bible as inerrantly, literally true and yet forget these simple love statements! We are all hypocrites but in the case of Christian fundies and zealots, their hypocrisy saddens me to the point of hopelessness. Whatever about Bush, I don't think we're able to know if he is as stupid and as evil as some people claim at this point, it is certainly true that his interpretation of politics as a Christian could be staunchly challenged.

I think the church and the state needs to be seperated. I don't think that should be turned into a "religious" doctrine, like liberals in USA want to make it, but church influence over state should begin and end in the individual congregation member's influence over state through the ballot box. The reason for me isn't that religions do damage to society (although they often do). Instead, it is Biblical- Christianity from the New Testament cannot be imagined as a power broker. Political power in the way churches have sought it is anathaema to their purpose.

Kopf wrote:

I have absolutely NO problem with personal spirituality; indeed, I imagine religion has helped many, many people through times of terrible pain, both emotional and physical...

While I agree to a certain extent, I don't think a comfort derived from a lie is any kind of real comfort. What I am saying is that if the bones of Christ were found tomorrow, I would not be a Christian. There would be no way. I would consider the passionate growth and deep comfort I have received from my faith over the last 5 years or so a sham, a waste of time and an utterly depressing prospect. I would feel humiliated. If anyone thinks that they can somehow gain comfort from religion without relying upon that belief to be true, then I doubt they have analysed themselves honestly, nor scrutinised their faith.

It's just a shame that it's obviously inherent in the human condition to form groups of like-minded people, and attack people who differ from your beliefs.

This is where my thinking on this issue has developed. As part of my work I have to do a certain amount of pastoring and teaching, mostly to 3rd level students. These guys often respond, in the best of intentions, (honestly with pure hearts) to challenges with a defense mechanism that puts them into a besieged mentality. While there, concerned with themselves and their sense of security or rightness, they are no longer thinking of others, which as evangelical Christians they ought to be doing.

In an ancient scripture called the Letter to Hebrews, the author talks about how Jesus is not a religion. He is not a set of rules to be followed and a set of sacrifices to be performed and a place to go to on a special day and a way to employ a bunch of specialist mystic men. He has replaced the rules with love, he is the ultimate sacrifice, he is the temple, he is our priest. Yet that early idea of Christianity as a journey of following Christ has been replaced by organised churches sometimes bitterly oppossing each other. (And I am thinking about devoting my life to one of them!)

So the point I'm trying to make but am just waffling around is that I would add another regrettable trait to the human condition and that is to replace any dynamic, relationship-based, uncontrolled movement like that of being a Christian with a clearly defined, rules-based, structured hierarchy like being a Catholic or a Presbyterian. (Not to suggest that Catholics and Presbies can't be Christians. Rather, it is possible for you to be Catholic or Presby or whatever and not be in anyway a Christian.)

Kopf wrote:

Religion has also been instrumental in violent and dispicable suppression of intellectual thought throughout the ages...
...especially Christianity, from my experience. It is fundamentally opposed to free thought. Indeed, the concept of free thought and free thinkers was set up in response to this.

I agree with so much of what you say but I passionately disaggree with you here. I just don't think you can pose any reasonable argument that suggests Christianity is oppossed to free thought. From the early church fathers through to Augustine, on through Dun Scottus and Thomas Aquinas, up to the founders of science, Gallileo, Newton, Liebniz, Descartes, Boyle and Pascal and the rest of them, through to the likes of NT Wright and Alvin Plantinga today, Christianity is the most fertile intellectual field ever devised.

There are myriad books published in the last 10 years by historians of science and philosophers of science on how vital Christianity has been in the development of modern empirical science. Even today, metaphysics and ethics are dominated by Christians. Even today, novels, art, poetry and music of astonishing beauty, from Narnia through to U2 are produced by Christians as examples of Christian worship.

Its not just that I have an opinion that differs from yours- I think the evidence is clear that on this issue, you have over-stated your case.

