A great example....

[Spotlite]

Yes this is ^ who/what I'm talking about when I say "organized religion".
I'm not talking about the every day folks who "organize" together at church.
I'm talking about the "Board of Directors".

I see where you’re coming from now.

 

[bullethead]

Your opinion of being all man and no God isn’t relevant. The issue here is human nature, man problem, etc. Based on your understanding, guns kill people, not people.

No, that is not my understanding at all.
I am fully 100% in agreement and understand that Man is 100% to blame.
It is when another source is introduced into the mix that Should have a better set of checks and balances.
You have argued in many conversations that a God is in the mix. You,and all the other religious people give credit to all the good and all the things that take place that are unexplainable to a Higher being who is Above Man in every sense and aspect.
Because that outside source of a God is introduced it takes away the human nature aspect of excuses.

I full well know humans are 100% responsible for their own actions both outside of and inside of religion. I am of that mindset 100% of the time.
The religious people though, add another element beyond humans. You/they say this added element is better than humans and you all give praise and credit to this added element UNTIL an example pops up that shows this God Element either dropped the ball, Doesn't care, Chooses not to do the "right" thing or flat out does not actually exist at all. THEN you forego the God does get involved in human affairs claims and blame man as if your God can't do anything to change the outcome.

Using your "gun" example.
If a priest is going to shoot up his own congregation on Sunday morning I full well know it is not the gun making him do it.
I full well know that the decision and act is solely his choosing.
I full well know that it can be prevented if another human finds out about it.
I full well know that no God is going to step in and stop the priest.

I also full well know that if the plot is foiled by a human the religious people will say God stepped in.
If the priest carries out his bad deed then the same religious will say "well he is man and man does bad things" abandoning their God helps claims immediately.

Back to organized religion.
I know the highest management position is held my man both inside and outside of religion.
Religious people add one more element beyond man....when convenient.

 

[bullethead]

I am not, but my one employer doesn’t represent every employer ?

Who is responsible for your actions while you represent the Company?

Basically there is a chain of command and ultimately the top man is the face of the company and you represent him.
He makes sure you do it to his satisfaction and if you dont he takes actions to correct it.
That seems to stop when a boss who possesses all knowledge of what will happen and the power to prevent it doesnt stop someone from doing things that hurt the company. That is Organized Religion.
A bunch of men who makes the sales pitch that they represent God, only those men are actually God. Don't look behind the curtain.

 

[bullethead]

Yes this is ^ who/what I'm talking about when I say "organized religion".
I'm not talking about the every day folks who "organize" together at church.
I'm talking about the "Board of Directors".

Precisely Walt.
In every aspect of an Organization it stops at the top. Ultimately the Head Honcho, the CEO, The Boss.
In Religion there is an added CEO who is touted as being "better" than human yet he never gets the blame. His company is excused to human standards when the deeds of its managment team do not represent the organization in a good way with no mention of the CEO. But, when the Organization looks good, the CEO gets all the credit. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Spotlite]

Who is responsible for your actions while you represent the Company?

Basically there is a chain of command and ultimately the top man is the face of the company and you represent him.
He makes sure you do it to his satisfaction and if you dont he takes actions to correct it.
That seems to stop when a boss who possesses all knowledge of what will happen and the power to prevent it doesnt stop someone from doing things that hurt the company. That is Organized Religion.
A bunch of men who makes the sales pitch that they represent God, only those men are actually God. Don't look behind the curtain.

I am responsible for me. But, I think I’m looking at this from a different perspective.

I agree with you and Walt about the “board of directors” issue. I know it’s design and purpose is to have decency and order in representing your faith, but man does go overboard. As a check in balance, we have Pastors in place and we should follow them as they follow God.

Of course I can choose to find another church if I don’t think my Pastor is following God.

One benefit of being part of an organization is ensuring you’re protected in certain circumstances. I can tell you stories of how the church building / property was saved for the congregation after Pastors took advantage of their position. There are times when a Pastor passes away and the organization will place a temporary preacher there so services continue until they find a Pastor. It has its good side, too.

I’m ok with rules that say if you represent who we are, this is how you’ll act / dress, because this is who we are and why. Our visitation team requires a long sleeve shirt and shacks for men, a skirt for ladies. You’re not required to be in the team, but if you choose to do so, this is how you’ll dress while representing us. You’re selling yourself / church to people and you want to look presentable. No one preaches you’re sinning if you don’t dress that way, it’s just a standard, no different than Walmart saying you’re wearing this uniform on the job.

