Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Is religion the opiate, or entertainment?

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 11:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fundamental motivation of those claiming to be believers & Story book jebus, is one of lust for the Story book promises of divine rewards!

Take away those promises or ask them to refuse them & their jebus wouldn't get a look in ever again apart from a bad example to them!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 5:52:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Human beings are innately social creatures. That's why it is when an individual is isolated from the group, for a prolonged period of time, he, or she, has a tendency to develop a dissociative disorder. In most traditional societies, the harshest punishment imaginable, by the group, was excommunication, or banishment. This was feared even more severely than the threat of execution.

People find their identities, in each other; religion is one means, among many, to find an association with one's culture.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 5:52:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Human beings are innately social creatures. That's why it is when an individual is isolated from the group, for a prolonged period of time, he, or she, has a tendency to develop a dissociative disorder. In most traditional societies, the harshest punishment imaginable, by the group, was excommunication, or banishment. This was feared even more severely than the threat of execution.

People find their identities, in each other; religion is one means, among many, to find an association with one's culture.

That's my opinion, too. I don't think it was necessarily religion itself that ever acted as an opiate of the masses, but the social connection that it represented. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian authorities sent out a request for millions of Bibles in order to oppose anarchy. Not that I believe the Bible itself is a magical book, but it brought some social order from the chaos. Today in the Western world, it is entertainment which brings us all socially together. Take away our entertainment and you are going to see some angry people...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:43:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 11:58:16 PM, Composer wrote:
The fundamental motivation of those claiming to be believers & Story book jebus, is one of lust for the Story book promises of divine rewards!

Take away those promises or ask them to refuse them & their jebus wouldn't get a look in ever again apart from a bad example to them!

But what about the official methods of Greek and Roman authorities, who had no faith in the Christian God? The Romans sponsored bloody spectacles and perverted productions to distract the citizens from bad news like the treasury running low, or military defeats. They knew that as long as the people were sufficiently engaged in fulfilling their desires they wouldn't bother too much with the corruption happening all around them. The early Church leaders used Bibles written in Latin, which only the officials could read or use, in order to contain the masses in an orderly way. All it takes is a brief study of the Popes to see this was true. Time and again successful reformations happened, only to be completely corrupted by the lure of physical pleasures. It's definitely a lot more complicated than it's often made-out to be.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 12:32:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 10:32:49 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/26/2013 5:52:11 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Human beings are innately social creatures. That's why it is when an individual is isolated from the group, for a prolonged period of time, he, or she, has a tendency to develop a dissociative disorder. In most traditional societies, the harshest punishment imaginable, by the group, was excommunication, or banishment. This was feared even more severely than the threat of execution.

People find their identities, in each other; religion is one means, among many, to find an association with one's culture.

That's my opinion, too. I don't think it was necessarily religion itself that ever acted as an opiate of the masses, but the social connection that it represented. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian authorities sent out a request for millions of Bibles in order to oppose anarchy. Not that I believe the Bible itself is a magical book, but it brought some social order from the chaos. Today in the Western world, it is entertainment which brings us all socially together. Take away our entertainment and you are going to see some angry people...

Yet, religion is not a mere spectator's sport; to religious and also socially conservative minds, it defines the familial and interpersonal roles, in society. For instance, the Church has traditionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In other religious cultures, marriage may be defined as one man and many wives. Yet, still in other religious traditions, the male and female to be married are chosen by the parents, respectively. The Church goes on to define a man's responsibilities to his family, the woman's role as wife and mother, and how it is offspring are to behave. Beyond the nucleus of the family, the Church defines how it is men, women, and children are to interact with each other. Not only does religion bring coherence to a society but, also, defines the roles each member of society plays and thusly gives each member his, or her, own identity.

