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

You maybe right that it didn't work very well, but I should have clarified my point further. When I say rebelling, I specifically mean violence. Now, it's funny, that you may be right in that using religion may have backfired, because Christianity may have given slaves the strength to survive the conditions they were living under and also the courage to try and runaway. But I think, as far as the thread topic is concerned that there was a concious effort to keep slaves non-violent through the use of religion.

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#891

Now, if you look closely, there is a split between when someone is declaring something doctrine, as in a council, and when someone is leading the church....

Still looking up a more complete response.....

 

MacB,

Here is a good website I found, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

It all centers around the meaning of ex cathedra http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

The Crusades question is not one that stems from any theological doctrine, I.E. no where will you find in our dogma, that those who go on Crusdaes will be brought to heaven....

Hope this can clear up confusion....

 

One more thing, it was Christ who choose Peter, who by the way had many many faults... it was not the people's choice...

 

The question is: is religion an invention by man or by God?

If it is invented by man (and if you don't believe in God, that would have to be your answer) it was invented to achieve some of man's goals. Controlling populations may well have been one of them. But to be fair, I think you might also conclude that people could use/invent religions to feel better, give life purpose, provide guidelines, codify wisdom, etc.

If religion is invented by God it is more likely to be invented to reach God's goals. In which case, while man has proved quite capable of misusing religion (can anyone think of anything that has not been misused at some time in history?) God could still be accomplishing His goals.

If the only purpose of religion was to control people, I think Christianity doesn't do a good job. A misconception of Christianity is that it is a system of rules that you need to follow in order to get to Heaven. But the basic premise of Christianity is that once a person becomes a Christian, because his past, present and future sins are all paid for there is nothing he can do to lose his salvation. He will go to Heaven. In addition to all that he inherits as a son of God in this life. Now, how is that a good population control?

 

Wouldn't violence have been the worst option for slaves? Sometimes violence is necessary, but I'm not sure it would have worked in this case.

 

Who knows, but one of the worst fears of slave owners during that period was organized revolts, thus making it illegal to teach a slave to read. So we do know that slaveowners made concious efforts to prevent revolts, so whether or not violence would have been an good option doesn't mean that slaveowners didn't try to prevent it.

 

I’m in for this. (So much else to respsond to too … *whimper* …) Should we do it here or in another thread? I’m about the farthest thing from a “legalist” you’ll find, and I’m all for Christians coming together and better understanding each other and having more tolerance for each other, so I think this is a great topic. For starters I’ll go with two of the classic questions. The first is Papal infallibility, of any sort. My position would be that the Pope is a man like every other man and is fallible like any other man (see Romans 1-3). As Christians I believe that we are to discern for ourselves what God is telling us and what is truth in any given situation. Suggesting Papal infallibility of any sort is to say that the Pope should be granted with blind faith on some issues, and I don’t agree with that under any circumstances. The second is calling a priest father. I almost never get hung up on terms but it seems pretty clear to me that in a spiritual and Biblical sense God is our Father. Using that name for a priest in a spiritual sense makes me very uncomfortable. How did this practice come to be?

 

I think it is definitely true that the Bible was used to promote docility in slaves. But, its misuse was not as great as is often made out because the Bible does condemn violence and does endorse suffering in this life awaiting the reward in the next.

I'd point out, though, that Christianity was also used to keep American slavemasters in check. Ministers would often remind masters of their Biblical duties toward their slaves: not to threaten them, provide them with what is right and fair, and so on. They would reproach masters who were too violent, raped slaves and whatnot. Laws were even passed to regulate treatment based on this ministry. Obviously, the masters were still the greater transgressors of the relationship described in the Bible, since slaves had other deterrants besides biblical admonition, but I do think it is only fair to point out that the Bible cut both ways on the issue. Scripture was used in both ways to promote peace in civil society, but not the tyranny of the empowered.

 

i won't argue that people tried to distort the Bible to keep slaves in check...but you realize what a huge role Christianity played in the abolitionist movement, right?

there was a great special on that subject on PBS about a month ago.

 

yeah. what he said.

 

It also played a huge role in the civil rights movement of the 20th century.

 

it's good to see you again! even if it is only over a message board!

yeah...the conference was really great..some amazing speakers, including the author of "Good to Great" which is an amazing secular book on organizational growth. i was thinking it would be cool if we were ultimately praying together at this conference though separated by such distance.

 

Regardless of what the origins of religion are there are fairly concrete examples that it is used as a political tool.

Kings and Queens of Old Europe, claimed their right to rule as a divine right. The Egyptian pharos claimed to have divine powers.

Who's going to challenge someone chosen by God. Yes I agree it is a misuse and not the intended purpose. I think in the case of Christianity, there is no doubt that Christianity was not created by the rich or people in power but in fact the exact opposite. How it has come to be used is another discussion.

 

Besides that thing they do with young boys you mean

 

Thanks for contributing to this thread. I guess you don't want to talk about the terrorism Islam has contributed. That would be politically incorrect wouldn't it.

 

Its not politically incorrect to say that about Islam or any other religon for that matter.

 

It began when the Emperor became a Christian. Is it good or bad for Christianity? Probably both. I think religion is always better from the bottom than from the top.

 

I guess it should probably be under another thread... but you can look at the links I provided in response to MacB's questions for the answer to your first questions, the thing to look at is the definition of ex cathedra or from the chair....

As far as the terminology in father, I'm not excactly sure but it probably has something to do with the office Christ established and the and one or more of the parables he gave... I'd have to do some research if you want a real answer.... maybe we should open it up as another forum....