Religion is undemocratic

kurisu

im writing this in the hope to find people that would agree with me when i say religion is a dictatorship style belief the. The idea that one man is all powerful all seeing and contols every aspect of our lives is no different to any dictatorship goverment. except that were following ideas that have been getting passed on to us since we lived in caves.This is a modern age where its one person one vote, there is no such thing as a rightous person

rsynnott

A democratic religion would be rather odd, really. "Bush for god!" "Angel in sex scandal" etc.

Manach

Well you might try to post on the Humanities area, the posters there might be more amenable to a "is a dictatorship style belief". The Church has never and not going to be a democracy anytime soon. Its pattern is based on that of Heaven, with God as absolute ruler.
Historically, the only democratic religion was that of the ancient Athenians, where the people (demos) voted for the occupants of the priestly offices on a yearly basis.

rsynnott

Manach wrote:

Historically, the only democratic religion was that of the ancient Athenians, where the people (demos) voted for the occupants of the priestly offices on a yearly basis.

The Romans did this for the more political religious roles (Pontifex Maximus and such), too.

simu

Why would religion be democratic?

Victor

(a) How does one define democracy? Will everyone be allowed vote? Or are only members allowed vote?

(b) How many parts of society are actually democratic? Business isn't democratic, education isn't democratic, sport isn't democratic.

is_that_so

Aren't we all equal in the eyes of God?

rsynnott

is_that_so wrote:

Aren't we all equal in the eyes of God?

No, he has chosen people (Semetic Jews)

is_that_so

rsynnott wrote:

No, he has chosen people (Semetic Jews)

So they tell us. Bit of a New Testament man myself.

rsynnott

I don't think you're supposed to ignore the Old Testement completely.

Also, god doesn't like homosexuals or people who use blended fabrics.

Uthur

Not my religion!

I worship at the church of the divine Republic, where we
elect our gods once every four years from an electorate
drawn from the pool of worshippers and we yadda yadda
yadda this joke really is too crap and boring to see through
to it's oh-so-predictable end.

I apologise for the quality of this post. May Jesus forgive
me and God bless you all.

Stabshauptmann

rsynnott wrote:

I don't think you're supposed to ignore the Old Testement completely.

Also, god doesn't like homosexuals or people who use blended fabrics.

But if something Jesus did/said contradicts something in the Old Testiment surly as Christians, what Jesus says is right eg Stoning.

I always thought there were 2 very different messages comming from the New and Old Tesiment.
The Old preached of a God who demanded absolute obedience, who tested this obedience and punished those found wanting, severly.
Jesus preaches of forgiveness, to impure women, tax collectors, gentles, everyone. Jesus also opposes violence at every turn. The one commandment Jesus left to his followers is "love one another as I have loved you". Not love god, or worship God. In fact Jesus was accused of not observing the Sabbath, and tbh, theres a lot of truth in that.

So, how can you reconcile the New and Old Testement

rsynnott

Uthur wrote:

Not my religion!

I worship at the church of the divine Republic, where we
elect our gods once every four years from an electorate
drawn from the pool of worshippers and we yadda yadda
yadda this joke really is too crap and boring to see through
to it's oh-so-predictable end.

I apologise for the quality of this post. May Jesus forgive
me and God bless you all.

Actually, this happened in real life; some Greek cities did apparently vote on whether they should take Zeus or Apollo as the head god.

With regards to old testament vs new testament... most christian churches do take messages from the old as well as the new.

Sapien

Victor wrote:

(a) How does one define democracy? Will everyone be allowed vote? Or are only members allowed vote?

The definition of democracy is actually highly disputed, despite it being such a frequently invoked idea. It does not necessarily mean that everyone in the particular body can vote - that being called rather pantisocracy.

The church, however, could be described as a kakistocracy, I believe.

NeilJ

I realise this was posted in the Christianity forum but the statement was that RELIGION is a dictatorship style belief not Christianity, so getting on to my point. Paganism does not work from a dictator style belief system. The Goddess/God/Gods/insert appropriate name, loves us and wish to helps us through guidance and gifts we recieve from them. Our own spiritual development is entirely up to ourselves though. Yes in a coven system you have your high priestess and high priest, but that is so there is a clearly defined direction in how you practise and if you decide that that direction is no longer right for you you can leave the coven and be still a fully practising pagan. So I do not think that religion is a dictatorship.

