More proof that organized religion is a scam [Archive]

Lazarus

10-21-2007, 03:53 AM

I have never had a need for religion - organized or otherwise - so this type of news will always bring a smile to my face.
Richard " Dick " Roberts stealing from donations (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/national/main3377995.shtml?source=mostpop_story)
Oral Roberts University President Richard Roberts asked the school's board of regents for a leave of absence Wednesday amid accusations of lavish spending at donors' expense and illegal involvement in a political campaign.

An Oct. 2 lawsuit cites an internal report that says the Roberts allegedly remodeled their home 11 times in 14 years, used the university jet for personal trips, and forced members of the university to play an active role in a political campaign, something that is banned for non-profits such as the university, reports CBS News correspondent Hari Sreenivasan.

Three former ORU professors filed the suit and say they were forced out after turning over this information to the board of regents.

Their suit was amended last week to include new allegations that documents were shredded and destroyed days after the initial lawsuit was filed, and hours after ORU and Richard Roberts fired the school's comptroller.

...And the findings of the internal investigation are even more damaging-
Scandal Vulnerability Assessment (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/exhibits2amendpet.pdf)
This is a PDF, and I forgot how to quote from these documents.

moses2792796

10-21-2007, 04:04 AM

I understand how religion is a natural part of human existence, and is in fact the most likely way in which a society will form a strong culture and be successful, but the corruption on religion in the modern era is astounding. I have rarely been to church because of this but when I do it's quite scary to witness the extent to which religion has degenerated, yesterday I went to a Catholic church and I swear to God the priest was CWN, some of the phrases he uttered were remarkably similar.

Lazarus

10-21-2007, 04:11 AM

Sorry Bout That.

But churches are good for only
1 ) weddings
2 ) funerals

and I shall use those facilities for neither.

Jaaaman

10-21-2007, 04:33 AM

Sorry Bout That.

But churches are good for only
1 ) weddings
2 ) funerals

and I shall use those facilities for neither.

Well good for you then... :rolleyes:

PatrickHenry

10-21-2007, 05:05 AM

All encompassing cynicism is not the answer to the world's problems Lazarus.

Do people cheat and lie?

Is that (lying) something that is inherent to organized religion alone or have you found evidence of that behavior elsewhere?

Have you ever had someone of faith show you real love...I mean by doing something real for you that they didn't have to do?

Did they do that just to "fool" you?

Lazarus

10-21-2007, 05:44 AM

All encompassing cynicism is not the answer to the world's problems Lazarus.
And neither is religion, but cynicism is more productive.

Do people cheat and lie?
All people do so, including the self-proclaimed " good Christians ". That act renders them extinct.

Is that (lying) something that is inherent to organized religion alone or have you found evidence of that behavior elsewhere?
Nothing is inherent, including the choice to not believe in any " god " rendering the holder of that choice to be labeled as inherently bad.

Have you ever had someone of faith show you real love...I mean by doing something real for you that they didn't have to do?
Yes, and I have also had individuals of no such " Faith " do likewise.
And I , ye of no Faith, have returned the kindness.
So, whatever point you were attempting here.........?

Did they do that just to "fool" you?

Religion depends on its' survival by fooling people. They sell unobtainable dreams.
The best used cars salesmen bow down to every used God salesman.

I am not a cynic - I am just being realistic and living in this world.
The next is but a pipedream.

moses2792796

10-21-2007, 11:19 AM

I get the feeling that deep down, most Christians are just afraid of death, or brainwashed. It's a shame these are the people that generally represent religion which is something I would deem necessary for human existence.

BoogyMan

10-21-2007, 01:26 PM

David Hume

10-21-2007, 02:37 PM

"There was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

ViolaLee

10-21-2007, 03:18 PM

Threads like this are of no use to anyone.......

Threads like this inform us of the theft of donations to evangalical churches so people can decide whether or not to keep giving their hard earned money to these crooks.

Threads like this let us know that these Christians are perhaps ruled by Satan instead of by God, if you look at things that way.

Would you rather have this all kept under wraps so no one finds out about it? Don't you think we should know when Church leaders like the famous Oral Roberts's son steals money from the people to remodel his house and use the Church jet for personal vacations and force people to campaign politically?

http://www.orm.cc/images/min1.jpg
http://orm.cc/oral

There are 17 pages filled with criminal activity by Oral Roberts's son, daughter in law and grandchildren on the PDF Lazarus posted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/exhibits2amendpet.pdf

It includes Mrs Roberts moving in with her 16 year old boyfriend, using ORM money for the families extravagant use of many cell phones, the Roberts kids destroying school property and the school paying for it, the school paying to remodel dorms for the Roberts kids..

Come on!!! Boogy you don't think this thread is of use to anyone? This is outrageous.

Evangelical right wing hypocritical phonies and thieves. Disgusting.

Lazarus

10-21-2007, 03:24 PM

All encompassing cynicism is not the answer to the world's problems Lazarus.
And neither is religion, but cynicism is more productive.

Threads like this one are of no use to anyone. You make a claim about why you despise Christianity and it's adherents in inflammatory ways and those who disagree point out the reckless nature of your rhetoric.
" despise " and " rhetoric " were your words; not mine nor my motivations.
I could care less how others find strength to make it thru the day.
I happen to find that strength from within and from those around me; whereas others need an invisible entity. Sounds like snake oil to me, but what do I know - I'm a heathen.

Do people cheat and lie?
All people do so, including the self-proclaimed " good Christians ". That act renders them extinct.

People sin, good thing there is an avenue provided to deal with it.
Religion - the cure for what ails ya!
News flash - people who do not espouse your beliefs in God cannot " sin "; well, they can but only in the minds of those who use that " God " to pass judgement.

Is that (lying) something that is inherent to organized religion alone or have you found evidence of that behavior elsewhere?
Nothing is inherent, including the choice to not believe in any " god " rendering the holder of that choice to be labeled as inherently bad.

All you seem to have to support such an assertion Lazarus is your own opinion. Man is inherently good, but still fails. It is a good thing that there is an avenue to deal with those failures.Whose opinion is showing now?
Man is inherently a blank slate, predisposed equally to good OR bad.

What, again with the " avenue "? Reminds me of the adage that when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Have you ever had someone of faith show you real love...I mean by doing something real for you that they didn't have to do?
Yes, and I have also had individuals of no such " Faith " do likewise.
And I , ye of no Faith, have returned the kindness.
So, whatever point you were attempting here.........?

I don't think anyone has claimed that people is error and sin are incapable of kindness. Irrelevant to the discussion I think.
My point exactly!
Patrick Henry seemed to attach some significant connotation to that act.

Did they do that just to "fool" you?

Religion depends on its' survival by fooling people. They sell unobtainable dreams.
The best used cars salesmen bow down to every used God salesman.

I am not a cynic - I am just being realistic and living in this world.
The next is but a pipedream.

If you claim this view to be other than cynical you might need to look up the definition of cynical Lazarus.

I have moved beyond being critical of Religion,: I now dismiss it out of hand.
It might serve as a crutch to some, but I have become " enlightened " to its' ultimate ineffectiveness.
But if you must label me - label me as jaded.

Lazarus

10-21-2007, 04:41 PM

Scandal Vulnerability Assessment
Oral Roberts University, Oral Roberts Ministries
Original Draft Prepared by Stephanie Cantees

Investigation of potential areas of legal and/or financial issues in the university and ministry have yielded the following areas of potential vulnerability:

• According to the Draft report, Richard Roberts stated in a taped phone call, "I have the deck stacked -- I am elected to three year terms and if a Regent appears to give me trouble, I remove him. I stack the deck...." (Draft report cites a numbered tape as documentation.)

• Dead bolt locks were installed on all bedroom doors at the insistence of the Roberts' oldest daughter. This was precipitated by Mrs. Roberts repeatedly moving into the home her 16 year old male "friend," which made her daughters uncomfortable.

• Photos exist of Mrs. Roberts and an underage male smoking at the President's residence. (Draft report references front and rear photos of Richard Roberts’ residence with Mrs. Roberts and the young male smoking.)

• Mrs. Roberts has personally spent the night in the ORU guest house with an underage male on nine separate occasions. (Draft report references photos of these events as well as logs from security.) It is reported that this underage individual was allowed to stay in the university guest house unsupervised on numerous occasions. All living expenses for this individual were born by ORU/ORM -- despite reported compliance prohibitions.

• Draft report references 29 distinct photos of Mrs. Roberts and an underage male alone in her sports car. Time stamps on the photos indicate that they were photographed after the citywide 10 p.m. curfew for minors not with their parents. In fact, all 29 photos were taken after midnight. The Draft report cites blog entries from current students confirming these meetings.

• Draft report cites statements by Victory Christian Students and past employees of VCS confirming Mrs. Roberts’ presence at the school in the presence of the underage male companion. Security tapes showed 81 visits to VCS by Mrs. Roberts and the underage male to the campus in 2004 alone.

• A longtime maintenance employee was summarily fired so that this same underage male companion could have his position. (Draft report cites a statement from current employee in confirmation of this assertion.)

• At ORUEF, Security removed three individuals for being intoxicated. Photos of the three show that one of the individuals was Mrs. Roberts’ "boy friend." She ordered that Security ignore the infraction. (Draft report indicates existence of photos of Mrs. Roberts ordering security to ignore the drunken youth.)

• Richard Roberts ordered university employees to post a personal message for his daughter on the Mabee Center electronic marquee which read, "Matt, I'm sorry. Love, Chloe." Mrs. Roberts called an unspecified vice president at 3:00 a.m. to demand the message be posted. (Draft report cites phone logs which show a total of seven demand calls being made to the same vice president that morning. Further, a dated and time-stamped copy of written orders from the same vice president to Mabee Center employees mandating that "Matt, I'm sorry, Love, Chloe" be immediately placed on the marquee.

• A total of 32 complaints were received from employees/public regarding the personal message placed on the Mabee Center marquee. The Roberts were warned of the legal implications of retaliation against employees expressing disapproval. (Draft report cites copies of phone records.)

• Tapes were produced of Chloe Roberts vandalizing and illegally removing athletic department equipment from university property. When confronted with the incriminating tape, Richard Roberts refused to address the issue. Roberts personally benefited from the property stolen, and the damage from the vandalization was billed to the university. (Draft report references the departmental video tape, two witnesses, and a statement from one of the other students involved.)

• University property -- specifically golf carts -- sustained serious damage at the hands of the Roberts’ children. Damages caused by the daughters was billed to the university.

• Receipts for clothing are routinely handed to ORU/OREA staffers with orders to "cover the charges." (Original draft notes an attached document reflecting $51,206.00 in clothing receipts) Staffers are under standing orders to modify records/cover purchases to make personal purchases appear to be business related.

• Both Mrs. Roberts' white Lexus SUV and her red Mercedes convertible are provided by ministry donors -- including all insurance costs. The Mercedes was located online at a dealership in Atlanta. At the explicit direction of Richard Roberts, Ministry Security was flown to Atlanta to take possession of the vehicle and drive it back to Tulsa. (Original draft notes an attachment indicating the ministry department which paid for the plane ticket.)

• Cell phone bills for Mrs. Roberts and her daughters consistently run over $800/month -- with an average of over 1,000 text messages per month. (Original draft notes names of numbers of recipients of calls and texts.) Mrs. Roberts phone records indicate a large number of text messages sent between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Two underage males -- one of whom Mrs. Roberts was seen alone with after 1 a.m. on 29 separate occasions. This evidence was posted on a student weblog and referenced in the original draft of this report. It should be noted that Tulsa has a 10:00 p.m. curfew for underage persons not in the company of their parents.

• Richard Roberts asked stakeholders to permit Mrs. Roberts’ male friend to reside in their home when questions arose concerning his use of the guest house.

• University and Ministry employees are regularly summoned to the Roberts' home to do the daughters' homework. (Original draft notes security records, photos and statements to support this contention.) The daughters take the homework completed by the employees, copy the work, and submit it to Victory Christian School as their own work. (Original draft refers to a transcript of a phone call where Mrs. Roberts personally arranges for employees to assist the daughters with homework.)

Viola-
It is a noble effort to attempt to get this thread back on topic.
But, as the damning evidence above points to, it is much better for those who are forced to defend the indefensible to change the topic.

In this instance, that happens to be me.
Typical.

BoogyMan

10-21-2007, 05:02 PM

ViolaLee

10-21-2007, 05:34 PM

I just took your words at face value boogy. You said threads like this were of no value. I usually read the OP and see what it's all about. I don't pay more attention to the commentary than the actual story. In this case the story is about dishonest, crooked, thieving, evangelicals related to Oral Roberts, a famous, rich, preacher who has built a dynasty that his son is stealing from and his daughter in law is having an affair with a 16 year old boy in, among other scandalous activity. You said threads like this are of no value because you disagree with Laz's opinion that Christianity is of no use. I disagree with you. I think threads like this are of great value. Perhaps some brainwashed Christians may see the light and decide it's all just a big fairy tale written to make the Church billions of dollars so a few preacher men can live high on the hog while the rest of the peasants tithe their hard earned money like idiots, for a prayer.

