Religion of Fear?

[NoIDidn't]

I don't think that most religions were intended to have the *consequences* portions of their faith and dogma emphasized.

 

But some people thrive on controlling others through fear. These types with do it with or without religion. Witness the news. Absent any religious bent on many stations, the news only reports things to fear or be afraid MAY happen one day.

 

Religion wasn't meant to make people afraid. It is meant to make people hopeful.

[TaraMaiden]

This is incorrect.

 

Remember that the Bible was not read as a common book until Darwin began to expound his theories. Then authorities exorted churchgoers to read their bibles and learn about god directly. Until then, bible content was largely transmitted orally. People did wht they were told.

 

Long before then, Christian authorities began to dismiss the natural message of re-birth in the Bible, and began instead to speak of hell-fire and brimstone, and 'the lord god is a jealous god, and his wrath is mighty' in order to control the people.

 

This is also why the church sought - and secured - control of marriage. it was a way of controlling lust (remember men could have mistresses and multiple partners without criticism) and the church felt that as sex was the original sin, men should be taught the horrors of freely indulging.

 

That was effective.....

[FleshNBones]

This is incorrect.

 

Remember that the Bible was not read as a common book until Darwin began to expound his theories. Then authorities exorted churchgoers to read their bibles and learn about god directly. Until then, bible content was largely transmitted orally. People did wht they were told.

 

Long before then, Christian authorities began to dismiss the natural message of re-birth in the Bible, and began instead to speak of hell-fire and brimstone, and 'the lord god is a jealous god, and his wrath is mighty' in order to control the people.

 

This is also why the church sought - and secured - control of marriage. it was a way of controlling lust (remember men could have mistresses and multiple partners without criticism) and the church felt that as sex was the original sin, men should be taught the horrors of freely indulging.

 

That was effective.....

Here is good question. Is any of this true?

 

The Bible wasn't widely read until the invention of the printing press. It was Martin Luther who wanted to make it an authoritative source during the Protestant Reformation in response to the corruption in the Church during his time.

 

The early Church wanted to prevent lust so they wanted to limit relationships between just one man and one woman pair. They were strongly against perversions like incest. It was a later tradition that valued celibacy.

 

You can also look at it from the perspective of disease control. Up until modern sanitation, and modern housing, disease and dysentary were fairly rampant. Limiting the number of sex partners would definitely help curb the spread of STDs.

Child support, food stamps, and government support in general were nonexistant. Food was generally in short supply so two responsible parents were needed to take care any kids (I am not talking about royalty or upper class here).

 

I think people were more fearful of roaming bandits and barbarians. These are the kind of people who kill all of the men and boys, rape all of the women and girls, loot, and burn down whatever is left. The men and boys could also be drafed into a local military where the odds of survival are pretty bad.

[TaraMaiden]

Here is good question. Is any of this true?

 

The Bible wasn't widely read until the invention of the printing press. It was Martin Luther who wanted to make it an authoritative source during the Protestant Reformation in response to the corruption in the Church during his time.

It was widely read but only by members of the clergy and the ordained. The 'man in the street' was largely uneducated and mostly illiterate. They were read to, in Latin. They were preached to in the "Queen's English" (or the Kings, dependant....)

Bear in mind that the different dialects and accents in England made it very difficult for people even living just 50 miles away from each other to understand each other fully.

This is not so difficult to believe when you consider that Italian was not a unified and certified language until the last century....

 

 

The early Church wanted to prevent lust so they wanted to limit relationships between just one man and one woman pair. They were strongly against perversions like incest.

Incest only became illegal in the united kingdom, in 1911....

 

It was a later tradition that valued celibacy.

Officially maybe....

 

You can also look at it from the perspective of disease control. Up until modern sanitation, and modern housing, disease and dysentary were fairly rampant. Limiting the number of sex partners would definitely help curb the spread of STDs.

Which is why Henry VIII had syphillis.... ?

Child support, food stamps, and government support in general were nonexistant. Food was generally in short supply so two responsible parents were needed to take care any kids (I am not talking about royalty or upper class here).

maybe we are speaking of different eras. In fact I am certain we are....!

 

I think people were more fearful of roaming bandits and barbarians. These are the kind of people who kill all of the men and boys, rape all of the women and girls, loot, and burn down whatever is left. The men and boys could also be drafed into a local military where the odds of survival are pretty bad.

people had much to be afraid of then, when you consider that the life expectancy was around 50....!

