Daganev2009-03-24 17:56:49
QUOTE (Kiriwe y'Kaliath @ Mar 24 2009, 10:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My opinion on religion is that it is a tool. The ancient peoples used this tool as a reason for people to follow a set of rules, so they would behave in a certain manner, for fear of ultimate repercussion, or desire of ultimate reward. Not everybody is altruistic, and most people need motivation, whether it be negative or positive. As we, as the entirety of the human race, move forward in thinking, in technology, this dependence on a god and a heaven/hell dwindles, as the value of human life, or rational thinking, in the collective concience raises. (see that as altruistic hedonism. It's no fun for me to see other people suffer)
No offense, and I know many people say things like this, but if you actually look closely at religion vs government you might find that the idea of religion as a tool to control is backwards.
Religion comes from a need that people have to look beyond the physical world around us. That is all it is a tool for.
There are also people in this world who like to control others. Very often the people who want to control find that they are better at controlling people if they appear to be kind and looking out for the best interest of the person they are controlling.
However, most religious leaders arn't actually looking to control people, they are looking to help people.
It would be akin to suggesting that the science of psychology is a tool we use today to control people. While technically true, it isn't the intent of the psychologists to control, but rather to help.
kiriwe2009-03-24 18:04:13
QUOTE (daganev @ Mar 24 2009, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No offense, and I know many people say things like this, but if you actually look closely at religion vs government you might find that the idea of religion as a tool to control is backwards.
Religion comes from a need that people have to look beyond the physical world around us. That is all it is a tool for.
Religion comes from a need that people have to look beyond the physical world around us. That is all it is a tool for.
No offense taken, but I stick by what I said.
Religious tenets were taken and made law by ancient (and current) governments, out of a need/want to enforce their beliefs, and perhaps to give them value.
"I believe this is wrong, so nobody should do it, even if you aren't the same religion as me" kind of thing.
Daganev2009-03-24 18:15:42
QUOTE (Kiriwe y'Kaliath @ Mar 24 2009, 11:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No offense taken, but I stick by what I said.
Religious tenets were taken and made law by ancient (and current) governments, out of a need/want to enforce their beliefs, and perhaps to give them value.
Religious tenets were taken and made law by ancient (and current) governments, out of a need/want to enforce their beliefs, and perhaps to give them value.
Rome's government existed before Christianity.
Many tribes in Africa have a shaman sect who are not part of the ruling governments.
In Christian Europe, it was the church who "controlled" the kings. Because of this, the king in england created his own religion.
modern political freedom theory came about because of the schism in Christianity, and the desire to end the religious wars. (well more like the recognition that killing each other over G-d's word wasn't making any sense)
The spread of monotheism was the first time that the idea of all people being created equal was passed. The legal system described in the books of moses is a direct contrast to the more authoritarian and in our eyes, unjust system of the nations around it.
My point is, as much as religion has been used to control people, it has also been used to free people from control.
QUOTE
"I believe this is wrong, so nobody should do it, even if you aren't the same religion as me" kind of thing.
How is this any different from somebody saying "I believe polluting is wrong, and nobody should pollute, even if you don't agree with me." That's not a religion thing, that's a "I believe I am correct, and the world will end if you don't listen to me" thing.
Daganev2009-03-24 18:19:32
I could be wrong here, and maybe some christians would like to clarify this point, but if I'm not mistaken the idea of Christianity started off as a means to revolt against the oppressiveness of the Roman empire.
Daganev2009-03-24 18:20:25
QUOTE (Simimi @ Mar 24 2009, 10:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That is odd... coming from a Buddhist nation I find that idea really... difficult to grasp onto. Judaism was always a beautiful religion, I thought though.
I could be off here, but isn't that what Japan did? (mixed shinto with buddhism?))
kiriwe2009-03-24 18:23:35
QUOTE (daganev @ Mar 24 2009, 02:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Rome's government existed before Christianity.
Many tribes in Africa have a shaman sect who are not part of the ruling governments.
