What do you Believe??? (Religion)

[No Excuses]

9 minutes ago, superozman said:

Which churches?  I'm not aware of a Protestant division called the American church.  If you are talking as a whole in America, I'm still not sure I've ever been in contact with a church is telling me, or witnessing telling others "GO VOTE REPUBLICAN!"   Furthermore, you keep stating catch phrases of far left leaning people, so unless your discussion is on religion directly correlating to the topic, the religion versus politics discussion might be worth its own thread if you'd like to start, unless there is one already.  

 

Prominent and highly influential Christian leaders in the US like Jerry Falwell and now his ****head son have consistently supported and mobilized millions of voters in favor of the standard GOP politics of anti-poor and anti-minority rights.

 

It's kind of silly that I even have to highlight the nexus between American Christianity and the party of Donald Trump but here we are.

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

"It is, of course, impossible to conclude from any of this data that secularism, in and of itself, causes societal well-being, or that religiosity causes social ills." 

 

The op-ed you are citing seems to disagree with your own thesis that you are using it for.

 

Not my point. I am not pinning secularism as the only cause of social and economic prosperity.

 

But as a basic fact, secular societies are either creating more stable social groups or sustaining them far better than religious ones.

 

Within the US, the difference between the values and policies of the secular states of the US versus the most religious ones is really quite stark and really can't be dismissed as "correlation". There is a historic pattern of discrimination against the poor, against minorities and against women in the most religious states of the US that goes back centuries. It is a basic moral failure of people who adhere the strongest to a religion-derived moral code.

Edited April 5, 2019 by No Excuses

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Not my point. I am not pinning secularism as the only cause of social and economic prosperity.

 

But as a basic fact, secular societies are either creating more stable social groups or sustaining them far better than religious ones.

 

Within the US, the difference between the values and policies of the secular states of the US versus the most religious ones is really quite stark and really can't be dismissed as "correlation". There is a historic pattern of discrimination against the poor, against minorities and against women in the most religious states of the US that goes back centuries. It is a basic moral failure of people who adhere the strongest to a religion-derived moral code.

 

Well, I didn't say only cause and neither did the part of your op-ed that I quoted.  But you seem to be suggesting some causation or you wouldn't have objected to my comment that correlation doesn't indicate causation.

 

See, I think you are confused here though.  All of the states used to be have high amounts of people with religiosity.  It was the Quakers in the US and the UK that very much lead the initial charge to end slavery.

 

But even those centuries ago, there were differences between the north and the south in terms of discrimination.  You had a country that nationally would have reported extremely high amounts of religiosity and you already saw there were difference in terms of many of these attitudes even among very among the most religious people (e.g the Quakers of the North and the Baptists in the south).

Edited April 5, 2019 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

@No Excuses the republican platform is at odds with huge swaths of what's actually in the Bible regarding helping the poor and reaching out to people one wouldn't expect to reach out to. 

 

The GOP struck a deal with evangelicals to push for the ideals that are biggest rally points, like abortion, to keep their numbers up, but young evangelicals are starting to see through that, polls show that.  The hypocrisy of seeing their parents slob all over Trump is getting ready to backfire.

 

I don't think it's right to say the failing GOP controlled states are more religious if they are slashing programs for the poor, something Christianity puts as a priority.  I'm not sure I can buy the correlation between lack of economic production and religion when a lot of those states you are describing are land locked and not regular infused with immigrants like the coasts.  Kansas has a blue governor because they cut taxes to the point the state was about to fall apart, not because of religion.

[superozman]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Prominent and highly influential Christian leaders in the US like Jerry Falwell and now his ****head son have consistently supported and mobilized millions of voters in favor of the standard GOP politics of anti-poor and anti-minority rights.

 

It's kind of silly that I even have to highlight the nexus between American Christianity and the party of Donald Trump but here we are.

 

So many people would state that Jerry Falwell is a hack that used religion as crutch in many ways, or maybe he started with good intentions but he obviously went amiss.  How I remember him is his awful comments on 9/11 and that he's a megachurch guy.  But i'm sure there are some politically charged MegaChurch people like him and his son.  His son I only know as a pro Trump guy, but he's not the head of the church.

But again, I go back to you are stemming this from politics.  I'm not trying to convince you, nor did I enter in this to convince anyone.  

[nonniey]

4 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

You should have just left it at “it’s a movie quote”. 

 

In the US, it’s the secular left that champions feeding and comforting the sick and poor through collective action. 

