Why on earth is this video age restricted? It's a perfectly decent discussion on religon !?

@ReligionForBreakfast

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah I’ve been trying to get KZread to fix it. No responses.

@GenerationX1984

6 жыл бұрын

It seems like KZread hates videos that force people to THINK. This video has no foul language and no inappropriate content and yet KZread decided it should have an age restriction. KZread has really cracked down of freedom of speech ever since Net Neutrality was repealed by Republitards.

@tomormiston6592

6 жыл бұрын

Chris Nilsson perhaps the KZread wizards aren't familiar with the quote of Marx? its certainly odd, s You'd think they'd google the quote?...lol

@unicockboy1666

4 жыл бұрын

That's because religious people are so progressive

@TheLostArchangel666

4 жыл бұрын

@@GenerationX1984 but hur dur consurvatards care about free speech! (When they want to spew hatred at others that is)

After skimming through the comments, Ive noticed people hate the fact this guy has a very non bias nuanced position.

@DoveAlexa

6 жыл бұрын

I kinda of feel like I should avoid the comments. Some of them are made before they even watch the friggen video!

@azn3000

6 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, we live in a society in the West that is biased against religion.

@L1ghtweaver

5 жыл бұрын

lol what?

@luciferangelica

5 жыл бұрын

yeah. i did. it's too early. don't wanna wake anyone up, but i just had to make my smartass comment

@selwynkatz519

5 жыл бұрын

"Religion poisons everything..." ...Christopher Hitchens.

I really appreciate the attention paid to both sides of the argument, and how you gave actual context for that argument. It's nice to see the high quality of your videos. Keep up the good work!

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

+CainGrey Yeah it is a potentially contentious issue...so I wanted to be as objective as possible.

@TheMilitantMazdakite

Жыл бұрын

@@ReligionForBreakfast Yeah, as a Zoroastrian, I would describe my religion as, indeed, revolutionary.

As someone who studied philosophy for the last 8 years, I’m so happy with this video.

@juniorloaf12

2 жыл бұрын

I bet you make a killer macchiatto

@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat

Жыл бұрын

​@Alexander Wallace I bet people find you incredibly annoying and judgemental

Another wonderfully executed video! Planning to use this in my seminar today! You are providing such a great service, so thank YOU!

When you talked about religion being revolutionary, I immediately thought of the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) in China, and the Ikko-Ikki (c. 1450-1586) and Shimabara (1637-1638) rebellions in Japan. Both the Taiping and Shimabara rebellions were actually Christian movements, interestingly enough.

@TheMilitantMazdakite

Жыл бұрын

As a Zoroastrian, I agree, and our religion is inherently revolutuionary.

@teyanuputorti7927

4 ай бұрын

@@TheMilitantMazdakitevery true

The Iranian Revolution is not a good example to proove marx was wrong about the opressive power of religion. From a marxist perspective, it was and is completely reactionary.

@KarlKristofferJohnsson

3 жыл бұрын

Oppressive certainly, but I think it was mainly an example of religion as a catalyst for social change, whether that change is for the better or worse.

I think you misunderstand the "misinterpretation". It is not incorrect to say that Marx is saying that religion is a pain killer: as the point is that, like a pain killer, it something that treats the symptoms, not the causes, and like opium in particular, as it lets one forget being in pain (in this case, the pain of being oppressed). The mistake of people saying that the quote likens religion to make believe nonsense are not, as you claim, mistakenly thinking that it is about analgesia (because it is), but are making a mistake about medical function and subjective experience of taking opium (hallucinations and delusion being neither a very common effect, nor a medically desirable one).

@nosuchthing8

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent post. I agree.

@Gothead420

2 жыл бұрын

Religion is more like homeopathy than *real* medicine, though...😜

@JW-bx8ss

Жыл бұрын

That's pretty much what he said at 0:47 - 0:55

When Marxism came to Netherland-Indies (now Indonesia), the first generation who eager to learn Marx were Muslim activists including Hatta (the first vice president and also the prime minister).

