NationStates Jolt Archive

(Not mine, just thought it was good)

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed on the internet, under the presidency of the Peter Ludlow. Anyone wishing to debate with us, may do so by e-mail at ludlow@umich.edu.

In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "love thy neighbor", willed that believers should show *compassion* toward others.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean mere lip service ("I love them, but I hate their sin"), but genuine concern for the welfare of others.

3. Yet the Religious Right has forsaken compassion for a doctrine of institutionalized hatred and violence.

4. Specifically, the Religious Right has taken the Word of God and wrapped it in the flag of Right Wing Politics, replacing God's message of redemption for the entire world with a narrow message endorsing right wing American politics.

5. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, where He instructs that we are to show compassion for the poor.

6. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a right wing political doctrine in which the poor have only themselves and their alleged laziness and moral weakness to blame.

7. For example, the Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers.

8. The Religious Right has rejected the cries for help from the children of impoverished families in the inner cities.

9. The Religious Right, has advocated fewer resources for the elderly poor and for the millions of children now living in poverty.

10. In place of giving to the poor, the Religious Right has advocated political doctrines specifically designed so that
individuals may acquire vast sums of money.

11. The Religious Right has thus seized on a contemporary economic ideology as an excuse to ignore the teachings of Jesus.

12. Item: the Religious Right has ignored God's injunction that we are to be caretakers for the Earth.

13. In place of God's injunction, the Religious Right has advocated policies in which the natural resources of God's creation are stripped from the earth and given to wealthy corporations without replacement.

14. In place of God's injunction that we are to be caretakers for the creatures of His creation, they have advocated policies through which these creatures may be extinguished forever.

15. The Religious Right has rejected laws designed to protect God's creation from pollution, claiming the "rights" of property owners are to be paramount.

16. In each case they have ignored the message of the Bible that this is God's creation, and they have substituted a doctrine in which God's creation may be partitioned and sold to the highest bidder.

17. Again, God's message has been cast aside for a message that supports a narrow economic message with its roots in right wing American politics.

18. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

19. In place of God's words, the Religious Right has substituted a doctrine in which perceived sinners are to be persecuted.

20. Gays, for example, are persecuted because of their alleged sins. In some cases, leaders of the Religious Right have encouraged acts of physical violence against gays.

21. While the Religious Right has been eager to persecute others for their alleged sins, they have been blind to their own.

22. While the Bible counsels that a rich man can no more enter the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle, many in the Religious Right have celebrated the acquisition of wealth.

23. While the Bible enjoins us against pride, the Religious Right appears to be flush with pride in it's holier than thou stance.

24. While the Bible asks that we be slow to anger, the Religious Right is quick to anger -- indeed it appears to revel in anger and in fanning the flames of anger in others.

25. While the Bible counsels that we are not to be "revilers," key members of the religious right have consistently and aggressively reviled their political enemies as well as those who are perceived to be sinners.

26. It seems then, that the Religious Right picks its sins selectively, ignoring the clear Biblical message against avarice, pride, and anger, and emphasizing selected “sins” that have little to no Biblical basis.

27. Item: While the Bible counsels that we are not to bear false witness, the Religious Right has engaged in smear campaigns against numerous political foes, often telling outright lies about “liberal” political leaders.

28. Worse yet, these smear campaigns have often been carried out in the house of God, sometimes in the form of inserts in church bulletins, and sometimes directly from the pulpit.

29. But the Religious Right has not merely spread its lies within the Church; they have done so outside the Church as well.

30. The Religious Right has used its financial resources not to spread the word of God, but to spread lies in the populace.

31. Item: Religious Right has failed to see that God's call to help our neighbors also extends to our international neighbors.

32. International aggression is not a Christian doctrine.

33. Where the Bible calls us to be peacemakers, the Religious Right claims that we have no business trying to bring peace to troubled areas but rather counsels that we should use military might to secure our business interests.

34. Where the Bible, through the story of the good Samaritan, instructs that we are to help our international neighbors -- indeed, even our enemies -- the Religious Right counsels "America First".

35. But "America First" cannot be a true Christian Doctrine.

36. The Bible gives no special status to political entities like the United States of America, and any suggestion to the contrary is to simply lie about the content of the Bible.

37. God does not bless nation states, and if He did, He surely would not bless them for practicing international internal intolerance, and propping up corrupt kingdoms and military juntas that traffic in institutionalized poverty and violence.

38. Item: the Religious Right has claimed that abortion is immoral, yet there is no Biblical basis for this claim

39. Rather, the doctrine appears to be driven by a medieval philosophy of the person, which they have imported into their theology.

40. Why has medieval philosophy taken precedence over the Scriptures? Perhaps the Religious Right never took the Scriptures very seriously in the first place.