BoogyMan

10-21-2007, 05:49 PM

If it were framed in such a way as to deal with the treachery of those in the OP who showed such dishonesty Viola, I could agree. It wasn't.

tony mitra

10-21-2007, 06:23 PM

What constitutes an organized religion might be the first question I ask. Having come from the east, I have noted the basic concept in the west that the so called “organized” religions are the three main ones to emerge out of the fertile crescent, i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I am even told that the three are closely related, comes from the same basic background, and the later ones acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of the earlier ones.
 
To that extent, the three would appear not unlike branches of the same tree. Further divisions within religions, such as Sunni and Shia, or Catholic and Protestant, might be taken as further divisions. Perhaps, if things continued as usual, these sub-branches would begin to look like full fledges separate religions somewhere in the future.

All these, however, are considered “organized” religions, when debate starts on the subject.

What makes them organized, and what about the rest of the religions that came from different trees and not related to these three?

The way I see it, the organization stems from a hierarchical system whereby authority comes from the top, and the top is not selected by the bottom. Unlike a democratic system, who controls the top is selected by an elite few at the top, bypassing input from the bottom. IN a political sense, this is what makes autocracy, or dictatorship, and a rule of the Monarch.

But, there are other religions, outside of this “organized” tree, that have looser control, lesser authority and no rule of the elite per se. Hinduism, having toyed with the notion of rule of the elite (in the form of the caste system) failed to establish a hierarchy in selection of Priesthood, for example, and diluted back as it missed all the main pillars of the other organized religion. It lacks a definitive Bible, lacks any sense of a place such as the Vatican, or Jerusalem, and it lacks a Pope or a group of people that has any authority in defining what exactly a good Hindu should or should not do. And as wealth and power was no more decided by caste, but by brain, skill, and entrepreneurial acumen, the high castes are now marrying the smarter or the richer low castes, and looking for work under the new priest kings, i.e. the industrialists. Lastly, it lacks a missionary mechanism, designed to “Spread the faith”.

Buddhism, at first glance, might appear a tad more organized, but when looked closely, is hardly possessing an authoritative hierarchy, in comparison to the western religions are. The Japanese can be considered both Buddhist as well as Shinto, and they might find a godly presence in a piece of rock, or the teachings of Buddha, while still considering their Emperor to be a reincarnation of God. The Chinese might be considered under the influence of a sort of Godless communism, along with a plethora of individual house Gods, and Buddha. The Tibetans on the other hand might prey to Buddha and same time consider their current Dalai Lama to be the son of God. Since none of these Buddhists are in essence trying to de-recognize the other Buddhists, and there is hardly any conflict between them on religious grounds (ethnic or racial divisions, on the other hand, are a whole different issue), Buddhism itself does not give an impression of being a religion of conflict, at least at this point of time, minor exceptions aside.

Now, I do not know if Judaism still has or has not, a religious head that the rest of the Jews follow as their unquestioned spiritual leader. I suspect not. So, if my assumption is correct, one might conclude that the Jews, being the oldest of the three branches, are migrating towards a democratic process, while the various branches of Christianity and Islam are in a slow process that eventually might lead that way, and the non-related eastern religions never did develop much of an organized wing.

Why organized religion is frowned upon by free thinkers is easy to see. It does not go well for many of us, to be asked to surrender our capacity to reason, and take something by faith alone, without scrutiny and without analysis.

Humans are naturally curious, naturally analytical, and natural unbelievers, in my view. Whenever they confront something that cannot be explained rationally, there will be some that claims it to be a miracle, or an act of God. Some would leave it at that, but others, in due course, would investigate the strange phenomena, and try to find an underlying reason behind it.

I like to retain my freedom of thought and my right to question things. Even if I am wrong in my analysis, it leaves me open to be corrected down the line. It is this freedom that I find being caged by religions that ask me to believe something that cannot be proven.

The other major problem I have with religions is the implication that mine is the true religion and therefore others are inferior, either to be denigrated, or hated, or people converted to mine. The very religiousness of the people gives rise to pointless conflict between men. It is fair to say that more people have been killed on religious grounds, than any other.

I find it all quite stupid, actually.a
 Cheers.
:)

PatrickHenry

10-21-2007, 06:27 PM

...Perhaps some brainwashed Christians may see the light and decide it's all just a big fairy tale written to make the Church billions of dollars so a few preacher men can live high on the hog while the rest of the peasants tithe their hard earned money like idiots, for a prayer.
Brainwashing is a fairly universal phenomenon. Don't think Christians are the only victims.

You and Laz are showing yourself victims, too.

I have no objection to showing the Roberts family for the pukes they are. Every individual must face their own hypocrisy, either on this earth or on Judgement Day.

But pointing out someone else's outrages does not justify labeling everyone you deem like them.

There is no doubt that God exists and He notes our interest in Him and our concern for others.

Hatred of God was prophesied by the Apostle Paul. Romans 1:30.

Sorry Laz, but your thesis, stated in your thread title, of "Proof" has not been substantiated.

underdawg

10-21-2007, 09:42 PM

Organized religion is something I personally would never go for myself, but I realize that for many other people it is a fullfilling and comforting part of their lives. Is it a scam on a grand scale? Maybe, but it is something people don't feel too bothered about. They do feel like they are getting something back for their time and their money. I think of religion as being something like a drug that helps people cope. Who am I to want to deny people their drug of choice.

Lazarus

10-22-2007, 02:56 AM

How about asking about the framing of the context before going off on a rant like this Viola. Taking the commentary in its context clearly points to the fact that I was talking about the blanket commentary by Lazarus that seems to assert that Christianity is of no use. Nowhere did I defend what the people from the OP have done.

Egads, and you claim the right is dishonest? Physician, heal thyself.

What, was I not blunt enough?
Christianity, nor any religion, is of no use - aside from fleecing its' flock.
It provides its' victims with false hopes.
And when those hopes fail to materialize, well, " It wasn't in Gods' plans ", or some variation thereof.

And then the poor soul who hope was dashed begins to question whether the level of sacrifice that he or she gave to the church was sufficient.

And thus begins the PowerBall for Salvation lottery, wherein one donates more and more to the cause, only to end up disappointed ad infinitum.
Brainwashing is a fairly universal phenomenon. Don't think Christians are the only victims.

