Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Is Progressive Religion Truly Possible?

Posted 1 year 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) 1 year 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) 1 year 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) 1 year ago

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

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year 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 (21404) 1 year 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) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year 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]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by yodavision (3) 1 year ago

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

Why are you here?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by yodavision (3) 1 year ago

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

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5866) 1 year 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

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by silkysara (32) 1 year 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 (5866) 1 year 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) 1 year 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 (5866) 1 year 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]

[-] 2 points by sophiaomni (289) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OccupyMindz (5) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year ago

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

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (284) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

When were you honest about Texas???

Not once.

Instead you attacked Detroit.

You wanna talk about Ron Paul?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year 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) 1 year 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 (26331) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

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

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year 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) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 1 year 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?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26331) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year 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) 1 year ago

Proclaiming truth isnt a govermnetal system.

And yes, anarchy does lead to organization.

So what the fuck do you suggest instead?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TropicalDepression (-45) 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26331) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year 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.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26331) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

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

hchc = tropical depression Narley = Narley.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]