@nancyroberts930

3 жыл бұрын

Weird how I’m Muslim and eager to know more about marx aha

I appreciate you approaching you approaching this nuance. Marx very likely would have agreed about the revolutionary potential of religion *in certain contexts*. He proposed the motive force of history as being class struggle, but obviously this struggle had not always happened under the banner of a scientifically elucidated philosophy. Engels, Marx's friend and close collaborator, wrote a lot about the radical reformation in the German peasant war and saw Thomas Muentzer as a predecessor of Communism, for example.

Excellent and one of the first young American to examine the subject with objectivity. Bravo!

Very well explained. Thank you. I never expected religion can be this complex.

You sir earned my sub! Great video! will recommend your vids to my professors and friends :)

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

Awesome, glad to hear it! New video drops Tuesday!

Nice! No bias, just pure information. This is awesome.

@mericanraccoon

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamesvotava7709 ?

does religion always hinder change ? no .....does it do that 85% of the time ? yes

Great video, as always!

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

+Bryan Landreth Thanks!

Greetings from Pakistan! Thank you so much for such an insightful video. I have a query. Where can one find Meredith McGuire's Religion: the social context. I want to read it for a college essay but its neither available in the market, nor in the libraries and nor on the internet. Any guidance about how to get access to this book will be appreciated. Thank you!

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

Greetings! I'm not sure about in Pakistan, but here in the USA, I found it on Amazon and Ebay.

@MrsAlexisAgnew2019

3 жыл бұрын

Aaaaaaaand I just saw this comment was FOUR YEARS AGO…Disregard my previous comment, because you’ve likely graduated by now! Hahaha

My college professor used this video in her lesson. Good stuff. 👍

Yet another excellent take 🌟

That was very well done!

fantastic video Man!!!

Infinitely interesting, amazing video

This man is very well-spoken

Great video.

greetings from germany, nice vid!

Was not expecting an honest analysis but boy was I pleasantly surprised. Great job.

I think you need to take Marx' specific perspective more into account: Marx saw progress in the light of a materialistic inversion of Hegelian idealism and even Hegel had a secularized conception of Progress. Looking at the history of the idea of progress, you will find that the German idealists, in following Kant, had a conception of progress that was originally inspired by christian eschatology, with the important distinction that their historical progress was to take place in THIS world. And the same can be said of Marx's idea of progress. Given that the religion most appearant to Marx was christianity, it becomes obvious why Marx had to think of religion as an obstacle to progress: Christianity promises a second life after death, but practically demands compliance with authorities in this life and promotes Jobean perseverance under injustice, because christianities telos lies beyond this world.

@nguyenhoanglong420

4 жыл бұрын

He is extreme atheistic!!!! That's why his perspective can lure more people to his ideaology!!!

@Sewblon

4 жыл бұрын

Was it Kant who had the idea that progress should happen in this world? Or just one of the many philosophers who were inspired by his work? What was the impetus and reasoning behind this change in thinking?

@nuckchorris3302

3 жыл бұрын

@AzarelloYes, this fact applies for all 3 Abrahamic religions

@BeOtterMyFriend

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sewblon The idea that you should work towards progress in this world is ancient. Kant didn't invent it. Kant's specific take on the philosophy of history was that the purpose of humanity - if there is one - would have to be to become more and more guided by reason. That the world (i. e. human society on a global scale) would have to become more and more reasonable. Maybe that's what you were thinking of?

@Sewblon

3 жыл бұрын

@@BeOtterMyFriend I mean who specifically looked at Christian Eschatology and decided that progress should happen in this world rather than the next world?

After watching 10 or more of these videos I’m filled with hope... and a good breakfast.

@nguyenhoanglong420

4 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah and make sure you are aetheist!!! Communists say so but mean while they have the strongest belief in any religions

thanks for clarifying it and sharing your insights, it is so taken out of context by professionals who don't study sociology and consider the context

Regardless of what became of his words after his death, Marx was insanely insightful into human psychology and society.

