A
Anonymous
Guest
I'm against organisized religion. I'm also against Christianity. ha ha ha... i'll get my coat....
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
Pithy... and very redolent in places of the 'From Hell' letter.
8[/]¬)
8[/]¬)
Lets play devils advocate. Originally priests were the leaders of worship in whatever religion. They marked the Holy Days, gave advice when people wanted to know if a behaviour was propitious, lead the worship in the correct form. They studied the Deity they served to better understand what pleased that deity. This is still their purpose in Xtianity and in other faiths.
Be frank most people, even those who profess to be religious, do not read their scriptures. They are taught them (especially Sanskrit and Islamic believers) but generally forget most of what is said in favour of their own habitual behaviours.
Look at Islam, though the final say on all matters is in the Q'ran which does not explicitly support stoning of adultresses. Local imans will find ways of justifying these local quirks despite this lack.
Xtianity is unique in its highly centralised structure. In the begining Xtians were like other faiths. Local priests having the last say in matters religious. Then the Roman Emperors adopted it and it began to develop an imperial structure. First bishops were appointed then archbishops. Matters of doctrine were decided centrally and that brought strengths as well as weaknesses a local priest could no longer say "Today we will sacrifice a lamb and dance naked round the maypole" on a whim.
See where decentralising the church gets you, the profussion of sects and cults we see in the "Bible Belt" of the USA. Lest you think it is a modern phenomenon, think on the Mormons. Of course it can also bring people like Billy Bray of the Bible Christians of Cornwall.
On this board we are unusual, we think about things like morality, deity and faith; we are not limitted in what we bring to this examination. Many people do not think about such things but they need and sometimes feel they need guidance. For such priests are essential.
Be frank most people, even those who profess to be religious, do not read their scriptures. They are taught them (especially Sanskrit and Islamic believers) but generally forget most of what is said in favour of their own habitual behaviours.
Look at Islam, though the final say on all matters is in the Q'ran which does not explicitly support stoning of adultresses. Local imans will find ways of justifying these local quirks despite this lack.
Xtianity is unique in its highly centralised structure. In the begining Xtians were like other faiths. Local priests having the last say in matters religious. Then the Roman Emperors adopted it and it began to develop an imperial structure. First bishops were appointed then archbishops. Matters of doctrine were decided centrally and that brought strengths as well as weaknesses a local priest could no longer say "Today we will sacrifice a lamb and dance naked round the maypole" on a whim.
See where decentralising the church gets you, the profussion of sects and cults we see in the "Bible Belt" of the USA. Lest you think it is a modern phenomenon, think on the Mormons. Of course it can also bring people like Billy Bray of the Bible Christians of Cornwall.
On this board we are unusual, we think about things like morality, deity and faith; we are not limitted in what we bring to this examination. Many people do not think about such things but they need and sometimes feel they need guidance. For such priests are essential.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Messages
- 784
Well, thank you, intaglio!
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
Quote: Intaglio
On this board we are unusual, we think about things like morality, deity and faith; we are not limitted in what we bring to this examination. Many people do not think about such things but they need and sometimes feel they need guidance. For such priests are essential.
Nice post Intaglio and I know you stated that you were playing devil's advocate but did you mean the above paragraph to read that those who are church goers or believers in Christianity do not think about morality, deity and faith? Are these the subjects only thought about by those who scoff? Believe it or not there are some who do think about such things and reach a different conclusion from that reached by the seeming majority on this board. It does not mean they accept what they are taught/told without question - merely that they have reached a different answer. I know that is an unpopular view here but I'm feeling big and brave this morning
On this board we are unusual, we think about things like morality, deity and faith; we are not limitted in what we bring to this examination. Many people do not think about such things but they need and sometimes feel they need guidance. For such priests are essential.
Nice post Intaglio and I know you stated that you were playing devil's advocate but did you mean the above paragraph to read that those who are church goers or believers in Christianity do not think about morality, deity and faith? Are these the subjects only thought about by those who scoff? Believe it or not there are some who do think about such things and reach a different conclusion from that reached by the seeming majority on this board. It does not mean they accept what they are taught/told without question - merely that they have reached a different answer. I know that is an unpopular view here but I'm feeling big and brave this morning
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
I've only just discovered this thread. What a good one it is - sensible discussion with no Wibble! Bwah! involved.
