"Prosperity Gospel"

[Beridian]

To be fair the Catholic Church is much more rigorous & intelligent in it's theology than evangelical churches such as the one in the OP.  So to become a saint, there is a process to determine if or not miracles have occurred, witnesses required, a devil's advocate to challenge (Christopher Hitchens acted as DA vs Mother Theresa)

So, according to the Catholic Church at least, miracles do still happen.  They are normally of the form of inexplicable reversals of disease.

I have heard of such miracles, and those common to the tele-evangelists.  The problem is that said miracles usually have the same limitation as  Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy.  They can neither be proved or disproved.  From what I have been exposed to, these miracles are for odd-minor things like one leg being shorter than the other, easing arthritis, or back pain suddenly being relieved.  It is common knowledge in medicine that sometimes such things happen on their own for natural reasons, there is also the placebo effect.  As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong with references please), there are no blind people seeing, no paraplegics throwing aside their wheelchairs,  and certainly no dead people walking out of the tomb, or at least none that can be scientifically verified.

When Jesus raised Lazurus from the dead in John 11 he proclaims ""Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

This tells me (along with other biblical miracle stories) that the goal of a miracle is to glorify god (or Jesus) and testify to his credibility and divinity.   Is there less of a need today to glorify god (or Jesus) and testify to his credibility and divinity?  If miracles were required to convince 1rst century goat herders, is it not reasonable to expect miracles would be required for a modern scientific people?  If god really wanted to convince human kind to follow his covenants, it would seem reasonable that he can do better than correcting one leg that is shorter than the other or easing an arthritic knee.

[zephyr911]

People have a hard time grasping the fact that unlikely events happen all the time.

But it's mathematically certain that they will. With billions of people on Earth doing 16-20 hours worth of "things" on any given day, all kinds of insanely unlikely shit is going to happen every minute. Cancer spontaneously quitting after ravaging someone's body and nearly killing them. A blockage causing a stroke and then somehow disappearing. A plane falling from the sky and just missing you. I understand why these anecdotes are meaningful to those who experience them, but they don't prove a thing.

[firewalker]

Is there any latest news on arebelspy? Anyone know how he's doing?

[okonumiyaki]

To be fair the Catholic Church is much more rigorous & intelligent in it's theology than evangelical churches such as the one in the OP.  So to become a saint, there is a process to determine if or not miracles have occurred, witnesses required, a devil's advocate to challenge (Christopher Hitchens acted as DA vs Mother Theresa)

So, according to the Catholic Church at least, miracles do still happen.  They are normally of the form of inexplicable reversals of disease.

I have heard of such miracles, and those common to the tele-evangelists.  The problem is that said miracles usually have the same limitation as  Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy.  They can neither be proved or disproved.  From what I have been exposed to, these miracles are for odd-minor things like one leg being shorter than the other, easing arthritis, or back pain suddenly being relieved.  It is common knowledge in medicine that sometimes such things happen on their own for natural reasons, there is also the placebo effect.  As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong with references please), there are no blind people seeing, no paraplegics throwing aside their wheelchairs,  and certainly no dead people walking out of the tomb, or at least none that can be scientifically verified.

When Jesus raised Lazurus from the dead in John 11 he proclaims ""Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

This tells me (along with other biblical miracle stories) that the goal of a miracle is to glorify god (or Jesus) and testify to his credibility and divinity.   Is there less of a need today to glorify god (or Jesus) and testify to his credibility and divinity?  If miracles were required to convince 1rst century goat herders, is it not reasonable to expect miracles would be required for a modern scientific people?  If god really wanted to convince human kind to follow his covenants, it would seem reasonable that he can do better than correcting one leg that is shorter than the other or easing an arthritic knee.

I agree, spontaneous remissions of cancer etc. do just happen.  But the difference is that at least the Catholic's try and investigate claims of miracles, with some level of scepticism, vs evangelical churches.  Reason being, is that you need miracles to become a saint

The difference is (between catholic view and my view) is that Catholic church will see unexplained remission of cancer as a miracle, where as I would see it as unexplained remission of cancer...

[Pigeon]

The catholic church's investigation of miracles still boils down to not understanding an unlikely event and attributing it to magic.  The alleged miracles are overwhelmingly people who are cured from typically fatal medical conditions supposedly as a result of praying to the potential saint. 

A small number of people are able to overcome seemingly fatal diseases whether or not they pray to notable catholics.  There is nothing scientific about the assumption that the putative saint caused the person to be cured, because there is no evidence for that.  How about all the people who pray to the saint-in-training and receive no cure?  Why isn't that considered evidence that the alleged saint is bogus?

