Here are excerpts of an article in today's New York Times Magazine. It profiles "New Calvinist" Mark Driscoll, the "cussing pastor", who disdains "prohibitions of traditional evanglical Christianity. Taboos on alcohol, smoking, swearing and violent movies have done much to shape American Protestant culture-- a culture that he has called the domain of "chicks and some chickified dudes with limp wrists." Moreover, the Bible tells him that to seek salvation by self-righteous clean living is to behave like a Pharisee."
It appears that to Driscoll's way of thinking, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you believe the right things. Among those right things is contempt for women and gays.
It wouldn't surprise me if Driscoll turns out to be flaming gay. It wouldn't be the first time that a fanatical authoritarian turns out to be a homosexual.
For all their cutting edge, I must say that their church has the ugliest splash page I've seen anywhere. Here is my advice on how to re-tool their site.
If, tomorrow, you should establish that the New Testament writings are frauds, how would that change the minds of a single Christian?
I believe a lot of Christians would say "my faith is founded on lies", and cease to be Christians.
This is an interesting psychological point, but I believe that you generally are wrong. And example is the "salamander letter" purporting to show that the original account of the Mormon leader Joseph Smith's discovery of the gold tablets wasn't true. The church's reaction?
"The so-called 'Martin Harris letter' [the Salamander letter] is no repudiation of Joseph Smith, but rather probably is a further witness of the Prophet's own account of the discovery of the gold plates. (Deseret News, Church Section, Sept. 9, 1984)"
Whenever indisuptable facts arrive on the scene, the church is quick to absorb those facts so long as they don't harm core dogmas. In this case, the facts turned out to be a fraud, and since the Smith writings where in themselves frauds, it was a fraud of a fraud. The key word is indisputable. Thus, despite the plethora of writings in the Bible that attest to a geocentric Ptolemaic cosmology, few Christians today believe that the earth is flat. Not so, in the case of evolution vs. special creationism, where the only indisputable fact is doubt.
Do you like the traditional or contemporary church services?
Many years ago, I was a member at Willow Creek Community Church and also a youth leader. It was exciting and an eye opener to be part of an organization that in effect putting old wine in new wine skins-- modern media but a four-square traditional Bible-based message. By contrast, some of the mainline churches have lost numbers, most notably the Episcopalians who are traditional in the structure of their services while often jumping on every modernistic bandwagon that trundles their way-- new wine in old wineskins. The WC model is the way to go if the goal is numbers. Having said that, the modernistic (mega) churches also are a flawed model in my opinion. With its seeker orientation, messages tend to be superficial and inoffensive. At Willow on a Sunday morning, you would be lucky to hear more than a single Bible verse in the sermon. It was essentially an anonymous place, which many people prefer. Again, you would be lucky to encounter someone you knew on any given Sunday. The turnover was tremendous-- a veritable revolving door. It also annoyed me that they had little use for the gospel classics, preferring even during the advent season songs from the Maranatha backlist. The effect was that most people didn't sing at all although the enjoyed the rock music and the drama. My preference is a mix: I like the traditional songs and sermons but also the contemporary and creative media.
Who would not want to have the whole truth instead of just a piece? Of course in this view, Jews are now two testaments behind with a lot of catching up to do.
I have a hunch that this speech marks the end of Romney's race, although this will only be revealed in hindsight. I think it is a mistake for several reasons. Some people will see it as an attempt to legitmize inexplicable dogma. Others will be offended by the implication that he is a man of faith and other candidates are not. This is the aura that Joe Lieberman projected. As a political move, it's not a winner, as the LDS are I believe about four percent of the population. Kennedy's speech was given at a time when Catholics were about a third of the nation, by contrast. Finally, there is also the contradiction between claims of ethics and the reality of the way some church members live their lives. I'm impressed by their family solidarity and general wholesomeness. I'm less impressed by their missionary zealotry. I ran into this buzz-saw about two decades ago when some LDS kids took me to court on behalf of a tenant I was evicting for non-payment of rent. There is also the strange phenomena that the LDS state of Utah is a hot-bed of scams. I don't know if there is an relationship between rip-offs and the LDS faith, but the facts are the facts.
I might also mention that my respect for Romney has eroded since the YouTube debate, especially beause of his spat with Julie Anne over immigration and his inability to forumulate a clear position as regards to waterboarding, placing his moral compass in the hands of his advisors and lawyers.
Shed a tear for the poor elephant. It has fallen on hard times.
The difference between Kennedy and Romney's speeches is that Kennedy was saying that faith must be separate from American politics whereas Romney seemed to be saying that faith is integral to American politics-- too bad to those who lack that faith or any faith. While they are both motivated to win votes, Kennedy's motivation also appears to be diffuse anti-Catholic nativism whereas Romney's motivation seems to be to identify with a specific Christian brand. Who do you suppose has a better understanding of the Establishment Clause? I think the elephant is in its last throes.
