Questions regarding the LOO, STS and Religions

[Monica]

compare that to charities run by secular organizations whose sole purpose is the charity for example. everything is about the charity being done. no hidden message or no underlying philosophy is carried. the situation is much more pure.

Secular organizations are no better or worse than religious organizations. They too have structures which can get corrupt or may have been corrupt to start with. A good example is a very well-known organization for supposedly working for a cure for cancer. In my opinion, this particular organization is completely bogus. They rake in many millions of people's money...people whose lives have been devastated by cancer and now earnestly want to help others...believing that when they make a donation, it really is going into cancer research. But the organization doesn't recognize many, many things that help prevent or heal cancer. They only recognize drugs which earn the drug companies huge profits.

It can work both ways. I think many religious charitable organizations were formed by people in that religion with the genuine intention to help others. On the other hand, I've also witnessed firsthand the 'hidden agenda.' For example, several people working in the pro-life movement explicitly admitted to me that they offered help to pregnant women as a way to convert them to Christianity. One woman even told me that helping the woman and the baby were inconsequential, but saving their soul was what mattered. She openly admitted to me that their image of helping women covered an agenda of converting them to Christianity. The same is true of a lot of missionary work.

Nevertheless, even though the structure itself may have had an agenda other than truly helping others, many people within that structure do have pure intentions. So we're back to the question of whether people working within a structure can transcend that structure. I believe emphatically that they can and do. However I also agree that it's not efficient and an act of charity done for the sake of charity alone is the goal. But maybe most people wouldn't think of being charitable, if their religion didn't encourage them to be. I don't know. It's all very convoluted, methinks.

I had a co-worker who had been Catholic but then he and his wife decided to become atheists. He told me one of the reasons was that they wanted to do charity for the sake of charity, rather than because they were required to by their religion. He also said they felt being atheists would make them better people!

Conversely, there is no doubt in my mind that many people might not have considered being charitable, were it not for their religions telling them to. It can work both ways!

Then again, there may be some truth to the idea that the institutions themselves interfere with charitable actions. A excellent example of this is Mother Theresa. She is considered a hero and even a saint by the Catholic Church. But I have read articles written by other denominations that criticize her because - get this - she focused on helping people without "saving their souls"!!

I think this discussion is really about the difference between institutions and the people in those institutions. I still see a lot of disagreement based on that. It's easy to get defensive of the institutions because we see the good being done by the people in those institutions. There is no doubt in my mind that many, if not most, of the people working in the aforementioned cancer organization have genuine intentions! But they aren't the ones calling the shots. The leaders of the organization are.

It's the same whether the institution is religious or secular. Any institution can become corrupt, even if the original founder had pure intentions. Conversely, the people working within an institution can still do great good, and even change it from the inside out, eventually. Key word here being eventually.

I don't think there are any absolutes. All of our viewpoints are valid and just pieces of the whole.

---

this is not about groups. this is about teachings/procedures and their natures. if something has been planned and created to be negative in nature, it will retain its negative nature, regardless of the times. groups interpreting it more aggressively or passively will not change the nature of the teaching/procedure.

Thank you for clarifying that you are referring to the institutions, rather than the people in them. As mentioned above, I do however disagree that structures cannot be changed. I think they can be changed from the inside. But not easily. I don't see that happening anytime soon. (Unless maybe something really extraordinary happens, like aliens landing on the White House lawn, ha. Even then, the leaders of the fundamentalist religions will likely say it's 'satan' trying to trick everyone, in order to preserve their institution!) And probably not until all souls have gotten what they needed from the STS aspects of that institution. These institutions will remain in 3D as long as there are some souls who need/want that catalyst, to provide them an opportunity to choose.

They provide a community and structure to do acts of service, and it is invaluable, and it opens peoples hearts on a daily and minute by minute basis.

it has a hidden benefit. the community/church/whatever doing the charity strengthens its impression in the public, also influences those who it helps, even if it does not intend to do so. also, strengthens the solidarity within its own flock and justifies its existence to its flock.

Both are true. It's a mixed polarity.