You and Laz are showing yourself victims, too.

I have no objection to showing the Roberts family for the pukes they are. Every individual must face their own hypocrisy, either on this earth or on Judgement Day.

But pointing out someone else's outrages does not justify labeling everyone you deem like them.

There is no doubt that God exists and He notes our interest in Him and our concern for others.

Hatred of God was prophesied by the Apostle Paul. Romans 1:30.

Sorry Laz, but your thesis, stated in your thread title, of "Proof" has not been substantiated.
Yes, all slaves of religion are brainwashed to varying degrees - you shall have no argument from me in that regard.
But what is the force which you so readily ascribe to having control over my thoughts?
Organized Atheism?

All religions were invented to control a populace, the profit was an unexpected bonus.

And the bible is nothing but a hodgepodge of fables promising first reward for obeying orders, then punishment for disobedience.

Therefore, the foundation of all religions is built upon subservience; and that is what renders them all as scams.
There is no doubt that God exists and He notes our interest in Him and our concern for others.
....case in point
Behave yourselves because God is watching.
Santa knows if you've been naughty or nice, too!

One does not need the threat of an all-seeing entity to show concern for others.
Doing so, even subconsciously, negates whatever altruism existed within said concern.
It also illustrates quite effectively the removal of ones' free will.

Hence - Slave.

PatrickHenry

10-22-2007, 03:41 AM

Truth_and_Power

10-22-2007, 04:15 PM

My problem with organized religion is that whatever truth-seeking is in there is mostly obscurred by politics, social policy, and.. of course.. the SALES PITCH.

Social Policy
I doubt if the all-knowing god really has a problem with non-cloven hooves, or male on male sex. It just seems very.. petty. There is so much in there that just smacks of old jewish men and their predispositions. I don't see how this can be god talking.

Politics
Earlier in the thread someone said something about how organized religion has degenerated. I would say that is entirely ignorant of history. Organized religion has long been used to advocate the wishes of the elite in governance. It is used to support wars, taxes, any number of things, and always has been.

The Sales Pitch
Let me see if i can get this right. Our religion (of whoever is doing the talking at the moment) is the only right one. Failure to subscribe to our religion will result in an infinite amount of pain for eternity. However, get on board and you will be rewarded with an infinite amount of pleasure accompanied by all the other people whom you like and who agree with you. Spend eternity in pleasure with your family, sort of like everything that we wish retirement was. Miss your dead mother? God will give you all the time you want with her, just subscribe now. And if you act now, god will throw in a pound of spiritual strength and bless your household with protective sheep's blood in times of turmoil.

If you were to subtract those three things from religion, well first of all it would no longer be 'organized'. Second of all, it would serve its valid purpose a lot better than it does now, that being helping people.

To comment on someone saying perhaps judaism is less organized that christianity, I would suggest that much of protestantism (minus anglican) is also less organized. There are some organizational structures such as the southern baptist conference and so forth, however there are a lot of protestant churches out there that don't take any real direction from any heirarchical organizations they may or may not be members of.

I've been to good churches and I've been to bad ones. While it might be better than meeting your future wife at a bar, I've seen far too much of the bad side of churches to waste my time looking for another good one. I do kind of miss getting together with some folks and doing some singing though.

Tsky

10-22-2007, 05:13 PM

Are all organized religious organizations involved in politics and soliciting funds from their members?

And really, it’s not that religious groups are organized, it’s their practices that determine whether or not they should be trusted.

All in all, the hypocrisy of many religious organizations does not give one a blank check to ignore morality, the belief in right and wrong and the existence of God.

It seems that people use the hypocrisy of religion to justify their lifestyles and they generally disregard ANYTHING of a spiritual nature, not because of the actions of religious leaders but because the notion of right or wrong in today's society is not popular.

It goes back to the old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think that saying is applicable to this discussion.

Truth_and_Power

10-22-2007, 06:38 PM

All in all, the hypocrisy of many religious organizations does not give one a blank check to ignore morality, the belief in right and wrong and the existence of God.

It seems that people use the hypocrisy of religion to justify their lifestyles and they generally disregard ANYTHING of a spiritual nature, not because of the actions of religious leaders but because the notion of right or wrong in today's society is not popular.

Many people use their involvement in a religion to ignore morality and spirituality, just the opposite of what you are saying. Why don't you ask one of the agnostics around here if they have a moral code that they follow? Why don't you ask that same question of a gay person? They will probably tell you that they think discriminating and ostracising gay people is wrong. They too have a moral code, a belief in right and wrong.

Why does getting your moral code from a guy in funny clothes make it better? To me spirituality is about seeking truth, just the opposite of dogma. IMO taking what someone else says about truth as 'gospel' is less of a path to real spirituality and morality than discussing things with others and coming up with your own beliefs. I guess this is more of a buddhist approch to things.

Don't forget, just 100 years ago (thats 3-4 generations) you would not have had a problem finding preachers here in the south that preached the morality of segregation (blacks not gays) and worse. In the middle east and elsewhere you can find omams or priests that will tell you about the morality of violence against other cultures.

Lazarus

10-22-2007, 07:01 PM

I can see this discussion is going nowhere. Your disdain for religion doesn't surprise or dismay me Lazarus. And I can even see your point regarding the Roberts family.

But to think that you are having original thoughts is ludicrous. You are parroting someone elses philosophy. If you are finding it functional, that's fine. But an arrogant attitude towards those who have a friendship with God will gain you no common ground.

Perhaps you feel you don't need it and that you are self-sufficient. But in time everyone encounters a crisis in which they need someone. I hope your secular friends and family are there for you when the time comes.

I know my friends in Christ will be there for me...

So now not believing in a god is a philosophy?

And, unfortunately, there will be no common ground over this issue.
I never was under such illusory outcome.
I cannot fathom how an individual can have such a strong belief in an unprovable hypothesis; and you cannot fathom how someone such as myself does not have such a strong belief in an unprovable hypothesis.

If you should decide to revisit, tell me - do you even have friends who do not believe in God as you do?

And no, my support network would not abandon me because of my contrary beliefs.
____________________________________________

All my forays into this subject end on the same note.
You'd think that I'd learn my lesson.

Truth_and_Power

10-22-2007, 07:08 PM

So now not believing in a god is a philosophy?

Philosophy is, quite literally, loving knowledge.

From the greek:
Philo - love/like
soph - wisdom

In times past much of what we now consider science was considered philosophy. As these areas of inquiry become more standardized, they are fenced off into various sciences (from the latin for knowledge or to know, scientia, scio) and philosophy holds on to what's left.

