In an ideal society, I'd probably agree with you. But in the society we live in (and, presumably any kind of transitionary society towards the ideal) Religion has a function, which is why it is popular. It made a place for itself, whether you like it or not. Better to subvert than to oppress, no?
Religion has literally no use and has never had any. If you want to talk about pre industrial society it doesnt differ at all from the modern manifestation expect for the states role in it. The state and of course the ruling class can use and will use it to its advantage. religions are enforcers of the social rule and opression and due to peoples dumb brains most get indoctrinated into these believes
Religion instituted for social control the clergy has been an extremely powerful class in europian history continuing their schemes to this day. Aninism is a large concept involving many cultures and societal structures and its should be involded in the "religion" category
So why do people seek out Religion? Because of their 'dumb brains', yes?
I mean, Christianity has literally been the first institution to provide any kind of social safety net to society, but go off I guess. It's - to this day - for many people the only way to still have a feeling of community, of solidarity - but sure, just try to 'exterminate' that... Splendid ideas.
I agree that Christian churches can provide a powerful sense of community and have been vectors for social safety nets in the past, but it's both erroneous and unhelpful to say they were the first to provide a social safety net to society.
Caring for other humans when those humans can't care for themselves is a big part of what makes us fundamentally human and arguably the entire point of these civilization and society things we've got going.
When a studen asked early academic feminist and anthropologist Margaret Mead what the first sign of civilization was, she famously replied that the first evidence of civilization was a 15,000 years old fractured femur indicative of a break that had then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, you cannot drink or hunt for food. Wounded in this way, you are meat for your predators. No creature survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. You are eaten first.A set femur is evidence that another person has taken time to stay with the fallen, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended them through recovery. A healed femur indicates that someone has helped a fellow human, rather than abandoning them to save their own life.
If you mean an institutionalised social safety net, in Sumerian Ur, the oldest city we've ever found and anarcho-primitivism's original sin, they had a system called Bala Taxation. The beaurucrats of Ur kept meticulous records, and they kept their records on clay so 6000 years later we have a very good idea of how it worked. It evolved alot over time, but in its longest running form Bala taxation meant that every citizen of Ur owed half of their labour to the state, which for farmers was payed in barley or labour on state fields and for other tradesmen or labourers could be payed in commodities or labour. The state in turn, provided a ration of barley to everyone who was not a farmer. It is often argued, although the issue is by no means settled that the reason the city of Ur was founded as a means of translating communal abundance into a social safety net. That the city grew around grain silos and that the point of those silos was a means to store and pool grain so canals could be maintained and droughts weathered without anyone having to worry about going hungry if it was their field was flooded or plagued by locusts.
Mutual aid without expectation of immediate or even eventual repayment is an inherently human quality and the purpose of society and civilisation is to enhance and take better advantage of it. The Christian church has been (among other things) a vector of this mutual aid but it is by no means the only vector and it was not the first. To claim it is or was is to do non-christian societies and humanity as a whole a grave disservice.
A Seminal text on the evolution of Ur and how human society maybe got started is Gordon Childe, the first marxist archeologist's Man Makes Himself first published in 1936 and last revised in 1951. Some of the text is a little dated as new archeological evidence has came to light but it's an excellent starting place for reading on the topic as most following texts reference it and I have not found another on the same topic with such a focus on the genesis and evolution of institutional exploitation.
It can be read for free here: https://archive.org/details/ManMakesHimself/page/n121/mode/2up
Good points all around, great comments. Mine was a quick comment from the hip but does indeed betray a somewhat eurocentric worldview on my part. Thank you for educating and providing sources.
But can't both the idea of a social safety net and Christ's message both be boiled all the way down to simply "Y'all should take care of each other" though? Seems like there's a lot of overlap to me.
I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, so I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs. But that's part of what pisses me off so much; lots of great simple messages in The Gospels, but so so so many people just nod their heads during sermons and then instantly forget everything once they walk out the doors.
At least our congregation did help my family out when we went through some hard times. But I don't understand how people aren't able to extend that same kind of kindness to others.
Mega churches, for instance, are beyond infuriating.
Those preachers are the literal definition of false prophets. Absolutely insane how much money some of them have. And I can understand some rubes having the wool pulled over their eyes, but they have like, millions of followers. Are there that many people that can't see past the bullshit?
Crishtianity isnt about the "message of god" its about setting values which are used by the clergy and the fascists to enforce the social hierarchy if you can give better analysis please do
So you've never actually been to a church, have you?
Say what you want about the corruption of the institution itself, I'll probably agree with you, but when you look behind all the bullshit and examine the texts in a vacuum it absolutely is all about the message of God. And that message, according to the J man, is basically "take care of each other."
In an ideal society, I'd probably agree with you. But in the society we live in (and, presumably any kind of transitionary society towards the ideal) Religion has a function, which is why it is popular. It made a place for itself, whether you like it or not. Better to subvert than to oppress, no?
