Socrates once asked if an immoral act was wrong because god forbids it or if god forbids it because it's wrong. The correct answer for the religious person is, of course, "both." However, as usual, the religionist studiously avoids the heart of the question with that answer.

There are two things wrong with obeying a god in moral decisions. First, how is it known that the god being obeyed is good? The religionist might say because god (through scripture) says he must be obeyed, and commands from god must be obeyed. But again, the religionist ignores the infinite regress of that bootstrap argument. It's well known among religionists that false prophets don the clothing of sheep, and that Satan will lie to suit his purposes.

Second, applying some general directives of the will of god as revealed in scripture presents some difficult interpretation problems. The scriptures are vague, contradictory, and have multiple differing sources. Therefore, the pious servant of god must resort to official authoritative interpretations of scripture for moral guidance. Yet the human authorities are in no metaphysical way better enabled to interpret scripture than is the religious layman: religious authorities have no direct link to the god in question. This leaves the pious one no better off than constructing his own moral code, which is the equivalent to disregarding god completely.

It's just a lot simpler to ignore or deny the possible existence of supernatural entities. You end up having to decide for yourself anyway.

I wonder, then, how a priest justifies his inmoral acts on an inocent child to himself; so that he can stand on the pulpit every Sunday and preach the word of god? Can he find a balance between what's ethic to society and what god tells him is ethic? Or does he believe that he's going to hell for what he's doing anyway, so might as well follow his perverted instinct?

I always thought of the religious teachings as figurative. The fundamentals of each religion seemed to me in agreement, so that each one had to be on to something(which just reinforced the idea).

I believe the problem lies in people that take everything literally. If everything were perfectly described and taken the same way by everybody, then that might be an option.

If the religionists don't pull their heads out, there could be a huge clash between ignorance and reality...and the ignorant side has to be undermined in a way that they can't foresee: the teaching of critical thinking.

Exactly what is this "something" that you think the religions are "onto"? If it's something that can be supplied without religion getting in the way, then why not just supply it?

'the something' would be toward the reality of existence, and what's left of your choices after realizing it. I say, incorporate religionists into the ideas of reality by means of "something" that can't be denied(the first sentence).