Fan of theocracy?

[Hrothbern]

from: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171697.pdf

The government recognizes the canon law of the Orthodox Church, both within the church and in areas of civil law such as marriage. Privileges and legal prerogatives granted to the Orthodox Church were not routinely extended to other religious groups.
The government financially supports the Orthodox Church; for example, the government pays for the salaries and religious training of clergy, finances the maintenance of Orthodox Church buildings, and exempts from tax Orthodox Church's revenues from properties it owns. Orthodox religious instruction in primary and secondary schools, at government expense, is mandatory for all students, although non-Orthodox students may exempt themselves. However, public schools offer no alternative activity or non-Orthodox religious instruction for these children. Many private schools offer alternative religious instruction to their students.

and also !

As interpreted, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne gives the Muslim minority in Thrace the right to maintain social and charitable organizations called auqaf, allows muftis GREECE 3 to render religious judicial services (under Islamic law, Sharia) in the area of family law, and provides certain rights.
The government recognized Sharia as the law regulating family and civic issues such as marriage, divorce, custody of children, and inheritance for Muslims who reside in Thrace. Members of the Muslim minority also have the right to have a civil marriage and take their cases to civil court. Muslims married by a government-appointed mufti are subject to Sharia family law but may appeal to the courts for a hearing under secular law. The muftis in Thrace make judicial decisions based on Sharia, most of which has not been translated into Greek, limiting the courts' ability to provide judicial oversight. First instance courts in Thrace routinely ratified the decisions of the muftis, who have judicial powers in civil and domestic matters. The National Human Rights Committee (an autonomous body that advises the government on human rights) and other human rights organizations stated that the government should limit the powers of the muftis to religious duties only and not recognize Sharia, since it can restrict the civil rights of some citizens, especially women. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern regarding the impediments that Muslim women in Thrace face under Sharia.

I think the soup is not eaten as hot as served, especially in a country were many regulations are more seen as a guidance than something to adhere to. One of the reasons of so many (avoidable) misunderstanding between Greece and the EU... from both sides.
But I think it is fair to say that the level of secularisation is lower and the level of importance between family and religion is higher.

As historical background:
I think it also played a role that at the end of the first half of the 19th century, culiminating in the Liberal revolution, many church possessions were confiscated, churches broken down.
And at the Greek Revolution of Independence in 1862, that overthrew Kong Otto of Greece, the role of the Greek Orthodox Church was fundamental and part of thepeoples national identity.

 

[Live trash can]

There was maybe a time when theocracy seemed more normal. Because almost all people in a region had the same religious beliefs and rule by one or a small group was the way of doing things.

For myself at least, I think I have finally found theocracy's place in history!

Maybe "organized religion" is theocracy' little brother. A situation where religion is official but not the single ruling element.

If these things are true then the way the religious civics are divided up the in Civ 4 might make sense. The beginning is paganism, the end is free religion and in between you have a choice of organized religion or theocracy. And in a utopia, both these might surely work!

It's obviously difficult to assess all kinds of theocracy. Some are destined to be better than others.

If you read the civilopedia, there are downsides to all of the religious civics. Except paganism...

The biggest brother of them all though is Democracy!

The worst form of government except for all the others!

 

[Patine]

There was maybe a time when theocracy seemed more normal. Because almost all people in a region had the same religious beliefs and rule by one or a small group was the way of doing things.

For myself at least, I think I have finally found theocracy's place in history!

Maybe "organized religion" is theocracy' little brother. A situation where religion is official but not the single ruling element.

If these things are true then the way the religious civics are divided up the in Civ 4 might make sense. The beginning is paganism, the end is free religion and in between you have a choice of organized religion or theocracy. And in a utopia, both these might surely work!

It's obviously difficult to assess all kinds of theocracy. Some are destined to be better than others.

If you read the civilopedia, there are downsides to all of the religious civics. Except paganism...

The biggest brother of them all though is Democracy!

The worst form of government except for all the others!

