Godless tribes, do they exist?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

I believe that this is Gene Scott in this undated video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cc6qRfZ3Q

Question -- to you, does this sound like a well-balanced guy?

My word. Is that really him Robin, or are you takin the pee?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Is that really him Robin, or are you takin the pee?

Me take the pee? Never!

But seriously, I think that's him. I checked out a couple of other videos on youtube and it seems to be the same chap. Might be wrong, but I don't think so.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Me take the pee? Never!

But seriously, I think that's him. I checked out a couple of other videos on youtube and it seems to be the same chap. Might be wrong, but I don't think so.

Oh dear! Doesn't seem like a pleasant guy from that vid, but maybe thats out of chrachter. I don't know. I never heard of him till SW brought him up, so I can't say.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

My word. Is that really him Robin, or are you takin the pee?

Robin is not taking the pee. That video is classic Gene Scott.

I've expressed my view on this guy before, and Soul Winner got quite offended by my doing so.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Robin is not taking the pee. That video is classic Gene Scott.

I've expressed my view on this guy before, and Soul Winner got quite offended by my doing so.

Thanks PDN. Do you mind me asking what your opinion is on this guy? I must have missed it. Is he an evangelising money making machine? Thats what he seems to be peeved at in the video. It seems someone called him up on it.

EDIT: Actually just watched it again, the guy is a muppet! I enjoyed some of the postings SW put up quoting him, but I'd certainly not try associate myself with him. I get the impression that he's avery arrogant man, with a hugely inflated ego.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Moses was not on a par with Jesus, he was on a par with the apostles. They were representing God, and testifying about him.

You make a good point, but it doesn't really solve the issue, it just means that what Mose wrote isn't as authoritative as I had made out. It makes the Old Testament less authoritative, rather than the New Testament more authoritative.

At the end of the day your point, if I understood correctly, was that people should have checked what the Pharisee (ie the religion) had been saying and doing with the source of the authority they claimed to represent, ie what God actually wanted. Trusting the religion is dangerous, because they are human and can misrepresent the authority they claim to speak for.

The problem is that unless God/Jesus actually writes something down or speaks directly to you, this isn't really possible to a literal degree.

At some point you will always be putting your faith in the religion itself, ie the people who are claiming that what they say or write is the doctrine of the authority they claim to represent. It just comes down to what part you choose to trust. This holds for Moses, the Pharisee, the Apostles, the Pope, who ever. Do you trust the Pope but not your local priest, do you trust the Apostles but not the Pope, do you trust the Pharisee but not the Old Testament (or vice versa).

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

I believe that this is Gene Scott in this undated video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cc6qRfZ3Q

Question -- to you, does this sound like a well-balanced guy?

I really don't know what to say.

MrP

jill_valentine

Ah, Gene Scott.

Had a brief flare of cult notoriety when The Arcade Fire started incorporating that video into their live show. You haven't lived until you've seen his fifteen foot wide face bellowing down from a stage at you about Ors'tralia...

They still have the video up on the Neon Bible website somewhere, along with some other gems, the lady telling you to go have a Holy Ghost enema being my favourite, the little girl yelling about fidelity being the most depressing.

Anyway, I would say that yes, disillusionment with the wider Church was probably a factor in me eventually waking up atheist, but it wasn't the whole reason.

I find it quite hard to wrap my head around somebody rejecting the church, but retaining the same religious structure. Somebody with a more vague idea of a god, I can understand, but... weird.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

I believe that this is Gene Scott in this undated video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cc6qRfZ3Q

Question -- to you, does this sound like a well-balanced guy?

Balanced? It's brilliant Just like when Jesus snapped in the Temple or when Moses snapped and killed 3000 people when he came down from the mount. Pity they bleeped it so much. Since when is dumb fundamentalist a swear word? I'd love to hear it again without the bleeps. Class straight talkin. I’d have that sort of approach over all the grinning imbecile sorry excuses for Christian preachers we have today, any day of the week. Thanks for sharing it.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Balanced? It's brilliant Just like when Jesus snapped in the Temple or when Moses snapped and killed 3000 people when he came down from the mount. Pity they bleeped it so much. Since when is dumb fundamentalist a swear word? I'd love to hear it again without the bleeps. Class straight talkin. I’d have that sort of approach over all the grinning imbecile sorry excuses for Christian preachers we have today, any day of the week. Thanks for sharing it.

