Swift
I was actually reading what you said and thinking until this part. So, let me get this straight, just because you have the right to free speech I shouldn't get offended?
I've come to those conclusions without the intent to offend (although that's obviously been a side effect, which I AM actually not happy about, but I can't change my views just because of that). I am actually sorry if I have views that some religious people find offensive, but there isn't a whole lot I can do about that - I'm just practising my free speech to state those opinions. If you don't like them - just ignore me! No point reacting in a really shocked and hurt way, its not going to change my views.
Anyway, its only the internet - meaning, how could I possibly know enough about you (and vice-versa) to say anything that could offend you in any real deep way? Surely your faith is strong enough to withstand someone like me questioning it. You must read all sorts of opinions on the internet all the time!
If you except everyone is gonna have different views (and there are many people I know who think exactly the same as me), you might just have to put up with people like me, acceptance and all that. I do not hold views that are considered extreme in any way, not at all. You're blowing the level of offense out of context and taking it personally way too much. Maybe you're just really touchy and can't discuss any religious issues without overreacting. I've already stated I'm sorry if I do offend, but I can't lie about my thoughts; I can't basically censor myself for anyone that may be offended (when I know my views aren't really that extreme or offensive - and are perfectly logical in my mind and many other's) - that isn't for me to care about, at least not primarily - getting across my thoughts honestly is more important.
What kind of logic is that? If I attack something that you hold dear or are passionate about, like your family, and you DON'T get offended then I'd say you have some serious issues.
I am not having a go at you personally, Swift. For the record, I'd never dream of having a go at anyone's family or whatnot. Of course you'd get offended then! But you misunderstand me (as always)...
I was never having a go at people that
practise any kind of religion as you've assumed - I even mentioned some other positive reasons for having churches that I was purposefully IGNORING for the sake of argument - like the social aspect, and that person to person guidance that to some people, would be useful). Personally, my parents and school teachers have provided easily enough guidance through my childhood to make me a well balanced individual that is happily enjoying life. For others, they may look to a preist or whoever, it's not my position to understand their all their motives.
Now, I
was simply questioning the concept of needing a powerful institution that runs a religion, and put up the analogy of a business, as that is the only thing that strikes a chord in terms of how things have operated. If the church didn't operate like a business (whether it was aware of this or not), there would not be any new churches built, or preists employed, the roof would have a hole in it etc... Just look at some of those amazing medieval, gothic, baroque, renaissance churches for why I may have some niggling feeling that the church runs too much like a business, they obviously make profit (and prophet
). To do that, logically, you need a product, and obviously the ticket to heaven and everlasting life IS IT!
I'm still unsure as to why the church needs to be such a huge power with so many material assets etc, when the religious ideas are surely the only important thing one needs to have faith. Ultimately you're not giving money to God, just other humans who may spend the money to fix the roof on a church that you don't need (conceptually and theoretically) to have a full religious and spiritually fullfilling life. I'm questioning the need for the church to be so wealthy when the ideas and teachings are what's important. I know that there is a point to having a spokesperson like the Pope or whatnot, and preists to give guidance (lets face it, religious folk tend to need someone to look up to in life and follow, as opposed to running their own path), but I've never understood the sheer amount of material wealth the church supposedly needs.
Just a tiny little example - the Pope washed the feet of
those dudes recently - in a GOLD bowl. The act itself is supposed to make a symbolic statement about humility and humbleness - as the act of washing someone's feet is, in essense. Using a solid gold bowl defeats the symbolic message IMO, and just illustrates the absurd hypocrity of the church - modern or old.
It all comes back to religion (any of them) being a pursuit of the mind, and the mind alone. Why should God care how expensive your gold-lined cathedral is if you believe in him as strongly as the next guy? That is how and why I think that organised religion is not useful for actually furthering any meaningful spiritual goals. You won't agree, but it's something I was thinking about and I think it's a solid point, and has obviously hit an uncomfortable nerve. Of course, I'm not summing up the entire system of religion you believe in, I'm simply making a certain point. Don't assume this point is ALL I think of religion or the church, its but one thought of mine that I felt like sharing... Of course there are positives and good churches that we'd agree give a net-value of "good" to the community, I'm just talking about things wholistically, and throughout the overall history of the church. I was even just talking about ALL organised religions, but hey, its ok if you want to be more specific and assume I'm just referring to your church. You realise how my point is simply a theoretical observation now?
Let's look at the history of governments. NONE have a perfect or even close to perfect record. NONE, not even the Greek government you seem to hold in such high esteem. So why don't you say that the US government is absolutely worthless because it authorized the slaughter of untold numbers of native Americans and of course endorsed slavery for almost 100 years. Why not? Because to judge an entity of the scope of our government entirely on the acts of the past, especially when we weren't alive to see it or effect it, is closed minded and ignorant. But, this is in fact what you're doing to the "church". Since there were some bad things in the past, automatically all churches are evil money making enterprises built to suck the life blood out of people by means of finances.
(A)
I was only ever talking about how the Greeks invented democracy, you'd agree was overall, a good ideal. They had high enough ideals (basically inventing the concept that every man is equal) and a basis in their views (perhaps given how their Gods needed to work together and had a (more or less with some exceptions) common agenda) to come up with the idea of democracy in the first place. It isn't even important if the Greek's society was sucessful or not!
(B)
I am also talking about the church from a very systematic and theoretical point of view, trying to understand what that system is like, at a very base level. Any misguided analogy regarding other world governments or historical institutions are not relevant in the slightest. It takes nothing away from my points regarding the church, which remain as relevant today as they were in the past. As long as organised religion of any kind exist - my observations are relevant.
You say I'm closed minded to the entire concept of evolution. And at some points I am, especially life coming from none life. But you're equally if not more close minded if you don't take each church, just like each individual, and judge it on it's own merits. Man, if I judged people the way you do, I'd call anyone that German MUST be evil, Japanese can't be trusted, all Mexicans are useless illegal in America, everyone in South America is a drug producer, anyone that owns a gun is a suspicious person for all murders using a firearm, etc... But I don't, maybe you should give that a try.
I've already stated that my view is not about attacking any singular church or individual, OF COURSE I can't blame any one church for existing and functioning today - just as it isn't my personal fault that the Australian Aboriginals got slaughtered at the Myall Creek Massacre. You're assuming I've said things I haven't (funny that). I understand your point, and I agree. It doesn't stop me making an observation that remains valid, even if the system has remained in place so long that apportioning blame on any individuals is impossible.
Even God doesn't judge a man until he's dead, so why should we thing we're any better?
Relevance? See above. I wasn't attacking individuals, just a flawed system that theoretically at least, doesn't need to exist and doesn't need wealth. How many times? Religion is a thing that occupies your mind. Its a spiritual thing - the whole essense of spirituality is that it isn't material in nature. I don't understand why churches need to exist, from what I understand religion to be.
You really like pulling scripture out of context don't you? Do you even have a clue what that psalm is about?
Thought I'd quote something out of context just to show you how it feels. Kinda like your understanding of evolution and just about every point I make. Taking something and turning it to mean something completely unintended. You're the master, Swift. Gotta give you credit for that.
Edit: Just realised how fitting that the psalm I quoted was - an eye-for-an-eye. Basically getting you back for misunderstanding evolution... Coming from King
James too... Hehe.
So if I can't show you a paper on the flood, or Moses parting the red sea or it not raining in Israel for three years then oh well. It's not about science, it's about Jesus. You can call me an irrational Jesus nut or whatever, as long as you leave Jesus in there. 
