Organized Religion = Communism

[ChrisP]

Seems to me that some religions are very similar to communism. You must believe what you are told to believe, do what you are told to do, pay what they tell you to pay, and if you don't, you're... well you might not get thrown in jail, but they kick you out. You're not allowed to have a mind of your own. You might think you do, but you're told what to believe.

Hey Jeff :slap:

This is the USSR and the PRC, not communism. The idea of Communism has never been and will never be realised among humanity. Communism was created on the basis of a Utopia with everyone working together with noone overseeing at all. What these countries had was a barbaric form of Socialism, Despotism and fascism depending on the country and the time period.

However I do agree with your comparison of organised religion with these traits that have just been listed.

 

[nutshell]

Forgive me for working for a living. 1st, if you would just take a few moments to try and understand what I was saying, Never mind. 50 + posts later and still trying to twist it. But that's cool. I understand.

I have no idea what you mean by this post.



Moving on, as ChrisP said, Marxist communism has nothing to do with the USSR or China. It was based on a utopian society even Marx knew would never exist.

You seem to want to pick on organized religion, how about the other organizations listed?

By the way, there is a difference between organized religion and communist nations - in organized religion you can choose whether or not to be a member. I doubt communist nations would give you that luxury.

 

[jeffrey]

Chris, I should have worded it different. A dictatorship or something. And like I said not all but some churches are like that. Someone just posted about being kicked out for being gay. Glad you see were I'm coming from. Most do.

 

[turk179]

Well, I don't know about Dawny, but I've been reading this whole thread, and you have yet to give an example of a denomination that does this.

Not speaking for Jeff here but my opinion is that it's not just one denomination but singular churches that could be culpable for these issues. I have even heard of the occasional Wiccan coven that could be accused of having these tendencies.

 

[nutshell]

Chris, I should have worded it different. A dictatorship or something. And like I said not all but some churches are like that. Someone just posted about being kicked out for being gay. Glad you see were I'm coming from. Most do.

But if that organization doesn't allow gays why shouldn't it be allowed to kick someone out? Perhaps a better question is if someone is gay why would they choose to be part of an organization they know does not support his or her lifestyle?

Again: I do not see organized religion as a dictatorship. The members choose to be a part of the organization. They are not forced.

 

[ChrisP]

I have no idea what you mean by this post.



Moving on, as ChrisP said, Marxist communism has nothing to do with the USSR or China. It was based on a utopian society even Marx knew would never exist.

You seem to want to pick on organized religion, how about the other organizations listed?

By the way, there is a difference between organized religion and communist nations - in organized religion you can choose whether or not to be a member. I doubt communist nations would give you that luxury.

Hi Nutshell
I don't think that was Jeff's point. He was comparing organised religions to communism because he grew up in an era when communism was advertised by the American govt as containing these traits, and the USSR and China sure did a good job of proving it.

His point however, still stands. I know my parents Church would do everything they could within the law of our land to keep a homosexual member from among their number, as their belief is that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. I can't see a Gay person wanting to join such a Church in the first place but if they did it is the organisations right to point out that this is what they believe. If these organisations believe this (in a religious context ONLY) and keep their beliefs to themselves they are welcome to have them, that is as much their right as it is mine to believe otherwise.

What these organised religious groups do NOT have the right to do, is push their standards on those outside their own social/religious group. And this is where I think Jeff is aiming. If you HATED Japanese food (yeah right obento *drools* ) but because it was the law you had to eat it at least once a day... is it right for people who believe in the health and nutritional benefits of a Japanese (or any diet) to push that upon the general populace?

 

[nutshell]

Hi Nutshell
What these organised religious groups do NOT have the right to do, is push their standards on those outside their own social/religious group. And this is where I think Jeff is aiming. If you HATED Japanese food (yeah right obento *drools* ) but because it was the law you had to eat it at least once a day... is it right for people who believe in the health and nutritional benefits of a Japanese (or any diet) to push that upon the general populace?

That's an interesting analogy - no less so because my wife is Japanese and we eat Japanese food all the time (EAT YOUR HEART OUT, SUCKER ).

Anyway, back to topic, I do not think it is right to be forced to eat a particular diet or be forced to observe certain religious beliefs. However, I believe there is a moral component in our laws and that component is the result of the beliefs of the majority. I'm not saying that's right, but it is our system and I think it works pretty good. We each get our vote and are free to vote the way we see fit - my church does not complete my ballot for me.

In addition, my moral "compass" might come from organized religion, but Jeff's or yours might come from somewhere else (I don't presume to know), how is the source for one's moral guide any more or less valid than the source for anothers?

 

[ChrisP]

That's an interesting analogy - no less so because my wife is Japanese and we eat Japanese food all the time (EAT YOUR HEART OUT, SUCKER ).