In Christian Europe, it was the church who "controlled" the kings. Because of this, the king in england created his own religion.
modern political freedom theory came about because of the schism in Christianity, and the desire to end the religious wars. (well more like the recognition that killing each other over G-d's word wasn't making any sense)
The spread of monotheism was the first time that the idea of all people being created equal was passed. The legal system described in the books of moses is a direct contrast to the more authoritarian and in our eyes, unjust system of the nations around it.
My point is, as much as religion has been used to control people, it has also been used to free people from control.
How is this any different from somebody saying "I believe polluting is wrong, and nobody should pollute, even if you don't agree with me." That's not a religion thing, that's a "I believe I am correct, and the world will end if you don't listen to me" thing.
Many tribes in Africa have a shaman sect who are not part of the ruling governments.
In Christian Europe, it was the church who "controlled" the kings. Because of this, the king in england created his own religion.
modern political freedom theory came about because of the schism in Christianity, and the desire to end the religious wars. (well more like the recognition that killing each other over G-d's word wasn't making any sense)
The spread of monotheism was the first time that the idea of all people being created equal was passed. The legal system described in the books of moses is a direct contrast to the more authoritarian and in our eyes, unjust system of the nations around it.
My point is, as much as religion has been used to control people, it has also been used to free people from control.
How is this any different from somebody saying "I believe polluting is wrong, and nobody should pollute, even if you don't agree with me." That's not a religion thing, that's a "I believe I am correct, and the world will end if you don't listen to me" thing.
I think you misunderstood me.
When I said tool for controlling people, I didn't mean it in an active sense. Not "I have the power of God(s) so do what I say" but a much more passive control. The actual invention of the religion itself, not the active practice of it.
Simimi2009-03-24 18:24:07
Yes, it is, but it is not called 'Buddhism' and is treated differently by those of other sects, as far as I am aware. They do have Zen, which is nearly the same as Cha'an Buddhism (same character also), which is a derivative of teachings, but is not called a sect, as Cha'an and Zen both made "unacceptable changes" to the monastic code and the Dhammapadra, or 'main text' of Buddhism.
Daganev2009-03-24 18:26:19
QUOTE (Simimi @ Mar 24 2009, 11:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, it is, but it is not called 'Buddhism' and is treated differently by those of other sects, as far as I am aware. They do have Zen, which is nearly the same as Cha'an Buddhism (same character also), which is a derivative of teachings, but is not called a sect, as Cha'an and Zen both made "unacceptable changes" to the monastic code and the Dhammapadra, or 'main text' of Buddhism.
Hmmm, perhaps it is too new for them to have thier own name yet. It only started 50 years ago. (damn can't believe its been 50 years since the 60s allready sheesh! ))
Daganev2009-03-24 18:27:43
QUOTE (Kiriwe y'Kaliath @ Mar 24 2009, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think you misunderstood me.
When I said tool for controlling people, I didn't mean it in an active sense. Not "I have the power of God(s) so do what I say" but a much more passive control. The actual invention of the religion itself, not the active practice of it.
When I said tool for controlling people, I didn't mean it in an active sense. Not "I have the power of God(s) so do what I say" but a much more passive control. The actual invention of the religion itself, not the active practice of it.
ok... which religion are you talking about?
I did misunderstand you, but now I'm even more confused because of the way religions actually get founded and spread.
Simimi2009-03-24 18:27:47
I chose to take myself out of this thread now, as always, thanks for being interesting, Dags <3
Daganev2009-03-24 19:19:33
Just to go back to the oringal point of this thread. Divine Command being 0% doesn't mean you are an athiest by the way.
It really just means that you don't believe in morality or ethics as being something which the divine gives humanity, or it just means you don't like the bible. (depends on how they score things in the quiz)
I know that partly I scored low on "divine command" because I don't believe the bible to be a universal book that applies equally to all people.
