Jesus was a Marxist

[mrswdk]

...

*hem hem*

...

Is the answer by any chance the expansion of free markets and the reduction of government penetration of society?

[BigBallinStalin]

...

*hem hem*

...

Is the answer by any chance the expansion of free markets and the reduction of government penetration of society?

"the answer to... religion"? That doesn't make sense.

[mrswdk]

The answer to... 'how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.'

Fear not, fair Samwise. Mordor lies just the other side of this mountain.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, because of the free market and the reduction of government power, people use religion for certain goals?

[mrswdk]

Naaaah.

So here's the problem:

Instead, our criticism of religion should be levelled against that select group of people who take advantage of the members and cause more problems for non-members.

Another criticism involves the means through which that problem is mitigated or exacerbated. For example, when Mussolini teamed up with the Catholic Church, he gained more support, thus enabling him to exert more control over others. Another example is governments in general granting subsidies/tax credits to religious organizations. Governments have also used religion as a means for supporting wars against others (now, it's nationalism + religion).

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

And it's a big 'un!

My theory is that lessened government and the expansion of free markets would help combat this problem. The socialized Church should end; the more 'free market' Church will be less susceptible to official co-option.

[Lootifer]

I lol'd

[nietzsche]

betiko

Anyway, in my original post here I mentioned that religion, organized religion, became a tool for the control of the masses. Of course much of what's written in the scriptures is not real. But some of what might sound naive nowadays you have to understand that it might have another meaning now that what it had in those days: language evolves.

Other things you have to understand is not for the rational mind to understand, because it's meant to be spiritual instructions. In spiritualist matters, you can be communicated with language what it's trying to be shared, but you cannot "get it" by understandig. You need to experience it, to meditate.

Is not a religion also the reflection of a group of people's customs and mores? Specifically, people believe in a manner through which its members (and sometimes non-members) should act, so they can come together as a group which abides by the same moral rules.

There are many organizations which can used as a tool of control--e.g. governments, neighborhood associations, bowling leagues, etc. Nevertheless, these organizations vary in their goals for retaining and increasing members, so it's not interesting to say that an the organization is a tool of control. Pretty much all organizations are systems which require control.

I missed this yesterday. But I don't really know what should I answer.. I'm gonna give it a try.

Religion is the tool or means some people use to connect to god. I guess you could say in a broader sense that the definition includes the belief in how people must behave, or ethics. On how this first core scope of the concept evolves to include the broadened definition we could give it a try to speculate, although I'm hessitant because I'll make more than one mistake for sure and then that single mistake would be used to debunk all I've said.

When I say that religion became a tool to control masses what I'm trying to point at is at the fact that it's very likely much of what it is in the scriptures, or simply is told about Jesus has been manipulated. Why did it became a tool of control, well, it was right there, it was only natural to those who saw the opportunity to take it. Priests, and those who ally with or subject the Priests. In history, for Christianism it was Constantino the Great.

Yeah, I mas o menos agree, but if we agree on this, then we should agree that religion itself is not the issue. Instead, our criticism of religion should be levelled against that select group of people who take advantage of the members and cause more problems for non-members.

Another criticism involves the means through which that problem is mitigated or exacerbated. For example, when Mussolini teamed up with the Catholic Church, he gained more support, thus enabling him to exert more control over others. Another example is governments in general granting subsidies/tax credits to religious organizations. Governments have also used religion as a means for supporting wars against others (now, it's nationalism + religion).

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

I think fear takes a big part in what you are saying. Many believe they need to be in agreement with the figures on top of the religious organizations or they'll go to hell. This is where it becomes problematic, because a person that is happy with his god is unlikely to start a movement agasint these figures, because, well, they are happy persons.

I'm lost here, not that I believe in an anthromorphized god or any "god" for that matter, but because I really don't care what others do in politics or wars aor whatever. I don't think I can solve mankinds problems or think so much until I find a solution. What you call "the problem" I call the way things are.

If there hadn't been a Jesus of Nazareth politicians would've used another means to impose fear on their subjects. Those who go in a grand effort to control others have a psychological tendency to think they need that. Most people are content with simple pleasures.

Starting of right now, you have the posibility of becoming a president of the US, and therefore have the control. The posibility exists, the chronological list of actions to get you there exists, and you know that. Would you embark on the task and effort? I think not. Why would you? I think there's only one kind of people who would do that, those with a psychological hunger of power. Their will is there, they'll be open to find the means to do it. Controling the masses by casting fear on them, moral highgrounds, hell and all that, it's only a means.

[BigBallinStalin]

Naaaah.

So here's the problem:

Instead, our criticism of religion should be levelled against that select group of people who take advantage of the members and cause more problems for non-members.

Another criticism involves the means through which that problem is mitigated or exacerbated. For example, when Mussolini teamed up with the Catholic Church, he gained more support, thus enabling him to exert more control over others. Another example is governments in general granting subsidies/tax credits to religious organizations. Governments have also used religion as a means for supporting wars against others (now, it's nationalism + religion).

The problem isn't religion, but rather how and why certain people are allowed to use religion for certain goals.

And it's a big 'un!

My theory is that lessened government and the expansion of free markets would help combat this problem. The socialized Church should end; the more 'free market' Church will be less susceptible to official co-option.

Oh, sure, the less power government has, the less means people have to act opportunistically.

People don't like this though because they want other taxpayers to subsidize their churches (churches don't pay most, if any, taxes).