|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2007 7:45:23 GMT -8
6/2/06:
Morality as an Instrument of Power?
"Religion is the opiate of the masses"; well, at times it is. But Marx didn't have the whole story. He forgot how often religion has been the changing force of society, created all sorts of unrest: hey, Christianity ended slavery in England, talk about a major upset; Christianity turned Rome on it's head; that' s not exactly an example of a drug lulling people into subservience.
Have morality or religion been misused as an instrument of power? Hell yes, just like any good thing is often misused. Should we be wary this? Yes, but it's not just religions that are used this way; it's Communist ideology as well. Morality can be used as an instrument of power, but that' s not all morality is.
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 8, 2010 14:50:28 GMT -8
This is why I am faithful but not religious. I think that religion gives faith a power it was never supposed to have-a power over entire countries, over entire populations...a power that is frequently used to eliminate freedoms if not destroy people entirely. The message of compassion and service is lost. The view of Jesus as the renegade that He was is not fully appreciated. Church is faith to the lowest common denominator...it's on par with 'a person is smart, people are stupid'. Faith will not fail you but religion is easily corruptible.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 9, 2010 20:11:37 GMT -8
DEM,
How do you define "religion" or "religious"? Just curious. Because I think lots of people use the word differently.
|
|
|
Post by deusexmachina on May 9, 2010 23:10:35 GMT -8
DEM, How do you define "religion" or "religious"? Just curious. Because I think lots of people use the word differently. Religion, to me, is taking faith and putting it into a defined set of beliefs, rules, and practices. The problem is, no one ever agrees on what beliefs, rules, and practices should exist. Even within the Christian faith there are hundreds of churches that all practice different things. Which is fine in general, but when you institutionalize things like that it tends, by human nature, to become "us" and "them". Before you know it it's "us" VS "them. It separates people while at the same time making them easy to control (if the church does something, so will the congregation). Faith is left to the personal conviction of each believer and does not create that dangerous mob mentality that religion so often does.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 19, 2010 19:30:05 GMT -8
In general, by those definitions, I agree with you DEM.
However, I'd like to redefine the word "religion" as James does,
James 1:26-27
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
|
|