Why don't Christians rebel more convincingly against the corrupted priests & heads of the church?

Question

...who cause so much harm to the religion, have such an important contribution to the high number of non-believers, and are generally speaking such inconsistent persons?

No matter how hard it tries to do "revolutions" (Luther, eg), Christianity still ends up under the rule of some rich and selfish and unchristian (in behaviour) boss (or bosses).

(I am sure this phenomenon takes place in other religions as well, but I just know much more about the history of Christianity than about any other religion)

Aldo Triente - my question is quite clear. Especially if you *have* read the additional details.

Suspendor of Starships - hum, Inquisition? Crusades?

Aldo Triente - so you find the taxes and the incredible wealth of the heads of the church (the Pope, eg) convincing as proof against corruption? While those money could be spent so much better on food for starving people? ...As the Christian doctrine would actually require?

Aldo Triente - you give me the feeling that we speak different languages. I get my facts from the Bible (NT especially) vs newspapers, television, history books, talks etc. I did not say that the Church does not help the poor - but that it does not help the poor as much as it could, and by far. The leaders of the Chruch *are* reach (please give examples if you wish to contradict this), which would be ok if they were normal leaders, but is *not* ok given that they should respect some basic Christian rules. And my question, as any question, did express a point of view, and was asking for some other opinions on the matter, plus some explanations, if possible. The word "convincingly" was used in the sense of "successfully", not as in "so that *I*, Trillian, be convinced". Please don't misinterpret; some sort of Christian rebellion wouldn't convince me of anything, as long as the Bible itself does not. But this *is* a different story.

............"rich", not "reach" :D

David - ok, so now that you have read it in the right way, your actual answer is...?

Answer 1

In the old days we would have beat them with sticks.
Put them in stocks and thrown garbage on them.
Perhaps stone them.
Tar and feather them.
Excommunicate them.

Do you remember Tammy and Jim Baker?
Old Tammy moved on to greener pastures. The money tree ran out time to move on.
He went to jail, that should happen to all who say they represent God and do not.

Answer 2

if you told us what would convince you, perhaps someone would try to do it.

No, it's not clear. I am convinced that Christians do not accept corruption, wherever it occurs; you apparently are not. So what convinces me has not convinced you. So tell us what would convince you.

Well, I'm not exactly sure where you get your ideas of "Christian Doctrine" from, nor the idea that the heads of churches levy taxes or have "incredible wealth", nor that that is a sign of corruption, nor that the churches are not helping the poor. But the fact remains that YOU are the one who is not convinced, and you refuse to say what would convince you. I understand better why you refuse to do so; it's because you think you are making a point, not asking a question.

Answer 3

You're most familiar with Christianity. In fact, if you grew up in the USA and only had public school education I dought you were educated on anything else. Add to that your parents churches won't teach you about Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindu. So you're clueless if you're public school educated only.

It occurs everywhere gussied as religion, government, television, news broad castor's, or corporations.

Answer 4

Because chapter 23 of Matthew tells me not to.

Answer 5

Perhaps because at least they don't kill or encourage others to kill in the name of Christianity?

Answer 6

Because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God

Answer 7

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Answer 8

i misread your question, sorry. that is what i do almost every time i get on here.