VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:49:19 01/16/02 Wed
Author: Cats
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 24.243.49.163
Subject: Re: Um
In reply to: kathleen 's message, "Um" on 06:13:20 01/16/02 Wed


>
>kat: Marx claimed that religion is "the opiate of the
>masses." True? False?


I believe it's true...or at least can be. my understanding of what he meant at the time was that religion kept the general population sedate, and thereby easily controlled. a good example is what happened recently. there was such an uprising of partiotism and "faith" that people who were neither patriotic, nor terribly faithful in the god of christianity were frightened of serious backlash against them. In fact, it became that the two were hand in hand...you weren't patriotic unless you were god-fearing, and you weren't god-fearing unless you were patriotic. Felt like the fucking 50's. I was talking about his recently, actually. how religion is used for political means. the current popular interpretation of the book of revelations, is that once the world becomes one, peaceful and unified people...that's the work of the anti-christ, and the sign of the end. as far as i can tell, that view became popular in the 40's and 50's, when we were damn terrified of the rest of the world wanting what we had. i hear this constantly from christians. anytime there are talks of america cooperating with other nations, there are always large numbers of christians who don't want to, because if we become too involved with the rest of the world, the anti-christ will get us. it's completely absurd, but we've managed to keep our heads in the sand as a country so far. i believe a contributing factor to that is that people justify it with religion.

kat: What "purpose" does religion serve in
>human life, for lack of a better term?

coming from the perspective that there are unseen forces, religion is the only (or maybe just the easiest) way to attempt to understand them. potentially, to have a relationship with god, or whatever you happen to believe in...it's how we describe the feelings and connection we have to whatever it is we believe in. coming from the perspective that it's *not* true, and there's nothing out there...it's neccessary for most humans to believe that there's something out there...we invent religion to either justify our actions, or to have some unseen force to lean on when things are to much for us to bear. my question is...if there isn't anything out there...why are we most of us wired to need to think that there is? of course, that begs the question of total socialization, or partial genetics. are we really wired that way, or have we just been socialized since the begining of history to believe this way?

kat: What does
>religion mean to people now, in an increasingly
>corporatized and consumeristic society?

On some levels, it means the same thing. At it's basic description, religion is a belief system that guides how we lives our lives. So, whether we're talking about being a roman soldier, or a CEO, it (should) still influence us in that manner. I think the difference is that back in the day, the belief in a higher power meant something more direct. obey the gods or the harvest will be bad. lead a good life according to your religion and things will go well. that's a general theme in most philosophies, with slight differences. today, it seems like religion is group therapy. it's focused on us, how it makes us feel, not how we can better serve whatever deity we believe in, or how we can better follow our specific belief system. at least, that's how it is in america.


kat: Has its
>meaning and methodology changed over the ages?

yup. see above.

Kat: What
>does the fact that the Sept. 11 attacks on the WTC and
>Pentagon were largely spurred by a "Holy War"
>motivation mean?

it means that bin laden doens't know his own fucking religion. jihad means "struggle" as in to struggle in our daily lives. to struggle with our families, and our faith. back when the islamic people were nomadic, they had to war on other tribes in order to survive...this severely went against the teachings of peace in the qur'an. in order to justify the fact that they *had* to do this to live, the idea of jihad was interpreted for a while (and then written out in other holy texts) as a holy war for survival of the people. bin laden is a fucking nutbar, who would have found an excuse to exterminate those who aren't like him regardless of what religion he had been. even if he'd had no religion at all. he could have been a fucking atheist who decided that all non-atheists needed to die. the fact that there are things that can be twisted to support his psychosis in the muslim faith just makes it easier for him to convince others to do his dirty work. religion plays an important role for such psychos as bin laden because it invokes such passion in us. anything that invokes that much passion can be used dangerously.

Kat: How does this shape perception of
>the event -- a modern war fought for what many
>(perhaps ignorant persons) might claim is an
>"antiquated" reason?

um...i don't understand the question...heh :/

Kat: What does the fact that the
>American government relies on the name of God in many
>of the wars they wage mean (wars fought "with God on
>our side," since this is "God's country," etc.)?

it means we're retarded. based on the assumption that america is a "christian" country, god is not with us in war. i refer you to the onion:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/god_clarifies_dont_kill.html

i'll also refer you to the bible, as that's what this nation claims to base it's belief in god on:

Matthew 5:38-40
38
"You have heard that it was said, `Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
39
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40
And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Luke 6:28-30
28
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
30
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.

We cannot justify war of any sort based on christianity. It also kind of fuckers our foreign policy in general.




>
>WOO! I POSTED, yo!
>
>Hi cats, hi blu!


HIIIIIII!!! *wave*

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.