There is  recognition by some religious people that Spiritual Abuse is used by some religious leaders to control their followers. A Blog written by Jennifer Leclaire addresses the existence of Spiritual Abuse by cults and controlling ministries. It is worthwhile reading. She recommends a book called The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. By Dave Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen. The writers explain that “Spiritual Abuse" occurs when someone in a position of spiritual authority ... misuses that authority placing themselves over God's people to control, coerce or manipulate them for seemingly godly purposes which are really their own."

Jennifer Leclaire writes “Today, this manifests as spiritual leaders recruiting volunteers to build their ministries while neglecting to minister to the real needs of hurting people. In such cases, churches become like businesses. The pastor is more like a CEO than a spiritual leader. Staff meetings center on marketing initiatives that will bring more people—who will bring more tithes and offerings—into the sanctuary “

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/watchman-on-the-wall/45039-mark-driscoll-spiritual-abuse-and-cultish-ministries?utm_medium=MostPopularArticles_RightColBottom

I couldn’t agree more. I like to add, however, that ALL religions use “spiritual Abuse” to control their flock. That’s why followers are threatened with eternal damnation and foregoing eternal bliss if they do not follow the dictates of their leaders who manipulate their followers “for seemingly godly purposes which are really their own." Hence the well worn expression: “fear of God”.  Fear is the most powerful motivator and is therefor extensively used in religion and politics. Even in prehistoric “religions” the shaman used fear of supernatural powers to control not only the people, but also the political and military leaders of the tribe (that’s still happening today). In the last centuries we have discovered quite a few tribes who had never encountered “Western” civilization and religions. We therefor know quite a bit about primitive religions and beliefs so that we can make some comparisons. The belief in supernatural spirits and the existence of good and bad ones seem to be ubiquitous whether embedded in human, animal or heavenly bodies. The use of fear, by spiritual leaders, convincing their followers to tow the line is common practice, It is enlightening to see that some religious people acknowledge the fact that spiritual abuse is part of the religious control over their followers but it is amazing that they still see it as an aberration in some churches, where it is very obvious, rather that acknowledging it is used in ALL religions. In the predominant Christian churches of North America it is the threat of going to Hell if you don’t conform. Non-elected religious leaders hold more power than elected politicians. A politician claiming to be an “unbeliever” is not electable in today’s society, that I would call is “spiritual abuse!”

We all know that there is no scientific proof of the existence of God. A believer counters that question by saying that one cannot proof the non-existence of God either. Yes we can! Logical reasoning and statistical data will back that up. Let us first consider a parallel situation. Is there alien intelligent life in the Universe? WE DON”T KNOW! But we can speculate based on FACTS. We know as an established FACT that there is intelligent life in the universe: US! We speculate that there is also the FACT that the universe is larger than our imagination can readily visualize or even understand. Put these two FACTS together and we can reasonably assume that there MIGHT BE other intelligent life some where, however current astronomical and other current scientific knowledge makes it very unlikely that we can detect, let alone travel to, or understand, that alien life, so for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist. We can imaging these aliens and describe them, give them names and even “believe” in them but that has no other value than enjoying the fiction. Many writers and filmmakers have dreamed up stories and described whole new societies but NONE of them can be called more accurate than another. We recognize that these fantasies and delusions are very real to some people but they are not REAL in a scientific sense. Bottom line: The FACTS of intelligent life on earth and the vastness of the Universe makes it likely that there could be other intelligent life but it should stop there! All other speculations, no matter how convincing some book writers are, belong to the realm of fantasy and no one else can claim to be the one “ correct” speculation.

