Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: H. Godwineson on January 31, 2003, 04:29:20 PM
-
...on these boards tend to run the gamut from totally positive to totally negative.
Started to wondering where the extreme viewpoints come from. I get the impression from reading some of the posts on this topic that some of the anti-religion crowd's only exposure to church was a single service in The Church of Satanic Fascist Republican Vampires.
The church I grew up in was a Southern Baptist church in a small town in southeast Arkansas. None of our members were attempting to take over the government or foist their morality on unwilling citizens. Most did not look down their noses at sinners but felt that they had a moral obligation "save" the lost souls of their community. No one was dragged unwillingly into our services. The church population donated to charities and mission programs, collected food for the poor, went caroling at Christmas, had church-wide Easter-egg hunts, cooked food for birthday socials, and went to the homes of people in the community during times of death or other personal tragedy.
There was nothing world-shaking or threatening about any of this. We were just ordinary people with ordinary faults who were seeking spiritual comfort and attempting to spread a message to others that we felt would ease the burdens of their lives. This is why I've never understood the vitriolic opinions that some of our posters have toward religion.
Nor have I understood the religious fanaticism of any stripe. I have little tolerance for the "in-your-face" type of gospel ministry. I do think that this type of "religion" is given too much play in the modern media, to the skewing the public's view of all religion to the negative.
What are your thoughts? What experiences have shaped your own opinions about religion? Are religious and anti-religious groups fair in their assessments of each other?
Regards, Shuckins
-
You are....HEALED!!!!!
-
Please go to any library that isn't run by a Church and read about the uncountable number of people that have been killed in the name Gods, prophets, and Messiahs. Religion is the cancer of modern man. The Southern (U.S.) Baptist philosophy of advocating slavery, and segregation should be a good place to start.
One day a child emerged from a Village and asked an Elder why? The Elder unable to answer made up a story, and religion was born.
The only correct answer is that no one knows.....Yet!
Last post on this. I have debated this subject literally hundreds of times on the internet and it always degresses into something devoid of rational thought. (1$ in the post pool) Guessing 256 posts before it's locked for this one.
-
The Church of StSanta....two members and counting. :D
-
"...uncountable numbers killed by" religion? Certainly there have been a lot of people killed in "religious wars." Far more, however, have been killed in wars motivated by greed or political fanaticism;
the Norman Conquest
the Mongol conquests
the Wars of the Roses
World War I
the Communist Revolution in Russia in 1917
World War II
the Communist Revolution in China
Cambodian Massacres by the Khmer Rouge
Religious wars of the 20th were little league affairs compared to those mentioned above.
You'll have to do better than that to convince me.
Regards, Shuckins
-
TWOLF: Please go to any library that isn't run by a Church and read about the uncountable number of people that have been killed in the name Gods, prophets, and Messiahs. Religion is the cancer of modern man.
You may want to read some books by libertarian atheistic philosophers - like Hayek.
Your story on the origin of religion is simplistic and wrong - cooked up by some ignorant or more likely marxist propaganda. There is the whole science of memetics researching the origin of beliefs based on evolutionary approach.
Christian religion is not a brake on western civilisation but it's foundation and cause of it's values of individualism, equality, rationality of existence and freedom of will.
Here is how it worked. All kinds of religions, customs and traditions appeared in the course of human history. Those that promoted the well-being of their populations and impaired advantage on them caused those populations to spread and increase in wealth/power.
It so happens that societies with more individual freedom and equality and property rights were more productive and developed faster.
Since christian values uniquely matched (if only by "accident" of evolution/selection) those values that eventually came to be known libertarian, the western civilisation arose. Of course there were plenty of branches of christianity that diverted from those values and promptly caused teh downfall of the affected populations - catholic Spain being the prime example.
It's common socialist fallacy that complexity and knowlege can only be a result of intentional human design and they see religion, customs and traditions as created by human reason. Meanwhile the ability of evolution/selection to create complex knowlege-based systems beyong comprehension of any single individual were known way before Darwin - Adam Smith refers to evolution everywhere in his works.
So what if the religious beliefs were irrational? They were still the only way to persuade the majority of people that all men are equal, that a person is a paramount of creation, not state or any political entity, that each person is responcible for his/her actions, that human life is sacred, that state is separate from religion, that morals exist and end does not justify the means, that marriage should be promoted and children born and cared for - monogamous marriage at that, and good for us since other kinds create conditions for very different kind of society much less likely to progress.
People would have been killed anyway, by any religion or without it. Did Hitler or Stalin or Mao kille tens of millions of people becasue of religion? How about Chenghis Khan? He was extremely religiously tolerant.
Why did US troops killed half million catholic phillipinos in 1898-04? Because of religion?
Humans have no trouble finding reasons to kill each others in the name of non-religious reasons.
Southern baptists could have been advocating slavery but so was the US Supreme Court. When South sesseded, it only had 7 slave states while North still had 8.
Being an atheist does not mean one has to be ignorant or arrogant. Religion played major role on development of our civilisation and atheist philosophers understand and appreciate it.
miko
-
When I was younger I thought church was a great place...
