Is the Christian Right comparable to Fundamentalist Islam?

[jokerman]

Holocaust?  Unthinkable.  But Hitler and the Germans were not real Christians.)

Your other points are legitiment but can you really call the Holocaust (and Nazism in general) a Christian movement?

[Bono]

yeah, and did you know it was voluntary through the church and magaged by the church, not compulsory through the state and governed by the heathen?
 was someone who based charity on free will, not compulsory through the state

Oh really, never heard of 'zakat' then?

no, not in Christianity

Tithing is used in the Bible, and most Christians give tithes to their chruch, and in some it is compulsory. If that is true why do you hate taxes so much?

I can't speak for Jmcfst.  But most fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians regard taxation as a form of stealing.  They believe government has no business using tax money to help the poor, support public education, provide health care for the indigent or clean up the environment.

This is not true of all conservative Evangelicals.  But most regard taxation as government-sanctioned theft.  Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.  Or, as one local pastor puts it, "I worked for it, I earned it by the sweat of my brow, and big brother wants to take it from me and hand it to some welfare queen so she can buy cigarettes and crack."

The whole concept of "promote the general welfare" is lost on them.  The very best of them (and there are some -- make no mistake) believe that private individuals, churches, charities and businesses can and will pick up all the slack.  In short, if government stops stealing (taxing), the charity fairies will just automatically feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick and clean up the air and water.  And business & industry will be so moved with altruism, it will strictly self-regulate and donate billions to these good causes.

I say this sarcastically, of course.  But I do want to be clear that many conservative Evangelicals and fundamentalists believe in helping the poor.  And they do.  They simply take a giant leap in assuming they can do so in sufficient amounts and numbers so as to eliminate the need for government helping programs.

Anyone interested in seriously studying the issue might want to start with Jim Wallis's book, The Soul of Politics and move on to Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger and Good News and Good Works.  Not that I expect any conservative fundamentalist to give them a fair hearing.  but you never know

Well, I could recommend you An Introduction To Christian Economics by Gary North, but I don't think you'd give them a "fair reading" either. You're just slandering the people you disagree with you through religious means. If you are so eager to put religion out of politics, why are you trying to preach your social gospelism as if it had any sort of biblical basis?

[afleitch]

Holocaust?  Unthinkable.  But Hitler and the Germans were not real Christians.)

Your other points are legitiment but can you really call the Holocaust (and Nazism in general) a Christian movement?

I don't think that was what he was meaning. He was simply stating that there were Christians who participated in that brutal act, supported it or turned a blind eye to suffering. There were of course countless Christians who opposed it and paid for it with their lives. What he is probably alluding to is the 'pass the buck' scenario where people call Nazism an 'athiest' ideology and all members and supporters and apologists were by definition, athiests. Because 'no real Christian' would allow alert the authorities to a Jewish neighbour would they? Well of course they did. Self defined Christians participated as much as they opposed; we can't say they were not real Christians because of it, but Christians who made almost unforgivable error.

I'm saying this in knowing that my Church was guilty of inaction during the ascendancy of fascism (and were complicit to a significant degree in Spain) as an organisation but that countless individual priests and lay Catholics resisted Nazism to great sacrifice.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

Not for today, but it did for a while in the specific case of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Unless, of course, you are talking about Christ's Kingship.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

Not for today, but it did for a while in the specific case of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Unless, of course, you are talking about Christ's Kingship.

He's mainly talking about the European monarchies that arose after Rome collapsed I think.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

Not for today, but it did for a while in the specific case of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Unless, of course, you are talking about Christ's Kingship.

No I was talking in the very secular sense.

Of course you do realize the problem of justifying your economic views using the bible while claiming that a previous interpretation is inherently wrong (an interpretation which has o\c been nullified by sociopolitical events; unlike your own) - either you are a superior biblical scholar to those of 400ish years ago or you are just being selective with the text, no?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

Not for today, but it did for a while in the specific case of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Unless, of course, you are talking about Christ's Kingship.

He's mainly talking about the European monarchies that arose after Rome collapsed I think.

For the most part "The Divine Right of Kings" was actually more prevalent in the stable monarchies which existed in Europe up to 1789 (with the exception of England as Oliver Cromwell had put an end to that belief.) as opposed to the much more unstable medevil kingdoms - who rarely bothered to give ideological justification.

