Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From my own observations, and not something I'm backing up with data, I think the role of churches in American doing things like feeding and providing health care for the poor has been lackluster most of the time. Even growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, when there was more of a crusading nature to religion (hence, Billy Graham), I can't remember very many things that my grandmother's methodist church did for people who were truly struggling...except for a few limited reach-outs to members of the church. On the other hand, there were repeated campaigns to collect money and sent it on to Kenya, with the STATED PURPOSE of conversion. I saw even less of a giving to the poor attitude when I converted to catholicism...at least not in my town's catholic church. The financial campaigns were virtually always about keeping up the church and rectory.
Don't get me wrong. I've also seen churches or "informal religious groups" who did great things. Not sure about now since I no longer live in the area, but the Catholic Charities Of Richmond had some wonderful community programs for refugees that, from what I saw, had no hook. I had a group of friends in Colorado who spent one morning a week working at the local soup kitchen feeding the poor. Admittedly (literally) some of them did it as a means to socialize with their friends. But there was at least one couple who went far beyond that one morning; they delivered meals on wheels for the elderly several days a week, and if there was some sort of charitable event going on, they were likely involved...that one couple was truly dedicated.
I guess what I question is based on the generosity that christians in this country like to claim, are they following through with an appropriate level of donations. My experience has been that generally the answer to that is no. What is an appropriate level?
I've no argument with the above, however my reference to welfare was meant to mean secular, as in government assistance. And I had been assuming that the OP was referencing the spiritual aspects of religion associated with dampening aspirations. Things such as....Accept your place in society, your true reward will be in the afterlife.
How true that last still is, I'm uncertain, but it was clearly the major dynamic behind the medieval social structure. The church taught that some were chosen by god to be kings and lords, some were chosen to be god's representatives on earth, and others were selected to live humble lives of service in anticipation of that post corporal paradise. It was a system which successfully depended upon the poor never stopping to ask....Why are all the earthly benefits being monopolized by the lords and the clergy? It was a system which required a fusion or at least close alliance of church and state. It was the clergy which told the masses that god had ordained and sanctioned the rule of this particular king, and it was the king who returned that favor by outlawing any religion other than the one which was supporting him.
So, I would say that the OP thesis was very true in the past, but less so today due to the separation of church and state in most western societies. Welfare has stepped into the gap, a more tangible, secular reward for a more tangible, secular time.
I've no argument with the above, however my reference to welfare was meant to mean secular, as in government assistance. And I had been assuming that the OP was referencing the spiritual aspects of religion associated with dampening aspirations. Things such as....Accept your place in society, your true reward will be in the afterlife.
How true that last still is, I'm uncertain, but it was clearly the major dynamic behind the medieval social structure. The church taught that some were chosen by god to be kings and lords, some were chosen to be god's representatives on earth, and others were selected to live humble lives of service in anticipation of that post corporal paradise. It was a system which successfully depended upon the poor never stopping to ask....Why are all the earthly benefits being monopolized by the lords and the clergy? It was a system which required a fusion or at least close alliance of church and state. It was the clergy which told the masses that god had ordained and sanctioned the rule of this particular king, and it was the king who returned that favor by outlawing any religion other than the one which was supporting him.
So, I would say that the OP thesis was very true in the past, but less so today due to the separation of church and state in most western societies. Welfare has stepped into the gap, a more tangible, secular reward for a more tangible, secular time.
I guess what I'm saying -- not particularly well -- is that welfare has taken on the role because the religions haven't lived up to their aspirations.
I guess what I'm saying -- not particularly well -- is that welfare has taken on the role because the religions haven't lived up to their aspirations.
But it appears to me that religion is on the rise, particularly in this environment. I know there is some evidence that atheism is also increased, but the baseline with respect to religion is lower to begin with. Welfare may be decreased, as well, if conservatives have their way, but that ventures too far in the political arena, which we must be careful to avoid.
Yes, it is accurate, although religion has been misused/abused by many individuals/groups/factions throughout history. Napoleon Bonaparte, who certainly was no Saint himself (pardon the theistic reference), summed it up quite well in the quote below....
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich"
Yup. The Moral Majority is another example of using religious window-dressing to advance a political agenda.
I genuinely believe that the Ruling Classes throughout history, while themselves skeptical and secretly non-believers, use religion and the structure of prevailing religious organizations in whatever ways support their own underlying agendas. Power, control, economic advantage --these are facilitated by religious belief. This is revealed by analyzing behavior and also admitted in writing, on occasion.
I actually disagree somewhat with the bolded. I think that most elite, pre 19th century were quite genuinely religious. The exception being the initial adopters (Clovis I, Constantine...etc) for whom it was a calculated political move. I think that once a religion became dominant among an elite and formed the core of the identity of a region, religious interests became intertwined with dynastic interests.
The elite certainly used and manipulated religion to serve their own agendas but that should not be taken as an indication that they were not genuine believers themselves.
I think the usefulness of religion is in regulating the behavior and psychology of groups of people, which is why central to most are sacred rules of behavior mandated by god and rewards/punishments for adherence or defiance.
Last edited by TheArchitect; 04-21-2020 at 12:04 AM..
I think it is probably trie that a lot of them did believe. But they were easily able to blur the line between what God wanted and what they wanted.
Did Henry VIII believe religion? I can't be sure. Frankly he doesn't look very religious. But he surely made religion dance to his political tune.