Then I have a choice to find one that has rules that I like.

The rest isn’t relevant because I was thinking on different lines. My mindset was this one incident doesn’t represent every organization.

 

[Spotlite]

Who is responsible for your actions while you represent the Company?

Basically there is a chain of command and ultimately the top man is the face of the company and you represent him.
He makes sure you do it to his satisfaction and if you dont he takes actions to correct it.
That seems to stop when a boss who possesses all knowledge of what will happen and the power to prevent it doesnt stop someone from doing things that hurt the company. That is Organized Religion.
A bunch of men who makes the sales pitch that they represent God, only those men are actually God. Don't look behind the curtain.

It’s probably a disconnection on how we look at this, you’re familiar with the Catholic / Priest “organization”. Not throwing off on how they’re structured, just saying it’s different than the rest of what is considered “organized” religion.

I can agree with you 100% when looking at what you’re familiar with.

 

[bullethead]

I am responsible for me. But, I think I’m looking at this from a different perspective.

I agree with you and Walt about the “board of directors” issue. I know it’s design and purpose is to have decency and order in representing your faith, but man does go overboard. As a check in balance, we have Pastors in place and we should follow them as they follow God.

Of course I can choose to find another church if I don’t think my Pastor is following God.

One benefit of being part of an organization is ensuring you’re protected in certain circumstances. I can tell you stories of how the church building / property was saved for the congregation after Pastors took advantage of their position. There are times when a Pastor passes away and the organization will place a temporary preacher there so services continue until they find a Pastor. It has its good side, too.

I’m ok with rules that say if you represent who we are, this is how you’ll act / dress, because this is who we are and why. Our visitation team requires a long sleeve shirt and shacks for men, a skirt for ladies. You’re not required to be in the team, but if you choose to do so, this is how you’ll dress while representing us. You’re selling yourself / church to people and you want to look presentable. No one preaches you’re sinning if you don’t dress that way, it’s just a standard, no different than Walmart saying you’re wearing this uniform on the job.

Then I have a choice to find one that has rules that I like.

The rest isn’t relevant because I was thinking on different lines. My mindset was this one incident doesn’t represent every organization.

My mindset is that if the CEO was as claimed, this could never happen in the Organization

 

[bullethead]

It’s probably a disconnection on how we look at this, you’re familiar with the Catholic / Priest “organization”. Not throwing off on how they’re structured, just saying it’s different than the rest of what is considered “organized” religion.

I can agree with you 100% when looking at what you’re familiar with.

I was baptized Catholic, raised and confirmed Protestant. Married in a Catholic Church I am familiar with a few practices.

Lets start at the top of the chain of command in any Christian Organized Religion.
Can we agree it is God?
Then underneath him we have Clergy be it Pastors or Priests of varying titles.
They all represent God.
Their actions reflect God.
If the claims are true about God, those underlings couldn't do wrong in his name while representing him even if they wanted to.
We see that is definitely not the case. You agree to that.
Why doesn't the CEO have more control over the Representatives within his Organization?

 

[Spotlite]

I was baptized Catholic, raised and confirmed Protestant. Married in a Catholic Church I am familiar with a few practices.

Lets start at the top of the chain of command in any Christian Organized Religion.
Can we agree it is God?
Then underneath him we have Clergy be it Pastors or Priests of varying titles.
They all represent God.
Their actions reflect God.
If the claims are true about God, those underlings couldn't do wrong in his name while representing him even if they wanted to.
We see that is definitely not the case. You agree to that.
Why doesn't the CEO have more control over the Representatives within his Organization?

No I don’t agree that men are perfect and will not do wrong. I will be neutral for a moment, if the Bible story is false, at least the story claims that men will booger up and do their own thing. So within it, it tells me that they will do their own thing at times.

 

[WaltL1]

but I think I see a flag on the play...

Well come on Israel don't be a tease... lets hear it

 

[Israel]

Well come on Israel don't be a tease... lets hear it

I think after I wrote that Spotlite kinda touched on it, so I let it go.

Why is this being discussed at all? Isn't it all due to some fellows being disgruntled with the way things are being administered in a place/organization/group of which he is willfully part, no one having put a gun to his head to be a member? And then publicizing his disagreement...on Facebook?

