Is Religion A Form Of Mind Control?

[Cintra]

OMG...

I saw them play...

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

One needn't venture so far as the always controversial Germany during WWII. In some of our participants' lifetimes, this rowdy song was playing in the British Isles, especially, and it has deep roots in violent Protestant/Catholic sectarian conflicts and divides.

I visited Ireland during the “Troubles” and I have to say that from what I observed, the grievances that led to violence were as much to do with historic wrongs and bitterness as any desire for gaining doctrinal supremacy via violence. I saw kerbstones painted red, white and blue and orange and green, people separating over their support for Celtic and Rangers and cultural wounds going back to Cromwell. My dad used to tell my brother and I that “that’s what you get never gets you anywhere” which I think was a loose paraphrase of this Biblical exhortation...

1 Peter 3

8Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. 10For​

​

“He who would love life​

And see good days,​

Let him refrain his tongue from evil,​

And his lips from speaking deceit.​

11Let him turn away from evil and do good;​

Let him seek peace and pursue it.​

12For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,​

And His ears are open to their prayers;​

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”​

Do I deny that people have committed acts of barbarism in the name of Christianity? Not in the slightest. Do I believe that genuine Christianity promotes this behaviour? I would say an emphatic “no”.

 

[Helioform]

No religion is not really mind control. It's an attempt to teach how to form a moral compass in individuals. When it becomes mind control is when it is imposed on others by force. Atheists love to conflate Inquisitions and Jihads with religion when those were completely different things.

And I agree with another poster who said that the lack of spirituality is a bigger form of mind control. Right now we are taught in school the form of thought control that is Scientism. We are taught illogical and unproven theories such as Evolutionary Theory, that life is merely the byproduct of material processes ruled by "natural selection". This creates a form of hopelessness fueled the fear of dying and of being dominated by more genetically "fit" individuals. Right now religion and spirituality are the counter-culture to Scientism which is the paradigm that has ruled much of the 20th and the 21st century. It becomes necessary to avoid falling for all the fear mongering that is going on in the world constantly to keep us under control. It's more liberating than anything else.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Characteristically well said. As I see it, though, it is often the case that (Western) religious fanaticism, over time, tends to devolve into political ideology (especially with the introduction of secular, that is to say republics based upon pagan Greco-Roman models, and rising nationalism). It is on that score, ideology and ideologues, that I meant to agree with you on your ^ above post. I also sometimes notice, on the microcosm of this board, that would-be Christian ideologues have a tendency, and borrowing a metaphor here from the Master, to swallow Biblical camels while straining at Quranic gnats. The reverse is also true: that some Muslims point their poison arrows at Christianity and thus at Christians. For some reason, I am putting a musical score to my posts today, and will, at least for now, end with "The beat goes on; the beat goes on " lol ...

I can’t speak too much on Muslim ideologues (though I can think of a good many) or on the means by which a good many reject their leading, but as for the Church, I believe it loses it way when it fails to properly comprehend the meaning and timing of the Kingdom of God...

John 18:36 New King James Version (NKJV)​

​

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”​

Like many of the Jews of His day, and even many of the disciples, we often want the Kingdom on our terms and in a timing to suit us. When it doesn’t happen, some people are tempted to try to make it happen, and (as the guards severed ear at the hand of Peter testifies) attempt to accomplish in the flesh what can only be achieved in the spirit.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

No religion is not really mind control. It's an attempt to teach how to form a moral compass in individuals. When it becomes mind control is when it is imposed on others by force. Atheists love to conflate Inquisitions and Jihads with religion when those were completely different things.

And I agree with another poster who said that the lack of spirituality is a bigger form of mind control. Right now we are taught in school the form of thought control that is Scientism. We are taught illogical and unproven theories such as Evolutionary Theory, that life is merely the byproduct of material processes ruled by "natural selection". This creates a form of hopelessness fueled the fear of dying and of being dominated by more genetically "fit" individuals. Right now religion and spirituality are the counter-culture to Scientism which is the paradigm that has ruled much of the 20th and the 21st century. It becomes necessary to avoid falling for all the fear mongering that is going on in the world constantly to keep us under control. It's more liberating than anything else.

I kind of wanted to say something along the same lines, but you explained it much better that I can tonight @Helioform !

Anthony Flew, on of the most (in)famous atheists of the 20th Century came to a similar realisation on the limitations of logical positivism and empiricism, and was prompted later in life to take the road where it led him and write a book (which I am reading, then pausing to let my brain process!!)...