You've got to be kidding man. Comparing this to Christ in the temple is just plain wrong! If christ rode in on a steed in full cowbot gettup, chewin 'tabacca', firing pistols in the air and swearing like goodo, maybe. Seriously, I like the points he made in what you posted, but you really can't defend this behaviour as Christ like. Seriously, do you think its ok? I mean, I kept thinking Macho Man Randy Savage was gonna hit him with a chair or something. I'm flabbergasted you're defending him, and drawing comparrisons with Christ and Moses.

jill_valentine

Hmm, went to upload the classic "FCC Monkey Band" bit of Scott's for ye, but it got killed by Youtube for terms of use violation, apparently Melissa Scott - porn star turned evangelist, natch - has copyright claims flying all over the place. Shame, it's hilarious.

It might still be on the Neon Bible website, but it'd be well hidden.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

You've got to be kidding man. Comparing this to Christ in the temple is just plain wrong! If christ rode in on a steed in full cowbot gettup, chewin 'tabacca', firing pistols in the air and swearing like goodo, maybe. Seriously, I like the points he made in what you posted, but you really can't defend this behaviour as Christ like. Seriously, do you think its ok? I mean, I kept thinking Macho Man Randy Savage was gonna hit him with a chair or something. I'm flabbergasted you're defending him, and drawing comparrisons with Christ and Moses.

Well what's wrong with his behaviour Jimmy? He's angry about somehting obviously. He's venting it. Where's the sin?

Zombrex

He certainly passionate about raising money, reminds me of Sir Bob :pac:

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

reminds me of Sir Bob :pac:

Phone wreckers are idiots.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well what's wrong with his behaviour Jimmy? He's angry about somehting obviously. He's venting it. Where's the sin?

He's calling people morons. He's inflating his credentials, saying he's so smart. There seems to be a serious lack of humility. Now I'm not one for false meekness, or 'religious meekness', i like upfront honesty. I also have nothing against being firm. I think he's exercised a serious lack of self control, he's used bad language, he said 'and God talks about money more than me', I mean whats the context for that? He gloats, 'I know 'cussin' and I'm good at it, but I wasn't cussin'. He clearly was. Seriously, the whole piece, you really compare it to Jesus?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

He certainly passionate about raising money, reminds me of Sir Bob

It's like everything else, put in its proper context the clip would have made sense I'm sure. I watched him teach for years and I know first hand that anytime he got angry you can bet your life it was duly warranted. On face value alone of course he looks a bit looney. You can make anyone look looney when you only show them ranting and not also give the proper context as to what they are ranting about. I'm sure many people thaught Jesus was looney when he cleared the temple? I came home one day to hear my Dad screaming at my brother. It sounded pretty bad and I thought he was going a bit OTT, but when I heard what my brother did, only then did I began to understand my Dad's rage. Same in this case. If your are going to show someone ranting like this and draw conclusions about them based on that then at least show the context of their rant also so that you can make a more informed decision on the matter. When one listens to it again you will notice that he is telling people not to send in money more than anything else.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

It's like everything else, put in its proper context the clip would have made sense I'm sure. I watched him teach for years and I know first hand that anytime he got angry you can bet your life it was duly warranted. On face value alone of course he looks a bit looney. You can make anyone look looney when you only show them ranting and not also give the proper context as to what they are ranting about. I'm sure many people thaught Jesus was looney when he cleared the temple? I came home one day to hear my Dad screaming at my brother. It sounded pretty bad and I thought he was going a bit OTT, but when I heard what my brother did, only then did I began to understand my Dad's rage. Same in this case. If your are going to show someone ranting like this and draw conclusions about them based on that then at least show the context of their rant also so that you can make a more informed decision on the matter. When one listens to it again you will notice that he is telling people not to send in money more than anything else.

All of us lose our temper and rant occasionally. That does not mean we are unbalanced.

However, if I paid somebody to film me ranting and losing my temper, and then also paid a lot more money to have my ranting aired on television, then I think you could accuse me of being unbalanced.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

All of us lose our temper and rant occasionally. That does not mean we are unbalanced.