...to pick up girls.
-
I am all for freedom of worship. Whatever rings your bell. Spirituality is one thing, religion is another.
Religion is a form of social control, however benign it is - and many religious outfits contribute way more than they consume - and that social control equates to power.
And power tends to corrupt. So you are left with the rather irritating situation where the message is pure (the doctrine of Christ) but the medium (religion) is corruptible. And if something is corruptible then sometime, somewhere, we will corrupt it.
Personally I find it incredible that good friends of mine refute evolution in its entirety, preferring to base their knowledge on a statement of faith, accepting the genesis story as fact. They are doctors, social workers, computer programmers, every one my intellectual equal and superior.
So a part of it is "why can't i see what they see?" and the other is "why cant they see what i see?".
Every doctrine has it's extremists, and the doctrine of SCientific method is no exception. that's where it gets ugly and I want to get off, when someone claims monopoly on truth.
-
bounder: Religion is a form of social control, however benign it is - and many religious outfits contribute way more than they consume - and that social control equates to power.
But it is more often a form of resistance to social control than otherwise. You ever wonder why despots always went after religion? It's hard to brainwash, intimidate and control people who believe there are more important things that state, more important things than immediate goal of the state, that death and suffering is preferable to compromising one's ideals, that every human got a license from no less that God to think for himself and apply morals no matter what political expediency requires.
Hard to promote nationalism and incite people to kill others when God himself tells them that all people are brothers in Christ and murder is a sin. True - there was a lot of killing between western countries - often for political reasons and despite religion, not because of it.
And power tends to corrupt. So you are left with the rather irritating situation where the message is pure (the doctrine of Christ) but the medium (religion) is corruptible.
Any powed does. State political power more often than not. Since a religious person has two loyalties, tehre is less chance for him to be manipulated for evil ends.
Personally I find it incredible that good friends of mine refute evolution in its entirety, preferring to base their knowledge on a statement of faith, accepting the genesis story as fact. They are doctors, social workers, computer programmers, every one my intellectual equal and superior.
And you think the religion is to blame rather than specifics of their mind? How many atheists made cult out of "anti-cult" objectivism of Ain Rand?
Who composes the majority of scientologists - former atheists or christians? What about Raelians? How about communism? If it's not a religion with services, dogma, saints and other crap taken on someone's word, I do not know what religion is.
Some people tend to have uncritical faith-based mindset. Whatever is around them, sticks. Better christianity than other wackiness.
miko
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
When I was younger I thought church was a great place...
...to pick up girls.
This one time, at church camp....
-
Interesting Question!
Since being a kid what I remember about church is everyone always asking for money, and when they didn't ask for money someone was telling me they had to save me and make me born
again.. The people telling me that they needed to save me were the ones with the issues, I figured that out very quick at age 11...
So up in to my late teens I just ignored them.. An occasionally
the wondering hat would knock on my door on the weekend and ask why don't I stop into their parrish and see what wonderful faith they have... Thats just great...I have great faith as well....
"In myself" so have a nice day...
T0J0
-
Originally posted by miko2d
bounder: Religion is a form of social control, however benign it is - and many religious outfits contribute way more than they consume - and that social control equates to power.
But it is more often a form of resistance to social control than otherwise. You ever wonder why despots always went after religion? It's hard to brainwash, intimidate and control people who believe there are more important things that state, more important things than immediate goal of the state, that death and suffering is preferable to compromising one's ideals, that every human got a license from no less that God to think for himself and apply morals no matter what political expediency requires.
Hard to promote nationalism and incite people to kill others when God himself tells them that all people are brothers in Christ and murder is a sin. True - there was a lot of killing between western countries - often for political reasons and despite religion, not because of it.
Hmm. I was tending towards a conciliatory tone, because I really do value the more thoughtful opinions on this BBS over the more combatitive style (which I indulge in myself from time to time).
But to keep up your spirit of robust debate...
Religion is a form of social control. It is a homogenizing influence that demands adherence to a doctrine. I'm not saying it is bad, there are many positives, but it is a form of social control.
So religion is a focus for dissent in repressive regimes? That doesn't exclude it from the the category of social controlling influence.
Religion has power, that is unarguable in my opinion.
And power tends to corrupt. So you are left with the rather irritating situation where the message is pure (the doctrine of Christ) but the medium (religion) is corruptible.
Any powed does. State political power more often than not. Since a religious person has two loyalties, tehre is less chance for him to be manipulated for evil ends.
OK so we have established that religion has power and power has the tendency to corrupt those that wield it. And the same is true for state political power. A religious person, in the Christian tradition has only one[/u] loyalty, not two. And you know who that loyalty is to, don't you?
Personally I find it incredible that good friends of mine refute evolution in its entirety, preferring to base their knowledge on a statement of faith, accepting the genesis story as fact. They are doctors, social workers, computer programmers, every one my intellectual equal and superior.
And you think the religion is to blame rather than specifics of their mind? How many atheists made cult out of "anti-cult" objectivism of Ain Rand?
