No-MiddleMan Movement: Religion without middlemen

[Milton Platt]

I recently joined the NMMM (No-MiddleMan Movement) which is a movement for uniting the religions by removing the middlemen (scholar, priest, church, guru, rabbi, ...) and emphasizing on the common core in all religions: good deeds. I wanted to encourage you all to contribute to this movement by sharing your views/observations/articles and help shaping the direction by discussing and challenging the presented thoughts (perhaps the fb page is more suitable place for discussions)

Here is the manifesto:

Earth is, as always, full of non-religions in which some middlemen claim to know what the Creator wants, and ask us to blindly follow them, and them exclusively, or otherwise we will be burnt in the hellfire. The fear of fire, the peer pressure, accompanied with the indoctrination from birth lead us to the convenient trap of following one of these middlemen instead of the more challenging lifestyle of responsibly and continuously searching for good deeds and doing them.
The middleman phenomenon takes different forms:

• Sometimes it is a "knowledgeable" Imam/Rabbi/Scholar who knows about religion some "complicated" things that we "ordinary people" do not know, and hence urge us to obey his Fatwa/Rule/Sharia.
• Sometimes it is a priest that provides a particular interpretation of the holy books and urge us to trust their view.
• Sometimes it is a church, mosque, or religious school that tells to take a text as sacred and assume that it is letter by letter a direct revelation from the creator.
• Sometimes it is a "spiritual" leader/Pope/Guru who is supposedly "closer" to the creator and thus can "see" what is right and what is wrong, and urge us to follow his vision.

The middlemen have pretty established positions in their societies and through the many years they have produced a bulk of literature to justify their existence and silence the curious minds. In fact many followers feel "educated" after reading such literature. They are so good at what they do, to the extent that many followers do not even realize that they are obeying a middleman. It is not thus uncommon to hear:

• a Christian saying that I am not following any religion; I am just following Jesus! And yet their very understanding of Jesus and Bible is pretty much shaped by a major church/religious organization.
• a Muslim saying that I am not blindly obeying Imams; I rather only consider their advice that is formed based on the book and the Hadith! And yet their interpretation of the book as well as which Hadith is authentic or relevant is pretty much shaped by a major doctrine (Madhab).

We believe that the world has an intelligent creator; one need not to abandon reason to live as a believer; life is a continuous, reasonable search for truth, which should lead to doing beautiful deeds; but no exclusive doctrine can claim the "right" path towards this. These are the middlemen who always come up with something very specific in their doctrine and introduce it as the "secret sauce" for salvation, to color their followers differently and to establish a "us vs. them" mindset. In whatever community that we are born in, and whatever our starting point is, we are more likely to end up with righteous deeds if we do not let our minds to be indoctrinated by middlemen.
The mission of No-MiddleMan Movement is to coordinate a community effort to identify the middlemen in each of our religions, trace their influence on the ideology, and help our fellow believers to purify their religious views and free themselves from the indoctrination that they are born into. We invite each of the readers to share with us and other readers the influence of middleman that they observe in their local community. All the contributed posts will be accessible to public. The editors further select some contributed articles and maintain organized a summary for impatient readers. Feel free to reach us if you want to also contribute as an editor.

But all religious writings are also "middlemen". They purport to have the truth, or a part of it. Does your movement jettison all known writings as well and rely only on personal feelings?

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

- I didn't read your FAQ until just now.

- it strikes me that you are setting yourself up as a middleman without using the word, so I question the response in your FAQ.

Each of us are entitled to our opinions. I personally found the answer reasonable:

Q1: Is not NMMM itself yet another middleman?
A1: No. At no point one needs to trust NMMM or anyone else. If you find yourself agreed with the beliefs mentioned above, then you can participate in the movement by presenting rational arguments and help your fellow believers in search for the truth. You would read the rational arguments, discuss it, challenge it, and then decide for yourself.

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

But all religious writings are also "middlemen". They purport to have the truth, or a part of it. Does your movement jettison all known writings as well and rely only on personal feelings?

From the manifesto:
"- Sometimes it [middleman] is a church, mosque, or religious school that tells to take a text as sacred and assume that it is letter by letter a direct revelation from the creator."
So I would say the books themselves are not the issue. Any text have some level of truth on it once it is understood in its context. The problem is the middlemen who make unreasonable claims about the texts and urge us to trust their view through faith! While trusting the middlemen has nothing to do with faith in the Creator.