I would but it's tar and cholestarol levels make it a poor subsitute for yakiniku or sashimi... it's all in the sauce.

Anyway, back to topic, I do not think it is right to be forced to eat a particular diet or be forced to observe certain religious beliefs. However, I believe there is a moral component in our laws and that component is the result of the beliefs of the majority. I'm not saying that's right, but it is our system and I think it works pretty good. We each get our vote and are free to vote the way we see fit - my church does not complete my ballot for me.

In addition, my moral "compass" might come from organized religion, but Jeff's or yours might come from somewhere else (I don't presume to know), how is the source for one's moral guide any more or less valid than the source for anothers?

I agree, without moral standards there would be no laws at all resulting in anarchy and individual responsibilty which is something I WOULD be a proponent of if there wasn't such a large number of greedy, selfish people out there. Things like murder, theft, and aggression or inconsideration effect us all.

But these are standards that anyone with any ethics, religious or not agree with. The question now is: What about those things we have laws for which are merely an impingement upon others way of life, where these things do not effect religious groups.

Polygamy, Same Sex Unions and Drug Use (although this, I freely admit, is a tricky one) all would only effect those involved in the activities if legalised. People who are curious about drugs would have REAL accurate information made available to them without having to rely on peer review and street pushers dubious words of wisdom. If drugs were legal and medical treatment for their (mis)use were made a personal responsibility there would be a huge increase in taxable goods. The black market would also lose it's largest staple cash crop, which something that's always made me raise an eyebrow in regards to politicians stance on the legal status of drugs. How do the current moral standards of the majority in these instances benefit anyone? These things are already being practised. They're out there NOW not when they are legalised.

 

[Ody]

I dont remember Jeff saying that Communism was terrible...

I also think that Jeff has some bad common misconseptions of Communism as a whole...

He has confused war communism, leninism and maoism for scientific socialism (marxism)

 

[Aqualung]

Not speaking for Jeff here but my opinion is that it's not just one denomination but singular churches that could be culpable for these issues. I have even heard of the occasional Wiccan coven that could be accused of having these tendencies.

Oh, so it's not organised religion, but certain groups of people, then? In other words, organised religion was waaaaay too broad of a term?

 

[turk179]

Oh, so it's not organised religion, but certain groups of people, then? In other words, organised religion was waaaaay too broad of a term?

Not speaking for Jeff here but my opinion is ............ missed this part did ya? I should have said this is my opinion and not that of the op but I thought that would have been clear considering that I was the one that said this and not Jeff. My bad .

It might have been a little to broad of a statement but in my experience it is usually the churches that belong to organized religions that have these issues more so than non organized.

 

[jeffrey]

In the OP I said some.... not all, some.... But some people read what they want, not what it says. And yes turk, well put.

 

[turk179]

In the OP I said some.... not all, some....

Ya know, I read your op a couple of times and I still got caught up in the nit picking:bonk:.

 

[Mister_T]

Seems to me that some religions are very similar to communism. You must believe what you are told to believe, do what you are told to do, pay what they tell you to pay, and if you don't, you're... well you might not get thrown in jail, but they kick you out. You're not allowed to have a mind of your own. You might think you do, but you're told what to believe.

Have you guys ever heard of a video game called Lemmings? One "Elite" Lemming leads a whole bunch of other Lemmings from the beggining of a level to try and make it safely to the end of the level. If that "elite" Lemming jumps off of a cliff while they are trying to make it to the end, the others follow suit and jump off too. The Crusades were a good example of this. There are a lot churches remind me of this game.

 

[lovedmb]

Jeff, actually I agree with you I'm 37 years old and every church I have been to rejects a certain level of questioning particularly authority figures in the church. I have found it very difficult to have a reasonable open debate on any topic that goes against the primary theology of the church. I have learned that I don't go to church to have a deep understand of my faith I go there to meet with my friends and family.

I agree, there is only so much questioning lay members of churches are "allowed" to question. Many churches impliment excommunication policies for people who don't follow the rules as they are laid out. I would agree that most people *don't* have a deep understanding of their religions doctrines, and for many it is very much a social event, cultural, with a small bit of "spirituality" tossed in for good measure. Frubals to you.

 

[ChrisP]

Have you guys ever heard of a video game called Lemmings? One "Elite" Lemming leads a whole bunch of other Lemmings from the beggining of a level to try and make it safely to the end of the level. If that "elite" Lemming jumps off of a cliff while they are trying to make it to the end, the others follow suit and jump off too. The Crusades were a good example of this. There are a lot churches remind me of this game.

Of course we've heard of Lemmings... 'tis actually the first game anyone was ever recorded as being addicted to. Clearly noone was doing such testing when Commander Keen came out.

Humanity in General reminds us of that game. And seeing as religious groups are made up of people...