Is The Main Purpose Of Religion To Control Behavior? (Buddha, Mormons, churches)

[Travelling fella]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

And all Christian denominations teach "eternal damnation?" We Protestants definitely don't teach a questioning of doctrine! The term "Protestant" means "protester" and we broke away from the religious doctrine that conflicted with our consciences. Our doctrine is explicitly open for revision as we gain more knowledge of the world and our Scriptures (no offense to any Catholics or Orthodox, etc.).

"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda," that is, "the church reformed, always reforming."

I imagine then that there must be some protestant churches which hold more progressive views about religion

[anomoly]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I've often thought that one of the main reasons that religions everywhere continue to exist is due to the simple fact that it keeps everybody in line. The Bible as well as other religious books are basically instructions about how we're supposed to behave and what the consequences will be if we don't. There's no punishment that could be handed down by a court of law that could even come close to getting slapped with eternal damnation. That makes the electric chair or life in prison look like a piece of cake. However it seems to me that religion functions in a manner that's very similar to the criminal justice system. It lays out certain boundaries in human behavior that we're told we can't cross and it instills a fear of severe retribution if we don't follow the rules.

Yup! Back to the saying by Marx, (or one of those guys)
"Religion is the Opium of the People"

And, don't forget: "The sheep can't see the wolf coming"

[MontanaGuy]

ainulinale wrote:

I'm personally not convinced that the Bible teaches nonbelievers will go to "hell" if that's what you mean.

I've read the entire Bible and it seems to be very clear with graphic descriptions of the suffering that nonbelievers are going to endure. If you believe in what the Bible specifically states then you should go back and read the countless passages about hell. The Bible is filled with some very sadistic accounts of what's in store for sinners and nonbelievers.

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by Travelling fella

I imagine then that there must be some protestant churches which hold more progressive views about religion

I'm pretty sure most non-fundamentalist churches got to where they were because they questioned doctrine at one point in their history.

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by Travelling fella

That would be relative to the time they had been invented and the area where they were born, if it was in this era and in the United States scientology would be more succesful but just in attracting more followers, which shouldn't be an indicator of success.

A true indicator of a religion success is the amount of people who are able to reach God by this path, and usually those are the religions who have the less followers and their teachings are preserved in the utmost secrecy to avoid corruption.

we are talking in different terms here though, when i describe the success of a religion i dont add the validity of it or its effects on people as variables. Im just referring to the number of followers it can gather. There might be one true religion that makes the follower live in perfect harmony but if the follower is the only one and living on an island, then the religion is not considered successful

If you want ill just refer to the success of a religion as popularity of it

[GCSTroop]

I think it depends on what we're talking about. At the onset and beginning of most religions it seems that they started out as primitive explanations for occurences that happen. It's seen throughout the world in all religious applications. Everything from performing a strange ritual to make it rain to explaining why death strikes humans usually has roots in things which we no longer know the origins of. We don't know what precedented the Mayans to throw teenagers down a well to make it rain, but we know that it happened and that they felt the rain god, Chaac, was ultimately responsible. What I think eventually happens is that strange rituals take place and are then superseded by a religious following. There's a bit of a progression involved. In the beginning of any religious occurence I don't think it's meant to control people.

To put it into context, I think what we see in modern day superstition is akin to what we might see in the first of religious followings. Superstition plays a large part in all of this. Now, I'm not saying that there will one day be a religious following of those who have rabbit's feet on their keychains, but I think that the onset of religion is largely placed in some sort of superstitious belief. People see some sort of truth in the matter and do so until this day. It's when the superstition becomes mired into the "factual" part of people's lives that the religious following is transcended into a cultural belief.

What I think does end up happening is that this following of traditional rites does turn into a way to control people. Napoleon is once quoted as saying:

Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet.

By and large, this is a very true statement. We see how religion pervades almost everything in many cultures. We see it in America and throughout the world. I think what ends up happening is that the religion first formed from these primitive explanation becomes the dichotomy that people abide by. So, in its present day format, with any religion, it does control the masses. However, I don't think the origins of it were meant to do so. It seems to be a byproduct of what was once deemed unexplainable and then progressed into a bit of a following.

[kawgpz550]

I believe in God, I believe in Jesus and I believe that man has attempted to twist religion/Christianity to suit his/her agendas.

I think it's safe to say that many religions, some over zealous Christian sects included, have gone way overboard with twisting God's laws in order to control behavior. Do I believe this is true for all religions? Of course not.

I believe people have steered so far away from God's intended truth by putting their own thoughts and words in God's mouth.

[Tricky D]

I personally believe that the story about Adam & Eve and the fall of man is the 1st form of birth control.
In Paradise, unlike on earth, your actions are without consequences.
Therfore life on earth is restricted by rules in order to increase the chances of the survival of the tribe.

[MaggieZ]

Nice to see how the bible scares people into believing....propaganda and cultlike behavior all in one. A real god would never have needed to persuade or scare anyone to believe in it.
Napoleon had a good thought there GCSThroop.

[RoaminRed]

Originally Posted by MontanaGuy

I've often thought that one of the main reasons that religions everywhere continue to exist is due to the simple fact that it keeps everybody in line. The Bible as well as other religious books are basically instructions about how we're supposed to behave and what the consequences will be if we don't. There's no punishment that could be handed down by a court of law that could even come close to getting slapped with eternal damnation. That makes the electric chair or life in prison look like a piece of cake. However it seems to me that religion functions in a manner that's very similar to the criminal justice system. It lays out certain boundaries in human behavior that we're told we can't cross and it instills a fear of severe retribution if we don't follow the rules.

Originally I believe that control was a big part of religion. I think religion has partially moved away from that in modern times, more to being something that is done for multiple reasons, some of which are:

1: Money -- religion is very profitable
2: Comfort/Fear -- most people are incapable of/afraid to face the unknown without some "reason" they can put on it.
3: Tradition -- you do it because it's what your parents did and you've never bothered to question it.

There are other reasons, but I think control has slipped much farther down the list than it used to be.