[Is religion really] "A fraudulent money-making scheme"

[Revenant_Threshold]

@ITR_champion

I’m afraid we may have reached the point where we just can’t communicate any further because our definitions are too far apart. I Use the definition of advice from Random House: “an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc…” By that definition advice is voluntary and cannot be otherwise. If someone gives me advice, I decide whether to take it or not, with the same decision-making facility that I use to decide what I eat for breakfast. Even if I take advice from a source repeatedly, I can still choose to stop doing so at any moment, just as I can eat bran flakes for many days in a row and then suddenly choose to eat oatmeal.

Your decision as to whether to take it or not is already made for you, is my point. It’ll be a result of your personality and past experiences. You can’t choose to give advice more or less weight than you believe it to have; it’s the same reason you can’t choose what you believe, because taking advice is based upon what you believe.

Oh, and that definition doesn’t support your statement at all; for one thing, it focuses only on the giving part, and not at all on the* recieving* part, which is rather the issue we’re debating.

You say that “a change in opinion has to be affected by outside events”, but on what grounds? What stops a person from changing their opinions without an outside change? I’ve done so and I’ve observed others doing so, thus I follow Socrates in believing that the mind is the driving force of a person and can overcome outside events.

Please, give me an example of one of these times when you have changed your opinion (or another has changed theirs) without outside change?

The grounds I base saying this on is the idea that there is only one thing that can mean a change occurs with zero causation at all, and that’s randomness. Only something caused at random can have no prior cause. Our opinions are the result of our experiences and our prior opinions, or they are random, or they are a mixture of random and determined. You have changed your opinions, but what is "you’ is the result of outside forces in the first place. We don’t get to select what our “I” is.

Further, any attempt to erase the common sense understanding of the difference between voluntary choice and coercion carries dangers that should be obvious. All the books, documents, and such that form the basis of our free society simply assume that there’s a boundary between freedom and force. To redefine and declare that apparently voluntary relationships actually aren’t would open the door to all kinds of abuse.

Common sense is not an argument; common sense is saying “It seems like it is so because it seems like it is so”.

And certainly, I agree with you, there are dangers - as indeed there are dangers with seperating the boundary too far, and drawing too thick a line between the two, accepting a black and white viewpoint. These dangers too should be obvious. But, either way, the danger of a particular viewpoint doesn’t affect how true, or false, it is.

We seem to have gotten rather a way away from the power advice has. I did rather have other points on why it’s powerful - for example, its lasting effect, both in terms of being allowed to continue giving it and continuing after the giver has gone; that power enforced by physical pressure or legal matters is often illegal; and that it has the potential to turn the gifted into a giver in turn. Not to mention the most fundamental point, that it can actually change the person’s mind.

After all, it worked for Jesus.

[Uzi]

@ITR_champion

I’m afraid we may have reached the point where we just can’t communicate any further because our definitions are too far apart. I Use the definition of advice from Random House: “an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc…” By that definition advice is voluntary and cannot be otherwise.

It doesn’t matter whether you think giving advice isn’t a form of power.

Are you going to random authority figures for advice? No, you are going to your minister. Why? Because he is your minister. You may decide that he his nuts and ignore his advice, but that doesn’t negate that he is in a position that gives him a voice over someone else. That is a form of power and the minister exercises it. Whether he does it because he truly wants to help people, or because he likes being a spider in a web, or just because it makes him feel needed, it doesn’t matter which.

[Nzinga_Seated]

Listen. Didn’t the freakin’ pope declare that hell is a burning and eternal reality? I mean, if we are going to cite the Catholic Church’s Nicene Creed, don’t we have to accept what the pope has to say about it?

[Razncain]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The vast majority of religious folks, however, appear to be sincere in their beliefs, and this includes the vast majority of religious leaders. Therefore, it’s inaccurate to characterize religion as a whole as a fraudulent money-making scheme.

I think deep down, many have serious doubts about their beliefs, but it’s still not acceptable for many to express such things, especially if they are a religious leader. FWIW, many years ago, empirical evidence was gathered in CA with clergymen from the mainline Protestant denominations. Half of the clergy reported serious doubts about the existence of God. Only one-third firmly believed in the divinity of Jesus. Only half believed in a fiery Hell for some. One fifth didn’t believe in any kind of afterlife. (The Mind of the Bible Believer, Prometheus Books)

Imagine how hard it would be for a preacher to some day realize what he had been taught all of those years, and had been teaching, wasn’t at all that it was cracked up to be after all. Think what the consequences would be for him and how would he then support himself and his family if he started expressing these opinions more openly. I’ve read from ex-preachers who were faced with this dilemma. Most kept preaching for years, until they figured out another way to support themselves and their families. I often wonder how many don’t ever come forward, but just stay in the pulpit, and enjoy all the benefits such a position has, and just realize it pays to keep your mouth shut about your honest convictions on such matters.

