Church Services (upcoming event) and some thoughts on it

This is my favorite point! There is in fact a genealogy of religions, which has a striking correlation in both variety and location to the genealogy of languages. I believe this is evidence that God does exist but only as an evolving concept in the minds of humans.

~Ulrika~

Sure. Change is the nature of the Universe.

Oops, that's Buddhism

Still applies to God

I am very glad to hear that as I think it may be a really cool thing to someday have an ordained minister hold real services online.
TY for your openness and willingness to be flexible. I admire that as a character trait and it is a sign of a strong leader.
Aaawww… thanks for that. I hope that you did not misread the tone of what I wrote either because my only desire is to help where I can. I appreciate your kind words.
Yes, I agree and support your proposal. Hopefully things will go smoothly and we can dodge some potential bullets here. Please let me know if you need my help in anything. As you can tell, I do have a passion for religion.

I would rather be me and wrong when I die then you. If I am wrong I fade into oblivian, if you are wrong... well... it won't be much fun.

I agree, TY Ulrika.

Billy Grace does not exist.

lol... now yoiu know that is not true Kendra... I was in your dreams last night!

Wow! I haven't had anyone use "eternal damnation" as a motivator for embracing dogma in ages.

After years of debates with the religiose, I have developed a finely honed skill for deconstructing all flavors of illogical arguments. Maybe I should dust off those skills and give 'em a try in the forums.

~Ulrika~

Not wanting to interrupt your fascinating theology discussions, I would only add a slight note to Billy regarding the church services

Billy, I'm personally a very stubborn person and usually try to mantain and defend my own positions as far as possible. I must apologize for that. Stubbornness is not a nice character trait and in my case it tends to show as a harsher way of writing. My apologies for that.

However, I think that at this "construction phase", where lots of things haven't settled definitely in the way Neualtenburg is going to work, I would like to try to be a thorough as possible in rooting out inconsistencies in the Projekt. This means listening very carefully to any "flaws" which we find. Think of it as "debugging Neualtenburg"; before version 1.0 is launched, we should be locating bugs and fix them!

My reasoning behind this is simple. I fear "entering the world unprepared". This means, for me, going out in SL proclaiming the wonderful project we have and, after 10 minutes of discussion, be shown how pointless and silly some of our decisions have been because we did not think them out properly in the first place. Beyond shame and embarassment, there is also a certain ethical attitude that I think we should mantain. Even if we don't see it that way, we have a little responsability to show first the Lindens, and then the rest of SL, that our project works, despite all discussions during the summer against it (and some that still go on...).

Now, for me, it means doing our homework and have all the arguments ready to defend the Projekt when apparent inconsistencies come up. Saying "oops, sorry" is not good enough for me. And I would rather reply "no, we thought that out, and the way we're doing it is the correct one because of this or that" instead of "we're looking into it. Thanks for your input".

While I certainly misunderstood some of your first posts on the subject, it soon became quite clear what the point was: should we enter the pitfall of calling the church by a "label" which means different things to different people, and try to defend our (in this case, mine ) definition, or will it be safer to drop the label and accept all types of church services instead, and make that a part of our "written documentation"? (right now, the Projekt definition, but soon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights)

The answer is clear to me. Let's fix the problem, not argue around it

By pointing out this flaw, you have done a great job - I, in my stubbornness, was blind to it, and I'm glad that you were around to point it out. Thanks a lot

Actually, thanks to a LOT of people, I think we have managed to rule out several similar "flaws" in a short period of time. Even some more radical voices have already shaken the foundations of Neualtenburg (You Know Who I Mean), make us rethink about some things, and reinforce those foundations with more steel and concrete. We are ready to take the bull by the horns (or so I hope!)

-- Gwyn

PS. I'm no leader, just a loudmouth
PPS. Sure, Billy, I share that passion about religion as well As said somewhere else, I hope we'll have some nice discussions inworld hehe since my own path right now is studying a lot about religion...
PPPS. However, I tend to lose track of time when the conversation is interesting. Yesterday, after Philip Linden's Town Hall, I was trying to make someone understand how SL economy works. This took me about 3 hours meaning I got to bed around 4h30 AM my time... arrrgh...
PPPS. Ulrika, you haven't pointed out the flaws in Eggy's argument yet

Oh, you misunderstand me if that’s what you think I was doing. I was just stating a fact… lol. I would still rather be me and wrong than you.

