It is so obvious to me that religion, whether or not it is based upon any sort of objective reality, must at least be of some benefit to have continued for all of recorded human history -- and in every human culture. Thus, or course, we get to ask the question every detective must eventually answer - "Cui bono? Who benefits?"

Now, this actually should be looked at in a way our religious societies mostly ignore. That is, there are -- who would have guessed - essentially two sides to this "product" called religion. The producers (priests, ministers, shamans and even popes) and the consumers (congregations and individual believers).

Two sides - two quite different ways to benefit. How does the priest or shaman benefit by providing "God" to the flock? How do believers benefit by acceptance? And are these mutually beneficial positions, or does one side win at the expense of the other?

I think one of the major problems is that so many producers get quite fabulously rich (okay, in the mainstream churches, they just eat well), by providing an intangible -- probably undemonstratable -- "service" for cash or tangible benefits (and there's often lots and lots of cash!).

After all, the shaman promises (for a fee) that "God" will help to resolve the hurts or relieve the suffering or guarantee the outcome of whatever the problem is (so long as the request comes through the shaman, of course). The fact that our species is evolved to heal both the physical and psychological hurts without such aid goes unmentioned. Thus, the shaman, when such healing naturally occurs, is then set up to collect again in future because of the "success" this time around, which he can claim for himself!

I rather think that the producer side of religion -- to a very great extent -- understands the nature of the scam perfectly. But (as is the case with magicians' tricks) it's a closely guarded secret from the consumer. A kind of "ignore that man behind the curtain." (Wizard of Oz)

And all you consumers -- how are your producers really ripping you off?

I shall have a great deal more to say on this subject in a day or so....

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

" And all you consumers -- how are your producers really ripping you off? "

For 5000 dollars you can have your name painted on the new Benny Hinn travel to missions Jet at the fornt and for 10,000 dollars you can have your name painted on front and back of the Jet .

No doubt it costs money to fly and bring some of your congregation with you to Rome and Holland and Pittsburg .

But is it really a rip off to these innocent people who gain a reason to live when sending "tythes" or whatever it's called but you get 10 fold back so 10,000 gets you ,let's see ,well you get enough but ten fold isn't bad.

In the whole picture this Earth is tatally absorbed by these Ministers and all Holy people from all beliefs.

Could it really be that all Religions are but a delusion of reality and a way to live with no fear of death ?

From Islam to Israel to Palestine , Iran , Ausralia , Africa and and and every race and country and everything has a Religion of their own culture or race or whatever , you know what l mean and with so many of them and all being wrong then what is it that got us this way that in todays world we see that our ancestors lived in a lie through innocence and whatever but almost evey single one of them were wrong if God is not real and how could that happen ?

I need to correct this a bit. First, most true shamans do not work for a fee. In most cases, the people they help will actually donate what they feel the shaman's work is worth, according to what they have to offer. In fact, in all the time I've been following this path, nobody has EVER paid me anything in money, nor have I ever required a fee to do the work I do. No real shaman I know does. That is quite a few shamans I've met over the past 35 years.

Second, Shamans do not appeal to God to relieve hurts or suffering. Remember that shamanism is not a religion, but it would have to be, if the creator was called upon. Most shamans (not all, but most) do not believe that the creator often directly intervenes in the affairs of man. (Some don't even believe in a creator.) Rather, the shaman consults with the spirits, spirit guides, power animals, or perhaps journeys to the lower spirit realm in order to help people (depending on the nature of the problem). In the case of more minor problems, like most physical ailments, a shaman may give a patient various herbal remedies. Shamans are, above all else, healers. Note too that shamans sometimes heal places or animals, and not just people. (For the record, I've also never received money from a place or an animal. )

Third, in keeping with the role of healer, a shaman will also use whatever means are indicated. That can include cheering a person up, addressing mental issues, counseling, and they often will explain exactly why they are doing what they are doing. There is actually far less 'mystery' to it than what one normally gets from a western doctor. And most shamans will also explain to a patient that the body is the greatest healer of all, then proceed to show a person how to get in the right mind set to allow their own bodies to heal themselves.

