Is religion all about money and control ?

[LostSouls7]

Organized religion p***es me off for the most part.

I grew up in these godly religions.

But they way I see it in a nutshell: They ask you for money, some even ask you to leave your esate and money to them afer you die! That is really sick.

They demand you do everything they say or you will go to hell or be judged whatever the story to scare you is.

You end up a subservaiant slave who can't think for themsevles.

I think all organized religion is all BS. They are in it to take your money and happiness.

And they would hate you see you rich and happy. Claiming that is Devil.

I am close to nature and the universe, and i live the life I want now.

Oh and you churches , I rather spend my last dollar on beer and pleasure than let your dirty

hands touch my dollars !

Also you don't own me.. I live for myself not for agenda of enslavement.

you call me evil.. but you steal from the poor.. and keep people in false fears..

to control their minds and lives.

You should be shamed of yourselves.

Thank you.

Edited October 31, 2013 by LostSouls7

[Nighthawk9653]

Back in the medieval times- or around there- the most wealthy people controlled the church. Not the church and the religion doing the controlling, the wealthy people poured money into it and they could control it, so then they could control the people.

Something like that, anyways.

But yeah, I don't wholly believe that church and religion is a bad thing, but I don't think it's great. Many people commit horrible acts in the name of their god, but at the same time it really keeps people going and makes them good.

I guess you have to put your faith in the right thing.

[pallidin]

Organized religion p***es me off for the most part.

I grew up in these godly religions.

But they way I see it in a nutshell: They ask you for money, some even ask you to leave your esate and money to them afer you die! That is really sick.

They demand you do everything they say or you will go to hell or be judged whatever the story to scare you is.

You end up a subservaiant slave who can't think for themsevles.

I think all organized religion is all BS. They are in it to take your money and happiness.

And they would hate you see you rich and happy. Claiming that is Devil.

I am close to nature and the universe, and i live the life I want now.

Oh and you churches , I rather spend my last dollar on beer and pleasure than let your dirty

hands touch my dollars !

Also you don't own me.. I live for myself not for agenda of enslavement.

you call me evil.. but you steal from the poor.. and keep people in false fears..

to control their minds and lives.

You should be shamed of yourselves.

Thank you.

I think you do have some good things to say.

For example, I am just sick of tele-preacher's promoting you giving THEM money.

I would like for ONE preacher to say "Don't give me any money, give it to the poor"

[JGirl]

i'd say the church is all about money and control. religion itself is just an expression of belief.

[+Paranoid Android]

I was going to answer with a partial agreement that some religions and some churches do seem to be about money and power, though I also was going to caveat that with a note that not all churches and/or religions are like that.

But after reading the opening post, I'm instead going to simply comment that you seem to have some anger issues with (organised) religion. Bad experiences from your past, perhaps? Perhaps not, maybe you're just angry at perceived injustices. All I can say is that not all organised religious groups are like you seem to think. For example I would leave a church that asked me to bequeath my estate to them on my death. I would leave a church the moment it told me "do as I say or else".

Best wishes

~ Regards, PA

Edited October 31, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Almagest]

If you don't have anger issues with the refuge of frauds, criminals and hatemongers then you don't have a properly functioning moral compass.

[libstaK]

If you don't have anger issues with the refuge of frauds, criminals and hatemongers then you don't have a properly functioning moral compass.

I agree, however, I do not believe all organised religion falls into that category - that is one very broad brush you are using.

Yes, there is corruption in religion. In every walk of life, in every type of endeavour that is organised, the potential for corruption exists. I have a friend who is a part of a Dog Club. She teaches others to train their dogs part time and is a member of the committee. Recently there have been some changes in committee membership and unexplained holes in the budget, the newbies are quite a band of clicky pals and very secretive. When questions are asked - they blame the previous members, yet the problems are in current expenditures, not past. This is just one example.

I do not blame religions, I blame the unscrupulous charlatans who attach themselves to various religions and make a mockery of the sincere efforts of genuine and sincere believers of many generations past in some cases. It is a sad idictment on human nature in general that corruption can take root so easily and create a jaded and bitter mindset in those who fall victim to the conmen and criminals. These victims then hate, without proof, all who have ever been associated with the religion or group, even when so many were and are sincere.

Discernment of human intention in all our dealings in life, without prejudice is the best recourse and yes, it does not follow that a person who holds a position of authority or responsibility automatically deserves our respect or trust, each man and woman must earn that, no matter their "title" in life.

