"Religion was created to control people."

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, no, no. They’re mistaken “religion” for “political correctness”.
 
I know that you sincerely believe this and I’m glad it gives you the proof you need. But, also realize that there are arguments that dispute each of your proofs. People that reject the Gospels are often not even remotely convinced that everything in the Gospels are historical and accurate. They aren’t rejecting them willy nilly.

If they were rock solid evidence then there would be no need for faith and all would be Christian or at least 99% would be.
 
Guest1 said:
How do you like to respond when someone says something like that? 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m going to correct my own post to a certain degree. I’m going to suggest that ‘control’ is the wrong word to use. Not least because of the negative connotations. I can see a lot of bristling going on in some of the replies. Which is not unjustified. So how about the op suggests that we change control to ‘influence’.

There surely could be no disagreement that religion, whatever religion it might be, influences it’s followers. If the guy the op was talking to wants to suggest that that the influence can be such an extent so as to be described as control then that is also a given. Just think of some sects that have been (and still are) around.

Then it’s just a matter of arguing from one’s particular religion and pointing out that there is hardly any control but a vast amount of influence.

Which, incidently, does not detract from my point that this ability to have influence was discovered a very long time ago indeed. And has been discovered independently countless times. Which says nothing about whether a particular religion is true or not.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
I don’t respond to that, because they have already made fairly clear their concept of morality, and I prefer to not argue with someone who is fueled by emotion.
Click to expand...
What would their concept of morality be?
 
RaisedCatholic said:
Many of these same doubters who choose to disbelieve…
Click to expand...
Something of a contradiction there. If someone has doubts about a matter then you are saying that, by definition, they have not been convinced. Which is then the reason for their disbelief. So they cannot have chosen to disbelieve.

Which you can’t do any way. You can only choose to accept or reject evidence which might then lead to belief or unbelief.
 
I’d ask them to actually spend time reading the Bible and especially the new testament. Part of what attracted me to Christianity is not that it controls people, it’s a crutch, or an opiate for the masses. Part of what attracted me is that the words and teachings of Jesus are powerful, and they can give you power and the ability to control your surroundings. The teachings of Jesus work win nothing else will.

The thing is when you start to internalize his teachings, you no longer really “want” the power to control your surroundings in the same way. You start to look at the world differently and desire different things.
 
otjm said:
I don’t respond to that, because they have already made fairly clear their concept of morality, and I prefer to not argue with someone who is fueled by emotion
Click to expand...
If only there were something that could control those emotions…
 
Well they might someday think to wonder why these humans ever came into existence…
 
Well, there is; on occasion they get so hammered by the results of their (moral) choices that they start to confront reality. It seems to be prevalent in many who seek, for example AA; they get down far enough to the bottom that they confront it and seek help. The same can be said for the drug addict.
 
Pattylt said:
People that reject the Gospels are often not even remotely convinced that everything in the Gospels are historical and accurate
Click to expand...
Because they were either not physically present there (which they are being inconsistent, since they believe other historical events they were also not physically present at), or they are ignorant of the avalanche of non-Christian historical & archaeological evidence which has confirmed the events of the Bible (and ZERO proof that disproves it), or they fail to grasp how the early church exploded in the first few centuries despite intense persecution from Rome, when other religious movements died out - including those claiming to be the Messiah. Yet, Christianity alone survived & has remained today.
Pattylt said:
If they were rock solid evidence then there would be no need for faith
Click to expand...
That is not the meaning of faith. Faith is based on verifiable evidence (Hebrews 11:1) even if you were not there to see it yourself. The kind of “belief” you are talking about are religions like Islam, where no one but Mohammed was able to claim it was true, same with Joseph Smith & Mormonism. But not Christianity. It is in a category on its own.
 
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
Pattylt:
People that reject the Gospels are often not even remotely convinced that everything in the Gospels are historical and accurate
Click to expand...
Because they were either not physically present there (which they are being inconsistent, since they believe other historical events they were also not physically present at), or they are ignorant of the avalanche of non-Christian historical & archaeological evidence which has confirmed the events of the Bible…
Click to expand...
The historicity of the bible is not generally disputed. It’s somewhat of a simplictic argument to suggest that - hey, a lot of things really happened therefore…Christianity is true. It might be wise not to treat people who aren’t Christian (and we are talking of well over half the planet) as being ignorant of the evidence.
 