As new trends arise such as equality for women and a gender neutral definition for marriage, the religiously and traditionally minded members of society feel as though not only are their religious traditions under attack but, also, their identities; therefore, the attack, at least for them, is extremely personal. In the beginning, the trend leads to fragmentation; it is only after the trend becomes a norm are new identities established.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 7:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yet, religion is not a mere spectator's sport; to religious and also socially conservative minds, it defines the familial and interpersonal roles, in society. For instance, the Church has traditionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In other religious cultures, marriage may be defined as one man and many wives. Yet, still in other religious traditions, the male and female to be married are chosen by the parents, respectively. The Church goes on to define a man's responsibilities to his family, the woman's role as wife and mother, and how it is offspring are to behave. Beyond the nucleus of the family, the Church defines how it is men, women, and children are to interact with each other. Not only does religion bring coherence to a society but, also, defines the roles each member of society plays and thusly gives each member his, or her, own identity.

As new trends arise such as equality for women and a gender neutral definition for marriage, the religiously and traditionally minded members of society feel as though not only are their religious traditions under attack but, also, their identities; therefore, the attack, at least for them, is extremely personal. In the beginning, the trend leads to fragmentation; it is only after the trend becomes a norm are new identities established.

But how does this have anything to do with subduing the masses as with a narcotic? It seems to me you've gotten off-topic and that you are now simply criticizing the tenets of religion. That was not my initial thesis.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:14:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 7:21:25 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yet, religion is not a mere spectator's sport; to religious and also socially conservative minds, it defines the familial and interpersonal roles, in society. For instance, the Church has traditionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In other religious cultures, marriage may be defined as one man and many wives. Yet, still in other religious traditions, the male and female to be married are chosen by the parents, respectively. The Church goes on to define a man's responsibilities to his family, the woman's role as wife and mother, and how it is offspring are to behave. Beyond the nucleus of the family, the Church defines how it is men, women, and children are to interact with each other. Not only does religion bring coherence to a society but, also, defines the roles each member of society plays and thusly gives each member his, or her, own identity.

As new trends arise such as equality for women and a gender neutral definition for marriage, the religiously and traditionally minded members of society feel as though not only are their religious traditions under attack but, also, their identities; therefore, the attack, at least for them, is extremely personal. In the beginning, the trend leads to fragmentation; it is only after the trend becomes a norm are new identities established.

But how does this have anything to do with subduing the masses as with a narcotic? It seems to me you've gotten off-topic and that you are now simply criticizing the tenets of religion. That was not my initial thesis.

Because, I see religion, for most people, is more than just social entertainment.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:54:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 11:14:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/28/2013 7:21:25 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yet, religion is not a mere spectator's sport; to religious and also socially conservative minds, it defines the familial and interpersonal roles, in society. For instance, the Church has traditionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In other religious cultures, marriage may be defined as one man and many wives. Yet, still in other religious traditions, the male and female to be married are chosen by the parents, respectively. The Church goes on to define a man's responsibilities to his family, the woman's role as wife and mother, and how it is offspring are to behave. Beyond the nucleus of the family, the Church defines how it is men, women, and children are to interact with each other. Not only does religion bring coherence to a society but, also, defines the roles each member of society plays and thusly gives each member his, or her, own identity.

As new trends arise such as equality for women and a gender neutral definition for marriage, the religiously and traditionally minded members of society feel as though not only are their religious traditions under attack but, also, their identities; therefore, the attack, at least for them, is extremely personal. In the beginning, the trend leads to fragmentation; it is only after the trend becomes a norm are new identities established.

But how does this have anything to do with subduing the masses as with a narcotic? It seems to me you've gotten off-topic and that you are now simply criticizing the tenets of religion. That was not my initial thesis.

Because, I see religion, for most people, is more than just social entertainment.