Edited October 31, 2013 by libstaK

[Grandpa Greenman]

Depends on which religion you are talking about. Abrahamic religions seem to be the ones most susceptible to the control freaks, but I see it in Pagan paths, too. It just goes to show greed and power has no boundaries.

[Frank Merton]

If you don't have anger issues with the refuge of frauds, criminals and hatemongers then you don't have a properly functioning moral compass.

Having anger issues is unavoidable if one has any sense of history. However, we have to deal with the present, not the past, and at least some religions seem to have changed.

[Mr Walker]

If you don't have anger issues with the refuge of frauds, criminals and hatemongers then you don't have a properly functioning moral compass.

I don't have anger issues with anything. I am motivated by logic and reason, yet i have an excellent functioning moral compass.

religions are made up of people. People are good and bad. So choose a religon which is good, is made up of good people, and provides you with the spiritual company you need or want..

[Almagest]

I don't have anger issues with anything. I am motivated by logic and reason, yet i have an excellent functioning moral compass.

religions are made up of people. People are good and bad. So choose a religon which is good, is made up of good people, and provides you with the spiritual company you need or want..

So none of the issues surrounding organised religion elicits any anger from you? You don't feel angry that the Catholic Church protects child molesters and then turns around and tells us the way we're having sex is sinful? Or that they teach that HIV is bad but condoms are worse? Or that it has assisted and defended some of the worst regimes in European and South American history? Or that it's still sitting on centuries of blood money? What about Islamic hate preachers that are given a soap box for their vile BS to be spread, and we can't criticize them at risk of offending the religious? What about American Evangelism, which preys on the fears of the average human being for profit? These are some of the issues people have a God-given right to be angry about.

"Why would someone dare getting angry at someone like that? They must suffer from some kind of psychological problem!"

That kind of thinking right there dismisses those who have a right to be angry. I reject that notion, and the notion that anger is something negative that has to be avoided. Anger drove people to unionise, to hold revolutions. It is a neutral emotion that can be harnessed for either good or bad purposes. I think LostSouls7 is correct, the apologists for these institutions should be ashamed of themselves.

[+Paranoid Android]

I don't have anger issues with anything. I am motivated by logic and reason, yet i have an excellent functioning moral compass.

religions are made up of people. People are good and bad. So choose a religon which is good, is made up of good people, and provides you with the spiritual company you need or want..

I've just been watching some old episodes of Star Trek (the original series). Reading your post, I found the voice in my head reading it sounded just like Spock. Be wary, Mr Walker, the Spock character was a warning to what too much logic can do. Bones was on the other side of the spectrum - the emotional and passionate one, and equally a warning about unbridled emotion. Captain Kirk was the balance who brought them both together. I'm not sure humans were meant to be Vulcans who operate only on logic.

Could be wrong, of course. I'm talking of a show reflecting 1960's humanity.

Edit: ok, it may be to harsh to say Spock and Bones are "warnings". But they were created to let Kirk work through situations while verbally addressing his rational and emotional sides that are used by all humans.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[zoser]

Organized religion p***es me off for the most part.

I grew up in these godly religions.

But they way I see it in a nutshell: They ask you for money, some even ask you to leave your esate and money to them afer you die! That is really sick.

They demand you do everything they say or you will go to hell or be judged whatever the story to scare you is.

You end up a subservaiant slave who can't think for themsevles.

I think all organized religion is all BS. They are in it to take your money and happiness.

And they would hate you see you rich and happy. Claiming that is Devil.

I am close to nature and the universe, and i live the life I want now.

Oh and you churches , I rather spend my last dollar on beer and pleasure than let your dirty

hands touch my dollars !

Also you don't own me.. I live for myself not for agenda of enslavement.

you call me evil.. but you steal from the poor.. and keep people in false fears..

to control their minds and lives.

You should be shamed of yourselves.

Thank you.

Most religion today is a gross degeneration or departure from what it is actually meant to be.

The mistake is that people see cultural demonstrations and then make umbrella judgements about religion in general. When in fact it's unlikely that most have not the slightest idea of what it really is.

In the main today religion as demonstrated is little more than

A 'be saved compliance'

A place to hide.

An insurance policy.

An advertisement of (assumed) virtuosity.

A set of robotic rituals.

Whereas in truth these have little or nothing to do with religion itself.

It's impossible to do this subject justice in one short post. I will just have to see how the thread develops in terms of whether I want to write more, but for now the truth of religion lies in this direction:

A feeling based intimacy about life itself as the whole of life offers itself up to you

A contract between yourself and those living essences that are trying to establish themselves here that have no carnal opportunity on their own.