Neil

Sapien

But NeillJ, you thusly open up a Pandora's Box of semantics. You employ a rather broad definition of "religion", one which I at least would like to see refined. It is not altogether unsensible to define religion as being organised, with a hieratic authority, a priesthood, even a written text and a moral code.

Yes, this may be bit little arbitrary, but you must agree that a distinction needs to be made between spiritualities, like paganism, that involve no organisation or behavioural compulsion, and others, like RC, that comprise little else. I am an occultist, conversant in paganism, and I certainly would not call it a religion. In a sense, paganism of old was defined as irreligious - it was the set of beliefs and practices of the peasants, the people of the fields and hamlets: "paganus", person of the earth; "heathen", person of the heath, who had no access to the churches and temples and priesthoods of the cities. They were thus free to celebrate their spiritualities as they pleased and in whatever way seemed natural and best, unlike those who were subject to the authority of the priesthood, who were restrained (latin: religare) in what they professed to believe, or reliant (also from religare) upon the chruch for spiritual instruction.

So, perhaps, when people speak of religion, they mean those specific faiths that are "undemocratic".

Manach

And this, however, could be described as an anarchy, I believe.

Excelsior

kurisu wrote:

there is no such thing as a rightous person

I know of someone who said that once:
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good —except God alone.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

So, how can you reconcile the New and Old Testement

The Old Testament doesn't actually feature a different God from the New. It is the same God of grace and forgiveness, the same God that holds perfect justice while simultaneously holding perfect love. The difference could be very roughly summed up by saying the Hebrew texts emphasise justice. But from Genesis on, grace is the kernel of the OT as it is with the NT.

rsynnott wrote:

Also, god doesn't like homosexuals or people who use blended fabrics.

This is the Christianity forum. You must be discussing a different God since the Christian God loves everyone. The great Swiss theologian Karl Barth was once asked what was the most important thing his decades of learning had taught him. Without needing to think he responded with, "Jesus loves me. This I know, for the Bible told me so."

Talliesin

NeilJ wrote:

Paganism does not work from a dictator style belief system. The Goddess/God/Gods/insert appropriate name, loves us and wish to helps us through guidance and gifts we recieve from them.

And when you say "no" to something they want you to do they just shrug their shoulders and say "k, man, 'scool like, don't sweat it"? That's not my experience.

I agree it's not dictator-style, and you can say no, but it's not all one sided, especially in the priesthoods like Wicca, or even amongst those called to a priesthood but not yet working in one.

The monotheistic paths (and I'm a tad confused as to what exactly the topic of this thread is - are we talking about Christianity here, or should this be moved to Spirituality?) are dictatorships, but then since the monotheistic paths view their God as always right it's pretty dumb not to go along with that dictatorship, Satan getting a term of office through a good election campaign and a bit of tactical voting would hardly work.

Sapien

Welcome back,

Excelsior wrote:

The Old Testament doesn't actually feature a different God from the New. It is the same God of grace and forgiveness, the same God that holds perfect justice while simultaneously holding perfect love. The difference could be very roughly summed up by saying the Hebrew texts emphasise justice.

Ineffable justice perhaps. Not a kind with which I'm familiar.

Nevyn

Yes it is undemocratic,
Why ?
nothing to do with churches or other man made systems or structures,
Who are you do deny your God/s ?
You accpet them and thier teachings and the way of life They wish you to lead
and if they were to ask things of you, would you if it were possible say other
then 'Yes'.

Some faiths have the arragnement or agreement to argue with thier God/s
others do not.

NeilJ

Sapien wrote:

You employ a rather broad definition of "religion", one which I at least would like to see refined.

I define religion as a belief in a divine that compels you to act in accordance with what the moral and ethical requirements of said belief in divine.

Talliesin wrote:

And when you say "no" to something they want you to do they just shrug their shoulders and say "k, man, 'scool like, don't sweat it"?

And when you say no you have to face the consequences of that action. But you can still say no. Yeah it might not be a good idea, but then again not doing what your parents tell you when you a kid usally isn't that bright either.

Neil

Sapien

NeilJ wrote:

I define religion as a belief in a divine that compels you to act in accordance with what the moral and ethical requirements of said belief in divine.

As I thought. What of those forms of belief in the divine that have no concommitant moral or ethical requirements? According to your description of paganism, is it a religion?

Excelsior

Sapien wrote:

Welcome back

Ta very much.

The website you have linked to approaches the Biblical text as fundamentalists do- taking verses out of context, literally and without any discussion.