It must be difficult to be wrong so many times over so many years.
Allegedly… yet to be seen skill.
Illogical in YOUR opinion.
Maybe... lol

Gwyneth, I do not know you other than these forum discussions but it is apparent that Ulrika has chosen an outstanding person for the monumental task of attempting to organize religion in Neualtenburg.

Yes, you really DO have allot of studying to do about the various religions. I might suggest advertising for people who would be resident "experts" or whatever you want to call them, that would answer questions about a specific religion and be involved and available to help you when issues come up.

I offer my services not as an expert, per say, of Christianity but as someone who has years of study behind him and is willing to be a resource for you. It would be awesome for you to have similar people from the other major religions. This would take some of the load off of your shoulders as probably nobody could actually master the intricacies of every religion.

That's because it's flawless. He points out the empirically verifiable fact that religions are all part of an evolving genealogical structure, to which I then added that the diversity of religions is closely correlated with other evolved cultural features such as language. I do agree that God(s) exists but only as an evolving concept within the minds of humans. It's standard cultural anthropology.

~Ulrika~

Both your statements use a rhetorical technique that employs presupposed conditions; contrasts two extreme choices to make your choice look desirable; and then presents them in the form of an opinion such that they can be described as factual. To deconstruct this type of rhetoric logically, one simply has to address each of the points in turn or more simply create a rhetorical statement that is the inverse of yours. I'll do both for fun.


Your statement "if you are wrong... well... it won't be much fun " implies that being wrong leads to the stereotypical "Christian Hell". This presupposes that Christian mythology (and not some other religious mythology) is true. In a truly logical argument, one should presuppose nothing and build an argument based on verifiable facts. However, in rhetoric this not necessary and in fact this kind of presupposition is critical for forming the rhetorical contrast.

A rhetorical contrast is one which seeks to exaggerate the good and bad in two opposing arguments with the goal of making the supported alternative seem comparatively better. Above you contrasted the two statements "If I am wrong I fade into oblivian, if you are wrong... well... it won't be much fun ". By rhetorically contrasting oblivion and that which "won't be much fun", you seek to make your position seem more desirable.

Finally, a commonly used technique to defend rhetoric from attack is to present it as a factual opinion. It is a fact that it is an opinion, however the rhetoric within is not factual.


To craft an opposing rhetorical contrast wrapped in the cloak of factual opinion, I would simply say, "It is my opinion, that I would rather spend a lifetime free to question the world around me than a lifetime trapped in a prison of unthinking dogmatism." However, it's just rhetoric and as you can see it presupposes that Christians spend their lives in unthinking dogmatism, which is quite an exaggeration!


Anyways let me leave you with a wonderfully crafted quote from Karl Marx, one of my favorite rhetorical writers, on the topic of religion. It's here not because I'm interested in conveying the meaning rather I put it in as an example of perfectly crafted rhetoric. Note the parallelism on either side of the copula (the word "is". Good stuff.

The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions.

~Ulrika~

Billy, thanks a lot for your offer of help. Be assured that I'll count on you from now on as one of the "resident experts" and will certainly forward to you all questions and doubts that come up when dealing with these highly complex issues when they are raised. Uh, consider yourself the Thelogical Adviser of Neualtenburg I'm certainly no expert and never pretended to be - just an interested student, if you wish.

Ulrika, thanks for the class in rhetorics! Have you ever considered organized hosting class events, say, Rhetoric 101, as an additional source of income? I mean, trying to set up our own Learning Center? Oh, I now realize this is completely off-topic. But yes, I will get back to that proposal on another thread and probably after we have the first General Elections or so.

After reading this I have to say… Damn girl… you do have allot of time on your hands… don’t you? LOL

I disagree with the rhetorical reference but yes… I compared our final disposition under YOUR condition… there is no God… and mine… The Christian God exists. You can call it whatever you like… presupposed conditions, contrasts, extreme choices… whatever. What I did was to simply compare what you believe with what I believe.

NOOOOO Ulrika. It presents the facts as you see them and the way I see them. Our beliefs are what they are. Nobody twisted the truth or put words in your mouth. The opinion IS factual btw… given the two possabilities I would much rather be me and wrong than you as would just about everyone else.

Unless you define rhetoric as presenting your beliefs and mine, then contrasting them this is NOT rhetoric.