[zephyr911]

Is there any latest news on arebelspy? Anyone know how he's doing?

What did I miss?

[Pigeon]

Also, re miracles and the catholic church...  Transubstantiation is a fundamental tenet of the catholic church, a miracle that happens on a daily or weekly basis in catholic churches all over the globe.  The church teaches that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, not that it is merely a symbolic transformation.  If the church had any serious interest in scientific proof of miracles, it would be very simple and straightforward to have independent scientific researchers run DNA tests on consecrated bread and wine.

It will never happen because of the dragon in the garage.

[zephyr911]

Also, re miracles and the catholic church...  Transubstantiation is a fundamental tenet of the catholic church, a miracle that happens on a daily or weekly basis in catholic churches all over the globe.  The church teaches that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, not that it is merely a symbolic transformation.  If the church had any serious interest in scientific proof of miracles, it would be very simple and straightforward to have independent scientific researchers run DNA tests on consecrated bread and wine.

It will never happen because of the dragon in the garage.

OH MY GOD, THERE'S A DRAGON IN THE GARAGE?

[PencilThinStache]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

[Gin1984]

Also, re miracles and the catholic church...  Transubstantiation is a fundamental tenet of the catholic church, a miracle that happens on a daily or weekly basis in catholic churches all over the globe.  The church teaches that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ, not that it is merely a symbolic transformation.  If the church had any serious interest in scientific proof of miracles, it would be very simple and straightforward to have independent scientific researchers run DNA tests on consecrated bread and wine.

It will never happen because of the dragon in the garage.

OH MY GOD, THERE'S A DRAGON IN THE GARAGE?

AND IT IS MINE, ALL MINE. 
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.  :D

[Beridian]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).  It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I also think that religion is an enabler that eases the religious believer into complacency because they are banking on a happy afterlife in never-never land.  I think that if people embraced the reality that this is the only life that we get, that they would be more active in supporting important causes and behave more rationally for the betterment of all.  Along the same lines (as Hitchens so well expresses), religion poisons things and enables evil.  I wonder how many terrorists would be willing to strap explosives around their waist and blow themselves up or pilot an airliner into a building if they did not have a strong belief in an afterlife?

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

[Gin1984]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).  It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I also think that religion is an enabler that eases the religious believer into complacency because they are banking on a happy afterlife in never-never land.  I think that if people embraced the reality that this is the only life that we get, that they would be more active in supporting important causes and behave more rationally for the betterment of all.  Along the same lines (as Hitchens so well expresses), religion poisons things and enables evil.  I wonder how many terrorists would be willing to strap explosives around their waist and blow themselves up or pilot an airliner into a building if they did not have a strong belief in an afterlife?

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

Only the Abrahamic religions believe that and that comes from a change in the Jewish faith because they used to believe in reincarnation.  Karma is a useful morality teacher.
I would like to point out that witches do get attacked based on their religion in this country (by Christians, still).  Here is a small example: http://patch.com/florida/newportrichey/inidents-at-pagan-author-s-home-raise-concerns
It is also not uncommon as I mentioned in this thread earlier for pagans to lose jobs, have religion be brought up in custody determinations (as a reason they should not get custody), as well as verbal and occasionally physical attacks.  Which is why, when a Christian says "you should not be mean to people based on their religion", I sit there going, you first.

[wenchsenior]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).  It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I also think that religion is an enabler that eases the religious believer into complacency because they are banking on a happy afterlife in never-never land.  I think that if people embraced the reality that this is the only life that we get, that they would be more active in supporting important causes and behave more rationally for the betterment of all.  Along the same lines (as Hitchens so well expresses), religion poisons things and enables evil.  I wonder how many terrorists would be willing to strap explosives around their waist and blow themselves up or pilot an airliner into a building if they did not have a strong belief in an afterlife?

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

Only the Abrahamic religions believe that and that comes from a change in the Jewish faith because they used to believe in reincarnation.  Karma is a useful morality teacher.

Yes, definitely a split between western and eastern schools of philosophical and religious thought.

[Gin1984]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).  It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I also think that religion is an enabler that eases the religious believer into complacency because they are banking on a happy afterlife in never-never land.  I think that if people embraced the reality that this is the only life that we get, that they would be more active in supporting important causes and behave more rationally for the betterment of all.  Along the same lines (as Hitchens so well expresses), religion poisons things and enables evil.  I wonder how many terrorists would be willing to strap explosives around their waist and blow themselves up or pilot an airliner into a building if they did not have a strong belief in an afterlife?