 

_/l\_

[FleshNBones]

It was widely read but only by members of the clergy and the ordained. The 'man in the street' was largely uneducated and mostly illiterate. They were read to, in Latin. They were preached to in the "Queen's English" (or the Kings, dependant....)

Bear in mind that the different dialects and accents in England made it very difficult for people even living just 50 miles away from each other to understand each other fully.

This is not so difficult to believe when you consider that Italian was not a unified and certified language until the last century....

There is nothing unusual about different dialects.

Darwin seems to have somehow disappeared. It must be a conspiracy by the Church.

Incest only became illegal in the united kingdom, in 1911....

 

Officially maybe....

If you read the bible you would know they were against it.

This must be more proof of the Church's influence.

Which is why Henry VIII had syphillis.... ?

And Judas was a model apostle.

 

You do realize the Vietcong are buddhist, and they massacred many people. How would you explain their crimes?

[NoIDidn't]

This is incorrect.

 

Remember that the Bible was not read as a common book until Darwin began to expound his theories. Then authorities exorted churchgoers to read their bibles and learn about god directly. Until then, bible content was largely transmitted orally. People did wht they were told.

 

Long before then, Christian authorities began to dismiss the natural message of re-birth in the Bible, and began instead to speak of hell-fire and brimstone, and 'the lord god is a jealous god, and his wrath is mighty' in order to control the people.

 

This is also why the church sought - and secured - control of marriage. it was a way of controlling lust (remember men could have mistresses and multiple partners without criticism) and the church felt that as sex was the original sin, men should be taught the horrors of freely indulging.

 

That was effective.....

 

Is this in response to my post?

 

Well, regardless, I still disagree with most of it. There is a lot more to Christian history than just Spanish Inquisition and the Dark Ages. And the part about the Bible only being learned orally is factually incorrect because there were writings that were read during meetings. The Jews have several scrolls from their Rabbis that date back thousands of years oftentimes.

 

The portion about "the Lord is a Jealous God" is just what I was talking about. People using what they wanted to create their own dogma to instill fear.

 

I don't believe that Religion was *created* to instill fear or to control populations. Sure it can be used that way when you have an ignorant populace, but that doesn't mean that that is its only purpose.

 

I recall reading in Genesis after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, that "then began man to call on the Name of the Lord". This was the beginning of whatever religion men were making up based on the Genesis story. No where does it say that men were looking for ways to control other men by calling on the Lord.

 

All this, and I was simply speaking about Religion in a general sense, not about Christianity in particular.

[TaraMaiden]

You do realize the Vietcong are buddhist, and they massacred many people. How would you explain their crimes?

First of all Buddhism may advocate non-violence, but it says nothing is wrong regarding self-defence.

The Vietcong were communist. Buddhism had little or no effective influence there.

Secondly, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" seems to have been forgotten by quite a few Christians too. I think it best to just not go there. really, don't you?

 

Is this in response to my post?

 

Well, regardless, I still disagree with most of it. (. . .) And the part about the Bible only being learned orally is factually incorrect because there were writings that were read during meetings. The Jews have several scrolls from their Rabbis that date back thousands of years oftentimes

I never mentioned anything about the bible being only learnt orally... What are you referring to?

 

The portion about "the Lord is a Jealous God" is just what I was talking about. People using what they wanted to create their own dogma to instill fear.

This is my point too...

 

I don't believe that Religion was *created* to instill fear or to control populations. Sure it can be used that way when you have an ignorant populace, but that doesn't mean that that is its only purpose.

I never implied it was. I'm saying it was used as a tool, with which to do that, both by then Church and the State. (the two were at times synonymous. The Queen of England is the Head of the Church.)

 

I recall reading in Genesis after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden, that "then began man to call on the Name of the Lord". This was the beginning of whatever religion men were making up based on the Genesis story. No where does it say that men were looking for ways to control other men by calling on the Lord.

It doesn't have to. But we still know it goes on. Look at the RC doctrine implemented outside and in supplement to Biblical doctrine....

 

All this, and I was simply speaking about Religion in a general sense, not about Christianity in particular.

I was speaking about Christianity specifically, because it is the only other religion I am intimately familiar with. And Buddhism - as a 'religion in general', does not spread fear.