@friedkeenan

2 жыл бұрын

My econ teacher who is certainly not communist or anything like that said Marx was a _smart_ guy and that such a smart guy who spent so much time thinking about capitalism came to the conclusion that it is inevitably bad and oppressive is something to ponder and think critically about

@xtalofficial06

7 ай бұрын

Also incredibly stupid

@km1366

19 күн бұрын

Of course. You have literally millions of examples of how and why capitalism will end people

Good work. I enjoyed this thoughtful interpretation of Marx.

I've watched quite a few of your videos where you debunk common beliefs about Religion. In this one it was about how Religion can both inhibit and promote social change. In the one one called, 'Is Religion Declining?' it was about how it was thriving and diversifying and another in, 'Does Humanity Still Believe in Magic?' it was about how Science and Technology haven't disenchanted us with Magic and how there was and are revivals in spiritualism and mysticism. Since there seems to be a theme of no certainty, I was wondering, is there a definite in Religion or is it always fluid? Or so to speak, are there things in Religion that are static or is it always dynamic?

@LlibertarianGalt

5 жыл бұрын

To survive it must be fluid when it needs to be and definite also when it needs to be. Real world example would be Christianity: Theology, still believes in a very defined version of the dictated life of Christ (whatever that means to Christianity) but also has increasingly had priests focused with the Sciences and the incorporation of Science within Creationism has given it more fluidity to move instead of being rigid and definitive, in those regards.

Revolutions are a transient short term episodes (most commonly) so once an upheaval of status quo has succeeded a new status quo is established. And the reformers of before often find themselves as the maintainer of the new order once they hold power.

@StudeSteve62

3 жыл бұрын

Or, "power corrupts"...

Not only, religion divides the people , important for power junkies

THNX FROM ALGERIA

This was spot on, thank you for this balanced and constructive brief on an insanely complex problem. For a longer version you may also want to say something about the role of grassroots religions such as Swedenborgianism and spiritualism in the abolition of slavery. The latter was also important for the promotion of female rights, as argued by historians like Anne Braude..

Great video

Thanks for clearing this up. I always thought he meant it was addictive.

Christian here. I love your nuanced, unbiased approach to this. I need religion because I am poor and oppressed, and religion helps me be okay with that. I still would like to make enough to support a family one day, but I’ve learned that I don’t need fast cars or a big house or 1300 acres. I used to need that for some reason. Without religion, I would be the person that spent 20 years keeping up with the Jones and never finding joy. I don’t need religion because it’s good. I need it because I am so bad. I’m damaged goods. Better for me to be in quiet fellowship with close friends than to be strung out on real dope, though.

@jasonbanners2185

3 жыл бұрын

E M S Christianity isn’t really about the poor and oppressed. Yes Christ addressed those issues, but the core is about something deeper. Christianity offers A chance to be morally blames in the eyes of God. to be free from moral imperfections, and to be one with God.

@nguyenhoanglong420

3 жыл бұрын

Nowadays Human don't need much Religion to survive !!!! Most of all they have invented All things to Entertain better than Practice Religions !!!

@alisonpurgatory85

3 жыл бұрын

I know this is an old comment but I want to reply anyway. I hope things have gotten better for you since then. I totally get what you’re saying about needing religion because you’re poor and oppressed. When I was living under abusive parents, having my own spirituality helped me get through the days and eventually escape. I have to say though, it made me sad to read that you consider yourself ‘damaged goods’ and ‘bad’. I’ve been through some hard stuff in my life and I’m poor now, and one thing I’ve learned is that falling on hard times often has nothing to do with your moral character. Sometimes it does, but I find that falling into poverty is mostly the result of bad luck, circumstance, illness, and capitalism being capitalism. Being oppressed is often the result of being different. I may not know you but I don’t think you’re bad or damaged goods just because you’re going through hard times. You’re not goods, you’re a person. Hope things have improved, and either way I wish you the best.

