Talk:Name it and claim it

This sounds like...
This sounds like a cartoonishly exaggerated illustration of Marx's "opiate of the masses" idea--don't do anything about your lot in life, just pray and keep sending us checks!--Filby (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The comments regarding Catholic beliefs aren't very well supported. For example, some religious orders do take vows of poverty (such as the Franciscans), but how does that constitute the "inverse" of the "Name it and claim it" beliefs? There are some who have subscribed to Liberation Theology, but the Catholic church has specifically argued against those beliefs. My suggestion would be to just delete this particular section.

So, uh
"name it and claim it" But how exactly? Are they supposed to name it in their prayers? How's it supposed to work? And how does this "name it and claim it" stuff relate to prosperity gospel (basically send money to the church and good stuff will happen to you)? Is that how you're supposed to 'claim' the thing you 'name'? Or is this about how televangelists will publically name something they want (e.g. "a private jet") and claim it through the power of their gullible followers' donations? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:31, 24 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

A message from the future?

Can the proponents name and claim each others' property and congregations? Anna Livia (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do my edits keep getting overwritten? I’m posting my additions here then and may the Holy Spirit lead all who seek the face of God to where they need to be.

 * Your edits fundamentally changed the tone of the article, in addition I didn't feel they were within RationalWiki's SPOV. 14:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I pray against the spiritual cause of the truth being concealed about the “name it claim it” lie the name of Jesus.
I pray God’s will be done on the internet in the name of Jesus. Let the content of this web page be “first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.” James 3:17 in the name of Jesus. I pray once it is that it be the top search result on the internet in the name of Jesus.

In the name of the Lord
… I claim your house and your bank balance.

Or am I misunderstanding the 'logical consequence' of the theory? Anna Livia (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d say that that’s a bit more of an adversarial/zero sum interpretation than I’m familiar with (but then I’m not that well versed in the prosperity gospel, since it’s pretty much unheard of in my neck of the woods and would probably be regarded, correctly in my view, as rank heresy).
 * It’s more that you pray for receiving pecuniary benefits of some unspecified origin and you subsequently will, this being a physical manifestation of your faith and piety (possibly via the “seed” mentioned, i.e. sympathetic magic). But if anyone with a deeper familiarity and understanding of this odd marriage of magical thinking and (pseudo) Christianity want to correct me, feel free to do so. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Creative deliberate misconstruing can be fun (and annoy the proponents).
 * Is this a negative version of 'enjoy life and you will get more out of it (and may even live longer)?' Anna Livia (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, and this bears on why I don’t think your initial zero sum interpretation fits, the prosperity gospel takes on the “boundless possibilities of the mind” kind of thinking that characterises magical thinking as well as the more extreme versions of positive thinking (cf. (2009) Brightsided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, something she also touched upon in her 2006 book ).


 * This is basically cornucopianism combined with mind-body woo, occasionally jazzed up with quantum woo à la Deepak Chopra and similar hucksters.


 * Of course, as Ehrenreich emphasises, the inverse logic of this line of thinking is that all problems boil down to individual lack of positive thinking/faith, meaning that all of your problems are down to your own failure to think/believe correctly and extensively enough. Hence, there is no time for systemic barriers or simple bad luck and this hyper individualism thus easily ends up blaming the victim.


 * Similarly, the insidious logic of such an approach also negates the importance of collective action, since everything is viewed as each individual’s ability/willingness to change the world and their circumstances and the cornucopian mind over matter dogma insists that this is indeed possible for each individual by themselves. While it can’t quite be equated with the slogan “Why change the world, if you can change your mind?”, since this way of thinking basically equates the one with the other, it still leads to a similar complacent attitude with regards to the existing shape and structure of society and the world at large. Thus, such magical thinking actually tends to skew quite conservative and conforming in practice. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Chance occurrence
The immediate previous entry on today's list is 'Penis with labels': make of that what you will. Anna Livia (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)