Nietzsche was 100% correct in his criticism of Christianity when he said that Christians only worship themselves.
God, as an incomprehensible Absolute can only be interpreted as an ideal extension of oneself, so any action can be justified as “God’s will”, no matter how vile or evil.
I remember when I was starving to death (I mean literally, I had multiple severe diagnosed nutritional deficiencies because of this that were worsening to the point of nerve and organ damage) before I found mutual aid, I asked for advice on Christianforums.com. I wanted help finding Christian pantries where I could get food as the food banks in the UK are so awful to access (I’ve written about that a lot before on here). The Christians were horrible. They refused to help, told me to “man up and sort your own problems out” and said disability benefits shouldn’t even be a thing, that society isn’t responsible for me. Eventually one of them posted info for a food bank in London. When I pointed out that London is 200 miles away from me and I had no money at all for transport they said, “If you really needed help, you’d find a way to get there.” Just horrible, horrible people. And at the same time these same people were posting threads with titles like “What can we do to be more holy?” Just utter hypocrites, the lot of them.
As the saying goes, no hate like Christian love.
if you had asked a Mosque they would have given a feast meant for a king and 2 free gamecubes
Hope you’re better and sorry that happened to you but I have to say, not entirely convinced BB Boards don’t give people these exact type of brainworms. I feel like this could’ve happened on any of them.
think I have an original thought
some other philosopher has pointed it out even before my grandparents were born
Every time. Hell, you can make a case the whole Protestant reformation was about someone pointing out flawed human institutions like the Catholic Church would not be 100% reliable in how they interpret God.
I am pretty sure a Bearded guy already talked about it more than 150 years ago.
that’s the second paragraph
He’s in there:
Sociologists have debated the fundamental nature of religion and its relationship to economic inequality for more than a century. One prominent theory originated with the 19th-century philosopher Karl Marx, who proposed that religion acts as an opiate for the masses. In this view, religious ideas offer a set of comforting illusions that persuade lower-income groups to accept their disadvantaged position.
By framing the current economic system as normal or divinely ordained, religion supposedly drains the motivation to fight for a fairer society. Modern scholars building on this idea argue that religion offers psychological compensators, promising eternal rewards that make present-day inequalities seem less important.
As per usual, Marx is abit more subtle on this idea than the author portrays him as.
The problem is that Marx doesn’t ever describe religion as a ‘comforting set of illusions’. What he calls it is ‘The opiate of the masses, the heart in a heartless world’, which capitalism will inevitably tear away in its dissolution of all things.
Religion is a social process that is, on the whole, according to Marx, an antagonist to capitalism, however, as this article demonstrates, it and the social relations it creates are itself subordinated to the economic relations that it exists in, which means that religion is neither an antidote or vaccine to capitalism, it is a painkiller. To extend the metaphor, because of its nature as a painkiller, it can potentially be a part of how the social revolution comes about, because the social revolution basically requires a major surgery on society, however, the doctor themself cannot be on the same painkillers as their patient when operating.
Religion amplifies working class interests among workers?
No. That would be a misreading. It is saying that poor people are more likely to read a message befitting their class interests into Christianity. It does not conclude that poor Christians are more likely to be in favour of implementing structural change than non Christians who are poor.
Yeah. I did the thing where I read the title and comment and only read the article after.
Ah, the ol’ hexbear. Our collective signature move.
Seems so: “Among Americans in the lowest income bracket, greater religious commitment was linked to a higher likelihood of choosing the structural-transformation interpretation. Highly religious people in this group were more inclined to believe the Bible demands the creation of a just society.”
A large survey of Americans
OK, nothing new to see here. Are you telling me the brainwashed money chasers can be even more brainwashed? Fine.