It really just means that you don't believe in morality or ethics as being something which the divine gives humanity, or it just means you don't like the bible. (depends on how they score things in the quiz)
I know that partly I scored low on "divine command" because I don't believe the bible to be a universal book that applies equally to all people.
kiriwe2009-03-24 19:24:14
QUOTE (daganev @ Mar 24 2009, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ok... which religion are you talking about?
I did misunderstand you, but now I'm even more confused because of the way religions actually get founded and spread.
I did misunderstand you, but now I'm even more confused because of the way religions actually get founded and spread.
I'm not talking about any religion in particular, I mean religion in general.
Religion (of any kind) was a way of giving people a concrete reason to do, or not do, certain things, besides "it's not nice". Positive/negative reinforcement.
Daganev2009-03-24 19:34:12
QUOTE (Kiriwe y'Kaliath @ Mar 24 2009, 12:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm not talking about any religion in particular, I mean religion in general.
Religion (of any kind) was a way of giving people a concrete reason to do, or not do, certain things, besides "it's not nice". Positive/negative reinforcement.
Religion (of any kind) was a way of giving people a concrete reason to do, or not do, certain things, besides "it's not nice". Positive/negative reinforcement.
the general theory about religion is that it first started off to explain natural phenomenon (light lightning, thunder, earthquakes) and to respect to those who died (i.e. burial rights)
I'm not certain when "reward and punishment" based on daily activity became a thing associate with religion, or if it is even a factor outside of monotheistic religions.
Nocht2009-03-24 19:44:47
As I understand it, reward and punishment came to be tied with religion pretty early on, and not only in monotheistic religions.
Daganev2009-03-24 20:08:06
QUOTE (Nocht @ Mar 24 2009, 12:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
As I understand it, reward and punishment came to be tied with religion pretty early on, and not only in monotheistic religions.
For daily activities?
most religions offered sacrifices of some sort in a communal setting to fix any problems they were having, but they would equate specific events with a reward in the afterlife (such as dieing in battle will bring you to valhalla, or dieing in child birth would grant you special things) but not as a form of daily activity which would regulate "moral" behavior. There wasn't this sense of "if I'm a good person, I will get rewareded, and if I am a bad person I will get punished. " Instead it was more like a "If I lose my life to this event it's ok, because all will be good "
I just don't know enough about the detailed mechanisms of Karma and eastern reincarnation (and to know how those ideas changed over the years, and when) to know if they have an affect on daily behavior or if they are also just "big event" sort of things.
kiriwe2009-03-24 20:18:52
QUOTE (daganev @ Mar 24 2009, 04:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
For daily activities?
most religions offered sacrifices of some sort in a communal setting to fix any problems they were having, but they would equate specific events with a reward in the afterlife (such as dieing in battle will bring you to valhalla, or dieing in child birth would grant you special things) but not as a form of daily activity which would regulate "moral" behavior. There wasn't this sense of "if I'm a good person, I will get rewareded, and if I am a bad person I will get punished. " Instead it was more like a "If I lose my life to this event it's ok, because all will be good "
I just don't know enough about the detailed mechanisms of Karma and eastern reincarnation (and to know how those ideas changed over the years, and when) to know if they have an affect on daily behavior or if they are also just "big event" sort of things.
most religions offered sacrifices of some sort in a communal setting to fix any problems they were having, but they would equate specific events with a reward in the afterlife (such as dieing in battle will bring you to valhalla, or dieing in child birth would grant you special things) but not as a form of daily activity which would regulate "moral" behavior. There wasn't this sense of "if I'm a good person, I will get rewareded, and if I am a bad person I will get punished. " Instead it was more like a "If I lose my life to this event it's ok, because all will be good "
I just don't know enough about the detailed mechanisms of Karma and eastern reincarnation (and to know how those ideas changed over the years, and when) to know if they have an affect on daily behavior or if they are also just "big event" sort of things.
Thieving, whoring, murdering, lying etc.