Phat Chance

I heartily agree with all of this, but wasn't Galileo persecuted by the Church for his declaration that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe?

Nobody has yet mentioned the Church's hypocrisy when it comes to third world poverty and the AIDS crisis. The Vatican is one of the wealthiest countries in the world for it's size, but the wealth is locked up in artworks, some of which aren't even on display. Yet they refuse to sell these works, even to help ease the AIDS epidemic, but they maintain that the governments of Western countries must give money to help these countries. When I found out about this it did harden my resolve against the Church. I have no problem with Christ, I do believe, it is His messengers and minions that I dislike.

Excelsior

Phat Chance wrote:

I heartily agree with all of this, but wasn't Galileo persecuted by the Church for his declaration that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe?

Nobody has yet mentioned the Church's hypocrisy when it comes to third world poverty and the AIDS crisis. The Vatican is one of the wealthiest countries in the world for it's size, but the wealth is locked up in artworks, some of which aren't even on display. Yet they refuse to sell these works, even to help ease the AIDS epidemic, but they maintain that the governments of Western countries must give money to help these countries. When I found out about this it did harden my resolve against the Church. I have no problem with Christ, I do believe, it is His messengers and minions that I dislike.

Galileo's "persecution" was a political issue with regards to a fight with a meteoric, machiavellian cardinal. It certainly wasn't about geocentric views of the Solar System. He remained a passionate Christian and a devoted Catholic until his dying day.

The Vatican, for whatever failings you can throw at it, probably does all it can in the issue of 3rd world debt. They were the major actors behind Jubilee 2000 which has devloped into the wider Drop The Debt/Make Poverty History campaign.

Remember that the vast majority of Roman Catholics now live in the 50 heavily indebted poor countries. Getting rid of the art collections might be a great idea, but you're fooling yourself if you think it will make a difference in the face of debt, aids and trade.

Kopf

Excelsior wrote:

Galileo's "persecution" was a political issue with regards to a fight with a meteoric, machiavellian cardinal. It certainly wasn't about geocentric views of the Solar System. He remained a passionate Christian and a devoted Catholic until his dying day.

Regardless of who was archbishop where Galileo lived, he would have been treated the same.

His scientific revelations totally confronted and defeated some teachings of the church, and he was punished accordingly. It was the way of the times, and it is dispicable.

You're fooling yourself if you believe his treatment has everything to do with an especially nasty archbishop, and nothing to do with Gallileo's discoveries.

I shall reply to your other points tomorrow morning, when I'm not drunk and tired.

Excelsior

Well I guess drunk and tired can leave you prone to make statements of an ahistorical nature.

I look forward to reading your stuff.

Kopf

Excelsior wrote:

Well I guess drunk and tired can leave you prone to make statements of an ahistorical nature.

Don't be so ignorant.

From wikipedia:

However, real power lay with the Church, and Galileo's arguments were most fiercely fought on the religious level. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century historian Andrew Dickson White wrote from an anti-clerical perspective:

The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that "geometry is of the devil," and that "mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies." The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.

Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but "atheistic," and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop of Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly insulted Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop of Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the Inquisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the new doctrines as unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and inviting him as the greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was secretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the astronomer.

While many in the Church supported Galileo, the charges brought by the priests who had been goaded to act against him were serious. These men asserted that dreadful consequences must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the Sun and not about the Earth. Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that "his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation." Father Lecazre declared, "It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation." Others declared, "It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the Earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?" Nor was this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school. (White, 1898; online text)

I know that wikipedia cannot be regarded as a 100% reliable source of information, but I chose these two extracts since they are cited, with links, and illustrate what I was describing.

I would, however, reccomend you read the whole "Religious Controversy" part of Galileo's wiki.

From "Euclid's Window" - http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684865238%3Fv%3Dglance&ei=Jn4ZQ8vpFKKOiALv2_XODA

With all this to hamper progress of the mind, the main impediment was a more direct constraint: medieval scholars were required by the Catholic Church to take it for granted that the Bible was literally true. The church taught that every mouse, every pineapple, every housefly served a purpose in God's scheme, and that this scheme could be understood only from the Scriptures. To prove otherwise was dangerous.

