[Discussion] Religion and Morality

Discussion on the difference in morality/ethics of different types and subtypes of religion, including agnositic/atheism. This includes both the literal teachings of that religion, and the general culture that persists because of/inspite of those teachings.

I think a lot of those 'franchise' churches, particularly megachurches of the Prosperity Gospel variety, are less about the salvation and more about the tax haven.

Rezzy wrote:

Sorry for the muddled thoughts and stream of consciousness gibberish, but it's a thing that I keep seeing as an outsider and I am honestly curious how believers reconcile the ability to shop around for a church they like with faith in the rigid moral code inferred from the source text?

Religious observance reflects the culture it’s embedded within. A franchised strip-mall church is so freaking American it walked right out of a Simpson’s episode.

Jonman wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

Sorry for the muddled thoughts and stream of consciousness gibberish, but it's a thing that I keep seeing as an outsider and I am honestly curious how believers reconcile the ability to shop around for a church they like with faith in the rigid moral code inferred from the source text?

Religious observance reflects the culture it’s embedded within. A franchised strip-mall church is so freaking American it walked right out of a Simpson’s episode.

Or a Neal Stephenson novel.

IMAGE(http://imgur.com/X0PaigW.jpg)

Please, who is that cartoon by?

I especially love the sweaty guy in the lower left who’s wearing a sports jersey that says “I’m sorry”.

It looks like Transmetropolitan.

Yep, that's Spider slinking over in the background.

NSMike wrote:

None of the rules changed. If you're gay, and Catholic, you can't marry the way you'd want to, and you can't have sex with who you'd want to. No Catholic priest would find anything to judge in anyone who follows those rules. Effectively, Francis said nothing.

My take on the Pope's "who am I to judge" thing is mostly inline with this. His stance was basically "I don't care which way you're built contrary to the rules so long as you still manage to follow the rules."

But as folks here say, even implying that homosexuality as an orientation isn't itself a perversion or sin is a big deal in the context of the Catholic cultural spectrum.

OG_slinger wrote:

He's a Jesuit and Jesuits are pretty much the hippies of Catholicism.

Some of them. Maybe most of them. But there's certainly a Jesuit faction that swings the other way. Francis probably knows that better than most, having lived through the Jesuits all but breaking in half during S. American wars last century.

fenomas wrote:

There's evidently just a lot of coding and decoding going on behind the stated positions.

Yes. If nothing else, we're talking about speaking into a discussion that's been continued in deep self-reference for the better part of two millennia (or six, depending on who you ask).

Rezzy wrote:

On one level I guess it's no different than the larger scope 'franchise' leaders in the divinity field. On another level I wonder why that kind of marketing move feels appropriate for a faith whose figurehead never seemed like the 'brand' kind of guy.

Creating franchise branches never seemed very moral in the scope of what is supposed to be an infallible message of salvation. Why is it allowed to persist? If the one book, one message, one core source of salvation has to be market-tested and personalized for mass appeal, what does that say about the moral message it supposedly uses as a foundation? Looking at the wide array of precepts derived from the text we have both acceptance and strong condemnation for a wide array of cultural and personal expressions. How can a core moral message with such wide interpretations in 'accepted' franchisees be considered any sort of moral authority?

Sorry for the muddled thoughts and stream of consciousness gibberish, but it's a thing that I keep seeing as an outsider and I am honestly curious how believers reconcile the ability to shop around for a church they like with faith in the rigid moral code inferred from the source text?

I'd love to hear more about how you feel about this, because I don't want to jump to conclusions about what I think you might mean. I think my answer probably is going to line up with Jonman's, though:

Jonman wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

Sorry for the muddled thoughts and stream of consciousness gibberish, but it's a thing that I keep seeing as an outsider and I am honestly curious how believers reconcile the ability to shop around for a church they like with faith in the rigid moral code inferred from the source text?

Religious observance reflects the culture it’s embedded within. A franchised strip-mall church is so freaking American it walked right out of a Simpson’s episode.

Newer denominations (and nondenominational churches with multiple branches/chapters/campuses) have been trying a lot of things to see how to best serve folks in different neighborhoods and towns—in large part because of the frequent problems that came with the megachurch format (car logistics problems, lack of community, shallowness of faith and learning). The more hipster churches went back to less formal meetings in less formal places (like hotel conference rooms, party rooms at bars and bowling alleys, people's living rooms—my church meets in the lunchroom of a local school, which we like because it means paying rent to an underfunded school). More mainstream suburban cultures did more mainstream suburban thing: grabbing up depressed storefront property, which has the benefit of included parking and easy driving access, and thereby distribute one mega church across a dozen smaller locations.