I have never played Civ4 itself (or Civ5), though why does Paganism have no drawbacks. Historically, Pagan societies had a lot of problems relating directly to their particular religious beliefs, depending on what those were, from the belief in capricious and amoral gods and goddesses willing to terrorize mortals for their pleasure but demanding rituals placation as well (such as Greek and Celtic Polytheism), to confusing, overlapping, contradictory, and politically-shifting portrayals of Pantheons, like Mesopotamian religion, to divine enforcement of theocratic monarchy, like Egyptian, Inca, and certain phases of Roman Polytheism and old-school Confucianism and Shinto, to grim fatalism such as Norse Polytheism, to the problem of a constant demand for mass human sacrifice, like Aztec Polytheism was famous, or other things, like ritual cannibalism, like Melanesian and Papuan religions practiced. Paganism is chalk full of social drawbacks, ones which Christian, Moslem, and Buddhist proselytizers used to their advantages ruthlessly.

 

[Berzerker]

You are viewing heaven and earth as a place way after the fact that heaven and earth started their existence. Genesis calls the material makeup of the universe heaven and earth. The EE calls them primordial Apsu and the substance Tiamat. This was way before Marduk was even named. A Theocracy is not some non-existent god ruling mankind. It is a single God setting up a government. If you want to say that Marduk came along and split the physical earth or the solar system into two sections, you may or may not be interpreting EE correctly. That point has nothing to do with God causing water and dry land to separate.

Okay, when did Heaven and Earth come into existence in Genesis? Heaven appears on the 2nd day and Earth appears on the 3rd day. Gen 1:1 says they were made in the beginning, but the beginning of what? A series of events leading up to their creation on the 2nd and 3rd days. So what happened before the Earth appeared and why did it show up 'after' Heaven?

Well, because Heaven is where Tiamat was carved up by Marduk. The other part of Tiamat destined to become Earth was moved to a new location where the dry land appeared and 2 great lights would 'rule' the sky. Tiamat was in relative darkness, the sun was further away so the moon was also dimmer. Our earliest creation stories were not monotheistic, not even for the monotheists. Virtually every myth says the water (usually in darkness) preceded both creation and "God".

The claim is that Marduk changed up the solar system and formed constellations. But not before Apsu (primordial water) and Tiamat (primordial substance). They came first and several generations later Marduk was formed.

Apsu was the sweet water and Tiamat was the salt water, these waters mingled giving rise to other gods. The 'substance' (Earth) was under the salt water.

Trying to point out that Marduk was the God of Genesis does not stand because it says that God created Apsu and Tiamat. They had a beginning in Genesis. In the EE, they did not have a beginning. It even points out that Apsu was the primary god from which came Tiamat and together they were the source of the physical universe. Probably the source and reason why God and the universe are synonymous in the majority of religious teachings.

God created Heaven and Earth, not the waters (Apsu and Tiamat). How does God define Heaven and Earth? Heaven is the celestial firmament, a barrier or some means of dividing the waters above from the waters below, ie Heaven is not water. And the Earth is defined on the 3rd day as the dry land, the dry land that was submerged under the water in Gen 1:2. Again, the Earth is not the water. In both stories the water preceded the appearance of God and his first act of creation - let there be light.

What did that light produce? Day and night. These phenomenon occur because this world spins near a star. What happened next? The 2nd day - Heaven divides the waters. And on the 3rd day the waters below the Heaven are gathered together revealing the land called Earth. Notice how both Heaven and Earth not only follow the waters, they have to come later in the story. Their very definitions require the existence of water before they can appear.

Gen 1:1 is not a separate creation preceding the story of creation beginning in Gen 1:2, Gen 1:1 merely tells us what is about to be created... and it aint the universe. Try replacing Heaven and Earth in Gen 1:1 with 'the universe' and the story makes absolutely no sense. In the beginning God made the universe but the universe doesn't actually appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days?

Now God is not physical in any form we have knowledge of except Jesus claimed to be a physical manifestation. Just like Apsu has no physical form that we know of. But Apsu was relegated to just the physical makeup of the universe and ceased to exist as a god according to the EE. Genesis claims that God exist outside of the physical universe because God cannot create God. The EE is more of an evolutionary process, over the span of (billions) of years. The EE gives no reference to time at all. It just gives names to certain phenomenon.

