Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

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.

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.

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.

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")

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.

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.

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

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.

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? All the more reason not be concerned with it since whatever will be, will be.

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]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. 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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound?

The teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ.

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

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

You and ICANT state that my definition of the gospel is not accurate. Really?

quote:

---

1.the teaching or revelation of Christ:
"it is the Church's mission to preach the gospel"

​

synonyms: Christian teaching Christian doctrine Christ's teaching
[more]

​

2.the record of Jesus' life and teaching in the first four books of the New Testament.

​

3.a fervent style of black American evangelical religious singing, developed from spirituals sung in Southern Baptist and Pentecostal churches:
"gospel singers"

---

Haha, thanks for getting so personal! 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. And that mentality may very well blind you from some uncomfortable truths. 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. People use the phrase "gospel" colloquially to mean "the bible," which is what I said. You're really splitting hairs here.