• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is religion devised stupidity to control the people?

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
You don't see poor religious leaders

Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay Bakker obviously are atheists. They could not possibly believe in God. They intentionally cried to elicit funds for starving Africans, showed pictures (from years ago) of Africans who were starving, then used the money to air condition the dog house of their mansion (cheating the starving Africans and the donors). Tammy said that she'd stand by her man, which she did not. She married another Religious cheat and he, too, got arrested. She said that she learned her lesson (her lesson, she said, was not to get caught). In other words, she fully intended to cheat the chumps, once again, but didn't want to face yet another lengthy court trial.

Reverend Tex Watson (murderer, member of the infamous Manson Clan), actually got a degree in theology while serving a long prison sentence for murder, then, clutching a bible piously, asked the parole board to let him loose on society. That would be like having Satan leading a parish. This is not uncommon. Many felons try to fool parole boards by becoming reverends.

Feigning a southern accent, many preachers have a dance (well choreographed about where to stand and how to move to make it appear as though the will of God is moving through them. I heard a retiring preacher teaching his replacement about how to fool the congregation.

Pat Boone was the model clean guy, religious and pious. He then got real tattoos and rode a motorcycle. Surely he would not have had real tattoos unless he really intended to change his image and lifestyle. Surely he was phony all along. But, saying anything negative about Pat Boone is sacrilege.

On an on the list runs (too long for this post), but the recurrent theme is that preachers are cheaters.

There are, of course some good people. Some want to buy their way into heaven by donating (that is for their own benefit, not a charitable act). But some genuinely tend to hospital victims and take food to the hungry and offer a place for a homeless person to stay. They give rides to the hospital for those who can't get there. Lets not label everyone with a bad name.

Those are the "chumps" who give most of their spare money to crooks. This strengthens the crooks, and does nothing to help the needy.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, originally orthodox. But how orthodox is it to recommend that Christians convert without a bris or dietary restrictions? Surely he softened his stance.

Yes originally then he revised the dietary laws. That doesn’t mean he abandoned Judaism or the Law. He said nothing about circumcising. That was Paul.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Defend? As a Sufi I try to mind my own things, so your opinion is your opinion.
But you dont give any depth of your statements about religions.

Spiritual practice is about the heart, not about materialistic objects.

That is a very kind faith. However, if you go along with others who are not kind, or those who violate the tenets of their religion or even your religion, you would almost be aiding and abetting them. For example, the Religious Right elected W. Bush, then W. Bush went to war with Iraq without proof of linkage to terrorism. It should have been every holy person's duty to raise an objection because killing on that scale was an affront to humanity and God.

We have to speak up to follow Jesus.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
That is a very kind faith. However, if you go along with others who are not kind, or those who violate the tenets of their religion or even your religion, you would almost be aiding and abetting them. For example, the Religious Right elected W. Bush, then W. Bush went to war with Iraq without proof of linkage to terrorism. It should have been every holy person's duty to raise an objection because killing on that scale was an affront to humanity and God.

We have to speak up to follow Jesus.
It is better to ask "why did you do it" so they can answer to it. Calling names isnt my thing, that belong to the past.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
It was an insult - as to thinking ability.

I don't mind submitting facts to discredit someone's statement, but insults are ad hoc arguments that cannot win a debate. It's like saying that you are wrong because you have a big nose. That has nothing to do with the argument. Saying that someone can't think is one thing....proving it is another.

I have been awestruck by the intelligent writing, the kind hearts, and considered thoughts in this forum (that's why I am here). You guys are all great.

When you do win an argument, what kind of victory have you achieved? Did you just beat an absolute moron, or did you take on and defeat a genius? Which is more impressive. Demeaning one's opponent makes victory hollow.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Hi. Since we are playing stupidity, where do you think I rate you on the scale of this as based on your posts:
https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_an_example_of_the_dunning-kruger_effect/article.htm

Now I consider you my follow human and I accept you as such. But I still do religion differently than you and I don't consider you a negative as a human. I simply accept that we do it differently down to how we individually use our brains.

Dunning-Kruger Effect: "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us; To see oursels as ithers see us!" (by Robert Burns).
 
Top