A continuum of development and refinement that allow the regenerative essences more and more access to you and therefore the wider world.

The old lady in the park who puts bread out for the birds on a daily basis for the love of it is expressing religion in it's purest form.

This is a 3 way relationship: The old lady, the birds, and something else unseen, yet still part of the picture. It is the glue or the unifying principle between them.

And I haven't even mentioned saviours or holy books!

[Frank Merton]

Religions mostly do good on the local level and evil on the national and larger level.

[Almagest]

Most religion today is a gross degeneration or departure from what it is actually meant to be.

The mistake is that people see cultural demonstrations and then make umbrella judgements about religion in general. When in fact it's unlikely that most have not the slightest idea of what it really is.

In the main today religion as demonstrated is little more than

A 'be saved compliance'

A place to hide.

An insurance policy.

An advertisement of (assumed) virtuosity.

A set of robotic rituals.

Whereas in truth these have little or nothing to do with religion itself.

It's impossible to do this subject justice in one short post. I will just have to see how the thread develops in terms of whether I want to write more, but for now the truth of religion lies in this direction:

A feeling based intimacy about life itself as the whole of life offers itself up to you

A contract between yourself and those living essences that are trying to establish themselves here that have no carnal opportunity on their own.

A continuum of development and refinement that allow the regenerative essences more and more access to you and therefore the wider world.

The old lady in the park who puts bread out for the birds on a daily basis for the love of it is expressing religion in it's purest form.

This is a 3 way relationship: The old lady, the birds, and something else unseen, yet still part of the picture. It is the glue or the unifying principle between them.

And I haven't even mentioned saviours or holy books!

Precisely. And why if there are three ladies who do that together does there need to be an organisation to ensure that they all do it the same way and for the same motivations?

[zoser]

Religions mostly do good on the local level and evil on the national and larger level.

Again only according to the modern cultural idea of religion. In no way is that what religion really is.

Better to refer to what see on TV and in the media as 'assumed religion'.

Another term would be 'packaged religion'.

Edited November 1, 2013 by zoser

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

So none of the issues surrounding organised religion elicits any anger from you? You don't feel angry that the Catholic Church protects child molesters and then turns around and tells us the way we're having sex is sinful? Or that they teach that HIV is bad but condoms are worse? Or that it has assisted and defended some of the worst regimes in European and South American history? Or that it's still sitting on centuries of blood money? What about Islamic hate preachers that are given a soap box for their vile BS to be spread, and we can't criticize them at risk of offending the religious? What about American Evangelism, which preys on the fears of the average human being for profit? These are some of the issues people have a God-given right to be angry about.

"Why would someone dare getting angry at someone like that? They must suffer from some kind of psychological problem!"

That kind of thinking right there dismisses those who have a right to be angry. I reject that notion, and the notion that anger is something negative that has to be avoided. Anger drove people to unionise, to hold revolutions. It is a neutral emotion that can be harnessed for either good or bad purposes. I think LostSouls7 is correct, the apologists for these institutions should be ashamed of themselves.

Your post reminds me of my 1997 Harsh Elektro song "Blame (Vex Mix)." Just a note.

[zoser]

Precisely. And why if there are three ladies who do that together does there need to be an organisation to ensure that they all do it the same way and for the same motivations?

I agree with you.

The next step in the contemplation of what religion is would be this:

It takes a considerable number of years for someone to be adept at playing the violin. Or learning English, or ancient history.

What makes people think that they can 'do' religion just because they chose to?

My neighbour the other day came forward after a family bereavement as said to me the words "I got God last week".

My thoughts in response were "Does God actually know that"!

People assume the most weird things where religion is concerned. It needs training, study, dedication sensitivity, a developed feeling life, a continual review of one's core values, an in depth appreciation of human purpose, and more if one is to make a targeted pursuit into it.

[aimlesswalk]

Organised religion has it's failings but the set of spiritual beliefs which constitute organised religious systems are in direct opposition to the sentiments of human nature such as greed and materialism and proliferation of the strong at the expense of the weak. It is the theory of evolution which encourages through accepting the competitive and intolerant nature of humanity which it does without question or condemnation but rather celebrates this.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[libstaK]

Precisely. And why if there are three ladies who do that together does there need to be an organisation to ensure that they all do it the same way and for the same motivations?

I would start by saying there is nothing inferior in the three ladies who feed these birds compared to the acts found in organised religion. What is worth noting is that the development of humanities moral and compassionate compass is irrevocably tied to the evolving spiritual/religious teachings in the world.