If you disagree that the OT is as founded on grace as the NT (if in a more diffused manner) and genuinely believe it to be, in the terms of your linked site, "evil", can you explain Genesis 15?

Anyway, to the original poster, I found this classy quote from CS Lewis again this afternoon,

Jack wrote:

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God is in the dock.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

The website you have linked to approaches the Biblical text as fundamentalists do- taking verses out of context, literally and without any discussion.

If you disagree that the OT is as founded on grace as the NT (if in a more diffused manner) and genuinely believe it to be, in the terms of your linked site, "evil", can you explain Genesis 15?

The Bible is not evil. The Bible is a book. Books cannot be evil. The god it describes however. Well, no matter how you look at it, he seems to be a nasty piece of work - shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets let alone create a universe, if you ask me.

Is there a context which, when applied to rape, torture and the murder of innocents, make them... not evil?

I understand that any intelligent student of scriptures must concede that literal interpretations are of little worth. Does that mean that one can merely ignore all of the nasty things referred to on that site? Pretend they're not there? Is it that easy? What responsibility theologians must have. Are those things at least troublesome?

Oh, and maybe I'm looking at the wrong bible, but I can't for the life of me figure out the relevance of Gen. 15. Perhaps in your musings theologic you have ascribed to it a significance too profound to be discerned by sublunar minds such as mine. Elaborate, do.

Excelsior

Sublunar.

In Genesis 15, God has been bending old Abe's ear with promises up the ying yang but he is a wise guy whose parent taught him well and he says, "How can I know for sure?"

So God, inexplicably at first to our contemporary minds, tells Abe to chop some animals in half and lay them across from each other. This seems bizaare and more than a little bit brutal to us today. Utterly unbelievable codswollap from a people who had never been out of their little territory, I'd initially wager.

But if we look into context, the tradition of contract making amongst the pre CE Semetic people would often involve just did kind of dealing. It was the equivalent of a handshake, but with the added bonus that if you forfeit the deals of the contract, you wish upon yourself what has happened to these little lambs you are walking amongst.

Now Abe goes and does this but surely has second thoughts. I mean, its one thing to have delusions that God is choosing you for something, but actually entering into a contract with the creator of the universe is totally insane. Before he can formalise a way out of it all, God descends in a cloud of smoke. He moves between the animals stating his promise but then he doesn't ask Abe to do the same thing.

In other words, God is saying that under risk of destruction, he will uphold his part of the agreement. But more, if Abe and humanity falls down on their terms, God will pay that price too. If humanity fails to meet the standard, God will be slaughtered like a lamb.

In other words, right at the start of the Bible, smack bang in the Old Testament, you have God revealing his Grace initiative.

The point of all this non-too-subtle preaching is of course, context is the key. You have to read the Scriptures as they were first intended to be read before you can make assessments about their relevance for today.

Of course the OT has a boatload of intensely difficult and honestly, seemingly morally repugnant passages. The Canaanite genocide is the single largest intellectual problem I personally have in believing in God. And I can't offer a web-forum viable response to it at this time. But there are lots of people thinking about it and lots of people have in the past dedicated their lives to thinking about it.

The idea of the original poster- that discourse about God should be somehow mandated by the majority is plainly atheistic, since if there is a God, then that God has characteristics totally unconnected to the opinions of his/her/its creations. I think the most profitable route for examing the aspects of the OT that are deeply uncomfortable to us come from this idea. But I fully admit that I have no way to express that in written word.

Sapien

Excelsior wrote:

The Canaanite genocide is the single largest intellectual problem I personally have in believing in God. And I can't offer a web-forum viable response to it at this time. But there are lots of people thinking about it and lots of people have in the past dedicated their lives to thinking about it.

How many of these people are open to the conclusion that it's all inconsistent silliness?

Excelsior

Well they've looked at the rest of the ~745,000 words and found a pretty convincing if impossible to fully grasp, coherent idea of God. Then they come across these harder to stomach parts and they have a go at understanding it in light of the rest of it.

Seeking to understand it within its context is the only way of understanding it Sapien. There is no alternative understanding that can compare to getting what was originally meant. Your literalist atheistic sites make themselves irrelevant when they pose such fundamentalist arguments.

I imagine that a lot of those theologians (but not all) are working not just from the text but from their own personal lived experience of this God who is there (they believe). I am sure that lots of web forum users will be convinced by an argument that says the Canaanite Genocide is unbelievable, therefore the Christian conception of God must be false, but I don't think someone who obviously puts so much time into considering these things would be convinced.