Questions for religious Posters.

[Guv]

First: I do not want to start a big controversy over actual religious beliefs. Please Post elsewhere for Theological issues.

As a nonbeliever, I wonder if I am biased or do some religious people agree with me on the following?

I believe that the clergy at the lowest levels are sincere, caring, people who probably believe in the theology they preach.

At higher levels, I believe there are some (if not many) hypocrites more interested in their own power, prestige, et cetera than theology. At these higher levels there might even be some non believers.

When it comes to the "Electronic Church" (EG: Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff), I believe that most (if not all) are charlatans & con artists. To me the major difference between them and swindlers are they make more money, what they do is legal, and their victims do not end up feeling foolish for having been taken (In fact, many actually get something for their money, namely some peace of mind or a better feeling about their faith).

If I have upset anybody, I am sorry. I am only curious about your opinions, not trying to start a war or question anybody's theological beliefs.

[HarryW]

What you say sounds pretty likely. Couldn't say for sure, but human nature being what it is it wouldn't surprise me.

As I have stated before, religion can be used for manipulation or let's say, "evil", but that doesn't mean that it is not "good".

We wouldn't dispose of all knives just because it can be used to kill; we still use it to cut as a "good" tool.

Also, when you say "clergy" I hope you are not limiting it to a specific group. Many groups exhibit what you are saying; some I definitely believe know that they are taking advantage of people and are not merely following something false without knowing it is false.

[Gen-X]

With this being the case I would have to wonder exactly where the line is drawn.

Is it only the top that is corrupt?

What about the regional centres?
As far down as the local church head?

What if the corruption runs all the way down so that the only people who are truely sincere is the people that actually attend.

This would have to be the case from my experience.

I once witnessed a series of events where a new minister entered a congregation and proceeded to start doing things his people were not very happy about. There were rumblings in the church about how the people did not like their minister doing what he did (raising hands, the rest were very reserved) and the next week he said he was inspired by God to do this sermon..... It strangely enough focused on all the areas of the Bible that say you SHOULD raise your hands.

I saw that as a person using the Bible for his own benefit and not only that but doing it at the expense of those who believed by using their beliefs against them.

[HarryW]

What did they have against raising their hands?

[Gen-X]

Harry

Some religous followers are called "Penticostals" (sp?) which among other things means they like to worship by waving their arms about, jumping and dancing etc.

Other Christians feel that this is too showy or that it is people's attempts to say "Look at me".

The bottom line was that the Minister decided that because he wanted people raising their hands he was going to manipulate them into getting what he wanted and use God as the reason for the manipulation so they wouldn't notice.


Speaking of this kind of thing :

Its like that thing that swept America where everyone was falling on the floor blubbering like a fish out of water.

Imagine this... You are the 10th in line and 9 people before you have dropped to the floor and shaking like they were having a seizure... Someone lays a hand on your head and you feel NOTHING!!!! Absolutely Bone Dry Nothing!!!

What are you going to do? Stand there in the middle of everyones revelry and say "Didn't feel a thing" and have everyone glare at you like you are the spawn of the devil? Of course not... You are going to fall down on the floor and shake, rattle and roll just like everyone else so you don't feel out of place.

I found that one so damn funny ;)

[HarryW]

Yeah that kind of thing's pretty ridiculous ;)

[CthulhuDragon]

Well this thread was directed at people with religious beliefs, so I think I will chime in.

First some background. I consider myself a pentecostal christian. I was born and raised in the church, though the decision to stay in it was mine, and was made with careful study. I will answer these questions as best I can, but my denomination does not have a hierarchy so I may not be the best example.

I believe that the clergy at the lowest levels are sincere, caring, people who probably believe in the theology they preach.
For the most part, I agree with this. Most (not all) are these kinds of people.

At higher levels, I believe there are some (if not many) hypocrites more interested in their own power, prestige, et cetera than theology. At these higher levels there might even be some non believers.
Here is where I have little experience, but here is what I believe. At the higher levels there are many who are frustrated with what they have done. Most of these people started out as simple pastors or priests and have since risen levels. During their initial work many became frustrated that no matter what they did things around them failed to change. Most will have lost the vigor that they once had for their work. It happens to people in most professions. At this level most deal more with beauracracy(sp?) then with theology.

