Squeers: And what pray tell is God's rule? Which in your words "... are patently means of maintaining social equilibrium in this world." (Forget to say "unholy" world?)
This unholy, competitive, consumerist driven enslavement to the capitalist icon of the "holy dollar". Bow down'n give praise. Aaaamen, Brother. And there, but for the grace of God, go ...

".. as social animals we need norms and even some prohibitions, but that Catholic ones are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society."
Why so? Because turning the other cheek and loving your neighbour is sure to get your head knocked off, by your neighbour's husband?

What's this?: ".. in the nature of exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms.." Amen to that!

"The universal Catholic church within this unholy mix is just another means by which compliance is encouraged, or non-compliance is mediated." The compliance bit I get, but the mediation? Twixt Man and his Maker" Or, with the bank manager?

This bit I also get: ".. maintaining norms, tending to the spiritually sick, offering its members hope.." A nice thought, and true.

What profit a man, if he gain the Earth, but lose his soul?

Pericles: A very good atheist? One for the home team?

Ah, Ammonite: Always a refreshing voice of faith, hope and charity.

Runner: And He Saves as well.

You know, Poirot, I have my dog, but have misplaced my dogma. Can't think where I may have put it, or even if I ever had it. Blast. T'ol' memry, t'ain't what't us't t'bee.

Bless you Poirot: "..Christianity in its myriad forms at once seeks to complicate the tenets attributed to Jesus." and, ".. often serves to sully the simplicity..", "..to separate rather than unify."
Unfortunately too true - but thankfully not universal, in spite of constructed differences. Humble followers nonetheless continue to cling to the simplicity, and unite in its purity.

I got my hands, I got my feet, I got my head, I got my heart, I got my soul, got my'y so'oul.

According to the gospels, Jesus was a political radical rather than a "Messiah" (which was etymologically closer to "warlord" than son of God) in the popular sense, and there was little in the way of spirituality in Jesus' politics. Unlike the modern "institutional" church, Jesus was uncompromising in that devotion to love and justice meant rebellion was axiomatic; he suggests that Christians not in open rebellion against the powers that be are unfaithful to his mission.
Wealthy institutional Christians who think they can enter the pearly gates by being well-behaved are implicitly anathema to Christ, who preferred the company of sinners and down and outs to the self-righteous.
Indeed some modern scholars read the New Testament as a species of materialism rather than spiritualism; Jesus is forever curing the sick of body rather than soul. It's corporeal sickness that's of the Devil and not middle-class depression or yearning for eternal life. The Gospels never recount Jesus delivering pep talks about the inevitability of physical suffering either, and those he cures are the detritus of society. Even the Catholic church's cherished "Magnificat" is a revolutionary chant whose strains ought to provoke unease in the Hearts of the Sunday congregations rather than reassurance. The Beatitudes too demonstrate indifference for the virtuous while "the wretched of the Earth" (great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wretched_of_the_Earth ) are blessed. Indeed in the authentic scriptures, it's been argued, Jesus' message of hope was meant entirely for the poor, and not the "poor in spirit".
I'm afraid the modern, and moderate, Christian churches are whistling out the proverbial rather than heralding the kingdom to come.
What this world needs is "material" intervention, and not reconciliation--pure palliative. Jesus might have died for our sins, but that didn't mean we could complacently nurse our souls and sit on our hands thereafter.
The unexpurgated Gospels can be very compellingly read as Jesus calling on Christians to confound and rebel against corrupt authority and decadence. This puts those who are merely contemplative in a spirtual and material no man's land.

Otokonoko
Thank you for that interesting lesson about Lumen Gentium, something of which I was unaware. It is a much more inclusive and dare I say secular approach. A quick Google reveals there exists some disagreement around Lumen Gentium, some believing it the step to heresy but still with growing support from within the Vatican.