However, if I paid somebody to film me ranting and losing my temper, and then also paid a lot more money to have my ranting aired on television, then I think you could accuse me of being unbalanced.

Well that is not what happened. He hosted a Live broadcast. Everything went out on that broadcast including many years of Christian Teaching mostly Live. Occasionally one looses one's temper especially when one is being accused of all sorts of things like taking people's hard earned. He was reacting to that. Wouldn't you? I don't think it was a premeditated rant to be recorded and bragged about. I watched him for years and have yet to see that particular piece being aired or re-aired on the broadcast. I only got to see that from YouTube. So if it was a premeditated rant that one wanted to broadcast why not keep re-broadcasting it more often?

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well that is not what happened. He hosted a Live broadcast. Everything went out on that broadcast including many years of Christian Teaching mostly Live. Occasionally one looses one's temper especially when one is being accused of all sorts of things like taking people's hard earned. He was reacting to that. Wouldn't you? I don't think it was a premeditated rant to be recorded and bragged about. I watched him for years and have yet to see that particular piece being aired or re-aired on the broadcast. I only got to see that from YouTube. So if it was a premeditated rant that one wanted to broadcast why not keep re-broadcasting it more often?

I wont get into the assumptions on why he aired it. However, using the language he did, loosing the rag as he did, being puffed up on his own intelligence etc, it wasn't very becoming behaviour. It seems like he was accused of getting folk to part with cash. He says in the video that he says not to give him any cash unless he has thought you, I don't recall Christ selling the good news? He also seeks €250,000 at the end of the rant. All in all, Christ in the temple was against turning the temple into a business venture. Gene Scott seems to be the one on the venture on this occasion. There is no comparrison. If this is a moment of weakness for the man, fair enough, I've been alot worse, as have many folk. However, if this is, as PDN put it, 'typical Gene Scott', then I would have to say I'd be dubious. One can get a point across firmly and honestly without being hysterical.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

He's calling people morons. He's inflating his credentials, saying he's so smart. There seems to be a serious lack of humility. Now I'm not one for false meekness, or 'religious meekness', i like upfront honesty. I also have nothing against being firm. I think he's exercised a serious lack of self control, he's used bad language, he said 'and God talks about money more than me', I mean whats the context for that? He gloats, 'I know 'cussin' and I'm good at it, but I wasn't cussin'. He clearly was. Seriously, the whole piece, you really compare it to Jesus?

If it wasn't bleeped so much we would be able to hear what he is saying. Citing his credentials was simply to show people that he doesn't have to do what he is doing. He was qualified to take a top job at any university in the world and he would have been snapped up. He chose rather to proclaim Gods Word to an on looking critical world. Who else do you know that taught God’s Word 24X7365 around the world? He was not out there simply to get money out of people. He had thought people for years about the importance of giving in God's Word. The money that was being raised was to be raised by people who were taught in this way, not by outsiders, only by people who not only had been taught by him but by those who made commitments to jointly participate in this particular work of the ministry. Now when someone outside who knows nothing about giving or about why it is important to God writes in and starts criticizing the effort being made by those who do understand it then of course they are morons. What else would you call them? Great thinkers? The world loves money Jimmy and will always criticise men of God for getting any. That is all that happened here and Dr Scott was reacting to it. Now listen to the clip again with that in mind and tell me he is unbalanced.

If you want to know more about why Giving is important to God then I will be more than happy to go through much scripture and point it out to you. The thing that's wrong with the Church these days is that it is on the defensive about money. It shouldn’t be. Giving is an act of worship not a necessary evil, like I said I can give you chapter and verse and show you. If you think you are a Christian and are not Giving to God properly then you are deluding yourself. God is a giver, He gave His Son, the Son gave His life, the Spirit gives life regenerated, so to have that spirit in you will make you a giver. Those without this spirit in them are no more God’s people than a jack rabbit procreating. The reason that you don’t hear much teaching on giving in the New Testament is because they gave everything they had. They expected Jesus to come in their lifetimes so they lived communally and everything went into the pot and everyone lived off it. The Old Testament is full of his people giving offering for all kinds of reasons.

Men love darkness Jimmy more than light because their deeds are evil. Dr Scott was many things, but a man pleaser he was not as is evident from that piece. As Paul says “If I yet please men I should not be the servant of Christ.” His whole rant was related to the misunderstanding of the importance of giving in God’s Word by an ignoramus who decided to criticize Dr Scott for talking about it.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it wasn't bleeped so much we would be able to hear what he is saying.

we get a fair idea. We see his lips move.