41. This is highlighted by the frightening extremes to which they have taken this political dogma.

42. Victims of rape and incest are not to be allowed abortions. What could the Biblical basis of this possibly be?

43. Even when the mother's life is in danger, they would reject the possibility of abortion. Thus once again God's message of love and redemption is tarnished by advocates of a political doctrine of hatred and cruelty.

44. More troubling than their anti-abortion doctrine, however, is the tone with which that doctrine is advanced.

45. Here they use they weapon of hatred, encouraging the harassment of women, the bombing of clinics, and in some cases the taking of human life.

46. Their rejoinder that abortion is the taking of a human life has no basis in Biblical authority.

47. Their anti-abortion campaign is merely a political campaign dressed in the clothing of religion.

48. Item: The Religious Right has failed to distinguish its political message from what is left of its genuine religious message, leading Christians to conflate the two.

49. The Religious Right has engaged in a form of idolatry -- idolatry of certain patriotic symbols.

50. They have wrapped the Bible in the American flag. Indeed, one can find Bibles that contain documents such as the United States Constitution and pictures of the presidents.

51. Such Bibles arguably defile the word of God.

52. The American flag is not a symbol to be worshipped; yet the Religious Right has argued that it should be a crime to "desecrate" the flag. But what religious basis is there for such advocacy?

53. What basis is there for putting the American flag in the front of a church, next to the altar and the cross?

54. There can be no Biblical basis for placing such symbols in the house of God, nor for the undue reverence paid to them.

55. The Religious Right has failed to grasp the full power of God, supposing that spiritual growth for Christians can only come in the wake of political change in the United States.

56. On the contrary, God is perfectly capable of creating spiritual revival without the help of the Republican Party, and certainly without the help of an organizations that espouse doctrines that are antithetical to the teaching of God
at almost every turn.

57. Item: the Religious Right has preyed on people's fears -- their fear of crime, of other races, of the future, of the unknown.

58. Rather than say "fear not, for God is with us," they have used fear to sow the seeds of hatred and violence.

59. They have led their congregations to fear people of other races.

60. They have led their congregations to fear people of other sexual orientations.

61. They have led their congregations to fear our own judicial system.

62. They have led their congregations to fear the teachings of science.

63. They have led their congregations to fear anyone and anything different from their narrow conception of what they consider to be normal.

64. Worse, they have fanned this fear into hatred, encouraging their congregations to despise those who are different.

65. Item: The Religious Right has paid lipservice to the moral development of children, yet their doctrines are antithetical to the interests of children.

66. They appear to believe that moral development can be accomplished solely through discipline and censorship --
censorship of thought-provoking materials and censorship of the findings of science.

67. Yet, as a group, the members of the Religious Right have failed miserably as parents.

68. Jesus said, "suffer the children come unto me," yet members of the Religious Right have physically and psychologically abused their children.

69. They have advocated corporeal punishment, and have carried out acts of indoctrination on their children which, truth be known, are as severe as those of any fringe religious cult.

70. They have made children to be ashamed of and hate their bodies, when they should be proud that those bodies are the temples of God.

71. They have lied to children about the nature of God's creation, teaching them to ignore the great beauty God has revealed through the biological sciences.

72. In place of that beauty, they have taught their children a theory in which God's revelation through nature is ignored, and an ugly doctrine of fiat creation is espoused.

73. They have taught their children to be intolerant of others, to be hateful of gays and persons of color.

74. They have failed to instruct their children in God's message of love and redemption and have substituted for it a message of exclusion, suspicion, and contempt.

75. They have failed to raise their children according to the teachings of the Bible.

76. They have utterly failed as parents, yet they presume to dictate how we should raise our own children.

77. Item: The Religious Right, caught up in its hypocritical attacks on others has utterly ignored the solteriolocial aspects of Christianity.

78. Gone is the message that Jesus dies on the cross to save us from our sins.

79. Gone is the message of salvation, of hope and redemption.

80. In effect, the one core fact of Christianity, it's very reason for being, has been lost in the Religious Right's orgy of hatred and accusation.

81. How many souls will be lost because of their campaign of hatred?

82. At what price do these political triumphs come? Are they really worth the loss of the core message of Christianity?

83. Item: the Religious Right pays lip service to the authority of the Word of God, yet that Word plays little role in the treating of the Religious Right.

84. In place of the message of God's Grace and our redemption, they have substituted a purely political doctrine with no grounding in the Scriptures.

85. Rare are the references to passages of the Bible in the sermons of the Religious Right.

86. Those references that survive, are taken out of context and are merely used to justify preestablished political doctrines.