 

 

_/l\_

[FleshNBones]

This "Religion of fear" seems to be based more on ignorance (hint hint) than anything else.

 

I don't think we've heard enough about the evils of Buddhism.

[TaraMaiden]

I agree. When people perpetuate Religion from a place of Fear, rather than Love, they are showing their ignorance.

 

 

Well, when you find anything about the evils of Buddhism, let me know. And if I find any, I won't hold back.

 

Deal?

 

_/l\_

[LonelyVocalist]

1) Does anyone else know of other religion's "fear mechanisms"?

2) Is there another way religions keep people hooked?

 

1) There are fear mechanisms in pretty much every organized religion (even the eastern ones) and atheism as well. It's especially stressful with atheism knowing that you've only got ONE SHOT or you're screwed.

 

2) One of the other ways I can think of is "illumination". Telling people they are "better" or "more intelligent" for following their belief system. This empowers people to keep following. This doesn't just work with religion, but conspiracy theory as well. It's always both ends of the spectrum.

 

just my 2 cents.

[TaraMaiden]

1) There are fear mechanisms in pretty much every organized religion (even the eastern ones) and atheism as well. It's especially stressful with atheism knowing that you've only got ONE SHOT or you're screwed.

THis post does not make sense.

One shot at what and you're screwed? if you believe nothing, you're not screwed because there's nothing to be screwed about. You die.

Plain and simple.

What is 'being screwed' about that?

And what eastern religion are you referring to that has fear mechanisms? Just interested to know your thoughts on this one.....

 

Be specific. Supply sources and links please.

 

2) One of the other ways I can think of is "illumination". Telling people they are "better" or "more intelligent" for following their belief system. This empowers people to keep following. This doesn't just work with religion, but conspiracy theory as well. It's always both ends of the spectrum.

 

just my 2 cents.

 

For example?

Once again, be specific. Supply sources and links, please.

[blind_otter]

 

I came across an even better "Fear Mechanism" last night. My wife mentioned that her mother (asian, buddhist) was pressuring her to go to temple to "feed" the ancestors (leave food at the altar), because if you don't feed them; your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc will starve in the afterlife.

 

That actually had absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism. East Asian people often concurrently practice ancestor worship along with other more mainstream faiths.

 

2) Is there another way religions keep people hooked?

 

Well there's always the true Buddhist philosophy, which is that all life is suffering and sure, you can continue to suffer if you want to, or you can learn to discipline your mind and thoughts and control how you perceive reality in order to alleviate or even completely end your suffering. Your choice, as always, and no one will judge you if you decide not to - but eventually we all need to do some level of spiritual work, IMO, if only to grow and become a better, richer, more fulfilled person.

 

Stagnation is against nature.

[blind_otter]

I forgot to add that there is an element of ancestor worship tied into Tibetan Buddhism, but Diamond Sutra philosophy is very different from your classic Theravadan teachings. And the concept is not fear based, as in "your ancestors will starve!!" - it's more that, understanding that not all people have an equal desire or ability to observe spiritual practices and teachings, you sort of symbolically share your spiritual sustenance with those who are clinging to their earthly existence in order to help them attain nirvana. It's more of a compassion thing, rather than a fear based thing.

[TaraMaiden]

what this forum requires is an applause emoticon.

Until then, dear blind_otter, I can only give you a round of

 

:bunny::bunny:

 

_/l\_

[Moose]

If you decide to be a Christian, and then one day decide to try to leave you go to hell.

Nonsense..

 

The second you accept Christ as your Saviour, you're saved whether or not you convert.

 

First off, Christ would've had to pay for our sin over, and over, and over again if that statement were true.

 

Secondly, a person who is TRULY saved would NEVER leave his/her Lord.

 

Finally, the ONLY way our soul would spend eternity away from God is by out right, consistant denial in the diety of Christ the Lord.

 

"Fear" is mentioned a lot in this thread. But if you take the word, "fear" in the wooden literal sense, is completely misleading.

 

When "fear" is mentioned in Scripture, you would take that word, "fear" and replace it with "reverance" it makes perfect sense.

 

Just like if you knew you did something wrong that would make your Father upset, same goes for our Heavenly Father. We would be concerned with the upcoming consequences.....that's all that means....

[NoIDidn't]

I never mentioned anything about the bible being only learnt orally... What are you referring to?

