Gifted "spin doctors" in religion?

[mystic64]

The OP question is: How do "you" tell the difference between an honest man/woman of religion and a gifted "spin doctor" man/woman of religion. "Gifted spin doctor" is defined as a person that is gifted at twisting facts, numbers, and words into saying what fits their agenda. Everyone knows that there are some gifted spin doctors in politics, but there are also some gifted spin doctors in religion that are using their abilities to manipulate the minds of people for self gain and for various other agendas that are more political than religious.

In my mind these people are dangerous and major players in the religious world that we religious folks live in. How do "you" tell the difference between honest and the gifted not honest in religion?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Simple: if they actually know the tenets of their religion, they are unlikely to be honest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The OP question is: How do "you" tell the difference between an honest man/woman of religion and a gifted "spin doctor" man/woman of religion. "Gifted spin doctor" is defined as a person that is gifted at twisting facts, numbers, and words into saying what fits their agenda. Everyone knows that there are some gifted spin doctors in politics, but there are also some gifted spin doctors in religion that are using their abilities to manipulate the minds of people for self gain and for various other agendas that are more political than religious.

They're just like politicians. Do they duck direct questions, or do they happily answer any question asked of them?

I think that's how you tell an honest person from a political person.

 

[Sir Doom]

The OP question is: How do "you" tell the difference between an honest man/woman of religion and a gifted "spin doctor" man/woman of religion. "Gifted spin doctor" is defined as a person that is gifted at twisting facts, numbers, and words into saying what fits their agenda. Everyone knows that there are some gifted spin doctors in politics, but there are also some gifted spin doctors in religion that are using their abilities to manipulate the minds of people for self gain and for various other agendas that are more political than religious.

In my mind these people are dangerous and major players in the religious world that we religious folks live in. How do "you" tell the difference between honest and the gifted not honest in religion?

I just ask questions. Its very easy to see who actually believes what they are saying and who is just trying to spin things to make me believe what they are saying.

 

[Nakosis]

I think there are some you're not going to be able to tell the difference.

 

[Curious George]

The OP question is: How do "you" tell the difference between an honest man/woman of religion and a gifted "spin doctor" man/woman of religion. "Gifted spin doctor" is defined as a person that is gifted at twisting facts, numbers, and words into saying what fits their agenda. Everyone knows that there are some gifted spin doctors in politics, but there are also some gifted spin doctors in religion that are using their abilities to manipulate the minds of people for self gain and for various other agendas that are more political than religious.

In my mind these people are dangerous and major players in the religious world that we religious folks live in. How do "you" tell the difference between honest and the gifted not honest in religion?

I imagine they are two princes knealing before me, that's what I said now.

 

[Quintessence]

Simple: if they actually know the tenets of their religion, they are unlikely to be honest.

This sounds positively #@$ backwards to me. Care to explain how the supposed logic of "topically well-informed = liar" follows?

That aside, everybody has an agenda. Everybody has things they would like to see done, values they support, and so forth. Having one doesn't make one dishonest. What I would look for is someone who recognizes that they have an agenda, knows what their biases are, and makes that transparent or removes it from the picture as much as possible when the situation calls for it.

 

[Skwim]

The OP question is: How do "you" tell the difference between an honest man/woman of religion and a gifted "spin doctor" man/woman of religion. "Gifted spin doctor" is defined as a person that is gifted at twisting facts, numbers, and words into saying what fits their agenda. Everyone knows that there are some gifted spin doctors in politics, but there are also some gifted spin doctors in religion that are using their abilities to manipulate the minds of people for self gain and for various other agendas that are more political than religious.

In my mind these people are dangerous and major players in the religious world that we religious folks live in. How do "you" tell the difference between honest and the gifted not honest in religion?

If they display a good knowledge of a subject, but say things that fly in the face of that knowledge with lies, exaggeration, and other forms of deceit. Ken Ham is a good example of a "spin doctor in religion."

 

[Gjallarhorn]

This sounds positively #@$ backwards to me. Care to explain how the supposed logic of "topically well-informed = liar" follows?

Every Good Christian® I know is woefully misinformed about their own religion. Those that seem to actually know their Bibles and their history are either no longer Christian, loosely Christian, or a swindler.

Outside of Christianity, this seems not to apply.

 

[Quintessence]

Every Good Christian® I know is woefully misinformed about their own religion. Those that seem to actually know their Bibles and their history are either no longer Christian, loosely Christian, or a swindler.

Outside of Christianity, this seems not to apply.

Ah, if that's been your experience, I can see how that would make sense to you. Fair enough. It does beg the question as to what are the standards for "actually knowing" and the like, and whose interpretations are being used as that standard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, if that's been your experience, I can see how that would make sense to you. Fair enough. It does beg the question as to what are the standards for "actually knowing" and the like, and whose interpretations are being used as that standard.

I've seen something similar. One example would be that the tendency to consider the Bible to be inerrant and literally true tends to be a function of the inverse of how much a person knows about the history of the Bible and the early church.

 

[Quintessence]

I've seen something similar. One example would be that the tendency to consider the Bible to be inerrant and literally true tends to be a function of the inverse of how much a person knows about the history of the Bible and the early church.

I can see it working that way for mythological literalists; for others I don't think their knowledge of scholarship would have much of an impact. There really seems to be something to the phases of spiritual development proposed by Fowler. I think there are some problems with his model, but he hits some general trends spot on, such as the tendency for mythological literalism to fail to stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Ideally, from there, you move past such simplistic notions of mythology and religion to other models, but some never do.

 

[mystic64]

"Give and you shall recieve! Give our ministry your money and God will return your money tenfold!"