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

Only the Abrahamic religions believe that and that comes from a change in the Jewish faith because they used to believe in reincarnation.  Karma is a useful morality teacher.

Yes, definitely a split between western and eastern schools of philosophical and religious thought.

Not exactly.  A split between non-Abrahamic religions and all/most others.  Pagans, Native tribes etc are western just not Abrahamic.

[Jack]

Only the Abrahamic religions believe that and that comes from a change in the Jewish faith because they used to believe in reincarnation.  Karma is a useful morality teacher.

Yes, definitely a split between western and eastern schools of philosophical and religious thought.

Not exactly.  A split between non-Abrahamic religions and all/most others.  Pagans, Native tribes etc are western just not Abrahamic.

Not to mention, calling Abrahamic religions "western" is a pretty tenuous argument in and of itself.

[Chris22]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).

I think that would mean your issue lies with only a couple churches (the Catholic church and the fundamentalist [Southern Baptist?] Southern church(es).  Most other Protestant and non-Christian churches/religions don't tend to be too political in the US.

It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I'm not, by any stretch, a religious person, but why in the world would that "nauseate" you?  Who gives a shit? 

[Gin1984]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).

I think that would mean your issue lies with only a couple churches (the Catholic church and the fundamentalist [Southern Baptist?] Southern church(es).  Most other Protestant and non-Christian churches/religions don't tend to be too political in the US.

It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I'm not, by any stretch, a religious person, but why in the world would that "nauseate" you?  Who gives a shit?

Because it shows that you cannot be "not religious" in this country.  In fact, not being the "right" religion can have adverse effects on Americans, when we were are suppose to have a separation of church and state.

[thd7t]

It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I'm not, by any stretch, a religious person, but why in the world would that "nauseate" you?  Who gives a shit?

This might nauseate the poster, because it seems like a requirement, which would fail the sniff-test for a religious requirement to hold office, which is in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution.

[Chris22]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).

I think that would mean your issue lies with only a couple churches (the Catholic church and the fundamentalist [Southern Baptist?] Southern church(es).  Most other Protestant and non-Christian churches/religions don't tend to be too political in the US.

It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I'm not, by any stretch, a religious person, but why in the world would that "nauseate" you?  Who gives a shit?

Because it shows that you cannot be "not religious" in this country.  In fact, not being the "right" religion can have adverse effects on Americans, when we were are suppose to have a separation of church and state.

I wasn't aware that saying "God bless America" was an indication that one was particularly religious, outside of the general belief of some existence of a God.  I think you ascribe way too much weight to it.  Do you get mad when people say God Bless You when you sneeze?

[PencilThinStache]

Can't we all just get along? and by get along, I of course also mean not steal each other's money on a phony promise of extra blessings. As Oliver says in the beginning of his piece, ..."there are thousands of churches around America and the world which do great things for their communities...feed the hungry, clothe the poor, etc. This isn't about them..."

If only the churches would confine their efforts to feeding the hungry and clothing the poor.  Unfortunately churches and religious beliefs exert their dominance over our government and culture.  Examples include opposition to stem cell and genome research, opposition to birth control, interfering with school curriculums, and blind allegiance for Israel and other causes due to perceived biblical linkage (to name but a few).

I think that would mean your issue lies with only a couple churches (the Catholic church and the fundamentalist [Southern Baptist?] Southern church(es).  Most other Protestant and non-Christian churches/religions don't tend to be too political in the US.

It nauseates me every time I hear the President or another politician proclaim "and god bless America" at the end of a speech, because if they failed to do so they would be politically tarred and feathered.

I'm not, by any stretch, a religious person, but why in the world would that "nauseate" you?  Who gives a shit? 

I part ways w/the anti-churchers here in the same way I part ways w/the Christians who see Muslims as collectively bad, and I guess all I can do is present the same case to you that I offer them. Why, as an atheist/humanist would you alienate people who also seek to preserve free thought freedom of and from religion, tolerance, acceptance, cooperation, etc.. just because they believe in something you don't?

There's definitely a parallel between the Christian who damns muslims and the atheist who damns all religion. It's a refusal to believe that some can't approach the same fundamental values from a different perspective. You may come at it from the angle: "we only have one life on one planet w/one people, so we better act accordingly and take care of one another."  And I may come at it from the angle "Jesus teaches that we belong to one another and are responsible for the care of this planet, so we better take care of one another." Is that really a problem?

