| Author | Message | ||
     SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 771 Registered: 2-2006 |
There are many evangelical Anglicans, Dave, in this country and in others. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tutu counted himself among them, particularly if someone asked him directly if he would describe himself in just those terms. Which kind of brings me to a few other thoughts. Notehead, it is extremely difficult in such a limited format as this (MOL), to have a meaningful or even accurate, conversation about the issues you wonder about in this thread. But you’ve said you find some of these things scary, have asked generally about them, and it might be worse to say nothing, however delimited the possibilities presented by the form of discourse seem from the outset. (What is “WWJD”, btw?) Confused thought is often fed by confounded language; descriptions of political, ethical and religious activities are frequently confounded. For example, descriptions like “liberal Judaism” or “conservative Christianity,” unless the respective adjectives refer to schools of interpretations of religious texts, may be very confounded in language and confused in thought. (Jewish and Christian theologians might agree that, theologically speaking, the adjectives are used exactly in reverse: Judaism is the conservative religion, vis-a-vis Christianity.) If you want to talk about religion, Notehead, do you mean sociology, theology, neither, something else, what else? Many people literally can’t distinguish among them, including many leaders of religion, whether priests, rabbis, or mullahs. Would you tell me what you meant by, “What if they decide, as some of their more vocal representatives clearly have, that the greatest threats facing humanity today are the intermixing of races, or homosexuality, or the Jews?” Obviously, much does not need explaining, is clear if repugnant, but who are the “more vocal representatives” you have in mind? Are they rabid theologians, political pundits, televised pranksters, Polycarp, who? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12582 Registered: 5-2001 |
So Rising, name a few "evangelical" Anglicans (usually called Episcopaleans here in the US). Inquiring minds want to know!! Again, I think a lot of you are confusing evangelical with fundementalist. These are two different concepts. By nature Chrisitans tend to want to spread the word as they see it in any number of ways, including advertising. fundementalists believe the Bible to be literal truth and tend to hold very conservative views. There is an interesting article on the front page of the NY Times today about Zoroastarianism, which is almost dead because of their reluctance to accept converts and inter-marriage by their members. I think Judiasm, at least in the west, has similar problems. Most Christian denominations are pretty nuanced on who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. By way of example the Catholics acknowledge a special relationship with Judiasm and no less an evangelical, semi-fundementalist as Billy Graham has stated it isn't up to us to determine who goes where in the afterlife. I also have trouble in understanding why you are concerned with what other people think about your location in the afterlife (if any). If you don't believe what they believe, so what? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider  Post Number: 15563 Registered: 1-2003  |
bobk, for what it's worth, Judaism's tendency not to accept converts and to discourage conversion isn't exactly seen as a problem. Also, while some discourage intermarriage, it's an age old practice. I think even Moses married a gentile, so it's not considered a sin. I think the belief that it's a "bad idea" is a modern one. And while it might be discouraged, there seem to be plenty of Orthodox Jews who accept the marriage once it's done. There are also Jews who welcome converts, though it's true that this is rare. We don't go out to spread "the word", but if they come to our congregation, they are very welcome. We have quite a few converts. None of this really bears on the subject of evangelicals. I just thought you might be interested to know. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 5800 Registered: 10-1999  |
I think lots of people use the term "evangelical" when they really mean "fundamentalist". That's not their fault, since I think fundamentalists have been trying to "re-brand", and use "evangelical". But, the word "evangelical" is a bigger tent, so to speak, encompassing everyone from the fundamentalists, to the United Church of Christ (a denomination in which the Bishop Tutu statement quoted by Dave would be pretty mainstream), to individuals and movements in various "mainline" churches. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12583 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, thanks for the information. No criticism on my part was intended. However, I have read that people who marry outside their faiths often leave the faith. Interestingly, I think the children of these marriages tend to be raised in the mother's religious tradition (this is I believe the Jewish approach). Over the years I have been to a lot of first communions with kids with Jewish dads and conversely I have been to a few Bar/Bat Mitzvahs for kids with names like O'Malley, Sanchez and Grabowski.  One way or another intermarriage tends to cut down on the number of members of a religious group. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15565 Registered: 1-2003 |