Citing his credentials was simply to show people that he doesn't have to do what he is doing.

Not when he says, 'i'll pay your way if you want to pit yourself against me'. He comes across as an egomaniac rather than a loving teacher. Also, if he's offerring to pay the way of someone in Australia, how is he funding it? Does he have a day job too? or is his wages, the donations from his congregation?

He was qualified to take a top job at any university in the world and he would have been snapped up. He chose rather to proclaim Gods Word to an on looking critical world.

If that was his motivation, then fine. However, sitting there smoking a fat cigar with the cowboy hat and the Delorean sunglasses, he doesn't seem very modest etc. With the amount of charlatan preachers out there too, one could be forgiven for looking at this guy who looks like an extra from Dallas, and thinking he 'may' be in it for the money.

Who else do you know that taught God’s Word 24X7365 around the world?

Well I know Jehovahs Witnesses who spend their lives in service to their Religion. They get a very tiny amount of money from the religion, not enough to live on. They rely on the kindness of others mostly. They are out daily, putting themselves in the firing line, getting abuse etc. So do you want to defend JW's?

He was not out there simply to get money out of people. He had thought people for years about the importance of giving in God's Word. The money that was being raised was to be raised by people who were taught in this way, not by outsiders, only by people who not only had been taught by him but by those who made commitments to jointly participate in this particular work of the ministry.

And where did the money go? I've no issue with donations. None at all. I do have issue with people being coaxed into giving on the basis that its Godly, if the cash is just paddingt some guys lifestyle. I'm not saying that this is what Scott does, but many do. So why should I give him the benefit of the doubt?

Now when someone outside who knows nothing about giving or about why it is important to God writes in and starts criticizing the effort being made by those who do understand it then of course they are morons.

Again, an arguement that can be used in defence of any charlatan also.

What else would you call them? Great thinkers?

You could, instead of ranting, explain what its all about. Where the money goes etc. Scott should understand the amount of charlatans out there, and maybe put peoples fear to rest, rather than getting hysterical about it.

The world loves money Jimmy and will always criticise men of God for getting any. That is all that happened here and Dr Scott was reacting to it. Now listen to the clip again with that in mind and tell me he is unbalanced.

I never said he was 'unbalanced'. I said he seemed unpleasent.

If you want to know more about why Giving is important to God then I will be more than happy to go through much scripture and point it out to you.

SW, do you think I need to know about giving? Do you think I have an issue with people giving? Do you think I'm saying its wrong to give? I know the book of Acts. Look at what happened to Ananias and Saphira when they held back the 10%.

The thing that's wrong with the Church these days is that it is on the defensive about money.

Ask yourself why? An example might be the lavishness of the churches, clothing, jewelery etc. The amount of charlatans getting vulnerable folk to part with cash. All these abuses, will no doubt lead to folk saying 'hang on a minute'.

It shouldn’t be. Giving is an act of worship not a necessary evil, like I said I can give you chapter and verse and show you.

As I said, do you really think I have an issue with giving?

Men love darkness Jimmy more than light because their deeds are evil. Dr Scott was many things, but a man pleaser he was not as is evident from that piece. As Paul says “If I yet please men I should not be the servant of Christ.” His whole rant was related to the misunderstanding of the importance of giving in God’s Word by an ignoramus who decided to criticize Dr Scott for talking about it.

So you know the content of the letter he recieved? You also know where the donated money went? Also, even if you do know, his behaviour was not very becoming. It really is as simple as that. Its hardly being the lamp from which the light shines is it?

TBH, I don't want to shoot this guy down. He may be a good christian man. Peter had moments etc. Does that mean he should be ignored? Of course not. We are all men. If this behaviour though, is typical of the guy, I wouldn't be too pushed on associating myself with him. He comes across as puffed up with knowledge, than built up with love.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You make a good point, but it doesn't really solve the issue, it just means that what Mose wrote isn't as authoritative as I had made out. It makes the Old Testament less authoritative, rather than the New Testament more authoritative.