 

Christianity in the US largely drives an agenda that gives tax cuts to the wealthy, cuts social safety nets for the poor and shuts the door on helpless people fleeing terror and death. 

 

 

Better look up which demographics are the most charitable and which are the least charitable again. (is this discussion on this forum a yearly or semi yearly thing?).

Edited April 5, 2019 by nonniey

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

Better look up which demographics are the most charitable and which are the least charitable again. (is this discussion on this forum a yearly or semi yearly thing?).

 

Charity giving is one aspect of good moral principles and the divide between the non-religious and religious is only a few points off. 

 

On the other hand, the most religious states in the US are breeding grounds of poverty and discrimination with atrocious social support programs. The gap between the least and most religious states is stark.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2019 by No Excuses

[No Excuses]

2 hours ago, superozman said:

But again, I go back to you are stemming this from politics. 

 

Politics and religion are so tightly linked, in America and around the world. 

 

The dominant strain of Christianity over the past several decades in the US has pushed for policies that increased income inequality and targeted minorities of all types. And within the past decade, has now advocated for shutting the door to foreign refugees escaping poverty and death.

 

If there is a version of Christianity in the US that stands in opposition to poverty and turning our backs on the vulnerable, it sure as **** isn’t doing a good job of making the case to its followers. 

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Charity giving is one aspect of good moral principles and the divide between the non-religious and religious is only a few points off. 

 

On the other hand, the most religious states in the US are breeding grounds of poverty and discrimination with atrocious social support programs. The gap between the least and most religious states is stark.

 

Why are you insisting this is a religious thing when it's more in line with something the Koch brothers want?  Nebraska doesn't stand a chance against California economically, and that has nothing to do with religion.  You make it sound like if you took religion out the picture those middle states would flourish and that's just not true, its not that simple.

Just now, No Excuses said:

 

If there is a version of Christianity in the US that stands in opposition to poverty and turning our backs on the vulnerable, it sure as **** isn’t doing a good job of making the case to its followers. 

 

This is an over generalization if every I've seen one.  Keep in mind in OP is asked for people to say what they believe, this is not be religion bashing thread.

[No Excuses]

Just now, Renegade7 said:

 

Why are you insisting this is a religious thing when it's more in line with something the Koch brothers want?  Nebraska doesn't stand a chance against California economically, and that has nothing to do with religion.  You make it sound like if you took religion out the picture those middle states would flourish and that's just not true, its not that simple.

 

People vote with their values, and adherents of Christianity in the US have dominantly favored right wing policies that have gone against the interests of the poor and targeted minorities. 

 

If the moral principles of a religion are to look after the poor and the vulnerable, you would see them reflected in the policies and views of its people. Yet time and time and time again, majority of Christians in the US play a role in creating a society that values money and power over the poor and vulnerable. 

 

So no, I don’t expect Nebraska to compete economically with California. But California isn’t electing Senators who cut taxes for the wealthy and propose budget cuts for Medicaid and Medicare.

[No Excuses]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This is an over generalization if every I've seen one.  Keep in mind in OP is asked for people to say what they believe, this is not be religion bashing thread.

 

You can call it religion bashing but I am simply providing a counter argument to the ever bogus claim that religion is needed to create a society with good moral values (which has been said repeatedly in this thread). It's a nonsense claim that time and time again is not supported by empirical data.

[Renegade7]

12 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

People vote with their values, and adherents of Christianity in the US have dominantly favored right wing policies that have gone against the interests of the poor and targeted minorities. 

 

If the moral principles of a religion are to look after the poor and the vulnerable, you would see them reflected in the policies and views of its people. Yet time and time and time again, majority of Christians in the US play a role in creating a society that values money and power over the poor and vulnerable. 

 

So no, I don’t expect Nebraska to compete economically with California. But California isn’t electing Senators who cut taxes for the wealthy and propose budget cuts for Medicaid and Medicare.

So are we saying the majority of Christians are republican now?  This is more a problem of polarity and lack of middle ground between the two parties.  Like I mentioned, GOP feeds on the hot button topics of evangelicals to get them out to vote while at same time they absolutely are on the ground helping the poor.  You are throwing too many people in the wrong bucket. 

 

My hope is the future of evangliam accepts that the battle on topics like abortion are lot because they are far more supportive of social programs then they are given credit for or in some cases even realize.  "Got the government out my Medicaid" is embarrassing to hear, but it happens thanks to entities like Fox, not the church.