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind: Amazon.co.uk: Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese: 9780061335303: Books

Buy There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Reprint by Antony Flew, Roy Abraham Varghese (ISBN: 9780061335303) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

 

[Awoken2]

The Georgia guide stones have nothing to do with the Masons . It was put up by a person with an agenda against the Rosicrucian orders and philosophies.

This is an interesting statement. Would you care to substantiate this with some type of evidence?

 

[Douglas Summers]

God is a belief created by man to answer questions that cannot be answered. God IS the answer (at least for now). God is a tool people use to feel comfortable with things or events out of their control. Or seemingly out of their control. God is like divine super glue. God sticks all the pieces together that people seem to have trouble doing themselves.

The preaching of Christ to them that perish is foolishness, But unto us that are saved, it is the power of God. For it is written in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the writers of so called knowledge? Where are the disputers of this world? God has made foolish the wisdom of men of the ages. For after in the wisdom of God, by the witness of creation. It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. But unto us who believe, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God to the Jew and the Gentile. Because of what you think is foolishness of the Gospel or the weakness of the Gospel is the wisdom and strength and wisdom of God to put to nothing the wisdom so called of the carnal mind that can not understand Spiritual things. We have seen and experienced substance out of things not seen that you can never know as a carnal man of the flesh.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Awoken2

A couple of days ago I re-watched “Inside Out” and liked this quote...



I liked it because it reminded me of Pilates question “what is truth?”.

Anthony Flew once wrote “The Presumption of Atheism”, a book whose thesis he re-examines in his latest book “There is a God”.

“I contended that in any properly systematic apologetic the propounder of a God hypothesis must begin, as would the propounder of any existential hypothesis, by first explaining the particular concept of God to be employed and then indicating how the corresponding object is to be identified. Only when and if these two essential preliminary tasks have been satisfactorily completed can it become sensible to begin deploying evidence intended to show that the concept does apply.

This argument garnered many and varied responses. Writing as an agnostic, the English philosopher Anthony Kenny maintained that there may be a presumption for agnosticism, but not for positive or negative atheism. He suggested that it takes more effort to show that you know something than that you do not (this includes even the claim that the concept of God is not coherent). But he said this does not let agnostics off the hook; a candidate for an examination may be able to justify the claim that he or she does not know the answer to one of the questions, but this does not enable the person to pass the examination.8

Kai Nielsen, a fellow atheist and former colleague of mine, cited a critic who alleged that the morally superior stance is to remain completely uncommitted until adequate reasons are produced. Nielsen then went on to say that I should show that believers and skeptics have a common concept of rationality with the criteria required to assess the merits of their differing claims. He added that there was “a large question mark before [my] presumption of atheism,”9 if I did not produce a universally acceptable concept of rationality. By far, the headiest challenge to the argument came from America.

The modal logician Alvin Plantinga introduced the idea that theism is a properly basic belief. He asserted that belief in God is similar to belief in other basic truths, such as belief in other minds or perception (seeing a tree) or memory (belief in the past). In all these instances, you trust your cognitive faculties, although you cannot prove the truth of the belief in question. Similarly, people take certain propositions (e.g., the existence of the world) as basic and others as derivative from these basic propositions. Believers, it is argued, take the existence of God as a basic proposition.

The Thomist philosopher Ralph McInerny reasoned that it is natural for human beings to believe in God because of the order, arrangement, and lawlike character of natural events. So much so, he said, that the idea of God is almost innate, which seems like a prima facie argument against atheism. So, while Plantinga argued that theists did not bear the burden of proof, McInerny went still further, holding that the burden of proof must fall on atheists!

I should point out here that, unlike my other antitheological arguments, the argument for the presumption of atheism can be consistently accepted by theists. Given adequate grounds for belief in a God, theists commit no philosophical sin in so believing! The presumption of atheism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion.”

~ Anthony Flew, There is a God

 

[Awoken2]

The preaching of Christ to them that perish is foolishness, But unto us that are saved, it is the power of God. For it is written in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the writers of so called knowledge? Where are the disputers of this world? God has made foolish the wisdom of men of the ages. For after in the wisdom of God, by the witness of creation. It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe. But unto us who believe, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God to the Jew and the Gentile. Because of what you think is foolishness of the Gospel or the weakness of the Gospel is the wisdom and strength and wisdom of God to put to nothing the wisdom so called of the carnal mind that can not understand Spiritual things. We have seen and experienced substance out of things not seen that you can never know as a carnal man of the flesh.