Well neither are authoritive to you, so nothing changes, and both are authoritive to me, so nothing changes. It really comes down to why people believe them to be authoritive.

At the end of the day your point, if I understood correctly, was that people should have checked what the Pharisee (ie the religion) had been saying and doing with the source of the authority they claimed to represent, ie what God actually wanted. Trusting the religion is dangerous, because they are human and can misrepresent the authority they claim to speak for.

We are all human, and we can all be in error. Ones own honesty, and the condition of ones own heart and concience is whats important. I would say, everyone should be responsible for themselves. Just because a 'man of the cloth', teaches something, don't consider it truth. It must be in line with Gods revealed truth.

The problem is that unless God/Jesus actually writes something down or speaks directly to you, this isn't really possible to a literal degree.

Again, it is about faith, i.e. Trust, and belief. Its about establishing if God was with the men of the bible. If one comes to conclude that he was, then one can put faith in its authority. If one concludes it was written by men on their own agenda, then one would certainly not put faith in its authority.

At some point you will always be putting your faith in the religion itself, ie the people who are claiming that what they say or write is the doctrine of the authority they claim to represent. It just comes down to what part you choose to trust. This holds for Moses, the Pharisee, the Apostles, the Pope, who ever. Do you trust the Pope but not your local priest, do you trust the Apostles but not the Pope, do you trust the Pharisee but not the Old Testament (or vice versa).

I agree, though I'm always uncomfortable with the term 'religion'. Add to the list above Mohammad etc. It does come down to 'who can I trust?' Unlike most christians I stop short of calling the bible 'The word of God'. I think thats a title reserved for Christ. I think it is certainly written by spirit inspired authors. One of the biggest 'proofs':) for me as to its divinity is fulfilled prophecy, such as the coming of Christ and the death of Christ. Daniels world power prophecies, and the prophecy of Jeruselems destrucion. Another 'proof' for me would be the nature of God descibed in the bible matching my observations of the world. If God exists, he wants us to be happy. (I don't want to get into an arguement about this btw, so don't even try:)) I'm just informing you of a few reasons as to why 'I' trust the authority of the bible authors but not of lets say, the pope.

jill_valentine

Aha. Photobucket came to the rescue.

The good Pastor about the FCC after they got cranky at him, from the Neon Bible website.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm just informing you of a few reasons as to why 'I' trust the authority of the bible authors but not of lets say, the pope.

That is fine, my point was simply that other people have reasons they consider perfectly valid to trust the Pope, or the Phariees, or Muhammad etc.

The idea that someone can dismiss "religion" and simply turn back to the New Testament as the source of what God was actually saying is misguided because the New Testament was as much a product of religion as a Papal decree or the Qu'ran or something Fred Phelps publishes on his web site.

It comes down to simply which religion you choose to follow.

As you say yourself it is about trust, which humans do you trust to be accurately represent God/Jesus. And ultimately that is what a religion is, it is a group of humans claiming to represent a supernatural authority, and the people who follow them.

The New Testament is as part of that as anything else because it was written by men. Men claiming to represent God. Men you may very well believe were directly inspired by God. But men none the less.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

That is fine, my point was simply that other people have reasons they consider perfectly valid to trust the Pope, or the Phariees, or Muhammad etc.

Indeed they do. Its up to each person to do their homework. If they come to conclude Mohammad was a true prophet, then thats their choice. If They believe the pope is Gods infallible messanger on earth, fair enough. If ones concience is ok with such conclusions, fair enough. I understand that all people think their beliefs and opinions are valid. You do, I do, everyone. If we didn't, we wouldn't believe what we do. We make choices, we base our trusts on certain things etc. We can be misguided, brainwashed, indoctrinated etc etc. However, someone has it right, or we all have it wrong.

The idea that someone can dismiss "religion" and simply turn back to the New Testament as the source of what God was actually saying is misguided because the New Testament was as much a product of religion as a Papal decree or the Qu'ran or something Fred Phelps publishes on his web site.

It comes down to simply which religion you choose to follow.

But was it a 'product of religion'? Or was it a collection of testimonies out of which religions were formed?

As you say yourself it is about trust, which humans do you trust to be accurately represent God/Jesus. And ultimately that is what a religion is, it is a group of humans claiming to represent a supernatural authority, and the people who follow them.

