|
|
|
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? No, you are not correct in assuming this, or in assuming that their faith even goes this far! More explanation below. frtzw906 Back with you frtwz, and I have just read through a number of post that were subsequent to our discussion. They were interesting, and some what insightful, however, presented from the outside, looking in. Not necessarily an invalid observation, but limited. What I have observed, is on two levels. The first is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, true Christianity is not a religion,. Second, there are religious crowds currently flocking to the political right. True Christianity is not represented by any particular political party. Let's start with the second, I have seen an apparent growing alignment, or should I say coalition between the religious right, and the political right, that has become more pronounced and marked by its vocalness. Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. So the alignment is fairly natural and easy to maintain, at least initially. We will see if it lasts. I have maintained all along that any politician should be careful about claiming exclusive right to the support and endorsement of the religious right. They can easily turn on you if they feel that they are not getting the attention from you that they want, need, and think they deserve and become the religious left. The religious right can be a fierce political taskmaster as well as many politicians have also found out. There have been times when the relious, have aligned with the right, and others with the left. You remember the born-again president we had a few years back, by the name of Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. He was pretty well liked, and with his getting the wall torn down, some thought he might usher in the millenium of peace. But when that didn't happen, and instead there was the embarassment of the Iran-Contra, and a few other scandals, the religious were looking for some other spotless flag bearer. What was his name, oh yeah, George 1, and Bob Dole, and that was the problem there, no fire in the belly, but I think Episcopalian, which they tried even to get that lead ballon to float. But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. Kerry was offered as a liberal version of a Dole, part-full of religious hot air, but no where to go! or at least no way to go up! The religious right, can easily change labels and issues, and become the religious left. They are like the sea, sloshing this way and that, depending on which way the wind is blowing, the position of the moon, and the wake from a passing ship. But, whichever way they seem to be sloshing at the time, they are a big voting block, and whoever can lay claim to them seems willing to bear the load at least until the next election, and the next election is what most politicians are concerned about. The political issues that the religious are currently concerned with are nebulous at best, and change rapidly, and certainly do not represent any sort of Christian dogma that I have ever seen or heard. The claim that there is such an alignment, is just that a claim, a bunch of noise. And I doubt that the true Christian message has even less to do with all the noise, though there are some who claim to be Christians making a whole lot of noise. The thing that is interesting, is to ask one of these types questions about the political issues, religious issues, and about being a true Christian. Ususally you find that they have no idea about any of the issues, political or religious, and are doing what some religious leader told them needed to be done. For example, even to the point of sending out emails bombs in support of their cause. The fact that the emails are exact copies provided by the leaders, and still even include the instructions of who and when and how to send the email bombs. This ends up saying more about the persons sending the email, than the message within the email. They maybe don't know how to send email, and it makes them feel powerful to be apart of this mass mailing, or they don't understand or care to understand the actual issues, they are willing to let someone else do that. Sort of an electronic mob mentality! Of course they probably vote the same way, with the same thought and understanding! I have also found that many of this type are equally uninformed of what it means to be a Christian. They are use to the mob mentality of going to chuch, which plays into the hands of their leaders in the previous paragraph. True Christians are taught to be discerning, and the mob exibits little discernment. So though they are religious, I have difficulty identifying them as true Christians. True Christians are suppose to be discerning, and they are also suppose to be disentangled from the world. When a leader comes along and tells me I should just jump on his carnival cruise liner, I am more inclined to say no thank you! Usually I have found that they are more interested in lining their pockets, than in training their followers to make mature, independent, and descerning judgements about where the good ship Lollypop is headed next. True Christians are also to be detached and dispassionate about the hubbub that goes on around us. We are not to be caught up into the noise of the market place, just adding our noise to it, and so losing our unique identity. We are not to just be noise makers, but we are witnesses of significant events and issues that take place outside the market place. If what we have, never gets anyone to look outside, we are no different than the other vendors. The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. Any apparent attraction, is just that, apparent, and has absolutely nothing to do with being a Christian. Religious maybe, but don't hold your breath on that either! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? No, you are not correct in assuming this, or in assuming that their faith even goes this far! More explanation below. frtzw906 Back with you frtwz, and I have just read through a number of post that were subsequent to our discussion. They were interesting, and some what insightful, however, presented from the outside, looking in. Not necessarily an invalid observation, but limited. What I have observed, is on two levels. The first is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, true Christianity is not a religion,. Second, there are religious crowds currently flocking to the political right. True Christianity is not represented by any particular political party. Let's start with the second, I have seen an apparent growing alignment, or should I say coalition between the religious right, and the political right, that has become more pronounced and marked by its vocalness. Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is interested in the same. So the alignment is fairly natural and easy to maintain, at least initially. We will see if it lasts. I have maintained all along that any politician should be careful about claiming exclusive right to the support and endorsement of the religious right. They can easily turn on you if they feel that they are not getting the attention from you that they want, need, and think they deserve and become the religious left. The religious right can be a fierce political taskmaster as well as many politicians have also found out. There have been times when the relious, have aligned with the right, and others with the left. You remember the born-again president we had a few years back, by the name of Jimmy Carter. He was held up as the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious, for political reasons. Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the religious right. He was pretty well liked, and with his getting the wall torn down, some thought he might usher in the millenium of peace. But when that didn't happen, and instead there was the embarassment of the Iran-Contra, and a few other scandals, the religious were looking for some other spotless flag bearer. What was his name, oh yeah, George 1, and Bob Dole, and that was the problem there, no fire in the belly, but I think Episcopalian, which they tried even to get that lead ballon to float. But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all remember where that got us, basically today. Kerry was offered as a liberal version of a Dole, part-full of religious hot air, but no where to go! or at least no way to go up! The religious right, can easily change labels and issues, and become the religious left. They are like the sea, sloshing this way and that, depending on which way the wind is blowing, the position of the moon, and the wake from a passing ship. But, whichever way they seem to be sloshing at the time, they are a big voting block, and whoever can lay claim to them seems willing to bear the load at least until the next election, and the next election is what most politicians are concerned about. The political issues that the religious are currently concerned with are nebulous at best, and change rapidly, and certainly do not represent any sort of Christian dogma that I have ever seen or heard. The claim that there is such an alignment, is just that a claim, a bunch of noise. And I doubt that the true Christian message has even less to do with all the noise, though there are some who claim to be Christians making a whole lot of noise. The thing that is interesting, is to ask one of these types questions about the political issues, religious issues, and about being a true Christian. Ususally you find that they have no idea about any of the issues, political or religious, and are doing what some religious leader told them needed to be done. For example, even to the point of sending out emails bombs in support of their cause. The fact that the emails are exact copies provided by the leaders, and still even include the instructions of who and when and how to send the email bombs. This ends up saying more about the persons sending the email, than the message within the email. They maybe don't know how to send email, and it makes them feel powerful to be apart of this mass mailing, or they don't understand or care to understand the actual issues, they are willing to let someone else do that. Sort of an electronic mob mentality! Of course they probably vote the same way, with the same thought and understanding! I have also found that many of this type are equally uninformed of what it means to be a Christian. They are use to the mob mentality of going to chuch, which plays into the hands of their leaders in the previous paragraph. True Christians are taught to be discerning, and the mob exibits little discernment. So though they are religious, I have difficulty identifying them as true Christians. True Christians are suppose to be discerning, and they are also suppose to be disentangled from the world. When a leader comes along and tells me I should just jump on his carnival cruise liner, I am more inclined to say no thank you! Usually I have found that they are more interested in lining their pockets, than in training their followers to make mature, independent, and descerning judgements about where the good ship Lollypop is headed next. True Christians are also to be detached and dispassionate about the hubbub that goes on around us. We are not to be caught up into the noise of the market place, just adding our noise to it, and so losing our unique identity. We are not to just be noise makers, but we are witnesses of significant events and issues that take place outside the market place. If what we have, never gets anyone to look outside, we are no different than the other vendors. The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves you." Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything to do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it either. Any apparent attraction, is just that, apparent, and has absolutely nothing to do with being a Christian. Religious maybe, but don't hold your breath on that either! :) TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============ I don't know that I expected you to come over to my squad. I thought you were asking what my squad is all about; you were being honest, intellectual, curious! If I was mistaken in my understanding of any of these things about you, I apologize, and am open for you to clarify your reasons for entertaining this discussion. ================ OK, Tink, while we're keeping it simple, here's what I'd really like you to explain. I'd like to know what it is about right-wing politics that apparently attracts a large chunk of, for lack of a better term, rabid Christians. Am I correct in assming that their is more to their faith than "God loves you"? Surely they must find some sort of correlation between the tenets of their faith and party platform of the Republicans. If there is no such correlation, could you explain apparent Christian-Republican attraction? frtzw906 I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both get something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they want; the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to pick the winning side. I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on your side? TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ============= a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. ... ... g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. ============== Great! Then I are one. frtzw906 You seem to have missed copying some of KMAN list, so I thought I would copy the whole list! :) a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith. What clean lab do you have access to conduct these measurements and tests, that are not corrupted by the very humanity which you are testing? Which of your lab technicians do you trust to run these test, or do you actually run them all yourself, and each has to run them all for themselves, and you expect to get equivalent and consistent results? And this would result in data that is reliable enough to put your faith in eventually! You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith! There is the Bureau of Standards in Boulder, that would regulate any test in the physical world. What bureau of standards do you ascribe to in your test? Did you say you set your own? b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions. One of the main human problems is knowing what the problem is, any observation is subject to the problem! Results in a questionable data base that is surely corrupted! and answers none of the important human conditions. Not only does not answer, but obviscates the truth, and blinds the eyes of those who may take it upon themselves to run the test themselves. This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of clay, or lead, or crap. Still does not work! Talk about faith and mysticism, you have a better chance believing your going to win the next 1000 lotteries. c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general. Noble hogwash at best. Works until someone cuts you off on the highway, on the way to work at the lab! Or the grocery store clerk breaks the eggs, and crushes the bread! Or someone breaks into the lab and ruins all your tests, and you have to start all over. How many times a day do you have to start over? d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it. A nice way of saying, I can't believe anything I say, and especially what you say. There is nothing objective about it, it is all subjective, and in particular subject to the human condition. e.. A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us. More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap! Ask HST! f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility. Searching in the dark, Blind, you grab what you can, justify it as ethical, and judge others by it, while they grabbed what they could, and do the same to you. But you are both still in the dark at best, and probably headed for the previously mentioned dungheap in e. above! g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children. What conviction, what corrupted reason, the shops are all closed! Will, maybe but not free to be good! And Tolerance (some struggle when they are told God loves them!) and for ourselves and our children. You won't be around long enough to see your children, end up on their dungheap to be able to change it for them, if you could. And lacking all these, none of it matters, and if we had any of these we would still end up on the dungheap. But if it makes you feel better, go for it! Also know this, there is a God, and He Loves you, and that changes the whole equation above. TnT |
KMAN wrote: ....snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT |
KMAN wrote: "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... TnT asks: ============ Frtwz and KMAN, can I assume that you are both comfortable with this definition, and willing to identify yourself as a Secular Humanist, atheist with no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called God? TnT =================== I can't speak for KMAN, but that works for me. frtzw906 I'm good for the "no need for the imaginary mystical creation of men's mind called god" part and I congratulate Tinkerntom for that particular turn of phrase, which would make for an interesting albeit very long bumper sticker. I will plan on getting some royalty checks from your sale of bumper stickers. I am in total agreement with this particular statement, and would have no trouble selling a few myself as well, so would you send me a couple boxes? I'll assume I can order more as needed. For you see, I have no need for the imaginare mystical creation of men's mind called god either! TnT |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... KMAN wrote: ...snip... So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt Just sane. Please define sane, and do you have any evidence to back up your statement that you qualify? big Grin TnT No evidence that I qualify. I am not disqualified through belief in an invisible man. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com