Satriale's P(rosciutto) & C(appicola) Thread for tasty religion debates!

sometimesdee wrote:

I wish I'd just made that up, but Big American News made it up first.

But of course, a quick Google search shows that some people really think that's the case.

Don't worry, that's not unique to the US.

UKIP councillor blames storms and floods on gay marriage

LarryC wrote:

Is this still Greek?

Yes. As far as it being a defense, you are still more concerned with whether a person can convince another that their actions are valid than whether they got to use those actions in the first place. Since we've been talking Nuremberg for awhile it's like your saying "See, the Jews could and did believe that the Nazi's actions were wrong, so the Nazi's justifications failed!" Probably of fairly small comfort to the holocaust victims.

As far as "it's really the state that is using the power" argument, I think my first paragraph in this thread is still applicable.

Yonder wrote:

There is a difference between power and privilege. The government in the US has more POWER than Religion does, because it taxes, has a military, etc, etc. However it has a lot of responsibility to go along with it, there are specific rules for how various branches operate, as well as different branches and organizations that work to enforce those rules. In the end, as imperfect as our democracy system is, the US government is at the end of the day an extension of the will of the US people, with their votes empowering it, and those votes can and are moved and withdrawn to different factions of the government in response to the will of the people.

So when my government exerts power over me it is theoretically doing so along the will of the people, and in response to those actions me and others can change votes, etc, etc. When a religion exerts power over me I can... wait, I'm not in the religion... what can I do about that? Do I have to join the religion just so I can try to influence it? WTF?

Also, I think you're not familiar with the particulars of the Hobby Lobby case, because the Hobby Lobby case is NOT an example of the religion co-opting government power. It is an example of a religion having superiority over government power.

The government made a law "All employer provided health insurance needs to have A, B, and C to count."
Hobby Lobby said "We don't like C, it's against our religion"
and the government said "Oh, sorry, I forgot that religion trumped government, ok all employer provided health insurance needs to have A, B, and C to count, UNLESS the employer has a religious problem with C, because Religion beats Government."

So the government didn't give the religion the stick to hit people with, religious people were hitting people with a stick they already had, and then the government grabbed the stick so that religion couldn't hit people anymore, and then the religion complained and the government let go of the stick so that the religion could keep hitting people.

The whole "Government is the real source of oppression" really doesn't fly when you look at history. If strong government gave religion tools to oppress with you would expect to look back at the last several millenia and find that times of weak temporal governments had lead to low levels of religious stick-hitting. Instead you see the opposite.

OG_slinger wrote:

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

Holy or not, simple arithmetic suggests that that's no trinity.

sometimesdee wrote:

But you're getting punished with drought because of gay marriage.

I wish I'd just made that up, but Big American News made it up first.

But of course, a quick Google search shows that some people really think that's the case.

Floods are also the fault of the gays. God needs to work on his mixed messaging.

OG_slinger wrote:

No such luck. He swore that he wouldn't kill us all with water again.

Next time he'll use fire.

sometimesdee wrote:

But you're getting punished with drought because of gay marriage.

Well...sh*t!

LarryC wrote:
... Some of the Supreme Court Justices may have been part of the same sect of Christianity, and some of them may not. But the point is, that even though I think that their actions are morally and logically indefensible, they are still legally defensible and upheld by the law of the land. Sounds pretty Cast-Iron to me.

See how that is? They're using state mechanisms, not religious ones. You're compelled to obey because of state powers, not church ones. Because you don't see eye to eye on religion, they can't use that to compel you. They have to use the state because you do see eye to eye on that. You won't declare a rebellion and overthrow the state.

If it's a religious body that is essentially co-opting the state - by influencing the decisions/regulations made by the state - aren't you essentially saying that guns don't kill people, bullets do? If a religious body can influence the state to create and enforce new laws, how is that fundamentally different than the religious body create and enforcing new laws?

Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

Holy or not, simple arithmetic suggests that that's no trinity.

Onions, bell peppers, and celery is the Trinity. The addition of garlic makes it the Holy Trinity.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

Holy or not, simple arithmetic suggests that that's no trinity.

Onions, bell peppers, and celery is the Trinity. The addition of garlic makes it the Holy Trinity.