Noted. But I still don't see how that could cause it to take-on the role of "opiate of the masses." A statement like that suggests that religion placates the people, dulls their senses, and curbs their curiousity, thereby keeping them docile and controllable while filling them with empty gratification. I realize there is a huge, almost continuous argument over the characteristics of religion, but that's not what I was asking about.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 10:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 11:54:41 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/28/2013 11:14:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/28/2013 7:21:25 PM, Idealist wrote:
Yet, religion is not a mere spectator's sport; to religious and also socially conservative minds, it defines the familial and interpersonal roles, in society. For instance, the Church has traditionally defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In other religious cultures, marriage may be defined as one man and many wives. Yet, still in other religious traditions, the male and female to be married are chosen by the parents, respectively. The Church goes on to define a man's responsibilities to his family, the woman's role as wife and mother, and how it is offspring are to behave. Beyond the nucleus of the family, the Church defines how it is men, women, and children are to interact with each other. Not only does religion bring coherence to a society but, also, defines the roles each member of society plays and thusly gives each member his, or her, own identity.

As new trends arise such as equality for women and a gender neutral definition for marriage, the religiously and traditionally minded members of society feel as though not only are their religious traditions under attack but, also, their identities; therefore, the attack, at least for them, is extremely personal. In the beginning, the trend leads to fragmentation; it is only after the trend becomes a norm are new identities established.

But how does this have anything to do with subduing the masses as with a narcotic? It seems to me you've gotten off-topic and that you are now simply criticizing the tenets of religion. That was not my initial thesis.

Because, I see religion, for most people, is more than just social entertainment.

Noted. But I still don't see how that could cause it to take-on the role of "opiate of the masses." A statement like that suggests that religion placates the people, dulls their senses, and curbs their curiousity, thereby keeping them docile and controllable while filling them with empty gratification. I realize there is a huge, almost continuous argument over the characteristics of religion, but that's not what I was asking about.

Which part of defining the roles each member of society plays does not speak, very loudly, of control?

Secondly, if social conservatives were not placated by the roles their religion has assigned to the them, they wouldn't feel threatened by a new morality.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:07:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

All religion and religious stories came from the beast, which is God's plan to teach men how to build His created things until we got the latest technology built to teach us that we're created as energy, God's invisible Heavenly Kingdom.

God uses us saints to reveal His hidden knowledge to take all this worldly information in and teach us who we really are within His mind as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence by His first invisible created machine called His Voice, or Word of God.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:41:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Which part of defining the roles each member of society plays does not speak, very loudly, of control?

Secondly, if social conservatives were not placated by the roles their religion has assigned to the them, they wouldn't feel threatened by a new morality.

That indicates control by authority, not control by capturing the mind, as a drug would. And I think that only very conservative persons would feel threatened by change (as they usually are), and would do so irregardless of their religion.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 11:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Well, perhaps we should start with what we think Marx meant?

My interpretation is that Marx considered religion an artificial, and quite addictive, means to feel better about undesirable conditions.

What about you?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:10:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
All religion and religious stories came from the beast, which is God's plan to teach men how to build His created things until we got the latest technology built to teach us that we're created as energy, God's invisible Heavenly Kingdom.

God uses us saints to reveal His hidden knowledge to take all this worldly information in and teach us who we really are within His mind as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence by His first invisible created machine called His Voice, or Word of God.

Came from "the beast"? May I kindly ask what you mean by that? You say God uses us saints? Does that indicate that you thing we are all saints, or merely that you are one? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but a clarification would be nice. Isn't there some way to state your message using ordinary language instead of making it sound mystical?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:14:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:52:16 PM, Such wrote:
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Well, perhaps we should start with what we think Marx meant?

My interpretation is that Marx considered religion an artificial, and quite addictive, means to feel better about undesirable conditions.

What about you?

My interpretation is that governments, leaders, and especially the Church used religion to placate the masses and gain their willing obedience. To keep them all from thinking too hard about what their leaders were doing, and why. Opiates tend to "dumb down" a person, and make almost any explanation sound plausible.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 12:56:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Ah yes. The assertion that Marx dismissed religion as the 'opium of the people'. On the contrary, however, this son of a rabbinical line took his belief very seriously and this was what he wrote in his contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.