@biggatap

3 жыл бұрын

religion makes you docile and weak

@kaciewolverton2692

2 жыл бұрын

This a very thoughtful approach. I am atheist & largely agree with Marx, but I respect those who follow a religion. Just because I don't feel called to it doesn't mean it doesn't have value for others. I get these same feelings through building non-religious community and communing with nature. Faith & community is part of being human - for many religion is the source of wellbeing. Hope you are doing well!

Thanks for this! There is religion and there is religion. Which is why one cannot use a sweeping statement whether religion promotes or restrict social change. Also, social changes can be for the betterment of a society or make it worse off, with regard to the welfare of its inhabitants.

Why no Liberation Theology tho ? It seems to me the perfect example of the liberating and revolutionnary power of religions. Charismatic leaders such as Camillio Tores Restrepo taking the word of said Marx and intergating it in a revolutionnary way of practicing Christianity.

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

Can't cover it all in one short video...but I think you're right. Liberation theology would be an interesting example of the social change religion can engender.

@marxist-gluteus-maximus5996

5 жыл бұрын

It's overrated. In virtually all cases they worked alongside secular socialists and Marxists. There are also some major problems theoretically with liberation theology which I think proponents of it ignore completely. At the end of the day liberation theology isn't nearly as inclusive as secular movements, so unless it attaches itself to a secular movement it is either doomed to fail or doomed to become a negative force in its own way.

@rhyderrek6155

3 жыл бұрын

Because that is an oxymoron. There is nothing Liberating about enforcing your beliefs upon others as all Religions have done. Religion, in and of itself, is a tool of the bourgeoisie, another stone around the neck of a drowning man. There is no freedom of religion, only freedom from religion.

@baltofarlander2618

3 жыл бұрын

@@rhyderrek6155 true freedom comes from restraint in my opinion

@blacknwhitesalright

3 жыл бұрын

Liberation theology is fundamentally incompatible with marxist communism.

Gramsci, a Marxist intellectual protégé of Karl Marx, amplifies my concerns: “For Gramsci, Marxism could supersede religion only if it met people's spiritual needs, and to do so people would have to think of it as an expression of their own experience.”

Excellent!

Karl Marx actually said All people should be equal, share equally in the wealth of a nation and that power should be in the hands of the people and not a king or dictator

@definitivamenteno-malo7919

3 жыл бұрын

Once communism is attained.

@pompeiusmagnus2276

3 жыл бұрын

Marx also promoted, as a means of attaining a communist utopia, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which Marx claimed would "wither away" once communism was successfully established.

@natureswrath7665

3 жыл бұрын

@@pompeiusmagnus2276 and that never happens, I honestly dont know why people take Marx's ideas seriously.

@Orcus__

3 жыл бұрын

no no no no! why do people think Marx wanted all people to be equal?? Even in his day people misinterprited his ideas to believe he wanted absolute equality for everyone, he thought of this as utopianism and dismissed it.

a marxist here, thanks for you objective analysis, its hard to find something like this

There’s a great book on religion and power from haymarket books called the Meek and the Militant

I was honestly confused by the thumbnail; I knew he said, AND I remembered this was out of context.

Nuanced approach that speaks to the reality of the power of religion. That's why one has to be so weary of it.

well said!

5:19 I can't even remember what I ate yesterday. Nice video though 😁

Thank you for explaining the larger quote. I think the structures of some religions can easily be used to support defeatism in many areas of life. I left a longer, personal comment on another video that had explained how religions can evolve. I personally, as a Christian, got in a rut of depression due to chronic, intractable migraine. "Original Sin", fallen world, Christ paid but we still have to suffer, be happy and thank God for suffering because we deserve worse because of "Original Sin". Thus, give up and take the beating. I could see how this fairly Medieval concept could perpetuate tyrannies, slavery and a number of other dysempowering aspects of life. I will probably never be free of intractable, destructive migraine but I do not have to completely give in to agony. The same thought could be applied to many evil states. At this time, my personal belief is that humanity is in partnership with God to build a better creation.

