Why would anyone say ‘religion’ is here…to ‘control’ people?

reply to post by OldThinker



you asked me whether they lie and I gave you my opinion, you didn't ask me what they lie about.

As for whether Jesus is god or an idiot, I think that is a very severe line to take. It'll only lead to confrontation, it's akin to saying that you are either a male or a slave. That kind of extreme view is dangerous, if you ask me to pick one, I'll be forced to say that he must therefore be an idiot, because as I have stated I will not accept him to be the son of God, even less God.
Many Christians would be insulted by that, and that leads to open conlfict. This is how religion becomes a problem.

The prophets and jesus shat, pissed, lied, ate, had coitus, got angry, dirty & smelly, and had to wash just like everybody else in history. Ask yourself why the Jews did not embrace Jesus as the son of God, or even God. Is it perhaps because their ancestors had the chance to see Jesus as an ordinary person. Think of how we see Ron.L Hubbard (definitely an idiot).

Originally posted by dariousg
Do you honestly think that the creator of all, the one that created each and every one of us out of LOVE would seriously have done so for us to WORSHIP it?

Those who are capable of giving away their freedom of thought for the promise of eternal life really do not have choice here but to worship.

Alternative to them is eternal death, and who doesn't want to live forever, really?

Originally posted by OldThinkerIn my mind, when I started the thread I was thinking "control" as a bad thing....but you are right that "control" can be applied technically to any rule...speeding limits.......or even, the divinity of Jesus!!

You are right!

Control, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. The more people there are, the more some form of control is needed to keep the idiots in line, as there are always those who care not for those they must live among, but only for their own self centered wants.

The tricky part is being wise enough to know when there is enough. The near impossible part is trying to keep corruption out the controlling bodies. There are always those who seek to be the power dictating the rules for their own ends. This is when control becomes a bad thing.

When the controlling bodies start to act out of their lust for money and/or power, or use their powers to protect those among themselves who are abusing their authority to further their own ends, that is when the controllers must be ousted, and the system rebuilt from the ground up.

Of course, that's easier said than done as the controllers must have some sort of power base with which to enforce their rules in the first place, and once entrenched they are very hard to pry loose.

Even systems of control which are started with the very best of intentions eventually reach this point, as history has shown again and again. I don't think there has ever been a controlling body, religious or governmental, which has not fallen prey to this corruption. If there is/has been, I've not seen or heard of it.

I do, however, wish it were otherwise.

Originally posted by CloudySkye
reply to post by observer28

 

I won't even presume to try to reply on OT's behalf but from my perspective it is clear that most people hold their beliefs, be it in a religion or anything else, very close. To hear different people share their core beliefs and to understand why they feel that way is they way to a more tolerant society. I'd say that is reason enough.

The trouble is, from a non-religious person's perspective, it is easy to be suspicious of people asking you what you believe in if they are religious as they have a tendency to then try to make you believe in their religion. Or impose it's interpretation on your beliefs.

Give how those beliefs are so personal, this can be quite insulting. Wouldn't you agree?

Another way of looking at it is, why do you ask why OT asks?

[edit: removing any refences to gender assumptions!]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by CloudySkye]

I generally agree and you are correct about my suspicions regarding OT's intentions. From my perspective, religion IS a control dynamic...BUT it is not THE control dynamic. The biggest issue is that most people, to one degree or another, have the base social programming to externalize self-responsibility and blindly follow ANY perceived external authority figure or "savior" figure. Religion is just another means to mask this programming, a program on a program if you will. Also, Most non theists have their precious science to bow down to, for example. So my distaste isn't reserved for the theists. It is reserved for ALL to adhere to this programming to focus on external salvation and authority figures.

Back to OTs post: My suspicion comes from the fact that a core kernel in the religious programming is to self-propagate in any where whenever possible. To get others to submit to it's false "authority." The line of question that OT is engaging is typical of this programming beginning the process of "spreading the word." HOWEVER, I have not seen OT doing that in this thread so I think OT may be conscious enough to at least partially take command and keep the programming in check. However, in the end, the programming does, I suspect, keep OT in ultimate check by keeping him subservient to an external authority figure, god/jesus in this case.