I agree with most of what has been said, whether for or against. But I'm surprised no-one has quoted that bit about "where two or three are gathered together in my name..."
I tend to lay much more emphasis on the authority of the Bible, considered as a historical document, than on that of the Church.
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild? A poor, wandering preacher? No, that's the Church interpretation, and the bible provides either counter-examples or strong hints that things were otherwise.
I agree with most of what has been said, whether for or against. But I'm surprised no-one has quoted that bit about "where two or three are gathered together in my name..."
I tend to lay much more emphasis on the authority of the Bible, considered as a historical document, than on that of the Church.
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild? A poor, wandering preacher? No, that's the Church interpretation, and the bible provides either counter-examples or strong hints that things were otherwise.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
Meanderer said:Quote: Intaglio
On this board we are unusual, we think about things like morality, deity and faith; we are not limitted in what we bring to this examination. Many people do not think about such things but they need and sometimes feel they need guidance. For such priests are essential.
Nice post Intaglio and I know you stated that you were playing devil's advocate but did you mean the above paragraph to read that those who are church goers or believers in Christianity do not think about morality, deity and faith? Are these the subjects only thought about by those who scoff? Believe it or not there are some who do think about such things and reach a different conclusion from that reached by the seeming majority on this board. It does not mean they accept what they are taught/told without question - merely that they have reached a different answer. I know that is an unpopular view here but I'm feeling big and brave this morning
Very nicely put, and I agree with all you said save about scoffing, if, as it reads, you're applying it to this thread.
Question, do such people need clergy under those circumstances?
8¬)
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
harlequin said:
I think, that as Intaglio mentioned all the open-minded thinkers of the board, I was referring to the general level of remarks made right across the board by said thinkers. All of whom are as entitled to their opinions as I am.
And yes, I think people need clergy/leaders.
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,485
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
Bit of a rant.....
I became vehemently and hatefully anti-church well before I was ten. I was female, and god and his more powerful spokesmen were male. They did not speak to me other than to exhort me to obedience.
I was raised a Methodist and so had no comforting rituals to fall back on, unlike say a Catholic, and 'my' religion offered no warmth, just control. Protestant and non-conformist faiths have no supernatural female icons.
There are of course female deacons and preachers in non-conformist churches but back in my provincial 1960s childhood there either weren't any or they were marginalised into invisibility because I had no female religious role models.
Now we have female priests. This to me is, to use a Marxist term, 'participating in their own oppression'.
How can a female priest serve a male god as an equal to a male priest? She must by her very gender be inferior to him. A male priest will always be more like the deity and therefore more 'godly' in the eyes of the congregation.
To me, the whole xtian church thing is a matter of the submission of women to men, and I saw through it and it lost its power to control me before I wore my first bra. This is not to say that I have no spiritual beliefs. But a male god, pushing people around with his male henchmen, denying all manner of rights to women, to me is openly and ludicrously self-serving.
I have learned a lot since childhood and on degree-level sociology courses I met lots of other similar thinkers of both sexes. And of various sexualities too, who brought to the debate arguments I'd never dreamed of.
I don't need priests, for moral, religious or life guidance: neither does almost anyone I know, in our complicated post-industrial urban society, except those brought up in families of faith.
Where I've seen children brought up with no religious faith on the grounds that 'they can make up their own minds later' they have a healthy scepticism and self-belief which I can only admire.
I was honest with my own family and answered questions of religion with the Marxist line about religion being a method of mass control. With of course a proviso that I could be wrong about this but had given it much thought.
That's my own, personal reason for the rejection of a priesthood: they push women around in the name of a male god. They can stuff it. I might even be the only woman in the world who thinks like this but I doubt it.
I became vehemently and hatefully anti-church well before I was ten. I was female, and god and his more powerful spokesmen were male. They did not speak to me other than to exhort me to obedience.
I was raised a Methodist and so had no comforting rituals to fall back on, unlike say a Catholic, and 'my' religion offered no warmth, just control. Protestant and non-conformist faiths have no supernatural female icons.
There are of course female deacons and preachers in non-conformist churches but back in my provincial 1960s childhood there either weren't any or they were marginalised into invisibility because I had no female religious role models.
Now we have female priests. This to me is, to use a Marxist term, 'participating in their own oppression'.
