. Dear Peter, . You wrote : « … we are now in an age in which the moral guardianship of the Church through legislation or influence on governments is at an end … the church has lost its moral authority … » . That’s correct, Peter. The church’s moral “authority” was dependant on the nexus between religion and political power. The gradual breakdown of this link has eroded the so-called moral “authority” of the church. As Tim Whitmarsh explained in “Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World” : « … religion is "at the structural level an allegory of political power"; monotheist absolutism, combined with absolutist politics, has generally proved more hostile to freedom of thought than the acceptance of diverse sources of power that undergirds polytheistic beliefs » In Australia, democracy is tempered by what is best described as the “principle of state neutrality” which is, unfortunately, a little short of strict “separation of church and state”, or “secularism” per se. It has, nevertheless, progressively liberated us from the shackles of archaic religious dogma and moral doctrine which was largely imposed on us by our British masters. As you rightly observe, this is visible in our changing societal attitudes towards such private matters as divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, censorship, and, might I add, our continued subservient reverence to the British Crown and church. . You also wrote : « One would think a concentration of resources would be possible, particularly in the cathedrals, so that the theological, musical, artistic and architectural resources of the Church could be preserved » I certainly hope so, Peter. I personally enjoy the splendid costumes, the magnificent décor, the solemnity of the gratuitous theatrical performances and the exquisite classical music that can only be experienced in the unique, inspirational ambiance of our gothic cathedrals, so majestically designed and built by some of the world’s greatest craftsmen. . And you conclude by asking : « So, what is the future of the Church ? » . (Continued …) .

.

(Continued …)

.

Faith was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he could neither understand nor control. He invented gods, worshiped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

That was the rock on which our modern-day religion was built but despite its subsequent development and refinement, the basic concept no longer holds true. It has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature. The rock has crumbled and eroded. It has turned to dust and been lost in the sands of time.

The initial religious concept can be discarded but many people would have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of daily life without some form of faith. A new, credible safe haven must be found for their faith.

That is the challenge facing humanity today. Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity and continue to be served by humanity. If not, I agree, more and more of those who once were faithful will place their faith elsewhere.
.

« Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian,
who perished in the wheat-bearing land of Gela;
of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon can speak,
and the long-haired Persian knows it well »

[ Inscription on the gravestone of Aeschylus (525 - 455 BC), the father of Greek tragedy ]

.

.

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. » [The treatises of M.T. Cicero On the nature of the gods, …/literally translated … by C.D. Yonge. (Bohn’s classical library) 1853, book 2, section 28, page 71]
.

The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it. There is no unified global organisation of religion on the planetary level, no code of ethics common to all, no provision for mediation of inter-religious conflicts and no effective disciplinary mechanisms.

Religion as a profession has made no attempt to implement any form of autoregulation.

Not only is there very little or no coordination, exchange of information or communication between religions, the situation is often not much better within individual religions. They are poorly organised and operate in a shroud of secrecy.

Nevertheless, the appeal of religion to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow the teachings of your religion and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Doesn’t that ring a bell ?

.

The author himself, a Christian deacon, admits that the Church never represented a religion:

«This new kind of Christianity, become religion, was individualistic and self-interested and became fatally contaminated with the inverse of the gospel of grace; power and control. The Christian "religion" was born; not out of its origins in love for the neighbour and the enemy and the regeneration of the self in Christ but out of religious self-interest.» ... «The Church for them is in the business of crowd control.»

How come then that members, rather than complain about the Church, complain about religion, saying: "The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it."?

First study what religion truly is and find actual examples of religion. Just because some cruel Roman Emperor, for his political interests, claimed "Christianity" (or his version of it) to be a religion, doesn't mean that it is.

The world could survive without churches and similar establishments, but without religion it would have no reason to exist for even a second.

. Dear Yuyutsu, . You wrote : « The author … admits that the Church never represented a religion » No he does not admit that, Yuyutsu. He clearly states the contrary : that “the Church” commenced as a “Christian sect” and later became “a religion” : « From its beginnings in a small circle of men and women … it slowly changed into a powerful organisation with influence over government. An explanation of how this happened may be partly found in the transition of the Christian Faith from an obscure movement … into the official religion of the Roman Empire … This was a crucial change and it turned the Christian sect into a religion like any other religion in which the believer can expect material help from the deity » . You also wrote : « How come … that members … complain about religion, saying: "The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it."? » The quotation you indicate is from my previous post. I was not “complaining about religion”, I was drawing up an “overall balance sheet” of the positive and negative effects of religion on mankind throughout the world, and found that the bottom line is negative. As you will see from the latest Pew Research Center’s index of social hostilities involving religion, roughly two thirds of the world population living in 122 of the world’s 198 countries were affected by religious conflicts. The number and importance of these hostilities continue to increase. Here are the links : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10572342/Religious-conflict-in-global-rise-report.html http://www.pewforum.org/files/2014/01/RestrictionsV-SHI.pdf In addition to these hostilities, many religions also impose numerous obligations and restrictions on the personal lives of their followers, limiting their individual freedoms, e.g., female genital mutilation, forced child marriage, etc. . (Continued …) .

.

(Continued …)

.

You then add :

« First study what religion truly is and find actual examples of religion »

According to Wikipedia :

« There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. It may be defined as a cultural system of designated behaviours and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, prophesies, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual »

Prior to the Middle Ages, religion simply meant “worship”. Today, I, personally, prefer the OED definitions :

« The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. A particular system of faith and worship »

And as I indicated in my previous post in response to Peter Sellik’s preoccupation :

« Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity and continue to be served by humanity. If not, I agree, more and more of those who once were faithful will place their faith elsewhere »

No doubt, the archaic dogma and moral doctrine of the “Church” have contributed in the defection of its followers, but, more significantly, it is the basic concept of religion itself that no longer holds true. As I explained in my previous post, it has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature.

The fact of the matter is there never were any gods – even though some, today, would still like to believe that there were, and others that their number was reduced down to just one, about four thousand years ago.

I have the impression that you are one of the latter, even though I understand that you are a fervent follower of a guru associated with one of the multiple forms of the Hindu religion.

But please correct me if I am mistaken.

.