The Church had reason to fear the rebirth of reason. If the Bible is divinely inspired, then its authority, regarding both nature and morality, rests on the Bible's absolute acceptance. Yet the Bible's description of nature often clashed with concepts of nature derived from observation or mathematical reasoning. In nurturing the universities, the church therefore unwittingly contributed to the decline of its own authority in both nature and morality. But the church did not stand on the sidelines and see its primacy undermined.

Descartes utilized his geometric insight to do famous work in many areas of physics...... Yet Descartes delayed publishing coordinate geometry for nineteen years. In fact, he didn't publish anything until he was forty. What was he afraid of? The usual suspect, the Catholic Church.

As he had feared, Descartes was roundly attacked for his perceived challenge to the church. Even his mathematics attracted nasty criticism. Fermat objected to trivial points. Blaise Pascal, another brilliant French mathematician, condemned it completely.

Descartes was most viciously attacked by a man named Voetius, the head of the divinity department at the University of Utrecht. Descartes's heresy, according to Voetius, was the usual one: the belief that reason and observation could determine the truth.

In 1663, the goal of Voetius's attacks was finally realized: the church banned Descartes's writings.

Now, a quote from you:

From the early church fathers through to Augustine, on through Dun Scottus and Thomas Aquinas, up to the founders of science, Gallileo, Newton, Liebniz, Descartes, Boyle and Pascal and the rest of them, through to the likes of NT Wright and Alvin Plantinga today, Christianity is the most fertile intellectual field ever devised.

Bull****. I've already shown how the catholic church persecuted anyone who found scientific findings that ran contrary to the teachings of the church - negating two of your examples, Galileo and Descartes, and making them my own.

The reason one could be tricked into seeing that "Christianity is the most fertile intellectual field ever devised" is that it was so powerful and extensive that anyone with a great mind in western civilisation was bound to be christian or, with a lesser chance, jewish.

The church attacked intellectual thought in these times because it directly challenged the teachings of the church, with far more reasonable and logical teachings backed by evidence. If this was to take hold, the church's unquestioned control of the masses would be eroded, and that couldn't be let happen. So torture persecution and social-exclusion was employed.

Think before you call my assertions "ahistorical". I think I've proven this point beyond doubt, so I'll get down to reading your other, rather rambling, post in a bit.

Excelsior

It is easy to fall into the trap on bulletin boards of presuming that the person you are debating is out to roundly defeat you in some kind of futile egotistical mania. All I can do is assure you that I don't in any way intend to slip into that kind of muppetry.

I largely agree with your premise that organised religion tends towards being destructive. I am surprised you haven't read that overall affirmation in my post. Your argument about Galileo has to do with an organised religious hierarchy's reaction to what it perceives as a threat. I wrote about how that reaction functions on an individual level, seeing as I am in close contact with Christians from all backgrounds on a day to day basis. I agree with you.

But the problem is that Galileo was not tried and house-arrested "because of science" or anything as simple as that. It was not simply his astronomy that was a personal threat to tyrants in charge of reformation-era Rome but himself. In the midst of the much larger canvas of the Lutheran and Calvinistic challenges to Rome's spiritual (and indirectly political and financial- back to the organised religion losing track of itself) megalomania, Galileo seemed unwilling to subscribe to an ultra-Papist position. His theories, that of Descartes, Copernicus and co were a threat in the same way that modern evolution is a threat to American fundamentalists- not because it says anything specifically against Christianity but because it appears to threaten their worldview.

I agree that what happened to Galileo was shambolic. That it took them 400 years to lift their punishments is appalling to the point of surreality. I agree that it was organised religion that did it. What I think is taken out of perspective is how that organised structure is not Christianity. It is a sleight of hand to tackle the Roman Catholic church and label it Christian.

