Thanks for the "religion" forum...

[TerryRC]

...as it is one of my favorite topics to argue about.

[ziggy]

What do you think of the adage that "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

Or how about "Without religion, how do we make people be good"?

[SheikBen]

Remember, Zig, that Plato's tyrant comes up only when the public has lost it's way through an "equality" of sorts when, unencumbered by temperance each seeks their own good until the poor hire a "hero" to avenge them on the rich. Plato was eerily prophetic when considering the Bolsheviks.

[TerryRC]

What do you think of the adage that "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

It didn't help the French aristocracy very much. Ditto for the Russian aristos at the time of their revolution.

I do think that religion has traditionally been used to control the lower classes by those in power.

Or how about "Without religion, how do we make people be good"?

I am one of those foolish people that believe that people are generally good (or not evil, at least) by nature.

We are wired to be social animals. Our endocrine system even rewards us when we do good things for others. Our conscience punishes us when we do bad things to others (if we are not totally self-absorbed). I think moderate behavior is the biological norm for most of us.

I don't worry about "sin" too much. "Sin" is a violation of the laws of the group and, as such, is generally relative. As for defining "evil" - all I can say is that I know it when I see it.

[shermangeneral]

Sounds like you are saying the blessings resulting from religous faith just comes natural to you Terry.

[SheikBen]

What do you think of the adage that "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

It didn't help the French aristocracy very much. Ditto for the Russian aristos at the time of their revolution.

I do think that religion has traditionally been used to control the lower classes by those in power.

Or how about "Without religion, how do we make people be good"?

I am one of those foolish people that believe that people are generally good (or not evil, at least) by nature.

We are wired to be social animals. Our endocrine system even rewards us when we do good things for others. Our conscience punishes us when we do bad things to others (if we are not totally self-absorbed). I think moderate behavior is the biological norm for most of us.

I don't worry about "sin" too much. "Sin" is a violation of the laws of the group and, as such, is generally relative. As for defining "evil" - all I can say is that I know it when I see it.

Hi terryrc,

1-How do you define "good?" That is, you say that humans are generally good--do you mean that people tend not to kill each other or that people tend to do want and do what is best for others, or do you have some other definition?

2-I have thought about the "legal" vs "moral" distinction a bit before. You define sin as a violation of the laws of the group, but I can find say, speeding laws to be good laws but the act of speeding is not always immoral. Conversely, a malicious gossip ought not be arrested but his behavior is certianly immoral. If you are rather talking about unwritten social mores than actual stated laws, then I must suggest that a notion of sin becomes meaningless, as the Germans in the 1930s should not have had the luxury to adapt "sin" to their liking, such as to allow the worship of their ancestors or the extermination of unfavored groups.

3-I will concede that we have internal systems that reward us for doing good for others, but that does not mean that there are not other sanctions outside of ourselves. Obviously the internal reward is not always enough, which is why we are asked to pay taxes for social programs and are subject to laws that punish us when we do not conform.

[TerryRC]

1-How do you define "good?" That is, you say that humans are generally good--do you mean that people tend not to kill each other or that people tend to do want and do what is best for others, or do you have some other definition?

In the sense that most don't care to knowingly harm others.

3-I will concede that we have internal systems that reward us for doing good for others, but that does not mean that there are not other sanctions outside of ourselves. Obviously the internal reward is not always enough, which is why we are asked to pay taxes for social programs and are subject to laws that punish us when we do not conform.

I don't think that has anything to do with good or evil. Taxes and tithing are about control and power.

2-I have thought about the "legal" vs "moral" distinction a bit before. You define sin as a violation of the laws of the group, but I can find say, speeding laws to be good laws but the act of speeding is not always immoral. Conversely, a malicious gossip ought not be arrested but his behavior is certianly immoral. If you are rather talking about unwritten social mores than actual stated laws, then I must suggest that a notion of sin becomes meaningless, as the Germans in the 1930s should not have had the luxury to adapt "sin" to their liking, such as to allow the worship of their ancestors or the extermination of unfavored groups.

Right, the concept of sin IS relatively meaningless as it is relative. Evil is that thing that transcends cultures. Murder, rape, kidnapping - you will find that these are evils that are frowned upon in almost all cultures.

Look at it this way - catholics believe in two types of sins - the little ones and the mortal sins. The former are forgivable by god (like homosexuality) if the sinner is truly contrite. The latter (like murder) and NEVER forgiven.

Societies need a minimum of stability to function.

[SFCraig]

What do you think of the adage that "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"?

I just saw this.... I say that all the time. The missing linchpin in exploitation is the inevitable sense of inequality the workers/farmers will feel. Then comes the resultant "storming of the castle".

The best way to "solve" this inevitable problem is to convince those who would revolt to "turn the other cheek", no?

There's more than one reason missionaries went along with the conquistadors, I'd say.

[Sponsored content]