There are aspects of Lumen Gentium that continue to focus on evangelisation despite the attempts to increase understanding of those outside the Church. Conversion still remains the major goal, however I think the approach much more inclusive and tolerant than some of the 'damnation' and 'hellfire' approaches adopted in the past. That has always been a turn off for many in a civilising and evolving world, the idea of being born of sin and the negative aspects of human nature emphasised rather than the good.

However most Catholics I am acquainted with live via the essentials of Lumen Gentium almost by 'accident' in the same way that many Atheists and Agnostics live by the same tenets as Christians and other faiths which focus on universal good (barring some of the more discriminatory aspects but change is inevitable).

May I add support to Saltpetre and George's well expressed opinions particularly - "...commending you for the clear words you wrote concerning a position that obviously not everybody has to share, only accept as a legitimate one in the family of many world-views that are able to coexist in a civilised and tolerant world."

Certainly Lumen Gentium is a position that could be expanded apon as Catholics see fit and sits at the heart of respectful and congenial coexistence.

I come from a Protestant background so I’m no expert on the Lumen Gentium but that was pretty much how I understood it. Although after thinking about it again from an atheistic perspective I never realised before just how condescending it is.

“Damnation is the exclusive destination of those who know the Word, but choose not to follow it; specifically, those who KNOW that the Church is 'the right path' but choose not to be a part of it, and those who KNOW that they are sinning but do not attempt to desist.”

Does that last part count for the sins that aren’t immoral and that to consider them a sin would actually immoral in itself?

Meh… what do I care? I’m on my way to hell for apostasy anyway - according to most Christians.

I think the important lesson in all this is: don’t indoctrinate or proselytize. That way others don’t run the risk of rejecting the Word and going to hell.

"And what pray tell is God's rule? Which in your words "... are patently means of maintaining social equilibrium in this world." (Forget to say "unholy" world?)

I don't pretend to know what God's rule is, m' ol' Salt, it's just a rhetorical device to me; I implied the institutional Church, in league with the government, is "exerting social control, and fostering compliance to various norms".
Similarly, I implied that Christian norms "are neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society". At 2000 years they're obsolete, and the remainder of my post goes on to make the point, so your petty parody is misrepresentative.

The next bit is crucial; the church plays a fundamental role in mediating grievances, "Twixt Man and his Maker" Or, with the bank manager"? you ask="between unrest and the managers of the farm" I answer; the church provides whatever is needed to keep things running smoothly=equals carrots and sticks=heaven and hell.
It would be nice if someone would refute my arguments with cogent argument, but who needs argument when you've got concensus?
The religios are perfectly self-satisfied in the cosy ideology they've made for themselves (and ascribe to God), as I'm bound to say, are the secularists.
It's easy to be critical, but damned hard to be self-critical.

Squeers, I am bitterly disappointed. You appear to be very well informed about Catholicism, and far better informed than I, but I am forced to take you to task over some of your assertions on this thread. I refer to your last 3 posts, and although I initially viewed the first of these to be only mischievous, on review I see you were actually quite serious in your intent to ridicule and hold in contempt. (I won't be making that mistake again.) From there I feel you only descended further into unwarranted and purposeful deprecation and demeaning of matters which are obviously much more important to some of us than they are to you.

Firstly, you placed your own distorted interpretation on Otokonoko's thoughtful response to my enquiry of him, and not content with that have set off on an opiate delight of convolution and misconstruction worthy of a Hitchcock movie - and equally fictitious.

Post 1: "Catholicism, in the universal sense, has always been monumental hubris." I suppose such grand statements must make you feel all-knowing and beyond the supposed grandiosity you so easily infer of this 2,000 year old institution which preaches love, peace and harmony?

You say society needs norms and prohibitions. But, then you proceed to ridicule the church's provision of these to its flock, and label these as ".. neither relevant nor adequate to modern conglomerate society." On the contrary, the description you give of modern society is as of "Sodom and Gomorrah", and the unavoidable implication is that no norms or prohibitions would be relevant anyway. Nice try, but logically and practically the ethical standards of the church are just as relevant as ever, and probably more so.
TBC>