Religion is the ultimate control structure.

Much like the State, it abhors competent dissent because it cannot control what it cannot convince. It requires you to believe the fiction in order to keep you under its spell.

Like the metaphysical claims that religions are built upon, "The State" doesn't actually exist, as a thing, either. Its human agents and its physical artifacts in society do exist. It maintains its dominance and control over you by making sure its illusions are perpetuated by its agents and its social structures (and their guns and cages).

The biggest threats to the State or to imaginary religions are:

1. You just ignore them, starving them of new resources, new agents and new minds to occupy, until they slowly shrivel up and are forgotten to history (how many states and religions have gone this way?)

2. You pull off their ghost-sheet to reveal that there is nothing there; the emperor has no clothes - or rather the emperor _is only clothes_. Their concern here is that the currently-convinced will see this and become unconvinced, leading back to # 1 above.

Understand that these two control structures work nearly identically to each other and you will be much less confused the next time you are in the unfortunate position of "arguing" with a Statist or a Christian. They have a moral obligation to their master (who, conveniently enough, is also the source of their definition of morals lol) to persuade you and bring you under control.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I respectfully disagree brother.

Every man has a religion. The question isn’t if you worship but what or who you worship. The state often acts like a false god, demanding loyalty and punishing those who don’t comply, but lumping biblical Christianity in with it is a mistake.

The state rules through coercion. Christ’s kingdom is built on truth and redemption, not force. The state comes and goes, using deception and power to maintain control. God’s word stands forever and doesn’t need manipulation to sustain it.

The problem isn’t religion itself but false religion, whether that’s the worship of the state, self, or any other man-made system. Rejecting God doesn’t make someone free, it just means they will serve something else. Everyone has a master. The only question is which one.

> Every man has a State. The question isn’t if you are a citizen but where you are a citizen.

> The problem isn’t the state itself but bad states, whether that’s the worship of the Reds or the Blues, or adherence to the wrong financial system (Socialism, Capitalism, etc.). Rejecting the State doesn’t make someone a sovereign individual, it just means they will end up the citizen of another State. Everyone has a country. The only question is which one.

Good, I can agree with that. That’s statism. Now go for Christianity.

I quoted you on Christianity and merely swapped out some terms.

That's my point: the logic works exactly the same.

That is not intellectually honest because the State enforces its authority with violence on the humans residing within its claimed territory while Christ’s kingdom is completely voluntary and without borders.

Why would one want to escape from the borders of the territory the state has claimed? Wouldn't they be foregoing all the benefits and protection of the state?

Not if the state has turned to tyranny. Which all states do.

God does not turn to tyranny since the resurrection of Christ according to the Christian view

This begs the question.

Religions and States both have "begging the question" as the foundation of their legitimacy. Their authority and legitimacy are circular (and faith-based).

...are you saying that legitimates your circular (faith-based) question-begging, too? 🤔

My fellow drone-hating New Jerseyian...you're making absolute truth claims without having first proven your presupposition that 'there is no God.'

On the contrary, there is a God--that much is clear to us all from the existence, design, order, beauty, precision, rationality, and 'symphony' of the created world and all its interlocking and irreducibly complex systems-of-systems. It is clear from 'what we can't not know' about natural law and the dictates of conscience.

We don't need to rehash the billions of atheism-vs-Christian-Theism arguments that are already online in a million comment sections written by angsty middle schoolers.

Suffice it for me to respond with this: I won't speak for other religions, but for Christian Theism, it is not a "control structure" but "good news of great joy for all the peoples." Grace and redemption as a free gift are not a "control structure," but the ground-source of true hope, lasting joy, genuine love, perfect forgiveness, and everlasting endurance. And, I might add, the only legitimate ground for ethics and for questioning--even rebelling against--an overreaching State apparatus. If there is nothing higher than the State, then there are no grounds to resist it, either.

I'm pointing my finger at circular systems and inviting you to look at them. Pointing at the moon to invite someone to look at it doesn't require your finger to follow lunar orbital mechanics in order for them to appreciate the moon.

🙂 My dude, I don't necessarily take issue with what you're pointing at, nor even what you're pointing with, but where you're pointing from--where you're 'standing'. There's no such thing as neutrality on the 'question' of God.

Either way...said my piece...I'll move on. 🤙

...to branch into a 'sidebar' convo, I like how you described this (even if I disagree about the thing being described).

And, I do appreciate the moon -- I especially like thinking about how there is no such thing as moonlight...

#squirrel

One *might* be surprised to find that I am not nearly as impressed by the ravings of a sexual deviant [i.e., Foucault] as I am by the words of a man who preached 'love your neighbor as yourself' and then conquered death itself. 🤷

🎯

Cant argue with the religious. The mind is a strange thing. There's over 20 some odd thousand religions in the world. They all end up relying on faith and people feeding money into the machine to keep it propped up.