So the famous misquotation is not so much a 'misquotation' but a very crude attempt to misrepresent the philosophical case against religion.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:04:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:56:49 AM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Ah yes. The assertion that Marx dismissed religion as the 'opium of the people'. On the contrary, however, this son of a rabbinical line took his belief very seriously and this was what he wrote in his contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.


So the famous misquotation is not so much a 'misquotation' but a very crude attempt to misrepresent the philosophical case against religion.

Hmmm . . . I thought I had read the complete verses he used, but I guess I didn't get it all. Thank you for clarifying the complete argument so clearly. . .
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 1:08:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 1:04:27 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/30/2013 12:56:49 AM, Quatermass wrote:
At 10/25/2013 5:56:15 PM, Idealist wrote:
We've all heard Marx's statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, but is that really true? Even back in the time of the Romans, the emperors used gladiator-type games as a means to placate irate citizens, and the very first democratic contenders in early America threw "keg parties" to rally voters. One of the greatest appeals of religion itself (it must have been more so in earlier times) is the chance to socialize on a regular basis, which is in itself a form of entertainment. So what does everyone think?

Ah yes. The assertion that Marx dismissed religion as the 'opium of the people'. On the contrary, however, this son of a rabbinical line took his belief very seriously and this was what he wrote in his contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.


So the famous misquotation is not so much a 'misquotation' but a very crude attempt to misrepresent the philosophical case against religion.

Hmmm . . . I thought I had read the complete verses he used, but I guess I didn't get it all. Thank you for clarifying the complete argument so clearly. . .

You're welcome. I'm always having to correct people on this, so you're not alone!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:53:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 11:41:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
Which part of defining the roles each member of society plays does not speak, very loudly, of control?

Secondly, if social conservatives were not placated by the roles their religion has assigned to the them, they wouldn't feel threatened by a new morality.

That indicates control by authority, not control by capturing the mind, as a drug would. And I think that only very conservative persons would feel threatened by change (as they usually are), and would do so irregardless of their religion.

Who, the heck, in a free democracy, like America, is forced to be religious? How, in God's name, can you say religion doesn't control the mind? Last time I checked, no one, I know of at least, had a gun to his, or her, head forcing religion down his, or her, throat.
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:09:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 6:53:35 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/29/2013 11:41:59 PM, Idealist wrote:
Which part of defining the roles each member of society plays does not speak, very loudly, of control?

Secondly, if social conservatives were not placated by the roles their religion has assigned to the them, they wouldn't feel threatened by a new morality.

That indicates control by authority, not control by capturing the mind, as a drug would. And I think that only very conservative persons would feel threatened by change (as they usually are), and would do so irregardless of their religion.

Who, the heck, in a free democracy, like America, is forced to be religious? How, in God's name, can you say religion doesn't control the mind? Last time I checked, no one, I know of at least, had a gun to his, or her, head forcing religion down his, or her, throat.

America is not a free democracy, it is a democratic republic. There is a difference. Besides, democracy is a con game. A word put in place to placate the masses and make them accept a given institution.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 10:45:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 12:10:51 AM, Idealist wrote:
All religion and religious stories came from the beast, which is God's plan to teach men how to build His created things until we got the latest technology built to teach us that we're created as energy, God's invisible Heavenly Kingdom.

God uses us saints to reveal His hidden knowledge to take all this worldly information in and teach us who we really are within His mind as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence by His first invisible created machine called His Voice, or Word of God.

Came from "the beast"? May I kindly ask what you mean by that? You say God uses us saints? Does that indicate that you thing we are all saints, or merely that you are one? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but a clarification would be nice. Isn't there some way to state your message using ordinary language instead of making it sound mystical?

I explained what the beast is. It's God's plan to teach men how to build things such as buildings, cities, cars, trains, planes, universities, toys, tools, etc. until He had the technology today to understand that we were created as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence through God's Word, also known as His Voice.