Also lets not forget that each of us have our own personal interpretation of any sensible phenomenon including, and specially, a text. So what the middlemen urge us to take as absolute truth, is at its best, their own personal interoperation of the book. As the manifesto says:
"- Sometimes it [middleman] is a priest that provides a particular interpretation of the holy books and urge us to trust their view."

 

[Jumi]

I think history of religion justifies not having middlemen. People have used religions and the religious for their own ends and sold their own ideas to detriment of their followers more often than not.

 

[Milton Platt]

From the manifesto:
"- Sometimes it [middleman] is a church, mosque, or religious school that tells to take a text as sacred and assume that it is letter by letter a direct revelation from the creator."
So I would say the books themselves are not the issue. Any text have some level of truth on it once it is understood in its context. The problem is the middlemen who make unreasonable claims about the texts and urge us to trust their view through faith! While trusting the middlemen has nothing to do with faith in the Creator.

Also lets not forget that each of us have our own personal interpretation of any sensible phenomenon including, and specially, a text. So what the middlemen urge us to take as absolute truth, is at its best, their own personal interoperation of the book. As the manifesto says:
"- Sometimes it [middleman] is a priest that provides a particular interpretation of the holy books and urge us to trust their view."

But the books are an issue. They are indeed a form of middleman. If the god or gods do not speak directly to individuals, then the middleman problem still exists. When there is nothing but ancient texts, most with unknown authors, many providing contradictory or clearly incorrect information, and everything is open to individual interpretation, there can be no assurance of truth.

 

[Jumi]

But the books are an issue. They are indeed a form of middleman. If the god or gods do not speak directly to individuals, then the middleman problem still exists. When there is nothing but ancient texts, most with unknown authors, many providing contradictory or clearly incorrect information, and everything is open to individual interpretation, there can be no assurance of truth.

This is where gnosticism has potential to shine, it's more dependent on whether we experience knowledge of God or not. If we do, some books will still have value, others will not as they can simply seen as not having aged well...

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

But the books are an issue. They are indeed a form of middleman. If the god or gods do not speak directly to individuals, then the middleman problem still exists. When there is nothing but ancient texts, most with unknown authors, many providing contradictory or clearly incorrect information, and everything is open to individual interpretation, there can be no assurance of truth.

There is no assurance of truth in whatever the human language is involved. It is impossible to ensure that two people understand the same thing from a conversation, so a direct one does not make much difference.

In my own religion specifically, Islam, it is stated that being crystal clear was not even attempted as an objective in the first place. The intentional ambiguity is in place to tell apart the real believers from the ones who have sickness in their heart.

It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book. Others are ambiguous. Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.' No one derives true admonition from anything except the men of understanding. (7)

 

[Milton Platt]

There is no assurance of truth in whatever the human language is involved. It is impossible to ensure that two people understand the same thing from a conversation, so a direct one does not make much difference.

In my own religion specifically, Islam, it is stated that being crystal clear was not even attempted as an objective in the first place. The intentional ambiguity is in place to tell apart the real believers from the ones who have sickness in their heart.

It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book. Others are ambiguous. Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.' No one derives true admonition from anything except the men of understanding. (7)

Well, if lack of clarity was a goal of your religion, it succeeded on that point. So the real believers are the ones that agree with you, then? So also say all the people who interpret things countless other ways..

However, this does not address my point that the book is a form of middleman. It does not matter who wrote the book or who you assert "gave" the book.........by your own words, it is sometimes ambiguous. It sows division among those who are seeking to know.

An actual god that wanted his wises to be known would be able to make those wises known to everyone everywhere and filtering it through a book that is open to interpretation or is ambiguous is a ridiculous concept.

 

[safdar.dushantappeh]

An actual god that wanted his wises to be known would be able to make those wises known to everyone everywhere and filtering it through a book that is open to interpretation or is ambiguous is a ridiculous concept.

A human describing "an actual god" is like a kid describing her ideal parents! The wish of the kid will not change the characteristics of her parents.

Anyway, I think we are getting off the topic. The purpose of the movement, as stated in the FAQ, is not to convert anybody to be a believer. It is rather forming a community of people who are already believers but would like to heap each other to figure the perversions that were introduced into their religions by the middlemen.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is where gnosticism has potential to shine, it's more dependent on whether we experience knowledge of God or not. If we do, some books will still have value, others will not as they can simply seen as not having aged well...