Thanks but I really don't think we have anything to discuss......other than colours.

 

[Awoken2]

@Awoken2

A couple of days ago I re-watched “Inside Out” and liked this quote...

View attachment 33191

I liked it because it reminded me of Pilates question “what is truth?”.

Anthony Flew once wrote “The Presumption of Atheism”, a book whose thesis he re-examines in his latest book “There is a God”.

“I contended that in any properly systematic apologetic the propounder of a God hypothesis must begin, as would the propounder of any existential hypothesis, by first explaining the particular concept of God to be employed and then indicating how the corresponding object is to be identified. Only when and if these two essential preliminary tasks have been satisfactorily completed can it become sensible to begin deploying evidence intended to show that the concept does apply.

This argument garnered many and varied responses. Writing as an agnostic, the English philosopher Anthony Kenny maintained that there may be a presumption for agnosticism, but not for positive or negative atheism. He suggested that it takes more effort to show that you know something than that you do not (this includes even the claim that the concept of God is not coherent). But he said this does not let agnostics off the hook; a candidate for an examination may be able to justify the claim that he or she does not know the answer to one of the questions, but this does not enable the person to pass the examination.8

Kai Nielsen, a fellow atheist and former colleague of mine, cited a critic who alleged that the morally superior stance is to remain completely uncommitted until adequate reasons are produced. Nielsen then went on to say that I should show that believers and skeptics have a common concept of rationality with the criteria required to assess the merits of their differing claims. He added that there was “a large question mark before [my] presumption of atheism,”9 if I did not produce a universally acceptable concept of rationality. By far, the headiest challenge to the argument came from America.

The modal logician Alvin Plantinga introduced the idea that theism is a properly basic belief. He asserted that belief in God is similar to belief in other basic truths, such as belief in other minds or perception (seeing a tree) or memory (belief in the past). In all these instances, you trust your cognitive faculties, although you cannot prove the truth of the belief in question. Similarly, people take certain propositions (e.g., the existence of the world) as basic and others as derivative from these basic propositions. Believers, it is argued, take the existence of God as a basic proposition.

The Thomist philosopher Ralph McInerny reasoned that it is natural for human beings to believe in God because of the order, arrangement, and lawlike character of natural events. So much so, he said, that the idea of God is almost innate, which seems like a prima facie argument against atheism. So, while Plantinga argued that theists did not bear the burden of proof, McInerny went still further, holding that the burden of proof must fall on atheists!

I should point out here that, unlike my other antitheological arguments, the argument for the presumption of atheism can be consistently accepted by theists. Given adequate grounds for belief in a God, theists commit no philosophical sin in so believing! The presumption of atheism is, at best, a methodological starting point, not an ontological conclusion.”

~ Anthony Flew, There is a God

Red let me be frank. I have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about the majority of the time, I hope you do. Your word wizardry just perplexes me. I think we are in different realms as far as effective communication is concerned. I prefer to keep it quite simple and easy to understand but your posts need too much brain work to decode so I don't get into them too much.

I'm just a rough kid from a council estate so don't really get my kicks by consuming the lifes work of CS Lewis and philosophising. I've just noticed that the world generally appears to be nose diving into one almighty fucking crash (as prophesied in your KJV.... yes I know, you've said) and I'm just here trying to tell peeps about it.

As much as it pains me to interject into a very well established OT bible group and Zionist forum I figured as it was related to the music industry I thought I'd pass on my findings here....hope you guys don't mind?

But getting back to the OP title for a moment I must say since being on this forum and getting amongst all the bible bashers I am now even more convinced that religion is a form of mind control.

This is my opinion, of which I am.entitled to.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

This is my opinion, of which I am.entitled to.

You are indeed -

I only posted my more lengthy explanation on the question of truth of God in response to you thinking I hadn’t considered these topics more deeply, and I didn’t want to give you a shallow answer if you wanted something more considered. If my second response was overkill, please accept my apologies.

Religion in general may well be a form of mind control, famously observed by Karl Marx as the “Opium of the people”. If spirituality is the blind reaching out to the unknowable beyond and organised religion the organisation and division of these searching souls into controlled and useful groups by the elites, it is a very bad thing indeed.

But what if (perish the thought) one particular understanding of God were correct? What if God were real and distinct and had revealed Himself throughout history?

I used to say I was a “Christian Marxist”, till I realised it meant other things to other people! For me it meant that I hated religion, but loved the Lord, who appears to want relationship, not ritual.

