ROBSON:
To answer your questions, you may be making the reader feel guilty because he
or she has a better living than you and the reason for it would be to silence
the debate, if you wanted to improve your living you'd have to post this
somewhere else (on the Church noticeboard ?) I ain't saying it's so, but I
couldn't let them go by.
MICHAEL:
Well I agree that such could be a motive, but I still fail to see
what would be accomplished by it. Since I don't see what would be
accomplished, it seems doubtful that such would be my motive.
(I understand that you are not saying that such was particularly true
of me in this case).
ROBSON:
I'm saying I don't know but I don't think so. In my experience people often
use guilt as a way of stopping discussions they don't like e.g. "Don't say
that to your poor mother she's always been ill" as a way of avoiding
discussion about the issue in question.
ROBSON:
often likes to have power over a group of people, and preachers (
especially the more fundamentalist ones) often have a great deal of influence
over people's lives. (Often they use this influence to gain money for
their particular church)
MICHAEL:
While I have no doubt that such is true (consider Jim Jones), I
question just how firstly it is and the frequency (often) is an
assertion that you offer no proof for.
ROBSON:
First in the sense that it was first on the list, not in any sense of being
the most important. Hmmm... not sure about often this applies to the
getting money for the Church part. Probably comes from the fact that every
time I
visit a church the subject of giving is raised, commonly in conjunction with
biblical quotes or whatever. On the odd occasion I've visited something more
Evangelical it's been pretty blatant (like the TV preacher "Giving only
counts when it hurts", but I haven't been to these enough to say for sure.
I'd be more impressed with "look the roof is falling in, can you help
raise some money / donate some we're really stuck etc.". The problem with any
discussion like this is it tends to be based on your experience as it isn't
possible to collect statistics on the subject, so it's easy to let bias creep
in. I suppose it would be possible to do a Psychological study of Priest's
motives, but I don't think it'll happen.
MICHAEL:
There's also no doubt that some abuse the biblical teaching on giving. :)
[later]
As if you, Till and other Atheists on this list are the only ones
that have such enormous courage. You obviously are not familiar what
it is like to preach a biblical doctrine that is not appreciated or
wanted. Nor what it is like to preach the truth knowing that it is
going to cost you your job. Re-locating your family is not as easily
done as Till has tried to portray.
ROBSON:
Hmmm... I'm not talking about you or biblical doctrine. I'm suggesting that
if you have doubts then it might be easier to quash them rather than
accept the results of non-belief - or in your example of doctrinal change not
to
come out and say "Sorry, this is what I believe , if you don't like it....."
but to keep quiet. This is just human nature.
MICHAEL:
This may be true. Due to my nature I find it hard to accept that
anyone would continue with something they no longer believe in for
whatever reason. I, like Till, would be incapable of continuing to
preach if I were to come to the conclusion that the Bible is not
true. Not saying that what you point out isn't true, simply that I
don't understand a mindset like that.
ROBSON:
I would be a lot on it being true. Isn't there an old saying along the lines
of "the best men and the worst hypocrites I have known are Priests ?"
I don't suggest that I or anyone else has an exclusive handle on courage - in
fact I don't think I'm very courageous at all. For a Christian to come on to
this list (where they are basically going to be under heavy attack) they
either need to be courageous (unless they get a kick from the battle "I did
battle with Satan today", but so far I don't get the impression you fall
into that particular box). All I point out is that priests are as humanly
fallible
as anyone else.
I'm not sure about your use of truth here. Surely your opposition (e.g. the
people who would get you sacked) would say you were preaching 'false
doctrines' 'words of satan' or whatever and they knew the 'truth'. Perhaps
you mean to say "what I believe to be the truth" or "my opinion".
MICHAEL:
As I pointed out to Farrell, they knew that what I preached was the
truth, they simple did not wish to hear it or be subjected to it.
ROBSON:
If so, I'd be interested to know what it was about. Arguments usually seem to
be about interpretations of the Bible rather than factual details... If you
were preaching about your religion, which I assume to be the case, then it is
still an opinion IMHO. But I understand why you call it "Truth" (or "truth")
I'm really on this list to learn something about Biblical (in)errancy BTW.
MICHAEL:
No, I said what I meant. :) I understand your objection to (T)ruth
from your post to Jerry. However I believe in absolute truth. I also
believe that the word of God is the Truth. (Jn. 17:17, Jn. 12:48-50).
ROBSON:
I'd say that was two different uses of the word "Truth" (as implied by the
capitalisation). If you believe in absolute truth, I've no problems with that
from a definition point of view, but I think "Truth" as in "the Bible is
True" is poor use of language and it's designed to create a mindset by use of
the word True. I would be much happier if people inserted "believe" or "in my
opinion" in these sort of sentences, but usually they don't ! [The Bible is
True => I believe that the Bible is true]
I think what "The word of God is the Truth" means "I believe (or have faith
if you prefer) that the Word of God is correct".
MICHAEL:
And your prejudice shows. You are unable to accept that just
possibly that many preachers preach for the last reason. It is much
easier for you to believe and support your unbelief by supposing that
the vast majority of preachers are frauds. There is a saying that
goes something to the tune of "People most often think of others what
they know to be true of themselves."
