The Religion Thread

[Mr.B]

"Some religious headgear hides the horns."

(Image of the Pope)

Biblical Nicolaitanes ....

Nicolaism (also Nicholaism, Nicolaitism, Nicolationism, or Nicolaitanism) is a Christian heresy first mentioned (twice) in the Book of Revelation of the New Testament, whose adherents were called Nicolaitans, Nicolaitanes, or Nicolaites. According to Revelation 2:6 and 15, they were known in the cities of Ephesus and Pergamum. In this chapter, the church at Ephesus is commended for "hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate"; and the church in Pergamos is rebuked: "So hast thou also [worshiping in their midst] them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate".

The actual content of the heresy is largely unknown, although there are several conflicting theories. Some believe the heresy to include ritual prostitution and other sexual practices. Others believe the heresy to relate to an overbearing priesthood that controls the people.

Several of the early church fathers mentioned this group, including Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret. Some of those state that deacon Nicolas was the author of the heresy and the sect. Others state that the sect took its name erroneously from Nicolas and uphold the righteousness of Nicolas. Still others of the early fathers state that the name is unrelated and may be descriptive rather than eponymous. None of the writings available today appear to provide an authoritative answer.

Personally, I believe the latter, because scripture also states that we are not to refer to earthly man as "father" (in the sense of a spiritual leader).
It is/was believed that the Nicolaitans set up a 'priestly order' which is definitely Catholicism ... Pope, Cardinal, priest, Father, etc... a religious hierarchy. Jesus said.. "NO MAN cometh unto the Father but by Me". Sorry, Mr. Pope, cardinal, whatever.

[neoplacebo]

But only the make believe, watered down, mythical Adam Smith Jesus, not the real Adam Smith Jesus, because the real Adam Smith Jesus explained to us the necessity of _____, and we know that's blasphemous to the Republican religion. So instead we hail the made up commom-mans Adam Smith Jesus of day time talk radio and cable news.

Funny how smoothly that works.

Supply side jesus

Let's not forget trickle down Jesus either.

[Vrede too]

Supply side jesus

Let's not forget trickle down Jesus either.

Shady Pastor to Pray With Trump at Inauguration
Paula White has spent her life taking money from gullible people in the name of religion. And thanks to Trump, she’ll be taking her road show to the inauguration.

[bannination]

Shady pastor? As opposed to non-shady pastors? Does such a thing exist?

[Vrede too]

Yes, lots.

[bannination]

Yes, lots.

I've known one or two, but at that point they weren't pastors anymore, couldn't live with the guilt of lying to people. Had the utmost respect for them because their lives got turned upside down when they gave up livelihood they were depending on.

Note: Not saying all pastors are lying. Some of them think they're spreading truth. Most find out that it's a complete scam if they attend any amount of schooling before or while being a pastor.

[rstrong]

Paula White is "shady" in the sense that Bernie Madoff is "shady."

Or of course, in the sense that Trump University was shady. What a perfect match.

[O Really]

I think any pastor who claims to have a greater access to God than anyone else is probably a scam. I think any pastor who claims to be able to ask and receive favors from God, and particularly if they prey on people desperate for some help is worse than a scam. But there are a lot of pastors who attempt to teach and lead their congregation in ways to a better life and a better person who are OK in my book. Problem is, most of those are people you never hear about. So it's also maybe a good rule of thumb that if the pastor is in the news, s/he's probably a scam.

[rstrong]

It'll certainly shine an unflattering light on America's religious right.

This following Mike Huckabee, who financed his campaign by peddling outright medical scams. Before protecting the sanctity of traditional bigotry by demanding a theocracy ruled by an obscure sect and declaring a woman who had a child by her eventual 4th husband while still married to her 2nd husband to be the protector of family values.

At least they're no worse than the previous generation of religious right, like Pat Robertson, "feminists and lesbians caused 9/11" Jerry Falwell and Jim & Tammy-Faye Bakker.