How does one determine that an experience has anything to do with a god?

 

[Milton Platt]

A human describing "an actual god" is like a kid describing her ideal parents! The wish of the kid will not change the characteristics of her parents.

Anyway, I think we are getting off the topic. The purpose of the movement, as stated in the FAQ, is not to convert anybody to be a believer. It is rather forming a community of people who are already believers but would like to heap each other to figure the perversions that were introduced into their religions by the middlemen.

Sure, I understand the purpose of the group. But helping each other interpret a book, or relying on a book at all, introduces a middleman. There is no way around that. You are merely substituting non professional middlemen in the form of books and peers in place of professional ones. The result is no better.

 

[Jumi]

How does one determine that an experience has anything to do with a god?

If someone says they have experienced it and you haven't, there's no way I can think of. Most thinking people know, experiences have little practical value to people who are not ourselves and there's not much to really say between people who don't share them.

If you happen to come by the real deal by chance or on purpose, you'll know it at that point, that this is what was called God by those who experienced it before.

 

[Milton Platt]

If someone says they have experienced it and you haven't, there's no way I can think of. Most thinking people know, experiences have little practical value to people who are not ourselves and there's not much to really say between people who don't share them.
If you happen to come by the real deal by chance or on purpose, you'll know it at that point, that this is what was called God by those who experienced it before.

You are correct. It is merely a subjective interpretation of an experience. There is no possible way to attach it to a supernatural cause. That is the point I am trying to make.
Just because someone else previously labeled it as a god experience does not make it a god experience. Where is the actual falsifiable evidence? And how do you even know that your experience is precisely the same as someone else’s previous experience when it is all subjective interpretation?

 

[Jumi]

Correct. It is merely a subjective interpretation of an experience. There is no possible way to attatch it to a supernatural cause.

Why would it need to be supernatural?

Just because someone else previously labeled it as a god experience does not make it a god experience. Where is the actual falsifiable evidence?

What claim do you need evidence for? I can't exactly use a screwdriver on my head and provide you with a cut-and-paste of the experience. There was no neurologist monitoring my brain.

And how do you even know that your experience is precisely the same as someone else’s precious experience when it is all subjective interpretation?

Why would or should it be the same as everyone else's? Would that make it more acceptable if it was that easy to get, that everyman had it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why would it need to be supernatural?


What claim do you need evidence for? I can't exactly use a screwdriver on my head and provide you with a cut-and-paste of the experience. There was no neurologist monitoring my brain.


Why would or should it be the same as everyone else's? Would that make it more acceptable if it was that easy to get, that everyman had it.

Well, I do not know of any natural thing that is characterized as a god. Are you postulating a flesh and blood god?

I don’t need evidence that you had an experience, I need evidence of the cause of the experience. That would lie outside of your head...so no screwdriver necessary, thankfully.

If it is the same god trying to selectively impart the same information about a subject, then the information imparted by the experiences should fundamentally agree. Different cultures and religions all claim experiences and attribute them to various other gods. They can’t all be correct.....but they can all be incorrect.

 

[YmirGF]

Anyway, I think we are getting off the topic. The purpose of the movement, as stated in the FAQ, is not to convert anybody to be a believer. It is rather forming a community of people who are already believers but would like to heap each other to figure the perversions that were introduced into their religions by the middlemen.

Denial is not the best way to pitch a theme. If one is going to point out or help others to understand so-called "perversions" created by middlemen then what is it that you are actually doing? You are doing what every person before you has done. Who is to say that innovations you come up with are not perverse to the sensitivities of others? Who is right? The thing is you and your group are simply inserting your own understanding, which is the definition of a middleman, into the mix. Denial of this is, at best, disingenuous and highly misleading. You are middlemen too. Own it and move on.

 

[Scott C.]