That's OK. No offense taken. Numerically, it seems as likely to increase a group's size as to decrease it, if you don't believe that intermarriage "dilutes" the association. I mean, if your great grandmother was <whatever>, can't you call yourself a <whatever>, too? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12584 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, in rough numbers, and forgetting those who just forget religion, in a mixed marriage half the kids end up being raised in each of the parents religions. In a marriage between members of the same religious group, all the kids end up being raised in that religion. Heck ours is a mixed marriage, my wife is Catholic, I am Presbyterian (by confirmation and heritage if not in practice). Our kids were raised Catholic btw. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 230 Registered: 6-2002  |
This has become a very interesting discussion- I'm glad it has taken these turns. Bob K (and others)- I completely agree that "fundamentalists", "evangelicals" and "Christian right" have all become muddied in conversation. I consider myself Christian and evangelical, but I have very little in common with Dobson or Falwell. I am a social liberal and align pretty closely with most of the left on most issues. As I hear "evangelical" misused, I am pretty adament about taking it back- by the "Christian right" as well as critics. As for Tutu's quote, I think he is entirely consistent with a belief in Christ and evangelism. In fact, from my POV, I don't see how someone could feel differently. A vocal evangelist and liberal Christian today is Jim Wallis- someone I admire a great deal. His group publishes "Sojurners", definitely not Jerry Falwell's favorite magazine. And his movement "Call to Renewal" calls for economic justice and an end to poverty. If you wonder why I take offense at people lumping all evangelicals together, take a look at what they are doing and what they say. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15567 Registered: 1-2003 |
The governor of Alabama interpreted his Christian faith to say that charity means doing right for the poor in his state. He pushed to raise income taxes which were helping the rich and hurting the poor. He was voted down resoundingly, but he tried. I admire him. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2371 Registered: 10-2002  |
OK - finally watched the trailer for this movie. This seems very similar to the church my sister was "saved" in years ago. Which, she now realizes after finally breaking away from it, was probably a cult. This kind of Christian Fundamentalism is filled with religious zealots whose church leaders forcefully bully and manipulate their followers to never question what their church is telling them. The end is near and they must continually repent to be saved and all of those who are not going to their church and accept their faith are doomed. They are soldiers in a war against Satan. They are told that they can and should get all their needs from the church and that relationships with people outside of their church are strongly discouraged. This isn't some little cult in the middle of Arizona, there are places all over like this, and the people in this movie look like they're part of this movement. I remember the 5 minute segment of "speaking in tongues" during my sister's wedding (which was held during Sunday church service with hundreds of people). There was also the writhing repenting people "ridding themselves of sin" and turning their life over to Christ (even though they've been doing this every day). I was practially mauled by one of the other bridesmaids to try to get me to go up and be saved... When my sister first visited home after being saved, she tried to get me to "be filled with the Holy Spirit" and speak in tongues with her. I was 12, and it freaked me out a bit, but she was my sister, so I wanted to have this connection with her and wanted that acceptance (I couldn't do it, BTW). The kids in that trailer are being rewarded for saying things they don't fully understand, but they do understand that they're being praised when they say the "right" things and mentally beaten to a pulp when they don't -- kids may not be as experienced in life as adults, but they'll certainly respond to that message. And, quite frankly, I'd bet a million dollars, that the adults in that church are being treated exactly the same way by their church leaders. Christian fundamentalists may seem like they teach the same things as other Christian