87. For example, there is no Biblical support for their views on abortion.

88. There is no Biblical support for their right wing economic theories.

89. There is no Biblical support for their campaign of abuse against their own children.

90. There is no Biblical support for their "America First" doctrines.

91. There is no Biblical support for their treatment of persons of color.

92. There is no Biblical support for their treatment of homosexuals.

93. In conclusion: the Religious Right has desecrated the house of God, taking a place of worship and treating it as a soap box in the service or the Right Wing of the Republican Party.

94. The Religious Right has likewise desecrated the Word of God, attributing to the Bible doctrines that are hateful, cruel, and entirely antithetical to the actual contents of the Bible.

95. Christians are to be exhorted to speak out against the Religious Right, as it is a vile heretical movement, wholly outside the teachings of the Word of God.

----------------------Redistribute Freely--------------------------------

My view

I am personally not very clear on abortion, but I feel personally this article makes very good points IF you define the "Religious Right" by what it is today, and how it is represented in the Media.

To me, this person is talking about the Religious Right which is most predominantly depicted in the media in this way, and has many who hold the Religious Right as their banner. So therefore, if this is how the Religious Right is represented in the media, how society views the Religious Right, and the majority of those claiming to represent the Religious Right act this way then therefore this is the Religious Right as it exists today in the United States.

To me, this "Religious Right" is a socio-political movement. It represents itself in the media, and the majority of people who call themselves the "Religious Right" normally agree with the people in the Media claiming to represent the Religious Right.

If the Religious Right during this time period was described in history books in the future, it would be written about according to how it was represented in the media, by its leaders, and etc.

The Religious Right claims to be truly Christian and know what is Christian. This rebukes this.

Hmmm... theses or faeces?

Looks more like trolling if you expect someone to argue by email instead of on NS.

Its not trolling, as I said its not mine, I just thought some of the person's points were good.

Too long. I didn't read it.

Anyway, do you have some commentary to add or is this just useless coy and paste spam?

It has some good points, useless to you since you won't read it so you are ignorant of what it says therefore cannot comment on it and really should not be responding here.

It has some good points, useless to you since you won't read it so you are ignorant of what it says therefore cannot comment on it and really should not be responding here.

After reading it myself ignorant is exactally the correct word for it, as is trolling and copy paste spam, right on par with that paticular institution of lower living.

Well whatever you say, it is not spam, it has some very good points. Other people post a lot worse.

It has some great and truthful observations. I am glad you continue to post and bump it as I am sure some people will read it :).

It has some good points, useless to you since you won't read it so you are ignorant of what it says therefore cannot comment on it and really should not be responding here.
I read it.

It's entirely based on a strawman "the religious right".

Well, I'm on the religious right, and I go to a "religious right" church, and never in my entire life have I heard it said that we should fear people of other races - in fact, I am of mixed race myself, and there's an incredibly rich mix of races in my church.

So, since you're entire argument is based on a strawman, and I've found a good example where a major assertion of yours isn't true, why should I believe the rest?

Perhaps you're not well read. Ever heard of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Fellowship of North America?

The Assemblies of God recognizes biblical guidelines that (1) support certain universal rights for all people regardless of race, and (2) condemn prejudice toward any person because of race. We also recognize that racism (a belief in its basest form that one race is superior to another) continues to confront the church.

The Bible, our infallible guide in all matters of human relationships, speaks clearly and explicitly against racism, prejudice, and discrimination. The Old Testament declares that all people are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27; 5:1,2). The New Testament notes that barriers separating us from one another have been broken down through the life and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:26-28; Colossians 3:11). In the Early Church the apostles confronted racial divisions, and it is clear that their response was reconciliation through the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:1-7; 10:1-22). Based on these unequivocal biblical mandates, the Assemblies of God considers racism, prejudice, and discrimination to be sins against our fellowman, and therefore sins against God, who has created all humankind in His image.

The church calls to repentance any and all who have sinned against God by participating in racism through personal thought or action, through church and social structures, or through failure to address the evils of racism.

The official position of the Assemblies of God concludes with an affirmative definitive stand against racism. "We pray for God to give us the courage to confront the sin of racism where it may be found in our lives, in our churches, in our society structure, and in our world." We must cooperate with the Holy Spirit in actively rooting out racism at home and abroad and seeking the reconciliation of men and women to God and to each other.

Well I think you should be more critical of some of your leaders and such of the Religious Right, such as the President and others who claim to be of the "Religious Right". This is mainly about them. They claim to represent the Religious Right.

In my area many who claim to be the "Religious Right" are racist in many ways. Many politicians included.

From the forum rules:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogitation
The problem is that you post articles in their entirety without adding any comments of your own or any analysis of your own. This qualifies as spam. ...or possibly even trolling (which is posting controversial material merely to ruffle feathers and make people mad).

Don't just copy-and-paste. State if you agree or disagree with the article. Describe why you agree or disagree. This is a political discussion forum; discuss any articles that you post or link to. Don't just reproduce them verbatim.