There's actually a very active discussion among folks who make churches run about the logistics of all this. Centralized accounting, or independent per location? One sermon broadcast to all locations, or live teaching and music at each? Really, just trying to figure out what works for the congregation and fits their resources (finance as well as volunteers). Older denominations settled most of this stuff centuries ago—some even froze their architecture back then.

wordsmythe wrote:

I'd love to hear more about how you feel about this, because I don't want to jump to conclusions about what I think you might mean.

I think it's the nebulous differences created by splintering into thousands of fiefdoms with the personal interpretations of a singular text guiding the observances of their flocks into factions that may last no longer than the tenure of that particular leader before being subsumed by the interpretation of their replacement.

I am an outsider that through practiced indifference and willful ignorance couldn't tell you the primary differences between a Baptist, a Catholic, an Evangelical, or a Muslim follower when it comes down to nuances of doctrine.

The thing that worries me is that I have had this conversation with staunch, lifelong believers and neither could they. Not in person. The Internet makes experts of us all so a quick Google could clear this up for me... But I did say practiced and willful. It just doesn't matter enough to me to retain because no bit of that information will tell me anything definitive about that person. I can make no moral judgements based on a person's religious affiliation or lack there of. Morality does not spring from faith in the divine in my experience with Humans. Many times, thanks to the tribal nature of social religious barriers, it shows itself in spite of it.

More meandering gibberish. I shouldn't allow myself to start composing on my phone when I know I will try to go back and edit and re-edit losing the thread many times over.

Rezzy wrote:

I am an outsider that through practiced indifference and willful ignorance couldn't tell you the primary differences between a Baptist, a Catholic, an Evangelical, or a Muslim follower when it comes down to nuances of doctrine.

The thing that worries me is that I have had this conversation with staunch, lifelong believers and neither could they.

Part of this is because it involves not just knowing what you believe, but also knowing what someone else believes. And, well, staunchness doesn't really equate to knowledge or religious literacy—at a certain point, staunchness of faith probably gets in the way of understanding others' faiths.

I love Transmetropolitan, have the whole set.

wordsmythe wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

I am an outsider that through practiced indifference and willful ignorance couldn't tell you the primary differences between a Baptist, a Catholic, an Evangelical, or a Muslim follower when it comes down to nuances of doctrine.

The thing that worries me is that I have had this conversation with staunch, lifelong believers and neither could they.

Part of this is because it involves not just knowing what you believe, but also knowing what someone else believes. And, well, staunchness doesn't really equate to knowledge or religious literacy—at a certain point, staunchness of faith probably gets in the way of understanding others' faiths.

Having been raised Catholic, we didn't talk about other faiths. At all. It took me until my mid teens to realize that something different was going on on Sundays in those other churches that weren't named after saints. I don't know how deliberate this was. After all, I'm sure my parents and other family members knew. And when my sister discovered another type of church in her late teens, despite the problems this caused around her not wanting to be Catholic anymore, they didn't try to shield me from it. I think it was mostly benign, in that they probably didn't even think about the fact that I wouldn't know the difference between a Baptist and a Greek Orthodox, let alone the differences between those and Catholics.

I think some churches, though, would apply a deliberate obfuscation of other faiths, in order to keep their adherents from asking questions. Other still would openly examine the others, pose the difficult questions openly to their audiences, and provide the "answers" to them. In some cases to quell questions, in others, to make better-equipped evangelists.

There's also a significant portion (read: most) of believers who walk into church, listen to the music, absorb what the preacher tells them, and never really studies the text of the bible themselves. These are the people who are shocked to learn about passages like Ezekiel 23:20 and 2 Kings 8:12. The ones who have been told their entire lives that, simply, their god loves them, and that they should go forth and do good.

Whenever someone talks about the differences between Christian sects it reminds me of hearing metal fans talk about why death metal is different from doom metal, or the like.

I mean, hard-core niche fans can debate the finer points for hours, and that's fine, but for anyone else it seems almost humorous that people even bother to distinguish between them.

Probably because the fans all swerved into music fanfic a long time ago; knocked the music right off its genre tracks. I mean, c'mon, it's clearly 70's 'rock opera' (horribad JCS joke).

After my recent car accident, which could have ended very badly for either of us, but did not, I got a few "Someone was looking out for you!" reactions. My immediate thought was to wonder what they'd say to the 73 year old guy who hit me, the one who honestly believed that he had not run a red light and who could have avoided the whole thing if some tiny thought had made him just touch the brake. His life got proportionately unpleasant; was that God's doing, too?

Alternatively, would they have said the same thing if I was dead? If not, why not?

It's pretty obvious that "divine intervention" is not a reasonable explanation for good or bad fortune. Not unless you want to start making unpleasant observations about God's character, or turn to ascribing his actions to mystery. (Which then begs the question, why would you believe an inscrutable God who allows bad things to happen would intervene to make good things happen to you in any reliable way?)