Without a divine repercussion, there's really no reason not do do those things. (aside from the modern moral standpoint of you are depriving somebody else of their rights, for thieving and murdering)
Being told you are going to go someplace really nasty if you make a habit of doing bad things, or going to go someplace nice if you go about helping others and being selfless is pretty good motivation to not do bad things, and to go around doing good things.
Daganev2009-03-24 20:46:05
QUOTE (Kiriwe y'Kaliath @ Mar 24 2009, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thieving, whoring, murdering, lying etc.
Without a divine repercussion, there's really no reason not do do those things. (aside from the modern moral standpoint of you are depriving somebody else of their rights, for thieving and murdering)
Being told you are going to go someplace really nasty if you make a habit of doing bad things, or going to go someplace nice if you go about helping others and being selfless is pretty good motivation to not do bad things, and to go around doing good things.
Without a divine repercussion, there's really no reason not do do those things. (aside from the modern moral standpoint of you are depriving somebody else of their rights, for thieving and murdering)
Being told you are going to go someplace really nasty if you make a habit of doing bad things, or going to go someplace nice if you go about helping others and being selfless is pretty good motivation to not do bad things, and to go around doing good things.
Then you are not talking about religion in general, you are talking specifically about Monotheistic religions.
Again, in the ancient world, theiving, murdering, and lying were dealt with via chopping off your hand, or killing you, or cutting out your tongue. They used the deterrent factor.
whoring, wasn't such a problem.
The ancient saying goes, "pray for the government, for without it each person would eat his neighbor"
Warlords, governments, town thugs... that is what kept people from doing "bad things", not religious ideals. (well there was also societal ideas about honor, but that also was a family thing, not a religion /afterlife thing) That is a new concept that came to the near east with monotheism, and why it is seen as such a turning point in history. I'm not sure how this was all handled in the far east.
edit: For example, they might destroy the entire family or village of someone who raped another person. Why? So that nobody ever thinks of doing that action again.
Furien2009-03-24 21:29:18
Philosophically Buddhist: Be nice.
'Religiously' Agnostic: There's no point in me caring what happens when I die, because chances are I won't be able to change it even if I tried (or could).
Despite Christianity's bad history in general, most Christians are very nice people that don't want to burn me on sharp objects for being gay. Though, it makes me wonder why I must even refer to them as 'Christians' in that scenario, rather than what particular branch they belong to (because the main arch of Christianity, AFAIK, is against homosexuality), but such is life.
'Religiously' Agnostic: There's no point in me caring what happens when I die, because chances are I won't be able to change it even if I tried (or could).
Despite Christianity's bad history in general, most Christians are very nice people that don't want to burn me on sharp objects for being gay. Though, it makes me wonder why I must even refer to them as 'Christians' in that scenario, rather than what particular branch they belong to (because the main arch of Christianity, AFAIK, is against homosexuality), but such is life.
kiriwe2009-03-24 21:30:54
QUOTE (daganev @ Mar 24 2009, 04:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Then you are not talking about religion in general, you are talking specifically about Monotheistic religions.
Again, in the ancient world, theiving, murdering, and lying were dealt with via chopping off your hand, or killing you, or cutting out your tongue. They used the deterrent factor.
whoring, wasn't such a problem.
The ancient saying goes, "pray for the government, for without it each person would eat his neighbor"
Warlords, governments, town thugs... that is what kept people from doing "bad things", not religious ideals. (well there was also societal ideas about honor, but that also was a family thing, not a religion /afterlife thing) That is a new concept that came to the near east with monotheism, and why it is seen as such a turning point in history. I'm not sure how this was all handled in the far east.
edit: For example, they might destroy the entire family or village of someone who raped another person. Why? So that nobody ever thinks of doing that action again.
Again, in the ancient world, theiving, murdering, and lying were dealt with via chopping off your hand, or killing you, or cutting out your tongue. They used the deterrent factor.
whoring, wasn't such a problem.