Basically saying that if all you do if copy and paste an article into a thread, and post it, that is considered spam.

Well I think you should be more critical of some of your leaders and such of the Religious Right, such as the President and others who claim to be of the "Religious Right". This is mainly about them. They claim to represent the Religious Right.

In my area many who claim to be the "Religious Right" are racist in many ways. Many politicians included.

And I repeat - there is no strawman as you suggest, called "the religious right" with a set of common leaders.

People can get on TV and claim whatever they like. The fact that you believe them makes you incredibly ignorant.

I am not posting anything to ruffle feathers or make people mad, I felt like the article has several good points, I can edit the post so that it is more likely.

I am actually considered a fairly intelligent person by others, you sound very Christian calling people ignorant Deep Kimchi.

I am not posting anything to ruffle feathers or make people mad, I felt like the article has several good points, I can edit the post so that it is more likely.

I am actually considered a fairly intelligent person by others, you sound very Christian calling people ignorant Deep Kimchi.
Then hopefully you'll be intelligent enough to read and understand this:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

and realize that the ENTIRE post you put up is fallacious from one end to the other.

Although I agree that there is no defined "religious right" organization, these theses do draw attention to increasingly popular doctrines among major sects.

Granted, not every church in a certain denomination agrees with all the teachings supported by the majority of others, but there are significant numbers of believers who have become closed-minded due to influences such as those described herein.

Some of the points may contain misrepresented information, or be outright apocryphal, but I think that, as a whole, the document serves as a call to action to preserve the purity of Christianity.

Although I agree that there is no defined "religious right" organization, these theses do draw attention to increasingly popular doctrines among major sects.

Granted, not every church in a certain denomination agrees with all the teachings supported by the majority of others, but there are significant numbers of believers who have become closed-minded due to influences such as those described herein.

Some of the points may contain misrepresented information, or be outright apocryphal, but I think that, as a whole, the document serves as a call to action to preserve the purity of Christianity.

And that is what it was written as. The man who wrote it I feel was fairly sincere in his efforts.

And that is what it was written as. The man who wrote it I feel was fairly sincere in his efforts.
This doesn't make your argument any more valid, nor does it make it any less a strawman fallacy.

Alright Deep Kimchi, you feel how you feel, thank you for bumping the thread again.

Alright Deep Kimchi, you feel how you feel, thank you for bumping the thread again.
Oh, I can repeat how fallacious your argument is, over and over and over and over again.

Until you admit it. Then again, it's too obvious that it's a strawman, and a complete fallacy.

Oh, I can repeat how fallacious your argument is, over and over and over and over again.

Until you admit it. Then again, it's too obvious that it's a strawman, and a complete fallacy.

I do not feel it is fallacious. Many of the criticisms he made I hear on the streets, I hear in stores. I have said the myself before. It is what is real in society.

These are practical observations, not philosophical. You can say what you wish.

I do not feel it is fallacious. Many of the criticisms he made I hear on the streets, I hear in stores. I have said the myself before. It is what is real in society.

These are practical observations, not philosophical. You can say what you wish.
You should read that link I gave you.

It would explain "fallacy" in a way that even you would understand.

You should read that link I gave you.

It would explain "fallacy" in a way that even you would understand.

You continue to sound very Christian here with your insults.

Also look at my personal thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=343004 which quotes directly from the Bible on Love being the most important commandment.

I can make many personal observations and agree with this article where the perceptions and attitudes of "mainstream Christianity" as well as what the perceived spokespersons of the "Religious Right" representing "mainstream Christianity" in government contradict what Jesus Christ himself taught.

You continue to sound very Christian here with your insults.
Disagreeing with you is not insulting. Perhaps it would be instructive for you to read the link to the strawman fallacy.

I'm actually trying to help you keep from making a complete fool of yourself.

You should read that link I gave you.

It would explain "fallacy" in a way that even you would understand.

Your trolling isn't helpful. It's a bit like a member of the Log Cabin Republicans coming into a thread about Republicans opposing same-sex marriage and screaming over and over again, "I AM A REPUBLICAN AND I DON'T OPPOSE THIS THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A STRAWMAN!"

The truth of the matter is that the majority of the so-called "Religious Right" movement meet the majority of the descriptors. Obviously, as with any grouping of people, all of those in the group will not meet every single one. Thank you for pointing out that you are not racist. Care to contribute anything else to the discussion? Otherwise, we get it - you aren't a racist. Good.

Thank you. He keeps yelling strawman but the descriptors are obvious. That is a good anology.

Your trolling isn't helpful. It's a bit like a member of the Log Cabin Republicans coming into a thread about Republicans opposing same-sex marriage and screaming over and over again, "I AM A REPUBLICAN AND I DON'T OPPOSE THIS THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING IS A STRAWMAN!"