This explains why the Holy Ghost's breath is so terrible.

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

Holy or not, simple arithmetic suggests that that's no trinity.

Our chief ingredient is onion. Onion and celery. Celery and onion. Our two ingredients are celery and onion...and bell peppers. Our three ingredients are celery, onions, and bell peppers...and garlic. Our four ... no. Amongst our ingredients... Amongst our recipes... are such ingredients as celery, onions... I'll come in again.

FTFY

LouZiffer wrote:

Our chief ingredient is onion. Onion and celery. Celery and onion. Our two ingredients are celery and onion...and bell peppers. Our three ingredients are celery, onions, and bell peppers...and garlic. Our four ... no. Amongst our ingredients... Amongst our recipes... are such ingredients as celery, onions... I'll come in again.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CAJUN INQUISITION!

Jonman wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Our chief ingredient is onion. Onion and celery. Celery and onion. Our two ingredients are celery and onion...and bell peppers. Our three ingredients are celery, onions, and bell peppers...and garlic. Our four ... no. Amongst our ingredients... Amongst our recipes... are such ingredients as celery, onions... I'll come in again.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CAJUN INQUISITION!

I GAWR-ON-TEE!

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Our chief ingredient is onion. Onion and celery. Celery and onion. Our two ingredients are celery and onion...and bell peppers. Our three ingredients are celery, onions, and bell peppers...and garlic. Our four ... no. Amongst our ingredients... Amongst our recipes... are such ingredients as celery, onions... I'll come in again.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE CAJUN INQUISITION!

I GAWR-ON-TEE!

GWAR on tee.

IMAGE(http://images.backstreetmerch.com/images/products/bands/clothing/gwa/bsi_gwa26.GIF)

OK, I'll stop the derail now. Sorry.

Jayhawker wrote:

Is this the new Hannibal thread for Season 3? Woohoo!

I'm a little bummed no one clicked. It opens with this gem by Will:

Our mind can concoct all sorts of scenarios when we don't want to believe something. They construct fairy tales, and we accept them.

and finishes with Will forgiving Hannibal for the tasty treats he consumes.

Yes, I was joking, but it was actually relevant!

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
LarryC wrote:
... Some of the Supreme Court Justices may have been part of the same sect of Christianity, and some of them may not. But the point is, that even though I think that their actions are morally and logically indefensible, they are still legally defensible and upheld by the law of the land. Sounds pretty Cast-Iron to me.

See how that is? They're using state mechanisms, not religious ones. You're compelled to obey because of state powers, not church ones. Because you don't see eye to eye on religion, they can't use that to compel you. They have to use the state because you do see eye to eye on that. You won't declare a rebellion and overthrow the state.

If it's a religious body that is essentially co-opting the state - by influencing the decisions/regulations made by the state - aren't you essentially saying that guns don't kill people, bullets do? If a religious body can influence the state to create and enforce new laws, how is that fundamentally different than the religious body create and enforcing new laws?

It's different because you can separate the church from the state. You can't separate the church from itself. A theocracy isn't the same as an otherwise secular government with a strong religious lobby.

Thats a theoretical difference, but not really a practical one. As the influence of said lobby increases, the line between theocracy and heavily-influenced-by-religion secular govt blurs.

That's like saying that the difference between an octopus and a rock surface is largely theoretical.

Al wrote:

Where does Christianity's decline and unaffiliated's rise in the US fit into all this?

That is really interesting. A few thoughts I had from the first page.

1. I wonder if there is a general trend of people getting more religious as they get older.
2. If the answer to 1 is no then things are going to get real crazy real fast as the Baby Boomer (85% religious) and Older Millenials (56% religious) and their kids start making up a larger portion of the population.

LarryC wrote:

That's like saying that the difference between an octopus and a rock surface is largely theoretical.

...I don't even know what you're saying.

Do you see a significant, boots-on-the-ground difference a guy beating you up because he wants you beaten and someone else ordering that guy to beat you up because they want you beaten? You still get beaten up because someone wants you beaten.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:
Al wrote:

Where does Christianity's decline and unaffiliated's rise in the US fit into all this?

That is really interesting. A few thoughts I had from the first page.