The unfortunate thing is that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what shamanism really is, and this has been perpetuated by a number of books by authors who do not know what they are talking about (though they might sometimes use credentials that might persuade people that they do), and in a few cases, stories about very isolated cases that are definitely not indicative of shamanism as a whole. Indeed, there are differences between, for instance, Celtic Shamanism and Native American Shamanism, however, it is basically the way things are done that are different, rather than what is done.

Perhaps more unfortunate is that there ARE phonies and quacks out there who call themselves shamans who MIGHT charge money for nothing at all, thus giving the rest of us a very bad name. This isn't just shamanism, of course...there are plenty of western doctors that do exactly the same thing, charging money without doing anything to help the patient.

I owe you an apology, Rev. I used the term "shaman" incorrectly. The first usage was in a list of other religious leader/practioners. Following that, I (incorrectly) continued the use of what I felt was the more generic sort of term "shaman" to mean pretty much any religious leader/holy man, etc.

It was my sense of the word that a shaman is one who "communicates with the spirit world," which I would take to include god/gods. Since priests and rabbis, pastors and ministers, imams, monks, oracles and seers. Each of these (including, I think, many shamans) claim at some point to speak for god, or at least to know more than their lay flock what God wants, and claim some authority that way.

And it is pretty generally also true that most of these people are supported by the people that they "serve," one way or another. At the very least, every priest, rabbi, and minister that I know of is paid for by the church, out of the revenues of the church, which always comes from the congregations.

If, in your tradition, the shaman doesn't quite fit that pattern, please accept my apology for incorrectly characterizing you.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Dear E.H.

So, was your original post saying that only religion is a ripp off? And only those religious are either producers or consumers?

Your last sentence:
And all you consumers -- how are your producers really ripping you off?

could come across as if you are including everyone, besides that fact that I believe noone is or could be "ripped off" unless we ourselves allow it.

Let me quote someone else for a change:

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Not a problem, EH. I just wanted to clarify. Shamans DO communicate with spirits and travel to the spirit realms, but that isn't the same as talking to God. I can see where this might cause a good deal of confusion for a lot of people, and it isn't real easy to explain. A spirit and God are not the same thing, IMO. Spirits are much more than this simplistic view, but they are basically 'animating life force'. God encompasses everything. So while I've communicated and seen spirits, and I should say very often since I include my spirit guide who I converse with very often, I have never actually seen God (except in as much as every wonder I see is PART of the Grandfather). Am I making any sense at all? It is tremendously hard to explain. It is sort of like trying to explain the difference between "black" as in a box of crayons, and "black" as in a black hole...some of the differences are subtle, while others aren't so subtle.

Maybe, to be more simple, it would help to say that a Shaman is a healer and spiritual leader (not necessarily a holy man, but rather one who does speak with spirits). It almost sounds like the description you were giving would more easily fit the Druids of old, one section of which WERE the holy men. (But then, the Druids also had groups who were the Bards, Poets, and Story Tellers, or the community leaders, or the healers, so I'm not sure that would fit either.)

At times, English is a wholly inadequate language!

Incidentally, I'd also agree that religion, as a whole, is a full profit group. They do give people quite a bit, but they are much like just about everything else in our society...they are out to make money. I don't really see anything wrong with that, as I live in the US, which is a free market society based on market driven principals. Companies or organizations that don't make money very soon drop off the face of the map, at least here.

I think it's very difficult to generalize this topic. It's like saying everything on the internet is bad.

There are some religious leaders who aren't in it for monetary gain. There are some people who truly want to help others. I think the religious leaders have the least gain of anything other than money than the followers. A religious leader is generally confined to a certain set of beliefs, whereas the follower has more freedom to explore and change paths. A religious leader can change paths, but he/she would have a tougher time. He/she would have to seek other employment and risk shunning.

So, again we can't generalize because there are profits other than money. There are motives other than money. There are many ways of interpreting religious messages.

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

EH, I take some offense to this. I can agree that there are a lot of organized religions out there who are in it for the money, and wasn't it L. Ron Hubbard who said "the only way left to get rich in America is to found a religion"? But I am a religious leader, and the only thing I charge to do is preform a wedding. And this is because it takes considerable amount of time from my family. Anything else I have done, I do for free. It is true that sometimes I recieve gifts, but I donot ask for them nor do I expect them. Lumping all religious leaders together is just like saying that all Athiests are selfish, evil people. I know that isn't true, and you know that isn't true, so why lump all religious leaders together?