Apsu's power to bring forth gods (Apsu is the sun) ceased, the story says he was put to sleep by Ea/Nudimmud (Neptune) and robbed of that power, ie Ea would bring forth the next God (Marduk). Sounds like Neptune interacted with another planet that didn't originally form in our solar nebula. Anyway, both the EE and Genesis do provide a time frame - creation preceded the appearance of land and life. The EE doesn't refer to creation in 'days' but the story was written on 6 tablets with a 7th tablet devoted to praising Marduk's accomplishments. And the 12 day new years festival reenacted creation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have never played Civ4 itself (or Civ5), though why does Paganism have no drawbacks. Historically, Pagan societies had a lot of problems relating directly to their particular religious beliefs, depending on what those were, from the belief in capricious and amoral gods and goddesses willing to terrorize mortals for their pleasure but demanding rituals placation as well (such as Greek and Celtic Polytheism), to confusing, overlapping, contradictory, and politically-shifting portrayals of Pantheons, like Mesopotamian religion, to divine enforcement of theocratic monarchy, like Egyptian, Inca, and certain phases of Roman Polytheism and old-school Confucianism and Shinto, to grim fatalism such as Norse Polytheism, to the problem of a constant demand for mass human sacrifice, like Aztec Polytheism was famous, or other things, like ritual cannibalism, like Melanesian and Papuan religions practiced. Paganism is chalk full of social drawbacks, ones which Christian, Moslem, and Buddhist proselytizers used to their advantages ruthlessly.

Running paganism in Civ 4 meant you get just about nothing from religion. Saying that wasn't a drawback is disingenuous, given that virtually no decent or better player wanted to stay in it over alternative religious civics.

Civ 4 was back when not understanding the concept of opportunity cost could cost you the game, even below deity but especially there. Quite a few regular buildings were traps to build in most cases.

 

[Live trash can]

So when I said it is without downsides in the civilopedia I meant without downsides historically - as it is presented in it.

This is what the civliopedia says:
"Paganism" describes religions that believe in the holiness of all things around them - rocks, trees, animals, clouds and so forth - rather than in specific concepts or beings. Pagans believe in multitudes of gods, that the gods are all around them, causing the sunset, the rising of bread, and the success of the hunt.

A pagan seeks to remain in harmony with the natural world around him or her. The pagan doesn't look to appease a distant deity or hierarchy of deities who control his or her destiny. To a pagan, the gods are all around him or her, in plain sight every day.

It seems to me that paganism is a form of polytheism. But it has a also a focus on "nature" and "experiencing" nature. And less abstraction when it comes to gods. Experience is exemplified in shamanism. It is typically connected with rural areas.

Many polytheisms tend to have a monotheistic god in them. I am curious if monotheism is a part of all paganisms. I think it is part of many Hindu religions and Greek mythology but not in Norse mythology and what about Neopaganism?

Paganism was first used of those who had other gods than the romans - later of those who had other gods than the Christian.

According to the civilopedia foci of paganism are holiness of nature and nearness of gods. According to Patine there sometimes were human sacrifice and terrorizing by the gods.
How to make sense of it all? It seems to me that there is a variety of pagan religions, just as there is a variety of monotheisms. And paganism is (usually) local in nature.

 

[Hrothbern]

This is what the civliopedia says:
"Paganism" describes religions that believe in the holiness of all things around them - rocks, trees, animals, clouds and so forth - rather than in specific concepts or beings. Pagans believe in multitudes of gods, that the gods are all around them, causing the sunset, the rising of bread, and the success of the hunt.

Paganism was before religions, like the prehistory was before history. That gives a very wide range of what paganism can mean.

I find that definition of civliopedia very dubious. It is a description from the religious point of view, using concepts like holiness and god, that are part of a religion but why would they be part of a pre-religion ?

Is a bear for a Neanderthaler something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Is a small rippling stream, a source of nice fresh water, a source of crayfish and fish..... that in spring from all the melting snow water, or with heavy rainfall, turns into an all devastating monster... is it something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Is the weather, the rain so hard needed for the crops.... but sometimes an all devastating storm destroying the crops, with thunder and lightning... is it something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Having respect for holiness does not mean that holiness is there when respect is there.

