Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is Progressive Religion Truly Possible?

Posted 6 months ago on Sept. 22, 2013, 9:21 a.m. EST by sophiaomni (289)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We're having a discussion on Marx's idea of religion as an opiate that will eventually be used as part of a forum for discussion with college students.

If you have an opinion on this subject, please feel free to weigh in on the blog (you can post comments anonymously, if you'd like) so we have a diversity of opinions represented.

http://wisdomshaven.blogspot.com/2013/09/religion-americas-drug-of-choice.html

53 Comments

53 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ivyquinn (167) 6 months ago

I think that a free mind can be convulsed into the thought of organized religion but can never truly understand creation and immortality without wisdom of the universe. Something that is out of reach until death.

[-] 3 points by yodavision (3) 6 months ago

We are at a node in the matrix our thread of collective unconscious needs dharma and courage. Nothing outrageous, simple understanding will do. Your thinking is very close. Savor the thought that by understanding love we will be protected from that which spins out and downwards with poor decisions in the matrix when exiting a node. Savor the simple absolutes that sustain our survival. Savor your ability to use them through your instincts and survive to control yourself (ourselves), then evolve.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 6 months ago

That's an interesting idea...unless death leads to the ultimate nothingness!

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 6 months ago

That's one thing I fear. But scientifically speaking there is no sign of entropy following death. So that's a comforting stat. in my eyes.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20419) 6 months ago

Marx believed, I think, that religion was the wrong answer to the right questions. How do we make society better? How do we fix society's ills?

[-] 2 points by yodavision (3) 6 months ago

We know very little about religion and the feelings it invokes, ironically because of religion. Our unconscious mind is considered the realm of dark evil things and psychology is steered away from it by coercion relating to licensure.

Accordingly, discussion on religion is quite subjective when relating to human motivation about whatever.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

we know that religion and spirituality are two completely different things. While they are not mutually exclusive, one does not necessarily follow the other.

We also are assured, and there is little reason to doubt, that a homeless guy tossed the banksters out of the temple some two thousand years ago.

They killed him for it.

I think there is supposed to be a lesson in all of that. I highly doubt that you can hear it.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4849) 6 months ago

People are always being assured of falsehoods for which there are plenty of reasons for doubt.

For instance, a man with a home in Capernaum is not a homeless guy.

Matthew 9:1, 9:7, 9:10, Mark 2:1-2, 2:15, 3:20, 9:33.

Anyone who illegally removes people from a business area historically known to have been guarded by a Roman garrison only does so with an armed force and is naturally dealt with for insurrection just as an actual homeless guy with a religious bent who would have planes crash into the towers of another business area would be dealt with in a like manner.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

I thought you were supposed to be the bright guy around here. Hangin' out with the intee.lec.chals an' all . . .

9:1 - having a city isn't the same as having a home

9:7- it was the sick of the palsy that arose, as he was told, and went home

9:10 says the house, it doesn't say who's house it was.

Honestly I'm not going to bother with your other citations, you and I both know it's a goose chase. Like Buddha, he wandered about teaching and often people invited him into their homes. At least, that is what this text illustrates. It also says he was born out in the barn, and that he taught others to sell all they had and give the money to the poor.

Matt 8:20, repeated in Luke 9:58 - he was a homeless guy.

And some of those who followed him carried swords.

What would you think if some crazy guy came rushing in where you had a table, over turned it, screaming and yelling - who knows how many in the crowd might have either been followers already, or simply had a grudge against the banksters -

No no - they let it play out.

Fukin Banksters . . .

And they are all investing in fossil fuel now . . . that means they are betting against the species of humanity

I still say there must be a lesson in there some where. I highly doubt that you can hear it.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (4849) 6 months ago

You're right about Matthew 9:7, a misreading on my part. However, as I had stated that his home was in Capernaum, this is what is implied in Matthew 9:1 after reading all of chapter 8 while Mark 2:1-2, which you state you're not going to bother with, clearly verifies what I had said. On the other hand, neither Matthew 8:20 nor Luke 9:58 imply that he was homeless as the context seen in Matthew 8:19-22 and Luke 9:56-62 show the statements to be allegorical in nature unless one actually expects the dead to be buried by the dead.

Who was born in a barn? Siddartha is said to have been a prince who gave up his wealth in adulthood while Jesus is said to have been born in a manger, not a barn, as there was no room for his parents in the upper room (not inn). There is no implication of a barn in the story as mangers for small livestock were commonly kept on the ground floor of homes and the story depicts Joseph as having been in his home town for a census.

As for selling all one has, retaining a home in a major city (Mark 2:1-2) while retaining clothing of a quality that Roman soldiers are supposed to have gambled for (John 19:23-24) is hardly indicative of him having lived by such a standard.