Who composes the majority of scientologists - former atheists or christians? What about Raelians? How about communism? If it's not a religion with services, dogma, saints and other crap taken on someone's word, I do not know what religion is.
Some people tend to have uncritical faith-based mindset. Whatever is around them, sticks. Better christianity than other wackiness.
religion is to blame for what? that my friends seriously believe that the earth was created 40,000 years ago, that dinosaurs were planted, that the lion lay down with the lamb and Eve preciptated the fall from grace. Hell, I don't know, but someone sure is. And I bet they were religious too :rolleyes: Scientologists, Ayn Rand and Raelians have nothing to do with it.
I wasn't saying they were stupid or anything; they are equally incredulous at my beliefs. I'm not saying who's right. That will be established when I die. I am saying that I distrust any organisation that claims to mediate my relationship with God.
Niccolo Machievelli was astute in his observation that when taking over a foreign city state, you should always let the conquered people keep their religion, and even go so far as to co-opt it.
Your parallel with State political control earlier is very apt, religion has a very deeply embedded and anachronistic relationship with the state (in the UK, bishops get seats in House of Lords without being elected). Organised Religion is yet another man made structure for control over others, exploiting spiritual and existential needs in order to coordinate desireable behaviour.
But that's a load of chest thumping. Live and let live. I love my creationist friends deeply and can coexst happily with them (with the odd bout of utter mutual contempt!). So take it easy
-
100 (2 to 1 odds)
-
Eloquently put miko, and that reflects my views too. Somewhat. After all individuality and equality was very much alive in Scandinavia before Christianity got here. In fact, one can succesfully argue that things went downhill once the missionaries started arriving with their torture instruments to force conversions :). (Btw, this is just a friendly ,, nothing more.)
I just happen to think that superstition is hard to rationally justify in our day and age. Most of us want evidence of claims; only most make an exception when it comes to personal faith. I do not believe in that exception - for me personally, such exceptions are intellectually dishonest.
And I haven't started an anti religious thread in ages. My threads have been inquries that can be interpreted as anti religious - such as the thread about 'god takes all the credit'. I simply dinnae understand how one could accept that, and got some good answers.
I still give a thankful nod to the early Christians, though.
Miko wrote
True - there was a lot of killing between western countries - often for political reasons and despite religion, not because of it.
Often the smokescreen used was religion though. True also today - just see the Balkans or Muslim/Christian fanatics. A political/social agenda justified by religious means.
Incidentally, not all dictators etc have been anti-religion. Some dictators or near dictators have been the head of an organised religion and ordered huge atrocities in the name of that religion. The socialist ideologies tend to be anti religion because that's an alternate source of power, whereas the extreme right likes to use religion as a tool.
As to why I don't hold organized religion so highly:
it's a prefabricated worldview. Your answers are given. Your preferred choice of actions are all laid out, and there's a plan for what should happen, be done, and be. Instead of seeking answers, answers are given. And they cannot be refuted. There's little flexibility. It's also a tool that has been used since humans became humans to control other people. And to see intelligent people demand evidence in one area only to desperately refuse to see evidence when it violates faith is discouraging to me. The double standard there I find intellectually dishonest as mentioned.
Spirituality is personal. If there is a god or gods, no priest and no church can bring you closer to him/it/her. I think. Maybe. I'm open to being wrong. if true, however, that means my relationship to such a deity is my personal affair - and it can take many forms, with many conflicting answers - all right and all wrong at the same time, depending on what person one is talking about.
Spirituality is fine. I often wish I had some religious conviction. Life would be much easier, and there'd be more comfort. But what is, is, and unfalsifiable claims aren't enough to warrant an attitude adjustment for me. I need evidence.
-
Wonderful post StSanta! I know, I know I said that I would not post again, but I just had to respond to this one.
As to my nay Sayers, well. You cannot prove me wrong, nor can you prove me right. Can anyone name the person that first created the wheel? We can suspect where it came from but the simple fact is that it is so lost in antiquity that there is no clear evidence. Neither text, nor science can prove or disprove the existence of any form of deity. To echo Stsanta's message; Faith is a personal matter. Religion is a tool to implement power.
-
My take/opinion
As far as I know none of the messiahs "built" a church. They all preached that god is in the heart. "Religion" started with pagan sects (pagan being defined as any belief opposed to your own) for the sole purpose of mass control of people. The "great religions" refined this to a fine art based on the great, "thou shalt not's", and allowed people to atone for sin with payment. The form of the payment is unimportant, it was the control that was achieved that was important.
I have bounced into a few of these discussions over the years and have found that some have branded me as a unbeliever. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a deep and abiding belief in "GOD", (whatever anyone calls him), I just can not bring myself to the table of religion in any of its forms.
PS the Christian text reads "all men are created equal in the eyes of god". This passage is misquoted as often as "Thou Shalt not commit murder" and "Let there be peace on earth amongst men of goodwill"
-
Originally posted by MrBill
My take/opinion
PS the Christian text reads "all men are created equal in the eyes of god". This passage is misquoted as often as "Thou Shalt not commit murder" and "Let there be peace on earth amongst men of goodwill"
Hmm.