Note to self: stop reading misinformed, poorly expressed comments from random web surfers after listening to an informed, eloquent, organized presenter.

@Murphio25

4 жыл бұрын

I feel personally attacked.

I believe it is, but it's mainly based on my own experiences growing up in a religious family. I believe most people who engage in organized religion fall into two main categories; 1) It gives them a supposed position of authority over others. 2) Due to a past hardship or wrong, they find a safety and community protection. I'm just glad I opted to think for myself and remain agnostic to this day.

nice poster in the Background!

@nosuchthing8

4 жыл бұрын

Why no replies recorded

My god, someone finally addresses this

Can someone tell me please in which paragraph or part of the book the quote is???

It is not misquoted. The best quote for religion.

have anymore videos on this ?

Thanks ....👏👏👏👏👏

Suggestion : You should use spanish subtitles in your videos , i'm sure that many people here is interested on this topics ( we got a lot of religious "fanatics" here , so , we need more accurate-historical knowledge) , i have the luck of knowing english , but many friends of mine don't , hahaha, anyway good videos! PS: Hey could you make a video about the pre-hispanic religion traditions ? , there was a lot of cults obviously , but just to enumerate their maining characteristics and cosmic interpretation, the role of the female is this societies and religions ,cults , etc ... (also this may help you to produce a lot , really ,A LOT ,of videos ! wich is good for your channel ) well buddy ahahah good luck ,continue uploading! Greetings from Chile ! :D

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

I'd love to, but I don't know enough Spanish to write subtitles! Do you want to volunteer? :) Pre-hispanic religions is such a great idea. Do you mean the Aztecs/Incas/Mayans? I'm already researching an Aztec episode. Thanks for the suggestions!!

@felipercb3245

7 жыл бұрын

ReligionForBreakfast cool! i can translate a few vídeos for you , maybe not all of them but a few , you can send me the text to my e-mail and I'll translate it for you :) , could be 1 text per week ! and yup pre-hispanic religions are cool , here in Chile there is (even today) female healers called "machis" they belong to Mapuche's folk their cosmogony is a mixture of forces of Nature, cult to the ancestors , and weather seasons! good luck ! This kind of channel should be massive ! hahaha can you give me your e-mail? Saludos !

Excellent video once again how many youtubers are this erudite? Not to mention fair and nuanced even with the highly contested problems of religion and Marxism! That quote is hardly ever used in full. The whole piece is worth reading. Marx was a great writer even if he could be excessively florid especially in that period of his life. There is another line from that piece that is worth quoting especially for all imitators of Dawkins out there: "criticism has torn up the imaginary flowers from the chain not so that man shall wear the bleak unadorned chain but so that he may cast off the chain and pluck the living flower." In other words Atheism by itself doesnt achieve anything unless its part of the wider goal of human liberation. The amount of times I've heard people say religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world. Marx's point is that it is really the other way round.

@superduperfreakyDj

4 жыл бұрын

Well the question about religion is easy: what came first? Religion for control or religion as a relief for suffering? Find the answer to that and we'll know wether religion is good or bad

brilliant

Youve earned a subscription:) although i couldnt agree with you on a few things :)

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

Glad you like it! And we don't need to agree on everything!

It's a good point about how religion can also be a catalyst for change. Not all socialists during his time agreed with Marx about the role of religion, especially Bakunin.

why the hell is this video age restricted?

@nosuchthing8

4 жыл бұрын

It's obvious based on the points he is making. The powers that be want to keep the status quo. They will use every method in their toolbox to keep people under control. You thought they care about people? Haha.

