Religion = siren

[rejs7]

Keep on stretching like this and you're going to strain something. The Civil War was caused by religion? No. Slavery was an extension of racial inequality and those ideas are a lot older than Christ. Perhaps Christianity was used as an excuse, but it was not the root cause. An interpretation was the root cause, and that interpretation was born of the natural predication of human beings to fear that which they do not fully understand - like, for instance, Europeans (and later Americans) failing to understand African culture and simply labeling them savages.

Actually most of the racial bias that was perpetuated by later christianity developed after they discovered southern africa - indeed it was Jesuit priests who helped to propogate this bias through their missionary work.

The slavery of ancient times was of the sort that meant that respect for your slaves was given, and providing your slaves towed the line you were expected to treat them with dignity.

American slavery was based both upon the old european ideals of serfdom, mixed in with the racial prejudices of rennaisance christianity.

 

[DrWho]

If you are aware of the legend of the sirens, then you will get my drift. Religion is the siren of the desperate, lonely, and great unwashed to sooth their fettered brows with, and also the greatest control mechanism that has ever been invented.

Carl Marx had it spot on when he said religion is the opium of the masses, because they use 'faith' and fuzzy feeling in some alphebet soup theology as a panacea for all their woes. No amount of bible bashing, tub thumping, or fatwa issuing is going to get around the fact that the day man invented religion was the day the rest of humanity could be inslaved - just as L Ron Hubbard for his views on the best money spinner around.

The only way to escape the molasses that is religion is to think and educate yourself - the one think that all leaders fear is the educated few leading the uneducated masses. All great movements in history have been led by inspired men & women moving against the 'divine' order. The siren call of the church and mosque must be over come, otherwise we risk dashing ourselves on the rocks of fate and futility.

I get the sense that you are identifying religion as a man made institution among many. You would be right. And of course just as all sorts of groups of people commit horrible acts in the name of their groups so too do various religions. This is because humanity is basically evil and even the best efforts to reign in our vices will often fail. Sure people will manipulate others with faith just as people will manipulate others with patriotism,etc.

However, I would say that the "wordwide church" aka the Church aka the Universal Church is a collection of believers who may have no connection with each other, don't go to the same church or even any church, and have in common only that they worship God in truth and love.

As a group of people who are scattered throughout the world without even knowing each other or answering to any authority other than God they are free of the influence of manipulative groups. Religion is man's attempt to know God ( and is often corrupted by the men who create it) but true Christianity is God's attempt to be known by man.

 

[vyo476]

Actually most of the racial bias that was perpetuated by later christianity developed after they discovered southern africa - indeed it was Jesuit priests who helped to propogate this bias through their missionary work.

Which came first - the Christianity or the Europeanism? Western Europeans were elitists, because of their view of their religion and their culture (and their technology). Christianity didn't cause it, their interpretation of Christianity caused it.

The slavery of ancient times was of the sort that meant that respect for your slaves was given, and providing your slaves towed the line you were expected to treat them with dignity.

Depends on which ancient system you're talking about. The Spartan and Athenian systems were radically different. The Spartan system wasn't so different from the one in place in the Antebellum South, only the Spartans relied on slaves in all facets of life. The Athenian system was more like the one you described - amongst other things, "slavery" was often a temporary position that could be bought out of - no one in Athens was born a slave.

The Roman slavery system has become the model for classic barbarism - slaves taken by the Roman Empire were the civilians of lands that had to be subjugated by use of large force. In addition, slave traders from outside the Empire brought slaves from all around the known world to Roman slave markets - these were some of the first slave traders known to exist.

American slavery was based both upon the old european ideals of serfdom

Medieval serfdom and American slavery were two very different animals. Serfs were generally born to the land and held their by their masters; slaves were bought and traded. The only racial difference between serfs and their fief lords were usually superficial national breeding differences - superficial because there was no way to tell that a British lord's grandfather was a French noble just from looking at him. You will also find that the economic arrangements between serfdom and slavery were very different as well. Only the most general description matches the two together - a powerful, select few controlling a disenfranchised many. You'll find that definition fits a lot of things throughout history, so making a special comparison between serfdom and slavery is, again, a stretch.

mixed in with the racial prejudices of rennaisance christianity.

I don't suppose it'd do anything for you if I told you that most of the slaves of the Renaissance Period were Eastern Europeans, would it? Until the late Fifteenth/early Sixteenth Century, most African slaves were being exported to the Arabian Peninsula. After that (with the fall of Constantinople and the relative relaxation of the expansionary forces of the Ottoman Empire) the demand for more slaves decreased, and only picked up again in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries when European colonization of the Americas began. Renaissance Christianity certainly had its vices, but African slavery wasn't one of them.