Again, the new testament are testimonies of the life, death and message of a man named Yeshua. Its up to a person to find out if the message is trustworthy or not. Just like its up to the individual to find out if Mohammads testimony was true or not. Or the Hindu prophets etc etc. So yes, it is about filtering the truth from the lies and deceptions, and working out who to trust.

The New Testament is as part of that as anything else because it was written by men. Men claiming to represent God. Men you may very well believe were directly inspired by God. But men none the less.

Absolutely. They were men. So its up to us to find out if we think they were trustworthy men.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

However, someone has it right, or we all have it wrong.

Well I imagine you can guess which of those I believe :pac:

JimiTime wrote: »

But was it a 'product of religion'? Or was it a collection of testimonies out of which religions were formed?

It was a product of a religion, though that can include a collection of testimonies. Again that is what a religion is, humans asserting knowledge of what the supernatural authority is and what it wants. In the case of the New Testament you have both testimonies and the act of collecting and recording those testimonies. It is a pretty good example of what a religion is.

They don't have to be lying for it to be a religion

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I imagine you can guess which of those I believe :pac:

Indeed:)

It was a product of a religion, though that can include a collection of testimonies. Again that is what a religion is, humans asserting knowledge of what the supernatural authority is and what it wants. In the case of the New Testament you have both testimonies and the act of collecting and recording those testimonies. It is a pretty good example of what a religion is.

They don't have to be lying for it to be a religion

Well if we simply say religion is a belief in the supernatural, i accept. However, religion has redefined itself negatively over the years IMO. Its like the term 'fundamentalist'. In the strictist view of the word, I would have no problem saying I'm a Christian fundamentalist. However, because of what the term represents to people these days I'd avoid it. Its a derogatory term these days.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well if we simply say religion is a belief in the supernatural, i accept.

No, religion (to my mind at least) is a group of humans (dead or alive) putting forward a representation the supernatural that they say is true or accurate, often calling on the authority of a higher power.

You didn't make up Christianity yourself. Neither did God/Jesus directly communicate to you the doctrine of how he wants you to live. You read about it, in books written by other people. You read about Jesus in books written by other people. You read about what God wants you to do and how he wants you to act and how he wants you to live in books written by other people.

You are following what another humans have claimed to be the "true" supernatural belief. That is basically religion, groups of humans following the same organised set of supernatural beliefs.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, religion has redefined itself negatively over the years IMO.

Well the problem is that religion has incredible power to manipulate, and this can be used to terrible ends. To me that applies as much to something like the New Testament as to anything else.

All religions are basically humans claiming to speak for a supernatural authority, and using that authority by-proxy as authority for what they are saying.

The Old and New Testament is basically a group of men writing down the commandments of God, using the authority of God in what they write. Of course a lot of people, including yourself, actually believe they have that authority. And that is where the problem comes from because such belief allows someone to be easily manipulated.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No, religion (to my mind at least) is a group of humans (dead or alive) putting forward a representation the supernatural that they say is true or accurate, often calling on the authority of a higher power.

You didn't make up Christianity yourself. Neither did God/Jesus directly communicate to you the doctrine of how he wants you to live. You read about it, in books written by other people. You read about Jesus in books written by other people. You read about what God wants you to do and how he wants you to act and how he wants you to live in books written by other people.

You are following what another humans have claimed to be the "true" supernatural belief. That is basically religion, groups of humans following the same organised set of supernatural beliefs.

Without going to deep, yeah I would accept the above to apply to myself.

Well the problem is that religion has incredible power to manipulate, and this can be used to terrible ends. To me that applies as much to something like the New Testament as to anything else.

I agree. Like the abuse of any power or knowledge.

All religions are basically humans claiming to speak for a supernatural authority, and using that authority by-proxy as authority for what they are saying.

Again without delving too deep, I can accept that. As I mentioned earlier, its up to the individual to do their homework.

The Old and New Testament is basically a group of men writing down the commandments of God, using the authority of God in what they write. Of course a lot of people, including yourself, actually believe they have that authority. And that is where the problem comes from because such belief allows someone to be easily manipulated.

Apart from the coment about the bible being 'the commandments of God', as its a hell of alot more than that, I'd also agree with the above. I think history, and events of today show how people have and are being manipulated by religious orders. I'd be a fool to deny it.