The point that religion supressed revolution is not exactly of Marx, it is the point of the intellectuals Marx was arguing AGAINST. The point of Marx is the order of possible change: it doens't make sense to fight religion as to "liberate the minds of the opressed" (wich was the objective of the referred intellectuals), the right thing to do is to fight the opression per se

Today I learned "Legitimating" is a real word.

Indeed MLK was familiar with Marx and sympathetic to his critiques of capitalism. I often wonder how the economic policy perspectives of the US would be different had MLK continued to integrate economic theory into his push for societal change. We lost a major voice offering an alternate perspective with the loss of both MLK and Malcolm X

This might be more of a topic for philosophy than religion, but I'll ask just in case you disagree with that: If you haven't already, could you do a video explaining what Nietzsche meant when he wrote that "God is dead"? I'm told that that is oft-misinterpreted by religious groups, but I'm not sure I understand what his point was. Love this channel, just subscribed. Thanks!

@ReligionForBreakfast

8 жыл бұрын

That's a great recommendation. I think it has enough to do with religion to go with the channel. I'll put the topic on the "to do" list, though it might be a few weeks. Thanks for subscribing!

@Spar10Leonidas

8 жыл бұрын

ReligionForBreakfast Thank you! And you're welcome!

Why is this age restricted?

These days it seems it's more like LSD.

I love how he thinks we have so many protections in modern Life. It's common for people to work 16 hours a day right now.

@Sewblon

4 жыл бұрын

Way back in medieval times, people worked fewer hours. But they also died sooner because plumbing wasn't a thing. So people kept getting sick from drinking poop water. So its a trade off.

@Carlos-ln8fd

2 жыл бұрын

Compared to Marx's time where there was widespread child labour and legal slavery it seems like we have advanced a lot.

@nosuchthing8

2 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-ln8fd But a lot of that depends on where you live. It appears we have outsourced child labor and slavery

@Carlos-ln8fd

2 жыл бұрын

@@nosuchthing8 Sure, there are still problems, but so many indicators show that poverty and forced labor have indeed decreased. It's absolutely true that we shouldn't act like the world is perfect but not acknowledging the great efforts that were made to improve working conditions around the world seems equally mistaken to me.

@nosuchthing8

2 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-ln8fd I just think there same problems exist but have been outsourced. Akin to sweeping dirt under the door instead of doing anything about it

Yes, moving on

It can also mean easy control for the intelligentsia and government.

tbf I think marx's takes makes sense in relation to evangelism and industry in the UK, where he spent many years. The sentiment was very much "sufferring through work will set you free of earthly pleasures" when it was conveniently gaslighting people into being more productive in an increasingly capitalist society.

The leaders of the Mexican Independence Revolution were priests (Miguel Hidalgo and José María Morelos), and we can't forget the soon to be Saint Oscar Romero from El Salvador, a literal martyr he was killed for standing up against the dictatorship. And even the current Pope Francisco believes in social revolution; Catholicism is a pretty oppressive institution, but plenty of its members have been agents of freedom and revolution

@james192599

5 жыл бұрын

But before hidalgo there was hernan cortez who enslaved natives in mexico which not only includes aztecs(whom themselves were oppresive) but other tribes such as the tlaxcala who fought with cortez.

This reminded me of the Marxist concept of 'false consciousness,' the lack of awareness by people of the nature of their oppression. This was recently used in feminist and LGBT movements as 'consciousness raising' groups or activities to help people see more clearly the basis of their suffering. One could draw the same parallel with religion and both teaching, preaching, and evangelization.

@domenstrmsek5625

3 жыл бұрын

Marxism =Religion

@skywindow6764

3 жыл бұрын

@@domenstrmsek5625 philosophies and religion overlap antagonistically. Christianity=politics.

@domenstrmsek5625

3 жыл бұрын

@@skywindow6764 agree same with other politics

04:42 Max is pronounced as Maux.

What about the idea that all religions attempt to control or dictate people’s behaviors? Even the revolutionary ones aren’t about the people’s well-being, but about a proper interpretation of some divine dictate.