 

[Justinian]

A Spiritual leader should not be leading our government.

Because politicians have proven to be more entrusting and wise... I think you're unaware of a large contingency of people that advocate control by the elimination of Religion. The Bible is becoming more and more the only solace for fortitude the Human mind has in America because of the Brainwashing propoganda and social engineering of the system abdicated by the government. Humanitarianism, usurping the place of the church, will then endeavor to ignore the existence of Sin and to erect sympathy into social theory, leaving individual responsibility out of account. Sympathy and Justice are confounded.

 

[Justinian]

Hmmm

Religion is ... the greatest control mechanism that has ever been invented.

Correction, the one trying to take its place is the greatest, most beastly control mechanism that has ever been invented. I attack the atomic individualism and statistical materialism theories and systemic implementations because I know if these morons should succeed in discrediting the religious consecration of the state, they would efface the idea of order; and if they should succeed in convincing men that we are only bundles of associated sensations, they would blind humanity to its supernatural and eternal hopes and ends. The pure democrat is the practical atheist; ignoring the divine nature of law and the divine establishment of spiritual hierarchy, he is the unconscious instrument of diabolical powers for the undoing of mankind. Reduce the solemn mystery and infinite variety of human life to the pseudo-mathematical principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and you establish a tyranny of prigs in this world, a hell of loneliness in the world of spirit.

 

[vyo476]

Correction, the one trying to take its place is the greatest, most beastly control mechanism that has ever been invented. I attack the atomic individualism and statistical materialism theories and systemic implementations because I know if these morons should succeed in discrediting the religious consecration of the state, they would efface the idea of order; and if they should succeed in convincing men that we are only bundles of associated sensations, they would blind humanity to its supernatural and eternal hopes and ends. The pure democrat is the practical atheist; ignoring the divine nature of law and the divine establishment of spiritual hierarchy, he is the unconscious instrument of diabolical powers for the undoing of mankind. Reduce the solemn mystery and infinite variety of human life to the pseudo-mathematical principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and you establish a tyranny of prigs in this world, a hell of loneliness in the world of spirit.

The thing that strikes me as ironic is that you talk big about the "undoing of mankind" as though you care about mankind. The shortlist of people you've expressed a particular dislike for includes homosexuals, foreigners, and those of a different faith than yours...that rather narrows down the "mankind" you're so concerned about, doesn't it?

 

[9sublime]

Justinian, you do realise that all religion has ever been is a bunch of people thousands of years ago making up some load of shank to fit whatever they needed explaining, throwing in a couple of bizzare rituals, a few hyped up historical events, and creating a little power order of priests etc and ultimatly explaining death.

Then the creators of this religion passed it down to their sons and daughters, who in turn passed it down, whilst trying to convince other people too with their convinient answers. Some of these people even wrote texts, and this is taken to be absoloute truth, and is translated over the centuries, correctly and incorrectly, bits added in where people see fit, often complete contradictions or obvious attempts at power control. And it comes out being completley dated and useless.

But you still take this to be the absoloute truth.

I don't know whether your parents were big on religion like you, I would expect so even though you will probably deny it. Otherwise, somewhere along the line, someone exploited your insecurities and made you religious.

Thats fine with me if you want to believe in God, but they did an ever better job by making you hate every other religion and anyone the religion traditionally opposes.

In my eyes, your idea of sociey needs to be undone and rebuilt, because its been smothered by the lie of religion for too long. Just look at you for a prime example, a hating, homophobic, racist, backward thinking person who believes he is far greater than he actually is.
If you think your views are so right, so correct, and that you are so intelligent, why don't you go and do something about it? Why don't more people agree with you? Stop posting on this forum and get yourself famous so you can spread your hilarious teachings.
Just finish school first, and stop carrying a thesaurus around with you.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

I'm going to disagree with both sides here.
I certainly disagree with any babble about religion being necessary for morality and social structure and all that hoopla. But I also have some reserves with the "opiate of the people" argument.
Religion is primarily created from the bottom-up. While top-down agencies do appear in religions, ultimately religions only exist to the extent that they do their job for the people who subscribe to them. That is they must provide answers to unanswerable questions, they must provide a meaning to life, and they must create a community of support.
As such religions adapt at the will of the masses. They are often used for cynical purposes by authorities, but this does not speak of the origin and value of religion in general.