How can a female priest serve a male god as an equal to a male priest? She must by her very gender be inferior to him. A male priest will always be more like the deity and therefore more 'godly' in the eyes of the congregation.
To me, the whole xtian church thing is a matter of the submission of women to men, and I saw through it and it lost its power to control me before I wore my first bra. This is not to say that I have no spiritual beliefs. But a male god, pushing people around with his male henchmen, denying all manner of rights to women, to me is openly and ludicrously self-serving.
I have learned a lot since childhood and on degree-level sociology courses I met lots of other similar thinkers of both sexes. And of various sexualities too, who brought to the debate arguments I'd never dreamed of.
I don't need priests, for moral, religious or life guidance: neither does almost anyone I know, in our complicated post-industrial urban society, except those brought up in families of faith.
Where I've seen children brought up with no religious faith on the grounds that 'they can make up their own minds later' they have a healthy scepticism and self-belief which I can only admire.
I was honest with my own family and answered questions of religion with the Marxist line about religion being a method of mass control. With of course a proviso that I could be wrong about this but had given it much thought.
That's my own, personal reason for the rejection of a priesthood: they push women around in the name of a male god. They can stuff it. I might even be the only woman in the world who thinks like this but I doubt it.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
This is not an issue of gender. I have very little time now but will post again later but trying to make it an issue about man vs woman is devisive and unecessary. I too have had similar experiences with power and religion, but i believe you're wrong when you say it's about submission to men, it's not, it's about submission to control.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
I can see the logic of what escargot has written but I have to say that I don't think it is the whole picture. To say that women priests cannot be equal to men in the church is to denegrate all that those women have fought for. Its like saying women shouldn't have the vote because most politicians are men. You have to start somewhere.
Personally I disagree that Christianity encourages the subjugation of women but I know i'm fighting a losing wicket here
Personally I disagree that Christianity encourages the subjugation of women but I know i'm fighting a losing wicket here
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
I would suggest a perusal of the Pauline segments of the NT about the role of women in the 'accepted' terms of the Christian faith
8¬)
8¬)
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
I was talking about Christianity in the 21st Century i.e. now. I know women haven't been treated well in history - in every section of society men have treated them as second class - I think things are a little different in 21st century Britain. Not perfect but getting better.
Is progress not allowed? Do we have to always see the church through the eyes of biased historians. Can things not change ?
Is progress not allowed? Do we have to always see the church through the eyes of biased historians. Can things not change ?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
If it changes is it still Christianity?
Some of the 'Christian' publications (available at a shop in the Elephant and Castle if memory serves) shows that certain sections of the 'Christian' community use the 'word' as justification of maintaining that the purpose of women is two fold
1)breeding
2)homemaking
and that is it.
The CofE have made Women ordainable, which resulted in a schism that nearly ripped the Anglican Catholic Church apart, and the echoes still rumble today
The stance on the ordination of women in the Catholic church remains the same, based on the argument that Jesus did not select a woman as a disciple.
I'm not au fait with the other Protestant faiths, but I believe most use the same argument as RC, although I'm sure there is someone out there who can correct me if I am wrong.
To be honest Edward has hit the nail on the head... control. It was the purpose of the Council of Nicea (that was chaired by Constantine, a pagan) To winnow out the 'correct' version of the faith, i.e. one by which you could control a crowd and wring a living from them.
8¬)
Some of the 'Christian' publications (available at a shop in the Elephant and Castle if memory serves) shows that certain sections of the 'Christian' community use the 'word' as justification of maintaining that the purpose of women is two fold
1)breeding
2)homemaking
and that is it.
The CofE have made Women ordainable, which resulted in a schism that nearly ripped the Anglican Catholic Church apart, and the echoes still rumble today
The stance on the ordination of women in the Catholic church remains the same, based on the argument that Jesus did not select a woman as a disciple.
I'm not au fait with the other Protestant faiths, but I believe most use the same argument as RC, although I'm sure there is someone out there who can correct me if I am wrong.
To be honest Edward has hit the nail on the head... control. It was the purpose of the Council of Nicea (that was chaired by Constantine, a pagan) To winnow out the 'correct' version of the faith, i.e. one by which you could control a crowd and wring a living from them.
8¬)
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,485
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
I expressed a personal and long-held view here and certainly am not out to convert anyone.