Why not deputize Christians who share most of your values as allies, rather than alienate them (us) by lumping them (us) in w/the yahoos who enslave, incarcerate, wage war, oppress, destroy those not like themselves? You could look at it in a similar way that counterinsurgents see a semi-permissive populace. We can treat the locals badly because they look like the bad guys, or we can recognize that they are the key to victory... I try to make the case to military friends who think that Muslims threaten our existence. It's never seemed to resonate with them. What say you?

//jumbled consciousness stream

[Jack]

I wasn't aware that saying "God bless America" was an indication that one was particularly religious, outside of the general belief of some existence of a God.

You say that as if "general belief of some existence of a God" was somehow not totally and completely religious in and of itself!

[wenchsenior]

Only the Abrahamic religions believe that and that comes from a change in the Jewish faith because they used to believe in reincarnation.  Karma is a useful morality teacher.

Yes, definitely a split between western and eastern schools of philosophical and religious thought.

Not exactly.  A split between non-Abrahamic religions and all/most others.  Pagans, Native tribes etc are western just not Abrahamic.

Not to mention, calling Abrahamic religions "western" is a pretty tenuous argument in and of itself.

Good point...poor choice of words on my part.

[Chris22]

I wasn't aware that saying "God bless America" was an indication that one was particularly religious, outside of the general belief of some existence of a God.

You say that as if "general belief of some existence of a God" was somehow not totally and completely religious in and of itself!

When I say "religious" I mean in the sense of it playing a significant role in your life.  I believe in the vague notion of God, and I believe in morals that may or may not stem from religious underpinnings, and I "celebrate" major Christian holidays in a generally pretty secular way.  I rarely, if ever, attend church if I can avoid it.  I believe this makes me "not religious" even though I do believe in God. 

When I think of someone who is religious, it's someone whose religion guides them in their decisions in life, attends church regularly, may let those religious feelings dictate their voting or support of candidates, etc. 

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc. 

[The_path_less_taken]

Not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion about religion. Choose your own path, etc.

But, have long wondered why someone didn't start up a church specifically as a tax saving institution/way to keep more of their hard earned $$$.

IOW, why ten or a hundred people don't get together and literally form a church...because so much of their money/property/etc is then shielded. My guess is...there are people currently doing it. Not just for spoofs, and nothing overtly obvious like the "our lady of perpetual exemptions" joked about here...just somebody with a bigass building and fleet of cars and expensive 'church' housing who would laugh their ass off if they read this thread.


Saw part of the original tv spoof and loved it, and thought him showing the examples of "send me the money" religions was spot on.

[Gin1984]

Not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion about religion. Choose your own path, etc.

But, have long wondered why someone didn't start up a church specifically as a tax saving institution/way to keep more of their hard earned $$$.

IOW, why ten or a hundred people don't get together and literally form a church...because so much of their money/property/etc is then shielded. My guess is...there are people currently doing it. Not just for spoofs, and nothing overtly obvious like the "our lady of perpetual exemptions" joked about here...just somebody with a bigass building and fleet of cars and expensive 'church' housing who would laugh their ass off if they read this thread.


Saw part of the original tv spoof and loved it, and thought him showing the examples of "send me the money" religions was spot on.

I have know some pagan groups that have tried and for a non-"traditional" religion it can be a serious, serious pain.  It took one group I know over a year to get approval with some very odd requests. 

[Eric]

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

I feel the same way.  So it makes me wonder why it has to be included every single time a speech is given.  It's also nonsensical, simply because the idea that God would choose one arbitrary geographical area full of his people over another arbitrary geographical area full of his people is absurd.

[Chris22]

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

I feel the same way.  So it makes me wonder why it has to be included every single time a speech is given.  It's also nonsensical, simply because the idea that God would choose one arbitrary geographical area full of his people over another arbitrary geographical area full of his people is absurd.

I never took it as "God bless America at the expense of all others".

[The_path_less_taken]

[]
I have know some pagan groups that have tried and for a non-"traditional" religion it can be a serious, serious pain.  It took one group I know over a year to get approval with some very odd requests.

That's interesting, because in his spoof he mentioned the checklist and how easy it seemed to be.

I also 'almost' recall someone once ranting on tv about how prisoners were demanding all sorts of things under 'religious freedom', but one jail drew the line with the guy demanding they supply him with black roosters for ritual Voodoo sacrifice. Or maybe it was Santaria? I don't recall exactly.