PatrickHenry

10-22-2007, 09:36 PM

Tsky

10-22-2007, 09:44 PM

"Many people use their involvement in a religion to ignore morality and spirituality, just the opposite of what you are saying." TruthandPower

True. But people who have no religious involvement site religious hypocrisy as the reason why and in the same breathe either deny that God exists or deny that the Bible is the word of God, or acknowledge both but chose to believe that God feels or does not feel a way that is not supported in scripture. Once all of those things have been absolved, they can create their own moral code. If you don't beleive in God, that's fine, false religion should have nothing to do with it. You can't site false organized religion as a reason not to believe in all organized religion, God or the Bible because it's quite obvious that sometimes all of the above are not interrelated. You have to judge each on their own merit. And usually people who make blanket statements about entire groups are biased anyway so unless a thorough investigation has been done to judge each on their own merit, their opinions are usually more prejudiced than factual. Just as people use their belief in God to do what they want, people who don't believe in God do the same. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

"Why don't you ask one of the agnostics around here if they have a moral code that they follow? Why don't you ask that same question of a gay person? They will probably tell you that they think discriminating and ostracising gay people is wrong. They too have a moral code, a belief in right and wrong." TruthandPower

Why wouldn’t a gay person feel ostracizing anyone of any sexuality is wrong? Are gays living by a different moral code from everyone else? Can a gay also be a bigot? Can a gay person also be a sexual pervert? Being gay no more makes a person a saint than does being straight. There is more to morals than sexuality. Furthermore, true Christians don’t ostracize people because they are gay but at they same time they would like for them to change their lives for their health and their eternal salvation. A true Christians wishes the same for a person who is living with someone that they aren’t married to. There is no double standard concerning issues of morality for a true Christian. Agnostics have a moral code as long as that code allows them to do what they want to do. Everyone seems to understand the concept of live and let live but few understand the concept of spiritual and moral soundness.

"Does getting your moral code from a guy in funny clothes make it better? To me spirituality is about seeking truth, just the opposite of dogma. IMO taking what someone else says about truth as 'gospel' is less of a path to real spirituality and morality than discussing things with others and coming up with your own beliefs. I guess this is more of a buddhist approach to things." TruthandPower

True Christians follow the Bible’s code of morality not a man’s. Some men of the Bible actually teach what the Bible says although most do not. If you are receiving spiritual enlightment from a person who teaches the Bible as it is written, what's the problem?

"Don't forget, just 100 years ago (thats 3-4 generations) you would not have had a problem finding preachers here in the south that preached the morality of segregation (blacks not gays) and worse. In the middle east and elsewhere you can find omams or priests that will tell you about the morality of violence against other cultures." TruthandPower

And that is not supported in scripture so once again you have men that have the title but not the knowledge. Religious hypocrisy does not invalidate all organized religions unless you can prove that all of them and their members do not follow the moral code and principles found in scriptures. While it is true that most religious organizations are making up their own rules as they go along, it's not true of all of them.

P.S. - It is interesting that the Bible that many of you don't believe in already addressed this very topic. It makes it clear that most who profess to serve God actually do not serve him and that most who claim to be men of the cloth are actually wolves in sheeps clothing. Make no mistake about it, the writers of the Bible (under inspiration from God) made it clear that not all forms of worship are acceptable. It's up to us to be honest enough with ourselves to find out what path is correct. If your path means that you can make up your rules as you go along then you might not be on the right path...according to scripture.

piratemonkey

10-22-2007, 11:18 PM

But pointing out someone else's outrages does not justify labeling everyone you deem like them.

Pointing out the flaws that evangelical Christians have, most of whom consider their morals superior to non-evangelical Christians, shows their hypocrisy... a valuable excercise.

States with a higher percentage of evangelical Christians have the same divorce rates and abortion rates.

Despite claims to the contrary, Evangelical Christians are just as sinful as the rest of us.

There is no doubt that God exists and He notes our interest in Him and our concern for others.

Apparently your faith is stronger than Mother Theresa's.

Good on ya!

For genuine faith is maintained by doubt. Only those who doubt can believe -- Miguel de Unamuno on don Quixote

PatrickHenry

10-23-2007, 02:12 AM

States with a higher percentage of evangelical Christians have the same divorce rates and abortion rates.

Despite claims to the contrary, Evangelical Christians are just as sinful as the rest of us.Touche. And according to Barna's research, the actual marriages of the Christians are no more permanent than those without faith...Sad.

There is no doubt that God exists and He notes our interest in Him and our concern for others.

Apparently your faith is stronger than Mother Theresa's.

Good on ya!
Yah, lil' Teresa did good in spite of her doubts. And she also did some very bad things. A little ol' saint/sinner!

Y'know, I got no problem with you folks pointing out hypocrisy. Maybe you notice that's one of my themes too.

That still doesn't make God go away, or my faith in Him...

tony mitra

10-23-2007, 03:40 AM

I feel somewhat marginalized by the direction of the argument, which seem to me to have narrowed somewhat from the broader question raised originally, to a debate between those that follow the Bible, and those that do not.

To some of us, such a debate would allow that religion, spiritualism, humanism, God and his existence or definition, and his relationship with the observable universe, should span a greater field than covered in a single book followed by a single faith system, namely the Bible. With due respect to various version of the Bible that are or have been around, it is neither the first, nor the last, and will likely not be the only book that defines either religion, or God, or man’s relationship with any higher entity.

A good place to start discussing this subjects of organized religions might have been to examine why religions needed to be organized at all, and what differences are there between various versions of the same scripture, and differences that clearly exist between that and the scriptures of other religions, and why these differences exist, and if, therefore, any one of them could claim to have the ultimate, undiluted, words of God or if indeed there could be multiple Gods sending conflicting words to mankind through different ages and different prophets.

Once we reach an agreement on that great contradiction, one might proceed to the finer points of what organized religion means as compared to "disorganized" religion, or non-standardized religion, and even subtler differences between a non believer of religion as against a non believer of God etc.

Anyhow, I should leave you good people to reach an amicable consensus that is agreeable to all.
 
Cheers.
:)

PatrickHenry

10-23-2007, 04:23 AM

Tony, the reason it didn't go that way is very simple.

It was never meant to.

Lazarus was taking a cheap shot at religion, based on some pukes that are no better than Fred Phelps. Then Laz said all people of faith are like them.

It was a clear slap in the face, not a reasoned debate.