It's not about men v. women: it's about the control of society through the oppression of women. A much larger issue.
Organised religion and the status of clergy are irrelevant to my life.
I was indulging myself by putting my oar in, because I don't even feel strongly about these issues any more.
It's not about men v. women: it's about the control of society through the oppression of women. A much larger issue.
Organised religion and the status of clergy are irrelevant to my life.
I was indulging myself by putting my oar in, because I don't even feel strongly about these issues any more.
I didn't mean to insult or patronise anyone with my post. It is my firm belief that the vast majority of people do not think about the afterlife or morality and if they do it is in terms of their own customs and culture. In the UK when they need guidance in these things they will often choose the local expert - usually a priest, minister or elder. These experts, although in my terms limitted in their terms of reference, do think about such things. Who do you replace them with?
In relation to women I have many doubts as to whether religion is the cause of this or merely reflecting cultural biases.
Please remember that for all the faults of Xtianity it is the faith that has allowed the development of our current free thinking. It may not have intended to - but it has.
In relation to women I have many doubts as to whether religion is the cause of this or merely reflecting cultural biases.
Please remember that for all the faults of Xtianity it is the faith that has allowed the development of our current free thinking. It may not have intended to - but it has.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
In the dim and distant past, before radio, TV, films, etc, going to church was not just religion, it was also entertainment and a social club. You would hear strange and marvellous stories of distant lands, and meet people you hadn't seen all week. There was music and singing too.
Apart from church there were only ale-houses, and the occasional itinerant story-teller or minstrel. In cities there would be more elaborate entertainments like plays, but for the majority of the populace, ie the poor, the Church was about all they had. The yearly cycle of festivals gave a comforting structure to their lives, even to those who, in their hearts, did not believe the religious stuff.
So in such times the clergy did have an important social function. Now, in our modern world, they are becoming an anachronism, peddling the same old tired and unlikely versions of history which most people no longer accept. Even many of those with spiritual beliefs no longer accept organised religion, prefering to communicate with their God on a private level.
Times change.
Apart from church there were only ale-houses, and the occasional itinerant story-teller or minstrel. In cities there would be more elaborate entertainments like plays, but for the majority of the populace, ie the poor, the Church was about all they had. The yearly cycle of festivals gave a comforting structure to their lives, even to those who, in their hearts, did not believe the religious stuff.
So in such times the clergy did have an important social function. Now, in our modern world, they are becoming an anachronism, peddling the same old tired and unlikely versions of history which most people no longer accept. Even many of those with spiritual beliefs no longer accept organised religion, prefering to communicate with their God on a private level.
Times change.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
An excellent point Ryn. And one that I, as so many who choose to 'demonise' the church, frequently choose to forget. The problem of small goods amid 'great' evils, I suppose.
8¬)
8¬)
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
And what does *that* say about the mind that creates them?
8¬)
8¬)
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
New Religion
It appears to me that 'the church' has become a victim of progress. It's arrogance in assuming that it doesn't need to change has, i believe, been a major factor in the dilusion of its power.
In todays progressive and ever-changing world it is increasingly difficult for people to 'believe' in a movement which promotes the bible as being 'fact'. The emergance of a 'personal and private faith', whilst it almost certainly echoes the moral sentiment of the bible, doesn't need the ornate trappings and histrionics of an organised religion.
The knowledge and wisdom that the clergy provided in times when very few people were educated to the standards we have today is now easily available and likely to be irrelevant, as science has provided 'real' answers to many of the problems 'gods wrath' produced. Even spiritual solutions are readily available in many different forms from many different sources, particularly to the younger members of society who are more open to new ideas and more accepting of change.
"This is my church. This is where I heal my hurts. Tonight, god is a DJ." Maxi, Faithless.
It appears to me that 'the church' has become a victim of progress. It's arrogance in assuming that it doesn't need to change has, i believe, been a major factor in the dilusion of its power.
In todays progressive and ever-changing world it is increasingly difficult for people to 'believe' in a movement which promotes the bible as being 'fact'. The emergance of a 'personal and private faith', whilst it almost certainly echoes the moral sentiment of the bible, doesn't need the ornate trappings and histrionics of an organised religion.