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

You can call it religion bashing but I am simply providing a counter argument to the ever bogus claim that religion is needed to create a society with good moral values (which has been said repeatedly in this thread). It's a nonsense claim that time and time again is not supported by empirical data.

 

I've avoided responding to @Sacks 'n' Stuff regarding if we would've made it this far as a civilization without religion.  Id say no, where we go from here is a different conversation.  It's a philosophy question, I don't think we would've made it straight to scientific method first, we aren't wired for that, and kinda nerve racking if there never was religion what we might be.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Renegade7

[No Excuses]

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

So are we saying the majority of Christians are republican now?  This is more a problem of polarity and lack of middle ground between the two parties.  Like I mentioned, GOP feeds on the hot button topics of evangelicals to get them out to vote while at same time they absolutely are on the ground helping the poor.  You are throwing too many people in the wrong bucket.  My hope is the future of evangliam accepts that the battle on topics like abortion are lot because they are far more supportive of social programs then they are given credit for or in some cases even realize.  "Got the government out my Medicaid" is embarrassing to hear, but it happens thanks to entities like Fox, not the church.

 

Yes, majority of Christians in the US are Republicans.

 

This is a convenient way of excusing the abysmal moral failures of American Christianity. You are basically stating that we should ignore the active role its leaders and adherents play in shaping our social values and the consequences of their views.

 

If Fox news is enough to corrupt your so-called moral values, then it begs the question what good the source of those moral values is to begin with. But again, this isn't the case. The US church in my lifetime has been a champion of discrimination and now stands shoulder to shoulder with the most morally bankrupt person to run for political office in modern time.

Edited April 5, 2019 by No Excuses

[Renegade7]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Yes, majority of Christians in the US are Republicans.

 

This is a convenient way of excusing the abysmal moral failures of American Christianity. You are basically stating that we should ignore the active role its leaders and adherents play in shaping our social values and the consequences of their views.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, most Christians aren't like Joel Olsten or Jerry Fallwell, and that sucks if you feel otherwise.  I said clearly that people are being forced to chose between two extremes in American politics and I see that even if you don't.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Renegade7

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Don't put words in my mouth, most Christians aren't like Joel Olsten or Jerry Fallwell

 

 

Really? Because a vast majority of them chose to vote for Donald Trump.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ft_16-11-09_relig_exitpoll_attendance/

 

In fact, the most religiously active Christians, were strong supporters of this morally bankrupt buffoon.

 

While they are free to vote for whoever they want, the rest of us are free to derive conclusions about their moral values and priorities based on the kind of society they favor creating.

Edited April 5, 2019 by No Excuses

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Really? Because a vast majority of them chose to vote for Donald Trump.

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ft_16-11-09_relig_exitpoll_attendance/

 

In fact, the most religiously active Christians, were strong supporters of this morally bankrupt buffoon.

 

While they are free to vote for whoever they want, the rest of us are free to derive conclusions about their moral values and priorities based on the kind of society they favor creating.

 

Am I reading that poll correctly, all it says is if you voted for Trump you were more likely to go to church every sunday.  That doesn't correlate to the worst of what we are talking about in this thread, especially when voting either way and going to church monthly and few times a year are almost dead even.

 

And no I don't want you to go find stats that show how the worst things about Christianity are perpetuated by those who voted for Trump and that's why red states are failing. That's not what this thread is about.  You want start over and just say what you believe while being a little less antagonistic?

[No Excuses]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Am I reading that poll correctly, all it says is if you voted for Trump you were more likely to go to church every sunday.  That doesn't correlate to the worst of what we are talking about in this thread, especially when voting either way and going to church monthly and few times a year are almost dead even.

 

And no I don't want you to go find stats that show how the worst things about Christianity are perpetuated by those who voted for Trump and that's why red states are failing. That's not what this thread is about.  You want start over and just say what you believe while being a little less antagonistic?

 

The poll shows a breakdown of how members of each religious group voted, showing that Christians by and large supported Trump.

 

I believe I have already stated that I am non-religious. I joined in the discussion when I saw the same stale argument of "religious society = better moral values". If religion bashing is pointing out factually backed moral failures of religious people and the higher quality of life in secular societies, then so be it. I don't get why the religious are so sensitive about being held to a higher standard.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

I believe I have already stated that I am non-religious. I joined in the discussion when I saw the same stale argument of "religious society = better moral values". If religion bashing is pointing out factually backed moral failures of religious people and the higher quality of life in secular societies, then so be it. I don't get why the religious are so sensitive about being held to a higher standard.