1. I wonder if there is a general trend of people getting more religious as they get older.
2. If the answer to 1 is no then things are going to get real crazy real fast as the Baby Boomer (85% religious) and Older Millenials (56% religious) and their kids start making up a larger portion of the population.

A) updated the thread title to what it always should have been;

B) kinda the reason for this spin-off thread: people don't even want to go to Blockbuster anymore to rent a disc--how long before they stop going to Churches on Sunday when they can get all their plays--passion or otherwise--at home through streaming (or Steaming)? Like the article reads:

Of the major subgroups within American Christianity, mainline Protestantism – a tradition that includes the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Churches USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church, among others – appears to have experienced the greatest drop in absolute numbers. In 2007, there were an estimated 41 million mainline Protestant adults in the United States. As of 2014, there are roughly 36 million, a decline of 5 million – although, taking into account the surveys’ combined margins of error, the number of mainline Protestants may have fallen by as few as 3 million or as many as 7.3 million between 2007 and 2014.9

By contrast, the size of the historically black Protestant tradition – which includes the National Baptist Convention, the Church of God in Christ, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Progressive Baptist Convention and others – has remained relatively stable in recent years, at nearly 16 million adults. And evangelical Protestants, while declining slightly as a percentage of the U.S. public, probably have grown in absolute numbers as the overall U.S. population has continued to expand.

It's the churches that only have religion to offer as opposed to an extra-religious identity that are losing the most adherents.

Jayhawker wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Is this the new Hannibal thread for Season 3? Woohoo!

I'm a little bummed no one clicked.

I love that show, but you've been such a dick to me over the years, I was conflicted.

Kamikazi010654 wrote:

1. I wonder if there is a general trend of people getting more religious as they get older.
2. If the answer to 1 is no then things are going to get real crazy real fast as the Baby Boomer (85% religious) and Older Millenials (56% religious) and their kids start making up a larger portion of the population.

This article from WaPo may help.

“Some have asked, ‘Might they become more religiously affiliated as they get older?’ There’s nothing in this data to suggest that’s what’s happening,” he said. Millennials get married later than older generations, but they are not necessarily more likely to become religiously affiliated, he said.
Robear wrote:
Kamikazi010654 wrote:

1. I wonder if there is a general trend of people getting more religious as they get older.
2. If the answer to 1 is no then things are going to get real crazy real fast as the Baby Boomer (85% religious) and Older Millenials (56% religious) and their kids start making up a larger portion of the population.

This article from WaPo may help.

“Some have asked, ‘Might they become more religiously affiliated as they get older?’ There’s nothing in this data to suggest that’s what’s happening,” he said. Millennials get married later than older generations, but they are not necessarily more likely to become religiously affiliated, he said.

I had the great priviledge of sitting in on a Vietnam combat veterans group today. I would say they are all spiritual and completely without religion. We had a brief discussion on the personal balance of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual health.

Many of them witnessed or experienced spiritially troubling things in Vietnam and some tried dealing with it through religion. Their religious clergy failed.

The spiritual needs of many people are not being met in church. I do not believe it is an issue of providing entertainment or distraction to fickle "millenials." I think it's a matter of not having educated and informed clergy who are capable of addressing deep existential and spiritual issues on a substantive level.

IE: I don't care who my neighbor is having sexy sex times with. Stop talking about it. Why does an all powerful, all good god allow genuinely sh*tty things to happen?

OG_slinger wrote:
Jonman wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The only Holy Trinity I actually understand is onions, bell peppers, celery, and garlic.

Holy or not, simple arithmetic suggests that that's no trinity.

Onions, bell peppers, and celery is the Trinity. The addition of garlic makes it the Holy Trinity.

You seem to be confusing bell peppers and celery with olive oil.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
LarryC wrote:

That's like saying that the difference between an octopus and a rock surface is largely theoretical.

...I don't even know what you're saying.

Do you see a significant, boots-on-the-ground difference a guy beating you up because he wants you beaten and someone else ordering that guy to beat you up because they want you beaten? You still get beaten up because someone wants you beaten.

Yes, I do. In the first case, I'm definitely going to get beaten up. In the second case, I have a chance if I have a large enough bribe.

It doesn't work that way in the U.S., Larry. That's what we're trying to tell you.

