Is religion "the opiate of the people"?

[Kooky]

How would you define religion? For example, I believe what the Bible tells, because it is convincing to me. I want to live according to the teachings of Jesus, because I think they are good. If I do so, is it religion? Is doing right opium? Is using opium, right?

I don't want to prevent possible responses with an overly stringent definition of terms. Whatever definition you feel fits your practices and beliefs is fine with me, honestly. Would you say your economic situation had an influence on your desire (or your ability) to live according to those teachings?

 

[Marcion]

Unlike with tantra religion is indeed the opiate of the people to keep them in check and 'goodie-goodie' so they won't demand justice and fairness.
This is done with false promises of salvation after death (of course only then), soothing ritualism and false suggestions of 'being the chosen'.

The basic difference between tantra and religion is that tantra is based on spiritual practice, on spiritual experimentation and religion is mostly based on theory only (also called vedic religion).

 

[capumetu]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

satan said that if Jehovah would take all that a man has, that man would not serve Him. Job 2:4,5. I find a lot of truth in that, and I openly admit that if I knew for sure that I wasn't going to make it, I would be living a very different life. I wish it was not that way, but I have to honestly admit that most of Jehovah's people would be the same, although I am not sure that many of them would admit that.

As you serve Jehovah however, you do build a love for Him, and you fully recognize how much better off you are than when you didn't serve Him, if that makes any sense to you.

 

[metis]

But where does that "moral wrong" come from?
Does it arise directly from material conditions? Did it originate elsewhere?

Frankly, I think it largely comes within us as there's our propensity to have compassion for those especially within our "in-group". Thus, it is in our genes to a large extent.

But then our genes are not the end nor the beginning of the story, so...

 

[Thief]

But then our genes are not the end nor the beginning of the story, so...

so what is the? .....beginning

 

[metis]

so what is the? .....beginning

Impossible to determine with any objectively-derived evidence, but some do believe in a theistic cause. I do believe there was "Something", but just don't ask me to be more specific than that.

 

[Clara Tea]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

We are not supposed to put the homeless problem in God's hands, we are supposed to take an active role in following the teachings of Jesus.

 

[1213]

...Would you say your economic situation had an influence on your desire (or your ability) to live according to those teachings?

I don’t think so. And actually, those teachings can weaken economical situation, because if I live by them, I try to do good to others.

 

[74x12]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

If I just wanted to escape suffering I would kill myself; not get religious. For example Paul knew that his religion actually caused him more suffering in this life but he didn't care. (1 Corinthians 15:19) The fact is that atheists get to go by the ancient formula for a happy life "Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die". Atheists know they'll die one day so they enjoy their lives as much as possible because they believe this is all they will ever get. But if you're religious you can't really allow yourself to simply wile away your time in pointless pursuit of pleasure. You must live in such a way that will allow you to remain right with your God. This can at times be difficult.

 

[Valjean]

answering the title directly........yes

as politics would be cocaine

as music is marijuana

as war is heroine

War is a soporific?

 

[Thief]

War is a soporific?

the dead feel no pain

and we humans seem to be addicted

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

Considering that the job of religion is to connect us to the divine and to help us reach our best potential, that we can be the very best selves we can be, it seems to me that the fact that most people are only nominally serious about their religion is a great problem. IOW it is people are the opiate of religion.

 

[pearl]

Marx is one of the reasons the Church, at times, opposes 'liberation' theology.

 

[Valjean]

Marx is one of the reasons the Church, at times, opposes 'liberation' theology.

Are you sure you don't have this backwards? Isn't it the church that's aristocratic and hierarchical, and the liberation theologists who are Marxists?

 

[Inquire of God]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

My religion is an expression of spiritual desire.
And by that I mean the will to do what God asks to the best of my ability.
Everything else is an appendage to this personal relationship.

 

[Valjean]

My religion is an expression of spiritual desire.
And by that I mean the will to do what God asks to the best of my ability.
Everything else is an appendage to this personal relationship.

Which God are you following? There are certainly an awful lot of them, as well as a lot of disagreement amongst them.
How did you decide which god to follow?

 

[pearl]

Are you sure you don't have this backwards? Isn't it the church that's aristocratic and hierarchical, and the liberation theologists who are Marxists?

JOHN ALLEN: Liberation theology was a movement in Catholic thought that arose in Latin America in the late '50s, early '60s and was basically born by a group of Catholic thinkers who were looking at the social reality of Latin America, which, at the time, was defined largely by crushing poverty and the domination of both wealth and political power by a very thin veneer of social elites, and who drew the conclusion that that was not the gospel vision of how life ought to work.

And so they began pressing the Catholic Church to stand on the side of the poor. It became a very controversial movement. It also became controversial in the Vatican, where there was concerns that it was overly given to relying on Marxist analysis in that it ended up blessing violence, and so titanic battles were fought. And so the kind of rehabilitation that has been going on under Pope Francis, all of that has been seen widely in the church as healing old wounds.

MONTAGNE: Those old wounds in El Salvador, especially, have to do with Archbishop Romero and his assassination. You have called him a hero of the liberation theology movement. Would you call him a follower of that movement?


ALLEN: No. I think he was someone who tried to transcend the division between the liberation theology crowd and the more traditional, spiritual crowd. However, as the symbol of Romero has played out in the 35 years since his death, I think it is fair to say that Archbishop Romero is seen as a great hero and an icon by the progressive, socially involved wing of the Catholic Church and yet, to this day, is seen with some ambivalence by the more conservative wing of the Church.

Examining Catholicism's Controversial Liberation Theology



The early 1990s marked the collapse of the Soviet Union and, not coincidentally, Liberation Theology. Pope John Paul II removed from power many religious leaders that had been proponents of the movement and denounced its Marxist ties.

In the post-World War II era, the world was polarized by two idealistically divergent superpowers; the United States and the S

 

[Inquire of God]

Which God are you following? There are certainly an awful lot of them, as well as a lot of disagreement amongst them.
How did you decide which god to follow?

I follow Jesus Christ.
I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and became a member after a long period of searching that involved fruitless study, fruitless talking to people and listening to them but worthwhile praying and fasting seeking an answer directly from God.