So an important factor in all of the discussion on Marx and religion is Marx's philosophy of dialectical materialism. Marx was referring to his historical moment, he telling the proletariat that religion is being used to suppress them now, that's its purpose. Fundamentally they had real problems they could solve with their current material interests using secular means, and avoiding using this tactic didn't work as well because the borgiouse state learned pretty quick to co-opt any movements that weren't directly focused on removing the statis quo.

Are your glasses upside down?

You began by saying Marx has been misunderstood and that the quote is taken out of context, it seems to be that out or in context Marx's thought on religion can be understood through the quote with relative accuracy, based on your own conclusions.

Yes

I seriously want to support you on patreon but I am broke so Anyway, perhaps you could do a video on how the original Abrahamic religion (Judaism) branched off into Christianity and Catholicism. I myself am confused on how the Western belief in Yahweh as the sole God in the universe went off to the Romans after Christ died and Christianity became an eastern religion as well. Also, you could do a video on the church and its significance and how it's in conflict with the Protestant belief, etc. Great videos, btw :D KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

@ReligionForBreakfast

7 жыл бұрын

No worries about not being a Patreon patron...just subscribing and engaging with the content is more important! I already have a video that talks about how Judaism and Christianity "parted ways," but you're right, I probably can go deeper into that topic. One of my playlists focuses specifically on early Christianity since that is my own field of research.

I mean, this makes sense if one applies it to the Old Testament. Given the geographical locality of Judea it is hard to assume that the Jews (as although, there is no archaeological attestation for such an ethic marker; though the term habiru, or foreigner is used) were ever autonomous. They were sandwiched between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the general Meditteranean, while comprising unequal land mass and resources. The sentiments of the "Jewish" people as being an exclusive group seems to have been bolstered and rationalized with each time they are conquered by foreign nations; unto the point that Josiah institutes reforms aimed at nationalism (monotheism) so that the Levitical priesthood doesn't lose revenue because the qadesha and qadeshim were practicing the customs of the Babylonians (they're oppressors).

@Carlos-ln8fd

2 жыл бұрын

I don't know. A big part of jewish religion was about fighting against those opressors. Entire books of the Old Testament are about how religion led to them to escaping from Egypt or fighting different tribes. I guess you can argue that historically that wasn't the case but if we're just talking about scripture it seems like a big stretch to me.

@MrJamesLowery

2 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-ln8fd David and Solomon building foreign temples for their various wives, and the admission of the Jews acknowledging Yahweh while still practicing foreign customs all the way through Judges doesn't seem like much of a fight to me. If it didn't happen historically then what is one to think regarding the motive behind the narrative?

@Carlos-ln8fd

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrJamesLowery Figures like Samson from Judges were all about fighting the Philistines. Again, you can say that the israelites didn't fight against their oppresors but since we know that their religion gave so much emphasis to escaping from them, it doesn't seem like a good example of Marx's point. Marx was clearly talking about Christianity, that includes ideas like heaven and "poverty of spirit". Or you can also think of religious traditions in China that respect the status quo. I guess you can say that the israelites talked about rebellion in their religion but in practice just were assimilated by different cultures, which would make sense but I don't think that's historically accurate. I'm no expert here but it seems to me like there aren't many groups in history that have survived and retained customs as much as the jewish people.

@MrJamesLowery

2 жыл бұрын

@@Carlos-ln8fd Yeah, they are a historical peculiarity in that regard.

I am ready. Like the Mahdi of the Sudan against the British. Malcolm X and the NOI. So many examples. Marcus Garvey.

I never interpreted it that way. The 'scribes and Pharisees' syndrome is how I interpret it.

Voudou is the french spelling of the word. In French 'ou' is pronounced like english 'oo', so a prononciation based on the french would still be 'Voodoo'. Not saying anyone is obliged to pronounce it this way

@iosefka7774

4 жыл бұрын

*Voudou* is a different belief system from Haitian Vodou.