What about the contemporaries Louis XIV and Charles II? It was probably as complicated or not so straightforward as religion today, or like any kind of human thinking. Just take free will or morality. Seems simple; we can make choices; Good and Bad. But when we did it, how we are actually Thinking it gets a bit confused. Look at the Christians here who have no problem walking out of a Church because they didn't agree with the teachings. It doesn't occur to them that they are are 'relying upon their own understanding'.
'But...they are doing it wrong! God won't blame me for leaving!" Of course not, as the God is what they think. That would get them burned in the old days. Yes, one's own opinions and the opinions of the god in the head have always been interchangeable.
Especially with the Men of Destiny. Just take Nelson and Napoleon. Nelson may have been a believer, but he certainly believed that a great glowing glorious Destiny or fate was calling him on. Akhenaten would have bustled up with an Atenist tract and nagged on his doorstep.
"You see? It is the sun -that you are worshipping, not some Hebrew tribal god."
Napoleon appeared to have had no time for God but believed firmly in his Destiny. A 'quasi -god' as much as Karma, in my view. It had a plan for him. The motivation it gave him was incredible, and not a Holy Book in sight. To him, the Church was a political factor to be used.
I don't even get onto the extent to which thinkers who might be atheist today were deists then, because it was before Darwin, and that was a sea -change. Evolution was known before before Darwin, but it was assumed that God did it that way. they were indeed Creationists, but not TE Creationists. They knew that was wrong. But Darwin first showed that it could happen without a god. That was the change.
Yes, the nature of religious thinking is nothing as simple, as 'what goes on in my head is God' is complicated, and fascinating and hardly understood as yet. Not least for the same reason that the gospels are not understood: the non-believers aren't interested and the believers would rather not know.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-21-2020 at 06:28 AM..
From my own observations, and not something I'm backing up with data, I think the role of churches in American doing things like feeding and providing health care for the poor has been lackluster most of the time. Even growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, when there was more of a crusading nature to religion (hence, Billy Graham), I can't remember very many things that my grandmother's methodist church did for people who were truly struggling...except for a few limited reach-outs to members of the church. On the other hand, there were repeated campaigns to collect money and sent it on to Kenya, with the STATED PURPOSE of conversion. I saw even less of a giving to the poor attitude when I converted to catholicism...at least not in my town's catholic church. The financial campaigns were virtually always about keeping up the church and rectory.
My experience growing up Catholic follows this exactly (except I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s). The collections were always for either missionaries to convert people in other countries or to support political causes (which obviously they shouldn't be doing). I can't tell you how often we had a speaker come in to talk about the Pro-Life cause and how we should give them money so they could fight abortion clinics.
I never saw a food drive for the poor. I never heard of the church offering services to those struggling with addiction. However, we did have many nice statues.
Generally speaking, religion has served the same purpose since it was conjured up millennia ago. Control the people and offer explanation for the feeble-minded. It was very eye-opening for me when I learned about Greek mythology when I was younger. The whole point of those myths was to explain the world to those that did not understand it. I remember telling my 5th grade teacher (at my Catholic school) "I'd rather believe in Zeus and Venus than in Jesus." Yeah, you can imagine how THAT played out.
Those were cool myths. Maybe if God hurled lightning bolts to smite his enemies and floods to wash away the disbelievers... oh wait. Well done, Christianity. Well done.
My experience growing up Catholic follows this exactly (except I wasn't around in the 50s and 60s). The collections were always for either missionaries to convert people in other countries or to support political causes (which obviously they shouldn't be doing). I can't tell you how often we had a speaker come in to talk about the Pro-Life cause and how we should give them money so they could fight abortion clinics.
I never saw a food drive for the poor. I never heard of the church offering services to those struggling with addiction. However, we did have many nice statues.
Generally speaking, religion has served the same purpose since it was conjured up millennia ago. Control the people and offer explanation for the feeble-minded. It was very eye-opening for me when I learned about Greek mythology when I was younger. The whole point of those myths was to explain the world to those that did not understand it. I remember telling my 5th grade teacher (at my Catholic school) "I'd rather believe in Zeus and Venus than in Jesus." Yeah, you can imagine how THAT played out.
Those were cool myths. Maybe if God hurled lightning bolts to smite his enemies and floods to wash away the disbelievers... oh wait. Well done, Christianity. Well done.
Critique of religion is not the issue. The fundamental question is: Was religion a necessary component of human evolution as a group. Initially humans lived in small groups where DNA kinship was the driver of cohesion. Once the groups got larger something else was needed for cohesion and that was religion. And every tribe likely had its own religion and they probably practiced "my religion is better that yours" when meeting a member of another tribe.
As for Catholicism: You view is very simplistic! I suggest you go to Europe and visit all the old cities and towns and you will see the mark of the Church. Obviously Catholicism and later on the Reformation played a huge role in the West.
Please do not bring on the crusades or colonialism, that is not the theme of the thread.
Last edited by Julian658; 04-21-2020 at 08:56 AM..
Critique of religion is not the issue. The fundamental question is: Was religion a necessary component of human evolution as a group.
Not really. Why is it you think you get to determine the topic of the thread? More accurately, the topic of the thread is whether or not, broadly speaking, the majority of believers are being manipulated by the social elite, who are themselves, secretly or openly skeptics.
Not really. Why is it you think you get to determine the topic of the thread? More accurately, the topic of the thread is whether or not, broadly speaking, the majority of believers are being manipulated by the social elite, who are themselves, secretly or openly skeptics.
You titled the thread : The Usefulness of Religion. Maybe you should use a different title. Most ancient people were true believers. That was true all the way up to the 19th century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.