The truth of the matter is that the majority of the so-called "Religious Right" movement meet the majority of the descriptors. Obviously, as with any grouping of people, all of those in the group will not meet every single one. Thank you for pointing out that you are not racist. Care to contribute anything else to the discussion? Otherwise, we get it - you aren't a racist. Good.

It's definitely a strawman argument, cut and dried.

I can point out an entire church that isn't racist, as I did at the beginning of the thread. Not just me.

If I could interject a word here...

Deep Kimchi and Aerion, your confrontational attitudes contribute NOTHING towards the thread. Please keep civil in your arguments. You both have opinions, and I do enjoy reading a good debate, but when both sides are confrontational and bearing ill-will towards one another, then nothing progressive comes from it.

Deep Kimchi, you should take the advice you gave Aerion. Unless you have noticed, certain members of the 'Religious Right' DO actually take the positions that are stated in the '95 theses'. These members are particularly prominent in the media and business circles.

Furthermore, this:

Until you admit it. Then again, it's too obvious that it's a strawman, and a complete fallacy.

Is not going to get ANYONE convinced of anything. If you have nothing progressive, or positively critical to say, don't bother saying it. It just makes you look like an ass.

A Strawman fallacy, using the definition of the fallacy site you linked, is:

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

Using this we can deny the document of applying to the whole 'Religious Right', though aspects of ALL do appear in the various groups and peoples that make up the 'Religious Right'. However, popular media figures such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are applicable in regards to the document, because their position is almost word-for-word exactly with the theses given by the document's author. Again, the author made the mistake of generalising, which is a propaganda piece rather than a true academic insight.

I do not pretend to even think that the 'Religious Right' unilaterally agree with all the reported points, and it would have done the article a great deal less trouble if the author had pointed out specific examples rather than lumping all together.

However, this is a problem for another debate, since both sides unfairly lump each other together.

Aerion, you fall in this category since you are bad-mouthing Deep Kimchi's Christian faith as being 'ignorant' etc etc. This is both unfair and rather prejudiced. I know a fair amount of Christians and while some might fit into that category, a great deal DO NOT. If you wish to attack a person, never attack their background, as it is both stupid and quite pathetic.
Anyway, stop attacking him. He is being stupidly confrontational, as are you. Keep the thread civil.

It's definitely a strawman argument, cut and dried.

I can point out an entire church that isn't racist, as I did at the beginning of the thread. Not just me.

You can guarrantee that there isn't a single racist person in your church or your denomination? You can guarrantee that none of the members disagree with that doctrine?

Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans are an entire branch of the Republican party that support the rights of homosexuals (being homosexual themselves). It doesn't change the fact that the Republican party as a whole is not interested in these issues, and is indeed beginning to alienate the Log Cabin Republicans from the larger party.


Aerion, you fall in this category since you are bad-mouthing Deep Kimchi's Christian faith as being 'ignorant' etc etc. This is both unfair and rather prejudiced. I know a fair amount of Christians and while some might fit into that category, a great deal DO NOT. If you wish to attack a person, never attack their background, as it is both stupid and quite pathetic.
Anyway, stop attacking him. He is being stupidly confrontational, as are you. Keep the thread civil.

In Aerion's defense, he/she has not once called Deep Kimchi ingorant. He/she has simply pointed out that DK's constant barage using such terms doesn't seem exactly in line with Christian faith.

Using this we can deny the document of applying to the whole 'Religious Right', though aspects of ALL do appear in the various groups and peoples that make up the 'Religious Right'. However, popular media figures such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are applicable in regards to the document, because their position is almost word-for-word exactly with the theses given by the document's author. Again, the author made the mistake of generalising, which is a propaganda piece rather than a true academic insight.


On this basis, I asser that Aerion must remove the Assemblies of God from the term "the religious right".

I used to go to a moderate Church. A while back the was a contriversy with the group of churches it was part of. Some of the churches inside of the group had demonstrated themselves to be very racist. One of the things done by a church in the group of Churches is an announcement by the pastor that Satan had entered the Church when a black person or group of black people attempted to enter.

I wish the contraversy had destroyed the churches. I hate the Christian church and it would have been nice to see them fall.

EDIT: This was less than 10 years ago.

I think the theses have several good points, actually.

I'm not going to label them out because I believe if someone took the time of carefully and logically read over all of them they'd find at least a few they could admit were a reasonable problem with the church.

I think dimissing all of them because several are a tad over the top on their accusations. In documents like these you have to strive to find the good points in them, and give them merit for what they do right- I use the Bible as an example.

