Dear Poirot,

I do not reject society as such, I only reject such societies that force themselves on individuals/families/groups that do not wish to be part of it.

I leave it to the individual to decide whether to live in society and if so, in which society(s) they want to live.

I think it's best for most people to live in autonomous tribes of 50-150 individuals, where personal relationship with everyone is still possible. Then, if one is unhappy with their tribe, they can move to another. I do however acknowledge that it would be quite difficult for those already habituated to live in larger groups to adapt to such a setting. Perhaps the answer is then to reduce the group-size in a gradual way. Anyway, this prattle is not directly about religion. Yet again, I leave it for everyone to decide for themselves.

Regardless of what's best for most people, religious people at a certain stage have the need for isolation in order to concentrate on their relationship with God rather than with other people. This occurs to varying degrees and for varying periods, for some even for life.

What I specifically reject are societies so big that one cannot escape, which take up so much contiguous land (a whole continent in the case of Australia) that one (or a group) who doesn't accept its values and goals has nowhere to go.

<<I understand that you yourself (apparently) feel that you have moved beyond such a requirement.>>

I'm not there yet...

Dear Pericles,

<<Individual societies have created these things called "governments", who make and keep laws, and whose legitimacy is derived from the people themselves.>>

If you're so sure that it's derived from the people themselves, why won't you allow them to choose?

<<have in fact also removed themselves from its protection.>>

I have no problem with the notion of "no free lunch".

<<Jonestown>>

Followers may well have been religious, but the leader wasn't.

While the leader rots in hell (figure-of-speech), we cannot exclude the possibility that followers grew spiritually as a result of their dedication, suffering and death.

Y I have the feeling, may be wrong, you once informed us you are not from Australia.
Not that it makes any difference, but it may explain your thinking so differently than some of us.
Man is my God, not to be worshiped.
But in my view he invented every God, every creation story.
He did so for defense and to protect groups.
For power and control.
Some great things came about because of belief in God.
Some dreadful is human nature, while one paints the sisteen Chapel, others murdered defenseless people.
Every work of art every book, including every holly one, came from the mind of man.
But so too did Hitlers rant.
I believe we have grown out of our Gods.
That they divide not unite us.
I for those who need, think we should plant, then find a new chapter of those ancient scrolls.
Telling of Gods true intention, one God for all.
And sell it exclusively as the only true creed.
Wrong? why in my view each God is an invention.
Let us invent one to unite us all.

Dear Belly,

The contemporary composer Philip Glass included in his 5th symphony several creation-stories and other myths from different cultures.

If they can all live nicely together in one symphony, then they can also all be embraced and live nicely together in the hearts of people.

The Jewish scripture, "Pirkei Avot" (ethics of the fathers, 5:17), reads:
"17. Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven is destined to endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven is not destined to endure."

Jesus said [John 14:2]: "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you."

The various stories are just ladders along the way, so that people who approach God from different directions can find different ladders to step on. Once they climb those ladders, they don't need them any more (but those who cling to a ladder, remain stuck where the ladder is). These ladders were placed there by those who traversed there earlier in order to help those who will come after. If there was only one ladder, then everyone would need to scramble and come a long way around to that ladder. The goal is God, not the ladder.

There is no one true creed - the creeds are like the support-stations when you run a marathon, it's where you can grab a cup of water to keep running, but they don't do the journey for you, you still have to run on your own. If there was only one creed, in only one spot, then the runners would be thirsty.

<<Wrong? why in my view each God is an invention.>>

Because you can only see the ladders to God. These are marvellous inventions.

<<Let us invent one to unite us all.>>

You can't fix what is not broken, you can't unite what is already united.

If you go to a puppet-theatre, you will see the puppets fighting and hating each other, but beneath the desk, they are all united, all operated by the same operator.

Y united?
What is the reason north and southern Ireland fought/fight.
What drives the west bank vs Israel?
Why are India and Pakistan often close to war.
If not God what drives the hate?

Dear Belly,

Can you seriously imagine God sitting on some cloud and driving hate and wars?

God doesn't do anything - it's people who make wars.

The main underlying reason for war is overpopulation and lack of resources,
genetic factors also play there,
but people like to feel that they are right, to be justified in what they are doing,
they don't like to think of themselves as villains,
so some of them use the name of God and religion as an excuse.
It is pathetic, but that's what people do.

Religion is only a pretext, not the real reason for wars.

Yuyutsu,

"Can you seriously imagine God sitting on some cloud and driving hate and wars?
God doesn't do anything - it's people who make wars."

Yes, it is people who make wars but unfortunately many of those people think their particular imaginary friend in the sky or their particular version of it, wants them to. Many conflicts on the planet are demarked by religious preference.

The demarcation might not be the only reason for strife but it would be interesting to get rid of it and find out.

David