[fairyfossil]

would be interested to hear everyones views, though will refrain for a while from expressing my own.... im talking here not so much about personal faith but rather the systems of religion, the hierachies and the history.. something i find interesting as it has shaped human culture and civilisation......... :confused:

[trentdick2882]

both

[fairyfossil]

pitiful reply,
... please explain your views, personally as a method of freedom i believe it to be fundamentally flawed but then everything seems to be..:mad:

[Ouroboros]

My 2 cents:-

1 - I am guessing this thread, being about religion, will be closed pretty soon by a Mod, as this board has a policy of not allowing overt discussion of religion and / or politics.

Which brings me to ...

2- When people discuss these topics, they seem to find it hard to keep a civil tongue in their heads for very long (myself included). Your 'pitiful reply' comment to trent is a good example of someone coming across as a smarmy git rather than someone who wants to foster a casual exchange of viewpoints.

As regards the original question ... clearly, trent is right on the money : organised religions of whatever stripe may at once be instruments of repression and regulation while at the same time being vehicles for the spiritual development of many of their followers.

[fairyfossil]

fair enough.

[kyria]

System of control.

If you could only see how the bishops here are 'encouraging' people to vote for a certain candidate. Some religious groups even have a block vote which they throw behind the candidates they're backing.

Why, though? What does the Church get by putting a certain candidate in power? A better society??? It's about getting support for issues the Church wants supported. Like birth control, or abortion, or its version of morality. Anyway, I think the Church shouldn't be meddling in politics. What about the people who don't strongly believe in what the Church is teaching? If the candidate the Church is backing gets elected, and they managed to get legislation passed supporting Church views, then even non-Catholics (or non-practicing, as I am) would have to abide by its religious teachings. Which is irritating because I chose to NOT be a devout Catholic in the first place.

Also, I think that a lot of what organized religion is teaching their masses is dumbed down. I'm sure the religious leaders know a few religious and probably mystical secrets they're not teaching their followers. If they don't, either they're really open about teaching their followers (rare), or they're total hacks. I am sure that they could argue that people could misuse the true teachings, but personally I'd prefer a religious follower who truly understood his religion than someone who just blindly follows like a fool. A really frustrating thing is why most people don't even put in the effort to study their religion. They kill for it and they die for it, blindly believing the dumbed down version of their religion to be true, or because their leader asked them to as some holy quest. But ask them some serious scholarly questions, they'd rather challenge you to fight than do some introspection and religious study and then some intelligent debate.

To me, the Church has lost its moral high ground. I keep thinking about the time when the Church split into Roman and Orthodox, or when a Medici bought the papacy, or the Spanish Inquisition, etc. Or that the Church incorporated a lot of pagan rituals and celebrations into its traditions. Also, someone pointed out to me that Jesus actually never intended to found a new religion. He lived and died a devout Jew. This religion was originally a reform movement within Judaism. Originally, someone who wanted to join had to go through a rigorous 'apprenticeship' stage when he studied and understood the teachings. Anyway, the Church now is just so far from what it originally was. It's now this big, bloated religious organization and I don't know if it even remembers what the original teachings were.

The question is, why do originally non-controlling religions evolve to become systems of control? More power? For survival? To protect some long-held mystery?

I think it's partly because some rotten eggs got in and used their influence to further their own ends, their egos, etc.. and nobody's cleaned house, and it's been that way since.

I want to make it clear that I am not attacking the Catholic Church. I still believe in its basic teachings and it has done its share of good. I just happen to disagree with a lot of the things going on there. I'm only using it as an example here because it's the only one I'm familiar with enough to discuss.

[Se'dray-on]

I pretty much agree with Kyria. Almost any religion in and of itself is a good thing that tells people that being kind and decent is the right thing to do. It's when you start getting people and priests and heirarchies that it's teachings become corrupted, and the religion itself becomes institutionalized, which is a bad thing.

It doesn't start out as control, but in the end becomes that way, through corruption and beauracracy.

Lates

[I, Brian]

Of course, before mods close this thread, you can always consider visiting my newest site:

http://www.comparative-religion.com

To help launch the forum (http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/) there's a contest to win $50 to spend at Amazon. :)

[kahnovitch]

I think you have misunderstood this forum somewhat fairyfossil.
We don't really approach religious or political debate too much here as it inspires flame-wars and (as Ouroboros and I well know) those can happen regardless.
I, Brian's forum is a better place for these kinds of discussions. I have ghosted in and out of his forum once or twice and seen the topics that his forum chooses to address, so you may be better posting a topic like this in his forum.

[Cadfael]

Originally posted by Ouroboros
My 2 cents:-

1 - I am guessing this thread, being about religion, will be closed pretty soon by a Mod, as this board has a policy of not allowing overt discussion of religion and / or politics.

Which brings me to ...

2- When people discuss these topics, they seem to find it hard to keep a civil tongue in their heads for very long (myself included). Your 'pitiful reply' comment to trent is a good example of someone coming across as a smarmy git rather than someone who wants to foster a casual exchange of viewpoints.

As regards the original question ... clearly, trent is right on the money : organised religions of whatever stripe may at once be instruments of repression and regulation while at the same time being vehicles for the spiritual development of many of their followers.

Right on all counts...

Topic Closed...