By people… ok… well religions were formed by “wise/philosophical” people. Not by a god or angels or devils. Religions were made for order. In the Dark Ages, religions were formed to help control the people. How smart would it be to get all the people in your country to become good people by influencing a religion that if they followed it, they would be rewarded. Think about it as a ruler… Your people are in complete choas and you need something that will change your people from bad to good. Well, you are the king and you realize you can make people do as you want them to do. You tell your wisest councellor to find the best writers/idealists/philosophers and have them create a book. A book that will put your country back into peace and order. The Philosophers and idealists have this idea of proverbs and moral thinking. They input their own ideas into the characters of the Writers…“jesus” “disciples”. These writers create this god and this god is all knowing and leads people to bliss. A religion is formed. Now the problem is that few people read and write except for upper class and they do not have the technology to mass produce the bible. So they use their own ideas from the bible to form churches and make educated scholars into “priests” who preach the word of God. Now… Think about it as if you were a poor peasant in medieval times with little hope, having little education, and little knowledge of the world. You hear about a book that will make your life better! You learn about this religion from a preacher at your church. It told you that if you live a good life you will be rewarded in an afterlife, wouldnt u want this? Having very little, this is what people looked too. But if you lived a bad life you would go to bad place in the afterlife. One of these so called religions was Chrisitianity or the relgion of “the bible”. This is all my opinion and if you disagree so be it. This is just an outlet. Imo, religions are good for one thing. Making people good people.
woa…
like, totally…
Answer of a nimwit… Ignorance is bliss =, bring on your angry evil words Dr. because i know you want to talk smack to anyone who retorts to your pathetic comments.
its NITwit. Not nimwit.
Sorry for the typing mistake, and i dont understand Dr. Satans thing under his comments, “Test Everything. Believe Nothing”, How can you believe in satanism then… Image is everything and that is quite contradicting… believing in satanism…
Wow, Deja Vu or was something like this said in a few other recent threads?
I must say, I disagree with many of your points Blaze, but I am a Roman Catholic, so it is understandable I would say.
Ok, so sure, Jesus could have been a character - but he also was a real person and there is proof of this; not only in the bible and that cloth, but from old voting conventions. There was a man, back in the alleged time of Jesus, called Jesus who voted. There is also record of the crusifixion of a man called Jesus.
If the wise did create religion they would have to have been really damn wise… many philosophers have said something similar or equal to: “He was a wise man he who invented religion.”… Though that doesnt make it true - neither does it make it false.
Its a sound theory, putting people in line by the creation of religion. Though any chaos that was caused, any revolt and such would be dealt with very harshly by the Government of that time, turning others away from the path of chaos and destruction more then the promise of euphoria after death. There were laws back then and there were brutal ways of enforcing them that would have given fear to the people, in my opinion, much more then the promise of hell after you die.
People could see the governments punishments, they could not see religions. They could only hear about it and either believe or not believe. Either way, I believe something they see strikes more fear into their hearts then something they can only believe in.
I dont think the bible makes anyones life any better but for its teachings, it gives people a better understanding of life of pushes them into the direction of being a good person. Whatever the bible teaches though, people will still be people. There will always be people who follow the laws of the Government because they fear the punishment, and people who follow the commandments of God, because they fear his punishment. Conversly, there will always be people who dont follow any law because, they just dont care.
There is also circumstance and morality, people may break laws or commandments for revenge or lust etc etc. Not many will stop and think twice about the consequences.
Einstein said: “A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
I think that explains what I am trying to say rather well.
Futher thoughts: Even with a religious basis, man will most likely act no differently to those with a religious basis.
While the idea of your theory may of course be correct, I do disagree with it. Made up religions could be correct and true religion could still exist because there are still many, many questions in life that remain answered only by religion, and there are, IMO, many false religions.
W.C.
Smoke another one and ramble some more inane nonsense.
What do you think you are actually contributing here?
ps - Maybe my sig will make more sense when you come down off your high?
BlazedPhilosopher
This is the beginning and the end. It seems there's very little room to discuss- if there are no gods or devils, then an explanation like yours is the only kind there could ever be. If there is such a thing as God, then your explanation is entirely unnessicary.