The concept of a soul is very, very old, most likely there with the Neanderthalers and before.
Attributing a soul to your fellow humans opens the door in attributing a soul to all living organisms and everything that has a big effect on you, especially the entities you are very aware of in practical your daily life.
You need the sun, the moon for light... you need the rain, the food, the water.... mountains, streams, big trees, star signs are landmarks for travelling and orientation.
Clear entities that need and get names, that you talk about with your fellow humans... why would they not have a soul ? why would they not have moods and tempers like humans ?
And those entities differ all, even within a group of entities, just like humans.

=> entities with souls and moods that can favor you, or be your doom.
=> entities to respect, saying sorry, I need you, before we chop or kill...... and control minded as we are, entities to appease.
But not yet Gods.

It took a long road before we got so used in taking control over nature in limited areas, the pre-urbanisation areas, that we lost that feeling for respect in every detail (the spirits of the trees and each prey), and only the big entities like mountains, the weather, the sea, etc were leftover to respect, and ofc the areas with few humans.

One of the definitions of a religion is that the God of the religions allows us, gives us the ownership of the world around us. Taking and using nature sanctioned by the God(s).
We no longer part of nature on equal footing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Many polytheisms tend to have a monotheistic god in them. I am curious if monotheism is a part of all paganisms. I think it is part of many Hindu religions and Greek mythology but not in Norse mythology and what about Neopaganism?

I think we tend to overstate the centrality of chief gods due to the evidence left to us. Zeus and Odin and Assur loom very large not simply because they were the kings of the gods, but because they were the gods of kingship, they were the focal point of royal cults. They had an outsized significance to people producing the sorts of documents and artifacts that tended to survive down to modernity, and consequently an outsized presence in those materials. If you spoke to the average peasant farmer in Greece or Norway or Mesopotamia, you'd probably find that they spent rather less time thinking about these great grand chiefly gods than they did about agricultural or domestic gods, or about local or ancestral spirits.

 

[Patine]

So when I said it is without downsides in the civilopedia I meant without downsides historically - as it is presented in it.

This is what the civliopedia says:
"Paganism" describes religions that believe in the holiness of all things around them - rocks, trees, animals, clouds and so forth - rather than in specific concepts or beings. Pagans believe in multitudes of gods, that the gods are all around them, causing the sunset, the rising of bread, and the success of the hunt.

A pagan seeks to remain in harmony with the natural world around him or her. The pagan doesn't look to appease a distant deity or hierarchy of deities who control his or her destiny. To a pagan, the gods are all around him or her, in plain sight every day.

It seems to me that paganism is a form of polytheism. But it has a also a focus on "nature" and "experiencing" nature. And less abstraction when it comes to gods. Experience is exemplified in shamanism. It is typically connected with rural areas.

Many polytheisms tend to have a monotheistic god in them. I am curious if monotheism is a part of all paganisms. I think it is part of many Hindu religions and Greek mythology but not in Norse mythology and what about Neopaganism?

Paganism was first used of those who had other gods than the romans - later of those who had other gods than the Christian.

According to the civilopedia foci of paganism are holiness of nature and nearness of gods. According to Patine there sometimes were human sacrifice and terrorizing by the gods.
How to make sense of it all? It seems to me that there is a variety of pagan religions, just as there is a variety of monotheisms. And paganism is (usually) local in nature.

This description of paganism blurs the differences between polytheism and animism, which, in and of themselves, are two VERY distinct and different currents of religious practice, thought, and viewpoint from each other (although Shinto hybrids the two viewpoints quite a bit. There is a definite difference in religious outlook and viewpoint of the world between nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures and, as well as sedentary farming and fishing ones without urbanization, that have a shaman, medicine man, wise woman, witch doctor, Anagakok, Menehune, N'anga, member of a Melanesian "masked secret society," etc. versus an urbanized civilization with much more rigid and defined political, social, and economic institutions (and divisions), with socially, culturally, politically, and economically powerful priesthoods conducting regular ceremonies and observances on standard intervals by whatever calendar they use from grand stone, or at least permanent wooden or earthen, temples and other consecrated structures. It also states Hinduism as paganism, when it is something else entirely, in the end.