I have no doubt that there would be humans such as these ladies if there was no religion in the world today. What I find interesting though is would there be as many or less or more?

We simply cannot know.

[Almagest]

Organised religion has it's failings but the set of spiritual beliefs which constitute organised religious systems are in direct opposition to the sentiments of human nature such as greed and materialism and proliferation of the strong at the expense of the weak. It is the theory of evolution which encourages through accepting the competitive and intolerant nature of humanity which it does without question or condemnation but rather celebrates this.

If humans were not social animals, that might be the case. Religious belief is useful for social cohesion, but when the institutions turn to corruption and oppression they have to meet resistance, or else they trend towards further corruption and oppression. And that goes for everything, but especially churches, unions, governments, corporations and scientific bodies.

I would start by saying there is nothing inferior in the three ladies who feed these birds compared to the acts found in organised religion. What is worth noting is that the development of humanities moral and compassionate compass is irrevocably tied to the evolving spiritual/religious teachings in the world.

I have no doubt that there would be humans such as these ladies if there was no religion in the world today. What I find interesting though is would there be as many or less or more?

We simply cannot know.

I'd say that your second point is pretty accurate, but I'd add that sometimes it comes from the reaction to those things too.

[aimlesswalk]

If humans were not social animals, that might be the case. Religious belief is useful for social cohesion, but when the institutions turn to corruption and oppression they have to meet resistance, or else they trend towards further corruption and oppression. And that goes for everything, but especially churches, unions, governments, corporations and scientific bodies.

The definition of humans as social animals is used is a term that seems to be used in an increasingly oppressive way to denote social acceptance which is based on conformity to a consensus or standard deemed acceptable by a social clique whose interests are informed by hypocrisy and self serving double standards. It is hierarchal human behaviour which leads to corruption and oppression often in highly competitive societies intolerance also becomes a factor. If this trend is to be reversed all human social interaction must become impartial and devoid objectively neutral to the collective interests of everybody and not the democratic notion that only the needs of the majority must be served.

Edited November 1, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Almagest]

The definition of humans as social animals is used is a term that seems to be used in an increasingly oppressive way to denote social acceptance which is based on conformity to a consensus or standard deemed acceptable by a social clique whose interests are informed by hypocrisy and self serving double standards.

I haven't noticed that at all. All 'social animal' means is that the creature co-operates with others to survive. Ants and Lions are social creatures, yet we'd find human society collapsing pretty fast if we attempted to model it on either of their societies. The forces of freedom and cohesion in society have been at odds since the dawn of time, I doubt the theory of evolution has anything to do with that. If people use Social Darwinism in order to oppress, as they did in the mid 20th century, it's just another tool for control, like the divine right of kings and feudalism. It also stems from a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, which applies to life forms and genes, but not societies.

It is hierarchal human behaviour which leads to corruption and oppression often in highly competitive societies intolerance also becomes a factor. If this trend is to be reversed all human social interaction must become impartial and devoid objectively neutral to the collective interests of everybody and not the democratic notion that only the needs of the majority must be served.

I don't agree with that at all. Impartiality towards social interaction strips all the life from it. I wouldn't want to live in such a world. It is our partiality towards those we see suffering through the same trials as our own that draws us together, allows us to find a measure of solidarity and make change. That is especially important for those who aren't in the majority.

[SpiritWriter]

We have a religious inclination as a part of our lives, some preachers preach partial truth in order to open up that function in the heart of a follower. Filthy pastors in my mind are always the first ones to go straight to hell. Not all religion is that way though, so please don't attributes every believer, every church and every pastor with these attributes... please dont do that.

[zoser]

Organised religion has it's failings but the set of spiritual beliefs which constitute organised religious systems are in direct opposition to the sentiments of human nature such as greed and materialism and proliferation of the strong at the expense of the weak. It is the theory of evolution which encourages through accepting the competitive and intolerant nature of humanity which it does without question or condemnation but rather celebrates this.

Be careful. How do you establish that these sentiments are natural?

Don't forget that each human being starts of with basically an empty computer and is programmed. By themselves and what they choose to be exposed to, school, parents, the prevailing culture, media, etc.

Mostly I would suggest unnatural programming. How many of you ever felt that school was totally natural?

The case against what you are saying is that if a human chooses a path of self decision and refinement it is possible to re-write those sentiments that were programmed into you such as 'me first etc'.

It can be done. It is not in our true nature to be selfish, greedy, bullish, rude, insensitive, etc. If you choose to be different and work every day at it, it can be done.

It is I agree going against the tide of modern culture.

Edited November 1, 2013 by zoser