Years ago you could get certain menus on planes that were declared veggie or 'meeting kosher guidelines' or something but a friend mentioned that isn't the case any longer, or is severely cut back anyway.

I think most people confuse pagan with wiccan, anyway. Not that they don't share some beliefs.

[Gin1984]

[]
I have know some pagan groups that have tried and for a non-"traditional" religion it can be a serious, serious pain.  It took one group I know over a year to get approval with some very odd requests.

That's interesting, because in his spoof he mentioned the checklist and how easy it seemed to be.

I also 'almost' recall someone once ranting on tv about how prisoners were demanding all sorts of things under 'religious freedom', but one jail drew the line with the guy demanding they supply him with black roosters for ritual Voodoo sacrifice. Or maybe it was Santaria? I don't recall exactly.

Years ago you could get certain menus on planes that were declared veggie or 'meeting kosher guidelines' or something but a friend mentioned that isn't the case any longer, or is severely cut back anyway.

I think most people confuse pagan with wiccan, anyway. Not that they don't share some beliefs.

Church incorporation is based on the state which means every state can be a bit different. 

[Beridian]

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

I feel the same way.  So it makes me wonder why it has to be included every single time a speech is given.  It's also nonsensical, simply because the idea that God would choose one arbitrary geographical area full of his people over another arbitrary geographical area full of his people is absurd.

I never took it as "God bless America at the expense of all others".

You do not take "God bless America" that way, but I and others do.  It may seem petty, but when someone gushes about god blessing them with (insert blessing here, a baby, a relationship, a job, cure of an illness, prosperity, etc.), by association they are essentially saying that god chose to fuck over those that did not get those things.  What if President Obama said at the end of speech "God bless America, and god please fuck over North Korea"? 

If you have been blessed with something and I have not, and you bring god into the question, you are symbolically pounding your chest and exclaiming "god likes me better".  I certainly don't have a problem with people showing gratitude, for example saying "I was fortunate to be cured of that illness".  But when you ascribe it to god you insert a tone of arrogance into your gratitude and I find it  impolite.

I admit that the whole  "God bless America" and "god blessed us with X"  is a minor niggle, but it grates on me as a non-believer in god, and I wish we could relieve our leaders and our discussions of this obligatory superstition.  Why not have President Obama throw salt over his shoulder or rub a rabbit's foot at the end of every speech? 

And let's not even get me started on the whole "god bless you" when someone sneezes.  So someone blows snot out of their face in an uncontrolled physiological reaction, and you must utter incantations calling for an invisible mythological being to dispense special favors onto that person?  If I sneeze when I am by myself and nobody is there to call for god's assistance, do I shout out  "god bless me"?  Or am I just fucked over and must live without special protections from the great sky-captain?  What is the protocol if someone farts?

[Jack]

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

I feel the same way.  So it makes me wonder why it has to be included every single time a speech is given.  It's also nonsensical, simply because the idea that God would choose one arbitrary geographical area full of his people over another arbitrary geographical area full of his people is absurd.

I never took it as "God bless America at the expense of all others".

I can think of any number of "empty platitudes" that could not only still manage to be hugely offensive to those not in the assumed group, but could be construed as a violation of the separation between church and state when said by a government representative in his official capacity.

Imagine if instead of "god bless America" the speeches ended with "allahu akbar" or "r'amen" or even "heil..." [edit: must restrain myself from Godwining yet another thread...]

[]
I have know some pagan groups that have tried and for a non-"traditional" religion it can be a serious, serious pain.  It took one group I know over a year to get approval with some very odd requests.

That's interesting, because in his spoof he mentioned the checklist and how easy it seemed to be.

I also 'almost' recall someone once ranting on tv about how prisoners were demanding all sorts of things under 'religious freedom', but one jail drew the line with the guy demanding they supply him with black roosters for ritual Voodoo sacrifice. Or maybe it was Santaria? I don't recall exactly.

Years ago you could get certain menus on planes that were declared veggie or 'meeting kosher guidelines' or something but a friend mentioned that isn't the case any longer, or is severely cut back anyway.

I think most people confuse pagan with wiccan, anyway. Not that they don't share some beliefs.

Church incorporation is based on the state which means every state can be a bit different on.

In other words, some of our allegedly-secular state governments are using the church incorporation rules to discriminate against non-Christian religions?