 

[timtofly]

Okay, when did Heaven and Earth come into existence in Genesis? Heaven appears on the 2nd day and Earth appears on the 3rd day. Gen 1:1 says they were made in the beginning, but the beginning of what? A series of events leading up to their creation on the 2nd and 3rd days. So what happened before the Earth appeared and why did it show up 'after' Heaven?

When it says God created heavens plural, it was all of the heavens making up the universe. When it says created earth it is referring to all physical matter making up the universe. There was no form to the universe. It was unformed matter and earth being the focal point of the account was no more nor less formed than the rest of the universe.

Well, because Heaven is where Tiamat was carved up by Marduk. The other part of Tiamat destined to become Earth was moved to a new location where the dry land appeared and 2 great lights would 'rule' the sky. Tiamat was in relative darkness, the sun was further away so the moon was also dimmer. Our earliest creation stories were not monotheistic, not even for the monotheists. Virtually every myth says the water (usually in darkness) preceded both creation and "God".

The Marduk event was something that happened after the solar system was already established. The event moved the earth from an original location to it's present one. Personally, it seems logical that happened when the canopy of water collapsed thus causing the earth to become a temporary water world, until the crust adjusted with current continental form.

Apsu was the sweet water and Tiamat was the salt water, these waters mingled giving rise to other gods. The 'substance' (Earth) was under the salt water.

God created Heaven and Earth, not the waters (Apsu and Tiamat). How does God define Heaven and Earth? Heaven is the celestial firmament, a barrier or some means of dividing the waters above from the waters below, ie Heaven is not water. And the Earth is defined on the 3rd day as the dry land, the dry land that was submerged under the water in Gen 1:2. Again, the Earth is not the water. In both stories the water preceded the appearance of God and his first act of creation - let there be light.

What did that light produce? Day and night. These phenomenon occur because this world spins near a star. What happened next? The 2nd day - Heaven divides the waters. And on the 3rd day the waters below the Heaven are gathered together revealing the land called Earth. Notice how both Heaven and Earth not only follow the waters, they have to come later in the story. Their very definitions require the existence of water before they can appear.

The sky is named as part of heaven. ie the lowest part surrounding the earth, from the perspective of the earth. From the perspective of another constellation, the earth and all other planets would just be part of a solar event, and it all would be named the Sun.

Gen 1:1 is not a separate creation preceding the story of creation beginning in Gen 1:2, Gen 1:1 merely tells us what is about to be created... and it aint the universe. Try replacing Heaven and Earth in Gen 1:1 with 'the universe' and the story makes absolutely no sense. In the beginning God made the universe but the universe doesn't actually appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days?

Apsu's power to bring forth gods (Apsu is the sun) ceased, the story says he was put to sleep by Ea/Nudimmud (Neptune) and robbed of that power, ie Ea would bring forth the next God (Marduk). Sounds like Neptune interacted with another planet that didn't originally form in our solar nebula. Anyway, both the EE and Genesis do provide a time frame - creation preceded the appearance of land and life. The EE doesn't refer to creation in 'days' but the story was written on 6 tablets with a 7th tablet devoted to praising Marduk's accomplishments. And the 12 day new years festival reenacted creation.

Since the ancients viewed the gods as part of the phenomenon known as the universe, nothing in Genesis makes sense or matches the ancient description. God in Genesis is not the universe or part of it. God is outside of the universe, and created it without form and void. I would say when it was created it was 14+ billion light years across, and once light was added it began to expend and that expansion is accelerated.

The cosmology of the ancients is just the naming of the known and viewable universe around the physical makeup of our solar system. Genesis is a single creation, and no one claims the solar system was created twice. That would be a strawman argument at the most.

 

[Patine]

When it says God created heavens plural, it was all of the heavens making up the universe. When it says created earth it is referring to all physical matter making up the universe. There was no form to the universe. It was unformed matter and earth being the focal point of the account was no more nor less formed than the rest of the universe.



The Marduk event was something that happened after the solar system was already established. The event moved the earth from an original location to it's present one. Personally, it seems logical that happened when the canopy of water collapsed thus causing the earth to become a temporary water world, until the crust adjusted with current continental form.