The above reasoning applies the same way to the religious beliefs in God or Gods, Heaven, Hell. Nirvana, Hades, re-incarnation, etc. One cannot claim one to be correct above all the others. No matter how you define “God” as the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all morality, and a supreme being, (a definition of an “emperor” if you replace the word “universe” with “known tribal area”, which, I suspect, is the source of this definition) or as a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes (a definition originating from the discovery that the sun and moon and other heavenly bodies such as comets, influenced life on earth). In the first case it was a FACT that the leaders of the tribes did have unlimited power over life and death of their followers and in the second case it was a FACT that the sun and moon positions did forecast season and tide changes and comets could have devastation impacts. There the speculation should have stopped if it wasn’t in the nature of the human brain to attach causes to events they did not understand so they could try to influence nature, and by the invention of sacrifices, offerings and prayers try to influence a cruel nature which often ignores the need of the humans on earth. Since all gods are human inventions there are thousands of them. More proof that since they’re all different there isn’t a correct one. Here in North America we mainly believe in the Christian God. Many like to point out that this must be the correct one since the majority of the world population (33%) believes in this God. True, but since one do we count votes to “proof“ a fantasy is correct? Do we vote between creationism and evolution to find out which view is correct? No, we rely on scientific evidence to do that.

The 33% Christian beliefs are split in many different “religions” as well. Not only in Catholics and Protestants  but many others and some of them have very little in common with the rest.
Lets list some: Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Anglican, Latterday Saints (Mormons), Evangelical, African Independent Churches, Jehova Witnesses, Quakers and so on and on.
Outside Christianity the next largest is Islam, split in Sunni, Shia, Druze, Ahmadiyy, Ibadi, Quaranism and Mahdavia. Then there are different kinds of Buddhism, Shinto, Chinese Traditional, Hinduism, Primal-indigenous and many more. The FACT is that no one can agree which is the correct “speculation”.

Conclusion: Based on the FACTS we have, we can safely state that ALL religions are fantasies not based on any FACTS and the since they are all fantasies no one is correct. We also realize that the Gods are based on either Humans or Heavenly bodies which have been “promoted“ to Gods with speculated powers they don’t have, therefor, the Gods of ALL religions do not exist. Is there an intelligent entity in the universe with powers we cannot comprehend. WE DON”T KNOW, but any of the gods in any of the religions do NOT exists except in our fertile minds. Since our awareness (see Neurological Science) depends solely on the chemical and electrical activities of the brain (FACT) Our awareness will stop when the brain stops and no wishful thinking will change that.

Assuming there is a cosmic “spirit” who entered your body when you were conceived and goes back to the cosmos after you die, I can answer the question “where does our awareness go?” for you in a very logical matter: When you die, your awareness will return to the same place it was, before you were born!

I follow and participate in many discussion sites. I have noticed that so many participants use BIG words to make their point, probably to show off their intelligence. I understand that, when discussing ancient philosophies, many ancient writers used Latin or Greek, since they were the usual languages used by many educational leaders. Since many Latin  and Greek expressions are translatable in common English why use them. I also recognize that some terms do have a special meaning that is not the same as a literal translation would indicate such as “ cognitive dissonance” which in two words indicates a idea that otherwise would need a paragraph to express and that is acceptable as a sort of shorthand.

Here are some examples of unnecessary “big words”.
In a discussion whether morals do not need a religious deity but can be developed without religious interference it was stated:

” The telos of any moral action is ultimately the well-being of conscious creatures, or as defined by Anscombe's reworking of the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia, "maximal human flourishing".

 
Now ”telos is defined as “purpose” and “eudaimonia” is basically “happiness” or “welfare” and Anscombe is a British analytic philosopher (1918-2001). To make the same point the writer could have said.:

“The goal of morals is ultimately the wellbeing of humans  (as defined by Anscombe’s take on the Aristotelian idea of human welfare to the maximum extend possible) and would have been clear even if you leave of the bracketed part.

Another example:
“Utilizing a two-level preference consequentialist framework, this provides an objective basis on which to judge a moral action, while also giving preference to a deontological approach in day-to-day affairs, or where the consequences of given action are not well-known.“

Which translated would look more like this:
“A moral action should be objectively judged by its consequence (outcome). Giving preference to the idea that normally, the correct behavior is more important than the consequence itself if the outcome is not well known”

 
I do not necessarily agree with the above statements but I used them to point out that “big Words” are not always necessary to express profound ideas. We should stick more to the KISS principle when we try to explain things. [ I presume you know what KISS stands for  :-)  ]