If he has made this his structure under which he believes he is directed rightly "to God" (though I'd have to ask him why he is part and also considers his family so, or to be so...), then to me his complaint is not only silly, but also includes an ignorance even most of us, being not members, are even aware. There's a pretty clear clergy/laity structure with a great many restrictions and allowances of practice limited to one and not provided the other. There's the concept of original sin, autistic child or not.

My recitation in no way implies I agree with any of them...but if this fellow believes this thing called "communion" is ministered only by one in authority to "do it"...thereby making it "legitimate"... doesn't any refutation by complaint (especially quite public...to many not even involved) of the authority that makes it legitimate...speak more of the complainers estate than is being addressed?

Sure I can wear a sweater vest to the club I joined that requires members to wear coat and tie to dine, demanding to be seated, complaining when I am not served because "a sweater vest is the same to me as a coat and tie"...but...I may find whatever gain I thought I had in belonging to the club by its position...I have argued against...and is no longer mine.

Now, the matter of submission and will, and grumbling/complaining, and even to those "outside" (does he believe something "outside" the church, as he sees it) should be able to bring pressure to bear to change it? Then...by all means have what will submit to the pressures of the world's opinions if one must...but...

It's a little embarrassing...like hearing a man complain about his wife...or even ex.

Better he resolve what attracted him in the first place...and so much so he entered a covenant with her. And if she turned out to be "someone I didn't think she was..."...LOL...he might be wiser to see "yeah...that's after she had been in a great deal of touch with me..."

And, if she were a "liar from the beginning" (fool me once shame on you...) he might ask, "why didn't I see a liar for a liar?"

And..."do I now?"

 

[bullethead]

Well come on Israel don't be a tease... lets hear it

 

[WaltL1]

I think after I wrote that Spotlite kinda touched on it, so I let it go.

Why is this being discussed at all? Isn't it all due to some fellows being disgruntled with the way things are being administered in a place/organization/group of which he is willfully part, no one having put a gun to his head to be a member? And then publicizing his disagreement...on Facebook?

If he has made this his structure under which he believes he is directed rightly "to God" (though I'd have to ask him why he is part and also considers his family so, or to be so...), then to me his complaint is not only silly, but also includes an ignorance even most of us, being not members, are even aware. There's a pretty clear clergy/laity structure with a great many restrictions and allowances of practice limited to one and not provided the other. There's the concept of original sin, autistic child or not.

My recitation in no way implies I agree with any of them...but if this fellow believes this thing called "communion" is ministered only by one in authority to "do it"...thereby making it "legitimate"... doesn't any refutation by complaint (especially quite public...to many not even involved) of the authority that makes it legitimate...speak more of the complainers estate than is being addressed?

Sure I can wear a sweater vest to the club I joined that requires members to wear coat and tie to dine, demanding to be seated, complaining when I am not served because "a sweater vest is the same to me as a coat and tie"...but...I may find whatever gain I thought I had in belonging to the club by its position...I have argued against...and is no longer mine.

Now, the matter of submission and will, and grumbling/complaining, and even to those "outside" (does he believe something "outside" the church, as he sees it) should be able to bring pressure to bear to change it? Then...by all means have what will submit to the pressures of the world's opinions if one must...but...

It's a little embarrassing...like hearing a man complain about his wife...or even ex.

Better he resolve what attracted him in the first place...and so much so he entered a covenant with her. And if she turned out to be "someone I didn't think she was..."...LOL...he might be wiser to see "yeah...that's after she had been in a great deal of touch with me..."

And, if she were a "liar from the beginning" (fool me once shame on you...) he might ask, "why didn't I see a liar for a liar?"

And..."do I now?"

Why is this being discussed at all?

​

You must be new here. Welcome to the AAA Forum where we talk/debate about our views on mainly religious stuff with some huntin/fishin/guns/music thrown in.
Pull up a chair, most all are welcome.

 

[WaltL1]

He's having a crappy day at the office.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

there sure seems to be a whole lot of man made nonsense between this child and that God.

And you would not be wrong in the least. I made the comment upstairs the other day, and I firmly believe it, that if Christ were to be born again today and made the same claims he made 2000 years ago that the Church today would crucify him again for blasphemy (blasphemy (noun) · the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things.)

Most of our "Churched" people today are blindly loyal to doctrine, yet have no conception of, much less a relationship with the Author, nor do they desire one. They, like the Pharisees of old, are much more satiated with the imagined power of their wielded doctrine than to hear, much less seriously contemplate, what the Author truly calls for. They've heard whispers of that, and it ain't pleasing to their palate.

