Crosswords1 min ago
Do We Still Need Religious Leaders?
13 Answers
Another thought-provoking 2 minute offering from 4thought TV.
http://
http://
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course you shold have religious leaders. How else would you know what it is you think ?
Naturally aethists do not think so though. Patrick holds his views possibly because of his past experiences but he then draws conclusions that do not necessarily have to follow. If you progress in a religion then hopefully you have had lots of time to consider moral matters. That should be worth something.
Religious belief may be based on faith, but belief based on conjecture ain't necessarily so bad.
Naturally aethists do not think so though. Patrick holds his views possibly because of his past experiences but he then draws conclusions that do not necessarily have to follow. If you progress in a religion then hopefully you have had lots of time to consider moral matters. That should be worth something.
Religious belief may be based on faith, but belief based on conjecture ain't necessarily so bad.
Well, like hangman, I would question whether humanity needs religion at all, never mind does it need leaders ;)
That having been said, all organisations require guidance/leadership - Thats the way we are - a figurehead to articulate the views, so while we have organised religion, we will continue to have religious leaders.
How much influence should they wield in secular and political matters though is a good question though. The bishops should not be given an automatic voting block in the House of Lords. It is desirable and necessary for there to be a clear separation between the church and the state.
And whilst they might have time for reflection and thought, as OG suggests, that reflection and thought is coloured by, biased by their innate religiosity which increasingly leads them into conflict with the secular majority, especially when it comes to equality, the role of women, and sexuality.
Hence the shambles that religion finds itself in within the UK with respect to Women Bishops, or gay marriage, or abortion. Marriage is defined by culture, but at its heart it is a secular issue - of rights responsibilities and obligations between 2 people and their estate; an institution which acknowledges interpersonal intimate and sexual relationships. The culture defines it, the state validates and legislates for it, and the churches have traditionally been the focus for the celebration of the union. But the culture determines what marriage is, not the churches, just as the culture determines what is and is not socially acceptable in matters sexual, not the church, and its about time that organised religion recognised this.
And when you get leaders you will get corruption, because ultimately power grants privilege and patronage, and privilege and patronage can lead to corruption. Hence we see a parade of church leaders who do nothing but bring their church into disrepute and increasing irrelavance;
Heres a small selection for you;
http://
and then this lot of evangeiical christians
http://
And the list goes on - latest signatory to the list? The Indian Swami who claimed the woman raped in the bus in Delhi was at fault, was culpable for her own rape as her attackers.
So, being a religious leader quite obviously does not automatically confer wisdom, or humility, or progressive values.
That having been said, all organisations require guidance/leadership - Thats the way we are - a figurehead to articulate the views, so while we have organised religion, we will continue to have religious leaders.
How much influence should they wield in secular and political matters though is a good question though. The bishops should not be given an automatic voting block in the House of Lords. It is desirable and necessary for there to be a clear separation between the church and the state.
And whilst they might have time for reflection and thought, as OG suggests, that reflection and thought is coloured by, biased by their innate religiosity which increasingly leads them into conflict with the secular majority, especially when it comes to equality, the role of women, and sexuality.
Hence the shambles that religion finds itself in within the UK with respect to Women Bishops, or gay marriage, or abortion. Marriage is defined by culture, but at its heart it is a secular issue - of rights responsibilities and obligations between 2 people and their estate; an institution which acknowledges interpersonal intimate and sexual relationships. The culture defines it, the state validates and legislates for it, and the churches have traditionally been the focus for the celebration of the union. But the culture determines what marriage is, not the churches, just as the culture determines what is and is not socially acceptable in matters sexual, not the church, and its about time that organised religion recognised this.
And when you get leaders you will get corruption, because ultimately power grants privilege and patronage, and privilege and patronage can lead to corruption. Hence we see a parade of church leaders who do nothing but bring their church into disrepute and increasing irrelavance;
Heres a small selection for you;
http://
and then this lot of evangeiical christians
http://
And the list goes on - latest signatory to the list? The Indian Swami who claimed the woman raped in the bus in Delhi was at fault, was culpable for her own rape as her attackers.
So, being a religious leader quite obviously does not automatically confer wisdom, or humility, or progressive values.
//Well said Lazygun I personally find it highly amusing that the church vote against women bishops but have a woman as head of the church, how hypocritical is that. Its like watching my dog chase his tail. //
Can you imagine the furore if they were to suggest that they do not want her as head of the church ?
Can you imagine the furore if they were to suggest that they do not want her as head of the church ?
I find it difficult to understand why some depend so heavily on the opinions of religious leaders. For example, on a ‘Questions to the Imam’ website I was reading, people asked puerile questions about the most mundane aspects of their lives – and, most worryingly, one pregnant woman asked if she should take the medical advice of her midwife or ignore it! How anyone can be so easily influenced by another human being, who in reality knows no more about an alleged God than they do, is quite beyond my comprehension.
-- answer removed --
Remember that Christ Jesus said of religious leaders of his day: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
Today, there are hundreds of religions claiming to be Christian and these boast of nearly a billion members, and of Christendom are among the most powerful in the world.
Surely what the religions of Christendom have taught has had much to do with world conditions.
In reality are leading mankind into conflict with God, a conflict that can bring only disaster? (Romans 12:17-19).
Today, there are hundreds of religions claiming to be Christian and these boast of nearly a billion members, and of Christendom are among the most powerful in the world.
Surely what the religions of Christendom have taught has had much to do with world conditions.
In reality are leading mankind into conflict with God, a conflict that can bring only disaster? (Romans 12:17-19).
Goodlife, //Remember that Christ Jesus said of religious leaders of his day: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” //
I suspect his advice didn't only apply to leaders and their followers of his day. He was talking about YOU.
I suspect his advice didn't only apply to leaders and their followers of his day. He was talking about YOU.
1 to 13 of 13