The only way that this clarification can be labelled as bull**** is if your faith in a science -v- religion world is stronger than your reason. Galileo remained a devout Christian until the end of his days. He understood that the crimes committed against him by the institution in no way affected his ability to research or his ability to worship Jesus.

Your citations of wikipedia are from what is admittedly described as an "anti-clerical" position. My favourite book on the issue is Rebuilding the Matrix but if you want to get really serious on the science-religion interaction, Oxford biochemist Alistair McGrath finished his 3 volume Science of God in the last 2 years. It is tough going but very rigourous.

So rather than ramble, let me restate briefly:
Institutionalised religion tends towards immoral chaos, a prime example of this is Galileo. They fought Galileo on the premise of a contentious scientific theory but they were actually using him and his proposals as a weapon in a much larger battle. This church is not Christianity. Galileo, the innovating, ground-breaking scientist investigated the order in the universe that his God assured him was there in the Bible and he died a devout Christian. Arguing that Christianity stifles thought on that basis is a flimsy or reductionist argument.

Kopf

Excelsior wrote:

I agree that what happened to Galileo was shambolic. That it took them 400 years to lift their punishments is appalling to the point of surreality. I agree that it was organised religion that did it. What I think is taken out of perspective is how that organised structure is not Christianity. It is a sleight of hand to tackle the Roman Catholic church and label it Christian.

That's a very good distinction to make. As I said in my post, I have no problem with personal spirituality, in fact I advocate it. What I oppose is institutions organised religion, such as the Roman Catholic Church.

What can the Roman Catholic Church be labelled, if not christian?

Did you mean.. ermm.. viewing the church and christianity as the same / as the one thing?

So rather than ramble, let me restate briefly:
Institutionalised religion tends towards immoral chaos, a prime example of this is Galileo. They fought Galileo on the premise of a contentious scientific theory but they were actually using him and his proposals as a weapon in a much larger battle. This church is not Christianity. Galileo, the innovating, ground-breaking scientist investigated the order in the universe that his God assured him was there in the Bible and he died a devout Christian. Arguing that Christianity stifles thought on that basis is a flimsy or reductionist argument.

Indeed, yes, nothing wrong with spirituality yadda yadda yadda.

However, what is christianity if not an organised religion? And what does organisation require, but an institution or organisation, in this case the church...

bus77

Kopf wrote:

However, what is christianity if not an organised religion? And what does organisation require, but an institution or organisation, in this case the church...

And what does scientific progress require? What I allways see missing from these arguments is the realisation, that for any sort of meaningfull progress you need long term/large scale social stability.

Why? because intelligent people and books have a tendency to get killed/lost without it.

Kopf

bus77 wrote:

And what does scientific progress require?

Intellect and knowledge.

acri

On a world-wide basis, I feel religion has indeed caused an atrocious amount of wars and suffering. I used to be an avid religion hater. I boycotted religion in school and was furious it was preached in primary schools. But that's changed.

Over the last few years, a vast number of family members, both distant and close, have died in my family. I'm not upset by this, but it was interesting observing the funeral from the back of the church.

Religion gives people hope. Something to look forward to after death. I saw so many elderly people, most older than the deceased. I could only imagine what they must've been feeling. However, they were religious believers. Thus, they didn't have the fear one would associate with death. They look forward to a heaven.

I don't have such beliefs. As a result, I do my best not to think of my own mortality. For the simple reason that it scares me. It's because of this that I feel religion is a good thing on an individual basis. It lets people believe that life is not in vain and that death is just the beginning of another chapter.

Kopf

I'd disagree with this.

I think belief in an afterlife leads people to not feel bad about wasting bits of their lives... I don't believe in a divine creator, or an afterlife, and I have a lot of hope for my life, and I'm confident that when I die, if it's of natural causes, I'll be ready to go, and rather content.

I am, however, scared of a violent death, or of being robbed of my life. But this is something i've always lived with.

acri

But what's wrong with feeling you havn't wasted parts of your life? It won't matter when you're dead because, well, you'd be dead. But if people are content with the life they live, that's what's important, regardless of us thinking they may have wasted it.

