The problems of Christian fundamentalism in the US

[PaliRichard]

Two of those written long after the Christian church had formed. At the most you get a cultural history, but it doesn't give us knowledge on how they'd interpret a sermon to 'climb into a closet'.

[/Quote]

 

The sermon (or the part we're concerned with) isn't about just climbing into a closet though. Even if we take it as literally as you seem to want to it's not just about 'climbing into a closet'.

 

I think that if anyone interprets everything literally then they are fools - but that is the problem that comes with preaching a religion. Which bit is metaphor? Which bit is parable? Which bit is literal? If you go all the way back to my post, I was questioning it being "perfect sense". It is far from it.[/Quote]

 

You didn't come accross as questioning it making perfect sense, you said it was out and out nonsense, had you have merely questioned it making perfect sense i wouldn't have responded.

 

Of course in every faith there is difference in opinion on certain aspects, but that can be said in every field of study, religious or not.

 

However, as I said earlier, most religions have a similar teaching about not displaying your faith, or prayer in public. They are perfectly understood in other faiths and I fail to see why the Christian interpretation would be any different to something that (to me) seems so blatantly obvious.

 

Or we conject, or misinterpret, or mistranslate, or misunderstand. The joys of using an old book as a 'perfect' moral guide.

 

I do not disagree with you, but this is not soley a religious problem. Any system that has adherhants, be the religious, philosophical or political in nature has differences of opinion. This occurs in the here and now, in all systems. So to have the relative structure that religion has when you consider the age/translations etc of the Bible is quite a feat in itself.

 

I think we've exhausted the subject though. I shall leave it at that[/Quote]

 

Fair enough, we're obvously not going to agree, it's been interesting though. Thankyou.

[Chris_Sleeps]

You didn't come accross as questioning it making perfect sense, you said it was out and out nonsense

No. I said some of it was outright nonsense, which is true.

[PaliRichard]

No. I said some of it was outright nonsense, which is true[/Quote]

 

Ok, but it was slightly misleading that you put some of it was nonsense then quoted Matthew. Which insinuated that it was this particular statement that was nonsense.

 

Your original post

 

Which bits make perfect sense? It's 3 chapters long, and some of it is outright nonsense.

 

Matthew 6:6

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

 

Can you see where I might have got that impression

[callippo]

the left should really be cheering the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US really, especially the part of it which has seen them virtually take over the Republican party. More than any other factor, it is this that has changed the Republicans from being a total shoo-in to win most Presidential elections, to hardly being able to win any of them. The US is no different to any other country. Emphasise religion too much, and you won't win elections. People don't like to mix up religion with politics too much. Parties with a religous emphasis can win elections, but only when they emerge in a climate of corruption as in Egypt or Gaza, and the religous party can campaign on a basis of cleaning it up. But if they try to govern religously, the public quickly get sick of it.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Can you see where I might have got that impression

I can, my apologies. The limitations of language.

 

To make myself clear, the underlying message of "don't pray for the sake of showing off" is not awful - the nonsense is the awful idea of climbing into a closet. Taking Matthew 6:5-6 together, Jesus tells people not to pray in public. That'd ruin any church.

 

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The Sermon on the Mount holds some awful ideas. Matthew 5:39

 

That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I certainly will not. If a man wants to do evil and I can resist then I will resist.

[PaliRichard]

I can, my apologies. The limitations of language.

 

To make myself clear, the underlying message of "don't pray for the sake of showing off" is not awful - the nonsense is the awful idea of climbing into a closet. Taking Matthew 6:5-6 together, Jesus tells people not to pray in public. That'd ruin any church.

 

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The Sermon on the Mount holds some awful ideas. Matthew 5:39

 

That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I certainly will not. If a man wants to do evil and I can resist then I will resist.

 

hahaha,

 

now we get to another barrel of fish that I will leave well alone.

 

I am a very capable trained pro wrestler and ex self defence teacher, if I choose to hurt, I can hurt. Were I attacked I would not retaliate, but is that the same as not resisting evil in society?

 

I'll leave that one open, I really do have alot to research today so I will leave it at that.

 

Thanks for the conversation Chris

[six45ive]

So.... pleading innocence by virtue of two wrongs making a right?

