Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I'll answer as one of the "non-religious" (and please don't flame me
    *too* much).
    
    I think that Marx was right.
    
    Bubba

    Ditto.

Flames? Moi??

I am bound to pose questions for which there are no absolute answers.  I've
grown to distrust anyone who claims to possess absolute answers.  Jesus
often spoke in parables which, rather than dictating absolutes, challenged
his hearers to seek out deeper meanings within themselves.

As for the topic at hand, I tend to agree with Marx also, especially as it
applies to the institutionalized church.

Peace,
Richard

Not expressing an opinion on religion

But as regards a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,
I think that this is the opposite of stupification.  It
is energizing and frequently results in great activity
and change in society (as well as much change in
individuals).

Personally, I find that those who work for God or for
others (as those who know Jesus are likely to do) are
for more interesting and alive (and marriagable!) than
those whose focus is on self (which is where the focus
of those who don't know Jesus tend to be).  Sorry to
paint with such a broad brush as there are certainly
many exceptions to this.

Does knowing Jesus make you more contented?  I believe
so.  Perhaps in this way, it is an opium.  Should it
make you more contented?  Well...

Collis

    There's no institution that I know of which hasn't been opiated
    at one time or another.  Imo, pretty much every person has a drug 
    of choice to buffet them against bouts of meaninglessness,
    despair.....and yes, joy too.  It seems to me we're taught it's 
    safest and culturally most acceptable to live in the "mediocrity 
    zone" of human experience.  No wonder religion becomes an opiate 
    for some.
    
    Karen

I'm uneasy about people who focus on THOU SHALT NOT's and hardly at
all on THOU SHALT's.

I'm uneasy about people who look for a reward in the afterlife while
remaining complacent and almost oblivious to the alterable conditions
of this life.

I'm uneasy about people who use God as a sedative.

I'm uneasy about people who accept the status quo as God ordained.

And I wonder if Marx also experienced this uneasiness.

Peace,
Richard

    I am also uneasy with people who use religion as a tool to gain power
    over others by pandering to their fears, anxieties, and prejudices.
    
    Mike

    St. Agustine wrote something to this effect, "Our hearts are restless
    until they rest on you, O, Lord".   Mankind keeps searching in all
    the wrong places and trying to satisfy internal needs with all kinds
    of things and activities; only God can bring true peace to a soul.
    To Marx, who was obviously among the restless, the peace of Christ
    could only be described as an 'opiate'.
    
    To accept and follow Christ as our Savior (the true Christianity), is
    to find, in Jesus, what Sacripture very aptly describes as the 'peace
    beyond understanding' and to recieve what Jesus promised to the
    Samaritan woman at the well, the 'water of eternal life'. Jesus told
    the woman that with regular water, we thrist again, but when we
    recieve Him then we thirst no more. 
    
    This last is a favorite passage in my own experience; once I accepted
    Jesus I began to need less and less distractions, amusements, personal
    power (such as comes in work interactions, etc.) and I found that I
    was no longer attracted to any other religion or philosophy in life.
    In this sense, I no longer thirst.
    
    Is this an opiate, or is it finding the means to achieve full personal
    fulfilment and opportunity for growth?
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

   The problem with any opiate(seditive) is while it feels good
   your paying for it somehow...

   There are real opiates, attaining your dreams, helping other attain
   theirs.  That's love, it pays back.

   Peace,
   Allison

       I guess am I am not sure if Marx was right or not because
    I am not really sure what religion is. I'm serious. It seems
    to be one of the most abstract concepts of all time.

       I know that I can get a nice neat definition from my dictionary,
    but that still misses explaining the essential experience of religion.

       Anyone care to enlighten me as to just what religion is ?


                                                               Mike

    I honestly don't know what Marx specifically meant by his famous
    phrase.  If he meant that religion, through promises of an afterlife,
    induces people to be passive in this one, I think that there is a grain
    of truth in this, but in many cases he is incorrect.  For one thing,
    not all religions are concerned with an afterlife; and for another,
    many religions *inspire* their followers to actively work to mend the
    world.  William Penn once remarked that mending the world was in fact
    the purpose of religion, and while this isn't always the case in
    reality, I do believe that it was an important principle of his own
    faith.

    Perhaps he was suggesting that religion often works to ease people's
    minds, to make them feel good, in ways that are addictive and
    self-defeating.  I think there is no question that people are drawn to
    religion at least in part because they feel good about it.  I don't
    think that is bad, at least not necessarily.  I do think that religion
    can (and often does) offer an easy certainty to people that is both
    simplistic and potentially dangerous.  On the other hand, if you want
    to accuse religion of offering panaceas and simple solutions, the same
    charge could be offered at him as well.  What he did, it seems to me,
    was replace one kind of dogmatic certainty with his own, a certainty
    that he validated by labeling his thought scientific (the surest way in
    the modern age to validate any system of thought.)

    I often think that many kinds of religion-bashing are accompanied with
    a system of thought, implicit or explicit, that serves the very purpose
    that religion is criticized for.  The religious certainty that Marx
    offered to his followers is an example of this (although he once
    said, interestingly enough, "I am not a Marxist", suggesting that even
    he perceived the dangers involved.)  I see this same sort of thing in
    the thinking of Ayn Rand, by the way.

    I think that religion *can* make people complacent, to encourage
    withdrawal from the world or interest in making it a better place, but
    religion can *also* inspire people to act in the world to change it for
    the better.  I suspect it depends on a lot of factors, like the kinds
    of emphases that the particular religion offers.

    -- Mike

    RE: 3
    
    I believe in ABSOLUTE answers to CONCRETE questions...and I think Jesus
    offers us that too.  He was using the parables to disguise the Absolute
    answers he had in mind to give...which he told to his disciples.  He
    wasn't vague with the disciples...Walking on water, and Peter following
    was illustrating ABSOLUTE principles he was conveying, that of FAITH,
    with God ALL things are possible, which is an ABSOLUTE statement of
    truth....ALL things are possible.
    
    

re Note 467.12 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     was illustrating ABSOLUTE principles he was conveying, that of FAITH,
  
        There is a substantial difference between absolute answers
        and absolute principles.  Principles must be applied, in
        light of the situation to which they are being applied and in
        light of other principles, to determine answers to concrete
        situations.  This does not make the particular answer an
        absolute that automatically, unthinkingly applies to all
        similar (but not identical) situations regardless of whether
        some or all of the principles involved were "absolute".

        Bob

    re: 13
    
    Bob.
    
    I would think that in the case of Jesus' miracles and healings and
    water walking, all are "applied principles"...and not merely absolute
    answers, and I know the difference...Momma use to say "Absolutely NO"
    but that didn't mean always so, maybe next time.  
    
    I'm saying Jesus demonstrates FAITH through applied principles, and
    they were ABSOLUTE for ALL who gained the FAITH that he had.  If a Dog
    had the faith of Jesus in God, even that Dog could walk on water and do
    miracles...isn't that true, IF the Dog COULD gain the faith?  That's
    the Absoluteness of Faith...right.
    
    I said that however, as it relates to "opiated people"...Peter was no
    doubt feeling HIGH after that experience.  To say "opiate of the
    people" seems to imply a "downer", something depressing, mellowing. 
    Well surely Christ is not so much a "downer" high as he is an UPPER,
    like a barbituate...a "quickening spirit"!  
    
    It relates in that the knowledge of applied principle always results in
    more efficient action...
    
    Playtoe