A world without religion

unclehobart said:
Take a stroll through Vatican City and tell me that the church doesn't have money. The priceless treasures packed away in there are ten fold a kings ransom.
Click to expand...

Roman Catholics , feh! The Vatican has the money in the same way as the President has the money, or Hussein had the money. Take it in and don't reinvest. I'm still not sure what the Vatican does other than work the PR and Spindoctoring.

The average church ain't rolling in dough and they're the ones making the difference.

Our church runs Meals on Wheels, Food Bank, Christmas Baskets, AA, NA, several Bazaars, clothing and food to Africa, Haiti & Afghanistan etc etc... on what little funds we get through donations. We're still close to $10k in the hole every year 'cause we do too much. The Diocesan office has to bail us out yearly with extra money from other churches.

That, mein freund, is the definition of a non-profit org. squeezing the almighty dollar until it screams for Mama.
 
chcr said:
Jesse Jackson, Jerry Fallwell, Jim Baker... :shrug:

Oops, almost forgot to mention the catholic priesthood...

Got anything more corrupt than that?
Click to expand...

Noriega, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein (Saddam), Marcos...need I go on? But you're missing the bottom line here...what do all of these people have in common? POWER. Even the Catholic priests have that...at least in their respective parish. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, Bill Clinton, and those people I mentioned all have, or had, power. You can blame that on religion all you like, but religion, in and of itself, is only a testimony as to how you should look, and live, your life. People are the cause of the problem. People who have a lust for power, or have power, or think they have power over you. These same types of people would be doing the same types of things if religion didn't exist because they are corrupt. Not religion. ;)
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Now, if there really is no God or Satan, wonder where the concept of a diety at all came from? Makes me wonder...
Click to expand...

Man fears what it cannot understand and cannot control. If you can create something which supposedly controls what you cannot understand, you can at least make a request to that 'something', along with a gift, and hopefully s/he/it CAN do something about it. :shrug: ...or something like that anyway. It's too early in the morning for me to delve into my Sociology degree to find you a more definitive answer.

Maybe later. :D
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Now, if there really is no God or Satan, wonder where the concept of a diety at all came from? Makes me wonder...
Click to expand...
As I said, it was simply a means to explain the things they could not. I think people naturally take responsibility for their actions, but there wasn't anyone to dish out the punishments for thier wrong deeds. So, they invented gods. Gods that would make it rain and make the crops grow if the people were good. Gods that would make it not rain and cause a drought when the people weren't good.

Think of the Native Americans. Here were a people somewhat seperated from the rest of the world. Do you know much about thier spirit beliefs? They lived in a land of plenty so the praying for rain wasn't such a big deal to them. What was a big deal was the animals. So the gods they created were animal spirits, they would pray to these spirits before a hunt, and thank these spirits after a kill. I think if you research it a little, you'll find that around the world religon was created and suited to fit the needs of the people. Hence, that is why I feel it was created.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Noriega, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein (Saddam), Marcos...need I go on? But you're missing the bottom line here...what do all of these people have in common? POWER. Even the Catholic priests have that...at least in their respective parish. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker, Bill Clinton, and those people I mentioned all have, or had, power. You can blame that on religion all you like, but religion, in and of itself, is only a testimony as to how you should look, and live, your life. People are the cause of the problem. People who have a lust for power, or have power, or think they have power over you. These same types of people would be doing the same types of things if religion didn't exist because they are corrupt. Not religion. ;)
Click to expand...
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
MrBishop said:
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...

Exactly...and people who blame religion are only looking for a scapegoat. It's not religion, it's human nature, and that means that they, themselves, are capable of being corrupt. They don't want to think of it, so they blame an outside force instead of themselves so they feel no guilt.
 
Sorry, I still say no more (or less) corrupt. I think the problem is that some people think there's a difference in secular power and religious power that I simply don't think exists. If you misuse your authority (regardless of where that authority comes from) your corrupt. :shrug: Oh, and Gato? Regardless of what you think, I don't blame religion for anything. Religion was created by men for the purpose of gaining power, IMO. It's basically the same as blaming guns for murder. I simply believe the world would be a better place without it. :shrug:

As you say, it's the people that are corrupt, not the institution. I'm just saying that people in general tend to believe more readily that secular leaders are more likely to be corrupt. My point of view is that it doesn't matter where your authority derives from, one person is as likely to be corrupt as another. I think that a lot of people give almost absolute trust to their religious leaders and that makes it seem worse when that trust is betrayed.
 
chcr said:
As you say, it's the people that are corrupt, not the institution. I'm just saying that people in general tend to believe more readily that secular leaders are more likely to be corrupt. My point of view is that it doesn't matter where your authority derives from, one person is as likely to be corrupt as another. I think that a lot of people give almost absolute trust to their religious leaders and that makes it seem worse when that trust is betrayed.
Click to expand...

That's because, and I'll put this in the naivitee section, 'religious leaders are supposed to be above that kind of behavior'. The question is...who put that person in that position? People. Are people infallible? Nope. We always seem to put the wrong person in charge of our day-to-day affairs. Why is that, do you suppose?
 