Religion is an extremely base level type of belief structure and most folks who whole heatedly buy into it do so due to lack of conscious decision making power (discernment and self realization), fear or social pressure. Ultimately, despite my position that I think religion is a virus that should be destroyed, it is not my place to interfere in the lives of others in such a manner and so long as they keep it to themselves and it is no longer "just accepted" then I'll be fine with it. Until then, I shall continue to challenge any theist or blind servant of the base programming mentioned above. I have answered OTs questions in my own way...I trust OT is intelligent enough to get the answers he seeks from what I have written.

[edit on 7-2-2009 by observer28]

1)Do you think faith/religion is here to control the masses

Control is not directly stated, but it ends up vicariously creating mindsets which offend those who just want freedom to be natural, not psychoticly spiritually blind.

2)Why?

To keep people in check for the time traveling plan by real evil.

3)Your evidence?

Just read the bible, then look up patents, then listen to Art bells time traveling guests and coporations working on time travel now, it works!

4)Did you once believe?

I still believe in God, a God of truth, so far humans can only suppose truth and interprate it with huge errors, like oppressions and such, which has led to todays followers being close minded know it alls of God. Its annoying.

5)Did you change?

After I did drugs at age 17, my life saw truth.
which is why they are illegal by God fearing morons.

6)Why are you an atheist?

no, im non religious

7)Why are you an agnostic?

I dont like labels i dont understand

8)Why you are a christian?

im not that either, im just a dude..relax.

9)What ‘SHOULD‘ God look like/act like/be like?

A swirling orb of color and light so intense if you looked at it you would go insane forever. Kind of like a realy intense acid trip.





[edit on 7-2-2009 by mastermind77]

reply to post by OldThinker


true faith...yes it is their faith in their belief that their "faith" shouldnt be compromised by infidels - people out of their belief system- lest they be dammed and wont qualify for the final judgement and miss the gravy train...and this apply to all and i cant see how this faith restrain them but blew and cut their heads off...and again i emphasize, to all of them, because of their faith.so again i reiterate , religion wasnt for control...its mayhem...

reply to post by observer28


observer28,

"...Religion is an extremely base level type of belief structure..."

This statement of yours seems to indicate your exposure to the religious is somwhat limited...really naive. Might i recommend Dr. James fowler's work? You speak of 'base level', he would say...true...but there are more mature models after that some get to...read between the lines of MLK's speeches and you'll begin to 'see'

True religion has done more good for this planet that any other force...because there are other 'forces' you know? They're really the reason for your skepticism and the ill's you speak of...

reply to post by OldThinker


1) Do you think faith/religion is here to control the masses?

Absolutely
2) Why?

I assume you want to know why we think so as opposed to why they do

Any religion, that tells you how to run your personal life, is controlling it.
Any religion, whose rules are set up to ignore basic human functionality, and put you in a no win situation because you have natural tendencies going against your religion, is a control situation.

You can't always assume rules are set up by the bible. Priests were allowed to marry a long time ago, but the church decided that they want to be the ones to inherit the land and fortunes, because it used to be only the rich could become priests. Funny how that worked out.

Humans are meant to breed, they are sexually driven creatures. To tell humans that even sexual thoughts is a sin is putting people in a very difficult position, making them feel eternally guilty, keeping them in church.





3) Your evidence?

I will have to get back to you on that, as I am under a time constraint.

4) Did you once believe?

I was once a very devout Methodist. Creepily so.


5) Did you change?

yes, in my teens. When life got harsh, I never felt more alone. I don't buy the footprints thing. If God is the father then a father shouldn't leave you floundering and looking for footprints.

I always was drawn to the wilderness. I even practiced out in the wilderness. I went without religion for a bit, studied many religions, and found paganism was perfect for me, and I was looking for the whole time. And I have never been alone since.



6) Why are you an atheist? 7) Why are you an agnostic? 8) Why you are a christian?

not applicable


9) What ‘SHOULD‘ God look like/act like/be like? 9) What ‘SHOULD‘ God look like/act like/be like?

I have two, a God and a Goddess, who have both been portrayed in many names and forms.

I imagine being deities they look how they want to look.