I would ask the person to demonstrate it and I’m almost certain that he will not in the case of Christianity. Only pointing out how some people have behaved in a bad way but thats not relevant to the question unless these people somehow created the actual catholic faith for this purpose.
 
Wozza said:
The historicity of the bible is not generally disputed. It’s somewhat of a simplictic argument to suggest that - hey, a lot of things really happened therefore…Christianity is true. It might be wise not to treat people who aren’t Christian (and we are talking of well over half the planet) as being ignorant of the evidence.
Click to expand...
That is not the argument I am making (“a lot of things really happened…Christianity is true.”) And while it’s a common assumption that “well over half the planet” isn’t ignorant of the evidence, even in the most civilized & educationally advanced countries, people are ignorant of the evidence, including many in the United States.
Wozza said:
You seem to be unaware of other religions. There are a few others.
Click to expand...
In context, I was talking about the various Jewish Messiah claims that died out under Roman persecution, yet Christianity not only survived but exploded.
 
Last edited:
RaisedCatholic said:
40.png
Wozza:
The historicity of the bible is not generally disputed. It’s somewhat of a simplictic argument to suggest that - hey, a lot of things really happened therefore…Christianity is true. It might be wise not to treat people who aren’t Christian (and we are talking of well over half the planet) as being ignorant of the evidence.
Click to expand...
That is not the argument I am making (“a lot of things really happened…Christianity is true.”) And while it’s a common assumption that “well over half the planet” isn’t ignorant of the evidence, even in the most civilized & educationally advanced countries, people are ignorant of the evidence, including many in the United States.
Click to expand...
I think that this is what you said as one of the basis for your argument:

‘…or they are ignorant of the avalanche of non-Christian historical & archaeological evidence which has confirmed the events of the Bible’.

What the bible’s historicity confirms is that the some events as written about in the bible happened. No more. Not all the events in the bible are historical records.

And very many people are ignorant of what you class as evidence just as you are ignorant of all other evidence for other religions. But my apologies if you have studied other religions in depth.
 
I was trying to inject the point that people need to be controlled sometimes, like alcoholics and drug addicts I suppose. That cannot come from outside, but something interior can bring people to a more productive and sociably rewarding life.

Something like religion can control the wildness of our lives. That is my response to the OP’s question.
 
I think you will find a different answer in Daniel’s life.

King Nebuchadnezzar wanted to control people. Daniel refused and was forced to enter the burning fire.

Faith doesn’t control a person. Far from it. Please read Daniel 3.

You will find Gods laws existed way before any human law was ever formed.

control

noun
the power to influence or direct people’s behaviour or the course of events.

“the whole operation is under the control of a production manager”

synonyms: jurisdiction, sway, power, authority, command, dominance, domination, government, mastery, leadership, rule, reign, sovereignty, supremacy, ascendancy, predominance, hegemony; More
a person or thing used as a standard of comparison for checking the results of a survey or experiment.

“platelet activity was higher in patients with the disease than in the controls”

synonyms: standard of comparison, benchmark, standard, check

“another Petri dish without the DNA solution was used as a control”
 
Last edited:
Guest1 said:
How do you like to respond when someone says something like that? 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s a pretty shallow look at things.

You equally can state that laws were made to control people, but how is that a bad thing? Don’t we need some structure and boundaries for our conduct in communities.

Contrasting religion with laws, laws create an outer boundary of behavior with consequences that people agree should not be crossed. Religion focuses more on ideal behavior one should exhibit in their daily lives, religion teaches love and forgiveness of your brethren rather than just ‘don’t assault/kill unless you have cause’
 
Last edited:
I think we are answering the same thing. Someone who is convinced that religion was created to “control” people (and I have personal experience with a couple of those) is not open to any dialogue as to whey religion exists; and it is often when hitting the bottom that they might come to the conclusion that maybe it is not control that religion tries to exert, but a means of self-control; something they seem to not recon with when berating religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top