"Troupes of monkeys are out of control in India's northeast, stealing mobile phones and breaking into homes to steal soft drinks from refrigerators, lawmakers in the region have complained.
"Last month, the deputy mayor of Delhi died when he fell from his balcony after being attacked by monkeys.
"Efforts to drive out the animals is complicated by the fact that devout Hindus view them as an incarnation of Hanuman, the monkey god who symbolises strength."
Two Jehovah Witnesses stopped by today. I was still working so I couldn't chat with them. They left me copies of their publications Awake! and The Watchtower. The publications contained a mix of human interest stories ("The Plight of the Shark") and sound ethical instruction ("How to Protect Your Children"). I admire the Witnesses for their political neutrality and their refusal to take up arms but not so much their views of end-times and blood transfusions.
Apparently your theism does not push you to believe absurd and readily falsifiable things about the world. I try to be economically on my beliefs, especially faith-based beliefs. One of my core beliefs is that the great division among world views is not between theism and atheism but between reason and unreason-- uncritical and fanatical thought. One test for reasonable or rational belief is the extent and williness of those that hold that belief to aggressively test that belief in the market place of freely competing ideas, moderating their beliefs in the light of new information. Totataliterian and authoritarian beliefs naturally do not meet that test. I also make a divison between thoughts and actions. I really don't mind how nutty someone's convictions apparently are, but the time to draw the line is when thoughts translate into demonstrably hurtful actions. I had a good example earlier this week when two Jehovah Witnesses knocked on my door. The Witnesses prohibit the transfusion of blood for any reason, and I wonder how many of their flock went to the grave because of that immoral dogma.
Senator (or about to be former Senator) Larry Craig of Idaho, a family-values, anti-gay crusader who got caught in a men's bathroom in Minneapolis, MN soliciting sex under the bottom of a stall from an undercover policeman. He pled guilty to a lesser crime two months later and announced today that he is quitting the Senate because he embarrassed himself.
And let me guess.....the guy is a Christian?
In my time as a Born Again, I lost track of the number of hypocritical Church leaders who were caught doing the exact opposite of what they preached. They have a penchant for it.
There certainly are a lot of hypocritical Republican perverts.
As to why there are so many, I think it has little to do with their religious background. The Democrats have also had their scandals, most notably, Bill Clinton. However, I think the reason why so many Republicans are now coming out of the woodwork is because they have enjoyed six years of power with little accountability-- control of all branches of government and most of the press as well. Power is now sliding away from them, and wth that you will see even more scandals. Power corrupts, and power has corrupted the Republicans. A moral Christian Republican is becoming an oxymoron for our times.
CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour traveled to six countries on four continents to examine religious fundamentalism in the three Abrahamic faiths Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I thought the issues were fairly and exhaustively presented in the segments that I saw on Islam and Christianity. What I inferred from the documentary was that the fanaticism of Islam at present was the more virulent and potentially deadly than that of Christianity as it is inseparable with the militerism and nuclear ambitions of Middle Eastern nations that lack the philosophical secularism of western countries. Secondly, I think the emotions that are felt are real, deep-seated and metasizing and there are no clear or easy solution on how to neutralize them. Finally, it also seemed clear that the fanaticism of the faithful was more often than not a political rather than a religious expression, which may seem like a paradox if religion and politics are one and the same.
I would take a stronger postion that that. I would say that there is no way for the US Government to deal with this militant fundamentalism. But the fundamentalism exists within a broad world culture and it needs certain things to be able to flourish. It needs to be able to depict itself as oppressed by an outside enemy. We do not need to contribute to the fundametalist self image. We do not need to nurture that self image. And when we do choose to nurture and cultivate that self image, as we are doing in Iraq, we should not be surprised when the seeds we have planted and tended bear their bitter fruit.
I think you are right. Paticular tin-eared policies of the US has contributed to their myth of Moslem victimization. Surely, one step to reduce this would be to eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, I think it is also true that we are hated for values that we deem are essential, such as the separation of the clergy from state policy and law and the idea of democracy and independent thought generally. Perhaps part of the answer is to conduct a two-tier approach-- strong military deterrence-- not US boots on the ME ground, which actually has an anti-deterrence effect --combined with efforts for dialogue and co-existence, in which one finds the word existence.
And, to repeat your first statement, we need to eliminate on dependence on (I would say addiction to) middle eastern oil.
There's actually two ways to do that.
1. Add a tax of $x dollars per gallon or barrel to fund a national project to create a viable energy alternative.
2. Another solution may be just as effective. Start a war with Iran that would close the Straits of Hormuz increasing the cost of oil and decreasing supply so that other viable energy alternatives are created. Republican neo-cons call this the free market solution.
