Crackpot Christianity and America's current moral degeneration

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No one should decidedly adhere to an exposition of Scripture that with sure reason is ascertained to be false...in order that, from this, Scripture not be derided by the infidels.
-- St. Thomas Aquinas [from Lev Shestov, Athens and Jerusalem, p. 300]

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -- that takes religion.
-- Steven Weinberg

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Although he might not agree with my use of the term "Crackpot Christians," Kevin Phillips is certainly correct when he claims that "the radical side of U.S. religion has embraced cultural antimodernism, war hawkishness, Armageddon prophecy, and in the case of conservative fundamentalists, a demand for government by literal biblical interpretation." [American Theocracy, p. 100]

These Crackpot Christians are largely responsible for placing one of their own, George W. Bush, in the White House. Their astounding ignorance, unquestioning faith, war hawkishness, and fascination with the End of Time subsequently rendered them gullible to the Bush administration's lies and exaggerations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (especially the apocalyptic "mushroom clouds") and ties to al Qaeda. Thus, they cannot escape responsibility for supporting an illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq.

Judging by recent polls, Crackpot Christians continue to provide the residual support that prevents the total collapse of the worst presidency in American history. Their insouciance toward the ever worsening daily horrors in Iraq - so vividly reported by Jeffrey Gettleman in the August 2006 issue of GQ -- is daily testimony to their moral degeneracy. And, by their refusal to repent and improve, Crackpot Christians become responsible for the precipitous collapse of U.S. moral authority now occurring around the world.

Yes, thanks to the moral degeneracy fostered by Crackpot Christians and the perverse "moral clarity" of their leader, the world now considers the United States to be a country more evil than it was when President Clinton merely disgraced the White House with immoral sexual escapades.

But, then, Crackpot Christians have a long history of moral degeneracy. Simply look back to America's Civil War and you'll find southern clergymen - clergymen! -- citing verses from the Bible (e.g., Exodus 20-21, Matthew 10:14 and Ephesians 6:5-6) to justify slavery. According to Martin E. Marty (perhaps, our foremost authority on religion in America), "The South especially cherished the most literal readings [of the Bible], because on these terms it could find biblical passages in support of slavery." [Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, pp. 302-303]

"Scripture, the Confederate clergy advised, even justified secession." [Phillips, American Theocracy, p. 144] And even after Union forces delivered God's just retribution (speaking in Crackpot Christian terms) for the South's evil ways, southern clergymen soon were abetting their perpetuation -- which subsequently spread into America's southern Midwest and across America's Southwest -- by fostering the self-deception of "redemption."

Readers of Michelle Goldberg's new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, can see Crackpot Christianity at work today, subverting America's liberal democracy in an attempt to impose Christian "Dominion" - essentially southern political and religious culture -- over the entire country. According to Ms. Goldberg, "Dominionism is derived from a theocratic sect called Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates replacing American civil law with Old Testament biblical law." [p. 13].

"'Dominion theologians,' as they are called, lay great emphasis in Genesis 1:26-27, where God tells Adam to assume dominion over the animate and inanimate world." Moreover, "dominionism...has been hugely influential in the broader evangelical movement," [ibid] thanks to the influence of the Crackpot Christian par excellence, Pat Robertson.

Thus, both the threat posed by Crackpot Christianity and the source of its moral degeneracy spring from attempts to impose on others the ridiculous belief that the Bible is literally true and inerrant. Fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Bible to be literally true. And when you ask Evangelical Protestants whether the Bible is literally true, an astounding 83 percent say, "Yes."

Astounding? Yes, incredibly! Especially when you consider the informed observation of New Testament scholar, Burton L. Mack. According to Professor Mack: "Despite the enormous investment in biblical studies in our society, there is actually very little public knowledge about the Bible. One cannot assume that anyone knows why the individual books of the Bible were first written, how they were understood by those who first read them, when and why they were brought together in a single volume, what the historical significance of that moment was, how the Christian church has reinterpreted all of them many times in the course of Western cultural history, and what the lasting effect of that layered text has been." [Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament: The Making of the Christian Myth pp. 3-4]

Here's an example that demonstrates the problem of thoughtless biblical literalism. When polled, 60 percent of Americans asserted that the Hebrew Bible's description of Noah's Ark is literally correct. Yet, biblical scholars have uncovered evidence, which indicates that the Hebrew Bible contains two stories about Noah's Ark. They derive from distinct sources that they call P and J.