As regards actually dying, I don't mind the fact that I'll eventually die, it's just the thought that this is it. This is all I've got. Just one shot. Then nothing. And because I don't have divine beliefs, I'm afraid I'll waste my life. I'm not saying I will, but it's just one of those fears. Same feeling as mabye you're not using time in school effectively before the leaving. But this is deviating from the origional topic.

Kopf

That's what I'm saying...

In short - a belief in the afterlife discourages people from a "Carpe Diem" philosophy.

UU

I disagree with you to say that many organised religions are bad. I view religious organisations, such as the Catholic Church, more like a club. For example, someone wishs to do sport, art etc. they have two main options - (1) Join a soccer, GAA club, etc. where they are with people who play the same sport together and are distinct members and follow rules ,or, - (2) Do the hobby on their own or with their friends casually where there is no organisation, membership and rules.

This example is like anyone can have religion in two main ways - (1) An organised religious system where people believe and worship the same things, where there are rules, doctrines, texts, government/leader(s), etc. or (2) Where people have their own personal beliefs but there are no set laws, doctrines, leaders, etc. (i.e. unorganised religion).

I think religions need to have some sort of governing, like a club, but democratic or they will fall apart but I don't think they should have any control with a country or state as they're not the only religion and their beliefs should not be enforced upon individuals. I like a religion where people can have more variety in beliefs(options) and are able to accept each other's beliefs.

I'm a part of a religion called Unitarian Universalism but it's different than most other organised religions as it teaches that nearly every religion in the world(including paganism) has something to offer mankind so many people belief in different things including humanism and there is a democratic commitee which is elected by every member of that religion. We pray together once a week in covenent where different topics are discussed which help people to form there own beliefs and be more aware of the world around them.

And on a lasting note. Many wars and violence haven't occured and occur due to religion but for some other reason and religion is the excuse given to hide that reason. For example, Protestant versus Catholic in the North and Reformation and some people said and say thay hate Jews because Jews say that they're God's Chosen People, Christians and Muslims also say they're Chosen too.

If you say organised religions do more harm than good, then you could say that about anything.

bus77

Kopf wrote:

That's what I'm saying...

In short - a belief in the afterlife discourages people from a "Carpe Diem" philosophy.

I dont know about that. I was left out of religion altogether but have allways had what could be called the opposite of a "Carpe Diem" philosophy. Lazyness has been my constant companion. I'm working on it though.

Kopf wrote:

I am, however, scared of a violent death, or of being robbed of my life. But this is something i've always lived with.

But then again, I've never really been afraid of much in life so there seems to be some sort of trade off here.
You can't win can you

bus77

UU wrote:

I'm a part of a religion called Unitarian Universalism but it's different than most other organised religions as it teaches that nearly every religion in the world(including paganism) has something to offer mankind so many people belief in different things including humanism and there is a democratic commitee which is elected by every member of that religion. We pray together once a week in covenent where different topics are discussed which help people to form there own beliefs and be more aware of the world around them.

Sounds great. The story of the Socinians and the polish brotherhood is very interesting. Isnt it allways the millitants that feck it up for everybody?

Edit; Apologies, apparentely there are fundamental differences between Socinians/Unitarians.

Kopf

Your post starts off by saying you disagree, and then you state your opinion of how an organised religion works for a few paragraphs, and then have one paragraph that scarcely addresses just one of the points i made in my first post.

I don't see how the wars during the reformation used religion as a screen to hide behind either. They were religious wars.

UU

bus77 wrote:

Sounds great. The story of the Socinians and the polish brotherhood is very interesting. Isnt it allways the millitants that feck it up for everybody?