Well, it depends on who is controlling religion could produce different results.

Not a fan of Marx but your presentation will help me on my exam. Very informative and precise

@ReligionForBreakfast

6 жыл бұрын

Good luck on the exam! Glad I could help.

This is the most nuanced discussion regarding religious expression I’ve come across since Jordan Peterson, C.S. Lewis, JR Tolkien and G.K. Chesterton!! Well done!! Subscribed!!

super. thky dan t palm springs ca USA

Very interesting, but do you get a bonus for fast speaking??? Greatings from a none native speaker and listener... 😎

As with many things religion can act like a double edged sword, capable of uniting a people against a common enemy or causing harm to others or themselves in the name of religion.

@Carlos-ln8fd

4 жыл бұрын

An alternative view is that religion actually doesn't affect human behavior. Sometimes oppresors are religious and sometimes they are not.

That's exactly what my grandpa who is a Marxist scholar and Ho Chi Minh follower told me. He is a happy Christian and also a Marxist.

While I think this video is great for its purposes, i.e. indicating that religion can be both conformist and revolutionary , I think the question is badly posed if it goes beyond that to what Marx thought more explicitly . Marx and Engels knew perfectly well that religion could be subversive, it is enough to check their writings on the reformation. I think the question is better posed as whether Marx thought religion could be revolutionary vis-à-vis capitalism? He’d still likely be wrong, considering the importance of liberation theology and what not, but I think it would be closer to the question Marx asks.

Good he is neutral non Biased. Excellent work thanks

I had to pause at 1:15 to ask this: Is it "opium of the people" or "opium for the masses"? I've always known the latter form and it's the first time I hear the former.

@lowenzahn3976

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, it's often misquoted. The former ("opium of the people") is the correct one. "Of" vs. "for" is an important semantic difference.

He was completely against but he still thinks religion meant for people to vent to. But he is against the Conservative

what is the difference between religion and spirituality?

@chris-solmon4017

7 жыл бұрын

Religion is simply another form of mind control. It comes from the word "Religare", which means to thwart from progress. Spirituality is a recognition and understanding of the microcosm and Natural Law. Whereas with religion, the only thing that the collection plate profits is the priest class - which has LOTS of money and property and resources. When's the last time you heard of a priest complaining about his bills or mortgage or not having food? ...exactly.

@KevZen2000

7 жыл бұрын

Bari M.N. Spirituality is basically unorganized religion, without a Holy Text, or limited set of rules. Many times it is used as another word for religion.

@nolives

6 жыл бұрын

Imo religion is a instructor by which you should act to earn favor with God. Spirituality is already knowing you are reconciled to God despite what your life decisions and religious condemnation may tell you. Thats just my opinion.

@tomormiston6592

6 жыл бұрын

both trying to satisfy emotional needs, but one is strongly cultural and therefore has social dynamics, traditional mixing with political and legal too and is a form of social control (try and find a female apostle). Spiritualism is just nice and fluffy. In a nut shell both are woo-woo its just one is more organised woo-woo. In England there are still Bishops in the house of Lords appointed... bizarre especially given how the UK in general is ostensibly secular.

@nolives

6 жыл бұрын

Tom Ormiston seems like a super ambigous definition. I know people who believe in christ that hate christianity and i know many spiritualist who act religious. Its not that simple to define them. And just because its "woo woo"to you doesnt mean it isnt possible. Im sure people thought the person theorizing about atoms was "woo woo" and said "well you cant show me yet so it must not exist". Atoms existed before we discovered them, they didnt simply not exist because we didnt know or couldnt prove their existance yet. And the same could be said about God. That being said i,personally, believe God is the exact opposite of the vindictive,petty, "turn or burn" asshole most religion paints him out to be. Im also willing to admit i might be wrong about God. Are you willing to admit you might be wrong about atheism? Which would be more intellectually honest to say "there definitely isnt a God" or "there might be".