NSMike wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
Rezzy wrote:

I am an outsider that through practiced indifference and willful ignorance couldn't tell you the primary differences between a Baptist, a Catholic, an Evangelical, or a Muslim follower when it comes down to nuances of doctrine.

The thing that worries me is that I have had this conversation with staunch, lifelong believers and neither could they.

Part of this is because it involves not just knowing what you believe, but also knowing what someone else believes. And, well, staunchness doesn't really equate to knowledge or religious literacy—at a certain point, staunchness of faith probably gets in the way of understanding others' faiths.

Having been raised Catholic, we didn't talk about other faiths. At all. It took me until my mid teens to realize that something different was going on on Sundays in those other churches that weren't named after saints. I don't know how deliberate this was. After all, I'm sure my parents and other family members knew. And when my sister discovered another type of church in her late teens, despite the problems this caused around her not wanting to be Catholic anymore, they didn't try to shield me from it. I think it was mostly benign, in that they probably didn't even think about the fact that I wouldn't know the difference between a Baptist and a Greek Orthodox, let alone the differences between those and Catholics.

I think some churches, though, would apply a deliberate obfuscation of other faiths, in order to keep their adherents from asking questions. Other still would openly examine the others, pose the difficult questions openly to their audiences, and provide the "answers" to them. In some cases to quell questions, in others, to make better-equipped evangelists.

There's also a significant portion (read: most) of believers who walk into church, listen to the music, absorb what the preacher tells them, and never really studies the text of the bible themselves. These are the people who are shocked to learn about passages like Ezekiel 23:20 and 2 Kings 8:12. The ones who have been told their entire lives that, simply, their god loves them, and that they should go forth and do good.

One one hand, I hear you. On the other hand I think the, wider, ignorance-within percentages are due to the fact that most protestants aren't chiefly concerned with the Hebrew Tanakh. It strikes me as being in there as reference of ancient Jewish history.

I mean, sure, for example let's use that same 2 Kings 8:12 reference. It's exceedingly grim but a four minute reading of the surrounding text indicates, roughly: a Syrian guy goes to a Jewish prophet (hereafter Hebrew) and the prophet is all 'woah is the Hebrew people' and 'you will do terrible things to us Hebrews, such as X,Y,Z' The Syrian guy is all, 'no way teacher-man\brah*, I wouldn't do that'.. 'besides, I sort of don't have that power even if I wanted to and not that I would... (shifty eyes)' then the Hebrew prophet is all, 'nah you totally have it in you; I've seen(dreamt? it'. The Syrian guy then goes and strangles some other Syrian guy in his sleep -- (loosley king) of some Syrian region and usurps power.

I mean, ok, just because it's in there I don't see it as a general exhortation for the faithful to cosplay up that scene. Much like 'Murican history, I'd find it more disingenuous if it was whitewashed from the 'record'. Our documented treatment of Native Americans springs to mind [edit\add follows] even though the documents of the time come from a pro aggressor stance.

* the 'Lord' reference (unless I am misreading? honest question) seems to be directed from the Syrian guy towards the Hebrew prophet guy in the exchange.

Hazael is puzzled by the prophet Elijah's weeping, and refers to him as his "lord", yes. The prophet reveals that Hazael will do all that killing and terrorizing, and Hazael refers to himself as a servant and a dog, questioning how he could do all these "great things" (sic). The prophet tells him he's going to kill the current king of Aram. Hazael goes back to the King of Aram, who asks what the prophet said; Hazael says "Oh, you're going to be fine", and the next day, suffocates him with a wet cloth and becomes king.

Remember that God told Elijah to anoint Hazael king of Aram. So the violence and usurping that was put in motion by the prophecy was justified by God's intent.

Iron age morality, for sure.

^ No doubt. The "8:12" bit has the usual 'lay waste to everything' language. I'd add that the ~ 800ish BC\BCE morality on display here probably goes all the way up through ~ 1000+ AD, through large chunks of the European world and elsewhere -- but that's a side tangent.

Again, these are pretty much from the Tanakh minus some reordering of books. I'd have to Google-up, but I think the Torah bits are even in the exact same order (?) To me the OT is so jarring placed next to most of the NT. OT reminds me, in parts, of the Quran. Maybe the whole Abraham to Ismail vs Abraham to Isaac thing.

On one hand you have the need to point to the Jesus lineage and some prophetical stuff RE him but it seems like a lot [of other stuff] that's more 'history lesson as some scribe(s) saw it', especially when it's so tone-disparate from OT to NT. Guess you'd have to ask Constantine I and Caliph Uthman (on the Quran side).

