Current/former "preachers" of any faith: what is/was your training?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: grandmakdw

Churches that are not affiliated with denominations often have ministers with no training at all. Sometimes Bible College, sometimes no college degree at all. A very few denominations do not have formally trained ministers; Mormon, sometimes Church of Christ, some Baptist. If a church is not affiliated with a denomination then you have to check with the minister. Some even didn't finish high school. This is unfortunate but only the established denominations require a Masters Degree and normally a year or two of on the job training. Non-affiliated churches can have someone who just announces one day, "i"m a preacher". That is normally where the loonies come from, the "pastors" who preach unlovely and unloving things.

BINGO!

Exactly right.
Some don't even finish High School. Some get advanced degrees in their field.
I'm trying to learn how to tell them apart.
The ones who are professionally and ethically trained, versus those who just wake up one day and announce they are "a preacher."

What do you think of this phenomenon? Is it "okay"? Or is it not?

I thought I would jump in here in this post.

As you have already known why my religious training was, I was never formally clergy. My uncle did give me a clergy card from his church, but I never use it.

What do I think of Christian ministers not going to any training or educational seminaries?

Twofold problem that I see, first of all, most theological seminaries are geared toward the particular denomination that created them. So one would be learning more of the doctrines and tenets from said higher place of learning.

Second problem, as people are unwary of attending any theological training, some believe that they can be taught by God alone. This has led to much loose interpretation in the Bible.

As far as I know, Mormons tend to go to Brigham Young if they want to become ministers. I am not going to speak for all religions as I think they can explain theirs better than I can.

I believe that any Christian minister should be educated on the fundamentals of Christianity. And there are very good universities that do teach theology. Harvard does as well as MIT..believe it or not.

I tend to be educated from all the available resources but I do not have formal training and so therefore do not call myself a minister. But being educated in a seminary does not guarantee that they will learn Christian theology more than particular creeds.

In this day and age, anyone can be an ordained minister from any online religion. And one can even start their own religious order just by getting licensed by the state they live in. That means that if I wanted to become a minister of the Church of the Rainbow Unicorn, I can start my own and license myself.

But the phenomenon isn't restricted to Christians, there are a lot of religions who also do the same thing.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: InTheLight

I also pose the question as to why are the gospels of Thomas and Mary not included in the Bible, when there is much debate on who wrote and when the Bible's existing gospels were actually written.

Excellent question. Thanks again. Why is the Bible not updated as new info comes to light?

Because those two books were created much later by other Christian sects.

Remember that the other Orthodox churches do have their own canon. Russia Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Christians, Ethiopian Orthodox are all Christian, came about at the same time and yet each has their own canon, feast days and patriarchs.

Roman Catholic isn't the only Orthodox Christian church.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

If I want information on your experience in Wiccan and the people you have meet there? How specific information are you sharing about you and the people you have meet?

Like for instance if you have met any high level empaths? If you or your group have astral projected? What kind of physical manifestation in the body different tools/behaviors/ritual give you?

To be totally open: I am myself not an empath but know 2 empaths so I think I have understood the ability they have as well as I can logically without having the ability myself. I do not astral project but vibrate very much when I try instead.

I am one of those souls who see spiritual practice in a scientific way. If you know how everything fits together on all levels then you understand how everything works and even how to be the most effective.

. Seek understanding and you will gain understanding.

Do you have to be Wiccan to be an empath?

I'm a Christian and also am an empath, I also have psychic abilities and have been able to remote view. I knew about TWA 800 before it crashed, I knew about the shooting of Brittany Ann Varner of Jonesboro as it happened and I have told people secret things about themselves, but I am not Wiccan.

Let me tell you about the empath experience of Brittany Ann Varner.

One morning when I woke up, I heard the name Varner in my spirit. I did not know any Varners, but I kept hearing "pray for Varner". All that morning it kept running through me.

Some hours later when I was at work, I heard a very loud voice plead "Pray for Varner now!" So I immediately did, and as soon as I finished, I actually felt my right shoulder and my abdomen being hit and a great sadness overwhelmed me to the point I could do nothing but cry.

Later, when work was over, I got into my car to go home. I was still upset and I turned on the radio on my way home. Before I even left the parking lot, the radio station news was talking about the Jonesboro School shooting and the first name I heard was Brittany Ann Varner.

But I was never Wiccan, I never practiced any rites or rituals, I just happened to be gifted.

It felt like such a huge responsibility that was so difficult to come to terms with. After actually drawing on paper the TWA 800 crash an hour before it happened, really made me very sad.