When it comes to the "Electronic Church" (EG: Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff), I believe that most (if not all) are charlatans & con artists. To me the major difference between them and swindlers are they make more money, what they do is legal, and their victims do not end up feeling foolish for having been taken (In fact, many actually get something for their money, namely some peace of mind or a better feeling about their faith).
This is a different thing all together. I doubt very much that any of these people started out their careers to become con artists. But when the money started flowing in in huge quantities they became corrupted by it. Initially I am sure that the money you sent in went to simply sustaining the organization, and still does. Only now you also have to pay those million dollar salaries. That is when the money comes before the message. So I don't think that all are con artists, and I think that most never intended to be that way. But like us all they are human, and they are weak. Indeed these are good examples of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"


In response to Gen-X:
I once witnessed a series of events where a new minister entered a congregation and proceeded to start doing things his people were not very happy about. There were rumblings in the church about how the people did not like their minister doing what he did (raising hands, the rest were very reserved) and the next week he said he was inspired by God to do this sermon..... It strangely enough focused on all the areas of the Bible that say you SHOULD raise your hands.
Sadly this happens quite often. This is a case of stubbornness on both sides. The congregation was happy with the way they were worshiping previously and see no reason to change. To them what they were doing before was good enough so "don't rock the boat"
In the case of the minister, he was so sure that what he had was what everyone needed that he refused to listen to them and resorted to brow beating them with Bible verses. This is human nature coming through, and another fine example that ministers are human, no more, no less. They are subject to the same flaws and faults as the rest of us. The difference is that when they come before God they will be judged much more harshly then the rest of us.

[Gen-X]

This is human nature coming through, and another fine example that ministers are human, no more, no less. They are subject to the same flaws and faults as the rest of us.


So wouldn't that be an indication to seek your own worship and to leave the church?

If God is infallable and Ministers ARE fallable then surely you would seek to continue your faith directly with a source that never fails you, rather than be "lead" by a source that is human enough to manipulate your faith for their own ends.

This is what I don't understand about organized religion... I have nothing against people who are in themselves religious... I DO have problems when that is extended to a congregation of people who gather in a veinly constructed place and say that because THEY (little human beings) built it that God's spirit is there. Then they take that and peoples faiths and warp them to whatever they want, leaving a trail of half brainwashed bigots behind that feel like they have a god-given right to do the most attrocious things to other people simply because they think they follow God.


If you are a religious person I would like you to watch a movie called Stigmata... If I were to accept ANY concept of an existance of a God it would be the one portrayed in the end of that movie by the 13th Psalm.

The faith/religion that I believe is about each's personal relationship with the Creator of All and how His "burden is light" (i.e. beware the hoops that so-called leaders would have you jump through to attain salvation) and the freedom "rest" that He speaks of.

"They will never enter my rest"
"Sabbath rest"
"It is finished"
"The finished work of Christ"
"Christ's faith (not mine)"

Regarding that psalm; I've heard outside of the movie that the Catholic Pope et al is afraid to let the true gospel be known, else it would affect finances. That's another reason why I always say to read it (the bible) yourself.

If you were to accept ANY concept of an existance of a God; this is the one I recommend (the one you are finding).

And yes, it is disgusting when one tries to take advantage of another; especially when preying on insecurities (as some organized "religious" groups do).

One hint I've seen in detecting the motivation of bad/dangerous churches is when they insist on the tithe (10%). Guess what, God wants 100% (AND IS NOT NECESSARILY MONEY), but won't condemn you when you don't provide 100%.

In my opinion, certain Pentecostals are following a more correct "gospel" than ALL Catholics. But where there is speaking in tongues and falling to the ground stuff, I don't believe it is from God. (Some is man made and some may well be from--you guessed it, Satan).

[Gen-X]

Regarding that psalm; I've heard outside of the movie that the Catholic Pope et al is afraid to let the true gospel be known, else it would affect finances. That's another reason why I always say to read it (the bible) yourself.


Doesn't this tell you that you cannot trust the Bible?

"let the true gospel be known"

This would indicate that what was "originally" written is not what you are reading now which ties back in with everything I have ever said about "How do you know the Bible you have now was what was TRUELY written back then?"

Whatever you read for yourself is only what THEY have allowed you to read... and those who many centuries ago controlled what was read decided what was fit for the public

[CthulhuDragon]

So wouldn't that be an indication to seek your own worship and to leave the church?

If God is infallable and Ministers ARE fallable then surely you would seek to continue your faith directly with a source that never fails you, rather than be "lead" by a source that is human enough to manipulate your faith for their own ends.

If you think that then you are treating priests/pastors/ministers as something they are not. They are not meant to be your only source of "religion". They are there to help you in understanding the Bible and the whole concept of Christianity.

