> McDonald 7/4
> Boy this guy really doesn't know much about preachers does he Michael?
> Power over people? Give me a break. He obviously has never preached
> where I have. Preachers usually have no influence at all over the
> members of the congregations where they preach. They preach the wrong
> thing and {slash} they are gone. Man we have a great deal of power
> there, don't we.
Thank you for replying (even though it wasn't aimed at you. Whilst not
experienced with American Preachers, I believe you are missing the point.
Whilst, if you were preaching "Come on , lets all go with Satan and have an
orgy" you may well get the push (or you might get more converts :) ). if you
preach the correct line you have an awful lot of influence, especially coming
from the more fundamental / inerrantist line (I believe you to be an
inerrantist ?) amongst the believers. [Sorry about the flippant bit]
> >
> >Secondly, there is the feeling of importance a religious teacher may
> >gain
> >from having his or her views taken over seriously, or actively sought.
> >In my
> >part of the world, the views of the clergy are often taken far too
> >seriously
> >on subjects they have no expertise on, simply because they are the
> >clergy.
> >All (bar one) of the Preachers I have known have been incapable
> >arguing
> >intelligently for their religion, usually ending up in some waffle
> >about
> >Faith. (belief without evidence). It amuses me, for example, to see
> >preachers dishing out ideas on how to bring up children while their
> >own run
> >riot in the background.
> >
> McDonald 7/4
> Yea, we really feel important don't we? How many times a day can you get
> a door slammed in your face or have someone tell you that you are
> ignorant and still feel important.
Feeling important amongst your religious grouping,my dear chap, as opposed to
feeling important in the "world at large". I don't understand why you can't
see that leading a group of people who listen intently (hopefully !) to what
you say could make a preacher feel important.
> However, if this person thinks that Iwill waffle about faith, he might
want to sign propositions with me, and
> we'll see about that.
I actually think you should read what I wrote. I wrote "Preachers I know".
The most I know about you is your postings on inerrancy, I wouldn't claim to
know you personally. I will say this for you, you seem to be prepared to
stand up and argue for what you believe in. If UK Preachers did this I would
be much happier, but they don't.
I'm not qualified to argue 'biblical inerrancy' with you , I freely admit
this. However it is a nonsense to suggest that there are no ego based reasons
for preaching. If you want to debate this, do so on Pyschological grounds,
not on religious grounds, because this is about Psychology not religion.
> Most preachers I know don't go giving advice on
> how to bring up children. They tell what the Bible says, but many times
> they have the same problems as everyone else had. So most of the time we
> keep our ideas out of it.
Most preachers I know do ! In fact they run courses on it - they 'tell what
the bible says' but it always seem to come out as low level psychologizing
with a bit of religion chucked in :)
> >Thirdly, many priests seem to believe out of pure habit.. the sole
> >reason my
> >local Priest could suggest to me when my daughter was christened (at
> >my
> >wife's request) was that "believing in Jesus makes you look at people
> >a room
> >full of people differently". I tried to point out that whether or not
> >this
> >was true made absolutely no difference to the truth of his beliefs, to
> >little
> >effect.
> McDonald 7/4
> Yep, we believe out of habit. We are creatures of habit and don't know
> why we believe what we believe. Why don't you sign propositions with me
> and we will see why I believe what I believe?
I actually think habit was a bad choice of expression here. I'm trying to
describe the person who learns their religion at their parents knee and
follow it without really thinking through why, goes to church because thats
what people do , etc., and become a preacher because it's expected of them.
Sorry, you'll have to explain what "sign propositions" means. Is this a
euphemism for "discussing biblical inerrancy" or some such like ? I'm not
qualified to do this, and I am not qualified to talk about YOU. How could I,
I don't know you ? That's why I used 'many' 'some' 'preachers I know' and
expressions like that. I don't like propositions like "all preachers do it
for the money" which it is claimed that Farrell Till wrote (which I find
extremely hard to believe , can I have a URL please). However, you are making
the mistake of limiting every field of discussion to yourself. Just because
you don't believe and preach for these reasons doesn't mean no-one else does.
I would strongly suspect you would rather debate some arcane corner of the
bible as opposed to reasons why preachers preach what they believe or suspect
to be true. I am fairly sure you could 'defeat' me on 'biblical
interpretation' as it isn't my field, but if you did, this wouldn't do
anything to alter anything I have written because it isn't about the
Bible,it's about Psychology.