churches..just a little stronger, but it's not the same. It's hard to define what the difference is, but you know it when you see it. It's also more than just "different," it's harmful to the people who are followers and their families. Thankfully, my sister has a brain in her head and now that her head is out of her •••, she started to question things a bit more. I attended her current church with her on my recent visit and she's at a great place now. Just good solid messages being taught in a real no-nonsense kind of way. Nice people and a warm, welcoming environment. They just rent space out of a movie theater while it's not in use to hold their services, and that's just fine. But, I tell ya, it's a FAR cry from the fundamentalist church she belonged to before. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2610 Registered: 10-2004 |
Billy Jack, I will admit a certain amount of stirring the pot. I've been known to do so. However, I don't remember (too lazy to re-read my posts above, sorry) lumping all Evangelica's into one group. I was just a bit scared for those kids. What they were being told and how they were acting seemed a bit too brainwashy to me. They are kids, they should be running around and having fun. They will have their whole lives to find god. They need to sin now so they can experience life and know what mistakes are. So they understand the concepts of repenting and sinning. We don't need a world full of overly pious people who have done nothing wrong in their lives and judging everyone else. Tom, I used the word "ALL", and you got me again. I should remember that if Tom is in a thread he's going to challenge any sentence that use absolutes. You win. Although, if you ignore the content of my words than arguably you lose. Why does it matter that every one else thinks I'm going somewhere like Hell? Because while I don't believe in this mythical place. THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO. I know enough about what this place means to them, and what types of people go to that place that I have EVERY F-ing right to be insulted and to despise these people for believing it. You think these things about me, and then expect me to be tolerant of your religion? You must be kidding me. You judge me, and I judge you right back. WWJD (What Would Jesus Do)? He would tell you to pick up guns and shoot doctors who provide abortions. He would tell you that the holy land must be ours, kill all the muslims. He'd tell you that people who participate in anal sex are degenerates and will die and go to hell never having been loved by the one true God. He would tell you that all those heathens who practice another religion worship false gods and also will never go to heaven. Do I need to go on? You talk about religious tolerance but I don't see much tolerance historically, I don't see it in the written word, I don't see it in people's actions and I don't see it in the actions of the lobbyists and politicians who tweak our laws more towards their religious beliefs. And no it's not just Christians. Or any flavor of religion for that matter. But I see a lot of intolerance when I look at Christianity (which seems to be the most popular religion in this country) and Islamic religion. This clash of religions has caused wars in the past, and wow, look at that, we are at war again. Maybe the atheists need summer camp to brainwash our children on how to fight for our religious beliefs and how to stay alive. | ||
| breal Citizen Username: Breal Post Number: 1008 Registered: 6-2002 |
You just have to know what's important. Loving your neighbor as yourself is important. Writhing around on the floor is not important. A person's religion is not important. Someone else saying you are going to go to hell is not important. They are not in charge of the seating chart. My personal view is that it's seat yourself. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5748 Registered: 5-2001 |
No, you don't; you've established pretty well your total misunderstanding of Christianity. IMHO he would do none of those things. He had ample opportunity to mount a political movement to overthrow the Romans, but didn't. He had ample opportunity to attack gays, but attacked rich hypocrites instead. The false god he went after most frequently as a matter of fact was money. Given the opportunity to condemn a woman for a sex crime, he instead said "let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone." And he obviously never advocated killing anyone. All of these abuses that you think are part and parcel of Christianity are really the products of rigid and power-hungry individuals who latch on to a system of beliefs and gain power by intimidating weaker-minded members with their purported purity. No doctrine-based movement is immune. The abuses of the Inquisition are echoed down the years by the KGB and in the Cultural Revolution; and in the words if not the actions of the likes of Ann Coulter. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 231 Registered: 6-2002 |