Exodus 20:13:
"Thou shall not kill. " (king James version)
"You shall not murder." NIV
The versions seem to be divided on whether they mean all killing or actual, legal murder
But not much room for interpretation either way.
-
you can honestly say you are a southern baptist ( affiliated with the southern baptist convention?) if you are a member of that club you must agree with their ideas? your money goes to their causes right converting jews persecuting homosexuals . you are in bed with um . they are evil bastards you are iealogicly and politicaly tied to um or at least funding them.
alot of people will dislike you intently for this alone.
you believe dogs dont have souls. that is my personal reason.
-
pretty simple really.. I fear any organization that feels that they know what is best for me and is large enough to have an influence in my life.
so long as they stay small and powerless they are a good thing for some people.
I belong to the NRA and the Austin Healey club.. The NRA is relatively small at about 2 million. They have to do good. If they were more powerful I wouold quit and join another pro gun group that was hungry. The Healey club will never be large.
lazs
-
I need evidence. -St.Santa
God has some evidence waiting for you StSanta.
You will be sizzeling nicely in a giant red hot frying pan - like a fat Danish sausage - in the hottest corner of hell that God reserves for blasphemers... :)
-
bounder,
Just for clarification, I was quoting what the "cannon" now generally agree is the correct translation from the best known original texts. There have been many "versions" of the bible printed over the years, many people are taught from, and learn, improper/mistranslated passages. I do not claim that this is sacrilege or any such tripe, I just point out that kill and murder have different connotations.
As to the misquote "all men are created equal" just look around ... it is quite apparent that this is not true ... add the correct "in the eyes of god" and you have changed the intent/meaning of the passage/statement.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
God has some evidence waiting for you StSanta.
You will be sizzeling nicely in a giant red hot frying pan - like a fat Danish sausage - in the hottest corner of hell that God reserves for blasphemers... :)
...but he still loves you. LOL...
-
We were just ordinary people with ordinary faults who were seeking spiritual comfort and attempting to spread a message to others that we felt would ease the burdens of their lives. -shuckins
Why do you assume that not being spiritual means our lives are burdeoned? The truth is that your organizations are seeking converts to increase their power through numbers. If your god created all life and wants me to kiss his feet and worship him, I'm sure he can take the time out to appear before me and tell me so. Until then, I take it he either does not exist or does not want me doing that. I do not come to your door telling you that I think you are wrong and you should leave your religion. And for your information, some nerd on a bicycle in black pants, white shirt and black tie is not going to do anything more than disturb my day when he comes to my door. If the "big guy" wants me on hands and knee to worship him, then he'll tell me so. And to threaten me with burning for an eternity in hell just sounds ridiculous and would make this "god" worse than the likes of Stalin and Hussein. But really, that type of thing just makes it sound more as though it's a coersive tactic to get me to join some organization so that it can increase its power base.
Spirituality is personal. If there is a god or gods, no priest and no church can bring you closer to him/it/her. I think. -StSanta
I think so too.
-
...but he still loves you. LOL... - Sandman
Repent, Sandman.
There is still time.
But, like the monkey said when he got his tail cut off:
"It won't be long now."
...And you will be standing tall before the MAN.
:D
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
But, like the monkey said when he got his tail cut off:
"It won't be long now."
...And you will be standing tall before the MAN.
:D
Xians have been saying that for nearly 2000 years... which is stretching the whole "coming soon" thing rather far - heck even the folks at WW2OL would be embarrassed with this kinda production delay. Well probably. :D
-
Seriously, to answer Godwineson's question, I have gone the gamut in my life regarding my belief in God, and Church. I was raised strict Catholic, attended mass every single morning from first grade through 12th grade, and taught totally by nuns and priests.
For myself, today, I feel more spiritual out on the ocean than I do in church. The earth, the ocean, the sky are my cathedral.
But for my children, I go to a Baptist church. I would probably take the kids to mass if it was in Latin, but it isnt. I miss the latin mass, the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Agnus Dei.
However, the Baptist church has been more relevant overall.
I embrace science, but believe there is room for God in my philosophy.
My mom once told me that God is love.
-
I subscribe to:
Religion is the opiate of the people.
I have no problem with spiritualism, but I find no good in 'organised' religions.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by TWOLF
The Southern (U.S.) Baptist philosophy of advocating slavery, and segregation should be a good place to start.
Agreed.
Why don't YOU start, by documenting that.
culero (I didn't think so)
-
-tronski-: I subscribe to:
Religion is the opiate of the people.
I have no problem with spiritualism, but I find no good in 'organised' religions.
How about "Proletriat of all countries, unite?" by the same author?
This vicious and ignorant phrase was coined by Marx and used by communists ever since.
miko
-
i think miko just likes to argue no matter what anyone posts.
-
bounder: But to keep up your spirit of robust debate...
