|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on Nov 2, 2004 10:27:14 GMT -5
The fact that Conservatives are primarily made up of christians, and that christians are primarily made up of conservatives (yes that makes sense hehe) has got to be the world's largest contradiction.
An excellent example was brought up a while ago in this thread: The war.
Anyone who is Christian should absolutely oppose any war and bush himself for taking us to one for reasons based in lies. Jesus was obviously a pacifist, Christianity is entirely based in pacifism if you actually take the 10 seconds to think about it. Yet the most conservative, un-accepting, and war mongering people within our country are also the most strictly religious.
It's really a shame for Real christians.. which is what - after reading his last post in this thread - I believe Joel has become, or is becoming. It's too bad I don't see you anymore, guy.
Shiggy- A member of an Australian band (the berzerker) posts on the Morbid Angel message board and always has quite a bit to say relating to American politics, he too discussed your recently passed election.. didn't seem to happy with the result. I had thought this was relevant enough to mention. We're glad you made it to the forums here.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 2, 2004 16:13:16 GMT -5
Yeah, all fundamentalism is equally bad, whether Christian, Islam, or anything; its psychologically the same and nearly always has dangerous results.
Well, yeah, I actually ended up voting for Howard, mainly because he was really (IMO) the only competent choice. I think it's good to vote greens, though, as they seem to be the only ones who really have liberal perspectives on gay rights, etc. Everyone else is still too scared to change.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 2, 2004 16:14:14 GMT -5
Where is the Morbid Angel board you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 3, 2004 19:24:01 GMT -5
Thanks a lot! No, I'm not really a metal fan but I'll check it out. Everything's interesting from a philosophical point of view.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 5, 2004 1:00:31 GMT -5
Yeah, all fundamentalism is equally bad, whether Christian, Islam, or anything; its psychologically the same and nearly always has dangerous results. Well, yeah, I actually ended up voting for Howard, mainly because he was really (IMO) the only competent choice. I think it's good to vote greens, though, as they seem to be the only ones who really have liberal perspectives on gay rights, etc. Everyone else is still too scared to change. Just to clarify the situation, how would you define fundamentalism? And didn't Howard win? I thought I read that he did in The Economist, but I'm not too up on Australian politics.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 5, 2004 1:01:21 GMT -5
Yeah, all fundamentalism is equally bad, whether Christian, Islam, or anything; its psychologically the same and nearly always has dangerous results. Well, yeah, I actually ended up voting for Howard, mainly because he was really (IMO) the only competent choice. I think it's good to vote greens, though, as they seem to be the only ones who really have liberal perspectives on gay rights, etc. Everyone else is still too scared to change. To clarify the situation, how would you define fundamentalism? I'm just wondering if I qualify. ;D And didn't Howard win? I thought I read that he did in The Economist, but I'm not too up on Australian politics. EDIT: Aaaargh! Double-posted.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 5, 2004 5:56:21 GMT -5
To clarify the situation, how would you define fundamentalism? I'm just wondering if I qualify. ;D That's bloody hilarious! Well, er, a definition... Let me think; I suppose any absolute (and therefore exclusionist) set of beliefs (especially one which persecutes groups such as women or other races/religions) is dangerous, and when combined with a certain psychological profile (characterised by dogmatism, aggression and superiority), becomes fundamentalist (and constitutes an immediate threat to human rights). Just out of interest, my dictionary says: "1. a movement in American Protestantism which stresses the inerrancy of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as literal historical record and prophecy, eg., of creation, the virgin birth of Christ, his second advent, etc. 2. the faith in the Bible so stressed 3. any religious movement which stresses the authority and literal application of its founding tenets, eg., Islamic fundamentalism.4. uncompromising religious or ideological beliefs seen as aggressively extremist." I guess I'm most in line with def'n no. 4, but isn't it amazing that AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY was in the first definition! Cool. And didn't Howard win? I thought I read that he did in The Economist, but I'm not too up on Australian politics. Ya, he won. Now we have the unstoppable duo of stupidity. Woot.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 9, 2004 16:39:44 GMT -5
That's bloody hilarious! Well, er, a definition... Let me think; I suppose any absolute (and therefore exclusionist) set of beliefs (especially one which persecutes groups such as women or other races/religions) is dangerous, and when combined with a certain psychological profile (characterised by dogmatism, aggression and superiority), becomes fundamentalist (and constitutes an immediate threat to human rights). Just out of interest, my dictionary says: "1. a movement in American Protestantism which stresses the inerrancy of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as literal historical record and prophecy, eg., of creation, the virgin birth of Christ, his second advent, etc. 2. the faith in the Bible so stressed 3. any religious movement which stresses the authority and literal application of its founding tenets, eg., Islamic fundamentalism.4. uncompromising religious or ideological beliefs seen as aggressively extremist." I guess I'm most in line with def'n no. 4, but isn't it amazing that AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY was in the first definition! Cool. Ya, he won. Now we have the unstoppable duo of stupidity. Woot. By your definition, I suppose I partially qualify. I do have absolute and exclusionist beliefs, but I try not to persecute women, other races or religions. Well, maybe women consider it persecution when I talk to them, but hopefully not. By nature, if my beliefs are exclusionist, I will consider them superior, and I suppose that the charge of "dogmatism" could then be applied. Personally, however, I dislike the negative connotation that word has. As far as aggression, I try to propagate my faith, but not at gunpoint or with an in-your-face, offensive style that often seems to characterize what others think of Christians. By the dictionary definition, I also appear to line up. So, while I may be a fundamentalist, it is not how I would choose to describe myself. If someone asked what I was, I would just say "A Christian." Not a fundamentalist, Protestant, or evangelical. Just a Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Nov 9, 2004 16:49:39 GMT -5
It's probably the first definition since the term came into frequent use after a series of pamphlets named The Fundamentals was printed in 1909. This sparked off a group of evangelicals who were called "fundamentalists" after the pamphlets.