 

 

You did. Here.

 

 

Remember that the Bible was not read as a common book until Darwin began to expound his theories. Then authorities exorted churchgoers to read their bibles and learn about god directly. Until then, bible content was largely transmitted orally. People did wht they were told.

 

 

Unless I interpretted it incorrectly, it appears in the bolded print that you said directly that the bible was largely transmitted orally.

 

Other than that little thing, we don't disagree entirely.

[TaraMaiden]

I do beg your pardon, I did not clarify. What I meant to say was that the populace in general could neither read nor write, but the clergy were educated. The only people who had direct literal access to The Word, were Priests and members of the Church.

 

So they would read the Bible to the masses and quote passages to them, through preaching and instruction. The public in general had no other means of learning about God's word.

This is what I meant by oral transmission.

 

This was an extraordinarly effective weapon in the hands of some.

 

This is why there are so many more sceptic people, agnostics and atheists today than ever before.

Because we have so much information available at our fingertips, we are far more educated and far more at liberty to control our own conscious thoughts. We are in general, less easy to manipulate.

 

 

_/l\_

[TaraMaiden]

Nonsense..

 

The second you accept Christ as your Saviour, you're saved whether or not you convert.

Well if you have accepted Christ as your saviour, then you are unlikely to convert. So this comment makes no sense....

 

First off, Christ would've had to pay for our sin over, and over, and over again if that statement were true.

Even in Law, you can't execute the same criminal twice for the same offence.

 

 

Secondly, a person who is TRULY saved would NEVER leave his/her Lord.

See your first point. That is why it makes no sense.

 

Finally, the ONLY way our soul would spend eternity away from God is by out right, consistant denial in the diety of Christ the Lord.

Which is exactly what they said....

 

"Fear" is mentioned a lot in this thread. But if you take the word, "fear" in the wooden literal sense, is completely misleading.

When "fear" is mentioned in Scripture, you would take that word, "fear" and replace it with "reverance" it makes perfect sense.

I would suggest then, that you re-write the Bible and replace 'Fear' with 'reverance' (sic) and see how well that works....

 

Just like if you knew you did something wrong that would make your Father upset, same goes for our Heavenly Father. We would be concerned with the upcoming consequences.....that's all that means....

Yes. if you don't come to me through my Son, (which includes turning away from him) you go to Hell.

 

That's reverence for you.....

[NoIDidn't]

I do beg your pardon, I did not clarify. What I meant to say was that the populace in general could neither read nor write, but the clergy were educated. The only people who had direct literal access to The Word, were Priests and members of the Church.

 

So they would read the Bible to the masses and quote passages to them, through preaching and instruction. The public in general had no other means of learning about God's word.

This is what I meant by oral transmission.

 

This was an extraordinarly effective weapon in the hands of some.

 

This is why there are so many more sceptic people, agnostics and atheists today than ever before.

Because we have so much information available at our fingertips, we are far more educated and far more at liberty to control our own conscious thoughts. We are in general, less easy to manipulate.

 

 

_/l\_

 

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

[Moose]

Well if you have accepted Christ as your saviour, then you are unlikely to convert. So this comment makes no sense....

You'd be amazed how many souls left Christianity for another sect. My comment makes perfect sense.

Even in Law, you can't execute the same criminal twice for the same offence.

No kidding, you've only PROVED my point.....

See your first point. That is why it makes no sense.

I've already covered that.

Which is exactly what they said....

Ehhh, no they didn't. I'm talking about a complete refusal to believe in Christ, and out right denial with no guilt what so ever. Why do you think "agnostics" sit on the fence all day long?

I would suggest then, that you re-write the Bible and replace 'Fear' with 'reverance' (sic) and see how well that works....

The point is what I stated right after that...:

Just like if you knew you did something wrong that would make your Father upset, same goes for our Heavenly Father. We would be concerned with the upcoming consequences.....that's all that means....

Yes. if you don't come to me through my Son, (which includes turning away from him) you go to Hell.

It's apparent you don't understand that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all one and the same....

 

Yes, that is reverance to me, and I'm glad that I do, "fear" Him. He keeps me in line, what can I say?

[FleshNBones]

Moose,

 

I think they have the same trouble understanding Jesus, and marriage. They just can't understand commitment, and I don't think they value the truth.