Is religion the "opium of the masses" as Marx said?

I agree.

 

i dont get how you view "calling a spade, a spade" as being a Marxist view of history?

the facts of history clearly show that there was never a more corrupt/oppressive/close-minded organization than Catholic Church

 

No, I gave you an example of how the Church can make declarative statements as a matter of faith which trickle down to becoming a matter of fact to an ignorant populace. I'm well aware that the church can use reason however environmentalists and capitalists don't defend their support of x with faith in deities and excerpts from the Bible.

And referring to the relationship between church and government, how can you deny that's a relationship based on power and control? That's amazing.

 

My whole problem with this is the "trickle down" stuff. It's more likely that myths and bad ideas came from the masses, not the other way around. Before forces such as religion or government, people were just going around massacring each other. It takes civilization, whether you are looking at the Western world or the far East, to stop the wonderful masses you guys are so fond of from mudering each other.

I don't view every freaking thing that ever happens as having to do with "power and control." I look more at human nature. Let's face it, human nature is poor, people murder each other all the time- that is our history. I see religion as moderating those passions and controlling our natures through morality. Religion has been bad in many ways, in some cases it makes thing worse, but it is good in many ways as well, as in the Protestant work ethic.

 

It is when you take a single instance or instances of oppression and then declare that this is the whole story of religion that it becomes Marxist thought. If you want to say the Catholic Church has oppressed people, fine. If you want to take that example and say that religion is all about oppressing, I have to disagree.

I have to disagree with your second statement. Just look at the state of Islam today. How much different is it from Catholicism back in the day?

 

I'm not sure that capitalism uses logic as it's basis any more than other economic systems, and in fact there is an element of faith in capitalism itself; hell Smith called the underlying principle " The invisible hand of God." which later was secularized.

But to further point out the lack of a direct relationship between capitalism and logic, ask an economist to exaqplin a linear cause and effect relationship behind recessions or depressions. Then ask another. Then ask a third. Once you have gotten three completely different views, all of them admitting elements of the unknown at one point or another, you'll see what I mean.


Sorry for the complete and total aside....

 

If you want to read an interesting attempt to reconclile faith and logic, aside from classics like Aquinas, DesCartes, etc. check out C. S. Lewis. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, but it seems like a pretty sincere and highly intelligent effort, and is wel worth the read. Can't for the life of me remember what it's called. Anyone else know?

 

"Mere Christianity" I googled it.

 

Yep, exactly. You can't prove capitalism scientifically or mathematically. And it's funny how some economic theories seem to mutate and evolve when a contradiction in their ideas occurs in the real world.

 

Thanks, MC...I was off, was thinking it had something like " Diagnostics" in the title. I don't remember this one, but that's gotta be it. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

 

I understand that there is reason (psychology) behind why people *want* religion and some need it.

But there isnt much reason and logic behind the policy and practices that religious organizations such as the Catholic Church take..and there sure seems (to me) that there is an inhearant conflict of logic between the official stated beliefs of religion and the reality of its actions

 

Also read G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.

 

Do you mean currently or in the past? I don't see what the Catholic Church is doing today that is so horrible.

Psychology- well, there's another whole bunch of theories that has failed the test of time, IMO. Psychology, like Marxism, can always explain EVERYTHING, and can never be proven wrong.

 

Very interesting post McBeth. I'm still getting back to your other one, btw. The thread seems to have gone off on a tangent though.

 

Really Baked and Timing, you guys are way off base...

First, off you are reading religion historically, and when you do that you lose the point, which is to love, serve, and understand your God....

You miss the real point about CAtholicsm... it can be summed up in the Eucharistic, the hardened heart turning into a loving heart...Its a real change, not just some keep the peace idea...

There is no mind control in that...

And if you want to argue history, you'll have to get past the fact that Christians were prosecuted for the first 300 years of their exhistence.... That doesn't seem like they were controlling the masses...

Bottom line- There have been a few bad apples in the church in the past, but the theology has grown and fully developed.... if you don't agree with it, you don't agree with it... Like Christ says in the bible after they have been to a town that has failed to hear their word and recognize it as the truth, you dust the dirt from that town off your clothes and move on to the next town...

 

I'm not missing the point of Catholicism, it's followers are missing the point maybe.

 

Do I need to get Trader Jorge in here? Watch it man.

 

Is "religion" an opiate to other cultures as well? I hate it when people say "religion" they really mean Christianity, and I think this is what Marx did. Is it an opiate for Native Americans, Incas, Zulus, Inuits, Buddhists, Hindus, etc? I'm not saying he is totally wrong but he isn't correct either. Religion is too complex for such a simple statement. (which I also think it never really was).

 

He's a riot in blue jeans, that guy.

 

Th...


I have many problems with the RC church, but probably foremost among them is the fact that, by defintion, they are impervious to theological growth and development.


Premise: The Pope is the voice of God on Earth. As such, logically and by wrote, he is incapable of error...originally on anything, later adapted to the domain of matters of faith.

Now if something is infallible, how does it adapt? If Gallileo was wrong about the sun's rpacial relationship to the earth then, and the Pope is infallible, how is that to be reconciled with what we know.

Or once a pontiff admits error, or rationalizes to excuse it, where then is the premise for the continued faith in the value of the Petrine Principle?