I am not trying to be offencive, honestly. I hope to direct people to read some books, not make anyone feel bad. I am a bit frustrated since the knowlege is readily available in bookstores and issue seems to provoke a lot of interest but people prefer to write rather than read what really smart people thought on the issue.
Religion is a form of social control. It is a homogenizing influence that demands adherence to a doctrine. I'm not saying it is bad, there are many positives, but it is a form of social control.
This is a common fallacy fist pertetuated by positivists of Ecole Polytechnique - they were too ignorant and closeminded to imagine that a cmplex system could spontaneously evolve exactly through benefitting the population.
They assumed that since religion looked reasonable, it was intentionally creared by humans - just like people believe that since human body works in a reasonable manner it must have been designed. Both statements are false.
Religion and morals and customs evolved. Yes, some humans-despots intentionally tried to use/subvert religion to control masses - more often atheists than not. Where they succeeded, sociery deteriorated and retarded. Where it failed, it flourished.
Yes, some religons are arguably (state involvement more plausible) causes of their civilisations downfall. The christianity and protestant christianity were foundations of western civilisation and all it's values.
A religious person, in the Christian tradition has only one loyalty, not two. And you know who that loyalty is to, don't you?
Not to the current despot on the throne, that's for sure.
And I bet they were religious too Scientologists, Ayn Rand and Raelians have nothing to do with it.
People tend to believe irrational things. Religion is an effect, not a cause.
you should always let the conquered people keep their religion, and even go so far as to co-opt it...
Likewise it's best to let them keep the evolution (or God) created biology rather than trying to change their shape. So what? People use what they can. Our bodies evolved - we use them. religion revolved - we use it. Customs, tastes and facions evolve - we use those too.
StSanta: Somewhat. After all individuality and equality was very much alive in Scandinavia before Christianity got here.
Cry me a river about poor helpless vikings... :D Scandinavians - Norse were the example of the most successfull spread in history. Not only did they create a trading empire spanning Europe and reaching (and in times threateneing) Konstantinople, they establised settlements everywhere (founded first major russian cities by the way), became part of many populations - in many cases as rulers/nobility (russia, normans->france->england, etc.). They assimilated and most europeans now are their descendants but that does not mean they disappeared.
The better question would be not how christianity screwed up poor norse but how norse values affected christianity everwhere in Europe and Russia.
As to why I don't hold organized religion so highly:
it's a prefabricated worldview....
I could give you many examples how human body is ridiculously arranged - optical nerves being routed in front of light-sensors, for example. The somewhat irrational construction of human body as well as the customs/believes known as religion are due exactly to the fact that they evolved spontaneously rather than were intentionally designed.
Humans live because our bodies allow us to do so. Human western society exists the way it does becasue underlying customs enabled it to do so. Could there be better arrangements - theoretically possible. Should we at least realise why the existing system works before screwing up with it?
I do not need religion in order to have a family, children, avoid drugs/alcohol and not hurt people. The majority of some populations certainly do at least on some counts. Like divorce rate and reproduction rate.
Humanity survived and developed through religion befrore noticeable fraction of it switched to scientific view/method. That fraction is still minority. Is it safe to remove the however irratinal scaffolding holding the rest together before substitute is available? I do not think so. Communist ideology certainly failed as a replacement.
lazs2: any organization that feels that they know what is best for me and is large enough to have an influence in my life
That view is contrary to most christian teachings. The God gave people free will, ability to feel temptration and to sin in order for people to choose between good and evil. If you prevent people from temptation, you deny them free will and an opportunity to choose. Some religions/sects are not strong on personal freedom choice but christianity is better in that respect - which is why christian world developed to modernity, not the other religions.
miko
-
Originally posted by culero
Agreed.
Why don't YOU start, by documenting that.
culero (I didn't think so)
You asked for it.....read for yourself.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/fssppubs.htm
Above are some of my references
http://www.clrc.net/
an example of ignorance
-
Religion and / or church are of no consequence to me as they seem based upon ceremony and power. Power corrupts, unfortunately thats the way most church organisations have become, Corrupt, Power- Hungry and self - serving. The one good thing for all this, is that it forced me to find answers elsewhere. I have spoken with many intellectuals I respect, and read much to see what things happen to be about. Guess what, I can proudly say that I believe God gave his only son to die for all of us in this world. That to accept Christ into our lives is a guarantee of everlasting life. Simply put, I do not need to go into church or have someone stand in front of me parroting some ideal or another. Their are some other principles I believe and am trying to practice, I am not perfect, and God knows it, but he also knows that I try my hardest. This may sound like born again Christian rhetoric, call it what you like, I am happy that I finally am at one with my faith. I look forward to standing before God and know he has a spot picked for me.
-
Heheh Miko, good points about Vikings.
Yes, our body is hardwired. That doesn't mean our mind must be as inflexible - we're capable of learning and adapting. That is what makes us humans.
While I agree that religions have been beneficial to the race as a whole, one must remember to see it in a smaller perspective. I have bthe benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. I believe we've reached a point where our methodologies are so good and values are in place so religion, for a small part of the population so far, isn't necessary. We have enough knowledge for it to be obsolete.
