Clarity On Clergy

Clarity On Clergy MP3
C / C#dim / Em7

lyrics

   Preamble:
     "Can you help me?
     I'm seeking clarity on clergy."


Will the storm calm,
And, fizzle to a drizzle,
Will those in control,
Have a role?

Working for God,
Yet, paid by Man,
Hmmm... that's odd,
... seems a contradiction.

Those who lead,
Yet, have greed,
Have a conflict of interest,
Those who lead,
Filled with greed,
Have no interest in us.

Clarity on clergy?
Sorry, 
I hate to be redundant,
But, when addressed --
A two-faced, lying, hypocrite.
That's the story.

NOTES:

"Those who lead,
Yet, have greed,"

you replied:
Sorry, but it's unfair to lump all clergy into this category. The Church accepts donations to further it's mission causes and education messages. I have no problem with my pastor and assoc. pastor making a living from this. They aren't getting "rich" doing it as there are far more occupations that could pay much better.

i responded:
agreed on greed... i wasn't trying to lump all clergy... just those with greed and/or a self interest above others... and, particularly paid staff that lies?

however, wouldn't you say that anyone... anywhere... who accepts money will likely run into a conflict of interest?

then i thought to add:

"further it's mission causes and education messages"

by the way... thanks for "debatin'" these things... i would hate to hinder our mission or send miseducated messages

i add these "NOTES" to the bottom of the music pages to help add clarity

you replied:
when it comes to eating, there is no conflict of interest

i respond:
oh goody... i was hopin' someone would say that. it's been something i've been thinking about for a long time.

EQUAL
eating and being equal. does that mean we all get to eat equal amounts? or perhaps "proportionately"? but, proportionately seems to have a quagmire... if you give the largest ration based on weight... well, isn't the fat person less in need of the food?

the reason i'm thinking on this is... if i am to prepare to help others in a "worse case scenario," i will have to make sure "i am." (i mean... how can i be helping people if i'm starved to death?)

soooo... already, i'm having trouble with an "equal" thing... because it would appear as though i will be eating more than some people.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
and, at what point should i start sharing my food?

what happens if i reach the point of being beyond well fed... yet, am claiming to be helping the hungry?

i mean... as long as i'm eating, won't there be a conflict of interest?

i'm not saying there won't be good answers to avoid these conflicts of interest... but, it just seems that conflict of interests are inherent in survival of the fittest.

(since consumption usually comes at the expense of others, i haven't quite figured it out yet. how can i consume and avoid all conflicts of interest?)

oh yeah
1 other thing i can't quite figger about eating and being equal

when it comes to sharing food/money... how does one decide how to distribute it? do all get treated equally? do all get an equal share?

it would seem in my "practical" situation, that if i try to share what i have equally... with all... we will all die (for there is not enough to feed the world for even a day.)

however, if i discriminate in my distribution, it might be possible to save a part of a generation.

what shall i do?

you replied:
don't think there will ever be a concrete definition of "equal"; it's mostly a matter of perception and opinion don't ya think? Think of a definition of "equal" as a convenience to whatever situation it is applied to. That's where the distortion starts to creep in.

i give a standing "O":
bravo, bravo! i like it.

heehe... and, that's funny. these talks have brought on two more messages i'm trying to scribe. one is called "E Quell"
it's about quelling definitions of equal

the second... about being treated equal in the justice system, The Great Deceiver

you replied:
makes me recall something from the Bible that when the Disciples went out after Christ was Cruxified that most of them sold all of their worldly possessions and distributed the proceeds to the poor. Nothing said about who would get what, but more about the mind set that the "stuff" was just that.............."stuff" and you can't take "stuff" with you

i respond:
hmmm... yes. this has turned out to be more interesting than i imagined... as were touching on questions i've long pondered.

1) it would seem humans have a problem with stuff?
2) is it hypocritical along the way, when i say...
"i'm helping you."

so, o.k. agreed we can't take stuff with us. but, it would almost sound to be a curse... to bestow one's stuff?

   thunk to meself:
      "stuff causes problems. you can't take stuff with you."
   said to another:
      "oh you poor thing... here let me help... you take my stuff."
   thunk to meself:
      "ah ha!  now i get to go to heaven... and, your curse shall
       be to have my problems."

is my mind set naughty or nice?
sounds as though i'm evil in more than one way?
or, since my mind set is just to distribute my cursed stuff as equally and/or fairly as i can, is it a win/win?

hmmm... yes, perhaps... the only one's who will take my stuff... are those greedy enough to do so. therefore, they deserve the curse? at the same time, i've out-grown my curse?

you replied:
perception my friend..........it's all in how you perceive it. If you think it, then it is.

i respond:
ah ha! i like that answer. usually, i do not... as morals are not subjective. however, what we're talking about here is intent. and, when it comes to justice... intent would appear to be part of the equation. in fact, that is one of the reasons i said:

*disclaimer: all does not include all. exceptions include infants, the incapacitated, etc?
infants and the incapacitated have no bad intent, right?

however, this does bring into play the question of ignorance.