Gato_Solo said:
That's because, and I'll put this in the naivitee section, 'religious leaders are supposed to be above that kind of behavior'. The question is...who put that person in that position? People. Are people infallible? Nope. We always seem to put the wrong person in charge of our day-to-day affairs. Why is that, do you suppose?
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree that we "always put the wrong person in charge..." We just remember the assholes and ignore the ones that actually do their job.

The point I was trying to make is the one you kind of pooh-pooh. The perception is that religious leaders are supposed to be above such behavior. They purportedly speak with the authority of god behind them. I say that such blind trust is foolhardy. These people are men appointed by men and just as fallible as everyone else (as you accurately point out). No more or less likely to be corrupt than anyone else either. I think we agree on this Gato. I think the only difference we have is that you believe there is a final authority that will (eventually) judge these people and I don't believe such exists. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
Well, I disagree that we "always put the wrong person in charge..." We just remember the assholes and ignore the ones that actually do their job.

The point I was trying to make is the one you kind of pooh-pooh. The perception is that religious leaders are supposed to be above such behavior. They purportedly speak with the authority of god behind them. I say that such blind trust is foolhardy. These people are men appointed by men and just as fallible as everyone else (as you accurately point out). No more or less likely to be corrupt than anyone else either. I think we agree on this Gato. I think the only difference we have is that you believe there is a final authority that will (eventually) judge these people and I don't believe such exists. :shrug:
Click to expand...

In a nutshell. ;)
 
MrBishop said:
WTF?

We're not talking about the average Joe, but society as a whole.
Click to expand...

And the average Joe is society. Most elitists forget this when they decide what's best for the average Joe. That's when the average Joe bites them in the ass. Taking the general populace for granted has been the downfall of every major dictator since we started writing down our history.

MrBishop said:
The earth could be in the shape of a Tabernacle (as was also originally thought) but it won't bother the average Joe, with the exception of farmers who are assisted by knowing when seasons begin and end.

Mind you, society as a whole needs science to plot trade routes, navigate by the stars, tell time, measure distances, build buildings, move heavy weights, make bricks, build aquaducts etc.. to advance.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. The average Joe doesn't need science. The average Joe only needs technology. It's true that you cannot have technology without science, but it is also true that science cannot exist without technology.

MrBishop said:
If you're working with wrong assumptions...you get faulty results. GIGO. If you think that you'll fall off the face of the earth if you go more than 2 days out to sea... you don't go out to sea.
Click to expand...
 
Gato_Solo said:
And the average Joe is society. Most elitists forget this when they decide what's best for the average Joe. That's when the average Joe bites them in the ass. Taking the general populace for granted has been the downfall of every major dictator since we started writing down our history.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that it takes more than one person to make advances...it takes teamwork. Christopher Columbus didn't discover the americas by himself. One individual (singular) even in todays age doesn't need to know how everything works and why, but someone (hopefully a whole pile of someones) has to know how everything works and why. If you don't know the why, you can't figure out the 'Why Not' and worst of all the 'What else' or progress, if you will.

That's where you're wrong. The average Joe doesn't need science. The average Joe only needs technology. It's true that you cannot have technology without science, but it is also true that science cannot exist without technology.
Click to expand...

hunh...we're saying the same thing but you're telling me that I'm wrong? How's that work?

As for science and technology...it's a whole Chicken and Egg thing. Which comes first: The science advancing the technology, or the technology advancing the science?
 
chcr said:
Jesse Jackson, Jerry Fallwell, Jim Baker... :shrug:

Oops, almost forgot to mention the catholic priesthood...

Got anything more corrupt than that?
Click to expand...




Jim Jones(though that is still religion)



Clinton, Bush, Pinochet(though he is no longer in power), Reagan, Bush, JFK, Pol Pot(tho dead) and Hitler and Stalin are all more corrupt or would and did make choices of death through various means Chic. Falwell/Robertson, and Baker ETC are all just assholes.
 
MrBishop said:
What I mean is that it takes more than one person to make advances...it takes teamwork. Christopher Columbus didn't discover the americas by himself. One individual (singular) even in todays age doesn't need to know how everything works and why, but someone (hopefully a whole pile of someones) has to know how everything works and why. If you don't know the why, you can't figure out the 'Why Not' and worst of all the 'What else' or progress, if you will.
Click to expand...

That's absolutely correct. The average Joe doesn't need half the technology we have, either. I like my stuff, but I can live without it.


MrBishop said:
hunh...we're saying the same thing but you're telling me that I'm wrong? How's that work?
Click to expand...

Before the early 20th century, science relied on technology for support, but now it's the other way around. In the past, you didn't need science to invent...now you do. This is how it works.

As for science and technology...it's a whole Chicken and Egg thing. Which comes first: The science advancing the technology, or the technology advancing the science?
Click to expand...

Technology advancing science...unless you count the early man as a scientist. Don't confuse tool-making with science...
 
wasnt science used in tool making? the experiments and such Gato. I will say that they are separate ideas but would you say they worked together
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top