[wenchsenior]

Slightly off topic, but at around ten years old I remember finding the Pledge of Allegiance creepily fascist (still do to some extent) and refused to say it with my class mates specifically because the phrase "under God" grossed me out so much. Eventually, I transitioned to saying it but dropping that part.

Re: all the empty "God bless" platitudes, I just always echo in my head, "and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch America with his noodly appendages" or "and may Zeus protect us with his glorious lightning" or some such.

It's just all SO SILLY.

[wenchsenior]

And now to return finally to the actual topic:

For those people on the forum who know people who subscribe to the prosperity gospel thing...do you have any idea why they do so? From an emotional and sociological perspective, do they talk about why/what it gives them? Do they think it's actually biblical (I understand it COULD be interpreted that way if prosperity is kept sort of vague). I'm truly interested, because as I've said several times, I think religious faith actually does have some positive elements in many cases and this is one where I wonder if I'm missing some huge benefit for the believers...

[Eric]

Slightly off topic, but at around ten years old I remember finding the Pledge of Allegiance creepily fascist (still do to some extent) and refused to say it with my class mates specifically because the phrase "under God" grossed me out so much. Eventually, I transitioned to saying it but dropping that part.

It didn't start out with the phrase under God.  That was added in 1954 during the Red Scare to emphasize that we weren't godless heathens like those Russian commies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

/\ check out the changes over time at the right side of the text

[Gin1984]

"God bless America" is pretty much an empty platitude.   I would say that President Obama is not particularly religious in that religion does not seem to outwardly guide his politics, even though he presumably believes in God, says God Bless America, and attends church.  President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

I feel the same way.  So it makes me wonder why it has to be included every single time a speech is given.  It's also nonsensical, simply because the idea that God would choose one arbitrary geographical area full of his people over another arbitrary geographical area full of his people is absurd.

I never took it as "God bless America at the expense of all others".

I can think of any number of "empty platitudes" that could not only still manage to be hugely offensive to those not in the assumed group, but could be construed as a violation of the separation between church and state when said by a government representative in his official capacity.

Imagine if instead of "god bless America" the speeches ended with "allahu akbar" or "r'amen" or even "heil..." [edit: must restrain myself from Godwining yet another thread...]

[]
I have know some pagan groups that have tried and for a non-"traditional" religion it can be a serious, serious pain.  It took one group I know over a year to get approval with some very odd requests.

That's interesting, because in his spoof he mentioned the checklist and how easy it seemed to be.

I also 'almost' recall someone once ranting on tv about how prisoners were demanding all sorts of things under 'religious freedom', but one jail drew the line with the guy demanding they supply him with black roosters for ritual Voodoo sacrifice. Or maybe it was Santaria? I don't recall exactly.

Years ago you could get certain menus on planes that were declared veggie or 'meeting kosher guidelines' or something but a friend mentioned that isn't the case any longer, or is severely cut back anyway.

I think most people confuse pagan with wiccan, anyway. Not that they don't share some beliefs.

Church incorporation is based on the state which means every state can be a bit different on.

In other words, some of our allegedly-secular state governments are using the church incorporation rules to discriminate against non-Christian religions?

Hole in ONE!!!!  We need a cheering picture here but I can't find one, imagine a whole stadium of cheering people.  ;)

[Faraday]

...

Anyway, all this "merits [or lack thereof] of religion" nonsense is beside the point: I created this thread to answer the question, "would the 'evangelical Mustachianism' thing be a good idea, and if not, why not?" Anybody have an opinion about that?

Hey Jack - I'm with you 100% on this. I've been thinking on this topic for many years. My input:
- YES I think love the concept
- But I get stuck when I think about implementation. Why?

1) Wouldn't all assets of all the members have to be owned by the church to acquire tax protected status?
2) Wouldn't all the income streams of the members have to be owned by the church to acquire tax protected status?
3) Is it possible to keep the church out of politics? (I think it should be easy to do that, but the question needs to be put out there)
4) Would there need to be a "head" of the church, or could it be "headless"? (I think Quakers work this way?)
5) Is there an existing church (I've already cited Quakers) that would serve as a good example?
6) Would it be possible to simply start a denomination of an existing church (Unitarian Universalist) in which we all share the MMM/frugalism/stoic life thought processes?
7) Who would have to listen to the inane "confessions of sin", and how could that person be compensated?
8) Would there need to be a building, or could the church denomination just be a concept?

Thoughts?

[sunday]

Anyway, all this "merits [or lack thereof] of religion" nonsense is beside the point: I created this thread to answer the question, "would the 'evangelical Mustachianism' thing be a good idea, and if not, why not?" Anybody have an opinion about that?