Truth_and_Power

10-23-2007, 03:30 PM

True. But people who have no religious involvement site religious hypocrisy as the reason why and in the same breathe either deny that God exists or deny that the Bible is the word of God, or acknowledge both but chose to believe that God feels or does not feel a way that is not supported in scripture. Once all of those things have been absolved, they can create their own moral code. If you don't beleive in God, that's fine, false religion should have nothing to do with it. You can't site false organized religion as a reason not to believe in all organized religion, God or the Bible because it's quite obvious that sometimes all of the above are not interrelated. You have to judge each on their own merit. And usually people who make blanket statements about entire groups are biased anyway so unless a thorough investigation has been done to judge each on their own merit, their opinions are usually more prejudiced than factual. Just as people use their belief in God to do what they want, people who don't believe in God do the same. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.

Well I can't speak for all agnostics, that's kind of what the term means, but I can tell you that my moral code is not a "do as thy please and rationalize" way of life. I don't whore myself around, I don't give people the short straw when they don't absolutely deserve it. I do plenty of things that are not easy because they are right. Now who's generalizing?

All of the religious people on here are getting in a tizzy because someone has taken the actions of a religious few and generalized them to smear organized religion. All I have to say is WELCOME TO MY WORLD. Read back through your post and count the things you ascribe to agnostics.. based on... ???? I mean if you want to be on even footing you could atleast post a news article about one single person who acts the way you say we all do. Then you would just be grandly generalizing instead of just completely inventing. We live in a majority christian country here, if you count the half-hearteds, and here in the south there are a lot of soapboxers. I have grown up my entire free-thinking life being told i'm a sinner and i'm wrong, etcetcetc.

Why wouldn’t a gay person feel ostracizing anyone of any sexuality is wrong? Are gays living by a different moral code from everyone else? Can a gay also be a bigot? Can a gay person also be a sexual pervert? Being gay no more makes a person a saint than does being straight. There is more to morals than sexuality. Furthermore, true Christians don’t ostracize people because they are gay but at they same time they would like for them to change their lives for their health and their eternal salvation. A true Christians wishes the same for a person who is living with someone that they aren’t married to. There is no double standard concerning issues of morality for a true Christian. Agnostics have a moral code as long as that code allows them to do what they want to do. Everyone seems to understand the concept of live and let live but few understand the concept of spiritual and moral soundness.

Again you are trying to tell me that I choose a life of self-learning and constant revalation because it is easy. You are wrong. I'll just let the first few sentances of the above section go.. you are trying to play games with my words.

True Christians follow the Bible’s code of morality not a man’s. Some men of the Bible actually teach what the Bible says although most do not. If you are receiving spiritual enlightment from a person who teaches the Bible as it is written, what's the problem?

And that is not supported in scripture so once again you have men that have the title but not the knowledge. Religious hypocrisy does not invalidate all organized religions unless you can prove that all of them and their members do not follow the moral code and principles found in scriptures. While it is true that most religious organizations are making up their own rules as they go along, it's not true of all of them.

P.S. - It is interesting that the Bible that many of you don't believe in already addressed this very topic. It makes it clear that most who profess to serve God actually do not serve him and that most who claim to be men of the cloth are actually wolves in sheeps clothing. Make no mistake about it, the writers of the Bible (under inspiration from God) made it clear that not all forms of worship are acceptable. It's up to us to be honest enough with ourselves to find out what path is correct. If your path means that you can make up your rules as you go along then you might not be on the right path...according to scripture.

I hope you see some of the circular logic in your writings above. You assume that no one involved in the construction of the bible could be making it up as they go along. You assume they're all perfect people with totally pure motives and no ungodly prejudices. And you assume that anyone else who tries to find the truth outside of YOUR scripture from YOUR religion is "making it up" and that god ONLY talks to the people who wrote YOUR scripture. This seems to run contrary to protestant teachings. The catholics follow the belief that god only talks to the pope and the profits and you worship them and they pass it on. The protestants believe in prayer direct to god, than god can talk to each of us and we can all come to have a "personal" relationship with him. What you are saying is exactly the kind of ignorance that organized religion promotes because it falls in line with their SALES PITCH (noted in previous post). They have essentially gotten you to believe that you are an incapable moron and that god detests you too much to give you the ability of self-revelation. That is not a teaching that will lead you to understanding, it's as simple as that.

I am not trying to be rude and offensive, but I'm not trying to beat around the bush either.. it's not Manners_and_Power, after all.

:clapper:

Tsky

10-23-2007, 04:53 PM

Ok, at first you claim that my thinking is contrary to that of Catholics and Protestants and then you claim that my thinking is EXACTLY like that of Catholics and Protestants. Who is using a circular argument here?

My thinking is exactly the OPPOSITE of Catholics and Protestants because my beliefs do not stem from what any man says because I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Any religious ideals that I hold to must be in line with what it says or I reject them. The idea of a pope is 180 degrees opposite of what is stated in scripture as no man is supposed to elevate himself to the position of God or Christ which is certainly the case with the pope. Any organization that promotes or supports war is also not following scripture. Therefore I reject Protestanism also. Can you tell me what sales pitch I subscribe to? I imagine you can't because you haven't put much thought to your argument besides you don't like to be told what to do. That has nothing to do with me.

You fault me for believing in a book that if followed would end war, hunger, disease, domestic violence, lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, adultery, arrogance, harmful pride, abortion, abusive speech, lawlessness, greed, abuse of power, social injustice, rage and hate crimes?

Well tie me up and throw me into the bottom of the sea.

You fault me for trusting and believing in a book that was inspired by God (the Bible) while you have no problem trusting and believing books inspired by men (science books.)

Yes, you are the smart one.

Carry on.

Truth_and_Power

10-23-2007, 06:03 PM

The sales pitch & circular logic makes itself evident in that you think the bible is the only source of revelation because the bible says so. If the prophets who wrote the bible are the only source of revelation.. how is that different from the pope claiming he is the only link to god? A book written by a few men vs. a man and his successors and what they say? Does writing it down make it true? I don't fault you for reading the bible for revelation, I fault you for believing that there is no other source, including yourself, because your source says so.

Just to make it clear, I don't think the bible is devoid of insight. I just think that organized religion and its documents are polluted by the sales pitch, among other things. Also, I am not perfect and I also make mistakes and misjudgements. I consider doubt and misjudgement to be an integral part of growing and learning.

Its nice to hear that you think I am smart, I think you are smart also, and thus it is quite unlikely that i will either tie you up or throw you into salty water.

Good luck on your path.

