World Mythologies: Have Religions evolved to become more Materialisic?

They started for the most part materialistic. Most people worldwide are more and more greedy/ materialistic/ worldly and carnal.

I think material culture (not materialist, but just the daily socio-economic reality created by technology, control over and understanding of nature and natural processes, food safety and accessibility, health, etc.) has an immediate impact on spirituality and religion.
In the past, nature was that huge, unknowable and scary quantity, constantly threatening survival with draughts, floods, wild animals, storms, fires, earthquakes, plagues, famines - you get the idea. The less we understood nature, the more brutal the deities worshiped. The earliest historically documented deities were virtually indistinguishable from demons, and the whole point of sacrifices and religion was to avert the kind of disasters I mentioned before. And even when the gods became *slightly* more benevolent (because the culture that created them had a somewhat stable relationship with nature), you could tell that this link was still there: ancient Egypt's prosperity depended on the regularity of the Nile's floods, for example. Accordingly, the most important aspect of its religion was Ma'at, or order.

We can also observe this in Christianity: when Europe was devastated by the sudden drop in temperature called the "Little Ice Age" (c. 1500-1800), Christians started to embrace a concept of deity best reflected by sermons like "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God".

Contemporary American evangelism, with its "prosperity gospel", Trump worship, and general materialism is another such reflection of a material culture that's overfed, irresponsibly consumerist and obsessed with status symbols. But I don't think that's an inevitable development. It just so happens that the worst parts of American culture congeal into an ugly nightmare, and that also encompasses religious life.

Focusing on materialism only, Christianity has a mixed heritage:

In the Middle Ages, renouncing worldly wealth was commonly associated with several heresies such as the Cathars and Waldenses (who were actually the target of a bloody CRUSADE in the south of what is nowadays France). When Franciscus of Assisi founded his monastic order on this principle, there was actually a considerable risk of being declared heretical as well, but they escaped that fate by interpreting a biblical life of poverty in a manner that didn't challenge the Church.

(This isn't solely a historical problem, by the way: when Latin american priests took the side of the poor and downtrodden in the mid-1900s, the Church - who openly supported wealthy land owners and several fascist dictatorships - was quick to declare them heretical.)

Materialism is strongly ingrained in Reformed Protestantism as well, where wealth and status are interpreted as signs of God's blessing and the individual's godliness and personal competence.

But I think what we see in America's "Christian" Right today is a late product of the Cold War era, where anything linked to solidarity, social justice or support for the lower end of the wealth pyramid reeked of "Evil Communism". (In fact, the rejection of liberation theology hinged on just such anxieties and dichotomies. Cardinal Ratzinger - later Pope Benedict XVI - specifically declared it heretical for supposedly turning Christianity into a "Marxist myth".)

I think religions worldwide have become more materialistic.

I think "materialism" only becomes a problem in dualist or quasi-dualist ideologies that cleave existence into "pure" spirit and the "sinful" World.
I'd say most traditional religions at least used to have a much more pronounced hands-on approach to life and physical existence in general. The currently dominant idea of a disembodied, aetheric afterlife is a relatively young concept: throughout Christianity's early history, for example, the resurrection was conceived of as a BODILY process, with people being re-assembled from scratch.

Re: consumerism as materialism, it seems to me that religions are trending Iconoclastic since at least the Renaissance. Somewhat ironically the most iconoclastic faiths seem to be the ones that are also the most money-grubbing, at least from my anecdotal experience.

Re: philosophical materialism; Religions don't have to be dualist. The first concrete example that comes to mind for me is the Charvaka school of Hinduism. Dualism seems to be falling out of fashion world wide since the evidence does not seem to support the "other side" of the so-called duality. Nobody can easily pin it down. Various monisms seem to be pretty in fashion and they personally appeal to me too. It's an elaboration on the connected-ness aspects in my faith. The universe as one creature.

With religion as a whole it sure seems like protestant Christianity especially has a glut of TV preachers, guys in fancy suits with private jets and large private corporations. I'm sure these things exist elsewhere, in fact I know for sure of some sketchy Hindu gurus, but its so prominent in Christianity as to be stereotypical in the public square of discussion.

But then again you can't blame them; we moved from a civilization where the church was supported by the state to the church having to fair (with tons of government assistance) in the "free" market. The ones who raise the most money survive the longest.

Getting back to basics...

I have to chuckle at the caricatures of what the Christian faith looks like...

2 Corinthians 11:23-28 NASB
[23] Are they servants of Christ?-I speak as if insane-I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. [24] Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. [25] Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. [26] I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; [27] I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. [28] Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.

I'd say that when the spiritual experience of the Divine is taken out of Nature, the Earth and even the reach of the Cosmos, religion has no other choice but to become more materialistic as a response to it becoming less spiritual in it's overall reach into this physical world.

I am assuming that by "materialism" one refers to someone who feels a sense of happiness or accomplishment in having more material goods......the whole idea that

In the end, he who has the most toys wins.