infants and the incapacitated can claim ignorance. BUT can someone with a misconception claim ignorance? can one say, "i had no bad intent because i was ignorant of the facts... though the facts are common knowledge."?

in particular to this case:

   sold all of their worldly possessions and distributed
   the proceeds to the poor...
   the mind set that the "stuff" was just that...
  ..."stuff" and you can't take "stuff" with you

this seems to imply that they knew "trying to take stuff with you was a bad idea"... yet they do it to someone else... making it impossible to claim their perception is do to ignorance

i agree with you that "possession of stuff" is tough but, i'm still trying to figure how it's possible to "help" someone by giving them food and/or money

what's that old saying... "give someone a fish. feed them for a day. teach someone to fish. feed them for a lifetime." or sumpin' like that?

perhaps it would be ok if i gave them a fish to eat while they were learning?

but it just seems when the UN tries, the "dependent" only learn to eat more free fish? (minus the free fish consumed by corruption... heeehe.)

another example of how "giving" can hurt people is the bike analogy

if a child wants a bike and it's just given to them, it usually can be found out in the rain.

if a child learns to earn a bike, they usually behave in a more responsible way.

in this case, giving doesn't help the person... it hurts them by teaching them how to be irresponsible?

something else i was just wondering about... jesus and giving

you'd said:

the Disciples went out after Christ was Cruxified that most of them sold all of their worldly possessions and distributed the proceeds to the poor.

what about jesus, himself. are there any examples where he gives his own money to other people?

and when i said:
morals are not subjective...

you replied:
not necessarily true. different cultures have different moral standards that may or may not be universal. Just because it's true there, might not make it true here.....do you see? Morals created in a society are usually born from subjective ideology.

In our society, it is immoral for Catholic Priests to molest young boys, but it happens anyway.

In ancient Greece, young boys were highly valued and sought after.

Most of our morals in the US were bred from the original puritans who came to this country to escape religious oppression. They in turn, established another set of moral codes (that pervades our society today in the form of politics) that could have been interpreted as even more repressive than the ones they were trying to escape.

What were these people "protecting" us from? I contend then that our present moral code is determined from an implied climate of fear. If you don't stay in line, then we won't protect you!!

I think my head is going to explode.

i respond:
heeehehe

well... i hear what you are saying. but, technically speaking morals are not subjective. logically they can not be. this is where the equal thing fits in.

what is morally wrong for me is morally wrong for everyone. that is to say, if it is wrong for you to murder, it is not ok for me to murder.

murder is wrong.

there is nothing subjective about it.

subjectivism is one of the more dangerous philosophies around today. by saying morals are subjective, i'm saying if it's "right" for me... it's ok. that means i can do anything i please. it also means you can do anything you please. this is where the logical impossibility comes in. what if i say it's all right for me to murder you? i'd guess you say it's not all right to murder you. we can't both be right.

HOWEVER, you are correct... Man has taken his personal opinions and distorted the meaning of "moral" (like saying i don't like the taste of mayonnaise. tastes bad. then, making the leap to mayonnaise is bad.)

this doesn't change of the fact of what is right and wrong.

there are only a few morals that have to do with "bad" or "wrong"

these morals hold true for everyone, everywhere, at all times.

here are a few examples i think we can all agree on...
it is wrong to:

murder
rape
abuse children or the incapacitated

these ones are a little harder to agree on, because there may be exceptions to the rule:

lie
steal
suicide

in almost all cases, these thing are wrong, too... but you might find an instance that is questionable. for instance, a pilot is over a crowded city when his plane loses power. he can bail out of the plane and live, but his plane will crash into a densely populated area. or he can pilot the plane to the ocean where he will die in the crash. should the pilot commit suicide?

so, yes. i am in agreement with you, i think. instead of staying with logical morals, Man has twisted and screwed with em. kinda like how the bush admin' has lied to us about global warming... so too the churches (and gov't) have been lying to us about morals.

you replied:
I don't believe there was any example of Christ earning money at a trade other than as a carpenter. Don't recall any mention of commerce in his life. Why would he need to? He fed 5,000 from a few fish and a couple of loaves of bread.

i respond:
yes! this discussion may have come full circle?
it's started off with the trouble with religious leaders taking money... and has come around to the trouble of religious leaders giving money.

and, to the best of my knowledge... or since i ain't that knowledgeable... to the best of your knowledge, jesus christ never took money nor gave money in a charitable fashion.

that's not to say that doing business is bad. i'm sure he dealt with money. he would have had to. (as it's quite likely that he had parents, as well as, his own wife and kids. both families were believed to be "wealthy." and, i doubt someone like him would die without a good estate plan. heehe... in fact, rumor has it people have been chasing after his grail for millenniums?) BUT he didn't confuse charity with business.

right?

his charity was in teaching... not funding?

More Selections From the Album
Like Pulling Swords

Back To Sir Vent's Homepage

Main Index

The Philadelphia Spirit Experiment Publishing Company & KingArthur.com
These graphics, images, text copy, sights or sounds may not be used without our expressed written consent.