Whatever is being sold, whether that is evangelical Christianity, a doomsday cult, or MLM, depends on a culture where questions attacking the fundamental positions are discouraged or forbidden. Televangelists don't want anyone to question whether it is pious and god-serving to send money for them to buy private jets. Cults traditionally practice a system of isolating members from their friends and family to quash questions and dissent. MLM's use their rabid enthusiasm and high buy in costs to weed out those who have doubts. Similarly, if "Mustachianism" becomes fundamentalist and rejects questions to the principles, that to me is problematic.

Sure, certain high minded ideals like being more self sufficient, not having debt, or living within our means are good ideas to cultivate, but I think we can all agree that different people have different ways to achieve this. If "Mustachianism" gets super specific as to the how and says things like "You must live within 5 miles or work," or "Everyone must ride bikes with a cargo trailer attached," or "You will donate 1% of your pre-tax income to charity," then it verges into fundamentalism which is a big negative in my mind.

Plus, I just think it would not work with the audience. The MMM crowd skews left-leaning (less respectful of authority), science minded (many engineers), and highly educated, while fundamentalism requires that you do not question the authority and rules presented to you. Hell, the way to start a long discussion here is to present a opinion as fact (Ex: Biking is safer than driving; Poor people become demotivated due to public welfare...) and then watch the throngs bring in citations and sources to controvert the opinion.

[ChrisLansing]

...President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

Then one of these is true;

a) God is a terrible Presidential adviser.
b) God did not answer W's prayers for guidance.
c) W was praying to Dick Cheney.   

[wenchsenior]

...President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

Then one of these is true;

a) God is a terrible Presidential adviser.
b) God did not answer W's prayers for guidance.
c) W was praying to Dick Cheney.

+1!

[ChrisLansing]

Not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion about religion. Choose your own path, etc.

But, have long wondered why someone didn't start up a church specifically as a tax saving institution/way to keep more of their hard earned $$$.

IOW, why ten or a hundred people don't get together and literally form a church...because so much of their money/property/etc is then shielded. My guess is...there are people currently doing it. Not just for spoofs, and nothing overtly obvious like the "our lady of perpetual exemptions" joked about here...just somebody with a bigass building and fleet of cars and expensive 'church' housing who would laugh their ass off if they read this thread.


Saw part of the original tv spoof and loved it, and thought him showing the examples of "send me the money" religions was spot on.

I had looked into this 15 or more years ago and the details are fuzzy now, but I seem to recall that in my state it would require 3 people (minimum)    So me, my wife, and our son could form a church and tax shelter some assets and any income the church makes,  but at some point, if it is to be of benefit to us, it must be distributed to us, thus becoming our personal income again, and subject to taxation.   Of course, I'm not an accountant so I may have missed something important. 

You might be able to tax shelter some real estate, and pass it along to future generations, so long as they keep up the religious requirements.   It might be beneficial for a vacation home or some such.    Eventually the number of your descendants becomes too large, even with time share arrangements, and a new church has to be formed, requiring new capital contributions.     

[forummm]

...President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

Then one of these is true;

a) God is a terrible Presidential adviser.
b) God did not answer W's prayers for guidance.
c) W was praying to Dick Cheney.   

d) God is not omnipotent
e) The Lord works in [very] mysterious ways.

[Gin1984]

...President (W) Bush, on the other hand, was outwardly religious and made no secret that he prayed regularly to seek guidance on issues, etc.

Then one of these is true;

a) God is a terrible Presidential adviser.
b) God did not answer W's prayers for guidance.
c) W was praying to Dick Cheney.   

d) God is not omnipotent
e) The Lord works in [very] mysterious ways.

f) He was praying to the wrong God.

[Poorman]

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

You could make this same argument about non-religious people as well. 

Communism is responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths.  Nazism was a potent death machine at 15-25 million for the short period of history that it existed.  Secular regimes in general are responsible for many millions of deaths.

The non-religious crowd are not exactly saints.

[forummm]

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

You could make this same argument about non-religious people as well. 

Communism is responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths.  Nazism was a potent death machine at 15-25 million for the short period of history that it existed.  Secular regimes in general are responsible for many millions of deaths.

The non-religious crowd are not exactly saints.

There's a lot of religious belief mixed up in some of these things too. Nazis wore "God is with us" belt buckles. And Hitler invoked religious language a lot. People invoke religion as rationale for a lot of stuff.
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/148444/1069962.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

[wordnerd]

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

You could make this same argument about non-religious people as well. 