Alley: Wow. You fooled me. You started reasonably and then lost it. Your last point about WWJD almost completely (and I have to think, intentionally) mischaracterizes what most Christians believe. I refuse to allow my religious beliefs to be hijacked by Falwell, Dobson and the like; I have to wonder why you are so quick to insist they speak for most of American Christians. And I would welcome a theological discussion of hell if you'd like. From your comments and your unfair projections of your biases on my beliefs, I'm not sure thats what you'd like. I guess I will have to tolerate your stirring of the pot. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3811 Registered: 5-2001  |
There are some scary -- by which I mean potentially very harmful -- passages in the Bible -- as well as the Torah, the Koran, and probably every other major religious texts. It's neither paranoid nor intolerant to be concerned that groups of people will elect to focus more on the scary stuff, and less on the "love thy neighbor" type stuff. When I hear phrases like "Army of God" and see kids swinging sticks like weapons, dressed in camouflage, as part of a show for their parents, I think it's time to be worried about those kids. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2375 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hey Notehead - I guess that means you're not going to dress the notehead/pippi junior in one of these????  http://www.armorofgodpjs.com/ | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3813 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yeah, that's a safe bet, LilLB! | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2611 Registered: 10-2004 |
Listen not all Christians believe these things. But the actions speak louder than the words (as someone earlier stated). So I ask you who killed the abortion doctor? Who started the crusade? Who kicked out the gay person from the church? There have been ENOUGH, no MORE THAN ENOUGH actions that showed me what faith can lead you to. Where it can INEVITABLY go. Fine, some Christians are good and moral people. Some don't literally force their will upon people. Some interpret Jesus' words and deeds one way. But there are PLENTY of people who interpret them in an entirely different way. Do those people represent you? No. Fine, I can live with that. But don't be surprised when an athiest tells you that your religion (as well as very mand -- dare I say most?) has led and continues to lead to unbelievable attrocities. Please, do me that favor at least. | ||
| Pippi Supporter Username: Pippi Post Number: 2844 Registered: 8-2003  |
there's always Halloween! On a serious note, I am in the middle of reading "Under the Banner of Heaven." As mentioned above, it is an in-depth at the history of the Mormon Fundalmentalists. It's an interesting (and, yes, terrifying) read, particularly in light of the recent arrest of their fugitive leader Warren Jeffs. Aside from the polygamy and pedophilia they engage in, their complete disregard for US Law makes me angry. They have a term called "Bleeding the Beast", which is basically defrauding the government. This involves committing such acts as welfare fraud. This is not only sanctioned by the church, but encouraged and considered "virtuous". That makes me sick. Members of this group refuse to pay taxes or be licensed to do business, but they will gladly "bleed the beast", to the tune of millions of dollars per year. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2381 Registered: 10-2002 |
There's a difference between being "devout" and being a "zealot." The Bible is interpreted in many different ways by many faiths/churches within Christianity and I don't think it can be lumped into the fundamentalist way as being "representative" of Christianity. Fundamentalist Christians don't represent Christianity any more than the KKK represents white people. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2612 Registered: 10-2004 |
And yet the white people are held accountable for the actions of the KKK occassionally. They are also held accountable for many other attrocities too. Was I personally responsible for slavery or the massacring of Indians? I could go on with an ENORMOUS list of attrocities that SOME white people did. And while these acts don't DEFINE white people it is indicaditive of what the white people were capable and are still capable of. Unfortunately, I can't change the color of my skin. But I can change my religion and more importantly my thinking. Would the world be better off without religion? I'll leave that up to someone else to do ponder, but when I see the horrible things that SOME religions are capable of, I think I could be convinced (quite easily). | ||
| Joe R. Citizen Username: Ragnatela Post Number: 567 Registered: 6-2004 |