Not for all. Some need the mental comfort of faith still. Non theism can be a esolate place and for some it's depressing. Not for me though.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
-tronski-: I subscribe to:
Religion is the opiate of the people.
I have no problem with spiritualism, but I find no good in 'organised' religions.
How about "Proletriat of all countries, unite?" by the same author?
This vicious and ignorant phrase was coined by Marx and used by communists ever since.
miko
Encounter (http://www.encountergod.com/14/opiate.html)
“Religion is the opiate of the people!” wrote Karl Marx in 1844. This famous declaration defined an emerging materialism in opposition to established religion. Marx, along with Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud, defined a new way of looking at the world. Truth would no longer come from the church. It would now come from the free thinkers of the university. Other scholarly materialists had their own version of Marx’s statement: “Religion is a crutch for those who are too weak to face life alone.”
Why did Karl Marx call religion the opiate of the people? It was because he felt that through myths and empty promises, religion dulled people’s senses to their true condition. Once so dulled, the people could never take hold of the truth.
Happier now? Someonehow I doubt it :rolleyes:
Tronsky
-
"lazs2: any organization that feels that they know what is best for me and is large enough to have an influence in my life
That view is contrary to most christian teachings. The God gave people free will, ability to feel temptration and to sin in order for people to choose between good and evil. If you prevent people from temptation, you deny them free will and an opportunity to choose. Some religions/sects are not strong on personal freedom choice but christianity is better in that respect - which is why christian world developed to modernity, not the other religions.
miko"
__________________
miko.. that is the theory.. human nature will never allow that to happen. It is the basic human nature to ostracize those who are "different". Christianity is indeed the best and most pliable.. It is not as overt. It does however breed a lot of "followers" who are intolerant. It also tends to intrude in the daily lives of everyone. Some harmless and some not so harmless. I certainly would not like it if the percentage of christians were higher. I do like that there are so many sects of chritianity all fighting one another tho. If they weren't....
they would be coming to the door with ropes and torches instead of watchtowers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bounder
And power tends to corrupt. So you are left with the rather irritating situation where the message is pure (the doctrine of Christ) but the medium (religion) is corruptible. And if something is corruptible then sometime, somewhere, we will corrupt it.
I want to get off, when someone claims monopoly on truth.
Part of a faith in a monotheistic god is the belief that that diety is all powerful. So according to your statement then, any monotheistic god must be corrupt as that deity is all powerful. :eek:
:p
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Part of a faith in a monotheistic god is the belief that that diety is all powerful. So according to your statement then, any monotheistic god must be corrupt as that deity is all powerful.
You missed a significant word Maverick:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bounder
And power tends to corrupt. So you are left with the rather irritating situation where the message is pure (the doctrine of Christ) but the medium (religion) is corruptible. And if something is corruptible then sometime, somewhere, we will corrupt it.
I want to get off, when someone claims monopoly on truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are god, you are a perfect being and incorruptible. So your assertion is incorrect :)
-
Miko2d, I think we are on the same side.
You accept that religion is a form of social control. By that I don't mean an intentional tool for one man to control another, but a mechanism of culture and social interaction that benefits people by promoting a self-policing ethic, for harmonious and therefore more effecient social groupings.
The ten commandments are not the revealed word of God, but a clever distillation of generic codes of behaviour that can help to keep a society stable, prosperous and secure. Codes of behaviour are embedded in myth and literature worldwide, some very different, many quite similar.
However, once a religion becomes an organisation with paper, and hierarchies and leaders and spokesperson, it becomes a deliberate form of social control (e.g the Roman Catholic Church).
The thread was really about the opinions of the Church. Now, as i understand the modern christian evangelical doctrine, the church is not a building, or an organisation, but about the space everyone makes in themselves for God.
As far as that church goes, if people find their solace from existential angst in these places, then I wish them every happiness, and they are indeed luckier than many who never find solace.
Is it true? Death is the only way to find out for sure.
-
Originally posted by MrBill
My take/opinion
As far as I know none of the messiahs "built" a church. They all preached that god is in the heart. "Religion" started with pagan sects (pagan being defined as any belief opposed to your own) for the sole purpose of mass control of people
EXACTLY!!!!!
There was no such thing as "religion", it was simply History, or a beleif of what happened in History, and what is.
Most religions such as Catholicism(though they claim to be "christians" they are not) which formed when the king of rome converted to christianity, and at that time people were FORCED to beileve in what the king believed, but u cannot force people to beleive in anything, so they introduced into it peices of their own religion.
My Father was once a Catholic.
He said the preachers would allways say "Do not read the Bible! you will be confused, only we can interprut what the lord is saying" or something like that.
Most "religions" are simply someone wanting power.
The church ruled Europe in the middle ages because of this, they had the power, they kept the records, they kept the people dumb.
