What was the Motive of Christianity?

Many people hold the belief that the bible was meant to control the people. I am not saying it has not been used for this purpose, but the true intention of the Bible could not have been as a mode of control.

Jesus said to drop your nets and do as he did. How would this serve any tyrant's agenda? If everyone followed Christ's word we would all be living in an altruistic egalitarian community. This is the opposite of what a tyrant, or group of tyrants, would want the people to do. Yes, the Word has been twisted for the purposes of control, but that was not the reason this book was written.

So, if Christianity was not purposed as a mode of control, what was the purpose? If we look at the life of Christ and the ensuing acts of his apostles, we learn that money was not the motive. Nor was it for egoic glorification. In my mind, this leaves us with two options as the motive of Christianity:

1) It is a lie fabricated for no purpose whatsoever by the most despicable group of trolls of all time.

2) Jesus' teachings are true and it is the word of God.

In my humble opinion, I don't think martyrs would die for option #1

It was designed to create a peaceful society after they killed off all those who challenged the religion. Yeah, that worked really well.

By the way, the way things went was by no means what jesus was promoting.

a reply to: cooperton
In the time of Jesus , that whole area was controlled by tyrants.If you read and understand , Jesus was sort of an anti-tyrant.

What was the Motive of Christianity?

Love one another?

originally posted by: rickymouse
It was designed to create a peaceful society after they killed off all those who challenged the religion. Yeah, that worked really well.

By the way, the way things went was by no means what jesus was promoting.

Can you give me an example of this in Jesus' time please ?

Motive?

Who knows. I certainly don't. Anything anyone says is mere conjecture.

So here goes...

Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ.

Obviously, since there are so many branches of Christianity, there's some disagreement on those teachings, or what they mean.

You left out a 3rd option.

People honestly believing in things that aren't true.

I think Christianity is a mixture of honest believers and dishonest manipulators. The Bible itself, only served to hone in that control. Though may have been set up by honest believers. On that point, I can't say for certain. But the Bible is nothing if not a good tool for manipulation. It can be interpreted and promoted in any number of ways, for good or ill. It makes true believers more or less passive to authority. It demands it has the universal truths and people cling to it as such for any number of reasons. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The belief in God may have sprung up innocently enough but beliefs as a tool to manipulate and control the masses is nothing new. There are plenty of cases where Christians even manipulated the faith to control people/further the Christian agenda. Lying for Christ is nothing new. In fact the influential Martin Luther made his opinion clear when he said lies weren't sins if they helped bring people to the faith. He also said reason is a tool of the devil.

So on multiple levels, in various ways, Christianity is about control.

That is not to say there aren't people who honestly believe it, that don't have agendas. However by intent or not, age old agendas are still being played out in a lot of ways. Especially if you consider the anti-science, anti-civil rights crowds.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
You left out a 3rd option.

People honestly believing in things that aren't true.

That's option 1, people believing or not is irrelevant to the motive of why Christianity came to be. By saying "..in things that aren't true" you are implying that you side with option 1.

a reply to: cooperton

You're option one states deceitful fabrication. My option three leaves room for belief systems to develop naturally and honestly.

Apply your two options to any other religion ever and you're left with the same conclusion you've come to about Christianity. They're all absolutely true.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

You're option one states deceitful fabrication. My option three leaves room for belief systems to develop naturally and honestly.

Apply your two options to any other religion ever and you're left with the same conclusion you've come to about Christianity. They're all absolutely true.

Other beliefs, such as scientology, have a third potential motive; money/power/control. I've heard many people say that control was the purpose of the Bible, so I made this post to demonstrate that Christianity did not develop for this purpose.

a reply to: cooperton

Well you need to rephrase your second option than. Because you've only left room for it to be either completely true, or only a tool of control. Whereas it could be both a tool of control, but also have origins in honest beliefs. Honest origins doesn't mean it's the truth however.

Sounds like we agree for the most part though.

ETA:

Yes, it's easy to pick out modern religions and point to them being about control. I was referring more to ones that have been around as long, or longer than Christianity.

EAT2:

If you want to make a thread about how Christianity had honest origins, perhaps make an argument based on historical information about the development of religions and Christianity. Not trying to be rude here but you might find that Christianity isn't exactly unique and came about from earlier influences. Reshaped and reinvented for the particular culture.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The OP is about the motives of Christianity . Sure throughout history it has been twisted by evil leaders into something it was not meant to be.However , Christianity in itself cannot be blamed for the few evil ones that did corrupt it for their own gain.There has not been one single faction of religion , political beliefs ,science , technology et al that has not been guilty of this happening as well. The key is today the followers for the most part on the alert for this type of leader. As we should all be in all facets of life. Too often we believe for the mere reason we read it or heard it from someone else. We push information aside for he said she said. Or that group is not like me , so therefore they must be wrong.Thats whats wrong with the world today. Once upon a time it was about acceptance of others . Not a large scale segregation based on what imaginary group or sect we were in...seems like now there are so many divisions of people there is no way we will ever be able to get together again and accomplish anything.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

Well you need to rephrase your second option than. Because you've only left room for it to be either completely true, or only a tool of control. Whereas it could be both a tool of control, but also have origins in honest beliefs. Honest origins doesn't mean it's the truth however.

Sounds like we agree for the most part though.

ETA:

Yes, it's easy to pick out modern religions and point to them being about control. I was referring more to ones that have been around as long, or longer than Christianity.

