Religion is one of most powerful tools to make humans adopt a way of life...do you think religion was invented by few humans to enslave human beings?
Yes it was, and its the most dangerous thing in the world. Everyone needs to know this
Not in the very beginning, when it was simply an effort to explain what the people didn't understand.
It didn't take the shamans and priests long to pick up on the possibilities, however - anyone that actually talked to the gods could wield enormous control over the rest of the population. Which is exactly what they do.
Except the ones who would think to do these things are the ones enslaved by religion and those who they seek to enslave, are the ones who would see beyond religion.
Religion enslaves but not in the most think...it seeks conditions the mind of all and has successfully done so until now.
Some because they are absolutly convinced by it and others becauses they are totally unconvinced to the extent that they rail against it.
Neither of these see beyond it thus their enslavement.
I should also add the ultimate enslavement of religion is not unto itself (religion) but something as we might say greater than itself.
So we see religion merely as the tool.
Whether invented to enslave humans or not, it does.
Absolutely... Enslave the mind, enslave the person...
Everything we have in this world is an enslavement of one kind or another. We are slaves to consumerism, to comfort, to sport, to hunger, to sex, to human company, to desire, to pleasure, to vanity, to government policy, to convention and to our consciences. We are slaves to mortality too, since death or a fear of death imposes certain restrictions on our ability to do certain things.
Anyone who thinks that we would be free spiritually or physically in the absence religion is ignoring the nature of existence.
Is religion designed to enslave people?
In general, no.
The point of religion is to activate a spiritual resistance against the human inclination towards basic animal instincts in favour of an obedience to the conscience. Christianity as a practice, frees the mind as a means to freeing the body. As mischeivousme says, "enslave the mind, enslave the person". A person without restraint is a slave to his or her immediate fancies. Spiritual discipline, in which the virtues of fortitude and patience are exercised, is about the mind taking command of the body with the aim of freeing the body from a meaningless and decrepit existence.
A person who follows his religion without thought will not be free, but will probably be more free than a person who imposes no restrictions on their behaviour.
To say that everything is a form of slavery is kind of missing---or dodging---the point. I can just as easily say that life itself is a form of slavery.
Instead, I agree with the assessment by wilderness, that, initially, religion was a means of making sense of the mystery of life. But, soon, those who would conquer and exploit saw the potential for religion to not only unite, but, also to divide. Ever since then, religion has been used as sanction for the conquering, domination, enslavement, torture and execution of others. And it continues unabated today, in its various forms: Muslim violence; Christian Fundamentalist politics and propaganda; Protestant/Catholic hostilities, etc.
Yes, life itself is a kind of slavery, and religion is one way of channeling our best instincts while controlling the ones which cause us discontent.
Religion may be used to cause harm, but that is not the point of religion.
If a person says, "I am a Christian and so I'm going to kill you", we cannot say that that is a fault of religion. That is the fault of a person.
But, don't Christians claim a religious legacy from the Old Testament? And doesn't the God of that Old Testament initiate incidents of genocide and slavery and other atrocities; including the creation of racism when Ham saw Noah naked in his tent? And weren't Hebrew women just mere property?
And did any of the New Testament authors refute or condemn any of the atrocities of the Old Testament? Not at all; instead, the history of Christianity is filled with Old Testament style brutality.
So, you can't fall back on the argument that it's "the fault of the person" when it's God himself directing his "chosen people" to commit acts of brutality as recorded in the Old Testament.
...science, technology, education, law/politics included.
These are all the elements of Theos (known as Duality, Tres Priori, Adamic Inception -and my own coined title: The Ism).
Why is sensationalism being singled out? Typical spousal abuse, I suppose. Beat the wife and justify the husband? Sigh...
Put perspective, in perspective: Had equation (deemed logic/common sense) never inspired sensationalism, it would have never got off the ground. It was their formation of sensationalism that even allowed the 'sciences' to remain. Equation was and still is the slaver of men. Reason. Sensation tempers the redundancy of extremely dry, if not mundane equation. So, it is: slavery with benefits.
Humanity has been enslaved since the Inception. If, for even a brief moment, one could exercise practical faith -unbridled, passionate but still practical faith; in that moment they would taste what freedom truly is. Without pseudo, Without Mechanics, without memorialized verbose preconceptions; They could feed every mind, heart and body with just the taste of that instance. Now, take that instance and multiply it by seven billion more humans on the same planet. True, all equation and sensation would become null and void, but isn't that the entire point of the 'quest' of both? Isn't this what man was supposed to experience all the time? ~ jcharless : The Ism ©2012
I'm not singling out sensationalism. I'm pointing out the facts of religion, in general, and certain religions in particular. See my above response to lizzieboo.
Why is it that we make excuses for God that we would never make for humans? We except the atrocities of the Old Testament God, yet, we would never imagine doing such things ourselves. We rationalize God's inhumanity while condemning it in humans. And it's religion that purports to speak for God, and that's what makes religion so dangerous.