The knowledge and wisdom that the clergy provided in times when very few people were educated to the standards we have today is now easily available and likely to be irrelevant, as science has provided 'real' answers to many of the problems 'gods wrath' produced. Even spiritual solutions are readily available in many different forms from many different sources, particularly to the younger members of society who are more open to new ideas and more accepting of change.
"This is my church. This is where I heal my hurts. Tonight, god is a DJ." Maxi, Faithless.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I only started going to quaker meetings a few months ago - because I'm having a quaker wedding - my mother-in-law to be being a very active Friend.
I think I will continue to go though. It's given me so much. It's strange - i never thought sitting in silence for an hour with the odd person standing up and saying something very wise and thoughtful could be so enriching. Its made me think a lot more about my personal morality but without making me feel like I'm crap or I'm going to go to hell or any of those other things that christian churches usually do.
I have tried to be a kinder and more socially aware person. I know I'm not ever going to be pefect but I can be a lot less selfish than i have been.
I never thought I'd go back to a church-type thing but the fact that every person there can 'minister' and that there is no leader and that people whatever their beliefs are welcome appeals much more to me than traditional christianity. Also the fact that it's geared towards doing good for other people in this world - not going around trying to convert people and telling them they need saving and how bad they are - just helping them and accepting them.
I think I will continue to go though. It's given me so much. It's strange - i never thought sitting in silence for an hour with the odd person standing up and saying something very wise and thoughtful could be so enriching. Its made me think a lot more about my personal morality but without making me feel like I'm crap or I'm going to go to hell or any of those other things that christian churches usually do.
I have tried to be a kinder and more socially aware person. I know I'm not ever going to be pefect but I can be a lot less selfish than i have been.
I never thought I'd go back to a church-type thing but the fact that every person there can 'minister' and that there is no leader and that people whatever their beliefs are welcome appeals much more to me than traditional christianity. Also the fact that it's geared towards doing good for other people in this world - not going around trying to convert people and telling them they need saving and how bad they are - just helping them and accepting them.
A
Anonymous
Guest
just to add
I was brought up a Roman Catholic and ran away from it all screaming after i was made to kiss a relic.
I was brought up a Roman Catholic and ran away from it all screaming after i was made to kiss a relic.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
I was once on a course which involved a lot of discussion of religious subjects. One couple were Quakers, and I found them very open-minded about things.
One time I was making some point (exactly what I now forget!) and I mentioned David Icke as an example. The group leader, a fairly conventional Christian, and some of the others, sneered at this, but the Quakers suported me!
So the Quakers get by without clergy - why can't everyone?
Organised religion is a power structure that perpetuates itself to create 'jobs for the boys'. I once read a SF story where some prof has worked out some Laws of Sociology which explain how these things happen. Challenged to prove his theory, he gets some women's knitting circle (or something similar) to incorporate his ideas in their Society Rules - within a few years the Society has taken over the world!
Hilarious and thought provoking at the same time, like much of the best SF. Can anyone else remember the story or the author?
One time I was making some point (exactly what I now forget!) and I mentioned David Icke as an example. The group leader, a fairly conventional Christian, and some of the others, sneered at this, but the Quakers suported me!
So the Quakers get by without clergy - why can't everyone?
Organised religion is a power structure that perpetuates itself to create 'jobs for the boys'. I once read a SF story where some prof has worked out some Laws of Sociology which explain how these things happen. Challenged to prove his theory, he gets some women's knitting circle (or something similar) to incorporate his ideas in their Society Rules - within a few years the Society has taken over the world!
Hilarious and thought provoking at the same time, like much of the best SF. Can anyone else remember the story or the author?
A
Anonymous
Guest
I think the underlying point to my original question is that despite being a spiritual thing, religion needs to have certain things planted in the physical here and now. Religion is all about an unseen, untouchable force that you don't get to know about until you're dead. In the hurly burly of daily life/survival, it would be easy to forget. That seems to be why we need something physical, here on earth, to remind us about God and provide a tangible link to it. Hence the robes, rituals and relics. I don't really think God cares whether you wear a particular robe on a certain day of the year, or whether you whizz a steamy ball around your head every sunday, but as terrestrial, physical beings it seems to be something we need to do. I suspect a religion with no special days of the year, costumes or ceremonies won't last very long. Or maybe that's what we call morality.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Quite beyond the priestly functions of shaman/fool, interpreter and re-enactor (through ritual and, or, personal example) of holy writ and inspiration, There are other reasons priesthoods and clergy have survived throught the ages.
