@Three dog,
OK, so if I understand the pith of the preceding discussion as it relates to the topic, xris has offered some strong opinions about characteristics that an ideal religion should NOT have:
To wit, that any code of morals should NOT specify punishments for acts that essentially harm no one (except, perhaps, the wiling participants.)
Second, in positive terms, that there be sufficient flexibility built into the scriptures that something that was prohibited originally should be allowed if circumstances change so that the to follow the prohibition is harmful. (Use of condoms in places where HIV is endemic, for example.) Likewise, any action that is required in the scriptures (a period of fasting, for example) should release anyone from the requirement if it would be harmful to their health or well-being.
I apologize if I am becoming tedious, but I think that if we participate in the activity of describing attributes of what would be an "ideal" religion, we might actually come to develop more thought-through ideas of what religion is and does, and what the potential benefits could be, as well as the specific pitfalls which religious institutions fall into.
That said, it might help this discussion if we make some distinctions:
We have the
scriptures of the religion which form its basis.
We have the history of the
Founder of the religion which helps establish a standard for the religion's followers. (This history is often incorporated in the scriptures themselves, but not in all cases.)
Then we have various
institutions that have formed around the religion.
A subset of these institutions are
sects or denominations.
We also have the
practices of the
leaders and of the
followers of the various institutions, denominations, etc.
Perhaps if we use these distinctions we can have a more meaningful dialogue...
