Who leads the Leaders?

[naomi24]

On a thread in S&C, both Everton and Keyplus have talked about being led by religious leaders. Firstly, isn't a dependency on others for guidance an abdication of personal responsibility for one's own life, and secondly since no one has a hot line to God, have the religious ever asked themselves who is leading the leaders?

[jake-the-peg]

I think you'll find (as usual) the Holy Ghost is the usual Christian cop out to that one.

I'm pretty sure that he guides the colledge of cardinals to select the right man to be God and guides protestant theologians to correctly interpret scripture correctly.

He's awfully handy in answering difficult questions.

But a religion needs leaders - otherwise you have a big mess of people believing different things and all claiming the Brand - it was this chaos in the early church which lead to the council of Nicea and the Nicean creed

[naomi24]

Isn't that what happens anyway, Jake. A big mess of people all believing in different things and all claiming the Brand? Maybe the Holy Ghost speaks in tongues, and none of them can understand what he's actually saying. :o)

[123everton]

The truth is something of a stranger to you isn't it Naomi?
We are led in opinion to some degree, whether it be by the Pope or Dawkins etal.
Until you can author a book that people subscribe to, until you can produce a theory that people subscribe to or until you can produce a philosophy that people aspire to, then you're in the pack like the rest of us.
You fool nobody with these posts.

[naomi24]

Everton, unfortunately for you, no the truth isn't a stranger to me - and I think it's patently obvious that I'm definitely not in the pack with the rest of you. You always resort to rudeness when you have no answer. Funny that.

[jake-the-peg]

No I don't think so.

Most churches permit differences of opinion to a lesser or greater extent.

Anglicanism is very tolerant but even here female bishops and gay clergy are issues where the boundaries are being tested.

Catholicism seems to favout the "Blind eye" approach where clergy are expected to toe the party line but there is widespread disobedience to issues like contraception and I think you'll find that few really believe the bread and wine really change.

I think you have a lot of varied opinions but only within the boundaries of an overall framework

[naomi24]

But all presumably guided by the Holy Ghost?

[ludwig]

'Most churches permit differences of opinion to a lesser or greater extent. '

Naomi, aren't you talking more about the big differences between the different brands of Christianity (Anglican, Roman Catholic, etc etc ) rather differences of opinion within one of those brands. They are supposed to follow the same god, the same christ, and the same book after all.
Same applies to Islam of corurse.

[naomi24]

Not really Ludwig. I'm trying to ascertain why people feel the need to be led by others, rather than take responsibility for themselves and make their own decisions.

This stems from a very interesting conversation that Everton and I had yesterday where he said that people who listen to Dawkins are no different to those who listen to the Pope. I contend there's a great deal of difference, simply because Dawkins offers evidence that is open to scrutiny to substantiate his claims, whereas the Pope does not, and cannot. Of course that applies to the Imams too, and to any other religious leaders.

[ludwig]

Naomi, sorry yes - I was digressing from the main question really and referring specifically to your reply to Jake when you said..'Isn't that what happens anyway, Jake. A big mess of people all believing in different things and all claiming the Brand?'

[naomi24]

Ah, I see, Ludwig. No, it's not about Brands, it's about allowing people who can provide no foundation or evidence for what they're telling you to dictate the way in which you live your life.

[123everton]

Naomi, it's the second time you've dedicated a post to me and sought to misrepresent my views, and I'm rude?
When you read Dawkins, when you read Hitchens do they agree with you or do you agree with them?
Who is leading the opinion of whom?

[naomi24]

Everton, yes, you are rude when you don't have an answer, and as for me twice attempting to misrepresent you, you were wrong the first time too. I don't believe I'm the only one who gained the impression you were equating Richard Dawkins with the Pope. Chakka certainly thought so, and the thread is there for anyone who wants to read it. Let me make it clear that I would never deliberately seek to misrepresent anyone. That's not my style, and apart from that I have no reason to use underhand tactics, since I believe my arguments stand on their own merits.

Whether or not I agree with Dawkins, or Hitchens, or whether or not they agree with me, rather depends upon what they're saying and what I'm thinking.

