What is Wrong with Fundamental Christianity
I was raised a Southern Baptist, listening to Focus on the Family for most of my teenage years. I know Dobson well, and know of Perkins.
It is this kind of selective memory, not only not being able to recall their own words – but denying that they would ever say such a thing that leads me to believe they are in the grip of fear.
Fear like anger can be blinding. It can keep you from seeing things that are right in front of you – or keep from you things you have said and done.
Fundamental Christianity (a term I wore proudly in my teens and twenties) uses fear as its primary recruiting tool.
When I was at a Christian camp at age 10, after 3 active days and 2 sleepless nights we were shown a scary end of times film. At the end of the film, we were all asked “If you were to die tonight and Peter met you at the gates of Heaven, what reason would you give him for letting you in?”
There was only one answer. That Jesus Christ is your personal savior.
The message was clear: If you don’t accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (and prove it by living by our Doctrine), you are going to Hell.
That is pure, fear.
Love and Compassion and REAL CHRIST LIKE VALUES would be ending poverty now, railing against usury laws, healing the sick, demonstrating a selfless life like Christ.
But who the hell is gonna do that?
You want to talk about a Culture of Life? Stop capitol punishment, stop bombing countries that haven’t attacked us, stop rendition, stop torture and abuse.
But the blinders are on. The obvious is obscured.
10 comments:
What is it with you folks quoting a lunatic, agenda-driven website like MediaMatters? You have to take everything there with a huge grain of salt.
One of the reasons I'm a small "c" Christian is that I can't stand the dogma and, yes, the fear-mongering.
There is plenty of hypocricy in almost all organized religion. The only guys that seem to practice what they preach are Buddhists.
But, religion (or plain morals) and politics are separate areas of thought. The paradoxes can be found in both leftists and rightist.
You rightly state that someone who preaches a Culture of Life should be incapable of supporting the death penalty, war in general, torture, et al.
All Judeo-Christian folks should never borrow money at interest, because it's expressly forbidden by the Torah and Bible. Churches should never have bake sales or BINGO because it violates Jesus mantra against venders in temples.
But, in practical life, these things are tolerated even though they are as expressly disdained as violence and hate.
On the left, you have similar paradoxes but these are more ethical issues than religious but I think it also applies:
* The left is anti-death penalty unless it's an unborn child.
* The left embraces racial equality but champions affirmative action which rests on the presumption that folks of different ethnicities can't compete on a level field.
* The left talks a lot about counting all votes but one of the leftist mantras is that voters cannot be trusted to make important decisions.
So it cuts both ways, my friend. I don't believe there is an organized group of people in this country who do not hold paradoxical ideals of some sort.
I forgot one point.....you said "who the hell is going to do that?" in living pure Christ and/or humanitarian ideals.
Umm...try thousands of Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto monks? See, dta, the one's who live the ideals don't make a lot of noise so we tend to overlook them, but they are there, God bless 'em.
Ummm... and George's speechwriters aren't agenda-driven?
Sure they are, and that's why you shouldn't accept them as facts, but policy and agenda. Anyone who accepts anything a politician or a weenie-site like MM posts as unchallendged fact needs to rethink the definition.
John, that's exactly what you did. You posted a politician's article as fact, and attacked my rebuttal on the grounds of agenda.
So, when you quote an article that makes bunches of insinuations with no references to back them up, I can't post a MediaMatters article that includes references and instructions on how to replicate their results, because it's a "weenie-site"?
And you think _we_ have issues with reality.
I posted an article from a well-respected journalist who was a speech-writer 20 friggin years ago.
"Well-respected journalist"? Yeah, guys, watch what he says next time we trot out Helen Thomas as a source.
Garrett, your must be logically dyslexic. Helen Thomas was a journalist who's now a pundit. Tony Snow was a speechwriter who's now a journalist. Therefore, for information, Snow is currently a much better journalistic source.
Jeez, Louise. It's like if you guys hear it from anyone but a screaming moonbat it can't be true. And everything those distorters say is God's truth. Wake up!
And you accuse _me_ of being logically dyslexic?
He's a talk show host and columnist. His web page says he worked in newspapers starting in 1979. Helen Thomas started over 30 years before him. I think anyone can take a reasonable guess at who's got better journalistic credentials...
He hasn't been a columnist for 4 years. His talk show and his journalism are different.
Post a Comment