I recently joined the NMMM (No-MiddleMan Movement) which is a movement for uniting the religions by removing the middlemen (scholar, priest, church, guru, rabbi, ...) and emphasizing on the common core in all religions: good deeds. I wanted to encourage you all to contribute to this movement by sharing your views/observations/articles and help shaping the direction by discussing and challenging the presented thoughts (perhaps the fb page is more suitable place for discussions)

Here is the manifesto:

Earth is, as always, full of non-religions in which some middlemen claim to know what the Creator wants, and ask us to blindly follow them, and them exclusively, or otherwise we will be burnt in the hellfire. The fear of fire, the peer pressure, accompanied with the indoctrination from birth lead us to the convenient trap of following one of these middlemen instead of the more challenging lifestyle of responsibly and continuously searching for good deeds and doing them.
The middleman phenomenon takes different forms:

• Sometimes it is a "knowledgeable" Imam/Rabbi/Scholar who knows about religion some "complicated" things that we "ordinary people" do not know, and hence urge us to obey his Fatwa/Rule/Sharia.
• Sometimes it is a priest that provides a particular interpretation of the holy books and urge us to trust their view.
• Sometimes it is a church, mosque, or religious school that tells to take a text as sacred and assume that it is letter by letter a direct revelation from the creator.
• Sometimes it is a "spiritual" leader/Pope/Guru who is supposedly "closer" to the creator and thus can "see" what is right and what is wrong, and urge us to follow his vision.

The middlemen have pretty established positions in their societies and through the many years they have produced a bulk of literature to justify their existence and silence the curious minds. In fact many followers feel "educated" after reading such literature. They are so good at what they do, to the extent that many followers do not even realize that they are obeying a middleman. It is not thus uncommon to hear:

• a Christian saying that I am not following any religion; I am just following Jesus! And yet their very understanding of Jesus and Bible is pretty much shaped by a major church/religious organization.
• a Muslim saying that I am not blindly obeying Imams; I rather only consider their advice that is formed based on the book and the Hadith! And yet their interpretation of the book as well as which Hadith is authentic or relevant is pretty much shaped by a major doctrine (Madhab).

We believe that the world has an intelligent creator; one need not to abandon reason to live as a believer; life is a continuous, reasonable search for truth, which should lead to doing beautiful deeds; but no exclusive doctrine can claim the "right" path towards this. These are the middlemen who always come up with something very specific in their doctrine and introduce it as the "secret sauce" for salvation, to color their followers differently and to establish a "us vs. them" mindset. In whatever community that we are born in, and whatever our starting point is, we are more likely to end up with righteous deeds if we do not let our minds to be indoctrinated by middlemen.
The mission of No-MiddleMan Movement is to coordinate a community effort to identify the middlemen in each of our religions, trace their influence on the ideology, and help our fellow believers to purify their religious views and free themselves from the indoctrination that they are born into. We invite each of the readers to share with us and other readers the influence of middleman that they observe in their local community. All the contributed posts will be accessible to public. The editors further select some contributed articles and maintain organized a summary for impatient readers. Feel free to reach us if you want to also contribute as an editor.

If there is a sovereign God who reveals truth to mankind through revelations to both the individual and to his chosen prophets, then you are mistaken in your approach. It only makes sense for mankind to make up the doctrine if there is no God already doing so. Personally, I believe the first, although I respect your right to believe as you do.

 

[Jumi]

Well, I do not know of any natural thing that is characterized as a god.

So you think any god must be supernatural for some reason. FYI there are bunch of natural things characterized as gods by people, including the sun and earth.

Are you postulating a flesh and blood god?

Does it seem like I am?

I don’t need evidence that you had an experience, I need evidence of the cause of the experience. That would lie outside of your head...so no screwdriver necessary, thankfully.

I guess my attempt at humor failed. So which of my claims about causes would you like evidence about?

If it is the same god trying to selectively impart the same information about a subject, then the information imparted by the experiences should fundamentally agree.

A reasonable guess, if someone believed there was a god that was more skilled at reliable communicating then people and if someone believed there was a god trying to impart the same information across cultures and religions.

Different cultures and religions all claim experiences and attribute them to various other gods. They can’t all be correct.....but they can all be incorrect.

Faith in cultural or religious claims isn't that interesting.

 

[Milton Platt]

So you think any god must be supernatural for some reason. FYI there are bunch of natural things characterized as gods by people, including the sun and earth.

Yes, I realize people worship all sorts of objects and natural events as a god or as evidence of a god's actions. So is the conversation restricted to non-supernatural things, then?

I see no need to rename natural objects as "god" when we already have names for them. Maybe the "god" moniker needs to be dropped.

Does it seem like I am?

