Saturday, January 01, 2011

Difference Between Religious Leader And Nut

Whether religious people want to admit it or not (and many do not), there is absolutely no evidence that a god (or many gods) exists, or has ever existed.   To believe in any religion, one must take a leap into the unknown and unproven (or just accept what someone else says).   So how is one to know when a purported religious leader is expressing the will of a god instead of just exhibiting delusional behavior.

Some say it can be determined by whether they follow the words of a religious book (Bible, Quran, Torah, etc.).   But there are several problems with that.   First, there are many of these books, and all are claimed to be the word of "god".   Second, each of these books can be read and understood in a myriad of ways.   A perfect example of this is the many hundreds of christian sects, each of whom claims to be following the Bible.   Obviously, "following the book" does not separate a religious leader from a nut, since both claim to be following the same book.

Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Religious News Service has written an article on this, and I think she has found a bit of truth.   Here is some of what she had to say:


A teenager says God and Jesus appeared to him in a grove and told him to start a new Christian church. Another person claims the Almighty talks to him through the radio.

A French girl gets messages from heaven to lead an army against the British, while a Utah woman thinks she is meant to have Jesus’ baby and 12 husbands.

Some of these figures were considered prophets and saints, while others were judged insane. The question is: How do you tell which is which?

Brian David Mitchell, convicted Friday (Dec. 10) of kidnapping and raping Elizabeth Smart, insisted that God gave him license to do so, though his attorneys argued he was mentally ill.

The main difference between a prophet and a psychopath, says Ralph Hood, who teaches psychology of religion at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga, is “whether or not (they) can get followers.”
Historic figures who started new religious movements—including Martin Luther (the Reformation), Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Ellen White (Seventh-day Adventism), Jim Jones (People’s Temple) and David Koresh (Branch Davidians)—were viewed by outsiders as delusional.

But followers, ranging from the millions to the hundreds, found each of them to be credible guides to divinity.


That's the difference in a nutshell.   A religious leader is someone who can convince at least a few others to follow him/her -- regardless of whether what they are saying makes any sense or not.   And anyone who can't attract even a pitiful following is a nut.

That's a pretty pathetic definition of who is a religious leader, but without proof that there is even a god, that's all there is.   In fact, that's all there can be.   The only question left is how many followers does it take to make a religious leader (and can't even millions be fooled)?

1 comment:

  1. The Goddess says all them religious nuts are just that religious nuts.she thinks everyone should go back to the old religion where all you needed to do to prove your love to her was send her some flowers and be good.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.