No crazy guy enters into a market place disrupting business without an immediate response from both the business owners and the armed security that is already on high alert during the time of a major festival when violent acts are prone to happen. A lone man will be immediately stopped. An armed force on the other hand, will take a little while longer to be dealt with while everyone else has been cleared out of the area. This is what would realistically be required for such an event even if the words of Matthew 10:34-37 had not been ascribed to such a character.

The lesson from history is that generations after the Roman execution of an individual who had believed that the monarchic rule of a deity was about to be established, synagogue attending gentile communities adhering to the continuence of that belief no longer welcome under the Rabbinic leadership were forced to come up with their own narrative for justifying their continued existence as an independent community. This narrative reflected the dominant ideas held among them and was expressed in the words and life created for a man whose actual life details hadn't been known to them and were nevertheless irrelevant to the various perspectives being established by them.

As for doubt as to what I can hear,

"There are those who dare not see with their eyes lest the truth should blind them."

Whether or not you are one of those, I hold no judgement at this time.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

and why does the above comment not appear after editing unless I reload the page?

wtf?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by yodavision (3) 6 months ago

The homeless had no help? That is a tragedy when good people see a wrong and do nothing.

Why are you here?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

is this a trick question?

[-] -1 points by yodavision (3) 6 months ago

Sometimes the truth is painful, but yes. Thank you for responding.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

trickyTRICKSTERSareNeitherTRICKYnorTRUTHFUL

noIwillNOtturnOFFbloodyCapsLOCKnoiwillNOT

noiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOTnoiwillNOT

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

I believe that whether others believe, that what they believe, or whether they believe not, in any spiritual condition of either man or of humanity, is an intensely personal matter, one which may well say more about the individual than they would otherwise care to reveal, if they only knew . . .

I also believe that those who would preach anarchy as a practical solution have not thought it through, for surely it should be quite obvious: a population even half as large as that that exists today cannot be sustained in an absence of organization, and that even among relatively small groups of people rules are absolutely essential to the resolution of disputes that do arise due to fear or petty forms of selfishness.

I believe that those who do preach anarchy as a solution and do so pointing at those very real and very glaring, very gaping, holes in our social contract, do so out of fear. I believe that they believe that, being shawled as they are with an anarchist A emblazoned on their back they cannot constitute the kind of threat to power and authority that must be taken seriously, because instinctively, intuitively, everyone is already well aware, anarchy cannot produce a genuine and viable alternative to governing.

Not governing is not and cannot be misconstrued as governance. And therefore it cannot be seen as a practical and realistic threat.

Those who do preach anarchy form the scholarly halls do so out of laziness, refusing to consider all the implications; or out of fear, terrified to tell the truth to power.

All of civilization races toward an unknown crescendo, it is quite obvious and utterly impossible to ignore. The concept permeates our language, our culture and our art; from the Apocalypse to Zombie Zarmaggedon.

All of civilization nears the end, of something, of what we do not know, but we know, it is very near, we can hear it plainly upon the winds screaming in our ear . . . and when we seriously consider the current shape of our reality we know fear, for the unknown is hard upon us, and there is no escape.

There is no alternative at such a time as this. We must stand and bear the truth.

Stand I say.

Stand and bear the truth.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 6 months ago

Thanks for the very thoughtful response. I would only add that "anarchism" means different things to different people, so what "preaching anarchism" means probably depends on your definition of the term.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

It is quite simple. Any system defined that, by its definition, demands redefinition once defined, has already been defined despite defiance of the definition - such defiance is appearance only, for it has already been defined and as all can plainly see it does as it must meet the definition.

I find that nihilism is a much more honest term.

  • Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies based on non-hierarchical free associations.[1][2][3][4][5] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[6][7] While anti-statism is central, some argue[8] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[1][9][10][11][12][13][14]

  • Anarchism - The theory espousing a societal state in which there is no structured government or law or in which there is resistance to all current forms of government.

.

  • "Neither a life of anarchy nor one beneath a despot should you praise; to all that lies in the middle a god has given excellence."

    • Aeschylus
[-] 1 points by OccupyMindz (5) 6 months ago

" a population even half as large as that that exists today cannot be sustained in an absence of organization,"

Who said anything about anarchy having no organization?

Its no big secret that the word anarchy has been turned into meaning "chaos" by the establishment after the early 1900's instead of what it really is.

You are mistaking creating a central body to govern as opposed to letting the people themselves govern.

No rulers doesnt mean no rules.

If the people decide to create a representative position, then they are free to do so. If they decide it needs to be removed, then its removed.