This interview on the business origins of American Fundamentalism will interest LarryC as well as the rest of you reprobates.

Whereas older ideas would see society as more of an organic unity, they see it as a collection of individuals.

One of the main points of my story is that the particular arrangement we see today of evangelicals’ alignment with business is not a new phenomenon. It can be traced back, specifically to the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. It was not there before. And it did not start after World War II. It really started here.

I’m also arguing against the idea that American Protestantism has always been guided by the logic of the market. That’s not true. There was a shift in American Protestantism which is connected to this other shift in economic history.

What shifts in the business world is there’s an underlying assumption that I make my economic decisions out of my own self interest, that everybody is doing that, and society is better off as a result, rather than have to make business decisions in light of how it might affect society—that’s not the question. It’s all about me and my rational choices and other people’s rational choices, which makes it into a game of sorts. And this isn’t always the way that it was.

In the same way, religious experience is re-conceptualized as individualistic.

In the traditional, “churchly” model—if I can make a generalization here—when you had individual Bible reading, the person who is superintending your interpretation of the Bible and saying whether you’re believing the right thing or the wrong thing is your minister. And your minister knows what’s correct based on going to seminary. That belief is then superintended by a theological tradition that precedes that credentialing. All these things bear on what the proper interpretation of the Bible is.

But in the evangelical context, it is all about you and God.

Reaper81 wrote:

The spiritual needs of many people are not being met in church. I do not believe it is an issue of providing entertainment or distraction to fickle "millenials." I think it's a matter of not having educated and informed clergy who are capable of addressing deep existential and spiritual issues on a substantive level.

Oops, that was a reference to the earlier part of the conversation. It's not "distraction" and I'm not calling anyone "fickle." I'm just thinking of humans as humans. I was reminded of this conversation today by this piece; the part that stood out reads:

Some Christians may believe that, say what we will, what we respond to in “The Lord of the Rings” is its Christian essence. But in that case, why aren’t we converted once the truth is revealed to us? If anything, discovering the Christian subtext of Tolkien and Lewis’ fiction can be alienating to a young reader. When, in my early teens, someone clued me into the religious symbolism of “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” — the great, cherished book of my childhood — the revelation made me reject Lewis, not embrace his God.

...

As a child, what I liked best about the Narnia books wasn’t the passion and resurrection of Aslan, but the talking animals and, above all, the creatures from classical, Norse and Germanic mythology. And, in fact, Lewis’ own interlude of unbelief — from his teens through his late 20s — was, he wrote, motivated by his love of pagan cultures, imagery and stories. It wasn’t until Tolkien convinced him he didn’t have to give up these delights, that there was a way to reconceive of them as premonitions of the Christian truth, that Lewis was finally able to convert. When critics dismiss “The Chronicles of Narnia” as no more than crypto-Christian parables, they miss what’s right in front of their faces: that the materials the series is built from are almost entirely non-Christian, in fact pre-date Christianity. Christianity may be old, but that stuff is older.

as some people love to point out, the Christianity we know today didn't spring fully formed out of first century disciples and apostles--it absorbed from the pagan world what it came into contact with, from the Christmas Tree and the Easter Bunny to more central ideas like the importance of the soul. Humans make sense of their world through stories. For a long time religion had a monopoly on the stories humans used to make sense of the world and their place in it. There's a lot of talk about a Technological Singularity, but what about the idea that we are living post-singularity in terms of entertainment? (edit): in other words, I'm asking the question of what it means for religion when religion's massive involvment in storytelling has slipped away so quickly and so completely? Storytelling is fundamental to humanity, so what does it mean for religion when religion loses its grip on something so fundamental to humanity?

IE: I don't care who my neighbor is having sexy sex times with. Stop talking about it. Why does an all powerful, all good god allow genuinely sh*tty things to happen?

The thing is, when religion stops talking about that kind of stuff, what makes religion special? Those Vietnam guys you're talking about are *old* man! They come from an era where they would like, order a burger and fries late on a Friday and if they were Catholic only eat the fries until midnight rolled around. What happens as generations go on and live lives where religion is so much less a central part of their experience?