"No. Fine, I can live with that. But don't be surprised when an athiest tells you that your religion (as well as very mand -- dare I say most?) has led and continues to lead to unbelievable attrocities. Please, do me that favor at least" Once again, Alley, What do we want to say about monsters like Lenin and Stalin and Caligula and Nero and Mao. Nonbelievers all with no sense of eternal consequence, no concience. All human beings are capable of inhumanity under the right circumstances. Don't cram your atheism down our throats. Crammed beliefs are obnoxious regardless of the flavor. Wow, does this Board get whipped up about religion or is it my imagination? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5760 Registered: 5-2001 |
If Caligula lived in the 1400s he would have been a vicious bishop instead of a vicious emperor. If he'd lived in the 1950s he would have been a Stalinist or a McCarthyite. These belief systems don't create monsters; monsters are out there anyway, and use whatever belief system is handy as an armature on which to hang their own evils. | ||
| Joe R. Citizen Username: Ragnatela Post Number: 568 Registered: 6-2004 |
Bingo, Tom. Well said. A monster is a monster and a belief system, secular or religious, is a cloak or guise. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5863 Registered: 8-2003 |
Joe R. -- it's not just this board that gets whipped up on religion here in Maplewood. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2617 Registered: 10-2004 |
I'm not whipped up, I'm annoyed. I'm sorry but this thread is about religion not about secular leaders. Was Stalin's evil doings done in the name of secularity? I just don't see how it's relevant to the conversation at hand. I'm also curious how I'm RAMMING secularity down your throat. Is it when I fight stupidity being inserted in our schools under the name of (un)Intelligent Design? Or is when I believe that our prisons are full of enough people who were brought into this world unwanted by their parents -- and thus I fight for the right for my neighbors daughter to have an abortion if she wants it? I'm just curious what you mean by ramming. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15574 Registered: 1-2003 |
I think the only common thread among all those who committed all those atrocities is that the perpetrators were human. They were of various religions and lack thereof. Some invoked their religions, and some did not. Monsters grow out of all cultures, it seems. I'm certain some evangelicals in this country brainwash some of their people. This doesn't convince me that evangelicals are one of the worst forces to contend with. I am concerned about some of their political movements, for sure. But I don't want to paint a large group with too broad a brush. That would be spreading the type of fear that we criticize them for spreading! | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5762 Registered: 5-2001 |
Stalin's evil doings were done in the name of Communism, and I wouldn't be the first to compare Communism to a religion. FWIW, I'm against intelligent design, and am pro-choice, too. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12591 Registered: 5-2001 |
My final (well maybe) words on this are: "Put a nickle on the drum and be saaavvveed, put a nickle on the drum and be saaavvveed, put a nickle on the drum, you dirty rotten bum, put a nickel on the drum and be saaavvveeed." I actually think I learned this from the older kids in Sunday School. Alley, with the fall of communism I really can't think of any country where you can go, with the possible exception of North Korea, which is purely atheistic. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2618 Registered: 10-2004 |
>>Kachinkk<<< I'm not looking to stop people from being religious. Do it in your own home or church and be done with it. Don't feel the need to impose your religion upon me or insult me for not following your religion. Is that asking so much? With all the murder, legislature and proselytizing I think it must be. Also of note, I was accused of ramming and yet there were no examples of said act. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 15577 Registered: 1-2003 |
I agree with all that, Alleygater, but what led you there? I guess I don't know what the topic of this thread is. I thought it's about how evangelicals live in the Bible Belt and how they are portrayed in this movie. I don't often meet people who want to ram their religion down my throat. Actually, it happened yesterday in Manhattan. A Jehovah's Witness (I assume) offered me a pamphlet and asked if I'd like to share something. I said no thank you and walked on. I agree that when there's too much of that, it gets annoying. But anyway, what is this thread about? | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 232 Registered: 6-2002 |