[ITR_champion]

@Sage_Rat

What’s your evidence that minister’s don’t teach doctrine, that there is no such thing as Biblical Law, that Christianity doesn’t believe in Hell, and/or that sinners don’t go there? Which one of those isn’t core to the beliefs of any major Christian organization that I need to justify pointing it out?

Let me attempt to relieve your confusion. Here’s what you originally said:

@Sage Rat

Em…while a minister might vary between simple advice and religious doctrine, in either case the listeners are liable to view it as doctrine. It’s “force of law” on your list.

The Bible is The Word. The Truth. The Law.

You don’t obey and you go to Hell.

If you don’t believe that, your version of Christianity is non-representative and frankly isn’t what’s called Christianity.

So what you’re more recently asking me about is quite different from what you originally stated as fact. It seems likely that you’ve realized that the four statements in that post I quoted are wrong and are now trying to backtrack to something that you hope you’ll be able to defend. But whatever the case here are my answers.

@Sage Rat

Em…while a minister might vary between simple advice and religious doctrine, in either case the listeners are liable to view it as doctrine. It’s “force of law” on your list.

At no point that I’m aware of has any church officially stated or unofficially implied that everything its priests/ministers say is doctrine, nor are the listeners liable to view it that way. For example, the Catholic Order of the Mass says only the following about the homily:

“The bishop, priest, or deacon then speaks to the people, usually focusing on that day’s scriptures and/or on the feast or special occasion being celebrated at that Mass; but the homily may also be based on any liturgical text from the Mass.”

So there’s nothing in there about the clergy’s words being doctrinal, nor do the duties of Catholics include any obedience to the clergy, or even a positive attitude towards the clergy.

The Bible is The Word. The Truth. The Law.

You don’t obey and you go to Hell.

There may be a handful of the most extreme Protestants in the 16th and 17th century who honestly believed that, but it has never been a mainstream or widespread position, and indeed most well-known theologians specifically rejected it. For example, you could look at Philipp Melanchthon’s theological writings including the attempt to divide issues into primary and secondary levels.

If your understanding of what Christians believe is shaped by Wikipedia, television, and other pop-intellectual sources then your understanding will be wrong because those sources are wrong. This book as an introduction to Catholic belief might be worth looking at if you’re serious about learning.

[Alan_Smithee]

@razncain

I think deep down, many have serious doubts about their beliefs, but it’s still not acceptable for many to express such things, especially if they are a religious leader. FWIW, many years ago, empirical evidence was gathered in CA with clergymen from the mainline Protestant denominations. Half of the clergy reported serious doubts about the existence of God. Only one-third firmly believed in the divinity of Jesus. Only half believed in a fiery Hell for some. One fifth didn’t believe in any kind of afterlife. (The Mind of the Bible Believer, Prometheus Books)

Imagine how hard it would be for a preacher to some day realize what he had been taught all of those years, and had been teaching, wasn’t at all that it was cracked up to be after all. Think what the consequences would be for him and how would he then support himself and his family if he started expressing these opinions more openly. I’ve read from ex-preachers who were faced with this dilemma. Most kept preaching for years, until they figured out another way to support themselves and their families. I often wonder how many don’t ever come forward, but just stay in the pulpit, and enjoy all the benefits such a position has, and just realize it pays to keep your mouth shut about your honest convictions on such matters.

Mainline Protestant denominations tend to have well-educated and often fairly liberal clergy. They also vary quite a bit by region. In the United Methodist Church, at least, clergy and congregations tend to get more liberal the further west of the Mississippi you get. Past the Rocky Mountains, I doubt there is any real professional limitation for a Methodist clergy person who openly doubts the divinity of Jesus or the reality of Hell. I live in Colorado and used to be pretty involved in the UMC when I regarded myself as a Christian. Obviously I’m painting with a pretty broad brush, but the Western Jurisdiction (roughly the Rockies west) is noticeably more liberal as a whole than any other of the five of so United Methodist Jurisdictions in the US.