Works for me

That is what we are comparing Ulrika. You being right in your beliefs and us all fading into oblivion when we die vs. me being right and it not being much fun for you. You can try to deflect the debate to some other thing that has nothing to do with our beliefs but that is not remotely what I am doing.

It is YOUR opinion that it is mythology and frankly offensive to Christians everywhere to refer to it that way. Do NOT state it is mythology like it is a fact.

And now you offend EVERY other religion and trivialize something that the majority of humankind believes. There just aren’t a whole bunch of people who believe there is no God at all. Most of the people in the world believe there is a God and just because YOU do not does make it ok to insinuate religion is the same as mythology.

I am still waiting for you to state a “logical” argument. Maybe you will get around to it at some point.

I see… It is ok for YOU to presume there is “no God” but the rest of us should “presume nothing”.

There are more “facts” surrounding Christianity than most of the readily acceptable historical documents that are widely accepted by the secular world but the fact that it has to do with religion prejudices the so called “experts” chose not accept it as “fact”.

I refute that it is rhetoric at all.

I have NO problem whatsoever comparing and contrasting what you and I believe. I certainly can understand why you do.

I do not make it “SEEM” to be better if I am right… it IS better… lol.

And yes, it is. Mission accomplished… lol.

Any way you want to slice it… it is a FACT that I would rather be me and wrong than you… lol. You can gloss over that as much as you wish but that statement is a FACT.

Oh Ulriks, you poor girl… you obviously know very little of Christianity. As a Christian I AM free to question the world around me. You are the one that is caught up in rhetorical misinformation. I am VERY free to question anything and everything. Furthermore, I am not trapped at all in “a prison of unthinking dogma”. Once again you have little tact in your argument. Look at the world around you. To believe as you do that there is no God and that live was somehow created by 2 atoms flying around in the universe and somehow colliding in JUST the right way is illogical. To believe that somehow life as we know it evolved from those two atoms is illogical as well as astronomically improbable.

I totally agree that your argument is an exaggeration but I will add that it is illogical and not based in facts either.

I am glad to see that you do not agree with this either. I could just as easily quote famous scholars with wonderful things to say about religion but I will save that for another day.

Oops. I think that might have confused you. I wasn't disagreeing with you or asking for a retort concerning the original topic. I was analyzing your rhetoric and providing examples of my own, because it's a field of study I enjoy.

You see, rhetoric is not a bad thing. Rhetorical speech is a rich and wonderful field dedicated to the crafting of persuasive arguments by means of emotion. Done correctly it can be almost like poetry, which is why I included that gorgeous rhetorical line by Karl Marx. Granted the word "rhetoric" has acquired a bit of a negative connotation, as rhetorical speech can be used as a mechanism to avoid logical discussions or to incite an audience. Nonetheless, well-crafted rhetoric can be infinitely more powerful and memorable than a simple statement of fact. For instance:

Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

Note the similarity to Marx's quote above. This time there is symmetry about the coordinating conjunction, "but". Gorgeous, isn't it?

~Ulrika~

I was so thrown off by the fact that you missed that the topic of my previous post was the analysis of a rhetorical comment that I hopped right over this.

By definition your religious belief system is a mythology. From Wikipedia: "Myths are generally stories based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths and "founding myths", natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. Not all myths need have this explicatory purpose, however. Likewise, most myths involve a supernatural force or deity, but many simple legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content." If that weren't enough (which it never is with me), you can even browse through the Christian Mythology page on Wikipedia as well.

That's two new definitions that you've learned today.

~Ulrika~

I'm not picking on you in particular, Billy. I say this because there is nothing so common as the assumption that I'm attacking someone when I post. I'm not.

Having said that, I'd like to say that I, too, am Christian. And I would like to remind you, and those watching, that you aren't really speaking for all Christians when - in other posts - you seem to characterize Christianity as an ultimately exclusive religion. There are exceptions to what you present as a group that brooks no exceptions to so many doctrines.

I, for instance, am a Quaker. Religious Society of Friends of Truth.

You might be aware that there are different flavors of Quakers. Some, like you appear to do, attend rather traditional American Christian services with preachers, churches, songs, and programmed script for the services. My flavor happens to be Conservative (this means more traditionally old-style Quaker - not Republican and unprogrammed. We have no clergy, or pre-scripted services. The experience of worship involves simply sitting quietly listening for God to speak inside you. This comes from our belief that there is "that of God" in each person. Quaker business meetings reach decisions by agreeing on what God has told the people gathered. This makes sense when you believe that God speaks the truth to us all, and discerning it is a process of having all listeners share.