Many people need religion to make them feel like their life is useful and or has meaning. I think we are pretty useless. If we vaporized the human race, it would arguably be better for the universe.

Unsure why people can't just go straight to the source and say, there is a God that created everything. Skip all the religious filters, the other sub deities of sorts.

Love. A thing at which I struggle with because I feel like most humans just get in my way, is the most important thing in the world. If everybody loved to its fullest potential, whether it was their lover, thier neighbot etc, the world would be a much more elegant place.

I got a church with my girlfriend, a non-denominational Christian one. I feel very detached and awkward with those people most the time. Like, I'm in a herd of sheep. Doesn't hurt anything, I guess I'm not feeding it money, which it always asks for. Just strange.

Strived to go straight to the source.

If someone tells you, if you don't accept Jesus Christ into your heart, you're going to hell, That person is likely low IQ. There would be too many people in the world going to hell. I don't believe God is that much of an asshole, And if it is, so be it.

You said: "If we vaporized the human race, it would arguably be better for the universe."

I'm not so sure about that. As hard as it may be to accept when you are in line at the DMV, and acknowledging that there are some who are vaporworthy, we may nevertheless be the evolving consciousness of the Universe.

So what is your source of morals?

A terrifically complex system including, but not limited to: genetics, family, childhood environment, social context, wealth level, luck, historical context, etc. etc. Where does a psychopath get their morals from? mostly an accident of genetics and neurology that overrides everything else. While other people's family environment delivers morals into their child-brain that override everything else. Not everyone has such a singular source.

Terrifically complex indeed!

If we tried to simplify those factors, perhaps we would call them “natural law”.

Something which would be inherent to nature: “we hold these truths to be self evident”

That type of law is what we call “the law on our hearts” -the source of which is what we call God.

To understand it better I look at the results:

When this natural law is followed:

History sees great civilizations of justice and times of peace, both within and without the individual.

When the natural law is broken: we see tyrants, anger, suffering, war, etc. Again, at the macro and/or micro level.

History is full of good things twisted into evil, and those using religion aggressively is another example.

Christians are commanded to reserve both judgement and revenge to God- so any who would accuse you, living with sin themselves, would be outside of the law.

Perhaps you would appreciate Jordan Peterson’s latest work.

> That type of law is what we call “the law on our hearts” - the source of which is what we call God.

Question on this: if we can just say that this law exists in our hearts and see that following it reaps all those benefits you list below, what does it **add** to say that the source is called "God"?

Unless I'm missing something or you didn't include it in your reply, adding additional sources or narratives to the "natural law that exists within us" doesn't seem to do anything. (beyond causing endless conflict among the differently-faithful)

To me this is evocative of how I think about spontaneous order in Stateless societies. We can follow certain norms (non-aggression, private property, etc.) because they yield results the community appreciates. "Adding a State into the mix" doesn't make those results better, and if anything it usually just creates new control planes and coercive structures.

I agree with you, and I actually think this might be semantics between us at this level.

I really think the Jordan Peterson book “We who wrestle with God” has this explained perfectly.

The natural law, Truth, self-evident good, you could even say “consciousness” or Plato’s highest form-

*IS* God the Creator according to my interpretation. (John 1:1)

Religion can either be used to try to explain this to the masses, or motivate them to great evil.

This is the spiritual battle referred to in holy texts. And it is ongoing today brother. ✌️

This doesn't add up historically.

Especially for Christianity.

Exactly the opposite happened.

The first and main "enemies" of Christianity was nations (Jews and Romans/Greeks) and States (Roman Empire etc).

The confusion is predictable and can be justified due to mingling of national identities/cultures with religious beliefs.

The truth is that States as conservative mechanisms (require common language, history, heroes and yes faith) used religion/faith as a means of producing homogeneity to the people.

This become very evident if you listen modern Jews talking (Ben Shapiro and likes).

On of their common say against Christianity is that it's global, put the nation 2nd etc

Religion has been used to manage human behaviors through the threat of hell or the promise of eternal life in heaven. But philosopher Goodchild argues that money, and debt, are now the main motivators for human cooperation — so much so it's begun to intertwine with religion. There's a huge sect of Christianity known as prosperity gospel that equates personal wealth as a sign of being blessed by god, tying money and religion ever closer... to some they are one in the same.

"God money, I'll do anything for you"

- NIN

This only applies to religions and sects that promote ignorance and servitude as virtues.

If they promoted free thought and liberation, all their adherents would come to their senses and leave. it would be a church with a flock of zero.

If the religion promoted free thinking then only the weak minded who cant control thier impulses will leave claiming being 'liberal'.

It very evident today where people who claim being liberal are putting themselves on an extinction path. This is not random.