I find it often difficult to climb up and down the monkey bar. But, the reality of what you are implying is also dangerous. You mention the god of the "Old Testament", which is what most post-sensationalists lean on as fuel, without truly understanding what it was you briefly read, or were force fed, during that particular indoctrination. Singling out one god as the beholden of all gods. Interesting...
Rather fitting the pendulum swings far left, to "uber" equation. No doubt, concessions/excuses are made for it as equally as sensationalists do there gods.
Both idols are the same, from opposite ends. It is called defending humanism.
Unless either id defended, people believe there is no justification. And without justification, cannot validate why they do what they do -nor can they propagate their wares upon the masses. And yes, the religions of science and sensation certainly claim to speak for their gods. Else, their ideas would die, and neither side wants that, at least at present.
As I learned some time ago, translating a love letter in Russian, to Spanish, then Afrikaans, ends up sounding like a hate letter to an ex-mum-in-law.
I agree that language has its inadequacies, and the more abstract the idea, the more difficult the translation into language.
As for making a god of science, I do no such thing. I apologize if I gave the impression that I idolize science. However, I do recognize the familiar ploy of framing science as the opposite extreme of religion when I encounter it.
At least science deals in observable---thereby quantifiable---phenomena, whereas religion deals in mythological speculation. So, your equating scientific reasoning with religious extremism is a red herring.
Absolutely, organized religion exists for only one purpose, to control and manipulate the behavior of others.
I think religion can be a great place to put your trust, if you really believe in it. Whatever it is you are, try to have an open mind so you'll have more options. I don't like religions that tell you to be one type of person.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -Eden.html
It does not seem unreasonable that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is an analogy of the invention of religion. Religion has the appearance of wisdom, but it ends up enslaving people to man made rules, that ultimately enslaved man to agriculture, and a life of toil and hardship.
The problem is the malleability of human behavior, we are very susceptible to magical and divine language. If it looks bigger on the menu, we're more likely to buy it.
Very unique and even revolutionary hypothesis---the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as metaphor for the invention of religion. Brilliant supposition! And the implications could be revolutionary, but, most religious are highly unlikely to even consider the possibility.
religion? It was created so the women and children would go to sleep. We see it as a human thing, but the neanderthals put flowers and pretty stones and shells in their burials...they had a concept of an afterlife? Maybe, but they obviously grieved.
It wasn't "invented" necessarily with that specific purpose in mind, but, it didn't take long for certain knaves and scalawags to see the potential for enslavement and seize upon it.
In fact, I don't think religion was "invented" at all; it arose from the questioning of the newly born self-awareness of the human species and evolved over time into the incomprehensible muddle we have now.
I point out that originally the "bible" consisted of Ten Commandments. The books attributed to Moses were actually stories passed down from gen to gen, and all of these stories were already known to the Israelites. Moses learned to read and write in Pharoah's house, so he stepped up to record these other stories, which had already been accepted as fact.
Wouldn't that actually contradict every argument against sensationalism, as being irrational? The TOK is emphatic: knowledge. Knowledge meaning logic, reason, rationale, common sense, thinking, critique. This means the entire sum-substance of sensationalist-religion came from the same root as equation-religion (science).
I agree, the TOK is what spawned the existence of both science and sensation. And, indeed, what a brilliant metaphor to finally comes to terms with the fact: science is religion as sensation is religion. Knowledge, knowing, learning by those parameters is the error of humanity.
Religion and the Laws of Society have different goals, but they both were created to control people.
There is nothing divine about either of them, and both of them are sadly imperfect and up to the whim of the people creating them and modifying them.
Religions goal is to control all people, while the laws of society goal is to control the very small minority that harms others.
by Ajin Mahenthiran 7 years ago
To really drop the ego, Do you think it is possible the ego may feed off the concept of no ego?
by Druid Dude 9 years ago
How is this possible, that the number one most liberal person of his day has followers that are so non-liberal? Is this my imagination working over-time? Tell me what you think! Everybody chime in. I put this in the religious forum so a lot of atheists would show up!
by Alexander A. Villarasa 7 years ago
EXCEPTIONAL--- a word that humanists, of all colors and stripes, unreservedly applies to Homo Sapiens. However, in the atheist's world, Homo Sapiens is neither exceptional, nor for that matter---sensational, despite ample evidence to the contrary. So what gives?Is it because...
by Phoebe Pike 9 years ago
They couldn't care less about the planet, all they care about is the environment they live in... the earth has been here for quite some time and I highly doubt a few cars and plastic bags will harm it. It has survived so much; volcanoes, earthquakes, getting hit by space rocks, global...
by Jesshubpages 9 years ago
Evolutionists and the Atheist claims that man and all other things are product evolution. If evolution is a fact, If it is true, Where is the missing link?
by pisean282311 10 years ago
author of history of god believes religion would need to re invent and evolve itself and which ever religion fails to do so would become obsolete..how many agree to this view point?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|