One of the major aspects of these congregations is their inclusiveness. These Christians are not likely to understand your conviction that Christians cannot embrace and worship with those who hold contradictory views on dogma, or the Bible, or the Trinity, or most other doctrinal issues. The truth God gives to other religious people is also a treasure.

It isn't creed that determines whether a person brings light to a gathering. It's whether they place their highest value in God's Truth. Believe it or not, there is very little value - in the quest to know God - in a group that believes it not only knows all it needs to know, but proudly proclaims that it will never mix with those who have a different understanding.

Frankly, I meant to keep this short, so let me get to my point. My understanding of the intentions of the "Unitarian" service originally proposed was to provide a gathering whose primary priority is inclusion. It really isn’t important for it to be called Unitarian - or to have any affiliation with any church, for that matter - but it was an attempt to provide an inclusive event that expresses the inclusion that appears to be a major tenet of this societal experiment.

Frankly, given this description, I would be interested in a discussion on whether this society would be well served by adopting a State Religion. I haven’t decided to support that idea, but I would be interested in the discussion. However, given the fact that Ulrika calls herself an atheist, that seems unlikely.

Still, a “universal” service that strives to include everyone does not - in my view - mean that anyone’s dogma must be challenged by anyone else’s dogma. That is, of course, unless one’s dogma demands that one be offended by our differences.

I feel it may be right for the government to provide a non-denominational service to celebrate our spiritual inclusion (companion to our political inclusion), while being sure to provide resources and space for other religions to gather as they see fit. I think the state service should not be called Unitarian. Perhaps simply “the Gathering”?

At any rate, I do not see how a state sponsorship of an inclusive gathering as excluding any religion except those that exclude other religions. And I have no religious, or philosophical problem with excluding exclusive religions from state sponsorship.

You’re always welcome to hold your own exclusive gatherings. But the state sponsored Church (yes, a state church) should be legally compelled to be inclusive.

Tough questions, Kathy.

Let me tell that the first time I read the Neualtenburger Projekt - still on the discussion forums - I was intrigued by the "church". It made sense to use a public building for some purpose, since it doesn't make sense to recreate a medieval-style city, based on real, existing cities, and "forget" about the church.

The wording for the church conveyed the meaning of "an all-including religious service". I originally thought precisely in the same manner like you did, Kathy. The first "religious services" congregated atheists, paganists, some Christians, and a few agnostics. Most were intrigued, all were curious, and quite open-minded.

However, I also must admit that "good intents" are not enough! Any religion which imposes dogmatic faith upon their believers will never feel represented by this kind of services. And, obviously, they will feel excluded from the services. No matter how open-minded they are. The simple examples Billy Grace has given illustrate his point very clearly. Simply speaking about God without mentioning the Trinity - or undervaluing the importance of the Trinity - is an essential break upon dogmatic belief of a billion Christians. They will all feel excluded from an allegedly "all-including religious service".
Highly dogmatic buddhists and taoists will certainly frown upon the "God concept" as well, and they would not feel very comfortable about a service using the word "God" to describe the "Stream of Counsciousness". And so on. The point being, there is probably no such thing as "an all-including religious service", since it will only make sense to non-dogmatic belief systems (and there are quite few), or to religious people that are open-minded beyond their own religious constraints (and, theoretically at least, should be viewed as heretics by their own faith ).

Still, I have to read some more things about RW events like "All-Religions Prayer Day". Seems that these things have established themselves with a certain degree of "religious pluralism", and since they are endorsed by the respective heads of the many religious denominations (often in attendance), they are "officially sanctioned" by at least a large group of religions. I would guess that some fundamentalist religious groups, however, abject these kinds of events and stay away from them.

The Wikipedia entry for Literal truth and spiritual truth (scroll down on the entry for "religious pluralism" raises an interesting point. There can be only "religious pluralism" if you view other "truths" beyond your own faith as "spiritual truths" (ie. interpretations of the word of God as rendered by humans, contextualized in their respective societies and time-scales) and not "absolute truths". This is quite hard for several religions where you don't have other choice than accept dogmatically the word of God as rendered in a holy book as literal fact not to be denied. In this case, those types of religions will certainly disagree with any type of "all-including service", since the concept is impossible for them.