Perhaps, you will allow me to alter your quote to what I view as more accurate.
"there sure seems to be a whole lot of man made nonsense between this church and that God."

 

[tgc]

And just for the record, everybody has rules/beliefs or guidelines they live their life by, not just organized religion.

Yep, hells full of ‘em. Like the old saying
“**** will be full of good people “

 

[Israel]

You must be new here. Welcome to the AAA Forum where we talk/debate about our views on mainly religious stuff with some huntin/fishin/guns/music thrown in.
Pull up a chair, most all are welcome.

But seriously...none of this is new fodder to y'all, really, is it?

I ain't trying to put no prohibition...but what I mean is the only reason anyone knows of this particular incident is someone went all (to me) sour grapes on FB...but long before anyone heard of it...y'all have made many mentions of your own experiences with different structures...most describing themselves as "the church".

Now the "story" got picked up...and folks are "aghast"...that clergy makes very personal decisions for people who, till they disagree, are quite content to accept.

 

[WaltL1]

But seriously...none of this is new fodder to y'all, really, is it?

I ain't trying to put no prohibition...but what I mean is the only reason anyone knows of this particular incident is someone went all (to me) sour grapes on FB...but long before anyone heard of it...y'all have made many mentions of your own experiences with different structures...most describing themselves as "the church".

Now the "story" got picked up...and folks are "aghast"...that clergy makes very personal decisions for people who, till they disagree, are quite content to accept.

But seriously...none of this is new fodder to y'all, really, is it?

Some would say the Bible is not "new fodder" either.
But you can learn something new/view something different/have new thoughts every time you open it or discuss it........

the only reason anyone knows of this particular incident is someone went all (to me) sour grapes on FB

Valid point ^
But I think invalid to the intended overall point of the discussion.

that clergy makes very personal decisions for people who, till they disagree, are quite content to accept.

Yes its very easy to accept doctrine and "rules" but you never really understand what it is you are accepting until it affects you personally.
Maybe its a good thing that family now has a clearer view of what they have bought into. Whether that be positive or negative.
If you strip away the titles and religion etc its basically just a person/family questioning a humans personal decision about what the rules mean.

The whole thing is kinda sad to me.
They believe in God.
They want to "do it right" according to their faith.
There is a wall of human construction being placed between a child and that God.
Sure they were accepting of the rules. What choice did they have? Walk away from from their faith/religion? Easier said than done.

 

[WaltL1]

And you would not be wrong in the least. I made the comment upstairs the other day, and I firmly believe it, that if Christ were to be born again today and made the same claims he made 2000 years ago that the Church today would crucify him again for blasphemy (blasphemy (noun) · the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things.)

Most of our "Churched" people today are blindly loyal to doctrine, yet have no conception of, much less a relationship with the Author, nor do they desire one. They, like the Pharisees of old, are much more satiated with the imagined power of their wielded doctrine than to hear, much less seriously contemplate, what the Author truly calls for. They've heard whispers of that, and it ain't pleasing to their palate.

Perhaps, you will allow me to alter your quote to what I view as more accurate.
"there sure seems to be a whole lot of man made nonsense between this church and that God."

"there sure seems to be a whole lot of man made nonsense between this church and that God."

Certainly that can be your opinion. But just a reminder -
In reality what this church is guilty of is trying to follow the rules to the letter.
Seems like a common complaint I hear these days is how churches dont follow the rules to the letter no mo.....
Its the rules that create the no win situation. The man made rules.

 

[Israel]

Some would say the Bible is not "new fodder" either.
But you can learn something new/view something different/have new thoughts every time you open it or discuss it........

Valid point ^
But I think invalid to the intended overall point of the discussion.

Yes its very easy to accept doctrine and "rules" but you never really understand what it is you are accepting until it affects you personally.
Maybe its a good thing that family now has a clearer view of what they have bought into. Whether that be positive or negative.
If you strip away the titles and religion etc its basically just a person/family questioning a humans personal decision about what the rules mean.

The whole thing is kinda sad to me.
They believe in God.
They want to "do it right" according to their faith.
There is a wall of human construction being placed between a child and that God.
Sure they were accepting of the rules. What choice did they have? Walk away from from their faith/religion? Easier said than done.

As long as faith and religion are equated it is not "Easier said than done". It is not merely not easily done, it is not...because it is impossible.