Communism is responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths.  Nazism was a potent death machine at 15-25 million for the short period of history that it existed.  Secular regimes in general are responsible for many millions of deaths.

The non-religious crowd are not exactly saints.

Yeah, I'm an atheist, but I've never been too keen on the "religion has caused countless number of wars" argument. Greed and desire for power and resources cause wars. The religion, ideology, etc. used to justify the wars is just marketing. If not religion, it'll be something else. By the same token, I also dislike the "atheism caused deaths in X regime," but I hear that less.

[wenchsenior]

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

You could make this same argument about non-religious people as well. 

Communism is responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths.  Nazism was a potent death machine at 15-25 million for the short period of history that it existed.  Secular regimes in general are responsible for many millions of deaths.

The non-religious crowd are not exactly saints.

Yeah, I'm an atheist, but I've never been too keen on the "religion has caused countless number of wars" argument. Greed and desire for power and resources cause wars. The religion, ideology, etc. used to justify the wars is just marketing. If not religion, it'll be something else. By the same token, I also dislike the "atheism caused deaths in X regime," but I hear that less.

Totally agree. Modern religion holds a lot of sway culturally, so the ravages are more visible. But humans are essentially tribal and irrational. If we didn't have the religions (and opposition to them) that we have, we'd probably just make up other tribal signifiers to justify whatever crazy stuff we feel like doing.

[forummm]

This is where Christians chime in and say "we are enlightened and have reformed, we don't burn witches or torture heretics anymore".  That is true of the moment, but as history shows, religion can quickly morph into other forms and can rapidly lead people into committing unspeakable acts, after all if you are doing god's work, anything is permissible and justified.   And as with any magic, there are no firm laws or rules, you get to pretty much make shit up to suit your whims.  Christians may be passive and docile now, but they have not always been so, and I would not expect them to remain so indefinitely.

You could make this same argument about non-religious people as well. 

Communism is responsible for an estimated 100 million deaths.  Nazism was a potent death machine at 15-25 million for the short period of history that it existed.  Secular regimes in general are responsible for many millions of deaths.

The non-religious crowd are not exactly saints.

Yeah, I'm an atheist, but I've never been too keen on the "religion has caused countless number of wars" argument. Greed and desire for power and resources cause wars. The religion, ideology, etc. used to justify the wars is just marketing. If not religion, it'll be something else. By the same token, I also dislike the "atheism caused deaths in X regime," but I hear that less.

Totally agree. Modern religion holds a lot of sway culturally, so the ravages are more visible. But humans are essentially tribal and irrational. If we didn't have the religions (and opposition to them) that we have, we'd probably just make up other tribal signifiers to justify whatever crazy stuff we feel like doing.

I agree that religion is probably over-blamed by some. But I do think that the presence of religion does enable much more war. It's much easier to get people who are already programmed to believe you to do what you want them to do. It's also much easier to get people who are already programmed to hate/dislike/mistrust/etc a certain other group to take action against them. Religion is a powerful motivating force. It helps turn people's minds (skepticism, etc) off, and that's frequently a dangerous thing.

[zephyr911]

Not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion about religion. Choose your own path, etc.

But, have long wondered why someone didn't start up a church specifically as a tax saving institution/way to keep more of their hard earned $$$.

You mean like L. Ron Hubbard did with Scientology? Actually, in his case it was not only the tax shelter but also the revenue source.
It's pretty clear - I mean the dude damn near telegraphed his intentions beforehand.

[DoubleDown]

Comparing the merits and believability of Christianity with other "belief systems" like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Greek gods, and other forms of "magic" is as lazy and misleading as comparing the financial belief systems of MMM with multilevel marketing schemes, day trading, and prosperity gospel as means of getting wealthy. Lumping those things together presupposes that they are all equally ridiculous or equally believable. In fact, though, we can use objective criteria to decide the merits of each belief system. A reasonable analysis will conclude there is more substance and reason to believe in MMM over those other financial schemes, and in Christianity over Santa Claus et al.

That's one reason people get offended to calling Christianity the same as belief in the Easter Bunny, just as people might jump to the defense of MMM if others likened it to a day-trading get-rich-quick scheme. It's flat out disingenuous and misleading.

[sol]

we can use objective criteria to decide the merits of... Christianity over Santa Claus et al.

I'd be interested in hearing about some of those criteria.  My short 38 years on earth have yet to reveal any.