A Quote by Charles de Lint

It's not the work or the personality of the founder of a religion that's important, but what its followers do with what they learn. — © Charles de Lint
It's not the work or the personality of the founder of a religion that's important, but what its followers do with what they learn.
Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely.The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.
No religion can be considered in abstraction from its followers, or even from its various types of followers.
Religion is for followers... Followers and puppets.
The genius of a man capable of explaining religion seems to me to be of a higher order than that of a founder of religion. And that is the glory to which I aspire.
I would say that Jesus Christ and his followers were a cult, Buddha and his followers were a cult and Mohammed and his followers were a cult. Every religion starts out as a cult and if it becomes 'box office', it is accepted.
In any discussion of religion and personality integration the question is not whether religion itself makes for health or neurosis, but what kind of religion and how is it used? Freud was in error when he held that religion is per se a compulsion neurosis. Some religion is and some is not.
Christianity is the only faith whose founder died for His followers in order to enable them to escape the consequences of their sins.
...there ... remains a huge following [of Ayn Rand's philosophy] of those who ignore the indiscretions, infidelities, and moral inconsistencies of the founder and focus instead on the positive aspects of her philosophy. There is much in it to admire, if you do not have to accept the whole package... Criticism of the founder or followers of a philosophy does not, by itself, constitute a negation of any part of the philosophy... Criticism of part of a philosophy does not gainsay the whole.
The soul is that part of us that is immortal. It existed before the personality was born and it will exist after the personality is gone. The personality is an energy tool of the soul that is temporary. Through it we learn in this domain of the five senses. We learn through what we create and the impact that it has on us. This process is becoming conscious.
The thing that's confusing for investors is that founders don't know how to be CEO. I didn't know how to do the job when I was a CEO. Founder CEOs don't know how to be CEOs, but it doesn't mean they can't learn. The question is... can the founder learn that job and can they tolerate all mistakes they will make doing it?
Another important thing to learn is that kids have a personality that has nothing to do with you.
In talking to founder after founder; I've heard almost visceral reactions to working for companies, even very cool ones with great things to work on and lots of opportunity, like Facebook, Google, or consulting firms.
Not many of us will be leaders; and even those who are leaders must also be followers much of the time. This is the crucial role. Followers judge leaders. Only if the leaders pass that test do they have any impact. The potential followers, if their judgment is poor, have judged themselves. If the leader takes his or her followers to the goal, to great achievements, it is because the followers were capable of that kind of response.
If people are foolish, they are bound to mix the personality and the Truth, and to build a temple around the personality and form a religion.
It is only when we have ceased to be the followers of our followers that we comprehend how meaningless followers are.
Often, in a given project team or network, one sees leadership roles shifting among various members at various times. Attempts to fit these into traditional views of "leader" and "follower" don't quite work. It's more like Twitter: the "leader" has "followers" - but the "followers" are empowered to alter the relationship unilaterally, and the "leader" must continually earn the consent of the "followers."
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!