Democracy is nothing to worry about.

"Those who do preach anarchy form the scholarly halls do so out of laziness, refusing to consider all the implications; or out of fear, terrified to tell the truth to power."

Do so out of laziness? Wow, way to slam a lot of really bright people that support us.

"Not governing is not and cannot be misconstrued as governance. "

Again, who said anything about not governing? The people are governing, not politicians.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

Do so out of laziness? Wow, way to slam a lot of really bright people that support us.

Were they truly brilliant, fearless individuals, then they would quickly recognize how easily our system of government may be taken over, taken back, by the people - all that is required is a recognition of the depth of the corruption, and a pubic confrontation on the basis of that corruption.

The corrupt will flee, or be slain by those who induced that corruption.

All we need do is discover the truth, and speak it.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

The GAs are a fine example of self governance. They result in the break out into committees, with delegated authority, who perform their tasks and return to the group to share results . . .

Slower than molasses flowing uphill in the dead of winter to achieve some goal, but this is not anarchy. It is an attempt at direct democracy, which itself is not anarchy. It is direct democracy. Direct democracy begins to fail immediately where authority has been delegated.

With your comment you do seem to refute what anarchy is.

I have now shown you what it is not.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 6 months ago

Damn, I'm impressed. Very good post. I completely agree. Live and let live is a worthwhile way to live.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

What a shame. I take it you were unable to forge past the first paragraph. Whether the cause may be ascribed to style of writing or to the effect of television on attention span I will leave for others to decide.

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 6 months ago

Nope, read the entire post. I liked it and agree with it. You need to learn to accept a compliment. I meant no malice.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

I keep confusing you with someone else's sock puppet.

there seems to be a juxtaposition of incongruent facts here. A negative score around here typically denotes a libertarian bent that depends heavily on the anarchist tradition to maintain legitimacy as the noted right wing agenda with its propaganda and complete lack of adherence to established mathematical certainties is put forth as an object of brilliance and insight.

At least, that seems to be typical of those with negative scores.

Yet you embrace a brief piece of prose that effectively cuts the legs out from under any legitimacy or credibility that association with anarchy might provide.

You are, generally, correct with your assessment - it was a good post. Not a very good post, but a good post. It would have been very good had I said:

  • Those who do preach anarchy form the scholarly halls do so out of laziness, refusing to consider all the implications; or out of fear, terrified to tell the truth to power from a position of strength and credibility and with sufficient force to challenge the status quo.

One can easily understand the preference for the . . . cloth . . . of anarchy. Like the appearance of madness, it is a much safer place from which one may articulate the realities of the day.

What is difficult to understand is this apparent incongruity.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

the forum was doomed from the outset. without the benefit of an identity that we invest in as individuals - something this site sorely, and deliberately lacks - it becomes far too easy to lie today, and pick up a new mask tomorrow.

In fact, I am tempted to insist that both of you lie even now - that Narley and Misogyneist are the same individual attempting to make a point and to give that point validity with sheer weight of numbers.

But really there is no point. You may well be correct, the flamewars may have become an end unto themselves, and perhaps in some small measure the fault may rest with me.

No matter.

The fact remains.

Conservatives can be shown to have a distinctly corrosive influence on society and on culture, they do deliberately attempt to corrupt all of civilization, and they do so in the name of profit. This is true, and completely irrefutable. It is a fact that has been consistent over the course of time, and that the evidence is plain even among the historical record is not nearly as remarkable - no matter how remarkable it may be -

as it is a dire tale of caution; which unheeded at this juncture may well lead to the extinction of our species.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

for the record:

  • darwinian socialites should all be shot.

iz you iz, er iz you aint

no darwinian socialite

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 6 months ago

When were you honest about Texas???

Not once.

Instead you attacked Detroit.

You wanna talk about Ron Paul?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 6 months ago

Was that vv's or hchc's PR firm that came up with "gang of four"?

Or perhaps another PR firm entirely?

When did you tire of twinkleteam? Perhaps the connotations weren't "dark" enough for your intended purposes?

[-] -1 points by Misogyneist (3) 6 months ago

Not sure. There are several PR firms out there working to shut you down before you spread your messages any further. You've upset a lot of powerful people. I'm thinking about calling the other side 'Satan's Shirkers" You like that?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 months ago

If this forum has upset a lot of powerful people - GOOD. That is the intention of OWS.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

I have become so attuned to all the lies I just begin with the assumption that here we have one more, and work backward from there . . . .

I hope we have upset some powerful people. That is why we are here, after all. IF we have not than either we have not been trying, or else the salt has lost its savor.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26705) 6 months ago

Aw zilla.

Is that you?