The sky is named as part of heaven. ie the lowest part surrounding the earth, from the perspective of the earth. From the perspective of another constellation, the earth and all other planets would just be part of a solar event, and it all would be named the Sun.



Since the ancients viewed the gods as part of the phenomenon known as the universe, nothing in Genesis makes sense or matches the ancient description. God in Genesis is not the universe or part of it. God is outside of the universe, and created it without form and void. I would say when it was created it was 14+ billion light years across, and once light was added it began to expend and that expansion is accelerated.

The cosmology of the ancients is just the naming of the known and viewable universe around the physical makeup of our solar system. Genesis is a single creation, and no one claims the solar system was created twice. That would be a strawman argument at the most.

I think you've put yourself in the unenviable of stitching together a creation narrative from parts of radically different levels of understanding of how the Universe worse, and creating a "Frankenstein's monster" of a theory. Although I do consider myself Christian, I believe the Epistle of Barnabas, dismissed at the Nicene Council from the "official" collection of New Testament, does not hold anything that could be considered obviously "uninspired' or directly contradictory to Christ and the other Apostles' words, and was likely dismissed at the Nicene Council for political and SUPERSTITIOUS reasons, and for compromise between early sects of the Church. It provides an answer that allows the moving beyond strictly Creationist, Literalist, and Fundamentalist views of Scripture in a world where they become less and less viable and defensible, in a practical sense.

 

[Live trash can]

Paganism was before religions, like the prehistory was before history. That gives a very wide range of what paganism can mean.

I find that definition of civliopedia very dubious. It is a description from the religious point of view, using concepts like holiness and god, that are part of a religion but why would they be part of a pre-religion ?

Is a bear for a Neanderthaler something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Is a small rippling stream, a source of nice fresh water, a source of crayfish and fish..... that in spring from all the melting snow water, or with heavy rainfall, turns into an all devastating monster... is it something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Is the weather, the rain so hard needed for the crops.... but sometimes an all devastating storm destroying the crops, with thunder and lightning... is it something with holiness or something to have respect for ?
Having respect for holiness does not mean that holiness is there when respect is there.

The concept of a soul is very, very old, most likely there with the Neanderthalers and before.
Attributing a soul to your fellow humans opens the door in attributing a soul to all living organisms and everything that has a big effect on you, especially the entities you are very aware of in practical your daily life.
You need the sun, the moon for light... you need the rain, the food, the water.... mountains, streams, big trees, star signs are landmarks for travelling and orientation.
Clear entities that need and get names, that you talk about with your fellow humans... why would they not have a soul ? why would they not have moods and tempers like humans ?
And those entities differ all, even within a group of entities, just like humans.

=> entities with souls and moods that can favor you, or be your doom.
=> entities to respect, saying sorry, I need you, before we chop or kill...... and control minded as we are, entities to appease.
But not yet Gods.

It took a long road before we got so used in taking control over nature in limited areas, the pre-urbanisation areas, that we lost that feeling for respect in every detail (the spirits of the trees and each prey), and only the big entities like mountains, the weather, the sea, etc were leftover to respect, and ofc the areas with few humans.

One of the definitions of a religion is that the God of the religions allows us, gives us the ownership of the world around us. Taking and using nature sanctioned by the God(s).
We no longer part of nature on equal footing.

Reading your post is like reading E. B. Tylor!

Except yours is more like reading poetry. I didn't see that one coming!

 

[timtofly]

I think you've put yourself in the unenviable of stitching together a creation narrative from parts of radically different levels of understanding of how the Universe worse, and creating a "Frankenstein's monster" of a theory. Although I do consider myself Christian, I believe the Epistle of Barnabas, dismissed at the Nicene Council from the "official" collection of New Testament, does not hold anything that could be considered obviously "uninspired' or directly contradictory to Christ and the other Apostles' words, and was likely dismissed at the Nicene Council for political and SUPERSTITIOUS reasons, and for compromise between early sects of the Church. It provides an answer that allows the moving beyond strictly Creationist, Literalist, and Fundamentalist views of Scripture in a world where they become less and less viable and defensible, in a practical sense.