 

I'm not pleading anything but it's ironic how religious people, including yourself (religious or not), seem to think that a word interpreted as being offensive is, in some way, as bad as the atrocities committed in the name of the superstitious nonsense that I'm offending. *Where's the facepalm icon when you need it?*

[Harleyman]

What is so funny about that? We tolerate the catholics, evangelists, gnostics, jesuits, lutherians, methodists, presbeterians, quakers and vulcans but we know who is the daddy.

 

What about the Hindus, Muslims and Bhuddists or dont they count?

 

Do all schools in the UK have morning prayers and one hour of religious instruction every day? They used to when I went to school there.

 

How many British Prime Ministers have been other than the Protestant faith since the Reformation? Even Benjamin Disareli, Jewish by birth was a convert to Protestant Christianity.

 

How many non Christians sit in the House of Commons?

 

I wouldnt worry too much about these Evangelists making a lot of noise in the Republican party. It's all a lot of wind and p*ss really but we're much better off in this country with a written constitution that makes it clear that there is to be no establishment of an official religion

[callippo]

How many British Prime Ministers have been other than the Protestant faith since the Reformation? Even Benjamin Disareli, Jewish by birth was a convert to Protestant Christianity.

 

How many non Christians sit in the House of Commons?

 

there's never been a single Catholic Prime Minister in fact I don't even think a Catholic has ever even run for the opposition, and failed to win. You will remember that Tony Blair waited until about five minutes after he resigned as PM to convert to Catholicism. The first non-Catholic to run for US President was Al Smith, back in 1928,the Catholic Kennedy was elected President, also Kerry who lost in 2004, was Catholic. So the US is well ahead here when it comes to tolerant of non-majority Chrstian denominations. The current incumbent Obama also got elected even though his father was a Muslim. They're miles ahead of the UK here. They're also miles ahead of the UK when it comes to non-whites getting important positions in government, of which Obama is only one example.

 

in 2005, not only Michael Howard, but his would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer, Oliver Letwin were both Jewish, and it was noticeable that this was barely mentioned in the campaign. That Howard lost was nothing to do with his religous affiliation however. Unlike Disraeli, he didn't feel obliged to convert to get anywhere in his political or professional life. Disraeli's biographers agree Disraeli remained Jewish in spirit all his life, and his conversion was only for convenience. His background clearly meant a great deal to him. He visited Palestine on what ammounted to a pilgrimmage in 1830, at a time when such a journey was arduous, expensive and difficult.

[Harleyman]

there's never been a single Catholic Prime Minister in fact I don't even think a Catholic has ever even run for the opposition, and failed to win. You will remember that Tony Blair waited until about five minutes after he resigned as PM to convert to Catholicism. The first non-Catholic to run for US President was Al Smith, back in 1928,the Catholic Kennedy was elected President, also Kerry who lost in 2004, was Catholic. So the US is well ahead here when it comes to tolerant of non-majority Chrstian denominations. The current incumbent Obama also got elected even though his father was a Muslim. They're miles ahead of the UK here. They're also miles ahead of the UK when it comes to non-whites getting important positions in government, of which Obama is only one example.

 

in 2005, not only Michael Howard, but his would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer, Oliver Letwin were both Jewish, and it was noticeable that this was barely mentioned in the campaign. That Howard lost was nothing to do with his religous affiliation however. Unlike Disraeli, he didn't feel obliged to convert to get anywhere in his political or professional life. Disraeli's biographers agree Disraeli remained Jewish in spirit all his life, and his conversion was only for convenience. His background clearly meant a great deal to him. He visited Palestine on what ammounted to a pilgrimmage in 1830, at a time when such a journey was arduous, expensive and difficult.

 

Good post and yet Six45ive and others blather on about Christian fundamentalism in the US as if this country is being taken over by sinister Evangelical forces of some kind when in fact it's only the Nut Section in the Republican party who are busily destroying that party with their daft statements.

 

I've no love for Romney but he's not one of these nutters and that;s probably why the Republicans are less than happy that he's in the forefront for the nomination. They'd sooner see someone like Santorum get the nomination instead.

 

Anyway a curse on our enemies and may confusion and mayhem fill their tents