[Vrede too]

I've known bunches of hospital chaplains and radical activist pastors that I wouldn't consider shady. Then, there are ones like MLK, Jr., Martin Niemöller, the liberation theologians and the Abolitionists. They and other non-lefty pastors may be wrong about god's existence, but I think most of them are sincere in their beliefs.

[O Really]

"Sincere in their beliefs" is a nice way of saying "stubbornly pigheaded despite any conflicting evidence." But I don't care what anybody believes - I care about how that belief affects their impact on others. Some of those you mentioned had deeply held religious beliefs, but they didn't go around saying they had healing powers or that anyone who had different beliefs was going to Hell. They also don't have fund-raising or maintaining membership or controlling congregations' behaviour as a primary activity, either.

[Vrede too]

Agreed. I just think that "stubbornly pigheaded despite any conflicting evidence" can be different from "shady", but maybe banni and I are ascribing different definitions to "shady".

[O Really]

A person who says, "do what I say and I can promise you eternal life on streets of gold" is shady to say the least.

[Vrede too]

Depends.
Many don't focus on the "I". They believe that god has made the rules and promise.
Many wouldn't describe heaven and its attributes with the materialistic "streets of gold".
I generally think of shady as involving some personal gain from the shadiness.

Many certainly do these things, but not all.

The dictionary helps some, but not entirely. The most relevant definition is, "of dubious character; rather disreputable". Do these descriptors apply to people that are just in error? If one flubs a fact are they lacking in character and are they "disreputable"?

disreputable

"not reputable; having a bad reputation"
Among who and how many decide?

"discreditable; dishonorable"
Being wrong is a lack of credit, but not necessarily a matter of honor.

"shabby or shoddy; of poor quality or condition"
That one does work for we atheists that believe the facts are wrong.

[O Really]

Depends.
Many don't focus on the "I". They believe that god has made the promise.
Many wouldn't describe heaven and its attributes with the materialistic "streets of gold".
.

Maybe not "I" say, but almost always "what I say God says." And even without "streets of gold" reference, Heaven is frequently referred to as a place where dead people "go" and hang around with their families and friends. "He's in a better place." "Debbie is with Carrie." "Your grandmother watched from above when you scored that touchdown." I think that exceeds just "being wrong."

I don't usually argue from the standpoint that God doesn't exist, nor that there is no life after life. I usually am happy to start with "God is an all-powerful entity that created the universe(s) and causes all effects. I'm happy to agree that "life" like the electricity that makes a bulb burn may continue in a different form after it's body is no longer functional, like a burned out bulb. But you can't claim there are physical attributes to a non-physical entity. You can't claim bad people burn in a fire and brimstone Hell. Burning only works in a physical world. You can't claim that the all-powerful entity that created the universe(s) cares whether Alabama beats the Huskies. I think those types of contentions exceed "being wrong."

[Vrede too]

It all comes down to how expansive the definition of "shady" is. Say there is a god and some form of heaven (not all religions have a hell), not that I'm an agnostic - are banni and I "shady" for having screwed up? You're a lawyer, so you're shady regardless.

[O Really]

Maybe the shady part is attached to the person as an individual, regardless of belief (or occupation). I'm reminded of astrologers and psychologists. Both hold theories about personality and behaviour; they try to influence others with their beliefs; and try to profit off their knowledge/services. Undoubtedly, some psychologists and astrologers are shady; some are not. Probably those who are shady would also be shady if they were pastors or accountants. But probably some occupations are more attractive to shady people, too.

[Vrede too]

Some walls are good things:

[rstrong]

Godless Parents Are Doing a Better Job

[Vrede too]

... And the countries with the lowest crime and highest reports of well-being (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Belgium and New Zealand)? They are the ones with the lowest religious engagement.

That said, Christians make a mean potluck, and they can organize a blood drive like nobody's business. In spite of the research against their character, criminality, and ability to reason through a complex idea, I would still totally let my kid be friends with one. Isn't that how that whole open-mindedness thing works?

We need the religious in order to better appreciate what right living looks like. It's personal, self-excusing and introspective experience that they believe in the Devil and we don't.