Just a thought
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 9, 2004 17:00:40 GMT -5
Cool, that's really interesting. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by desertfox on Nov 9, 2004 18:56:11 GMT -5
I thought Howard was a good PM?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 11, 2004 17:31:03 GMT -5
Yes, but better (imo) without Bush. That was all I meant.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 18, 2004 19:44:35 GMT -5
Yeah, the term fundamenalist never meant the last three things until much later... it was really a doctrinal stance (hence why many Christians still call themselves 'fundamentalists.') Lately it has become a perjorative term... very demeaning... so many Christians prefer to avoid it. I don't really care, frankly - it depends on what it means it today's context. I think it means (the way most people use it) the enemy of all things good to mankind and stuck in tradition -- so Satan is a fundamentalist, I guess. Heh.
John - while I appreciate your concern for real Christians, I would ask that you not stereotype us into certain categories... It takes a lot longer than 'ten seconds' to say that Jesus was a pacifist. Let me remind you that He was not a political leader and He did not ever tell soldiers to stop killing people (in fact He didn't even protest His own execution, interestingly enough.) However, I do appreciate your honest attempt to see through a lot of the myths that are current in Christian political realms... God is not a Republican etc.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 20, 2004 0:18:36 GMT -5
I would say it might take a little bit longer then 10 seconds. I mean you would have to read all through the first 4 chapters of the New Testament. Probably around chapter 5 one would realize Jesus was and is opposed to killing your enemies in any situation. Yes, Jesus allowed His own death, but thats not to say he thought the death penalty was an acceptable form of punishment. He allowed his death because there was no other way. In that case he was thinking about man, not himself. He was being selfless. Killing your enemy is certainly not being selfless. I would say, maybe 10 minutes I dont think pacisifst is a political term. A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Furthermore, John 8 records Jesus stoping what would have been a death sentence for a women caught in adultry.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 20, 2004 16:40:38 GMT -5
I would say it might take a little bit longer then 10 seconds. I mean you would have to read all through the first 4 chapters of the New Testament. Probably around chapter 5 one would realize Jesus was and is opposed to killing your enemies in any situation. Yes, Jesus allowed His own death, but thats not to say he thought the death penalty was an acceptable form of punishment. He allowed his death because there was no other way. In that case he was thinking about man, not himself. He was being selfless. Killing your enemy is certainly not being selfless. I would say, maybe 10 minutes I dont think pacisifst is a political term. A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Furthermore, John 8 records Jesus stoping what would have been a death sentence for a women caught in adultry. By your definition, then, I am a pacifist - although I supported the idea of the war against Iraq, and certainly agree with the Allies going to war against Nazi Germany in WW 2. A true pacifist is one who believes that war and violence is wrong in every situation, no matter what the context is. That's different. I completely hate the idea of war and violence; but that does not mean that I think wars should never be started or that violence is always wrong. War should only be used as a last resort, but history has proven time and time again that there are simply situations where there is no other alternative short of allowing tyrants to conquer all. And if we want to deal with Bible citations, we should examine either of the scenes where Jesus goes into the temple and clears out all of the money exchangers and those selling animals. On the first occasion, in John 2:13-19, he actually makes a whip out of rope for the occasion. That does not sound at all like a nice, sweet pacifist Jesus. He's not a tame lion, as C. S. Lewis might say. And, as Bob said, when instructions are given to soldiers on how to do right (Luke 3:14, Acts 10), on neither occasion is it said that they should leave military service. Neither Jesus nor Peter ever recommended it to the soldiers or the centurion.
|
|