I certainly don't agree with many things that the Bible says, but I believe we should embrace many of the things it discusses, mainly, kindness to other human beings and love for those we disagree with. I'm not going to trash the Bible because I don't believe in revelations, just as level-headed and intelligent people should be able to examine this document without flaming the author because they don't believe in the same thing they do.
Also, if they disagree with something that's said, perhaps a more calm and intelligent argument could be used- it makes the dissenter seem much more intelligent and believable.

On this basis, I asser that Aerion must remove the Assemblies of God from the term "the religious right".

I was under the impression that you placed them under that umbrella, not Aerion.

I wish the contraversy had destroyed the churches. I hate the Christian church and it would have been nice to see them fall.

And why is that?

I was under the impression that you placed them under that umbrella, not Aerion.


Nope. Read back in the thread, he assumes that Christians are in the religious right.

Nope. Read back in the thread, he assumes that Christians are in the religious right.

That is because there are Christians in the religious right.

In Aerion's defense, he/she has not once called Deep Kimchi ingorant. He/she has simply pointed out that DK's constant barage using such terms doesn't seem exactly in line with Christian faith.

Reading back, I can only assume he is being sarcastic or deliberately using Christian as an insult. If the author would point out what might be the obvious answer, I would be grateful.

The King of Eyes, well said.


I wish the contraversy had destroyed the churches. I hate the Christian church and it would have been nice to see them fall.

The Christian church? Which one? The Catholics? The Protestants? Mormons? etc. You see where this goes? What group of Christians are you calling the fall for, and why? Because some have opinions that you find disgusting? That is not a fair nor democratic way to look at the matter.

Take in note that there are plenty of groups there that utilise the Christian faith as a method to promote their own socio-political agenda.

Well, I'm on the religious right, and I go to a "religious right" church, and never in my entire life have I heard it said that we should fear people of other races - in fact, I am of mixed race myself, and there's an incredibly rich mix of races in my church.

So, since you're entire argument is based on a strawman, and I've found a good example where a major assertion of yours isn't true, why should I believe the rest?

Perhaps you're not well read. Ever heard of the Pentecostal/Charismatic Fellowship of North America?

Quote:
The Assemblies of God recognizes biblical guidelines that (1) support certain universal rights for all people regardless of race, and (2) condemn prejudice toward any person because of race. We also recognize that racism (a belief in its basest form that one race is superior to another) continues to confront the church.

You claim yourself as a religious rightist that goes to a religious right Church (and I am assuming that the Church here is Christian).

Furthermore, you introduce the Assemblies of God, not the theses. Unless you mean that the Assemblies of God represent the entire Christian faith?

That is because there are Christians in the religious right.


But not all Christians are in the "religious right". And for even those denominations that may say they are in the "religious right", they don't believe ALL the things that he listed.

Nor is there a cogent definition of "religious right".

If we define it as all Christians who believes ALL the things on that list, I would think that would be a rather narrow slice of Christianity - and attempting to say that it applies to all Christians is fallacious.

Nope. Read back in the thread, he assumes that Christians are in the religious right.

No, he assumes that the religious right call themsleves Christian. Aerion never once put any specific group of Christians under that umbrella, nor did he suggest that all Christians fall under it. He certainly seemed to suggest that he does not fall under that category, despite being a Christian. You were the one who said, "My church is part of the Religious Right."

Reading back, I can only assume he is being sarcastic or deliberately using Christian as an insult. If the author would point out what might be the obvious answer, I would be grateful.

My guess is that sarcasm is the answer. It's kind of like if you called me a bitch and I answered, "Well, that's very nice of you."

No, he assumes that the religious right call themsleves Christian. Aerion never once put any specific group of Christians under that umbrella, nor did he suggest that all Christians fall under it. He certainly seemed to suggest that he does not fall under that category, despite being a Christian. You were the one who said, "My church is part of the Religious Right."

Then if he doesn't assume that ALL Christians fall under it, he should take pains now to specify which Christians and which denominations do not fall under it.

5. Item: the Religious Right has neglected the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Luke, where He instructs that we are to show compassion for the poor.
how so?
7. For example, the Religious Right has rejected the needs of poor children of unwed mothers.
do you have a specific example of this?

28. Worse yet, these smear campaigns have often been carried out in the house of God, sometimes in the form of inserts in church bulletins, and sometimes directly from the pulpit.
I doubt this happens often, as it's illegal. When it does happen the IRS is usually right on top of it.


37. God does not bless nation states, and if He did, He surely would not bless them for practicing international internal intolerance, and propping up corrupt kingdoms and military juntas that traffic in institutionalized poverty and violence.
how can one claim to know who God would bless and who He would not? or even try to limit God as to who he can bless?

not that I am saying that God does bless America, but how would you know?



67. Yet, as a group, the members of the Religious Right have failed miserably as parents.
do you have a source for that? a study? statistics? examples?

