Not all church leaders are bad either. I just read about a Danish minister who in the olden days, not sure when, thundered against certain customs which included horrendous animal cruelty.
Susan Doris Wrote:
> On what basis do you think they did notQuote
Actually Susan, I think that what ancient
> people decided was that there were forces of
> Nature that did NOT do what people wanted. Like
> volcanoes, storms, earthquakes etc. We call them,
> even today, forces of nature. They can still
> destroy us and our plans.
> anthropomorphise these forces of nature?? Do you
> think they realised they were natural forces of
> nature? If that was the case, why do you think
> that people, as they became more stable and were
> surviving more successfully, made that natural
> system into a more and more complicated system of
> worshipping the gods/spirits that they imagined,
> and told people, were behind them?
> They worked to placate them, built places for
> these forces to be worshipped. If, right from that
> logical start, they knew they were exploiting the
> people with their apparent power to intercede with
> whatever gods they had invented, that makes
> religions and their leaders an unhelpful way of
> living – I was going to say, ‘a blight’ but
> that is too derogatory a term - on society for
> more like a million years rather than tens of
> thousands I think, don’t you?
> If ancient people went from understanding that
> natural events were just that – natural, it
> would have been a backward step, evolutionarily if
> nothing else, to thentreat them as
> Well, yes, that is what superstition is, isn’tQuote
I suggest that what was superstitious was
> thinking people could do things which avert these
> natural processes.
> it?! :) To say that religious beliefs are not
> superstitions doesn’t hold water. If you believe
> they are different, can you explain why?
> No, I’ll make it clear – ancient superstitionsQuote
So I take it now that “alternative
> superstition “ simply means ancient
> superstitions or Susan’s interpretation of
> ancient superstitions.
> were understandable; alternative superstitions
> that followed and continue today, were and are
> religious beliefs, with supposed gods or spirits
> as their focus.
> That, as we have learnt from evolutionary studies,Quote
In terms of your last two sentences, I
> think that modern religions have already handled
> the issues of ancient or original superstitions
> quite well. God for modern religions is really
> tied to the concept of good or goodness.
> Especially, a lifestyle based on love of life and
> reciprocity towards one’s neighbors.
> is a vital survival trait. As long as it continues
> to be passed on, the human race will continue to
> survive, in spite of the unevidenced ideas of
> many, whether they are meant in as kind and good a
> manner or not. Religious leaders are so deeply
> embedded and involved in the necessity for
> perpetuating these faith beliefs that I suppose
> enough of them work for the good of the people for
> them to be supported until such time as they
> become a minority view. I shake my head sadly that
> there are still such vast numbers who can
> inculcate, indoctrinate, teach as truth, etc daft
> beliefs like people flying on winged horses,
> angels with wings, resurrections of people who
> then rise – whyrise? We know enough about the
> Earth, galaxies and the universe to understand
> what is above us” – into some mythical
Doesn’t matter what it was based on –Quote
Now the notion that ‘god is beyond space
> and time’ was a later notion based on
> it is a false idea which gets religious leaders
> out of the hole they are in.
> I will also say that as far as I’m concerned,
> the CofE, shaky as it is, provides the background
> stability needed by humans and should stay until
> something more able to form that background
> becomes available.
> Of course, there is no obligation, ;ought orQuote
You know Susan, god does not have to be
> interpreted as a “supernatural
> should to do that. Why do you think it should? For
> one thing, as I might have mentioned occasionally,
> there is zero evidence for any godd/spirit/etc
> existing other than as an idea in human brains.
> You’ll have to explain that – I can’t seeQuote
and , if so, then you don’t have an
> argument at all. I can only suggest being careful
> with the argument of supernatural reality.
> what you mean.
> What does?!! And How?Quote
It works both ways. IMO, of course.
> If that were true, then there would be a cessationQuote
My definition is simple, god is the word
> people use to name the meaning they find in life.
> Not “supernatural “ at all.
> of people killing others because of the others’
> beliefs. And, of course, the word God would lose
> its authority because the religious leaders
> claiming its existence would be shown to be
> spreading falsehoods.
> I don’t know about that, but it has made a veryQuote
Hope this helps!
> interesting start to my Saturday! Thank you.