Yeah I think Hinduism, Buddhism, etc are all referring to the same truths as Christianity. The nice thing about Christianity is that God incarnated to tell us the absolute truth. --- that is one of the hard parts to believe, but this is a core teaching of Christianity, so unless there was purposeful deceit (option 1), we must conclude that this is true (option 2). I also see what you are saying when you say it could be partially true, due to error by human scribes or incorrect interpretations. But, I don't think human error would drastically change any core teachings, unless it was purposeful deceit.

If you want to make a thread about how Christianity had honest origins, perhaps make an argument based on historical information about the development of religions and Christianity.

This was my purpose for writing this post. By logical deduction we can see that this was not made for the purpose of control, nor was it purposeful deceit. If it was not purposeful deceit then these people were not lying when they said Jesus existed and was the full expression of God. The good news is that we are said to have the potential to do even greater things than he did.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The OP is about the motives of Christianity . Sure throughout history it has been twisted by evil leaders into something it was not meant to be.However , Christianity in itself cannot be blamed for the few evil ones that did corrupt it for their own gain.

Twisted, is a matter of perspective. Exactly why Christianity itself can be blamed. It's not a matter of "a few evil people using it for their own gain". It's a matter of adherents truly and honestly believing they're doing the work of God. Either because of their "personal relationship" or because of the climate of Christianity in their times. And just for the record I know I'm generalizing and that not all Christians were/are the same..

There has not been one single faction of religion , political beliefs ,science , technology et al that has not been guilty of this happening as well.

I agree. I'm not singling out religion as a sole evil in the world.

The key is today the followers for the most part on the alert for this type of leader. As we should all be in all facets of life.

Are they? Again not broad brushing all Christians but.. I don't recall any Christian specific outcry to say, the invasion of Iraq. When our previous POTUS said God spoke to him and told him to invade. But really, that's beside the point because I don't necessarily think this should be a competition about what ideologies have killed more.

Too often we believe for the mere reason we read it or heard it from someone else. We push information aside for he said she said. Or that group is not like me , so therefore they must be wrong.Thats whats wrong with the world today. Once upon a time it was about acceptance of others . Not a large scale segregation based on what imaginary group or sect we were in...seems like now there are so many divisions of people there is no way we will ever be able to get together again and accomplish anything.

I would have to say as time goes on Christians become more and more tolerant of accepting others. I mean truly accepting them. Again, not broad-brushing.

As you say, the OP is about the motives of Christianity.

The OP is not about the motives of Christians.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Of course their is a message of mankind needing to be controlled
in Christianity. One only needs to look at the direction our age old
attempt to become like God is taking us. That's all science really is
you know. Our attempt to do things without God. And it doesn't
even appear to be working out to well at all. Does it? We are lacking
the guidance we were created to have. On our own, we're just a loose
cannon. I see what we do to each other and the only home we have.
And I know this. We lack the guidance, call it control if you like, but
not by other men, as we have now despite the Bible. Not because of it.

a reply to: cooperton

Look man, you're going about this all wrong. I say that respectfully. You want to say Christianity is true because God incarnated and *long story short* said as much, fine. You know how many other religions have Gods that incarnate and tell men things? Other religions aren't referring to the same Christian narrative. They just aren't. If you think that then I have to honestly think you have never done any in depth study of other religions. Just internet browsing on sites that pointed out commonalities.

If we are to use your logic than all those other religions are also true. And since they also had Gods that incarnated and imparted absolute wisdom, we must believe it. And, many of these religions are far older than Christianity and Judaism, we can only assume THEY are the ones that are true.

By your logic; If they weren't created as a means of control, and had people who truly believed and experienced things, such as their God/Gods incarnating and imparting information claimed to be the absolute truth of things like creation of the universe, and the afterlife, then they must be true. And since they must be true, and according to you be telling the same story overall. Our best bet is to go with the oldest as it would be the source closest to the truth. Kind of like the telephone game.

Fact is, while there are def similarities between various religions, they are actually vastly different. I can't think of anything in Hinduism or its pantheon that sounds remotely like Christianity. I can't fathom how Norse mythology ties in. I can't fathom how Mayan or Aztec religions tie in. Native American traditions?

a reply to: randyvs

Well for all the bad things done with tech we shouldn't leave out all the good. I'm pretty sure the Bible says to stay away from practitioners of medicine for the Lord will heal all the wounds of his beloved. Doesn't look like he's living up to those promises. I don't want to turn that into a theological debate over whether this or that guy had enough faith or w.e. You get my point.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You get my point.

I believe so. But have you thought of what good science
and medicine are, if we destroy the ecosystem that allows
us to live. which we are most absolutely doing? Ferraris are
fun, but I can't drive one if I'm dead. From radiation, pollution,
starvation, dehydration, war. You don't understand the difference
between the world you live in. And the world you were meant to live in.

The crazy thing with most religions is when you put them in the perspective of their times they are some really progressive ideals.

a reply to: randyvs

And what good is a God that doesn't answer prayers of healing? Except those that can be explained by and thus attributed to, science and medicine. We are kind of going on topic so I don't really want to pursue this here. But I'm not sure if you're trying to demonize science or what? Science itself wouldn't be to blame, as it's about discovery. What we do with those discoveries isn't always good. Everything has its pros and cons.

Without science, we would still be living like cave men. Is there a specific era you would have liked to see advancement peak in?