John Uskglass said:
He does not exist, just made up the name as an example.
But it still stands: I'd trust a man of the Cloth rather then a Celebrity in terms of politics any day, for the simple reason that one requires education and a certain amount of connection with the real world.
Then you are a fool, because that "man of the cloth" is nothing but a con man that uses popularity to get money. So does the celebrity. The bottom line is: you and millions of others are too naive to see that BOTH are actors, only that one doesn't dishonestly portray his roles. Can you figure out which one that is?
I would also trust the celebrity more, depending upon whom they are, as many celebrities have to get popular from their own work. That is something many celebrities and EVERY evangelist is fraudulent at, in using someone else's popularity as a crutch to make money.
So, then you would trust a fraudulent actor, over the actor that might just be a cabbage. Sheep to a shepherd...
The difference is, one of the above has use to this world as entertainment for homosexuals,
So does that make Unitarian churches the worst of both worlds?
Only if Streisand is performing the mass.
while the other makes cash off of abusing the teachings of the Bible, as does EVERY evangelist.
To be fair, the only word I disagree with in that sentence is 'every', but I still don't see why they are worse then celebrities.
Celebrities, while they may have ego, don't defraud the people who are following them. People expect the celebrity to play roles, be in the spotlight, yadda yadda yadda. They don't expect the guy on TV preaching God to be taking their money and abusing it.
The fact is, there is no purpose for evangelism, PERIOD. Local churches can work in a church structure with others in their structure if they are affiliated, and if a local church wants to work with a charity - it is up to their clergy and their people. A nation-wide minister is not in it for spreading the word of God, he's in it for spreading his face around. Just try to show me a humble televangelist. None? Thank you, as none of them follow the teachings they use to berate others to make money off of the word of God.
Again, both the evangelist and the actor are both acting to get your money, but only one is doing it for fraudulent reasons.
They rouse people into giving them cash over denigrating others and for feeling good along with the other sheep in the congregation, but they really don't see what their money is truly going to.
No, they don't, and I largely agree, even if I do think some evangelists occasionally do do good.
Like what? Denigrate one set of people while using a tragedy as an excuse to leech off more money? Then use a portion of that money to use it as a photo op?
Yeah, they preserved literacy and heritage, by putting it solely in the church and king's hands.
Do Frankish peasants just magically become literate without the blah blah blah...
This was already debunked, but I have to add the irony that millions of Americans apparently rely on having someone else read the bible to them, as they are incapable of reading and understanding it themselves.
No, they purposefully kept the people ignorant because it served their needs and the needs of the king, and you can't quite get everyone's attention and control over them when there are people bright enough to figure out the plot holes in the bible, or for that matter, how the then current incarnation of the church or the "God-appointed ruler" was not following the teachings of Christ in any form whatsoever.
Congratulation! Wow, you should really tell the world this stuff! Why don't you nail your Theses to the door of Castle Church!
This is common knowledge for anyone who is familiar with REAL medieval study outside of LARPS and what little popular myth the common person knows. Sorry if it comes as a shock to you.
Stability is required for growth, and growth through that time lead to the modern age. Many people tried alternatives to the Feudal system, such as Wat Tyler, Angelo da Clareno, the Bogomils, the Cathars, but they fucked up. Medieval society evolved on it's own, and the Church did prove to be a source of stability during that age.
Yeah, especially for England. And Spain.
Such stability as putting those who are strange or in the way of a religious leader's ambitions on trial and burning them for being a witch. Such stability that led to people leaving countries to float over an ocean because of religious persecution.
Look, guys, you may think this all sounds cute and funny, and that in spite of every lesson of the post-1789 world that religion is somehow not essential to society or is some kind of moneymaking scheme, but this is not going to happen, and you will all have to get past that.
You will have to do quite a bit better than that, since every lesson since the fucking Crusades has proven that religions are usually little but differently-colored pock marks on the world's ass. It has been scholars, not priests, that have moved this world forward, because the educated are intelligent and wise enough to look beyond the dogma, and are bright enough to imagine themselves behind someone else's eyes. The religions with people who wisely follow what is taught (what a concept, something that Christianity has NEVER been capable of since Jesus) are founded and upheld by people who are more legitimately scholars as well. About the best any part of the Christian church could come to higher thinking would be Creationism, and that is just more church dogma to bicker over while they don't bother to follow their own scripture.
So if they can't follow their own teachings and are going to be a church in name only, to make money, then they are a fucking business. That is it.
