|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
My contention is that American fundamentalists have a belief that is more than simply their version of Christianity. It is in reality a blend of their faith, politics and nationalism. As a Christian myself, I would consider myself evangelical even though my beliefs are a long way from the beliefs of fundamentalists such as Faith. it is my contention that in reality American fundamentalists use their faith to justify their politics and their brand of nationalism. They are quite prepared to ditch their Christian beliefs when necessary to support their politics and nationalism. That's exactly right. For some reason, American Christian fundamentalism is somehow inextricably linked to their political and nationalist persuasions, even though most their political and nationalistic values are antithetical to traditional Christian values. This Crusader mentality is an aberration of traditional Christian values, but if you tell them that then you are immediately dismissed as some libtard commie faggot atheist. More to the point, if we look at how many fundamentalists are openly supporting Donald Trump, it seems laughable given that Trump is concerned with two things -- greed and power. He covets mammon and he covets power, but they are willing to overlook that because so ingrained in to their conscience is this hybrid between conservative American values with Christian values. They're apparently too stupid to see that people like Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump are merely playing to the crowd. They are simply pandering to their base which conflates nationalism with their religious values. Why precisely this is the case is likely very complex and likely took multiple generations to come to fruition, but it doubtless originated somewhere during or just after World War II. That was the catalyst, but this amalgamation of the two belief systems truly became infused with the rise of the Religious Right, somewhere in the late 70's and early 80's with people like Jerry Falwell vying to persuade Ronald Reagan to their Crusader version of Christianity. Now we see bible passages talking about PEACE being etched in to serial numbers for weapons used for WAR. Can you stand the irony? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member
|
Do you vote for candidates that espouse the same religious views as yourself? Who among the current candidates meets that criteria? Mike Huckabee is probably the ONLY one up on the stage who actually truly could be considered "religious." The rest of them use it as a stage prop to get votes. All presidents, even the most liberal, still have to openly support Christianity, even though we all know secretly they're atheists or agnostics. But even as genuine people like Huckabee and Glenn Beck are, they are nevertheless very susceptible to the dictates of the Religious Right in the 700 Club version of what Christianity is. So, no, I doubt any candidate could possibly meet that criteria. Obama bloviated all about bringing Christianity back to the Sermon on the Mount and then bombed the shit out of Pakistan 2 days in to taking office. They're all scum. And I suspect this is case because you couldn't possibly want to be the President of the United States without deeply wanting control. The only two candidates that I can think of that may fall outside of those parameters is Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. I think the people sense a genuine concern whereas the rest simply covet power and control. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I remember one pastor from the pulpit urging the congregation to sign his anti-ObamaCare petition. No Biblical arguments, just political ones against ObamaCare. No alternative solutions either. I find politicking in churches to particularly disgusting and completely inappropriate. I've seen this type of bullying from the pulpit mostly on the right like Jerry Falwell, but also on the left with people like Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Much of the time there is literally no religious content in the message, but rather an excuse to bloviate about politics or some socioeconomic injustice. Just preach the gospel. We have enough pundits already. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Political preaching can of course be a bad thing depending on how it's done but there's nothing in principle wrong with pastors and Christians supporting a particular political position. So then there's nothing wrong with Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Reverend Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson using the pulpit to push a political agenda? (INB4 Faith commits a No True Scotsman fallacy about how they aren't "real Christians") "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Of course I believe they should be allowed to say whatever they want in terms of legality. But in terms of general principle I would like it much more if pastors refrained from talking politics and focus more on the gospel. If we look at the Reverends I mentioned, there's not even a semblance of religious topics in their diatribes. They use the pulpit as a mouthpiece to push political agendas.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It's not up to me to tell a religion what it should preach. However, preachers are typically paid by tax-deductible donations. So, as a taxpayer, I am subsidizing them to do politicking against my interests. Eliminate the tax benefits to religion, and then it won't bother me what politicking they do. Sure, I might still think that they are bogus Christians. But, as long as my taxes don't subsidize them, that's not of great concern to me. Nobody likes the fact that, say, the Church of Scientology can claim tax-exemption and rake in billions of dollars just because it calls itself a religion. We all know and agree they are scamming the system. However, it's a slippery slope. That money come from donations, whether they are guilted or pressured in to it or not. There's no exchange of goods or services per se. However, any goods or services offered should be taxed. So if a church opens up a coffee shop for-profit, they should be taxed like any other business enterprise. But I don't think they ought to be taxed for tithes since they are essentially donations. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That would depend on whether or not their political agenda aligns with Jesus' teaching. I have no problem with preachers suggesting that their parishioners "should" vote for candidates who support feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc. I do. It's one thing to lead a horse to water, but it's another thing to push its head underwater. Admonish them to vote their conscience without offering any specific endorsements. Case in point, I don't equate a candidate who supports socialism to necessarily be doing that on behalf of the poor. Taxation does not equal donation since it is through force or coercion and there's no way to tell how the funds are appropriated or misappropriated. If Jesus said feed and clothe the poor, to me that means actually go out there and directly feed them and clothe them. Cut out the middle man"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well I for one wouldn't stay in a church where the pastor pushed for a political agenda that had no scriptural support. However, there are scriptural grounds for arguing against Obamacare, against its socialism for instance, against the misuse of funds for instance, which are major objections to it. As I said, I believe they should legally be allowed to do it, but I find it a particularly ugly feature in a church. If I'm there, it's not to receive a political endorsement about who the pastor thinks makes for a good candidate, but rather to teach the intricacies of the gospel and to allow people to make informed decisions based on the scriptures. I don't want a pastor telling me that Trump or Sanders make for good candidates. I want the gospel itself to make it evident through revelation."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Sounds reasonable but in reality I don't think it is. Unfortunately the "gospel itself" isn't identical in everybody's mind no matter how well the preacher expounds it. We've had it argued from an amazing variety of angles here at EvC for instance. Scripture tells us we are to be salt and light to the culture, which is an exhortation to present the biblical truths for the sake of preventing the culture's deterioration under the influence of the fallen nature*, and the church has been given God's gift of pastors and teachers because most of us don't have the time or the ability to properly interpret scripture without help, and they've been trained for the job. That means they ought to present any issues of the day through a biblical lens as they seem important. In that vein, I could see it very possible how out of 20 churches, 8 endorse Ted Cruz, 7 endorse Donald Trump, 3 endorse Mike Huckabee, and 2 endorse Marco Rubio. Isn't it splitting hairs? I mean, if the gospel is subject to interpretation, how much more is determining the right candidate in light of the gospel?
*Some of us see this very deterioration as having picked up speed over the last few decades until now it would take a miracle to turn it back: hence the idea we are in the last of the last days, sliding down to the rule of the antichrist followed by Jesus' return. All the more reason not be concerned with it since whatever will be, will be. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It's a pastor's job to tell his congregation how their consciences tally with what God wants them to do. The point of religion is largely to adjust people's consciences. True. The only problem is the massive disparity in interpretation that is often found within churches. One church views Christ as a liberal hippie, while another views him as an NRA-supporting war hero.
[quote=Hyroglyphx]Case in point, I don't equate a candidate who supports socialism to necessarily be doing that on behalf of the poor.[/quote=Hyroglyphx] That's a pretty poor case in point. I said, "candidates who support feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc." not candidates who support socialism. I'm just distinguishing from the Christians who equate paying taxes to be morally on par with feeding the hungry, healing the sick, visiting those in prison, etc.
I disagree. If we're paying the taxes anyway, we should be electing middle men who are going to use the money according to our consciences. Taxes have their place scripturally. Obviously "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," comes to mind, but paying the tax does not satisfy what was called. Jesus was very explicit about how to go about it. Do you feel like you've done your moral obligation by simply allowing the government to withhold your wages (as if you had any choice in the matter) or is it better to actually donate of your own volition and going directly to the source of the problem? I think most people would agree that charity trumps taxation. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
What about a Church group that won't sell you a book. But they will give you a book for $21 donation. I see that as blatant tax cheating. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound?"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Could you tell me what gospel you are talking about? I would like to hear what you think the gospel is. The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
That is the reason our Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ". This forbids the government from establishing a religion. Our forefathers had left England which had a government/religion which had been very abusive to those who did not believe the same as the state church. It means quite a bit more than just not choosing a specific Christian denomination or church to represent the United States. In fact, respecting any religion at all is the onus of that phrase. "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -- Thomas Jefferson "... the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -- Thomas Jefferson "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospels are about a chronicling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to include his teachings and the revelations about his mission. That's why the four gospels contain more than just the sacrifice and resurrection. But now I'm curious what this has to do with the current discussion"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You and ICANT state that my definition of the gospel is not accurate. Really?
quote: It is that view of the gospel that makes it certain you never were a Christian. It has nothing to do with your sincerity as you kept saying, it's about what you believe and you didn't believe the true gospel. I don't say this to be insulting, just to make it clear how I know. Haha, thanks for getting so personal!
You gave up on your belief so easily as it was, that's another pretty good reason to suppose you never did really believe, because true gospel belief is a supernatural thing, an actual spiritual rebirth. Well, there's two ways of looking at it. Either I "gave up so easily" or my own knowledge of the bible led me to see the errors it contains and that I deduced that it wasn't what it claimed to be.
I don't know if one could ever walk away from that level of commitment And that mentality may very well blind you from some uncomfortable truths.
But the gospels are not THE Gospel, which is what ICANT said, Jesus' dying to pay for our sins so that we are spared their consequences. That's what salvation is. I gave a very brief, definitional synopsis of what the gospel is. Of course it is about the salvation of Christ which, by the way, are some of the teachings and revelations that came through from Jesus.
ICANT was responding to your statement in Message 57 that you think a preacher should only present "the gospel" and not argue politics. I responded as if you had said "the Bible" or the New Testament, though I should have asked as ICANT did what you mean by the gospel People use the phrase "gospel" colloquially to mean "the bible," which is what I said. You're really splitting hairs here."Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024