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bono, as an aside, do you believe that the Bible justifies the Divine right of Kings?

Not for today, but it did for a while in the specific case of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Unless, of course, you are talking about Christ's Kingship.

No I was talking in the very secular sense.

Of course you do realize the problem of justifying your economic views using the bible while claiming that a previous interpretation is inherently wrong (an interpretation which has o\c been nullified by sociopolitical events; unlike your own) - either you are a superior biblical scholar to those of 400ish years ago or you are just being selective with the text, no?

Well, a) I don't justify my economic views using the Bible, and
b) your argument could be applied to any sort of conclusion about Biblical interpretation, or indeed, about any kind of text. An argument that prove too much is useless, and indeed, your argument would prove too much. You have got to be brainwashed with postmodern nonsense to even make that sort of argument. Of course, when I argue for Calvinism, I think my interpretation of the Bible is superior to Arminian interpretations, and I supply reasons for that. I don't see how it is any different for refuting the divine right of kings or what not. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Holocaust?  Unthinkable.  But Hitler and the Germans were not real Christians.)

Your other points are legitiment but can you really call the Holocaust (and Nazism in general) a Christian movement?

I can't really call Nazism a "Christian" movement.  I think it was based more on Nordic ideas than anything from Christianity.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I think you would have an arguement here if it weren't for the long history of interpretation which supported the Divine of right kings - I know as you are a strict Calvinist this is unlikely to sway you but I can not claim to be a bible scholar as that is not my skill or area of expertise. Apart from a brief glance at the 'notable' books such as Genesis, Exodus, Levitcus, The Gospels, Revelation, etc I can not claim for myself any notion as a serious 'interpretation'.

The fact that biblical scholars in times previous claim to conclusions that modern society judges to illegimate as was among things a clear defense of status quo means that clearly anyone should be skeptical about any biblical intrepretation which gives credence to the status quo or to any political position for that matter.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand your first bit ("Prove too much" = "too much proof"?) and as for the second bit I don't pretend to claim that one's reading of any text is of equal value to anothers; my position is simple: Anyone can intrepret the bible from their own POV, enforcing that POV onto society as a whole is dangerous and overly puritian. Actually in this day and age it sounds very much like Islamic Fundamentalism (which is hardly a united block).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that your interpretation is either inferior or superior to any noted interpretation.

Btw, Bono which came first: Your Calvinism or your Economic views? I just find the idea of a Portuguese Calvinist Unusual (no offense!) and I do think this is relevant to the discussion.

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well I think you would have an arguement here if it weren't for the long history of interpretation which supported the Divine of right kings - I know as you are a strict Calvinist this is unlikely to sway you but I can not claim to be a bible scholar as that is not my skill or area of expertise. Apart from a brief glance at the 'notable' books such as Genesis, Exodus, Levitcus, The Gospels, Revelation, etc I can not claim for myself any notion as a serious 'interpretation'.

The fact that biblical scholars in times previous claim to conclusions that modern society judges to illegimate as was among things a clear defense of status quo means that clearly anyone should be skeptical about any biblical intrepretation which gives credence to the status quo or to any political position for that matter.

Well, the Roman Church held a pretty much uncontested position for almost a thousand years, and yet the reformers were still right in challenging it.  That's just appeal to tradition.
That said, my linking of the Bible and politics is more negative than positive. I don't try to prove my position from the Bible, but I do argue with people who claim my position is inconsistent with it.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand your first bit ("Prove too much" = "too much proof"?) and as for the second bit I don't pretend to claim that one's reading of any text is of equal value to anothers; my position is simple: Anyone can intrepret the bible from their own POV, enforcing that POV onto society as a whole is dangerous and overly puritian. Actually in this day and age it sounds very much like Islamic Fundamentalism (which is hardly a united block).

Proving too much means that if your argument were true, it would have far reaching consequences that go well beyond the present discussion, many of which you'd doublty acept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said that your interpretation is either inferior or superior to any noted interpretation.

Btw, Bono which came first: Your Calvinism or your Economic views? I just find the idea of a Portuguese Calvinist Unusual (no offense!) and I do think this is relevant to the discussion.

I know realize it is unusual, no offense taken, though there are presbyterian churches around in the major cities. I was a libertarian before I became a Calvinist, to answer your question.