The ancient saying goes, "pray for the government, for without it each person would eat his neighbor"
Warlords, governments, town thugs... that is what kept people from doing "bad things", not religious ideals. (well there was also societal ideas about honor, but that also was a family thing, not a religion /afterlife thing) That is a new concept that came to the near east with monotheism, and why it is seen as such a turning point in history. I'm not sure how this was all handled in the far east.
edit: For example, they might destroy the entire family or village of someone who raped another person. Why? So that nobody ever thinks of doing that action again.
No, I'm not talking about purely monotheistic religions.
Those were just the only things I came up with off the top of my head.
Vhaas2009-03-24 21:40:06
I have to consent with Dagnev's point that 0% Divine Command does not necessarily imply atheism, but more so the perception of “liberality†in one's religious influence. However...
- Desitrus mentioned agnosticism and I feel it important to point something out. Pertaining to religion, an agnostic is...
Contrary to some popular belief, an atheist is by technicality one who is 'a-' (without) 'theism' (belief in God).
Unless I am overlooking something, here is the deductive implication of the former position:
By not claiming that God(s) do/does exist (in one's realizations, not verbally), the person does not exert belief, and without belief in God(s) is by technicality an atheist, just as a rock or a three-month old infant (unless you believe these things to possess conscious thought and opinion, some do) would be atheists. To reiterate, not believing in God(s) of any sort (whether by conclusion or lack of consideration) qualifies one for the category of atheism.
By this reasoning, not all atheists are agnostics, but all agnostics (pertaining to religion) are necessarily atheists.
Religion has many uses. It can...
- Explain the cosmos
- Define the purpose of humanity in life and death
- Create solidarity and group identity
- Justify law and morality (prior to, but also with or without) democratic/existentialist theory (a large role to present day and source of much political conflict in the United States)
If we were to do a thorough search for the various functions religion can serve, the simple list would stretch far beyond the capacity and scope of this thread, I am sure. From one Anthropological point of view (in the framework of evolution) religion is regarded as an adaption, something that has, known to them or not, helped a certain species deal with the overwhelming burden of sentience, curiosity, and individuality, which accompany the high intelligence that has made them so successful at surviving.
Of course, like our heavy bone structure prevents us from flying even if we were to sprout wings, so too could it be argued that there is perceivable 'negative' collateral for this adaption. I leave that dilemma for individual regard!
1.) The Roman Empire had entered a different degree of development (note that I am not saying they were more or less developed, merely different) than the Christian nations which proceeded them. While initially using religion to justify themselves, they had begun to enter an era not unlike modern day, when philosophy independent of religious values was an emerging alternative. It was of course not secular.
2.) The King of England separated from the Catholic Church so that he could declare a divorce. Modern secular theory was probably sparked by the Great Schism, but the momentum really came with the realization of Locke's civil government, Immanuel Kant's attempt to create a logically deduced morality situated around God (which actually gave an example of one that by the same standards could logically exist without Him), and the emergence of the socialists in the mid 1700s.
2.) Responding to this and an earlier statement, which do not seem quite true. Prior to Christianity, the Roman Empire was generally very tolerant when it came to most religions, more so than any major Western establishment for more than 1,000 years after its downfall. In their capital the Romans constructed temples to the various deities of the peoples they conquered, and many of the cultures of the Mediterranean Basin saw their Gods as analogous with those others cultures. This is not to say that Rome did not discriminate, but that they were generally more liberal and accommodating than the Christian Empires that followed up until the 1800s, or in some respects- present day.
An essential reason Christianity was treated differently was because it “made a lot of noiseâ€. The Jews of the time paid tribute the Roman Emperor as a God in his own right (Rome required this) and Yahweh was often considered analogous or the same God as Baal Haman, Apollo, and Mithra, among others. The Christian schism disturbed the majority Jewish population (only a small number of Jews were the progenitors of Christianity) who were the ones that historically pushed for the execution of Jesus. The government capitulated, and this capitulation of government to religion seems to be a normal function.
After this Jesus was depicted as a God of healing. It must be noted however that the discrimination of Christians ran rampant (by polytheists and Jews), often being thrown to the lions at coliseum events, stripped of private property, and so on. In short, the actions of a group perceived as radicals (for methods and monotheism) by the larger establishments resulted in a long-standing persecution.