I don't know if u would consider "Christianity" a religion(at least not a religion, in what people think of as a religion)... It is a beleif of history i guess is the best way of putting it. the history of creation, and the history of the future. And all history I have studied ties in with the bible, it is fascinating how it all fits together! That is why you cannot compare science and christianity really, christianity is history. compare christianity with archeoligey, history, and geography, you cannot prove it wrong, many whome have tried actuelly wound up becoming christians!
Sceince is never 100% right, it is allways changing, once we thought it fact the sun traveled around the earth, untill we descovered it was the earth that traveled around the sun.
Just one question though, messaih(S)? I think you meant, "missionaries" or something (I know thats not what they were called, I cannot remember the correct name atm) the massiah is jesus, or in the Jewish they think jesus was not the massiah, who has not yet come. basically he is the "savior"/"son of god" in both "religions" or whatever u want to call them.
c'mon lets act like adults and discuss this without flaming each other and with an open mind instead of acting like 3 year olds arguing/not getting their way, i mean seriously many of these threads wind up looking like arguments I remember when I was like 5 "Bang! I shot you!", "I got a force feild", "I got a force feild penitrating lazer gun", "i gotta whatever and u cant say u got it" etc. etc. etc.
Anyway, i got work to do I wasted far too much time last time i participated in one of these threads! :)
-
Hard to answer the original questions, but my view as expressed a few times on this board result from being raised in an "evengelical, non-denominational" church. I consider myself a follower of Jesus, or as others will might say, a Christian. In the last few years, I have started to look at why I believe what I believe. As a Christian who is/was raised by a Christian family it is very easy to rely on "head" knowledge. This head knowledge leads to perversions of Jesus's original intentions. While nobody can claim to know what Jesus meant, there is the ability to search God's word and to ask God for guidance in understanding His meaning. During this review, I have relied on searching God's word and seeking God's will and the beliefs that may have been head knowledge only have transformed into "heart" knowledge.
To me, again, to me that there is a God is undisputable. Given this starting point and the faith filled conviction that the Bible is God's word leads me to look to the Bible for the answers.
While I do not condone the in your face evangilism that is shared out of some sense of personal glory or personal felt obligation, I do believe that as Christians we are to imitate the love for others that Jesus and the apostles demonstrated in the New Testament. I believe that as Christians, our motivation should be God's Glory, anything that promotes self or distracts from God's glory is wrong.
Growing up as a Christian I have a hard time relating to others who have been acosted or offended. But my prayer and hope is that they would one day see Jesus and God as He intended.
To get back to the religion idea, I believe that one of the worst things to happen to the "Christian church" was the 4th century "promotion" to official state religion. The marrying of political statehood with the body of believers. If we look at the early church, 1st/2nd century, we see that it was not a top down organized religion that we commonly think of as a church, but a unity of believers who ministered to one another without the structure of priest, bishop, archbishop, etc. The early church was truly the body of Christ, who's head was Jesus. Each member, through the power of the Holy Spirit ministered to every other member as he or she was gifted. But I digress.
Hopefully this sheds some light on my views, but I don't know if it really answered your question.
-
"To get back to the religion idea, I believe that one of the worst things to happen to the "Christian church" was the 4th century "promotion" to official state religion. The marrying of political statehood with the body of believers. If we look at the early church, 1st/2nd century, we see that it was not a top down organized religion that we commonly think of as a church, but a unity of believers who ministered to one another without the structure of priest, bishop, archbishop, etc. The early church was truly the body of Christ, who's head was Jesus. Each member, through the power of the Holy Spirit ministered to every other member as he or she was gifted. But I digress."
Exactly one of the points I (and MrBill I think) was trying to get across :)
But as with anything known to man, man has used it as a tool to get power.
-
Originally posted by TWOLF
You asked for it.....read for yourself.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/fssppubs.htm
Above are some of my references
http://www.clrc.net/
an example of ignorance
I don't see anything there that documents what you said:
Originally posted by TWOLF
The Southern (U.S.) Baptist philosophy of advocating slavery, and segregation should be a good place to start.
You are IMO slandering some good people. The Baptist church, in the South or otherwise, is comprised of people of good moral character who do NOT advocate slavery or segregation, rather the reverse.
Whether or not you believe in their religion (I don't) you have no reason to accuse them of this.
Yes, there are plenty of bigots in the South, as everywhere. Some claim that religion justifies their sickness. That's no reason to slander the good people they are also slandering. Just because a bigot may choose to also attend church doesn't mean the church condones his sickness - pay attention to the teachings of the Baptist church and you'll find love for your fellow man is their message.
You're plain wrong on this one, man. Investigate by going to Baptist church(s), you'll find I'm right.
culero
-
Some people can't see the forest for the trees.
But you’re right. Not all Southern Baptists are Bigots. But I sincerely doubt that you read every text that I posted, and the URL for that sick site is just one of a very large number. The facts if you choose to believe it or not are all there in plain site. The southern clergy not limited to the Southern Baptist Church were by and large in favor of Slavery, and post Civil war in favor of Segregation. The main reason was that if a clergyman spoke out against it, he was run out of town. To ignore such facts, and the fact that most evangelists are out to extort cash from the weak minded, and not save their souls is to perpetuate said ignorance.