I can understand your perspective because my great uncle was an (almost) lifelong atheist and was rather vocal on the subject. I am enjoying the book by Anthony Flew because his intellectual journey reminds me of my favourite old childhood uncle’s.

If you ever want to talk, I’m here, and I’m not going to try to attack you with a 1611!

*Philosopher and former atheist Antony Flew set the agenda for modern atheism with his 1950 essay "Theology and Falsification," which became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last half century. Flew has published over thirty books, including God and Philosophy, The Presumption of Atheism, and How to Think Straight. He spent twenty years as professor of philosophy at the University of Keele and has also held positions at Oxford, the University of Aberdeen, and the University of Reading. He now lives in Reading, England.

 

[Cintra]

Thanks but I really don't think we have anything to discuss......other than colours.

Hmm!!! Green...

Purple!!!

 

[Awoken2]

Ive been a Rosicrucian for 25 years ! The use of Rosicrucian words , names and codes are the fake ones that were created to confuse the masses on purpose.

Even if this is the case I think a bigger problem is that our mainstream news are by far the biggest culprits for confusing the masses, some comparatively small secret society would therefore need to be controlling our news if the wanted to have any effect on large numbers of people.

The Rosicrucian language on the stones and its creeds are nothing a Rosicrucian or Mason would accept .

Well in all the lower orders I would agree as this creates the plausible deniability which protects the higher orders from any scrutiny. You are aware of how these organisations are structured don't you? You only get the secrets they trust you to keep, most of your fellow brethren's would be completely unaware of your organisations real objectives.

Now if I was a wealthy man and had a NWO Secret Society beef , then building a set of stones with plucked from fake Google Rosicrucian symbolism would be a great way to push my agenda.

So are you saying the Georgia Guidstones were put there by a wealthy conspiracy theorist who wanted to create a false agenda about secret societies wanting to create a NWO? This doesn't add up taking into account what we already know about the Freemasons and their ties to Zionism.

No true R+C would support such garbage as these guide stones

I think that depends on what you consider a true R+C to be. There are different levels.

....so H=3..... easy.... I think.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

 

[Awoken2]

Yes H=3 but why ?

Basic algebra man. I've often wondered why they taught us that shit at school....never needed it once, until just then anyway.

H+H+H =9

Why would any secret NWO put their agenda on large stones for all to see !

This has always been the way, operating in plain sight. Just look at the state of the music industry, you can't get it much more in your face than that. They ain't hiding anything, as not go be "deceitful"

The Georgia Guide Stones are fake and were created to draw attention to someone’s idea of what secret societies are up to and not the truth !

No they are very real, it's your grasp of reality which appears to be fake.

If R+C members ruled the world there would be free health care , free education and a tireless attempt at peace through education! Education and Education to all walks of life

Ahhh I see you are one of the many brethren who is under the spell that their cult is a philanthropic and benevolent society that just wants to make the world a better place?.... I got to be honest but that shits starting to cut a little bit thin with me now.

Could I ask you a few questions on your own interpretations of the Hermetic principles? There's one or two things I am confused over.

 

[Douglas Summers]

Thanks but I really don't think we have anything to discuss......other than colours.

It was not a discussion...it was a statement of what I or we believe. Being a born again believer compared to non believers is like speaking a foreign language to a nonbeliever. I speak a foreign language to non believers. But being once carnal, I understand both languages.

 

[Awoken2]

Algebra has nothing to do with the “H” if it was that simple I would not have posted the equation.
Your not even close !

I shall be writing a very stern letter to my local education authority over this.

Ok this polarity one. Is it correct that there is no such thing as evil as evil is just a different expression of good? As in the polar opposite of the same basic thing?

How is the as above so below principle exampled in our lives today?

 

[Cintra]

You dont create a surgeon by handing him a scalpel and a patient. You create a surgeon by first giving him a hammer and a chisel.

Not going to your surgery...

ETA
Not Helium 3, is it?

 

[Awoken2]

I shall be writing a very stern letter to my local education authority over this.

Ok this polarity one. Is it correct that there is no such thing as evil as evil is just a different expression of good? As in the polar opposite of the same basic thing?

How is the as above so below principle exampled in our lives today?

I've just been listening to very very basic stuff like this. Around the 9 min mark he talks about polarity. Do you agree in principle to this principle?

 

[Awoken2]

The second comment by Arthur Trauer pretty much sums up my view on religion.