The blurry line between religious and crazy

As have I. However, I avoid claiming the God told me to do anything. I say "I feel this is the right thing to do" or whatever. Claiming that God told me to do something feels to me like trying to earn credibility for my choices by making them God's choices, not my own. I just try to do what is right and let Him guide me in doing right, just like Jesus said, "Don't swear by heaven or earth, but let your yes be yes and your no be no." Claiming that God told me to do it is like swearing by His name.I hate it when our worship leader says stuff like "the Holy Spirit lead me to sing this song" because then if I don't like the song or am uninspired by it, then I am against the Holy Spirit.So when people say things like "God told me to ... " I am skeptical of their motives and/or their sanity. Instead they should simply say "I feel this is the right thing to do ... "HBD

Not just the psychology of religion, but the psychology of human beings. We want to build ourselves up and make ourselves seem more credible. I have the same problem when a speaker is introduced, even in non-religious settings, and their many credentials are announced as if that makes what they going to say above reproach. I don't begrudge giving people credit for their achievements, but what a person says or does should be judged on its own merits, not on their credentials. This is what "Let your 'yes' be 'yes' and your 'no' be 'no'." means - let the credibility of your words and actions speak for themselves. As do other scam artists. We want to trust other people; we expect that if someone has exceptional credentials that they are reliable; we want to believe that people are generally good and honest. And this part of human nature is easy to exploit.Question for you, do you think it is actually possible to "do Christianity" without using this type of manipulation? Or in other words, is manipulation inherent in religion or is it a distortion or corruption of religion?HBD

True. I just watched a movie last night called The Eagle, which was a set in the time period of Roman occupancy of Britain after the construction of Hadrian's Wall. It was easy to see the Romans as the "good guys" - civilized, orderly, honorable, etc. and the peoples north of the wall as the "bad guys" - barbaric, ruthless, uncivilized, etc. It occurred to me, however, that the story could have as easily been told from the POV of the northern tribes that would have reversed the perceptions of "good guys" and "bad guys." It could have portrayed the Romans as the villains - taking land that didn't belong to them, driving out people that had lived there for centuries, killing the people because they were uncivilized, etc.Not trying to suggest that the Nazis were good by any stretch, but that type of rhetoric -'good vs evil' or 'heroes vs villains' - belongs in comic books, not history.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification