I tend to agree with that but I think it’s too varying degrees, Like I stated above.
bob
I re-read that article this morning, it’s completely a bunch of BS. the guy has no facts to back up his extremely biased opinion. He has several mis-spellings, several made up words, the worst of which is “dominionim” he claims it has to do with eschatology, but it doesn’t, it’s not a word.
here’s my breakdown:
problems with various fundamentalist sects: (I’m only writing down each groups largest problems.)
Islam:
violent, and overpowering, practing various methods of mind control/spiritual control, treat women like second class citizens.
Mormons:
Violent, mind control, physical control over women treating them like second class citizens.
Christians:
Homosexuality, Young Earth Creationism, Eschatology.
Those are the main fundamentalist groups I can think of, Mormons are throughout the americas, christians throughout the worlds, and islam is a dominant force in the middle east.
I think you have touched on the issue of all of us skeptics. It isn’t that the original insights of any/all religions are invalid, it is what came after. The dogma and apologetics crippled the prophets. Epiphany turned into mindless belief.
This is why I made the sarcastic statement some time ago that we ought to give religion a different name. Stop calling it religion and maybe all the “bad press” and it’s devotees will go away and leave us something with meaning. The dilemma is that to many of us, religion is what it practices, not what it is capable of practicing. In our sabertooth tiger world, religion, as practiced, isn’t much help. In fact, it’s a large part of the problem.
I’m representing people who don’t like “what if” questions concerning past events that didn’t contain the “if” situation. Like, “What if I died when I was 20?” Well, I didn’t. So, who cares? Now, I’ll entertain speculative questions concerning future events. That’s called preparing for all possible eventualities. Like in Baseball: A player needs to have decided ahead of time what he’s going to do with the ball if he gets it BEFORE he gets it. That’s all. Actually I’m very open-minded and like to challenge my conclusions as well as my presuppositions. Sometimes if I’m tired or busy I’ll give flippant answers as well.
Just like in baseball, the pitcher is trying to catch you off guard…if you’re the batter on this occasion, please don’t be tired. You’re wasting our time.
I’m sorry, this post has nothing to do with religion. I apologize for that.
I think that is total speculation. Religion in of itself is speculation and faith. It’s the What if’s that you yourself thump your bible to. It’s that you don’t like where the question is leading that you don’t like this string, not the What if’s.
“Dominionismâ€, as defined by S.R. Shearer, is a “militant post-millennial eschatology (‘doctrine of end times’) which pictures the seizure of earthly (temporal) power by the church as the only means through which the world can be rescued; only after the world has been thus ‘rescued’ can Christ return to ‘rule and reign.’ (Some dominionists see the seizure of the earth as the result of ‘signs, wonders, and miracles;’ others picture it as the result of military and political conquest; most see it as a combination of both.)†antipasministries.com/oldnew … tigov.html
And remember:
Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.
Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003
For those with an even better memory:
God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany.
I know, and you are right I think. The problem is that when you do that, it smacks of deception. Then you would be in the situation that people have accused the church of over and over again.
I am about to experience that here in the Parish where I am an ‘Elder’ and about to propose reforms (the church is getting less church-tax than ever) that will be far reaching. I am hoping that lynching has no tradition here, otherwise you might be reading the last from me…
Yeah, the humanist movement attempted to pull the essential message out of the toilet and give it some meaning, but all they ended up with was a label - and one attacked by true believers of every stripe.
No reforms! No! Well, if you HAVE to. A word of warning: DO NOT propose any changes attached to ritual. Cutting back on “outreach” program is acceptable. Lynching may not be a tradition, but you don’t want to start one either.
What? To say I don’t like speculative questions? I’d rather deal with more tangible issues. Step off, brutha.