Lol! Yeah, thats what my friend has started calling the Vatican these days also. That's why I like Unitarian Universalism(UU - despite its incredibly long name!) as the congregations are listened to, are able to discuss their own beliefs and topics. There is no higher-archey but a minister and speakers who are more like spokespeople unlike in the Catholic Church where the priest is looked upon as to be better and a higher authority than everyone else, which I think is wrong. Although both Unitarianism and Universalism came from Protestant groups such as Puritins, the Bible is looked upon as mythical and the stories are used for their symbolism.

I used to be Catholic, myself, but I gave up on it. I don't dislike the religion itself but the Church.

UU

To Kopf, during the Reformation, the Church disliked Protestants because they were trying to take the power from them by setting up new non-Catholic Churchs which they feared and hated. The Prods still believed in Christ with some different beliefs but looked to the Bible as the supreme authority not church leaders. For example, if a group of Catholics set up their own church but still followed Catholic teachings, beliefs and doctrines, etc. but rejected the church leaders as the supreme authorities, the church would most definitely still dislike them so the Reformation was much more than a matter of beliefs but political too so it would be unfair to call it a religious war as such, even though it seems so.

Kopf

Read what I wrote.

I'm not calling the reformation a religious war.

I never did.

I know what the reformation was, and what happened during it.

I suggest you read up on the wars that occured as a result of it.

Excelsior

Kopf wrote:

What can the Roman Catholic Church be labelled, if not christian?

Roman Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. It is not Christianity whole, as so often is the assumption amongst Irish people.

Your argument with regard to intellectual history is based on a reductionism that won't stand to deep analysis. The founders of what we know as empirical science began their research almost to a person and certainly within a culture drenched in the Biblical assumption that God has given us a Creation defined by order and amenable to discovery as an act of worship. Institutionalised religion has stood in the way of these discoveries but just taking Galileo and Pascal as two well known examples, they attributed so much of their work to their faith.

I think the point that UU is making is that although the reformation wars were able to use institutionalised religion as a major rallying call and although religious zealotry raised the temperature such that it is a cause, it was not the major cause. The major cause was political and financial as Europe's mini kingdoms reorganised themselves and found Calvin, Luther and the Bishop of Rome to be good social foundations.

Jesus states the commandments to be "Love your God with all your heart, all your mind and your neighbour as yourself". Christianity is not anti-intellectual.

UU- I guess my problem with your definition of religion is that every religion in the world except Unitarianism would be deeply offended by it. Show me a Buddhist who thinks that they have joined a spirituality club? It can barely be imagined (outside of Richard Gere Buddhism). People join religions because they think they are true, that they explain the nature of the world. While you are driven by a desire to be tolerant, you are expressing a deeply patronising and intolerant view if you declare yourself more capable than them in discerning that what they believe to be unique truth is in fact, a mirage, (which is what comparing religions to soccer clubs makes me think of).

Kopf, you've said that "I hope this AT LEAST serves as an example of how to start a proper, intellectual debate" but whether you mean it or not, the way you're engaging is kind of aggressive.

UU

I feel bad now . I didn't mean at all to be offensive as I know that many people do believe that their religion is the true religion and the explanation of life's mysteries and also take comfort in it. I, myself, don't believe there is any true religion at all but something to be learned from every religion which many would reject. I was only metaphorically comparing organised religions to be somewhat similiar to soccer clubs, etc., as they consist of a head or heads, have a congregation, rules, etc. which make up the actual assembly of it but with a spiritual side of beliefs, doctrines, holy books, history, prophets, etc. which is a lot more than any club. A club can be used of it's defined as an "association of people who share a common interest, belief".

Actually religious systems are cults. I know it sounds degrading but a cult can be defined as "a system of religious worship" and "pursuit of, devotion to, some person, thing, or activity" which covers both organised and unorganised faiths. Even though many would disagree with me and say that cults are commonly portrayed as pagan, satanist, sacrificial faiths, which are far from organised faiths, cults are a lot more than just that.

Unitarian Universalism is still an organised religion and cult just like Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, etc. so it is no less a religion.

I know many will say that I'm degrading religions as many have faith in them and organised religions aren't some, freaky secret cult but I rest my case.