Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#81

Post by boomboomsubban »

susiecambria wrote: post #60
boomboomsubban wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the Freemasonry and the Elks require a belief in god to join, or at least heavily encourage it.

Masons require a belief in a higher power. Individual Masons may believe in God, but the institution is committed to a broader higher power.

Masons require a belief in a supreme being and scripture, and various things online say they've explicitly forbidden atheists before. I take everything I read about Freemasonry with a grain of salt, but it still seems fairly hostile to atheists.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#82

Post by xboxnolifes »

MrVandemar wrote: post #41
ecshafer wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? The comparison is on purpose. The idea of a shepherd and their flock has numerous references in the bible and is used as allegory, which pre-modern people would've understood.

Whether Biblical or modern, I find the metaphor particularly apt: to describe a group of people easily led, raised for exploitation and slaughter.

> raised for exploitation and slaughter

Yup. You are born, grow, work, pay taxes, and die.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#83

Post by MrVandemar »

MongoTheMad wrote: post #75
MrVandemar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether Biblical or modern, I find the metaphor particularly apt: to describe a group of people easily led, raised for exploitation and slaughter.

Wow, I really like the contrasted view here. It is definitely thought provoking. One day, I may use it in a book or blog post. How shall I cite your thought? Link here?

No credit required MongoTheMad, knock yourself out.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#84

Post by MrVandemar »

zer8k wrote: post #56
MrVandemar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether Biblical or modern, I find the metaphor particularly apt: to describe a group of people easily led, raised for exploitation and slaughter.

There’s always one of these edgelords lurking about. You must be fun at parties.

I had to go look that word up.

No ... I don't think that describes me, but I'll admit I do have some broadly nihilistic/athiestic views and I tend to cynicism.

No, I'm actually not fun at all at parties: I'd rather read a good book than mingle and attempt to engage with intoxicated dullards.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#85

Post by throw1234651234 »

_sojh wrote: post #50
throw1234651234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Woah woah woah let’s not give megachurches extra points for things they didn’t lead in. Tax breaks yes, more dishonestly, no. If you don’t think every business that makes it, and even more so for those that make it big, don’t have shady dealings to thank for getting them there, you should join one of these megachurches. Also, Amazon isn’t a church with tax exempt status but I remember headlines a few years back somet…

"If you don’t think every business that makes it, and even more so for those that make it big, don’t have shady dealings to thank for getting them there, you should join one of these megachurches."

I was a contractor for one, so I had an insider look at the donation page optimization, dating apps, marriage counselling (90% of which involved a pastor in some way, including the stereotypical), seeing how people were pressured into donations, what interns were picked for, grandma being pressured into living her last $10 so that the IT team mostly there through connections could have $50-100/person lunches, etc.

And no - there is still a difference of outright misleading the most vulnerable, and I say this regardless of your views on religion.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#86

Post by wl »

susiecambria wrote: post #60
boomboomsubban wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the Freemasonry and the Elks require a belief in god to join, or at least heavily encourage it.

Masons require a belief in a higher power. Individual Masons may believe in God, but the institution is committed to a broader higher power.

"Higher power" is an Alcoholics Anonymous thing, which has been rationalized by the group to include atheism and agnosticism, although not all atheists and agnostics are on board with that (Cf. Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Rational Recovery). In Freemasonry, you're looking for the "Supreme Being," the God of "that religion in which all men agree" which is an attempt at universalism from a 18th century cultural Christian perspective. While that concept has been harmonized with Buddhism, Hinduism, various Neopaganisms, and many other religions that aren't a natural fit, atheism remains explicitly called out as something that's incompatible in the ritual used in the Anglo-American Masonic tradition. Adogmatic or Liberal Freemasonry admits atheists (and sometimes women!), but they're much fewer in number outside Latin America and Continental Europe and unrecognized by the larger Anglo-American faction.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#87

Post by wl »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #81
susiecambria wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masons require a belief in a higher power. Individual Masons may believe in God, but the institution is committed to a broader higher power.

Masons require a belief in a supreme being and scripture, and various things online say they've explicitly forbidden atheists before. I take everything I read about Freemasonry with a grain of salt, but it still seems fairly hostile to atheists.

You're correct that Anglo-American Freemasonry requires a belief in a Supreme Being. However, the issue of scripture is a bit more nuanced. There's no requirement to believe in the veracity or to honor any scripture in particular. There is a Holy Bible on an altar in a lodge room but it's used as a symbol. During an initiation, a candidate usually has the option to use the holy book of his choice. If one is opposed to the idea that holy books should be honored at all, he might not be a good fit for the institution, but there's nothing technically preventing him from joining. There's also a few times when portions of the Hebrew scriptures are read aloud, though they're pretty unoffensive from a universalist perspective.

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#88

Post by inemesitaffia »

burlesona wrote: post #46

It’s interesting to observe. Historically, churches were many, small, and deeply rooted in particular neighborhoods. The more traditional churches heavily emphasized service within the church itself and the surrounding neighborhood. Many churches still operate this way, but mega churches do not. They work on economy of scale: the typical visitor or member is much less involved than in a small church, but lots and lot…

These are church orgs. Not churches

Re: American megachurches are thriving by poaching flocks

#90

Post by motohagiography »

wl wrote: post #86
susiecambria wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Masons require a belief in a higher power. Individual Masons may believe in God, but the institution is committed to a broader higher power.

"Higher power" is an Alcoholics Anonymous thing, which has been rationalized by the group to include atheism and agnosticism, although not all atheists and agnostics are on board with that (Cf. Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Rational Recovery). In Freemasonry, you're looking for the "Supreme Being," the God of "that religion in which all men agree" which is an attempt at universalism from a 18th century cultural…

The disqualification of atheism is because it is a materialist anti-belief, where the necessary condition is that any faith of others is wrong, which makes it the essence of choosing to have an irreconcilable difference. They literally identify as adversaries to the faithful.

If you've ever seen a dog scramble to take food and wolf it down without a sense of consequences because the food is the end in itself, materialism is the human version of that but for power. Without a shared abstraction for morality, there is no basis of trust or responsibility to expose anything valuable to them. In this sense, belief in a supreme being is a much more rational position than its critics apprehend.

Post reply on HN