Like, in the end, the question of why do bad things happen to good people is just the question of what gives meaning to human lives that are short and contain so much pain. That's a question everyone has to answer--atheists don't have to defend the existence of a god, but the more I think about it, the less important that detail is. Religious or not the big problem in this question is the search for meaning.

When psychology and philosophy can provide an answers, what's so special about what religion can provide? We should ask ourselves what religion was providing that people needed, and the things I come up with are the stories by which we make sense of the world and our place in it, and a code of morality. We can get those stories and that sense of identity from secular sources now; what role is there for religion when the morality it teaches is no more 'religious' than basically do what you want if it harms no one else?

I can think of a lot more things than storytelling that a religion has (well, Abrahamic and many others, anyway):

Pre-built social system - know where you fit in even with strangers.
Pre-built judicial system - know where the cultural and social boundaries are.
Shared ritual and customs - fit into society more easily with co-religionists.
Shared "history" which can supplant actual family and cultural histories, easing entry into new community.
Social and psychological support infrastructure for all members.
Material support infrastructure for all members.

To me, the stories are often "just so" tales which exist to support the above features. Others are celebratory, and in fact in the ancient Abrahamic religions (as in many which preceded it in the region and influenced it) the stories are often songs or poems, intended for entertainment as much as encouragement and indoctrination. But religion clearly used existing methods and structures of storytelling; it didn't invent it, and storytelling won't die or lose it's utility if religion fades into the background.

Robear wrote:

I can think of a lot more things than storytelling that a religion has (well, Abrahamic and many others, anyway):

Pre-built social system - know where you fit in even with strangers.
Pre-built judicial system - know where the cultural and social boundaries are.
Shared ritual and customs - fit into society more easily with co-religionists.
Shared "history" which can supplant actual family and cultural histories, easing entry into new community.
Social and psychological support infrastructure for all members.
Material support infrastructure for all members.

Right, but you're talking historically. I agree with you about all that, but I'm talking about humanity going forward, assuming a liberal/progressive attitude towards the world. The first four are all things we're supposed to turn away from as we embrace diversity in our laws and our communities.* The last one is supplanted by the social welfare state (and even religions that don't require you to listen to the sermon to get the bowl of soup).

The fifth one is what I'm talking about: when you can get your stories from secular media, your identity from that media, your psychological support from actual psychologists, and your search for meaning from philosophy and other religious traditions, what is going to draw people in to religion when you can get so much of what religion used to provide from other places? Like I said, I agree that historically all of what you say is true. But history is the story of change over time. And forgive the quote, but the times are a-changing.

To me, the stories are often "just so" tales which exist to support the above features. Others are celebratory, and in fact in the ancient Abrahamic religions (as in many which preceded it in the region and influenced it) the stories are often songs or poems, intended for entertainment as much as encouragement and indoctrination. But religion clearly used existing methods and structures of storytelling; it didn't invent it, and storytelling won't die or lose it's utility if religion fades into the background.

Oh, I'm not saying that storytelling is going to lose it's value if religion fades into the background: I'm saying kinda the opposite. I'm saying storytelling is *so* valuable that maybe much of the historical appeal of religion has to do with how much of our storytelling was also our religion. That's not true anymore--we can get our storytelling from secular sources now. Which means religion has lost one of its major tools for drawing people in. No, I'm not saying storytelling is going anywhere: what I'm asking is how does religion stay relevant when so much of its relevance comes from religion's dominance of storytelling?

* (edit) in fact, that's what I'm talking about when I say people don't realize what they're asking for when they say "why can't religion just preach The Golden Rule and get out of my bedroom." I'm questioning if that's where the power of religion as a cultural force comes from: from dividing you from other people, often by telling you they do dirty things like sodomy or pork eating.

Cheeze_Pavilion wrote:

what I'm asking is how does religion stay relevant when so much of its relevance comes from religion's dominance of storytelling?

Through the benefits of in-group/out-group identification for the members of the religion, of course. And I kind of doubt that sort of thinking is going away... Even many atheists, today, are strongly invested in that paradigm of thought. I suspect that's one of the *last* elements of a religion to go away. One contemporary example is the rise of "secular Judaism", where the culture and rituals and holidays are preserved even in the explicit absence of belief in the religion itself. It maintains the group identity while pushing required beliefs to the side.