68. Jesus said, "suffer the children come unto me," yet members of the Religious Right have physically and psychologically abused their children.
when? do you have examples that the religious right do this more than any other group?

70. They have made children to be ashamed of and hate their bodies, when they should be proud that those bodies are the temples of God.
they have? do you have proof of this too?


76. They have utterly failed as parents, yet they presume to dictate how we should raise our own children.
How have they failed as parents? Isn't it the democrats who are trying to push their way into a parent's business? The religious might try to offer up unwanted advice, but the democrats are trying to pass laws.


78. Gone is the message that Jesus dies on the cross to save us from our sins
79. Gone is the message of salvation, of hope and redemption.
I still see the message being spread loud and clear, even from the most fundamentalist Christians.

Then if he doesn't assume that ALL Christians fall under it, he should take pains now to specify which Christians and which denominations do not fall under it.

I think his point was to discuss how very un-Christian these viewpoints are. My guess is that Aerion doesn't think that those who meet these descriptors are very Christian in the first place.

Meanwhile, it isn't really necessary to enumerate who does and does not fall under the descriptors in order to discuss the problems caused by those who do.

First of all, let me say this:

Right now I have a picture of Lord Jesus Christ hanging behind my computer, it is Christ at Thirty-Three by Henrich Hofmann, one of my favorite depictions of my beloved Jesus Christ. I have a deep faith and admiration for Jesus Christ.

I would call myself a Christian, but my view of religion is much more interfaith, and therefore as I do not see Jesus Christ as the only salvation to heaven for the millions of others who choose other faiths in the Higher Power I feel I cannot rightly call myself a Christian by today’s standards.

I believe as I posted that Love is the most important commandment and strive to follow what Jesus Christ taught in my daily life.

I am deeply disturbed by what I call the “Religious Right”, which I feel this article very well describes, what I feel is a socio-political movement that has used and diluted Jesus Christ’s teachings.

I said I agree with the majority of these points, not ALL. But while I may not agree with some of the ones you point out there, I can see almost every one of them in my local county.

And yes, I was being sarcastic earlier, as I feel if you claim to be Christian, then you should at least try to be Christian especially when your debating about something to do with it.

Dempublicents1: bugger! You beat me to it!

I'll assume it's sarcasm unless the author disproves me, so apologies to Aerion there.

But not all Christians are in the "religious right". And for even those denominations that may say they are in the "religious right", they don't believe ALL the things that he listed.

No one ever assumed that all Christians are in the 'religious right'. Not even the author. He just states that the Religious Right don't follow the Bible as they espouse in certain arguments, which groups of the 'Religious Right' influence do, which you cannot really argue against. Quite a lot of anti-abortion factions do use the claim of 'It is against God's Will' or some such like.

First of all, let me say this:

Right now I have a picture of Lord Jesus Christ hanging behind my computer, it is Christ at Thirty-Three by Henrich Hofmann, one of my favorite depictions of my beloved Jesus Christ. I have a deep faith and admiration for Jesus Christ.

I would call myself a Christian, but my view of religion is much more interfaith, and therefore as I do not see Jesus Christ as the only salvation to heaven for the millions of others who choose other faiths in the Higher Power I feel I cannot rightly call myself a Christian by today’s standards.

I believe as I posted that Love is the most important commandment and strive to follow what Jesus Christ taught in my daily life.

I am deeply disturbed by what I call the “Religious Right”, which I feel this article very well describes, what I feel is a socio-political movement that has used and diluted Jesus Christ’s teachings.

I said I agree with the majority of these points, not ALL. But while I may not agree with some of the ones you point out there, I can see almost every one of them in my local county.


I would disagree with the majority of these, in comparing them to any Pentacostal Christian I've ever met.

I greatly enjoy the intermingling of Politics and Religion that the NeoCons have brought us. The thing is NeoCons are using the religous right as pawns.

Its been a concept that Neo Cons have prefrected since the begginning. Have some other "evil" that jumps in front of other important issues (Economy, jobs, etc) and that evil issue hogs 99% of the publics intrest. Giving them free reign to do whatever they want, the uneducated public will not notice.

Examples:
Reagan: While he himself wasnt a NeoCon (or was he?), his administration was full of them. And who was the distracting evil? Russians of course. His stance on the russians kept his popularity high. He did plenty of good things, but causes a gnarly defit that my grand kids will have to deal with.

Bush: Crap Russia fell. Luckly Saddam invaded. War Starts approval raitings rise. Whew, lets string this war out for the longest time possible, even though its over. Saddam is the evil here. Too bad, 2 - 3 years later, there was no evil to glom on to. Hence....approval ratings drop.