I think you are describing theology. Interpretation is slightly different. Do I know anything different than anyone else? On a totally different note can one accept evidence presented while not turning it into a MYSTERY or something that will never be accepted by any other human? The question is: can evidence have more than one interpretation. Can we, with limited knowledge of the entire picture, get the interpretation correct? Do we have enough information to even know what is correct and what is only a misleading interpretation?

From what I have read the NT canon was pretty much accepted as we do today, way before the Council of Nicaea.

We are also not talking about letting human peers be our guide when it comes to Scripture. I think I would rather have a true private interpretation, than a false majority knows best interpretation.

 

[Hrothbern]

The Greece government and the Greek Orthodox Church are near completing an agreement that will be a big step towards a secular country.

One big visible step will be that the government will pay no longer the salaries of the clergy. The parallel step is a deal on properties since 1950 in dispute between the government and the Church.

Athens’ leftist government has taken a radical step in transforming the Greek state’s relations with the powerful Orthodox church, announcing an end to the status of clerics as civil servants.
In the biggest move yet towards the 11-million strong nation becoming a fully fledged secular country, officials said the public sector would cease to have any religious role.

Under a deal between the government and church, priests would be paid from a joint fund that would also manage earnings generated from properties whose ownership has long been disputed between the two bodies.
The Greek church is by far the country’s richest institution with hotels, enterprises and other assets in its portfolio. The scale of such wealth frequently caused friction during Greece’s long-running financial crisis. Under the deal, revenues from properties whose ownership has been contested since the early 1950s would be split 50-50.
Tzannakopoulos said the accord also sought to ensure religious neutrality for a state long accused of prejudicing citizens who were not Greek Orthodox. Athens has faced fierce criticism for perceived violation of the rights of religious minorities, be they Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Catholics.
“Religious neutrality [means] that the Greek state will not be able to recognise certain religions with more or less rights,” Tzannakopoulos added. “But what doesn’t change is recognition of the fact that the Orthodox church has the overwhelming majority of [religious] faithful.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iests-to-be-cut-from-greek-government-payroll

 

[Live trash can]

when it comes to religion as a system - its just another way of "politics", just with trying to talk to "soul/heart" instead of pretty clear brain/pocket/lifestyle (as usual political stuff and all around it).

Religion as a system includes another dimension in my view. Politics is about special interests and justice, and religion as a system appeals to morals and your consciousness and how the world was made and therefore how it functions. It is much wider that politics. And has a different kind of knowledge at its base.

This is somewhat of a simplification but still... These different dimensions are not just differences in degree, they are different areas and kinds.


I like that you say that for some societies it can be useful with some types of government which wouldn't work as well for "mature" (my word) societies.

I think the same can be true if a society or tribe is threatened by powerful enemies. Then having a strong leader is more important than having a democratically elected leader(s).


I think maybe the time of theocracies is over, and democracies should be allowed to shine - as you said. Religion however, is still important!

 

[Patine]

I think maybe the time of theocracies is over, and democracies should be allowed to shine - as you said. Religion however, is still important!

Wouldn't that be so nice. But first, you must rid the globe of a couple billion brainwashed, gullible, stupid sheep of several different religious groups first...

 

[Traitorfish]

Wouldn't that be so nice. But first, you must rid the globe of a couple billion brainwashed, gullible, stupid sheep of several different religious groups first...

If they're brainwashed, why do they need to be gullible and stupid? If they're stupid and gullible, why do they need to be brainwashed? If you're going to insist on grotesque over-simplifications, at least pick one to run with.

 

[Patine]

If they're brainwashed, why do they need to be gullible and stupid? If they're stupid and gullible, why do they need to be brainwashed? If you're going to insist on grotesque over-simplifications, at least pick one to run with.

Very well. Let me rephrase that. "But first, you must rid the globe of a couple billion brainwashed, gullible, AND/OR stupid sheep of several different religious groups first..." This way, not all of them have to have all three qualities individually, but the variance in qualities could easier justify racking up a number like a couple billion of them.

 

[timtofly]

You realize that brainwashing is public education? Public as part of the fabric of human growth. While religion may not be your cup of tea, it is what holds society together even when you have a billion individuals. Democracy not so as it forces certain beliefs that may not be as acceptible as a religious one. The issue is the substance of the belief not how people administer that belief.