 

I'm sorry you got bored or that's all you gathered from this thread, but what you want is not what this thread is for.  Welcome to make your own and I'd be happy to participate when I have time.  We've had enough religion bashing threads, imo, why I started this one.

[JCB]

Still a compelling Christian voice to me:

 

https://sojo.net/

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

Charity giving is one aspect of good moral principles and the divide between the non-religious and religious is only a few points off. 

 

On the other hand, the most religious states in the US are breeding grounds of poverty and discrimination with atrocious social support programs. The gap between the least and most religious states is stark.

 

 

I FYI  identified as an agnostic (reluctantly - ie don't want to be one but when you think about it - agnostic really is something you can't choose to be or not be).

 

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives

......Religious practice is the behavioral variable most consistently associated with generous giving. Charitable effort correlates strongly with the frequency with which a person attends religious services. Evangelical Protestants and Mormons in particular are strong givers. Compared to Protestant affiliation, both Catholic affiliation and Jewish affiliation reduce the scope of average giving, when other influences are held constant.

Finer-grain numbers from the PSID show that the faithful don’t just give to religious causes; they are also much more likely to give to secular causes than the non-religious. Among Americans who report that they “never” attend religious services, just less than half give any money at all to secular causes. People who attend services 27-52 times per year, though, give money to secular charities in two thirds of all cases. (See page 1138.)

Sociologist Robert Putnam has chronicled the many pro-social and philanthropic overflow effects of religious practice. Not only is half of all American personal philanthropy and half of all volunteering directly religious in character, but nearly half of all associational membership in the U.S. is church-related. Religious practice links us in webs of mutual knowledge, responsibility, and support like no other influence.

Indeed, faith is as important as basic financial success in increasing giving. And religious conviction is often what separates one sub-group from another when it comes to charitable practice. For instance, African Americans, who are generally more religious than whites, are consequently 18 percent bigger givers when households of the same income, region, education, and so forth are compared.......

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, JCB said:

Still a compelling Christian voice to me:

 

https://sojo.net/

Probably one of the reasons I still semi-identify as Christian.

 

Anymore I don't know what I believe, pretty crazy huh? I don't talk about this openly but I haven't been to church in over 5 years, and I have no inclination to return. If I describe myself as anything it would probably be as a philosophical Christian. Meaning a liberalized pseudo-Christian morality but the spiritual aspects gutted from it. It might be considered an agnostic with a liberal Christian morality. 

 

I doubt nearly all aspects of the spiritual side of Christian doctrine and theology, up to and including the existence of god.

 

Yeah, it's been a long road. My biggest problems:

1: the problem of evil, why does god save one person in a car wreck yet not another.

2: theological divergence over time rather than cohesion challenges the sufficiency of god's revelation and holy spirit guiding the faithful

3: the idea of the "true" or "authentic" church being hidden. Every time I ask about evangelical support for Trump I hear Christians tell me that the real church is out there in spite of everything. Yet, that's always the excuse, if you don't see it then it must be hidde. Sooner or later it should probably show up.

 

That's where it starts, but it goes on from there.

[twa]

 

"A house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the Universe imply a Creator."  -Akiba

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

"A house implies a builder, and a garment a weaver, and a door a carpenter, so does the existence of the Universe imply a Creator."  -Akiba

 

The presumption is that the universe, galaxies, Earth are constructed. 

See, those arguments simply don't hold water for me. The natural world doesn't have nail holes.

[Zguy28]

4 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

You can call it religion bashing but I am simply providing a counter argument to the ever bogus claim that religion is needed to create a society with good moral values (which has been said repeatedly in this thread). It's a nonsense claim that time and time again is not supported by empirical data.

Ok. In your counter argument, what is "good"? As in good vs. evil or moral vs immoral? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to judge between good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must admit that there is a moral lawgiver. The moral lawgiver is God. If it is not, and it is humanity itself that gives the moral law (as you and many others here obviously believe), then it is completely subjective and who are you to say your opponent is wrong/bad/evil?

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

The presumption is that the universe, galaxies, Earth are constructed. 

See, those arguments simply don't hold water for me. The natural world doesn't have nail holes.

 

it does have things holding it together 

 

Good Luck on your journey.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

it does have things holding it together 

 

Good Luck on your journey.

Thank you.