Nicely put Joel, a refreshingly open and honest article. I was left with how well you identified the contradictions of man made religions.

Of the thousands of religions and possibly millions of rules, each has something to offer. Many of the rules are no longer relevant to modern society; many rules are only acceptable or tolerable for those who commit to a particular “brand”, perhaps the price of compromise one pays for the sense of belonging?

Other rules are, as you identified, simply good human values that can be adopted to help us be better humans.

I share your view in relation to the “failure to question and renew” in order for institutional religions to mature. Your observation that any << correction or retraction would be seen to diminish a religion’s permanence, legitimacy and truth. >>, is possibly due to the fact that each religion has “sold a brand image” which needs to be preserved.

One really neat way to get around this problem is of course theology, which is used to explain the inexplicable bits. Theology is the one area of growth for religions. Whilst the fundamentals of have not changed, the shear volume and complexity of the theological explanations is mind blowing. It seems that religions are creating more explanations to counter the emerging reality threats from modern society. This protects the brand image whilst countering the contradictions, conflicts and schizophrenia.

Thanks for your thoughts.

examinator, you misquoted yourself again.

<< It's like AGW some people will go to extraordinary level to avoid facing the facts. >> You mean “your facts” not “the facts”.

<< some of the conspiracy theories pertaining to this are mind boggling >> You mean, anyone not sharing your view is a conspiracy theorist and you don’t like the fact that there are so many other views.

<< Yet they most often claim to be sceptics >>. You mean your case is weak and unconvincing so it’s someone else’s fault, sceptics?

Just replace your word “AGW” and put in the word “religion”. Now tell us where that leaves you? Ooops!

Joel’s stance may well be a most suitable environment in which to reconcile conflict of opinion… to cultivate ‘allioli’…To begin with, substitute the word science for religion in the article and Richard Dawkins may well have a problem.

The very issues Joel raises, apply equally well to orthodox science. There, the hierarchal professors replace the papal hierarchy, and require the aspiring student to conform, with suitable inertia, to the accepted dogma. The heretic’s independent thought is simply labelled pseudo-science and dismissed as error, since they are the authorities, they know and set the agenda. Peer pressure insures the rules are followed in order to attain favourable grants.

Joel was not quite right to consider “the failure to question and renew seems reckless ..” Nor was Cherful correct in stating, “The Jews were very devout followers of the Christian God” (Forum comment7/22 Mar 2010). The Christian God is in fact a Roman creation which began with Tertullian.

Responding somewhat disrespectfully to Jacqui Ninnio’s thoughts on her ideas about
“G-D”, Tony Jones turned to Richard Dawkins and asked, “Richard, do you regard that as just clever sophistry?” To which Dawkins replied, “I was wondering what on earth it meant, I must say”(QandA, ABC TV, 8 Mar 2010). Clearly, Dawkins had forgotten what he had written in “The God Delusion” p 14 – 20. Perhaps, this tome should have been labelled “The God Confusion”, not “relusion”(see p5 n2>p388). Unequivocably, Dawkins aligns himself with some of Albert Einstein’s views which clearly reflect an evolutionary trend within the TaNaK, and Jewish thought.

The Hebrew mindset is radically different to the Roman. Indeed, Jewish exclusivity,
irritating though it is, has undoubtedly been a successful ploy to avoid being subdued by authoritarian arrogance, and so retain the independent human right of freedom to think.

contin

shmuel

Part 2

While accepting there are many questions not needing an answer, Joel’s wish for constant philosophical thoughts (comment 12/23 Mar 2010) certainly has been alive and well, though clearly suppressed by both the dominant science and religion. Aussie philosopher David Stove wrote “Who is the most important thinker of the present century? Einstein, many would say. I am too ignorant, unfortunately, to judge whether that is true. Change the question a little: which thinker is the most important for the light he has thrown on human and terrestrial affairs?
Freud? Wittgenstein? Konrad Lorenz? These answers I can judge, and I do not agree with any of them. My answer is, Immanuel Velikovsky.
This opinion is considered eccentric to the point of being disgraceful, even by some of my own friends. Certainly, most scientists and historians still regard Velikovsky as they regarded him at first: that is, as a crank or a charlatan.”(Quadrant, October 1983 p75-76).
The rest of the article is well worth reading.

Velikovsky claimed the right to fallibility, and indeed erred on many points. But his lone prediction concerning the temperature of Venus proved uncannily correct. Subsequently, Carl Sagan and his orthodox scientific cohorts responded with the ad hoc greenhouse theory. From this, AGW exponent James Hansen wrote his degree thesis. Much information has been suppressed in the global warming hysteria.

The “pseudo-science” of plasma cosmology is now rapidly advancing to become the new paradigm for the twenty-first century. Alternative science and religion are helping to build a much more satisfactory spiritual identity for the layman…

shmuel

and not only the temperature of venus but that it turned in the opposite direction fifty years before they sent a rocket up.
He also suggested bacteria came from space, an idea stolen by another scientist whose name slips my mind.
On the subject of religion , it is well known the gospels were cobbled together by Constantines spin doctor who left a few of them out because they would create civil unrest.
The bible needs updating or how can you take it seriousl