[JSojourner]

No - Fundamentalist Islam blows peopl up - we don't.

Uhhh.... abortion clinics?

The people who blow up abortion clinics aren't REAL Christians.  @@

(That's the argument the Christian right always uses.  The Crusades?  Terrible.  But the Crusaders weren't real Christians.  The Inquisition? Horrible.  But the Inquisitors weren't real Christians.  Slavery and genocide of First Americans?  Criminal.  But those responsible weren't real Christians.  Holocaust?  Unthinkable.  But Hitler and the Germans were not real Christians.)

A convenient and rather specious defense.  But quite utilitarian.

It's also used as a cop out amongst many in Muslim comminities too; 'He wasn't a real Muslim'

Regardless such acts, and the ones you outlined are of course comitted in the name of faith, or a faith is evoked and its up to either contemporaries or later theologians to make a judgement on that. The best response is 'Yes they are Christian, but...' and then you can take issue with their reasoning. However if people are used to saying that people who define themselves as Christians aren't 'real' Christians, whether it's Catholics, or Quakers or those with different lifestyle etc then it's a fairly easy and logical step to cast aspersions over the past too.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[JSojourner]

Holocaust?  Unthinkable.  But Hitler and the Germans were not real Christians.)

Your other points are legitiment but can you really call the Holocaust (and Nazism in general) a Christian movement?

Yes.  With qualifications.

Did Adolph Hitler and many Nazis harbor deep-seated hatred for the person, example and teachings of Jesus Christ?  Absolutely.  Did mainstream Germans, who enabled and participated in the Nazi movement, flock to the Nazi use of Martin Luther's anti-Semitism?  Most definitely.

Hitler publicly affirmed Christ and Christianity, framing his struggle as a war against Jewry, Bolshevism and -- in his own words -- "all other threats against Christianity".

That was Hitler's public face.

What he thought or felt in private was almost certainly contempt for Jesus Christ and his teachings.

And care must be taken to remember Germans like Martin Niemoeller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others who opposed the Nazi regime from the start -- on the basis of their Christian faith.

[War on Want]

The odd part about all of this, is that I am almost a Calvinist(I am a Presbyterian), and everyone is acting like they are Uber-Conservatives, and I am a Socialist.

[JSojourner]

Bono says --  Well, I could recommend you An Introduction To Christian Economics by Gary North, but I don't think you'd give them a "fair reading" either. You're just slandering the people you disagree with you through religious means. If you are so eager to put religion out of politics, why are you trying to preach your social gospelism as if it had any sort of biblical basis?

I am so glad you mentioned Gary North.  I have actually read a couple of North's books.  And Chilton.  And Rushdoony.

Did I give them a fair hearing?  Well, you would be a better judge.  

I had trouble holding them in anything other than contempt when they said they believed America should be an exclusively Christian nation, operating under Old Testament law and practicing capital punishment as a means of dealing with unrepentant homosexuals, practicioners of witchcraft and other occult arts and women who have had abortions, as well as those who performed the abortions.  

I think it was North, but it might have been Chilton, who went so far as to suggest that such executions be carried out by the citizenry (under the auspices of the County Sheriff, with children as witnesses, using stoning as the preferred method of execution.  The author argued that stoning allows the whole community to participate and does not burden taxpayers or government with the wasteful expense of bullets, gas, or lethal poison.)

Now, I admit -- I guess I find it hard to give Gary North a fair hearing.

When did Jim Wallis or Ron Sider say anything that would warrant them NOT receiving a fair hearing.

Eager for your response...

[Stranger in a strange land]

In terms of the agendas they wish to impose upon society, the Christian Right and Fundamentalist Muslims are quite similar (state sponsorship of religion, banning of homosexuality, restrictions on women's rights, forcing people who do not believe in your religion to be second-class citizens, changing the legal code to reflect a literal interpertation of scripture) BUT Christian fudamentalists are far less likely to resort to violence. The fact that the US is a developed, relatively politically stable country, limits the amount of damage that fundamentalists can do, and pretty much precludes all but the most extreme from violence.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be pedantic, it had always been contested. But until Luther got lucky; none of those opponents could ever have any chance of any success or power outside of their particular area. The Hussites and the Waldensians were as legitmate as any later reformer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said it wasn't. Just it can't be used to base on policy alone. Which means we agree in an odd way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Such as...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

... Which leads to the question whether your libertarianism influenced the way you read the bible? I know this is certainly be the case from experience; when I was more socialist leaning I would always focus my reading (not consciously) onto bits which seems to lean in a socialist direction.