If it is not supernatural, then it is natural, right? It has to be one or the other. "flesh and blood" was a euphemism. It could be a pile of rocks.


I guess my attempt at humor failed. So which of my claims about causes would you like evidence about?

Didn't get the humor....you have to warn me sometimes....I'm slow that way. Not your fault.
You are claiming that the cause of a particular experience is caused by a god. I want evidence of the god. If it is not a god, then evidence of whatever it is.

A reasonable guess, if someone believed there was a god that was more skilled at reliable communicating then people and if someone believed there was a god trying to impart the same information across cultures and religions.

Okay, just so the goalpost doesn't get moved....clearly define what you mean when you use the word "god". What are his attributes, limitations, and makeup.

Faith in cultural or religious claims isn't that interesting.

Sorry, perhaps I have misunderstood. I thought we were discussing "religious" experiences.

I apologize for the odd way of interlacing my comments. After all this time, I'm still wrestling with the quote system on this board.

 

[gnostic]

I recently joined the NMMM (No-MiddleMan Movement) which is a movement for uniting the religions by removing the middlemen (scholar, priest, church, guru, rabbi, ...) and emphasizing on the common core in all religions: good deeds. I wanted to encourage you all to contribute to this movement by sharing your views/observations/articles and help shaping the direction by discussing and challenging the presented thoughts (perhaps the fb page is more suitable place for discussions)

Here is the manifesto:

Earth is, as always, full of non-religions in which some middlemen claim to know what the Creator wants, and ask us to blindly follow them, and them exclusively, or otherwise we will be burnt in the hellfire. The fear of fire, the peer pressure, accompanied with the indoctrination from birth lead us to the convenient trap of following one of these middlemen instead of the more challenging lifestyle of responsibly and continuously searching for good deeds and doing them.
The middleman phenomenon takes different forms:

• Sometimes it is a "knowledgeable" Imam/Rabbi/Scholar who knows about religion some "complicated" things that we "ordinary people" do not know, and hence urge us to obey his Fatwa/Rule/Sharia.
• Sometimes it is a priest that provides a particular interpretation of the holy books and urge us to trust their view.
• Sometimes it is a church, mosque, or religious school that tells to take a text as sacred and assume that it is letter by letter a direct revelation from the creator.
• Sometimes it is a "spiritual" leader/Pope/Guru who is supposedly "closer" to the creator and thus can "see" what is right and what is wrong, and urge us to follow his vision.

The middlemen have pretty established positions in their societies and through the many years they have produced a bulk of literature to justify their existence and silence the curious minds. In fact many followers feel "educated" after reading such literature. They are so good at what they do, to the extent that many followers do not even realize that they are obeying a middleman. It is not thus uncommon to hear:

• a Christian saying that I am not following any religion; I am just following Jesus! And yet their very understanding of Jesus and Bible is pretty much shaped by a major church/religious organization.
• a Muslim saying that I am not blindly obeying Imams; I rather only consider their advice that is formed based on the book and the Hadith! And yet their interpretation of the book as well as which Hadith is authentic or relevant is pretty much shaped by a major doctrine (Madhab).

We believe that the world has an intelligent creator; one need not to abandon reason to live as a believer; life is a continuous, reasonable search for truth, which should lead to doing beautiful deeds; but no exclusive doctrine can claim the "right" path towards this. These are the middlemen who always come up with something very specific in their doctrine and introduce it as the "secret sauce" for salvation, to color their followers differently and to establish a "us vs. them" mindset. In whatever community that we are born in, and whatever our starting point is, we are more likely to end up with righteous deeds if we do not let our minds to be indoctrinated by middlemen.
The mission of No-MiddleMan Movement is to coordinate a community effort to identify the middlemen in each of our religions, trace their influence on the ideology, and help our fellow believers to purify their religious views and free themselves from the indoctrination that they are born into. We invite each of the readers to share with us and other readers the influence of middleman that they observe in their local community. All the contributed posts will be accessible to public. The editors further select some contributed articles and maintain organized a summary for impatient readers. Feel free to reach us if you want to also contribute as an editor.

If you want to do this, then you as well as ditch every single scripture, since every one of them were written by men, and we should all ignore Moses, Isaacs, Jeremiah, Jesus, Muhammad have to say, since these so-called prophets, messengers, messiahs, apostles, disciples, etc, are all essentially “middle men”.