Lazarus

10-23-2007, 06:54 PM

If you should decide to revisit, tell me - do you even have friends who do not believe in God as you do?Sure. More on the internet than in person, but I still find common ground on other topics of interest.

And to me, a strong faith that there is no God is perhaps equivalent to my own faith. I have experiences that are unique to me. I must assume others do too.

Mine have convinced me. I must assume that is the active principle for my friends as well.
Yes, ones' past experiences do indeed tend to lead you down one path or another.
And that is another of my disagreements with Religion - conformity.
They all seem to believe that there is only one true path; and seek to have you follow all points inbetween here and there, or now and then.

And no, my support network would not abandon me because of my contrary beliefs.
That's a good thing. :thumbsup:
All my forays into this subject end on the same note.
You'd think that I'd learn my lesson.
Heh! Me, too! We're still friends (at least for my part)
As you mentioned, we share common ground on other issues.
And no matter how heated the discussion, nothing will diminish my support of you in defending those other issues.
Here's the interesting question. How is it possible to take a defined instance (as in the case of the Roberts family) and generalize that to a group as large as "organized religion," calling it "proof?"

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to take an atheist pedophile and make of them the proof example for a philosphy I disagree with (atheism)

To me, I view the Roberts as a microcosm of the entire business of religion.
And I do believe that it is a business, almost from day one.
I believe that because there is a definite lack of modesty in that endeavor.
When the hierarchy accepts or demands $1 more than is needed, they have ( IMO ) given up any authority to speak - ostensively - on Gods' behalf.

And the suggestion that one needs to attend church to be closer to God is equally apalling.
Is not Pride one of your 7 deadlies?

Peer pressure is used to force membership, peer pressire is used to force attendance, and peer pressure is used to compel donations.

All one needs is a bible to truly communicate with a god.
No memberships and the accompanying membership dues.
But that type of worship is frowned upon in organized religion.

One cannot make a living selling bibles.
-_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_-

Tsky

10-23-2007, 08:42 PM

][hr]

The sales pitch & circular logic makes itself evident in that you think the bible is the only source of revelation because the bible says so.

The problem with your statement is that you haven't bothered to ask why I believe the Bible is the word of God. You have made an assumption and a false one at that. My beliefs and conviction in the Bible is far deeper than the fact that it claims to be the word of God. And I would be remiss if I didn’t ask how the fact that you think it isn’t is anymore solidly based on evidence than my belief that it is the word God since neither of us have a 100% sure way of proving our points.

If the prophets who wrote the bible are the only source of revelation.. how is that different from the pope claiming he is the only link to god? A book written by a few men vs. a man and his successors and what they say? Does writing it down make it true? I don't fault you for reading the bible for revelation, I fault you for believing that there is no other source, including yourself, because your source says so.

If the Pope claims to believe in the Bible and yet does the opposite of what it says who is right? Who is being a hypocrite? Who is teaching a falsehood? Is it the Bible or the Pope? Your question makes no sense. The men who wrote the Bible did not seek worship or followers for themselves. They did not live lavishly because of the free gift they were given. They did not solicit funds from other Christians and the did not want recognition for themselves. Does that sound anything like the Pope or 99% of other preachers, priests, reverends and pastors? If what they are doing is contrary to scripture could it be that if they actually followed the scriptures they claimed to believe in people’s faith would be in better shape? How is the Bible’s fault that men misuse it? How does that make it less of the word of God? Does the fact that the Bible itself said that is exactly what men would do give you any assurance that maybe it’s writers were noble while the people who teach it are not? It’s like saying school math books should not be trusted because men have used what they learned from the book to construct complicated theories and math problems that led to the construction of a nuclear bomb. So because a few bad men used the things they learned in math books for evil means math should not be taught in school and any organization of math teachers likely has some evil agenga. That is ridiculous and that is exactly the argument you are making but it's not the math book, it's the student. The same is true with the Bible and some organized religions.

Just to make it clear, I don't think the bible is devoid of insight. I just think that organized religion and its documents are polluted by the sales pitch, among other things. Also, I am not perfect and I also make mistakes and misjudgements. I consider doubt and misjudgement to be an integral part of growing and learning.

How is the "sales pitch" I believe in (God is interested in my behavior and wants to be worshipped in a certain way) any worse than your sales pitch (I can make up my own rules as I go along and I’ll use the hypocrisy of religion as my impetus to deny the existence of God and the authenticity of the Bible.) If my sales pitch means I am accountable to someone I can't see for things I do even in secret and your sales pitch teaches you you have no one to answer to except yourself and maybe a court of law if caught, then which one of us is less likely to end up incarcerated? I mean, I'm just keeping it real.

Organized religion being wrong does not make being Agnostic right as each side has to believe in some type of sales pitch to justify their position. My belief is based on a 1,600 year old book that is still relevant today. Your beliefs are based on current books that change weekly. You classify all religious people as mindless followers while expecting us to not label people who don’t believe in God as faithless heathens. I say: what’s good for the geese is good for the gander.

.

Truth_and_Power

10-23-2007, 10:24 PM

Tsky,

How can you be reading what I'm saying and be that far off? I just finished telling you I thought there was revelation to be found in the bible and then you go on a long diatribe about how I get my morals from the New York Times and such. Here is the real question: What justification do you have for refusing to find revelation from buddhism? What justification do you have for refusing to find revelation from taoism? What justification do you have for refusing to find revelation from your own thoughts? Ad infinitum for other sources. What are your criteria and why?

i mean, I guess you've answered some of that, thoughts & new sources can change and morals should be absolute and unchanging.. i guess that is how you feel and that's a fine answer. However i would venture that the bible and jesus preach a changing morality. Or perhaps that's a bad way of saying it, from jesus' point of view he was trying to refine morality. As in 'you have and imperfect interpretation of my father's wishes, let me explain'. I found this article from a mormon source to have an interesting point of view regarding jesus in that regard.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/prophets_john.htm

Along that tangent but on a less judgemental tone, this verse

Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

As well as this one quoted later in that article

"And [Christ] gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive."

And this

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Lead me to wonder if in some future time when our societal, technological, and personal evolution is much farther along, we might graduate to become ALL that jesus was in a "more than human" way. Is god perhaps literally raising children and not worshippers? Is jesus to become all that god was and eventually earthlings as well? I guess I have a hard time imagining god as having ego problems, is it really worship per se that we are to display?

mammalicious

10-24-2007, 01:45 PM

My thinking is exactly the OPPOSITE of Catholics and Protestants because my beliefs do not stem from what any man says because I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Any religious ideals that I hold to must be in line with what it says or I reject them. The idea of a pope is 180 degrees opposite of what is stated in scripture as no man is supposed to elevate himself to the position of God or Christ which is certainly the case with the pope. Any organization that promotes or supports war is also not following scripture. Therefore I reject Protestanism also. Can you tell me what sales pitch I subscribe to? I imagine you can't because you haven't put much thought to your argument besides you don't like to be told what to do. That has nothing to do with me.