[afleitch]

I had trouble holding them in anything other than contempt when they said they believed America should be an exclusively Christian nation, operating under Old Testament law and practicing capital punishment as a means of dealing with unrepentant homosexuals, practicioners of witchcraft and other occult arts and women who have had abortions, as well as those who performed the abortions.  

Bloody hell.

Bono, I hope you don't recommend books like these because you are in agreement with them

[afleitch]

... Which leads to the question whether your libertarianism influenced the way you read the bible? I know this is certainly be the case from experience; when I was more socialist leaning I would always focus my reading (not consciously) onto bits which seems to lean in a socialist direction.

iI'd agree with you, there is often a predisposition to reading (and reading into) anything of an poltiical, social or moral ideological nature, with an ideological perspective. Of course the reverse can be true.

The Jesuit priests who taught me theology tended to take a critical and contextual approach to the Bible (and were quite carefree with Catholic dogmatic interpretation) They were still influenced by liberation theology and that came across. When I studied History at university, the same contextual analysis was used on historical documents and source material. Every document underwent the same analysis and so too, probably consciously in my case does the Bible. In my case, I was theologically 'active' before I was politically active and that therefore influenced my politics, Ideologically I've always been concerned with poverty because that was the ethos in both my family (which my have predated my religious education) and at school. Ultimately something pre-exisiting (my family experience) influenced me theologically which both in turn influenced me politically.

[PBrunsel]

No, not at all. There is little in common between Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.

There are few on the Christians Right, at least the ones I know, who would lay their lives down for their religion. Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't call for that sort of action, as Fundamentalist Islam does. After all, the "good" Muslims (in the eyes of Fundamentalists Muslims) are the ones who martry themselves in terrorist attacks as their leaders and religious figures have commanded them. It is hard to imagine any Christian would kill themselves because Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham ordered it.

Dancing with a snake and strapping on a bomb belt are to different things by a mile.

[Person Man]

No, not at all. There is little in common between Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.

There are few on the Christians Right, at least the ones I know, who would lay their lives down for their religion. Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't call for that sort of action, as Fundamentalist Islam does. After all, the "good" Muslims (in the eyes of Fundamentalists Muslims) are the ones who martry themselves in terrorist attacks as their leaders and religious figures have commanded them. It is hard to imagine any Christian would kill themselves because Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham ordered it.

Dancing with a snake and strapping on a bomb belt are to different things by a mile.

The Christian soldiers movement?

[Gustaf]

This is such a vague question that it can hardly be answered.

[Person Man]

This is such a vague question that it can hardly be answered.

Perhaps the situation each movement is largely embedded in makes them harder to compare... i.e. politically powerful and wealthy in a liberal democracy vs. generally poor with a few wealthy backers in countries with undeveloped legal institutions. 

[Хahar 🤔]

No, not at all. There is little in common between Fundamentalist Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam.

There are few on the Christians Right, at least the ones I know, who would lay their lives down for their religion. Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't call for that sort of action, as Fundamentalist Islam does. After all, the "good" Muslims (in the eyes of Fundamentalists Muslims) are the ones who martry themselves in terrorist attacks as their leaders and religious figures have commanded them. It is hard to imagine any Christian would kill themselves because Pat Robertson or Franklin Graham ordered it.

Dancing with a snake and strapping on a bomb belt are to different things by a mile.

Holding the Qur'ān in front of me right now:

4:29: O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities, but let there be amongst you traffic and trade by mutual good will; nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily, Allah hath been to you most merciful!
4:30: If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon We shall cast him into the fire: and easy it is for Allah.
4:31: if ye eschew the most heinous of the things which ye are forbidden to do, We shall remit your evil deeds, and admit you to a Gate of great honor.

Clearly, the Qur'ān does not condone suicide. Though some may argue:

2:218: Or do ye think that ye shall enter the Garden without such trials as came to those who passed away before you? They encountered suffering and adversity, and were so shaken in spirit that even the Messenger and those of faith who were with him cried, "When will the help of Allah come?" Ah! Verily, the help of Allah is always near!

This verse in no way overrides those quoted above.

I'm turning into a Muslim jmfcst.