ROBSON:
And your prejudice shows as well. You are unable to accept that just possibly
many preachers preach partially for the reasons I give (irrespective of why
they conciously think they do it)... I think we are both being a bit hard
on each other here.
MICHAEL:
No Paul, I believe that I have stated on several occasions within
this thread that there are some that preach from motives other than
simply propagating God's word. I however simply don't be it to be
the vast majority of them.
ROBSON:
Firstly, the argument was a bit of a parody as implied by the last bit. I
agree, if you are talking about concious motives, but I don't agree on
subconcious motives... but it really comes down to quantities, this one. I
suspect I'm overly cynical about preachers and you're a bit naive about
them... which you'd kind of expect..
MICHAEL:
Till has made much of my disagreement concerning denominationalism
and the doctrines inherent within them, but let me point out that
even though I believe they teach error, I seldom question there
motives behind their preaching. The one exception (in honesty)
is that I have questions often about the motives of "charismatic" preachers.
ROBSON:
Still talking about sub/unconcious motives.. Actually, I think (hypothesis
without much evidence time) that you are probably wrong. I think charismatic
preaching types (if you remove the obvious frauds) are as conciously honest
as you or my local Vicar, though I do have my doubts about their emotional
stability (based on a very few I have seen). Even when it comes to "give till
it hurts or it doesn't really count" they really believe that is the will of
God or whatever, where as to me it seems just to be emotional blackmail to
get money.
ROBSON
Did I say 'vast majority of preachers are frauds' ? Perhaps, but I hope not.
If you believe your preaching to be honest and accurate, you aren't a fraud
if that is wrong, just mistaken - if you know you don't really believe ,
THEN
you are a fraud. Of course, the fact that you honestly believe doesn't mean
that you are correct.
MICHAEL:
It was what you seemed to at least imply. At least that is the way it came
across to me.
ROBSON:
Well some of it was a bit vague... I'd only just got up. I think I wrote in
another
post somewhere "to say that (all preachers are money grabbers) is untrue andd
insulting" - which is what I believe.
MICHAEL:
I used to watch one televangelist in amazement as each day his
lesson turned into Make a vow for a $1000.00 and pay your vow to me.
(Yes, that blatantly). I wondered how in the world people could not
see through him and would actually send him money. I forget his
name, but a few years later he was being investigated for charges of
fraud and tax evasion. Couldn't have happened to a better guy.
ROBSON:
We don't see much of these guys in the UK but there's a satellite channel
"Christian Channel Europe" (inept piece of naming as it is entirely USA
programming), which I see bits of occasionally (in the breaks in the cricket
from about the world in the morning) which I find frankly scary. There was
one guy (Kenneth something) who was intoning "now god means for some
people to go to congress and others not to...." e.g. vote for x or God'll be
upset.
This kind of stuff worries me.
MICHAEL:
No Paul I understand that some preachers are bad. And I understand
that unfortunately some people are gullible enough to be swallowed up
by them. I have often jokingly said that if I wanted to get rich all
I needed to do was preach a doctrine that was popular to people.
However what I preach is not popular, hence I will have to await my
reward. :)
ROBSON:
You hope... Out of interest, why is what you preach not popular (perhaps a
private email because it's a bit off the errancy topic ?)
I was really disappointed by the last sentence - this is straight "takes one
to know one" stuff well below the levels of the rest of your reply. This sort
of comment is just a deflective argument. Are you implying that I am a
fraud ?
MICHAEL:
My apologies. Low blow and unnecessary. Thank-you for the
backhanded compliment. Hehehe....are you by some chance a
psychologist...or in a related field?
ROBSON:
I teach kids with Special Needs (hence the email address) which involves
a fair bit of Psychology but I'm not actually a Psychologist. I got three
replies
to the original post (opposing it). I didn't agree with what you wrote but it
was
well composed. Jerry McDonald seemed to think I meant him whenever I
wrote "some preachers can...." and reacted indignantly... it may be good
for preaching but written down it just looks childish. And one guy tried to
deflect the discussion by saying he wouldn't attack Atheist leaders like the
O'Hairs (from what I've read the seem in need of some criticism)
ROBSON:
I'm new to this particular group (maybe I should have lurked for a bit
longer) but I would hope that we could discuss errancy or whatever without
resorting to attacking peoples motives or whatever.
MICHAEL:
Probably won't happen Paul. You probably well know, that people
nearly always question the motives of those they disagree with.
Almost human nature. I don't know how many times Till has answered
questions pertaining to his motives. I agree however with him that
hen answers are given concerning motives one shouldn't be called a
liar about them (as he was) unless there is evidence to the contrary
(which there wasn't). What might be avoided are the
generalizations...all atheists are...you atheist are...all
preachers...christians think....etc. in their various forms.
ROBSON:
I am in total agreement with this, but in this forum I would have expected
better. There seem to me to be good grounds for assuming that the Bible
contains errors, but I wanted to see what people who knew more about
this than me (on both sides) had to say.
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)