> >
> >Lastly, there is the huge stake they have in not changing. For a
> >Preacher to
> >turn round and say to his or her flock "Sorry, I don't believe it
> >anymore"
> >would require enormous courage, it being much easier just to keep
> >quiet about
> >it and plod along anyway. It doesn't require much courage to quash the
> >feeling that you might have got it all wrong (or perhaps view it as
> >the voice
> >of Satan ?)
> >
> McDonald 7/4
> You people make us all out to be gutless cowards. None of us has the
> courage to change so we just stay in what we know is wrong. If it wasn't
> so serious it would be funny. If I thought that I was wrong, I would
> just change. However, you cannot understand why people like me stay with
> the truth when the rest of you lost your faith so easily, so you try to
> rationalize to yourselves and you give ridiculous explanations which
> don't hold water.
No, dear chap, I don't think you are a "gutless coward". If you were a
gutless coward, you wouldn't be subscribed to errancy (unless you enjoyed the
verbal punch up of course !). I am simply pointing out that preachers are
fallible human beings. People have an amazing ability to believe what they
want and wish away things that don't fit the pattern. In fact, I would
suggest that almost everyone (including me) is guilty of this in some area or
another. You seem to miss that this discussion is about Psychology more than
Religion. I am trying to explain other reasons for Preaching besides the
financial ones and the "will to spread the word of the Lord". I do not imply
that every reason applies for every priest, and I certainly can't comment on
whether any of them apply to you personally.
Using emotional word formations "talking to someone in the background,
calling explanations ridiculous, use of over emotional language" doesn't get
you anywhere by the way. In fact, this last paragraph reads like a general
sulk aimed at all the people who post against you. I also believe you are on
very dangerous ground talking about "rationalize to yourself and you give
ridiculous explanations which don't hold water". It is human nature to do
this to some extent or other, but articles I have read written by you in SR
do seem to strongly follow this pattern.
And , of course, it isn't the truth, its your opinion , that you are freely
entitled to hold.and is shared by many other people, but it is an opinion.
Nice to see you didn't capitalise it though, because that annoys the hell out
of me.
Let me ask you this. Look at the four basic reasons (Control, Importance,
Habit, Stake). Do you believe that some preachers, believe partially if not
wholely, and almost certainly subconciously, for some of these reasons ?
[Winner-world's worst sentence structure competition 1997]
Because in my part of the world, they do.
>
> >Finally, there is the usual claimed reason. "I want to spread the word
> >of
> >God" (in various forms). I would bet the vast majority of preachers
> >claim
> >this reason and no other... including the obvious frauds, and many of
> >them
> >honestly believe it, and would decry the reasons I have listed above.
> >However, I am of the opinion that for most preachers there are
> >elements of
> >these reasons present.
>
> McDonald 7/4
> The only reason I continue to preach is because I feel obligated to
> spread the word to those who are in darkness. If it wasn't for that I
> would have given it up long ago. But of course making you (someone who
> gave up his faith so easily) understand that is an impossible task, so
> you can believe what you will.
Thank you. I will. You are making some pretty interesting suppositions here.
You don't know if I gave up my faith. You don't know if convincing me of your
reasoning for preaching is an impossible task,as this is your first attempt,
and doesn't tell me much about you. You are assuming a lot about someone you
don't know.
What would you have thought if I had written JERRY does it for the money
JERRY does it for control JERRY is irrational and self deluding ? You would
wonder how I knew that. (wrote deluging here first, what a fascinating
concept)
> You want us to cease from telling about our financial situations,
> but that was the whole discussion.
No, I don't. I wanted to expand the discussion by saying there were other
possible reasons for being a priest besides financial ones. Does it stop at
'preachers do it for the money' 'no they don't'.
> Ian accused preachers of being money grabbers, and Michael and I have
tried to point out that we are not money
> grabbers. You obviously see that, and now you want to bring in other
reasons to continue to set your mind at ease.
>
If you read the first line, "you'll see I say this is an awful
generalisation". Some preachers are money grabbers I'm sure, some are not.
But to say that the ideas I have expressed are ridiculous (e.g. Preachers do
not have these reasons) is as big a generalisation as saying that all
Preachers are in it for the money.
As I didn't write that preachers were money grabbers, I don't see why I
should need to set my mind at ease. I am quite happy with what I wrote.
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)