[keyplus90]

Naomi - Had you been born on a remote island without mother and father and without any thing around you and then one day somehow you would have come to this society and said the first words "I am not lead by anyone".

Then I would have believed you. But again what language would you tell us that in. Even a language specifies that you have been lead by someone. Or do you do all the things that no one has ever done in this world before. That is what I would call "I never got lead by anyone".

[123everton]

Did you invent atheism Naomi?
Did you write "The Origin Of Species"?
Even Darwin took his lead off someone else for that.
Goths want to look different but even they are led to comparitive norm within their peer group.
The shoes on you feet, the laquer you spray your hair with, the shops you go to.
Noone is an island, we are all influenced by things around us, the Pope speaks and some people agree with him, Dawkins speaks and some people agree with him.
Who you listen too and how much relevance you place upon it is a choice one makes, but we all make that choice and you will continue to make that choice until you can sell out the Albert Hall to hear your theories on alien intervention for life on earth, why ghosts are natural and not supernatural, defeating superstition, the evil of religion and the dangers of M.M.R with the evidence for it.
Whenever you lack an argument you throw slime, and argue about definition, it took you three goes to say Keyplus is not a paedophile.
But, as for his kind....
So much for generalisations.....

[naomi24]

Keyplus, I presume you were taught to speak when you were a child, the same as the rest of us. For me that was quite some time ago, and since then I've grown up and learnt to investigate that which I want to learn, and to discard that which I deem useless to me. I know it's difficult for you to comprehend, but as an adult I've become independent and I no longer need anyone to tell me what to do. I think for myself.

[naomi24]

Everton, What is this 'But, as for his kind'? I have never said anything of the sort about anyone and I demand to know what you mean, because this sounds very much to me like libel, and that I seriously will not tolerate. If you'd read Wizard's thread properly early on you would have read my views on Keyplus and you would have had no reason to ask again. You had no reason to bring the subject up again then anyway, and you have certainly had no reason to bring it up yet again now, unless of course you derive some sort of peculiar pleasure from it. And you talk about throwing slime? With a friend like you in tow, Keyplus certainly doesn't need enemies. Shame on you! You owe me an apology, and I think you owe Keyplus one too - but I doubt very much that you're man enough to offer one!

[123everton]

http://www.theanswerb...Question826650-1.html
Pages one and two.

[naomi24]

Thank you. You've confirmed it wasn't I who said 'and his kind', it was you. I'm still waiting for that apology, and I still think you owe Keyplus an apology for continuing to dig up all this dirt.

And incidentally, you still haven't answered the question.

[123everton]

Well no actualy, it wasn't me who said it either.
Sun 08/11/09 1402 "is Keyplus and his kind paedophiles? Such comments add nothing to this debate and are to be deplored."
Sun 08/11/09 1424 "Everton that's a matter of opinion"
1522 "Is that a yes then?"
1525 "As I said, it's a matter of opinion."
1542 "So at the third time of asking what is your opinion?"
1622 "The third time of asking what? Whether or not I think Keyplus is a paedophile? As a matter of fact I don't, at least not in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to dig out Wizard's thread on the subject, you'll find out why I say that. I'm not going into all that again here."
At what point up to the third attempt did you say no (and even that was dubious) "his kind" wasn't my wording, so while your opining on the subject (again) what exactly is Keyplus' kind?

[naomi24]

Everton, What on earth are you talking about? You've pasted your own words, and then immediately denied you who said it!

Sun 14:02 08/Nov/09

Is Keyplus "and his kind" paedophiles?

That isn't language I ever use, Everton, and it isn't the way I think. Those words are there, from you, in black and white, and as far as I can see, no one else used them, so perhaps you should tell us what you meant by that. My opinion wasn't dubious at all; I'd already given it elsewhere, and I saw no good reason to assist you in your efforts to dig up a slur on someone's character again. I very clearly stated that I didn't want to go into all that again. Nevertheless, still you continue, so I can only presume you really do derive some peculiar pleasure from it.