[My bad btw, bunch of out loud think-typing here]

People in wealthy blue states are more likely to adhere strictly to moral codes, and suffer fewer problems with related issues like teen pregnancy, while speaking out against religious morality. Children are taught to be tolerant in public, but expected to follow strict rules in private. (I was raised this way.) Poor red states are more likely to push religion on citizens through policy, to go along with what their citizens want, but those citizens show less tendency to follow moral strictures and simple methods of dealing with moral issues. People in those environments tend to be less educated and less well equipped to deal with life's problems, but they turn to authoritarian approaches to try to ward them off, which works remarkably poorly compared to investments in social services and education. The exception? Mormons, who combine tolerance with conservatism to create a sort of pragmatic approach to religious conservatism in society.

Robear wrote:

People in wealthy blue states are more likely to adhere strictly to moral codes, and suffer fewer problems with related issues like teen pregnancy, while speaking out against religious morality. Children are taught to be tolerant in public, but expected to follow strict rules in private. (I was raised this way.) Poor red states are more likely to push religion on citizens through policy, to go along with what their citizens want, but those citizens show less tendency to follow moral strictures and simple methods of dealing with moral issues. People in those environments tend to be less educated and less well equipped to deal with life's problems, but they turn to authoritarian approaches to try to ward them off, which works remarkably poorly compared to investments in social services and education. The exception? Mormons, who combine tolerance with conservatism to create a sort of pragmatic approach to religious conservatism in society.

Great link.

My feeling is that the frequency and severity of risk is higher in the poorer, redder areas, which creates a psychological push for stronger defenses and harder lines.

Makes sense to me.

Not sure where to put this, but I don't think reading an interview transcript has ever made me feel sick to my stomach. Not until today, with this Washington Post interview of Jerry Falwell Jr.

You and other white evangelical leaders have strongly supported President Trump. What about him exemplifies Christianity and earns him your support?
What earns him my support is his business acumen. Our country was so deep in debt and so mismanaged by career politicians that we needed someone who was not a career politician, but someone who’d been successful in business to run the country like a business. That’s the reason I supported him.

The deficit and debt have increased during his first two years.
Yeah, Congress, the spending bill that they forced on him in order to get the military spending up to where it needed to be — he said that would be the last time he signed one of those. But he had no choice because Obama had decimated the military, and it had to be rebuilt.
Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?
No.

Is it hypocritical for evangelical leaders to support a leader who has advocated violence and who has committed adultery and lies often? I understand that a person can be forgiven their sins, but should that person be leading the country?

When Jesus said we’re all sinners, he really meant all of us, everybody. I don’t think you can choose a president based on their personal behavior because even if you choose the one that you think is the most decent — let’s say you decide Mitt Romney. Nobody could be a more decent human being, better family man. But there might be things that he’s done that we just don’t know about. So you don’t choose a president based on how good they are; you choose a president based on what their policies are. That’s why I don’t think it’s hypocritical.
There’s two kingdoms. There’s the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom. In the heavenly kingdom the responsibility is to treat others as you’d like to be treated. In the earthly kingdom, the responsibility is to choose leaders who will do what’s best for your country. Think about it. Why have Americans been able to do more to help people in need around the world than any other country in history? It’s because of free enterprise, freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurism and wealth. A poor person never gave anyone a job. A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume. It’s just common sense to me.

Well. That’s pretty f*cking insane.

"Trump, the Successful Businessman" is the greatest lie the Devil ever told.

Countdown to Falwell Jr.'s Russian ties coming out begins..

I haven't been to church in a long time, but "In heaven everyone will be equal, but on earth you should screw who you can and give nothing back" really isn't the message I remember getting back when i was...

"Like the good book says, 'Many are called, but if you don't have a good line of credit, go screw yourself.'" - GTA: Vice City

thrawn82 wrote:

I haven't been to church in a long time, but "In heaven everyone will be equal, but on earth you should screw who you can and give nothing back" really isn't the message I remember getting back when i was...

Well, they're told that good deeds don't get you into heaven, just praying for forgiveness. It's like the Emo Phillips joke about the bicycle.

thrawn82 wrote:

I haven't been to church in a long time, but "In heaven everyone will be equal, but on earth you should screw who you can and give nothing back" really isn't the message I remember getting back when i was...

It's like how Santa always gave better presents to the children of rich parents. God is just as wealth-based, and just as real.

Mixolyde wrote:
thrawn82 wrote:

I haven't been to church in a long time, but "In heaven everyone will be equal, but on earth you should screw who you can and give nothing back" really isn't the message I remember getting back when i was...

It's like how Santa always gave better presents to the children of rich parents. God is just as wealth-based, and just as real.

It won't allow me to give this 1K likes so I'm just gonna pop in and say "Amen brother!"