Good people do not need a Church, or even a diety to be good. Evil Men need a religion to blind you to their crimes.
-
Oh, so now you're wanting to slide back to a previous century? Give me a diddlying break.
I'm a half century old, I grew up in the South, I've lived around Baptists all my life, and I know what I said about them is in general true.
The roadkill you're posting from current-day people is NOT representative of the current-day Baptist church, and anyone who says it is is a liar, plain and simple.
You are even wrong when you back-pedal by saying "Not all Southern Baptists are Bigots." A much more true statement would be "Most Southern Baptists are not Bigots."
What went on in the post-Civil War period is another matter, but the post you made slandering Baptists didn't say it was about Baptists from back then, did it? The specific language you used made it seem you meant current Baptists, and in general, not just a few nutcases who claim to be Baptist (and who most Baptists will condemn).
You're casting aspersions (and falsely so) against people who I respect and are good friends in many cases, in case you're wondering why I may seem a little pissed of about this.
culero
-
TWOLF, you couldn't be further from the truth.
You seem to be Completly ignorent about baptist/southernbaptist.
I am a Baptist/Southern I guess, at least thats the churchs I usuelly go to. They couldn't be more opposite of the things you posted, and for your info, not just baptist but many people in the south I find to be LESS racist then allot of people I've met up north!
Most northerners pretend that we are all stupid racist hillbillies down here, but in fact from my experience of traveling all over the US, studying history, and meeting people, I find most ppl who think they are smart are absolutly stupid and the ones who are smart don't realise it! Anyway, I don't mean to start a North VS South flame war, or any flame war for that matter.
I have never heard one word i can recall about baptist being for slavery and all that junk you posted.
Christianity is one of the most "hated" religions, why? its allways been like that, all throughout history christians (not including catholic churchs and such) have been descriminated against! even by fellow "Christians"(bigger churchs)!
In schools u cant mention "Jesus" or anything like that, oh u can talk all u want about Buddah or any other religion all you want though. Funny since first settlers of america, the people who beleived in freedom, etc. were christians eh?
It doesnt surprize me people make up junk like that.
Just because you hear it on the internet doesnt mean its true, infact 80% of the junk u hear is usuelly lies, madeup, or the person writing it just don't know what in the world they are talking about.
Southernbaptists/baptists (excepting the occasional weirdo) were the ones descriminated against, not the opposite.
As was the civil war, north rewrote history with propaganda etc. and made the south into this terrible monstor racist nation, when in reality the north was little better, and many who fought for the south (as my great great grand father) were against slavery/racistism. but we want to pretend it never happened, erase all traces of history, I've seen and many of my relatives (big family of historians) have read books writen in the south & north at the time of the civil war, not the rewritten junk.
Sorry i don't mean to hijack thread and turn it into a civil war discussion, i just find it sad people are so ignorent of the period and are making such an effort to erase all history of the time period!
-
It would be good if they would simply set a really really good example that I could look at and follow.... or not.
lazs
-
Originally posted by culero
Oh, so now you're wanting to slide back to a previous century? Give me a diddlying break.
I'm a half century old, I grew up in the South, I've lived around Baptists all my life, and I know what I said about them is in general true.
The roadkill you're posting from current-day people is NOT representative of the current-day Baptist church, and anyone who says it is is a liar, plain and simple.
You are even wrong when you back-pedal by saying "Not all Southern Baptists are Bigots." A much more true statement would be "Most Southern Baptists are not Bigots."
What went on in the post-Civil War period is another matter, but the post you made slandering Baptists didn't say it was about Baptists from back then, did it? The specific language you used made it seem you meant current Baptists, and in general, not just a few nutcases who claim to be Baptist (and who most Baptists will condemn).
You're casting aspersions (and falsely so) against people who I respect and are good friends in many cases, in case you're wondering why I may seem a little pissed of about this.
culero
I rest my case.
-
Could somebody give me the advice which christian faith is the right choice?
Seventh-day Adventists ?
Jehovah's Witnesses ?
Baptists ?
Orthodox churches ?
Catholicists ?
Evangelical Lutheran Churches ?
Mormons ?
Or some others ?
-
Aper, go with Scientology, they are the multi-level marketting of religions. Once you get high enough, it's like Amway, other peons and commoners will be kicking up to you, and you can sit on your bellybutton and preach crazy stuff and tell everyone that Battlefield Earth was the best film in history.
-
For a non theist, what is quite funny is to see one theist utterly dismiss the teachings or beliefs of another.
'Hahahahm, what an idiot he believes he'll get 72 virgins if he dies as a virgin. how the hell is that gonna happen?'
'Me, I KNOW I'll go to heaven and lay with the SkyDaddy and meet dudes with harps. Now THAT is rational'.
Alright, overplaying it a bit :D. You get my drift though; the 'rational' faith of one theist is the irrational nonsense of another theist.
95% of all theists in the world have the same religion as their parents. Faith, it seems, is heriditary, and has little to do with who's right or wrong, probably because none are.