Religion's Effect on society

The original idea behind religion is slavery. It has always been known one must in doctrine young. For those in life crisis that find it at a later age one has to look at the circumstances and personal weaknesses in character of a person the winds their life into a crisis. To suddenly remove the responsibility of personal character and moral performance to a group or master and be free of personal soul searching to achieve a desired character is very liberating.
The premise of course is so unbelievably implausible of course. But to place your master first relives you of much of the daunting task of self building your own moral development. It's the top down power structure and class distinct system that has formed our current society. And the society it has formed is in genuine crisis.
I personally have chosen to form my own moral code and place first and most important in my life to be my lovely wife. I don't wait for the universe to reward me. I actively try to help other individuals with their varying dilemma's and eventually karma shines on me.
I will never accept that I have a higher afterlife status because I have chosen a man made concept. This belief finds me on equal ground with my fellow humans.
I do contend openly that our current crisis was caused by this line of thinking. We all know that we are not living in harmony with our environment but ignore the fact, knowing the solution is too difficult to think about. Some invisible master will fix it all. My opinion only of course.

If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

So if a tyrant rules then we can only blame his victims. The message of jesus was a revolutionaries dream of peace mercy and freedom but like all common rebellions, the men who seek power over others made it holy and degraded it into a religion that controlled and manipulated men.

If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

So if a tyrant rules then we can only blame his victims. The message of jesus was a revolutionaries dream of peace mercy and freedom but like all common rebellions, the men who seek power over others made it holy and degraded it into a religion that controlled and manipulated men.

I agree with you Xris. In the United States you have the freedom to walk away from religion. That freedom does not exist for slaves.

If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

So if a tyrant rules then we can only blame his victims. The message of jesus was a revolutionaries dream of peace mercy and freedom but like all common rebellions, the men who seek power over others made it holy and degraded it into a religion that controlled and manipulated men.

I agree with you Xris. In the United States you have the freedom to walk away from religion. That freedom does not exist for slaves.

No matter what people try to force you to do, or how much influence a religion has on you, no one but yourself can force you to believe.

If religion is slavery then people are only enslaving themselves.

So if a tyrant rules then we can only blame his victims. The message of jesus was a revolutionaries dream of peace mercy and freedom but like all common rebellions, the men who seek power over others made it holy and degraded it into a religion that controlled and manipulated men.

I agree with you Xris. In the United States you have the freedom to walk away from religion. That freedom does not exist for slaves.

No matter what people try to force you to do, or how much influence a religion has on you, no one but yourself can force you to believe.

So indoctrination has no value? There is very little freedom when you examine the statistics.

It only has value when done to a person who is inclined to be a follower instead of a leader. Statistics would also show there are more followers.

You could be tortured. You could look at all the statisticts you want. You can see god with your very eyes. But no matter what you tell other people, or yourself, you, nor anyone else can directly control what you believe. Even if they came out with some sort of drug or hypnosis, you still wouldn't truly believe.

You could be tortured. You could look at all the statisticts you want. You can see god with your very eyes. But no matter what you tell other people, or yourself, you, nor anyone else can directly control what you believe. Even if they came out with some sort of drug or hypnosis, you still wouldn't truly believe.

Are you speaking about "doubt"? If so you are right, doubt always contains some percentage in a belief, but the amount of doubt decides whether you take the belief as truth or a falsehood.

You could be tortured. You could look at all the statisticts you want. You can see god with your very eyes. But no matter what you tell other people, or yourself, you, nor anyone else can directly control what you believe. Even if they came out with some sort of drug or hypnosis, you still wouldn't truly believe.

Are you speaking about "doubt"? If so you are right, doubt always contains some percentage in a belief, but the amount of doubt decides whether you take the belief as truth or a falsehood.

I agree. But weather or not the doubt outweighs the belief depends on the kind of person you are.

The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Cool story. Got a reference for that one?

The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Cool story. Got a reference for that one?

That's not really a fact that can be proven. Unless by reference you mean something out of a holy book.

The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Cool story. Got a reference for that one?

That's not really a fact that can be proven. Unless by reference you mean something out of a holy book.

Any sort of coherent grounding for that statement at all then, maybe? Anything?

The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Any sort of coherent grounding for that statement at all then, maybe? Anything?

Well, if you truly have faith in a religion, then your actions are affected by it. And you cannot change what you believe in.

In Full Metal Alchemist, a false preist was using a science called alchemy to create false miracles. He used this to make the people do what he wanted because he claimed he was a messenger of god. These miracles included making statues walk, and healing injuries.

An intersting thing he did was tell one of his disciples he could bring her dead boy freind back to life. He knew he couldn't actually do that. Is this woman a slave to the religion because she thinks if she follows the rules she will get her dead loved one back? I think no, but it is a loose example of how religion can become slavery.

The original idea behind religion is slavery.

Any sort of coherent grounding for that statement at all then, maybe? Anything?

Well, if you truly have faith in a religion, then your actions are affected by it. And you cannot change what you believe in.

In Full Metal Alchemist, a false preist was using a science called alchemy to create false miracles. He used this to make the people do what he wanted because he claimed he was a messenger of god. These miracles included making statues walk, and healing injuries.

An intersting thing he did was tell one of his disciples he could bring her dead boy freind back to life. He knew he couldn't actually do that. Is this woman a slave to the religion because she thinks if she follows the rules she will get her dead loved one back? I think no, but it is a loose example of how religion can become slavery.

Full Metal Alchemist isn't real life, so is it really relevant to the idea that "the original idea behind religion is slavery"? (Nope!)
Besides, even if Full Metal Alchemist was real life, a "false priest" abusing his religious position to gain power is still irrelevant to the idea, because

a) religion is already a part of the picture so his malfeasance is not an original part of the religion
and
b) his malfeasance is not slavery, so even if FMA was real life and even if this priest was the sole inventor of the first religion in the real world, it would still not prove your initial statement.

Try again?