Welcome to Gaia! ::

Possibly the most debated subject ever is religion, now I maintain that communism and religion do not oppose each other but communism and the modern interpretation of religion as a whole do. Actually, on that subject I think the church opposes religion- for instance, the catholic church bathes in money, the pope lives in practically a castle and their buildings are huge supplying the leaders of the church with unholy (no pun intended) amounts of money. These practices oppose the teachings of Jesus which is what christianity was originally based on (I say originally because it has been corrupted far from those views). Jesus said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven." I believe in the new testament, yet the church celebrates wealth, and frowns on more communal ideas that were proffesed by Jesus. It is the same for most large religions, greed has taken over in place of belief.

My next argument, is not particularly against religion but once again against the common interpretations of it- the current idea professed by most religious structures and organisations is follow the religion so you can go to heaven, where the idea should be what is used to be in many churches- be a good person to get into heaven. This is another corruption of the religion into an incentive program.

Religion has become focused on supernatural elements for a while, and has been growing farther from the moral and human elements first professed in every religion ever- be kind and fair to your fellow man, help those less fortunate, and be an all around good person. Instead, religion has become based on come to church once a week, put some cash in a basket and pray occaisionally to go to heaven.

This brings me to my fourth argument which is simply a moral one and one no longer neccesary in some religions but a basic idea in Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and others. On one side of the argument this idea is neccesary because every incentive does on the other hand need a punishment or something that happens if you don't follow the rules to get the incentive- that idea is hell. The basic idea of hell in most religion is that if you don't follow the religion, fight against it, or commit some evil then you go to hell to indure torture for all eternity. To say it simply that's ******** up. This means that by the ideas originally written and followed in the christian religion, in the 1500s-1700s mostly, but still followed unless you confess and/or start going to church. This means if christianity was the correct religion, all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics (plan backfired eh?) go to hell to indure eternal pain and suffering. This is for what? Everyone can agree there is no definite proof for or against god so the religion you chose is circumstantial to the place you live, how you are raised, and other random things no one has control over. The pope could have just as easily been born in Japan and be a Shinto monk, or an atheist or anything. So in what way is it your fault if your belief is not "correct"? It is no fault of yours, it could even be traced back to "god"- for a "god" would be the reason you were born, and if they control everything and are all loving why would they want you to indure torture.

Thus bringing me to my fifth point- all religions profess god to be loving and fogiving, and to have created everything. If god was loving, and caring, then why in this world is there so much pain, suffering, starvation, drug addiction, depression, capitalism, greed, and horror? If god made us in his image, and every problem stated there is man made, then is god imperfect and if so, how?

Further "proof" against god and religion, although it is all ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&mode=related&search=
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell (should be required reading, the link below leads to a free online versian)
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

Finally, in my last argument relating to the general theme of this guild- do religion and communism oppose each other? I briefly answered this in the first paragraph but I would like to go slightly more in depth. First of all, Marx was technically Jewish but also said that religion is the opiut of the masses. Of course it is not at all neccesary to being a communist to agree completly with anyone, as a matter of fact you shouldn't blindly agree with everything anyone says. Is religion the opiut of the masses? Well first we must understand the definition of opiat and the definition of religion. These are from www.dictionary.com-

o·pi·ate (ō'pē-ĭt, -āt') Pronunciation Key
n.
1.Any of various sedative narcotics containing opium or one or more of its natural or synthetic derivatives.
2.A drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives: a natural brain opiate. Also called opioid.
3.Something that dulls the senses and induces relaxation or torpor.

adj.
1.
a.Containing opium or any of its derivatives.
b.Resembling opium or its derivatives in activity.
2.Inducing sleep or sedation; soporific.
3.Causing dullness or apathy; deadening.

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Now, the definition of religion is fairly straight forward- something you believe to explain things not yet explained scientifically such as what happens after you die, where the world came from, and things of that sort. This is proven in history, as religion used to explain gravity before Einstein introduced the scientific ideas of why planets moved as they did. Another example- evolution is a proven fact, and religion is stopping saying that god created man as a whole although most still insist a god did.

Opiate is also simple, containing opium, a drug that dulls the senses and makes you have a sleeping sensation. Religion dulls the senses to scientific advance and blinds the eyes to basic realities no matter how hard to take and accept.

I'll probably add more later, thoughts comments or suggestions? Constructive critism is welcome as well.

I am going to argue from a 'Christian' standpoint because of my faith system. It differs from some, but as you know, when you are under a term, not everyone agrees.



Exactly. The main religion that Marx saw was an institution interested in being institution, not some sort of representative of God. The Church became the Power, rather than God having the power.
In the New Testament, as my dad always points out, the early church was a community. Read Acts 4 and you can see that there is one hell of a difference between that church and the churches of Marx's day and of today.

Religion can be the opiate of the masses. It could allow you to conform to a horribly destructive belief set without compromising your 'beliefs', namely capitalism. But other things can be argued as the opiate of the masses: American idealism, entertainment, materialism, science, Darwinism and other ideologies. Ideologies that could become the religious opiate.

I don't believe that religion alone is the opiate of the masses. ANYTHING that says that the world one lives in is just alright, fine and dandy, would be the opiate. The American idealism, entertainment, religion, so on and so forth.


First off, I know from all the religions that I am aware of, your first statement is incorrect. Some ancient religions were brutal, some had apathetic gods, and most just had ones hoarding over humanity like we were a step below them, asking for such ridiculous sacrifices such as children and livestock. Many had no interest in love or forgiveness.
Today's religious beliefs are feelgood religions, but I don't think that is where you were going with your statement.

Second off, there are many theological arguments about that. For all the answers, none of them are completely adequate. No answer to any question in regards to theology is completely adequate. Got to take it on faith.

If anyone else picks this thread up, I'll keep throwing my thoughts in. But I think its an adequate response considering the date of the essay and the response post.

About the whole human suffering thing, you are misinformed on the subject. Actually according to the bible God has no power over the free will of humanity and therefore it is not in his power to stop human caused suffering like drugs, war and even plague (which is caused by poor sanitation and poverty).

I got really excited when I saw that there was a topic posted by Leninator that was in that little feed that they give me for my guilds.... but alas.... Leninator is still gone to us. crying

God was such a b*****d in the Old Testament. He mellowed out in his old age.

I find...none of it makes much sense. So little sense, in fact, that until someone shoves it in my face, religious matters rarely enter into my thoughts at all. So yeah... I would say I'm not that religious sort of atheist either. Just one that isn't going to devote a lot of time to arguing because I think the idea is so absurd. =|

You know you have too much money when you can buy the silence of sexually abused children, of course you can't be a good parent if someone can buy your silence after they have touched your kid, so ima say we should also get rid of parents, take a little bit of advice from our good friend skinner ;D