It can be a burden sometimes.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you have to be Wiccan to be an empath?

Not at all. Not in the slightest.

I'm a Christian and also am an empath, I also have psychic abilities and have been able to remote view.

I've always liked you. Isn't that funny, when we are only communicating via cyberspace and have never "met"?
We empaths feel, and find each other.
That's a lot about what it is.



At least, I hope you're being sincere. I think you are.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Because those two books were created much later by other Christian sects.

Much later than what?

Thomas (doubting Thomas) and Mary? Do you have any sources or links to some evidence that they were created "much later"? That would be a very prickly problem for Bible/Early Christianity scholars.

a reply to: WarminIndy

In this day and age, anyone can be an ordained minister from any online religion. And one can even start their own religious order just by getting licensed by the state they live in. That means that if I wanted to become a minister of the Church of the Rainbow Unicorn, I can start my own and license myself.

But the phenomenon isn't restricted to Christians, there are a lot of religions who also do the same thing.

And this is very troubling.

a reply to: WarminIndy

its amazing how people place so much trust in a system that has all the backbone of a shrimp. all the criticism for obamacare and people still put their money in the donation basket on sunday. double standards are the bread and butter of america it seems, no matter what god you feel comfortable answering to.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you have to be Wiccan to be an empath?

Not at all. Not in the slightest.

I'm a Christian and also am an empath, I also have psychic abilities and have been able to remote view.

I've always liked you. Isn't that funny, when we are only communicating via cyberspace and have never "met"?
We empaths feel, and find each other.
That's a lot about what it is.

At least, I hope you're being sincere. I think you are.

I like you as well. The first thread we interacted on together was my question of whether or not one thinks like Aristotle or Plato. LOL.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WarminIndy

its amazing how people place so much trust in a system that has all the backbone of a shrimp. all the criticism for obamacare and people still put their money in the donation basket on sunday. double standards are the bread and butter of america it seems, no matter what god you feel comfortable answering to.

Everyone finds themselves trusting in some type of system.

Even you, though you might not agree, you most certainly do.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

Because those two books were created much later by other Christian sects.

Much later than what?

Thomas (doubting Thomas) and Mary? Do you have any sources or links to some evidence that they were created "much later"? That would be a very prickly problem for Bible/Early Christianity scholars.

Religious Tolerance on The Gospels of Thomas and Mary

They were Gnostic texts, there can be no doubt about that.

a reply to: WarminIndy

They were Gnostic texts, there can be no doubt about that.

You're right! No doubt.
And that explains why they were omitted from 'The Bible' ..... how?

They (the Essenes/Gnostics) were alive back then.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: WarminIndy

They were Gnostic texts, there can be no doubt about that.

You're right! No doubt.
And that explains why they were omitted from 'The Bible' ..... how?

They (the Essenes/Gnostics) were alive back then.

There were a lot of reasons.

Would you like someone coming along and inserting something that you think is nutty in your book? That's why Jews have problems with us...

a reply to: WarminIndy

Would you like someone coming along and inserting something that you think is nutty in your book? That's why Jews have problems with us...

Oh.....lol....wow.

Yeah, I'm not gonna touch that with a nine-foot pole (whatever that means....).....

Nutty and someone and book and problem and thinking and like..... All in the context of religious differences.
Wow.

Just, you know --- I like ya. Despite whatever... truly, I do. (And, I'm glad you're back - you bring sanity to this forum somehow! Lord knows I'm in the doghouse....forever, I guess.....)

Good night, WarminIndy.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The highest official position I've held was as Elder in Christian Church Disciples of Christ.

Disciples churches are run on a congregational level, ministers typically have Masters Degrees. There are Disciples affiliated seminaries, however it isn't unusual for an experienced preacher ( 2 or more years ) from another denomination, or non affiliated seminary to be hired after more than one interview conducted by a hiring committee elected by the general congregation.

The elder selection is similar, however no specific educational requirement. It's pretty much based upon what the sitting elders think about the candidate's qualifications, and I suppose, what they feel about the person.

I was selected at about age 31, which was unusually young for my particular congregation. The other elders were 50 or above. I had been teaching the adult Sunday School for about a year, on a curriculum I'd outlined myself. I had been a Deacon for two years, member for 3. What they said about me at the time was that they considered me to be the most knowledgeable about the Bible and Christian Theology, particularly the differences between various different branches.