1)i do think religion is here to control the masses, but thats not neccesarily a bad thing, 2) Becouse some dumb people need to be kept in some degree of order, eg. if i was stolen from i woudnt be able to turn my back again. so if i make everyone believe that it is moraly wrong to steel, noone will steel,that simple.
3) from a perspective of genuin personal experience, i think in terms of common scence,logic and hearing both arguements before forming an opinion, and when one thinks of humanity from a logical perspective, and takes an example like christianity (the 10 commandments) it seems that all the rules are set to maintain an orderly society. i dont think this is bad ,but to prevent people from straying away from following this path. they need to be passionate about these rules and eventualy this can lead to hatered of anyone else that doesnt follow these rules.
4) i used to.
5) i did change
6) i am not
7) im an agnostic becouse there are so many plausable arguements about faith,it is possible that there is no god but also very plausable that there is, not neccesarily an all knowing god ,or one that still lives, but a god.i am agnostic becouse there are so many possibilitys out there that it is nearly impossible to form a well grounded opinion of god.
9) it is impossible to know these things, or even that god could be contumplated through our "eyes".

Originally posted by OldThinker
Thank you for the lengthy response...

Is believing in anything really dangerous? Aren't you using hyberpole?
Reply: "Belief is the result of mental conditioning. So it's what you are conditioned to believe that could be dangerous. If it's not your reasoning, it's someone elses with an obvious agenda to use you to carry out his/her wishes."

Why would you say older people don't believe at all? Isn't that a generalization man?
Reply: "It is a generalization because age is immaterial, it's what you are conditioned to believe that matters. And blanket statements carry no weight. With some older persons experience may eventually replace some of the irrational beliefs when the conditioned see that the beliefs do not pan out. Some older people do not see any existence of gods or jesus (as an example) so even if they are still strong religious individuals, they have not seen anything to convince them that while alive anything out of the ordinary is going to happen. The go to bed and they get up and the world doesn't change, for good, it's the same and sometimes worse."



OT

C'mon folks, get with the program! First and foremost, find historical evidence for the reality of Jesus THE Christ (Christ is not a last name but a title and it means in Greek "the anointed one.") So it's Jesus the anointed one. And since there are no historical records there was never a Jesus and there were many individuals with the name Joshua and none of them were miraculous beings. Religions exist for only one purpose, to control. Atheists are not controlled and use their brain/mind 100% and carry no religious baggage. We don't buy myths/legends, etc. We deal with the world here and now, using logic, reason and common sense. You can't put one over our head. And relying on later documents is not the scientific way to go.

All gods, from the beginning of the first one, were created by humans. The Egyptians are probably the more intelligent ones because no god from their past rules them, except for a few irrational persons.

Learhoag

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by CloudySkye
I'm not christian because I cannot accept that Jesus Christ was the son of God. I respect the teachings in the New Testament as well as those of the Torah and Qo'ran the Vedas and the Teachings of the Buddhas. All the religious Texts have aspects that make sense because they teach you to be a respectful, sociable, open-minded person if taken in the right light.

Nice reply...let's focus on the above....was JC of God, a prophet, or what?

[edit on 7-2-2009 by Learhoag]

reply to post by Learhoag

Considering the fact that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant backwater area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

here... www.gotquestions.org...

I have read through a little bit of this thread, and I apologize if I missed anything with what I have to say this late in the game, because as usual, threads having to do with religions, can get kind of rough.

If people choose to do with a program, then they are not being controlled.

With my experience, and the Catholic faith, it was shoved down my throat while I was growing up. I did not have a choice of my own, it was decided by my parents who consisted of one Catholic, and one of Jewish faith.

I found the rituals of the Catholic faith very controlling. Kneel here, sit there, bend knee before sitting in pew. Go to confession or you go to hell.

Heck, I don't even believe in hell!

If anyone thinks their religion is controlling them, then that is not the religion for them.

If you feel a need for one, then search to find what is comfortable for you.

reply to post by Learhoag

Evidence for Jesus – His Last Days and Crucifixion

The evidence for Jesus in the events leading to his crucifixion starts across the Kidron Valley from Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives. There, we can walk through ancient olive trees to the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus prayed before his capture. Then, we can look back across the Kidron Valley to the Golden Gate where Christ entered Jerusalem for his trial, scourging and death.