You want to insult the memory of my Father again?

what powerful people do you think I've upset?

[-] -1 points by Misogyneist (3) 6 months ago

Nobody, duh. Not one. Your dad would probably be disappointed that you gave Gloria Platko a pass, but that's between the two of you.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

so you are a darwinian socialite . . .

. . .hc . . .

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 months ago

"Those who do preach anarchy form the scholarly halls do so out of laziness, refusing to consider all the implications; or out of fear, terrified to tell the truth to power from a position of strength and credibility and with sufficient force to challenge the status quo."

And you suggest?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

first to simply tell the truth

second, to engage their students with an appreciation for the truth

third, when a challenge to power is in order, do so in a manner that forces the established authority to take note.

I suppose that this would require a complete overhaul of the culture of higher education, but that is long overdue already, for any number of reasons, almost all of them solvable once one completely grasps the understanding that conservatives are not qualified to oversee educational policy simply because their appreciation of all the various interests of wealth divorce them entirely from their own humanity.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 months ago

that conservatives are not qualified to oversee educational policy simply because their appreciation of all the various interests of wealth divorce them entirely from their own humanity.

Well I suppose that is one way to put it - though I would tend to go with - that extreme conservatives - they are insecure scared - so scared that they don't want anything to change even if it is obviously better - it is change - their mentality is to fort-up - even if it kills em - and that includes the hoarding nature/compulsion. Hence the insanity like supporting the greed and destruction of corp(se)oRATions - as they have money interests there - does not matter that their support is destroying the world - they are still building up their nesting egg for their fort. Does not matter if they are repeatedly smacked in the face with a 2x4 ( by those they support ) for their madness - they are bound and determined to stick to their course.

Does anyone know - are survivalists "mainly" extreme conservatives? Or are they "all" extreme conservatives.

Any moderates and progressives just out for the fun of it?

( sorry it took so long for that comment - lost the internet connection )

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 months ago

Proclaiming truth isnt a govermnetal system.

And yes, anarchy does lead to organization.

So what the fuck do you suggest instead?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

just what I have been saying all along.

the government already belongs to us.

take it back

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 6 months ago

And in what form? Representative Bullshit?

Take that back?

It never belonged to you, and it never will, because its not yours to begin with.

Duh.

[-] 3 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

your mind is your biggest obstacle. Of course it belongs to us. You just have to understand that is a fact.

Then you need to act on that fact.

It belongs to all of us. Go place your hand upon The Wall.

Conservatives may try to tell us differently, but the names upon that Wall, along with so many other names on so many other walls, the blood those names represent, they make it so.

The government is our government and fuk anyone who would either insist or imply otherwise.

We have documentation from the birth of this nation to now, we have our traditions, and we have an abundance of American blood in the name of Patriotism all of which bears irrefutable evidence - the government is OUR government.

Fuk those who claim otherwise. fuk them

duh

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

what is interesting is that you just admitted you don't occupy anything.

AS for myself, I have done my level best to articulate with clarity what it is that I Occupy.

and I do believe we have discussed the rules, have we not?

  • kiss my ass.
[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

LoL!

YOu are funny.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 months ago

Besides at times irritating? That is what shills are. Sorry removed that comment that you were laughing at - I am serious - this off topic pick a fight BS - IS DONE.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

I'm not positive, but I do believe that was hc/narley -

it probably doesn't matter.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 months ago

No - unless they just wanted to use a sock - as neither has been banned.

hchc = tropical depression Narley = Narley.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4849) 6 months ago

Does Christianity Continue to Stifle Indigenous Political Will?

Saturday, 28 September 2013 09:48 By Four Arrows, Truthout | Op-Ed

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19083-false-doctrine-and-the-stifling-of-indigenous-political-will

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20538) from South Burlington, VT 6 months ago

That argument was illustrated in the movie The Mission (1986) with Di Niro and Irons.

[-] 1 points by silkysara (32) 6 months ago

It's an interesting post. Naturally, I'm sympathetic to Alex's position, but will try to point out some of his mistakes on the site.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4849) 6 months ago

Yes, progressive religion is truly possible if it is created. A religion is what one makes of it which is why there is Revolutionary or Liberation Theology. Religion is an opiate of the masses but it is only a readily available form of a complacency that exists throughout the masses with or without a religion. Get rid of the delusions of religion and you will still have North Korea.

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 6 months ago

I tend to agree with you that religion per se is not the problem, but the specific form that religion takes.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (4849) 6 months ago

Religion isn't The problem but it is nevertheless a major problem as any socially accepted delusions mislead individuals from acting in their own best interests as well as in the interests of others and of society as a whole.

[Removed]