Many eastern style priesthoods developed out of the demands of highly, technologically advanced `irrigation' civilisations. i.e: Egypt; Sumeria; Inca; Aztec; China; etc.
Priesthoods became highly centralized and authoritarian, acting as the administrators and law givers set with the task of ensuring ditches and canals, monuments and graves were built and finished to order.
Would the Middle-Ages ever have ended if not for all those dilligent clerks, scholars and scribes, slowly re-reading and transcribing ancient texts. Or, travelling around settling legal disputes and writing wills, whilst safely neutral due to celibacy and holy vows?
In many communities, even today, if you were troubled, would you go to your local scientist, policeman, social worker, or cleric, first?
Many eastern style priesthoods developed out of the demands of highly, technologically advanced `irrigation' civilisations. i.e: Egypt; Sumeria; Inca; Aztec; China; etc.
Priesthoods became highly centralized and authoritarian, acting as the administrators and law givers set with the task of ensuring ditches and canals, monuments and graves were built and finished to order.
Would the Middle-Ages ever have ended if not for all those dilligent clerks, scholars and scribes, slowly re-reading and transcribing ancient texts. Or, travelling around settling legal disputes and writing wills, whilst safely neutral due to celibacy and holy vows?
In many communities, even today, if you were troubled, would you go to your local scientist, policeman, social worker, or cleric, first?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
- Messages
- 784
Dark Detective said:
Marvelous description!
As a clergoid (my husband's term), I find great support in being part of a parish community (in the USA, "parish" means the members of a local church).
However, I also find that members of the particular church I hang out with do not discuss their private religious beliefs or political associations (thus avoiding many arguments). The arguments that do exist tend to revolve around realities like are we going to get the rotted kitchen floor replaced before one of the old dears falls through it? (I hope so!)
The book "The Tipping Point" (good read) mentions that a viable group has around 150 members, and that, indeed, is the size of our parish.
That in mind, our parish has managed very well for the last twelve months without having a rector (vicar), which, indeed, calls the actual usefulness of the clergy into question.
Now, as clergy, myself, I find that I am useful to people who want to get married or who desire some other sacramental blessing. That is, I see my role as supportive rather than authoritative, with the ministry of the Church residing in it's lay members.
Which raises the question of what is that ministry? Well, my guess, is that that ministry is to spread compassion ("Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.").
Peace to one and all.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 755
Elisheva - I believe you've touched on a point that has nearly been debated in other threads, that being whether teaching positive human traits (love, compassion etc) is an exclusive function of the church. This is an element of religion which intreagues me greatly.
Whilst I think many important life lessons can be learnt from many different religions I personally think that it's more the shared wisdom of history that keeps are societies stable-ish.
I suppose the debatable conclusion of the idea is that without the wisdom of history would society degenerate into a savage anarchy.
Any ideas, anyone? Bueller.. Bueller...?
Whilst I think many important life lessons can be learnt from many different religions I personally think that it's more the shared wisdom of history that keeps are societies stable-ish.
I suppose the debatable conclusion of the idea is that without the wisdom of history would society degenerate into a savage anarchy.
Any ideas, anyone? Bueller.. Bueller...?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Thinking about the problem of history and priesthoods, has reminded me of the proposals to instigate a priesthood whose primary function would be to remember where nuclear waste was stored and how to maintain its safety.
I read about it years ago, so I don't remember much. The basic idea was that by turning the whole thing into a quasi-religious calling then it would be more likely to continue through the millenia. The conjuring trick would be done by convincing such a priesthood that by tending and guarding the radioactive `sacred' sites they would be carrying out God's will. A whole new mythos would be necessary, of course.
I read about it years ago, so I don't remember much. The basic idea was that by turning the whole thing into a quasi-religious calling then it would be more likely to continue through the millenia. The conjuring trick would be done by convincing such a priesthood that by tending and guarding the radioactive `sacred' sites they would be carrying out God's will. A whole new mythos would be necessary, of course.
Problem with history is we're becoming very good at re-writing it on a regular basis. Deeply held beliefs can be carried forward, more, or less, unchanged over many hundreds, or even thousands of years.