All us saints ( the flesh ) were used by God to be a witness of our invisible created existence as wavelengths of energy that vibrates in harmony. The energy that we see in this world is vibrating in disharmony with His creation and will be destroyed soon by His fire, which is the magma inside the earth that will destroy all the flesh in this world that contains the bad energy that we see. Everything will be different in the next age when we wake up in our new flesh that will never be used to deceive us again. Only us saints understand God's hidden knowledge but God chose certain believers to believe in our testimonies from this knowledge about the past, present and future.

Christians believe they're saints because they read words in a Bible. Do they believe they are Superman by reading comic books about him?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 5:58:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who, the heck, in a free democracy, like America, is forced to be religious? How, in God's name, can you say religion doesn't control the mind? Last time I checked, no one, I know of at least, had a gun to his, or her, head forcing religion down his, or her, throat.

People don't choose to be religious, any more than they choose to be conservative or liberal. Their beliefs are shaped by the world and their surroundings, and also the way that they process the input. They can pretend to be or to believe something different, but it would just be a lie. Even science tells us that we have no choice in such matters as that. The human mind excels at recognizing patterns, but our surroundings are composed of patterns within patterns, almost to an infinite degree. If you continually witness patterns of cruelty, you believe the world is a cruel place, and vice-versa.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 12:06:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I explained what the beast is. It's God's plan to teach men how to build things such as buildings, cities, cars, trains, planes, universities, toys, tools, etc. until He had the technology today to understand that we were created as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence through God's Word, also known as His Voice.

All us saints ( the flesh ) were used by God to be a witness of our invisible created existence as wavelengths of energy that vibrates in harmony. The energy that we see in this world is vibrating in disharmony with His creation and will be destroyed soon by His fire, which is the magma inside the earth that will destroy all the flesh in this world that contains the bad energy that we see. Everything will be different in the next age when we wake up in our new flesh that will never be used to deceive us again. Only us saints understand God's hidden knowledge but God chose certain believers to believe in our testimonies from this knowledge about the past, present and future.

I still think this sounds quite mystical and exclusive. So how would you recognize a "saint" who has spoken to God and is carrying-out his spoken wishes? And why would such a person have to be special in any way? I think Jesus was quite clear in asserting that we are all equal, and that it is incumbent on us all to recognize this both heart and mind. In fact, he often equated even the "most lowly" with himself.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 12:23:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 12:06:49 AM, Idealist wrote:
I explained what the beast is. It's God's plan to teach men how to build things such as buildings, cities, cars, trains, planes, universities, toys, tools, etc. until He had the technology today to understand that we were created as wavelengths of energy spoken into existence through God's Word, also known as His Voice.

All us saints ( the flesh ) were used by God to be a witness of our invisible created existence as wavelengths of energy that vibrates in harmony. The energy that we see in this world is vibrating in disharmony with His creation and will be destroyed soon by His fire, which is the magma inside the earth that will destroy all the flesh in this world that contains the bad energy that we see. Everything will be different in the next age when we wake up in our new flesh that will never be used to deceive us again. Only us saints understand God's hidden knowledge but God chose certain believers to believe in our testimonies from this knowledge about the past, present and future.

I still think this sounds quite mystical and exclusive. So how would you recognize a "saint" who has spoken to God and is carrying-out his spoken wishes? And why would such a person have to be special in any way? I think Jesus was quite clear in asserting that we are all equal, and that it is incumbent on us all to recognize this both heart and mind. In fact, he often equated even the "most lowly" with himself.

God created the Word of God, which was spoken through flesh called prophets and saints. All the rest of God's creation was spoken into existence through His Word, which is also known as His Voice. Our created existence is invisible wavelengths of energy, which is known today as information. Information is God's stored thoughts so we are God's thoughts put in a way for us to understand who we are in Him.

So God's created servant is different than God's created men. God's servant is represented by all us prophets and saints. God's men are represented as male and female, but only in the next age. Man will be reborn into two bodies of flesh, one a male and the other a female. They will remain partners for eternity. God's servant will awaken as thousands of adult bodies called saints to be used to speak a new language into existence for ALL God's people to use to communicate to each other.