Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:04 PM

M Kitt (208 posts)

Fundamentalist Evangelicals: Experts by their own declaration, especially regarding Tolerance

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Fundamentalist Evangelicals OBVIOUSLY know what's best for the rest of us, aren't the least bit hesitant about stating that ENDLESSLY to anyone who'll listen. As most of us are already apparently aware.

Yet many of those same Evangelicals have what we (the tolerant sectarians) recognize to be twisted values, they'll quote Jesus and the New testament ONLY to the extent that it aligns with their NEW IMPROVED value system, a system that's morphed well outside of the new testament framework.

An IMPROVED value system that without hesitation decries Wealth to be "Godly", and Immense Wealth to be representative of the "Blessings and Approval" implied by that.

Doesn't matter where the money came from, right? Cumulative Wealth is the equivalent of "Absolution" for that purpose under these rules

PREVIOUSLY POSTED:

Right Wing Fundamentalists assure us that current supporters of Jesus needn’t REALLY follow his example, their worldly wealth should NOT be given over to the poor, for instance, since under current Evangelical Fundamentalist standards Excessive Wealth among church members (AND Church Leadership) represents APPROVAL from and by God.

Thus TAXES are (by WingNut logic) an imposition equivalent to giving money to the poor, can’t have THAT, can we?

Because $ are of greater importance than GOD (or people), Greed is Good to paraphrase

And by current Fundamentalist standards, Immense Wealth is GODLY.

END.

Militant Evangelicals (Santorum Et Al) speak out of "Both sides of their mouths" as the saying goes.

http://open.salon.com/blog/isaiahlcarter/2012/02/16/small_government#comment_2825066

And don't hesitate to use the religious faith of others in support of their own Political Ambitions.

http://open.salon.com/blog/jimmy_zuma/2012/01/05/the_republican_religious_war#comment_2765301

With the rest of us paying the hidden "Costs" of those opportunistic, cynical manipulations.

Even in terms of lives lost, regarding limitless Middle East war ventures.

http://open.salon.com/blog/m_kitt/2012/01/07/gocomics_policies_of_censorship_reprisal#comment_2766717

And let's not forget the lives we've already allowed to be wasted.

http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/03/19/trayvon_martin_and_life_lessons_for_young_black_boys#comment_2868424

14 replies, 5434 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

14 replies	Author	Time	Post
Fundamentalist Evangelicals: Experts by their own declaration, especially regarding Tolerance (Original post)	M Kitt	Apr 2013	OP
If they are allowed to cherry-pick which parts of their religion they'll obey...	DetlefK	Apr 2013	#1
Thanks DK. Cherry-Picked is accurate.	M Kitt	Apr 2013	#2
Cherry picking is what the clergy	Mr.Bill	Oct 2013	#10
Incredibly difficult to comprehend.	amorosotom	Nov 2013	#12
welcome to DU	gopiscrap	Nov 2013	#13
"I actually tried to read the bible all the way through"	FiveGoodMen	Nov 2013	#14
The first thing I thought when I read this was	Curmudgeoness	Apr 2013	#3
"Been Going on Forever", yep.	M Kitt	Apr 2013	#4
This message was self-deleted by its author	hrmjustin	May 2013	#5
The roots of this way of thinking can be found in the historical underpinnings of Protestantism,	Silver Gaia	May 2013	#6
Yes, agreed. Essentially they're replacing God with Wealth, tho that's unspoken.	M Kitt	May 2013	#7
I don't really agree that this was "by design."	Silver Gaia	May 2013	#8
Basing my statements on current behavior, not church theological history.	M Kitt	May 2013	#9
These were hot topics of debate among the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.	dimbear	Oct 2013	#11

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:09 AM

DetlefK (16,324 posts)

1. If they are allowed to cherry-pick which parts of their religion they'll obey...

... why is it frowned upon for New-Age spiritualists or atheists to cherry-pick their ethics from various sources?

Could it be, because adherers of a single religion would have to admit, that their religion isn't something special at all?

