Simon Paynton

Ivy wrote:
I guess I have to be a believer then right? It doesn’t fit together trying to be part of a church if you don’t believe it. But if you don’t believe it they will treat you differently. And if they treat you differently, you can’t really get that help. Not nearly as much anyway.

Sounds like a tough dilemma there, Ivy.   It seems lik…[Read more]

I mean the religious people, refusing equipment.  Sorry if I was unclear.

@regthefronkeyfarmer – that’s so silly.

If you were to sign up for multiple faiths, and try to become a sincere follower of each one, I think you would learn a lot about the Perennial Philosophy or the common spiritual thread said to be shared by all major religions.  I don’t think it would be spiritually damaging in that way, more enlightening than anything.  It’s an interesting q…[Read more]

I think that one would have to be a sociopath (devoid of moral feeling) to actually pretend to be one of them, in order to get benefits, and I don’t think you’re a sociopath Ivy.

But if they do outreach work in the community, that’s a different matter.

You could say it’s ethical in the same way as “stealing to feed your child”.  If you’re comfortable doing that, it’s ethical.  But only doing it as much as necessary.  Joining multiple groups would be unnecessary and therefore unethical.  That’s what I think.

Unseen wrote:
I’m not sure why you bring that up.

Because a church out-reach group is an environment where people are already being helped.  It’s a mutually supportive social group.

I’m sure it would be a bit daunting, but it might be possible to cultivate friends within a church volunteer group, working on the staff perhaps, delivering services.

The churches (since you are of a Western background) must have groups for moms and kids that you could join, as part of their community work.  I’m sure nobody would frown on you for not being a believer.  Each church actually seems to have an army of volunteers attached to it.

Unseen wrote:
Look guys, I’m here to kind of see what you’re about and also in hopes of maybe getting a little more material backup than I might expect from your normal charitable activities.

There would be no need to be as blunt as that.  Tact is OK.  People can demonstrate what they are about, through their actions.

I’ve been along to a few church services, just to see what it’s like, and because I enjoyed it.  I didn’t take Holy Communion because I didn’t believe in it.

If I was involved in working for some kind of Church outreach programme of helping the poor and needy, and I was one of those poor and needy, and I am an atheist, I would think the Church…[Read more]

I have to say, for what it’s worth, I do think that would be unethical, unless, as Kristina says, you’re giving something back in the sense of getting involved in Church work.

Yes, but the idea is that each one is saying the same thing in a different way, or looking at different aspects of the same thing.

I think it could be considered unethical, on the grounds of insincerity and therefore disrespect to the religions one was converting to.  If you don’t really believe with all your heart, it’s insincere.

On the other hand, it would be completely ethical and respectful to want to find out as much as one could about the various religions.  I tried t…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
why wouldn’t it translate well to the majority?

What doesn’t translate well to large groups, is “communal sharing” or communism.  Apparently, it’s not possible to organise large groups along small-group lines.

Of course, as demonstrated in the UK for example, you can have socialist ideas such as the National Health Service, on a la…[Read more]

I believe that in a classical form, conservatives care mostly about their own group, while “liberals”, or socialists, care about the whole world.

I think that Marxism really reflects the ancient human conditions of living in small interdependent groups, where everyone cares about everyone.  This is great – the Garden of Eden – but it doesn’t…[Read more]