Only when the Roman Empire faltered and Christian denominations had grown (it was a popular religion among the poor and perhaps offered a stronger grip in the hard times preceding the Empire's decline) did the tides eventually change. It has been argued that the emergence of Christianity was a key factor in bringing the Roman Empire down. Some have argued however, that its “primitive†structure allowed it and Western Civilization to survive where the polytheistic faiths molded around the central government and weighty philosophic doctrines were abandoned (when survival is a constant effort, you have less time for introspection).
The above is a mixture of fact, scientific theory, and probably some speculation. My personal opinion:
4.) That religion fundamentally serves the items on the list above. Whether or not it binds or frees anyone, from what I have gathered, is in the eyes and hands of the beholders.
- Desitrus mentioned agnosticism and I feel it important to point something out. Pertaining to religion, an agnostic is...
QUOTE
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Contrary to some popular belief, an atheist is by technicality one who is 'a-' (without) 'theism' (belief in God
Unless I am overlooking something, here is the deductive implication of the former position:
By not claiming that God(s) do/does exist (in one's realizations, not verbally), the person does not exert belief, and without belief in God(s) is by technicality an atheist, just as a rock or a three-month old infant (unless you believe these things to possess conscious thought and opinion, some do) would be atheists. To reiterate, not believing in God(s) of any sort (whether by conclusion or lack of consideration) qualifies one for the category of atheism.
By this reasoning, not all atheists are agnostics, but all agnostics (pertaining to religion) are necessarily atheists.
QUOTE
No offense, and I know many people say things like this, but if you actually look closely at religion vs government you might find that the idea of religion as a tool to control is backwards.
Religion comes from a need that people have to look beyond the physical world around us. That is all it is a tool for.
There are also people in this world who like to control others. Very often the people who want to control find that they are better at controlling people if they appear to be kind and looking out for the best interest of the person they are controlling.
However, most religious leaders arn't actually looking to control people, they are looking to help people.
It would be akin to suggesting that the science of psychology is a tool we use today to control people. While technically true, it isn't the intent of the psychologists to control, but rather to help.
I am not sure how we are defining tool and religion, and which religions, which is very difficult to do. If by tool we mean a something designed for Machiavellian purposes, and by religion we mean those of antiquity (as opposed to the numerous cults and subsects that have emerged since the Renaissance) I would have to disagree and say this did not seem to be the case.
Religion comes from a need that people have to look beyond the physical world around us. That is all it is a tool for.
There are also people in this world who like to control others. Very often the people who want to control find that they are better at controlling people if they appear to be kind and looking out for the best interest of the person they are controlling.
However, most religious leaders arn't actually looking to control people, they are looking to help people.
It would be akin to suggesting that the science of psychology is a tool we use today to control people. While technically true, it isn't the intent of the psychologists to control, but rather to help.
I am not sure how we are defining tool and religion, and which religions, which is very difficult to do. If by tool we mean a something designed for Machiavellian purposes, and by religion we mean those of antiquity (as opposed to the numerous cults and subsects that have emerged since the Renaissance) I would have to disagree and say this did not seem to be the case.
Religion has many uses. It can...
- Explain the cosmos
- Define the purpose of humanity in life and death
- Create solidarity and group identity
- Justify law and morality (prior to, but also with or without) democratic/existentialist theory (a large role to present day and source of much political conflict in the United States)
If we were to do a thorough search for the various functions religion can serve, the simple list would stretch far beyond the capacity and scope of this thread, I am sure. From one Anthropological point of view (in the framework of evolution) religion is regarded as an adaption, something that has, known to them or not, helped a certain species deal with the overwhelming burden of sentience, curiosity, and individuality, which accompany the high intelligence that has made them so successful at surviving.
Of course, like our heavy bone structure prevents us from flying even if we were to sprout wings, so too could it be argued that there is perceivable 'negative' collateral for this adaption. I leave that dilemma for individual regard!