Clinton: He was a straight forward guy. He didnt smoke screen anything, other then his bedroom dealings. He actually was straight forward with economy issues, health care, whatever. No one can say he was pulling a distraction routine, with his political issues. He had no "evil" scape goat. Why? cuse evil scapegoating is Neo Con phenominon.

Bush: Woah is him. Nearly 1 year into his presidency, and his numbers are falling. BOOM. 9/11 (im not a conspiracy guy, so dont read into that). Al Qeida, Al Queida, Terrorist, Terrorists. 99% of the time for the next 2 years. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 is what was coming out the front. While in the back, he was signing away our nations soul to big <insert industry here>.

Who is Bush`s evil distraction?? We all know.

When its all said and done, and Joe Right Wing has his job shipped out to India and suddely has to pay 5x as much for insurance, 2x as much for gas, and makes 1/2 as much money. Joe Right Wing wont care about Gays so much, and its going this direction already. Hence the low approval rates of a certin administration.

The scary scary thing is, The current Govt focus too much, way too much, on Morals. Bush is sitting there, shouting "morals, morals, iraq", While pretty much having free reign on the economy.

The good news is, in 2 years, when everything is in shambles, maybe the public can pick a Republican who actually does what his party is supposed to do, Less Govt, Less Difecit, Controlled Spending. or at the very least, picks a Democrat, who will, since he has to fix things, raise taxes (hopefully on the rich again), and gets the govt budget in control.

IThe scary scary thing is, The current Govt focus too much, way too much, on Morals. Bush is sitting there, shouting "morals, morals, iraq", While pretty much having free reign on the economy.

This is what bothers me so much, the top people using these issues as a smokescreen but in creating this smokescreen using the tenets of Christianity, they have diluted the teachings of Jesus, and formed the "Religious Right"

This was in responce to me suggesting I wanted to see a scandle destroy a group of churches


The Christian church? Which one? The Catholics? The Protestants? Mormons? etc. You see where this goes? What group of Christians are you calling the fall for, and why? Because some have opinions that you find disgusting? That is not a fair nor democratic way to look at the matter.

See the thing is. I percieve very little difference in Christian churches from the most liberal to the most conservative. To me they are all Borg instatutions where arriving at your own conclusions is discouraged. So all of them is my answer. Let scandel take them all down and let scandel take down the Islamic and Jewish churches as well for they are all the same.

See the thing is. I percieve very little difference in Christian churches from the most liberal to the most conservative. To me they are all Borg instatutions where arriving at your own conclusions is discouraged. So all of them is my answer. Let scandel take them all down and let scandel take down the Islamic and Jewish churches as well for they are all the same.

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. I figured as much.

This was in responce to me suggesting I wanted to see a scandle destroy a group of churches



See the thing is. I percieve very little difference in Christian churches from the most liberal to the most conservative. To me they are all Borg instatutions where arriving at your own conclusions is discouraged. So all of them is my answer. Let scandel take them all down and let scandel take down the Islamic and Jewish churches as well for they are all the same.
Somebody here needs to learn to spell...

Hint: Scandal. Response. Perceive. Institutions.

Somebody here needs to learn to spell...

correct my spelling is bad. Why can't this forum have spell check.

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about. I figured as much.

If you believe that arriving at your own conclusions is encouraged in any church or that the actual practice of any old book religion is different in some meaningfull way from any other old book religion maybe you would care to enlighten us.

To me the differences are minor. To me arriving at conclusions in contradiction to the teachings of the church you attend is heresy and heresy is not favored.

If you believe that arriving at your own conclusions is encouraged in any church

I've been to more than one church, as well as a Christian-affiliated university that encouraged this.

or that the actual practice of any old book religion is different in some meaningfull way from any other old book religion maybe you would care to enlighten us.

The practices of different religions, old and new, vary greatly. They range from seeking inner peace and enlightenment to human sacrifice, with all sorts of combinations and steps in between. On top of that, the practice (and beliefs) of any given religion varies greatly from person to person and from church to church. Even within a single religion, the same writings are sometimes viewed as denigrating women or as liberating them. Within the same religion, some put almost pure emphasis on love, while others put almost pure emphasis on revenge and judgement. Views on the place of religious leaders varies from absolute voice of God to "people who studied this a little more than me and might have a good take on it" to "useless - I find my own faith."

If you don't see differences, it is because you are intentionally focussing on the very few things that are the same - basically, a belief in a deity or deities and, well, that's about it.

But not all Christians are in the "religious right". And for even those denominations that may say they are in the "religious right", they don't believe ALL the things that he listed.

Nor is there a cogent definition of "religious right".

If we define it as all Christians who believes ALL the things on that list, I would think that would be a rather narrow slice of Christianity - and attempting to say that it applies to all Christians is fallacious.
That sounds, well, EXACTLY the same bullsh*t way you define "democrats".
Simmer and sup up. You've earned it.