Alley: I guess we can finally agree on this: religion and spirituality are extremely powerful forces that can too often lead to horrible deeds. There is no way to explain away some of the atrocious things done in God's name. But what if someone believes in a God (Allah, Jesus, Buddah, whatever) that preaches feeding the hungry, in economic justice, in pacifism, in an inclusive ideal. And what if that person chooses not to only practice their religion behind closed doors, but votes their faith by electing leaders that support those goals. Are they wrong? Are they bad? I apoligize if I ever insulted your beliefs. I never would intend to do that. In fact, I would much rather have a discussion with someone who comes to their atheism after great thought than someone who chooses their faith blindly. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2625 Registered: 10-2004 |
I don't know what this thread is about any more than you Tom. It started with a bunch of us being horrified that kids are being brainwashed into being religious nutjobs like their parents. And then it morphed into having to justify calling them religious nutjobs. Then it became a defense that not all Christians are bad and that the people in the film are not indicative of all Christians and I had to defend that I never stated that they were. Then I went on a little rant on why the world would be better without religion. Which of course went over like a lead balloon. And now where are we? | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2626 Registered: 10-2004 |
Billy: to answer your question...I'd say if they vote for something that I disagree with...well then they would be wrong and bad.  | ||
| SOrising Citizen Username: Sorising Post Number: 782 Registered: 2-2006 |
Alleygator, a theist might say you are a reactionary with some justification. He would remark that you recoil in horror from the horrific, but remain aloof or also condemn (baby with bathwater)the soulful, the good, the life-giving force in communities of faith. A belief that permits itself to be defined significantly by what it disdains is a belief in trouble. The grievous part is, as the belief goes, so go people who follow it. This kind of non-belief as belief can be hazardous to the health of anyone who tries to embrace or follow it. Like grasping at air. And whoever implied that there aren't evangelical Anglicans doesn't seem to realize that most Anglicans of the world today are African and most of them describe themselves as evangelical or evangelical catholics. There are many American, English, Australian and Canadian Anglicans who see themselves as evangelical as well. One of several examples are the members of the American Anglican Council but there a many others too numerous to list. | ||
| Joe R. Citizen Username: Ragnatela Post Number: 569 Registered: 6-2004 |
A new term has been born.....christophobia.....fear of Christians. We've come along way from the Colosseum. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12597 Registered: 5-2001 |
Once again we get into what an evangelical is. If the Anglcans want to spread the word, fine. I doubt if they are going to trying to convert you on a street corner. However, the Episcopalean church, especially here in the US is anything but a fundementalist denomination. Here in the US they are among the most liberal protestant churches on social issues. This is probably going to cause a schism between the American church and the world wide Anglican community sooner or later. | ||
| Joe R. Citizen Username: Ragnatela Post Number: 570 Registered: 6-2004 |
"Or is when I believe that our prisons are full of enough people who were brought into this world unwanted by their parents -- " Alleygator Abortion as an anti-crime measure? Abortion has been legal throughout this country for what, 33 years? So then the prisons are full of people born of unwanted pre-Roe v Wade pregnancies? Is that where the criminals all come from? And I suppose it follows that the responsibility for the crimes of the unwanted prisoners should fall on the Pro-Lifers? | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2628 Registered: 10-2004 |
I think it would be more useful to analyze the situation when abortion was ILLEGAL. What I am suggesting is our prisons will become EVEN MORE FULL as our society is overloaded with more people who IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD were truly UNWANTED. | ||
| mjc Citizen Username: Mjc Post Number: 1298 Registered: 10-2004 |
Dave, thanks for posting Bishop Tutu's statements. The man is so beautiful, sometimes I expect to see him just ascend, even though I'm not a believer myself. BobK - I do think Bishop Tutu and many Anglicans (as well as "mainstream" folks like Methodists) would claim to be "evangelical" (a person determined to bring "good news" to everyone he can reach). Evangelical is not the same as fundamentalist. Former pastor at one of the local Methodist churches described herself as a "liberal evangelical," and it's really not an oxymoron. Maybe it would be fair to say that evangelical is a way of relating to the world, that can be used in the service of a variety of different theologies. Alleygater, in regard to your WWJD rant, I'm (almost) speechless. Read a little about the good rabbi, and try to distinguish between his teachings and the flagrant crimes committed by SOME of his followers. Wouldn't hurt to read up on Bishop Tutu and the good he has accomplished, either. |