QUOTE
1.)Rome's government existed before Christianity.
Many tribes in Africa have a shaman sect who are not part of the ruling governments.
In Christian Europe, it was the church who "controlled" the kings. Because of this, the king in england created his own religion.
2.) modern political freedom theory came about because of the schism in Christianity, and the desire to end the religious wars. (well more like the recognition that killing each other over G-d's word wasn't making any sense)
3.) The spread of monotheism was the first time that the idea of all people being created equal was passed. The legal system described in the books of moses is a direct contrast to the more authoritarian and in our eyes, unjust system of the nations around it.
4.) My point is, as much as religion has been used to control people, it has also been used to free people from control.
Many tribes in Africa have a shaman sect who are not part of the ruling governments.
In Christian Europe, it was the church who "controlled" the kings. Because of this, the king in england created his own religion.
2.) modern political freedom theory came about because of the schism in Christianity, and the desire to end the religious wars. (well more like the recognition that killing each other over G-d's word wasn't making any sense)
3.) The spread of monotheism was the first time that the idea of all people being created equal was passed. The legal system described in the books of moses is a direct contrast to the more authoritarian and in our eyes, unjust system of the nations around it.
4.) My point is, as much as religion has been used to control people, it has also been used to free people from control.
1.) The Roman Empire had entered a different degree of development (note that I am not saying they were more or less developed, merely different) than the Christian nations which proceeded them. While initially using religion to justify themselves, they had begun to enter an era not unlike modern day, when philosophy independent of religious values was an emerging alternative. It was of course not secular.
2.) The King of England separated from the Catholic Church so that he could declare a divorce. Modern secular theory was probably sparked by the Great Schism, but the momentum really came with the realization of Locke's civil government, Immanuel Kant's attempt to create a logically deduced morality situated around God (which actually gave an example of one that by the same standards could logically exist without Him), and the emergence of the socialists in the mid 1700s.
2.) Responding to this and an earlier statement, which do not seem quite true. Prior to Christianity, the Roman Empire was generally very tolerant when it came to most religions, more so than any major Western establishment for more than 1,000 years after its downfall. In their capital the Romans constructed temples to the various deities of the peoples they conquered, and many of the cultures of the Mediterranean Basin saw their Gods as analogous with those others cultures. This is not to say that Rome did not discriminate, but that they were generally more liberal and accommodating than the Christian Empires that followed up until the 1800s, or in some respects- present day.
An essential reason Christianity was treated differently was because it “made a lot of noiseâ€. The Jews of the time paid tribute the Roman Emperor as a God in his own right (Rome required this) and Yahweh was often considered analogous or the same God as Baal Haman, Apollo, and Mithra, among others. The Christian schism disturbed the majority Jewish population (only a small number of Jews were the progenitors of Christianity) who were the ones that historically pushed for the execution of Jesus. The government capitulated, and this capitulation of government to religion seems to be a normal function.
After this Jesus was depicted as a God of healing. It must be noted however that the discrimination of Christians ran rampant (by polytheists and Jews), often being thrown to the lions at coliseum events, stripped of private property, and so on. In short, the actions of a group perceived as radicals (for methods and monotheism) by the larger establishments resulted in a long-standing persecution.
Only when the Roman Empire faltered and Christian denominations had grown (it was a popular religion among the poor and perhaps offered a stronger grip in the hard times preceding the Empire's decline) did the tides eventually change. It has been argued that the emergence of Christianity was a key factor in bringing the Roman Empire down. Some have argued however, that its “primitive†structure allowed it and Western Civilization to survive where the polytheistic faiths molded around the central government and weighty philosophic doctrines were abandoned (when survival is a constant effort, you have less time for introspection).
The above is a mixture of fact, scientific theory, and probably some speculation. My personal opinion:
4.) That religion fundamentally serves the items on the list above. Whether or not it binds or frees anyone, from what I have gathered, is in the eyes and hands of the beholders.