There is a problem, though. This cannot explain the origins of religion as a whole but only these certain religions we see around us today. For, if there were no religion, or religious nature in man, then then idea of magical sky people that want us to do good things would have never stuck or had the kind of power it does. It seems to me, that if you must deny the existence of the spiritual realm/Beings that religion claims to be based on, then you have to begin with biology- religion formed because there is something about humans that makes them vulernable to it. Without that, your answer boils down to "Ancient people were stupid enough to believe anything they were told", and that's just not so.
right, it takes billions of dollars spent on public education and modern mass media to produce a quality idiot…
it would be funny…
if it weren’t so true…
-Imp
Maybe he is “testing everythin” as you advocate.
Like yeh man, perhaps its like ,ok for him to be high an stuff while he reads your post, coz hes like …totally pushing the boundaries of perception,and stuff
Woa…duuuuude. That’s deep.
Hey, is that a cheesy?!
First off, Blazed, you’re writing without paragraphs again.
Second, if by religion you mean Christianity, I don’t think you [noted] how old that religion is. If you mean religion in general, I don’t think you appreciate how old religion is. In both cases, it is pre-absolutist government.
[Y]ou seem to identify being good with being controlled by the government. It seems to me however that once religion takes effect, people can be trusted to act in a democracy. It brings mankind to a new state of maturity.
Religion both preceeds and postdates absolutism.
Finally, you say wise men found religions. I would say that and prophecy. However, I am somewhat confoun[d]ed lately on the difference between religion, which deals with relationship with God, and philosophy which is about ideas of the world – from spirit, from mind – and how they interrelate.
Vale bene, (Be well,)
my real name
Jeeze, the ILP channel these days… Nuthin’ but repeats…
Mm, I get Deja Vu in almost every religious thread I enter thanks to two people and their constant bantering of one another.
W.C.
Kind of makes you wanna like… kill shit and stuff huh dude?
The origin of religion is in the mimicry and homage of the animal.
The first human beings had a troublesome relationship to other animals. The animal was a unknown alien to them, a dangerous threat to them, but also a food source.
The diplomacy invented in organizing these relationships became ritualistic, and the first “religions” were the customs and rountines agreed upon by a culture in its relationship to the various animals they were preoccupied with. Ethics were invented between man and animal.
The animal kingdom was arranged into a hierarchy of powers, those most aggressive and of the greatest size, were idolized and feared by man. By mimicry the man would pretend to capture the power of the great beast, dancing around the fire wearing the skull of a tiger, poking his spear as would the paw strike out at its prey. This was the first attempt at the aesthetic expression of “spirit”- as animating force in the alien life of the animal. The art of “acting” was equivalent to being. The warrior could literally capture the spirit of the tiger inside him while fighting or hunting. For the primitive man, the animal was not something below him but rather an equal to more powerful being which had to be negotiated with, if even worshiped. This sort or reverence, coupled with the alien nature of the beast, gave rise to the suspicion that the animals were conscious forces involved in the human’s existence; otherwordly in the sense that they were so physically unlike the man.
Animal prey was also highly respected. After killing and eating an animal the primitive man conducted ceremonies were he gave thanks and paid respects.
I believe that the original spiritual polarities “good” and “bad” were fashioned from the relationship to both predator and prey. “Struggle,” which was considered “bad,” was associated with the animals of prey, those beasts that lived to be taken by the predator. “Compassion” originated in this respect. “Strength” was associated with the predator. What had no enemy and could pose a great threat was revered as “good.” The power of existing with no mortal threat was a luxurious right, and such animals were idolized.
Polytheisms emerged out of the ordering of animal spirits, and the first religious practice was that of simulating the character of the animal to conjure its powers for oneself.
A later addition to this was the elements and the seasons. When man became an agriculturalist he took up a relationship with the weather. A violent storm was interpreted as an angry spirit, while a cool summer day was the reward of a happy spirit. A ripe crop was the reward for good behavior. Likewise, a rotten crop was punishment.
Still I think that what we might call the “metaphysical” sense of spirit and animating force originated in the experience of the animal as an inhuman but equally alive creature. A mysterious alien to the human species, but one which he was always related to in one way or another.
How do you think this religion will be formed, Life Itself as a Modern Religion? I also ask if you it should be, in what form do you envision it? ,
This credible proposition was found in a concise online book on a philosophy site a couple of weeks ago. I have since reread it several times and do believe the author of this work has possibly found a way to lance the boil afflicting mankind. Most of the work is worthy of quotation here, but alas, I chose merely an exerpt consisting of the Forward to introduce it to see if it wets your intelectual appitite sufficiently to entertain it long enough to appreciate its potential.
Mirthful
See toreasonpublishing.com As I don’t know how long it will be up, so I downloaded and saved it on my PC . I even printed a copy for ease of reading.