When you were getting your education, be it high school college whatever, did you ignore the teachers and learn all the material on your own? After all, the instructors were more than capable of misleading you and skewing the information to their own viewpoint, and quite often they do, or did you listen to what they had to say and then went out and practiced the information yourself to verify it? That is what a minister is supposed to do. Whatever they tell you, you should go look for yourself. Ministers are simply people who have devoted their life to the study of the gospel so they can help you to interpret it better. The kinds of people who believe a pastor 100% are the same kinds that get involved with cults and do weird bizarre things.

Also, I am not Catholic. The catholic church does *MANY* things that I and many others do not approve of. Unfortunately many people see the catholic church as the way all churches must be. This is most certainly not so. I think you would be amazed at how different many other "denominations" are.

Gen X - It appears that you have had a bad experience or experiences with the church. I am sorry for that. There are most certainly bad people leading others. People who shouldn't be. I hope that you can remember that there are others out there that are not the way you described. Please note, I am not trying to "convert" you. I am just hoping you can see my viewpoints in a less jaded way.

[Gen-X]

When you were getting your education, be it high school college whatever, did you ignore the teachers and learn all the material on your own?


At least the material was not open for interpretation. It stood there in Black and White, "Carbon has 4 electrons in its outer shell", nobody could "manipulate" or twist this to their own designs.

Religion however is based so much on the "way" you read something that a minister is quite capable of twisting it to suit themselves and make it sound very plausible.

So I would see the analogy as not holding.


I hope that you can remember that there are others out there that are not the way you described. Please note, I am not trying to "convert" you. I am just hoping you can see my viewpoints in a less jaded way.


I understand that and I myself went through a period of analysis where I looked passed the specific experience and attempted to see what was at the root of it so that I would not immediately place everyone within the same category.

What I discovered were 2 sets of people or mindsets if you will. The first mindset is one where they are perfectly happy co-existing in the world, label things as their own opinion and belief and say it is for them only and what everyone else chooses to do is their business...

The other mindset were those that said categorically that "THIS" was how it was and THIS was how it happened and THIS was right and THEY were wrong or misguided. God existed, he was the God of the Christian Bible and every word written in there is as real as could be.

I realised it was people of the latter mindset that I have the greatest offense with and certain people on this list have shown qualities that place them severely in this second mindset and hence immediately invoke a side of my personality that despises that.

If you want to get to the absolute root of it though, you have to admit that the belief in a creator is a perfect reflection of the human condition, is ALWAYS guided by the culture in which the person was born in and has all the symptoms of "myth".... and we all know that while they may have been based on fact in the past they have been warped out of proportions in the present.

For that reason I can put no stock in the belief in a creator because I do not suffer the same "conditioning" that other people have to reach this decision. Man will always think there is something bigger and better than himself out there, and will place himself as the "chosen one" to carry out or partake in the plan of this supreme being...

Freud said it best when he discovered EGO.

There is a book called "I'm Glad You Asked" that starts with the question, "Does God Exist?" and eventually leads to why it is the "Christian God" or "How does this relate to me?". It also addressed "Why is there Suffering Now?" and "Other Faiths". Unfortunately, my copy is several hundred miles away. It also addresses your question Doesn't this tell you that you cannot trust the Bible?.

The last person I recommended it to wasn't satisfied with its answers, but that just shows how the same facts will be given and two people will conclude differently. Maybe it will polarize us more, but you might want to give it a read.

Also, yes, from a superficial point of view (for example my recent publication of the bible in my language) cannot be trusted; that is why I say look for the more authentic text (Hebrew, Greek with the best translation you can find). Question what a man (and his motive) says about the text and come to your own conclusions from your own research. There are many levels or "harmonics" of the "Good News--Gospel". The bible contains this "Good News" which is the translation of "Gospel". So while I feel that you related "gospel" and "bible" in that question to my post, they are different at what I would call the fundamental harmonic, but the same at a higher harmonic.

John3:16 has the message of the gospel; the good news.
The "gospel" of John has the message of the gospel.
The 4 gospels have the message of the gospel.
The New Testament has the message of the gospel.
The Old Testament has the message of the gospel.
The Bible (Old and New Testaments) have the message of the gospel.

Normally, one might think of John3:16 as the gospel and the bible to be a book (a fundamental harmonic); but upon further study, the bible itself is the gospel (a higher harmonic or resonant/resounding theme/harmony). This is my personal analysis and doubt you'd find people talking about harmonics. Usually you'd hear about the "deeper meaning" of a text.