Religion has literally no use and has never had any. If you want to talk about pre industrial society it doesnt differ at all from the modern manifestation expect for the states role in it. The state and of course the ruling class can use and will use it to its advantage. religions are enforcers of the social rule and opression and due to peoples dumb brains most get indoctrinated into these believes
deleted by creator
reddit moment
deleted by creator
Youre comparing me to some fucking fascist and dont even try to defend your believes in god
considering your fondness for ableist slurs...
if the shoe fits
deleted by creator
Your brain is huge
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
We dont need insane cults to assign the right and moral way of life
deleted by creator
nothing i have posted says theres is "a right way of living"
deleted by creator
All religions are absolutely hiearrchical just like the state
deleted by creator
Religion instituted for social control the clergy has been an extremely powerful class in europian history continuing their schemes to this day. Aninism is a large concept involving many cultures and societal structures and its should be involded in the "religion" category
So why do people seek out Religion? Because of their 'dumb brains', yes?
I mean, Christianity has literally been the first institution to provide any kind of social safety net to society, but go off I guess. It's - to this day - for many people the only way to still have a feeling of community, of solidarity - but sure, just try to 'exterminate' that... Splendid ideas.
I agree that Christian churches can provide a powerful sense of community and have been vectors for social safety nets in the past, but it's both erroneous and unhelpful to say they were the first to provide a social safety net to society.
Caring for other humans when those humans can't care for themselves is a big part of what makes us fundamentally human and arguably the entire point of these civilization and society things we've got going.
When a studen asked early academic feminist and anthropologist Margaret Mead what the first sign of civilization was, she famously replied that the first evidence of civilization was a 15,000 years old fractured femur indicative of a break that had then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die. You cannot run from danger, you cannot drink or hunt for food. Wounded in this way, you are meat for your predators. No creature survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal. You are eaten first.A set femur is evidence that another person has taken time to stay with the fallen, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended them through recovery. A healed femur indicates that someone has helped a fellow human, rather than abandoning them to save their own life.
If you mean an institutionalised social safety net, in Sumerian Ur, the oldest city we've ever found and anarcho-primitivism's original sin, they had a system called Bala Taxation. The beaurucrats of Ur kept meticulous records, and they kept their records on clay so 6000 years later we have a very good idea of how it worked. It evolved alot over time, but in its longest running form Bala taxation meant that every citizen of Ur owed half of their labour to the state, which for farmers was payed in barley or labour on state fields and for other tradesmen or labourers could be payed in commodities or labour. The state in turn, provided a ration of barley to everyone who was not a farmer. It is often argued, although the issue is by no means settled that the reason the city of Ur was founded as a means of translating communal abundance into a social safety net. That the city grew around grain silos and that the point of those silos was a means to store and pool grain so canals could be maintained and droughts weathered without anyone having to worry about going hungry if it was their field was flooded or plagued by locusts.
Mutual aid without expectation of immediate or even eventual repayment is an inherently human quality and the purpose of society and civilisation is to enhance and take better advantage of it. The Christian church has been (among other things) a vector of this mutual aid but it is by no means the only vector and it was not the first. To claim it is or was is to do non-christian societies and humanity as a whole a grave disservice.
A Seminal text on the evolution of Ur and how human society maybe got started is Gordon Childe, the first marxist archeologist's Man Makes Himself first published in 1936 and last revised in 1951. Some of the text is a little dated as new archeological evidence has came to light but it's an excellent starting place for reading on the topic as most following texts reference it and I have not found another on the same topic with such a focus on the genesis and evolution of institutional exploitation.
It can be read for free here: https://archive.org/details/ManMakesHimself/page/n121/mode/2up
Good points all around, great comments. Mine was a quick comment from the hip but does indeed betray a somewhat eurocentric worldview on my part. Thank you for educating and providing sources.
❤️
Lmao social safety net is too big of an concept to tie it to christianity
I can't follow. What?
deleted by creator
But can't both the idea of a social safety net and Christ's message both be boiled all the way down to simply "Y'all should take care of each other" though? Seems like there's a lot of overlap to me.
deleted by creator
I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school, so I'm pretty familiar with the ins and outs. But that's part of what pisses me off so much; lots of great simple messages in The Gospels, but so so so many people just nod their heads during sermons and then instantly forget everything once they walk out the doors.
At least our congregation did help my family out when we went through some hard times. But I don't understand how people aren't able to extend that same kind of kindness to others.
Those preachers are the literal definition of false prophets. Absolutely insane how much money some of them have. And I can understand some rubes having the wool pulled over their eyes, but they have like, millions of followers. Are there that many people that can't see past the bullshit?
some of the first institutions that we would consider a social safety net were started by churches, almshouses for example
Crishtianity isnt about the "message of god" its about setting values which are used by the clergy and the fascists to enforce the social hierarchy if you can give better analysis please do
So you've never actually been to a church, have you?
Say what you want about the corruption of the institution itself, I'll probably agree with you, but when you look behind all the bullshit and examine the texts in a vacuum it absolutely is all about the message of God. And that message, according to the J man, is basically "take care of each other."