Reply to this post

Response to DetlefK (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:22 AM

M Kitt (208 posts)

2. Thanks DK. Cherry-Picked is accurate.

If current Fundamentalists were to seriously adhere to the "New Testament" framework they'd have to accept Liberal/Progressive values.

Not going to happen.

Reply to this post

Response to M Kitt (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 28, 2013, 08:40 PM

Mr.Bill (19,633 posts)

10. Cherry picking is what the clergy

has been doing with the Bible as long as it has existed. It's like a 1,000 page legal contract. You can find pretty much anything in there you want to find. And I don't care how many people say they have read the entire thing, very few have, and if they have they haven't comprehended it.

Reply to this post

Response to Mr.Bill (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:07 AM

amorosotom (3 posts)

12. Incredibly difficult to comprehend.

Bible bangers preach that the Bible has the answers to our everyday problems. The book is so confusing and so full of disturbing attitudes that one is left with more questions than answers. How can a merciful god who wants everyone to be saved make such a handbook for salvation so complicated and confusing? So many ridiculous stories and mystical nonsense. I grew up in a bible believing family. I actually tried to read the bible all the way through. The stories in Genesis were so incredible and loaded with nonsense that I couldn't continue the mission.

Reply to this post

Response to amorosotom (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:57 AM

gopiscrap (22,871 posts)

13. welcome to DU

Reply to this post

Response to amorosotom (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 10:58 AM

FiveGoodMen (20,018 posts)

14. "I actually tried to read the bible all the way through"

The first step toward atheism in many, many cases.

Reply to this post

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:40 PM

Curmudgeoness (18,219 posts)

3. The first thing I thought when I read this was

"this has been going on forever". If I remember correctly, Jesus made many points about how vile this was, and he condemned the people who thought this way. But then again, you gotta have excuses for your opinions, and they have excuses in spades.

The second thing I though was "I don't give a shit".

Reply to this post

Response to Curmudgeoness (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:43 PM

M Kitt (208 posts)

4. "Been Going on Forever", yep.

Thanks Curmudge.

To be honest, I'm an agnostic so the subject of religion is fairly neutral for me. Interesting but not in any obsessive way.

Yet religion can be and has been used for political purposes, which is the larger perspective of my original post.

I can understand the "Who Cares" comment you stated somewhat differently

But like I said, religion is interesting to me in a larger social context, especially the aspect of Intolerance prevalent among the Fundamentalists.

Regarding Religion and Greed:

Religious hypocrisy isn't new, hence the term Sanctimony. There aren't many incidents given in the new testament of anger on the part of Jesus.

Throwing "Money Changers" from the temple was a metaphor for using religion as a money making enterprise. Placing money before god (or people), in that context, becomes worship of wealth as a replacement.

"Greed is Good" to paraphrase Gordon Gekko regarding Wall Street, per the above post

And great wealth is "Godly" by the standards of those who worship it

Reply to this post

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sun May 5, 2013, 03:34 PM

Silver Gaia (4,258 posts)

6. The roots of this way of thinking can be found in the historical underpinnings of Protestantism,

particularly early Calvinism. It was John Calvin's idea of predestination that led to this glorification of wealth as "Godly." If we are to presume, as Calvin and his followers did, that our lives are predetermined by God, that we are either "saved" or "damned" from the moment of our birth, and that there is nothing we can do as we live our lives to change this, then there exists an anxiety in not knowing whether one is (to their way of thinking) going to be rewarded in Heaven or damned to Hell. To ease this anxiety springs the idea that there must be some "signs" we can note as to whether we are favored by God, and thus, one of the "saved." The ability to acquire wealth, particularly through one's own labor (the "Protestant work ethic"

, came to be seen as a sign of God's favor. If God allows you to become wealthy through your work, then surely you are "blessed by God" as one of the saved, and the more wealth you can accrue, the more holy you must surely be. This is a simplified, nutshell version of this history, of course, but hopefully, sheds a little light, for those who may be unaware of it, on the origins of this way of thinking in the Western world.

Reply to this post

Response to Silver Gaia (Reply #6)

Sun May 5, 2013, 04:01 PM

M Kitt (208 posts)

7. Yes, agreed. Essentially they're replacing God with Wealth, tho that's unspoken.

Calvinists and "Dominionists" share that essential flaw, they're confusing the "Value" of people with their attached wealth.