[1demonmaster]

Jesus himself is made to exhort his followers to despise “mammon”, ie., money, and to “render unto Caesar.” When sought for his sage advice by Roman soldiers, John the Baptist tells them to “be contented with their wages” (Luke 3:14). This injunction against money by the rebellious Jesus and his cohorts served the state and its religion very nicely, since it was they who ended up with the money. Such exhortations by Jesus beg the question as to why an omniscient and compassionate god would advise his followers to give away all their money. Such a god should not behave in this callous manner, but those who were to get the money would. If god was all real and powerful, he therefore has no need for the back breaking labor of human beings to sustain him. So again, god is just a money making scheme!
so, my opinion is that ANY religious denomination that takes “donations” of any kind from parishioners for the benefit of self pious and pompous self righteousness without the benefit to its parishioners IS a money making scheme!

[Frylock]

@Blake

How do you think the church has changed so much in the past 2000 years if the leaders claim absolute and eternal certainty?

I am not sure how to look this up in an official catholic rulebook of some kind, but Catholic Answers is IIUC a very mainstream and well accepted catholic apologetics site, and it is very clear that catholic dogma cannot change

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines

Once it’s dogma, it’s supposed to be absolute and eternally certain. That this isn’t actually the case does not change the fact that they nevertheless make this claim.

[Frylock]

@Blake

You have all totally failed to address the actual issue.

1. You claim that if entities contradict one another then all but one must fraudulent.
2. The entities known as scientists contradict one another.
3. Therefore all scientists but one must be fraudulent.

While this was an understandable misunderstanding of BrainGlutton’s first post, I think subsequent posts have made it clear BrainGlutton didn’t really mean this.

BrainGlutton does not posit your premise number one, AFAICT. He doesn’t think that if entities contradict one another then all but one must be fraudulent.

What he does think (I think) is that if several entities make contradicting claims, and there’s no way to check even in theory to see who is right, then while one may turn out to be lucky, nevertheless there’s no good reason to believe any of the others (at least–there’s really no reason to believe the “right” one either). “Fraudulent in the sense of false” was meant to signify, I think, “false and should not believed” (while that lucky “right” one would still be fraudulent–‘true and should not be believed!’).

[Frylock]

@ITR_champion

Such a claim fails for the same reason. The Methodist Church as a body has no power. Any person, whether a Bishop or an ordinary believer, can leave at any time and never come back. And each individual clergymember is among the least powerful people in society.

You’re talking about formal power codified in rules. There are many more kinds of power than that. My mother-in-law lives in a town where there are three churches. She belongs to the Methodist one. If her church community asked her to do something she considered, say, immoral, she certainly has the formal power to leave. But the social power exerted by her church community and the network of social powers exerted by the churches in her town would put strong pressure on her to stay and perform the action. Not doing it and leaving instead would entail becoming an outcast by not belonging to any church, or going through the arduous and frightening process of joining an entirely new church community, becoming estranged from the friends she’s had for forty years now, and making new friendships (if this is even possible) with people who are for most intents and purposes strangers to her and in some cases (due to church allegience) somewhere down the way along the “rival” spectrum.

None of this is codified. No church leader would say any of this when speaking as a representative of their respective churches. But it’s all actual fact, whether it’s written down anywhere or not.

[Frylock]

@razncain

I think deep down, many have serious doubts about their beliefs, but it’s still not acceptable for many to express such things, especially if they are a religious leader. FWIW, many years ago, empirical evidence was gathered in CA with clergymen from the mainline Protestant denominations. Half of the clergy reported serious doubts about the existence of God. Only one-third firmly believed in the divinity of Jesus. Only half believed in a fiery Hell for some. One fifth didn’t believe in any kind of afterlife. (The Mind of the Bible Believer, Prometheus Books)

Imagine how hard it would be for a preacher to some day realize what he had been taught all of those years, and had been teaching, wasn’t at all that it was cracked up to be after all. Think what the consequences would be for him and how would he then support himself and his family if he started expressing these opinions more openly. I’ve read from ex-preachers who were faced with this dilemma. Most kept preaching for years, until they figured out another way to support themselves and their families. I often wonder how many don’t ever come forward, but just stay in the pulpit, and enjoy all the benefits such a position has, and just realize it pays to keep your mouth shut about your honest convictions on such matters.

Lots and lots of secretly atheist clergy (from all over the spectrum!) here: http://www.clergyproject.org/

[Czarcasm]

Y’all should realize that 1demonmaster revived a five year old thread.

[Frylock]

Clearly I had a lot of catching up to do!