12
   

Religion or Mass Control?

 
 
anonymously99
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 04:14 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
I don't think you and fresco are the same person.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 09:28 am
@nap40,
nap40 wrote:

...However I have come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at religion, its main purpose is manipulation of the masses as well as to put power in the hands of few. ... The answer is simply because people created, at least the majority, of religion to suit their needs and gain power to control the masses though fear of the vengeance of God or the Gods.


This was among the first realizations I had (while I was studying the history of the Bible in university in preparation for seminary) that contributed to my de-conversion (we're all born without beliefs and have to be trained to believe). It's as obvious as the rhetoric that politicians throw at the gullible public, once you take one step away from self-interested gullibility and find the cojones to face the evidence head-on.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 10:14 am
Quote:
Nap40 said: no matter how you look at religion, its main purpose is manipulation of the masses as well as to put power in the hands of few.

If you mean Christianity, certainly there have always been plenty of people around who LIKE to be manipulated and let corrupt money-hungry control-freak priests tell them what to think.
But pure Christianity doesn't do that stuff..Smile-

Jesus said-"Call nobody teacher except me" (Matt 23:8-10)
Paul said-"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit" (2 Cor 2:17)
Peter said- "be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, not lording it over those entrusted to you" (1 Peter 5: 2-3)
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 03:14 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Quote:
InfraBlue said:@RF- Without explaining how Christianity, because it has Jesus the Son of God as it's central core, is the only true religion you're merely begging the question.

What?
I'd say being the Son of God himself is pretty good credentials..Smile
He had a direct line to God-
"For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak" (John 12:49)
So when he spoke, it was really God speaking to us through him, wow..Smile

Sure, that’s what you’d say, but in regard to your assertion that Christianity, because it has Jesus the Son of God as it’s central core, what you’d say is merely an assertion. There is nothing there to demonstrate the validity or truthfulness of your assertion. All you have is the stories that you cite from the Bible.
elgorythm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 04:14 pm
Mass religion is obviously mass control.
And religion if often found to be so as well.


However - integrated within religion are individuals -

And - Within those individuals is a heart and a perspective -

We must once and for all accept the fact that a religion is a two things. A building and a people in the building.... once we can clearly separate those two-
We will finally see the forest for the trees Razz

With that said there is nothing wrong with people coming together in praise Smile

But - The truth is the Truth it need not explain itself any further -

Unless - It so decides, because it's the truth and that's just how it is.

And if you got a problem with that, write a letter of why you think it acted wrongly and send it to your own address and read it in 1-3 days when it arrives. You will hopefully see how ridiculous you were 1-3 days ago.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 04:18 pm
In my experience, the priest controls the mass pretty rigidly.
elgorythm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 04:38 pm
@InfraBlue,
It's ridiculous to say that the only proof we have of Jesus being the son of God is the Bible. History records the events of that time. Also his influence on the world stage holds weight.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 05:19 pm
@Setanta,
I was particularly in favor of "Ite, missa est."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 06:42 pm
@elgorythm,
Uh-huh . . . what history records the existence of your boy Jesus?
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 03:13 am
Jesus wasn't some mysterious holy man living in a remote cave somewhere, he gigged all over Israel for 3 long years in front of the people and the Roman garrison, that's a lot of eyewitnesses - “I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)

And after his death as Christianity began snowballing, NOBODY ever came forward to say "Hey, Jesus never existed!".
The snooty priests never said it, nor did the Romans, nor did anybody.
It'd be like somebody coming forward nowadays to say "Elvis never existed", they'd be carted off in a straitjacket..Smile
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 05:37 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Jesus wasn't some mysterious holy man living in a remote cave somewhere, he gigged all over Israel for 3 long years in front of the people and the Roman garrison, that's a lot of eyewitnesses - “I've spoken openly to the world..I said nothing in secret" (John 18:20)

And after his death as Christianity began snowballing, NOBODY ever came forward to say "Hey, Jesus never existed!".
The snooty priests never said it, nor did the Romans, nor did anybody.
It'd be like somebody coming forward nowadays to say "Elvis never existed", they'd be carted off in a straitjacket..Smile



Actually, it is amazing what people can say without being carted off in a straitjacket! But I guess you realize that, Romeo. Wink
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 05:56 am
Not everyone is agnostic or even close to agnostic. Not everyone believes in imaginary answers to life.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 07:24 am
Jesus just left Chicago and he's bound for New Orleans.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 11:22 am
@nap40,
nap40 wrote:
I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning that I believe in the possibility of a correct God, . ..
Just exactly what do you mean by a 'correct God'? How are you in a position to evaluate?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 11:44 am
@FBM,
Oooo . . . good one, Boss . . .

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 06:20 pm
@nap40,
nap40 wrote:

I consider myself to be agnostic, meaning that I believe in the possibility of a correct God, or any other reasonable explanation to existence and life. However I have come to the conclusion that no matter how you look at religion, its main purpose is manipulation of the masses as well as to put power in the hands of few. For instance if no religion is correct than this proves my point, but even if a religion is proved right, it would nullify all other religions because they would contradict each other. Meaning if a religion is real all others are false. Now you will notice that everywhere humans are there is some sort of religion. If only a max of one religion can be true, why are there others? The answer is simply because people created, at least the majority, of religion to suit their needs and gain power to control the masses though fear of the vengeance of God or the Gods.


What is a "correct" God?

While some/many practioners of religion have, exclusively, intended to obtain personal power, I can't see how you have drawn the conclusion that the perfidy of some, impugns the whole.

I also have no clue, what-so-ever, as to how the argument that "no religion is "correct" proves your point...whatever that may be.

I sense that you perceive your post to be founded in logic, but I don't get it.

Religions are a set of conclusions about the meaning of life and the workings of the universe. Unfortunately most, if not all, have strayed from explaining life to insisting upon how life must be lead.

Like any human endeavor, the potential for the taint of individual avarice certainly exists and has been expressed in the world's religions.

You seem to scoff at the notion that there is only one "correct" religion (and whether or not you got there rationally, you would be right), but then you lay this premise as the foundation of religious thought.

That no religion is "correct" doesn't invalidate or minimize the virtues of them all.

Religions were created to explain life and the universe. You argument that they were created to subjugate the masses is reflective of your personal bias.
Without a doubt, individuals seized upon religions to amass personal power, but this, in no way, invalidates what may be the truth in these religions.

Your argument is no diffent than one that suggests that democracy is nothing more than a means for individuals to amass personal power and subjugate the massess...proven (as you would suggest) by the fact that bad actors have manipulated democratic institutions.

You need to give this a lot more thought.

0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 08:55 pm
@Setanta,
I wondered who would pick up on that. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 08:43:19