Keep in kind that a century ago, in America, disposable income for non essential goods was a fraction of what it is today. People who have no money find it easier to practice non materialism out of neccesity.
For myself, aestheticism is far more fulfilling than materialism. Materialism brings stress andvdoes not work for me personally. But yes, western society is more materialist and with it, the religions which many claim especially Christianity and Judaism

As much as I dislike the excessive consumerism of our times and the culture of mass extinction, I am equally appalled by asceticism. To me, it suggests the sneering contempt of hollow-eyed, emaciated hermits who pride themselves in the deprivation they subject themselves to, born of ideologies that more often than not deny joy and demand sacrifice. To me, the key to a good life is not denial, but a lack of dependence on status symbols, substances, or excesses; a sense of responsibility, and regard for sustainability and balance.

I agree Asceticism is just the near opposite of materialism, practiced for centuries by western and Eastern Monks and Mystics of various schools. Aestheticism is most advantageous and fruitful for me. And to me, it goes beyond seeing the surface (material) to finding and seeing that inner beauty in all. Just clarifying.

Ah, what fruitful discussions a bit of misreading can produce! Thank you for the clarification - and I agree.

Surviving, successful religions that become a dominant part of society always develop to accomodate and uphold the status quo, not challenge it.
Christianity's historical and contemporary alliance with fascism and reactionary, far-right ideology in the 20th and 21st century demonstrates pretty well how even an ideology built around charity, compassion, and the love of enemies can "succeed" by subverting its own core.
There's nothing more ironic than a Christian wrapping himself in a national flag, worshipping the military and the rich, and cheering for concentration camps where brown people are "treated like the filthy animals they are, those dirty parasites"!

Jane_the_Bane said:

Surviving, successful religions that become a dominant part of society always develop to accomodate and uphold the status quo, not challenge it.
Christianity's historical and contemporary alliance with fascism and reactionary, far-right ideology in the 20th and 21st century demonstrates pretty well how even an ideology built around charity, compassion, and the love of enemies can "succeed" by subverting its own core.
There's nothing more ironic than a Christian wrapping himself in a national flag, worshipping the military and the rich, and cheering for concentration camps where brown people are "treated like the filthy animals they are, those dirty parasites"!

Click to expand...

Yeah, nation and family were pretty unimportant to Jesus and the early Church, even to Paul in the New Testament. Early Christianity was seen as a source of freedom for alot of people to not have to bother with conventional social expectations (and certainly little understanding of "family values" in the modern sense). But by the time of Constantine, the radicalism of the religion had largely gone and been replaced by a desire to be respectable.

FireDragon76 said:

Yeah, nation and family were pretty unimportant to Jesus and the early Church, even to Paul in the New Testament. Early Christianity was seen as a source of freedom for alot of people to not have to bother with conventional social expectations (and certainly little understanding of "family values" in the modern sense). But by the time of Constantine, the radicalism of the religion had largely gone and been replaced by a desire to be respectable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, every time I hear the words "family values," I can't help but think of Thecla and smile. She probably wasn't real, but nothing screams "family values" quite like the Early Church so strongly venerating someone who basically ran away from home and refused to get married. The Virgins are great in general, though.

Silmarien said:

Yeah, every time I hear the words "family values," I can't help but think of Thecla and smile. She probably wasn't real, but nothing screams "family values" quite like the Early Church so strongly venerating someone who basically ran away from home and refused to get married. The Virgins are great in general, though.

Click to expand...

I watched a lecture on Youtube from a Yale professor of the New Testament, and there was an almost Buddhist on Jain disdain for the seemingly cyclical nature of conventional existence, absent in much of modern Christianity. This will sound strange, but I'm starting to detest Luther's conclusions. He domesticated Christianity. Whereas I think Jesus would agree far more with Marx's conclusions, "Other philosophers have merely interpreted the world, but the whole point is to change it". The element of transformation was heavily muted in favor of just accepting Richard Dawkin's DNA-machine approach to life (Luther actually detested birth control for instance).

Yeah, Luther set a lot of things in motion, and objected to approximately two-thirds of those. His "zwei Reiche"-doctrine made me frown even when I was a mere teenager learning the rudimentaries about the Reformation in school.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Yeah, Luther set a lot of things in motion, and objected to approximately two-thirds of those. His "zwei Reiche"-doctrine made me frown even when I was a mere teenager learning the rudimentaries about the Reformation in school.

Click to expand...

Something like the Two Kingdoms is also found in the Anabaptist tradition, but they draw different conclusions from it.

There is a genuine dissatisfaction with the secular space created by Luther's reformation now days. Perhaps because materialism and consumerism has filled the void, and it's failed to infuse life with genuine spirituality, resulting in the gradual destruction of the biosphere and the oppression of billions of people around the world. I suppose that's a big reason why I take some steps back from Luther's conclusions and am in a process of evaluating it.

I'm starting to lean in the direction of liberal Protestantism and away from Lutheran confessionalism, in my own spiritual life. Not because I am into "scientism", but just because I've seen how Lutheran confessionalism can play out, and it's just more of the same. I think Christians should be alot more engaged with the world, not on religious terms, but the sort of terms that Dietrich Bonhoeffer emphasized, about working to create a community that genuinely lives out other-directedness, hospitality, and so on. There's no place for evangelical tribalism or wooden dogmatism in such a community.