You fault me for believing in a book that if followed would end war, hunger, disease, domestic violence, lying, cheating, stealing, rape, murder, adultery, arrogance, harmful pride, abortion, abusive speech, lawlessness, greed, abuse of power, social injustice, rage and hate crimes?

Well tie me up and throw me into the bottom of the sea.

You fault me for trusting and believing in a book that was inspired by God (the Bible) while you have no problem trusting and believing books inspired by men (science books.)

Yes, you are the smart one.

Carry on.

But the Pope GETS his authority from the Bible...he is the ''descendant'' of Peter (supposedly his successors are chosen by God's direction). Jesus told Peter (and I'm paraphrasing here) that what ever he holds to be true on earth...it will be held true in heaven. THAT absolute power is intoxicating...and corrupting...and then who are YOU to argue against it?? How do you pick and choose when to say God is REALLY intervening? You BELIEVE the Bible was inspired by God...yet you say it as a statement of absolute fact, on equal footing with a science book full of things that have been observably proven. And how would a Book FILLED with your examples CURE those if it's followed? Just look at the story of David...he comitted adultery, murder, and was rewarded by God. Christians all had that book...and look how many factions of Christianity there are now. They aren't all reading it the same, yet they all fight among each other to lay claim to the ''truth'' of it. What ills are going to be cured? Many hate crimes were BASED on one's perception of what the Bible said. Once the 'buisiness'' of religion was established...everyone began fighting for their slice of the pie. I don't remember who said it ( I THINK it was L. Ron Hubbard) but the quote that 'if you want to get rich, start your own religion,' is true more often than not. Who ''spreads the word'' without asking for money?

You all don't want Christians painted with a 'broad brush' and then say that if all Christians followed the Bible the ills of society would be eliminated...if they are all part of an 'organized' belief system...then why are you defending the organization when the followers aren't benefitting by folowing?? It is the ORGANIZED religion that has become the problem...not the belief....not the spirituality. How many ''good Christians'' are, in fact, only doing good deeds because they are planning on being rewarded for it? What kind of kindness is that? Shouldn't a kindness be done for the sake of doing a kindness? And why is it just the Bible that should be followed to achieve harmony? What of the beliefs of another religion? The same reasons you discount THEIR beliefs as truth...they can discount YOURS. Do you realize that what you are espousing...that everyone should believe as you so there can be peace...is strikingly similar to a group of believers that this country has deemed the enemy?

tony mitra

10-25-2007, 04:45 AM

Interesting comments, mammalicious. :)

I shall retype here a bit of text from the book "Future Tense" by Gwynne Dyer. While I am not an expert of Biblical interpretation, I presume he might be. Any case this is what he writes on page 76. I would like to hear what others have to say about it.

Both the old and the new testaments of the Bible were written by a number of different individuals, and the various prophets and evangelists don't always agree on the details. So Christians are free to believe the gospel of Luke, for example, which claims that a Roman census obliged Jesus’ father, Joseph, to return to his birthplace to be counted, thus ensuring that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea. Or they can observe that none of the other gospels mentions this story, that there is no other record of this alleged census, that the ultra-practical Romans were not likely to do something as pointless and crazy as insisting that everybody return to their birthplace to be counted - but that Luke’s story conveniently deals with the awkward fact that Jesus grew up in Galilee, whereas prophecy stated clearly that the Messiah would be born in Judea. The very nature of Christian scripture encourages a diversity of interpretations, and so there is a special name for those who accept every word of the Bible literally (ignoring the numerous contradictions): fundamentalists.

Any comments ?

Cheers
:)

moses2792796

10-26-2007, 02:22 PM

I'm surprised fundamentalists don't instantly vanish due to their thought processes contradicting eachother and therefore cancelling out their existence...oh wait that just means that they don't have any minds.

Truth_and_Power

10-26-2007, 03:10 PM

Lazarus

11-24-2007, 02:59 AM

Richard Roberts has resigned (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9XJtq8scoszIFZLWUjrR8mPuBFQD8T3PHE00)

A fitting post-script

HankSaint

12-08-2007, 03:05 PM

What is your definition of organized religion?

1). Genesis 11:1-9: In perhaps the first instance of organized religion, the descendents of Noah organized themselves to build the tower under the belief system that if they could build it tall enough they would be saved. They believed that their unity was more important than their relationship with God. God stepped in and confused their languages, thus breaking up this religion.

2). Judges and following: Much of the conflicts experienced by the Israelites involved the conflict of organized religion. Examples include: Baal (Judges 6; 1 Kings 18); Dagon (1 Samuel 5); Molech (2 Kings 23:10). God used these religions to display His power by defeating them.

3). The Gospels: The Pharisees and Sadducees represented organized religion at the time of Christ. Jesus constantly confronted them about their false teachings and hypocritical lifestyles. Many of them changed from this organized religion – Paul is one example.

4). The Epistles (letters): There were organized groups that mixed the gospel with certain lists of required works. They also sought to put pressure on believers to change and accept this new religion. Galatians and Colossians give warnings about such.

It seems that throughout out Church History we find organized religion gone awry.
But proof is in the eye of the beholder, proof that men are by nature sinful.

For example, Paul argues the case that true wisdom is not the “wisdom of the wise” (1:19), the “wisdom of this world,” (1:20; 3:19), or the “wisdom of men” (2:5; cf. “fleshly wisdom,” 2 Cor. 1:12). While this was the sort of “wisdom” of which the Greeks boasted, genuine wisdom (divine wisdom) is embodied in the gospel revelation that pertains to the mission and message of Jesus Christ (1:24,30; 2:7). The person who ignores this body of truth is not wise; he is a fool.

Accordingly, one is driven to the conclusion that the divine scheme of things had to be revealed by God’s Spirit, who, being deity himself, knows the “deep” things of the sacred plan. Hence we believe that truth is revealed by revelation, it is the privilege of every individual member of the Church to have revelation for his own guidance, for the direction of his life and conduct. Organized religion if not by God, or not Gods Kingdom, is hence manmade or some form or copy of the revealed Gospel we find in the scriptures.