It's by design, of course, intended to convince the rest of us that the Wealthy are favored by divine fate, and we should accept their "Dominion" over us. In times past wealth wasn't so easily acquired, sustained "middle class" values of today were beyond the reach of nearly everyone.

Attributes that have been common throughout history, and continue today to a lesser extent. Mostly under the lineage of "Royalty" in support of Empire, Kings and Queens who supposedly spoke for and represented the Will of God and ruled by "Divine Right".

To this day, It's still considered treasonous to critique the Royalty of the United Kingdom (By Law), and Saudi Royalty can behead "Dissidents" based on their accepted "Authority from God".

On a Related Topic:

And today we're not entirely rid of that mindset in the USA, Fundamentalists still try to impose their "Divine Will" on the rest of us, and self appointed (divinely inspired!) "Voices of God" are running for political office. Which could under other circumstances be REALLY funny, if they weren't so inherently dangerous to themselves and others.

Apparently, Fundamentalists of many stripes still use that rationale to justify their behavior, they're "Favored by God" and speaking for that chosen god while encouraging "Divinely Inspired" intolerance of anyone in disagreement with them

Intent on imposing their combined Religious/Political ambitions on the rest of us. How comforting.

Reply to this post

Response to M Kitt (Reply #7)

Mon May 6, 2013, 03:02 AM

Silver Gaia (4,258 posts)

8. I don't really agree that this was "by design."

I think it was just a response to the Calvinist mindset of the time, and it has been extrapolated into modern consciousness. The people of the time did not realize what they were doing or why they were doing it (and I think the same is true today, because few have any real understanding of the history of their own religion) when they thought this way. It just happened as a way of relieving the anxiety that Calvinist theology made them feel. I mean, we're talking the 1500s here. Protestantism had no real power to do much of anything in those early days. The only thing that was "by design" was to revolt against the power of the day, which was the Church. Any real power lay with the Roman Catholic Church at that time.

Check out Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the "Spirit" of Capitalism. It's dense and the language is archaic (early 20th century), but it's informative if you can weed your way through it.

Reply to this post

Response to Silver Gaia (Reply #8)

Mon May 6, 2013, 08:55 PM

M Kitt (208 posts)

9. Basing my statements on current behavior, not church theological history.

Last edited Tue May 7, 2013, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

My first posting was commentary based on social affects of the skewed religious values we're dealing with today, but by my understanding you have the history essentially correct.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
~John Kenneth Galbraith~

But let's not overlook the Conservative Political influence. Think that quote was from 1929 or thereabout, not much has changed in that respect.

Per my opening post many current (IE Right Wing) Fundamentalists seem intent on avoiding New Testament values, they're not inclined to accept recognized values of Compassion or Empathy since that would be in conflict with their inclinations of GREED.

Under tenants of "The Golden Rule" they'd have to accept Liberal/Progressive values "which is NOT going to happen" so they disregard that context completely and justify their "New Improved" values within a new religious framework contrived specifically for that purpose.

As John Galbraith was pointing out, they're simply replacing God with worship of money, tho that's an unspoken imperative of that twisted morality.

But my immediate interest (larger context) is as stated above:

Militant Evangelicals of today speak out of "Both sides of their mouths" as the saying goes.

And don't hesitate to use the religious faith of others in support of their own Political Ambitions.

With the rest of us paying the hidden "Costs" of those opportunistic, cynical manipulations.

Even in terms of lives lost, regarding limitless Middle East war ventures.

I intended to point out blatant ongoing Political Manipulation of supposed "Divinely Inspired Moral Values", especially Religious justification for widespread displays of Intolerance toward we "Outsiders". Even to the extent of encouraging War against other religions (Listened to Pat Robertson lately?)

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Tue Oct 29, 2013, 07:01 PM

dimbear (6,271 posts)

11. These were hot topics of debate among the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.

Back around 300 BCE. Good to see we've made some progress.

Reply to this post

Atheists & Agnostics (Group)