Elsewhere, we find more evidence for Jesus and the leaders presiding over his trial and crucifixion, including an inscription that mentions the Roman procurator of the time, Pontius Pilate, and the actual bones of the Jewish High Priest of the time, Caiaphas, preserved in an ornate ossuary (bone box). The evidence continues throughout Jerusalem where we can stand in the judgment place of Pontius Pilate called Gabbatha, and then walk the Via Dolorosa where Christ carried his own cross to Calvary. The huge Church of the Holy Sepulchre is considered by most scholars to be a reliable historical site covering the locations of the crucifixion and burial of Christ. Incredibly, a 2,000-year-old heel bone pierced by an iron nail was recently discovered in a Jerusalem graveyard that sheds more light on the practice of crucifixion by the first century Romans.

link.... www.allaboutarchaeology.org...

reply to post by Learhoag

What about Jesus?

This brings us to Jesus. What evidence is there from ancient history to point us to the reality of a historical Jesus? In addition to the numerous references to Jesus in ancient religious literature (references that range from the New Testament to the Gnostic writings to even the Quran), there are references to Jesus by the following:

Tacitus, the ancient Roman historian, who wrote of "Christus" being "put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius"
Josephus, a Jewish historian,who made two references to Jesus in his famous Antiquities
There are also references to Jesus or to early followers of Jesus in the writings of Roman historian Suetonius, second century Greek satirist Lucian, and Syrian philosopher Mara Bar-Serapion.
A note on Josephus: While one of the two references to Jesus was likely tampered with, historians agree there was at least a core reference to Jesus prior to its being edited. Thus, Josephus’ references constitute, at the very least, evidence of the reality of Jesus as a historical figure. In the words of one Princeton Seminary scholar: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus."

link: protestantism.suite101.com...

reply to post by Learhoag

The search for the “Historical Jesus” is a rather recent undertaking of so-called scholars and realists, who look to dissect the Biblical record and paint a real picture of the man, Jesus. For about the last 100 years, including most recently, the Jesus Seminar, intellectual debate has made its way into the mainstream media based on the supposed goal of “separating historical fact from mythology.” The problem is that the entire “Historical Jesus” movement is a product of the 20th Century philosophy of naturalism, in that all debate begins with a shared, yet concealed, presupposition – that anything outside the realm of natural explanation can never be backed by historical evidence. In a nutshell, the movement holds that it's impossible for the Gospel accounts of Jesus to be historically accurate, because they record things that simply can't happen, like people walking on water, food multiplying, and people being raised from the dead. Of course, this is not scholarly evaluation of the historical evidence or Biblical manuscripts – this is strict adherence to the philosophy of naturalism.

hmmm??

link: www.allaboutjesuschrist.org...

reply to post by Learhoag


www.leestrobel.com...

A vid for you...


Thanks for joining OT's thread....

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
If anyone thinks their religion is controlling them, then that is not the religion for them.

If you feel a need for one, then search to find what is comfortable for you.

Lot of wisdom there!!!Two thumbs up!

OT

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by dariousg

 

[
I'm sure that the people here on ATS will be surprised to find out that they are not free.

Unfortunately, your subsequent statements contradicts your own claim that people are NOT free. You admit that people can choose NOT to accept the religion that you claim their parents "force" on them. No one can FORCE ANOTHER to think in a certain way, unless the people being "forced" are very weak minded. Furthermore, your assumption that children only have two choices is flawed. There are plenty of other options, including "going along" with the parents, but believing what the child wishes. Parents cannot read minds. In addition, your scenario is not universal. I know many parents that let their children decide on their own.
In addition, I would appreciate it if you would not resort to personal attacks. Telling people that they have "blinders" on is very presumptuous, and calling them "very religious", when you know nothing about them, is wrong.
I would suggest that you stick to debating positions, and refrain from ad hominem attacks.

Then you are sorely mislead too. YOu are basically stating that PARENTS (YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE THAT RAISE YOU) have no influence on the thoughts and beliefs and actions of the children they raise...

Hmmm, maybe you should stick to debating positions, and refrain from blind statements.

Originally posted by dariousg

Hmmm, maybe you should stick to debating positions, and refrain from blind statements.

Can I be "Mills Lane"

"Let's get it on!"

Just havin' a lil' fun!

OT