I was baptized Seventh-day Adventist. Accepted Christ as a 70s Jesus person. Got an associates degree based mostly on lower division Theology courses, a few upper division, but not many. Attended Disciples of Christ for a couple of years, Assembly of God for about a year, took Lutheran confirmation classes, got confirmed Lutheran. Chosen to be Lector. Taught courses on non-Lutheran Protestant Theology to Lutherans ( for comparison purposes ).

This was pretty much my resume for being an elder in Disciples of Christ congregation at age 31.

I've only been a member of two congregations, and it is up to the individual congregations.

I was a voting delegate at the denominational assembly that voted to remove Jim Jones (posthumously) from the list of ordained ministers. I believe that his credentials were based upon him having been ordained by one of the Church of Christ groups ( of which there are quite a few ) which requires no formal education.

a reply to: pthena

I didn't realize that Jim Jones was in the Church of Christ. I know that he did have services with William Branham. BTW, William Branham was never formally educated either.

My dad said that he had met Jim Jones once long before he left Indiana. My dad remembered as a little boy, his mother took him to see Oral Roberts.

That was a big thing back in those days, to go follow the preaching/healing/deliverance ministries of pop preachers. They were like rock stars in their days.

a reply to: pthena

Thanks so much, pthena, for this explanation.
It helps me understand better.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I didn't realize that Jim Jones was in the Church of Christ

I just skimmed through Wikipedia. It seems that affiliations are left out, to protect the innocent. The official position seems to be that he was center of a personality cult.

You would know more about what different kinds of groups are called Church of Christ in Indiana. On the West Coast, members are careful not to be thought of as being part of a different group, "Not the ones who believe ... , not the ones who do ... "

What I think that I remember hearing from fellow elders ( 1987 ish ) was that he got Disciples credentials based on impressing a congregation in San Francisco area on his racial/gender equality and social gospel positions.

That was a big thing back in those days, to go follow the preaching/healing/deliverance ministries of pop preachers. They were like rock stars in their days.

Have things changed all that much? (rhetorical question).

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
You are entirely welcome.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

I didn't realize that Jim Jones was in the Church of Christ

I just skimmed through Wikipedia. It seems that affiliations are left out, to protect the innocent. The official position seems to be that he was center of a personality cult.

You would know more about what different kinds of groups are called Church of Christ in Indiana. On the West Coast, members are careful not to be thought of as being part of a different group, "Not the ones who believe ... , not the ones who do ... "

What I think that I remember hearing from fellow elders ( 1987 ish ) was that he got Disciples credentials based on impressing a congregation in San Francisco area on his racial/gender equality and social gospel positions.

That was a big thing back in those days, to go follow the preaching/healing/deliverance ministries of pop preachers. They were like rock stars in their days.

Have things changed all that much? (rhetorical question).

It is my understanding that the Church of Christ generally teach that each church is independent in authority. I don't know many people from the Church of Christ.

Jim Jones was a Socialist, he proclaimed that very often in his sermons. I have seen videos and have read statements that he made toward that, he actually said he was not a Christian, but only using churches to advance his ideology.

I have heard the tapes from that day, he was so lost in his image that some people were begging him to please call Russia for help instead of asking them to die.

He was a Communist and followed Marxism, he preached it from his pulpit.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Jim Jones was a Socialist, he proclaimed that very often in his sermons. I have seen videos and have read statements that he made toward that, he actually said he was not a Christian, but only using churches to advance his ideology.

Oooo.......kayyyy......

I have heard the tapes from that day, he was so lost in his image that some people were begging him to please call Russia for help instead of asking them to die.

But they stayed because.....???

He was a Communist and followed Marxism, he preached it from his pulpit.

You (as do many conservatives) are confusing socialism with communism, and both of those with fascism and liberal American progressives.

They are entirely different things. PLUS, Jim Jones was a PSYCHOPATH. I am not at all saying what he did was acceptable. I am simply pointing out that there are actual "diagnoses" for people like him. Personality Disorder; Narcissistic, Delusions of Grandeur, Delusional, Paranoid, Sociopath, Conduct Disorder - etc. His situation in life was far, far more than "politics"....he was INSANE.
*shakes head*

It doesn't matter one whit what he thought of himself, or thought was "correct." He was insane, and people followed him due to his charisma and insanity.....

So, Pat Robertson and Ted Cruz are preferable? Sam Brownback, and Rick Perry? Scott Walker and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum?
Really?

NO. NONE OF THE ABOVE are acceptable 'rulers' (let alone "leaders" or "representatives". They are all insane....bat s#!t crazy )

edit on 4/28/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: There. Nailed it!