Thus, while I personally agree with you, Kathy - but then again, my own path of religious belief encourages me to explore - I think that, as Billy pointed out, we simply can't assume that we can make everybody happy with "non-denominational religious services". For many people, this can be viewed a sort of "religion" in itself and promotion of it is contrary to the spirit of tolerance and open-mindedness which encourages all types of religions to have a place in Neualtenburg. We need to have a way to "fit them in" as well.

So, tough questions, and no easy answer

I understand that - given the goal of including ALL religions - we can never arrive at something that's both worthwhile and totally inclusive.

My suggestion is, therefore, that we consider creating a state-sponsored Church that includes inclusive denominations. I'm aware that this excludes some groups. But, given that these groups are never going to be compatible with absolute inclusivity anyway, there shouldn't be much loss to anyone.

It's true that it will be controversial. Americans are raised to deplore state religions. But, I believe we can only do this if we find a balance between a perfunctory policy of inclusion at all costs and creating a religious face for the city that represents it's philosophy while still serving spiritual needs for those who believe in that policy.

Having a state religion does not prohibit the growth of other religions IF the charter requires that the state avoid contact with any religion but its own.

If we insist on remaining completely non-controversial, I think we will have no religious face at all, and I feel that will be a lost opportunity in our experiment.

I support this idea of a state-sponsored church that supports inclusive denominations only. Individuals who would argue against these inclusive denominations become exclusive by nature of their argument, eliminating the city's need to make concessions to them.

~Ulrika~

So, if I read this correctly you want to start a completely new religion. This would be a colossal mistake. I think there are plenty of religions out there without us actually trying to make a new one. No offense to Gwyneth, I think she is terrific, but I think that she would tell you that she is not qualified to create a new religion and from what I have read has no desire to.

What I suggest the church be non-denominational and that there be no declaration of a "state" religion. The church should be a place where only ordained ministers are allowed to actually hold a formal service.

Individuals however should be able to reserve the space for classes like Sunday School, Bible Studies or other things that do not require a minister. This would include group sessions where information could be shared between religions. For instance, I would be very interested in hearing more about some of the religions that I do not know much about. These sessions could kinda be think tanks which it sounds like Gwyneth has something similar in place.

Anyway, to keep this short there is no need to create a new religion as that would be a very dangerous endeavor. I know I would not want to be someone's sole source of religion and I assume Gwyneth agrees. Being someone who does believe in God I sure don't want to be in front of my maker one day having to explain that to him/her.

I will say however that I would have no objection to having as a requirement for having any kind of event or service that it be open to anyone who would like to attend. I would be interested in hearing arguments against this requirement because there may be some legitimate reasons out there that I am unaware of.

This is contradictory Ulrika. How the heck can a religion that is inclusive support a church that is exclusive to inclusive religions? By it’s very nature that is a prejudice religion that is in fact NOT inclusive at all.

Sweetie, if you do not want to hear anything from people who do not wholeheartedly agree with you then just say so and I will gracefully bow out of the projekt right now. Your sentence is certainly not conducive to diversity in thought and in fact is elitist. It’s your call so post below what you want and I will take action accordingly.

I'm not interested in handling the religion aspect of this project. I'll let Gwyneth and Kathy handle it from here on out, including addressing your concerns. I have great faith in their ability and will accept whatever decisions they make.

Billy, do not call me or other females in the forum "sweetie". I expect you to address me and others with the same respect we do you.

~Ulrika~

I propose that we set up an event for discussing this. The forums are great for thinking a lot about stuff and posting only when we have reached our own conclusions. However, they also take some time to get to a conclusion quickly. In-world chat is much faster, but, alas, also not very conductive to long-term reasoning. A combination of both sounds good to me.

I would like to ask both Kathy and Billy (and, of course, everybody else in discussing this issue) when you would have time for such a meeting.

Currently, I'm slightly biased towards Billy's point of view, but I feel this is going slightly askew from the original proposal of having "one state-endorsed church"... and I don't know how to deal with those opposite proposals. More input, please!

Oh, and yes, I don't want to be neither a "founder of another religion", nor a "representative of an established religion". Just to make sure everybody understands that I have changed slightly the event blurbs, now I call it "Church Meeting" instead of "Church Service" (and got rid of the "unitarian" label), but I'm open to suggestions.