Thus, P (Genesis 6:19) has God instructing Noah to bring one pair (male and female) of each animal into the ark while J (Genesis 7:2) has God instructing Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. Moreover, P tells us that the flood lasted a year (370 days), while J claims it was forty days and forty nights. Finally P (Genesis 8:7) has Noah send out a raven, while J (Genesis 8:8) claims it was a dove.

But biblical scholars also know that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. First, as Richard Elliot Freedman has observed: People "noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said. The text, after all, gave an account of Moses' death. It also said that Moses was the humblest man on earth; and normally one would not expect the humblest man on earth to point out that he is the humblest man on earth." [Who Wrote the Bible? p. 18]

Second, scholars now believe that the five books have been derived from four source documents; P and J, but also E and D. They believe that Genesis contains two distinct, but intermixed, stories. One story, which refers to God as Elohim, is based on the E and P sources. The other story, which refers to Yahweh, is based on the J source. As Professor Freedman notes: "In the case of the creation, for example, the first chapter of the Bible tells one version of how the world came to be created, and the second chapter of the Bible starts over with a different version of what happened. In many ways they duplicate each other, and on several points they contradict each other." [Freedman, p. 50]

Moreover, the P source, written, perhaps a hundred years later "as an alternative" to the E and J sources, was, in turn, selected by a redactor some two hundred years later to become the Genesis 1:1 - 2.3 that we read in the Hebrew Bible today. Professor Freedman speculates that the redactor (probably Ezra) included all four sources in the Hebrew Bible for two reasons, notwithstanding their contradictions: (1) each source had long-standing popularity by the time the redactor got to them and (2) each source was popularly thought to have been written by Moses.

And, thus, it is from such mundane and erroneous considerations -- and not the literal word of Moses -- that today's Crackpot Christian dominionists claim their authority.

The New Testament is equally riddled with errors and contradictions. For example, consider the story of the "virgin birth" found in Matthew and Luke. According to biblical scholar, Paula Fredriksen, "The tradition that Jesus' mother was a virgin...draws on a prophecy available only in the Greek version of Isaiah 7:14: In the original Hebrew, the word that stands behind the Septuagint's parthenos, "virgin," is aalmah, "young girl." [Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 27.

Matthew and Luke incorporated the Septugaint's Greek version because, "In the Septuagint, the Gospel writers felt they had a third historical source for information [in addition to Mark and the Q sayings] about the life and especially the death of Jesus. We see this most clearly in Matthew, who often prefaces or concludes some action or story with the words, 'This was done in order to fulfill the words which were spoken by the prophet' (whether such a prophecy exists in the Jewish Scriptures or not)." [Ibid]

Moreover, Matthew and Luke are but two of the four fictitious names given to the authors of the Gospels. We know this, because in the original texts "their authors chose to remain anonymous" [See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament, p. 8) According to Professor Mack, "with the exception of the seven letters by Paul and the Revelations to an otherwise unknown John, the writings selected for inclusion in the New Testament were not written by those whose names are attached to them." [Mack, p.6])

In addition, as Professor Ehrman tells us, in his book Lost Christianities, "Mark's Gospel circulated in different versions" something he knows because "we have numerous manuscripts of Mark's Gospel." Of even greater significance is the fact that "the last twelve verses of Mark, in which Jesus appears to his disciples after the resurrection... [are] not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark. Instead these manuscripts end at Mark 16:8." [p. 78]

Among other discrepancies found in the Gospels, Ehrman notes the following: "Did Jesus die the afternoon before the Passover meal was eaten, as in John (see 19:14), or the morning afterwards, as in Mark (see 14:12, 22; 15:25)? Did Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt after Jesus' birth as in Matthew (2:13-23), or did they return to Nazareth as in Luke (2:39)? Was Jairus's daughter sick and dying when he came to ask Jesus for help as in Mark (6:23, 25), or had she already died, as in Matthew (9:18)? After Jesus' resurrection, did the disciples stay in Jerusalem until he had ascended into heaven, as in Luke (24:1 - 52), or did the straightaway go to Galilee, as in Matthew (28:1 - 20)?" [Lost Christianities, pp. 169-170]

Given all of these errors and contradictions, what should sensible Americans -- including sensible American Christians -- make of the Crackpot Christians who rely upon biblical literalism and inerrancy to inform their speculations about the End of Time? Why, just yesterday, ABC News reported on a group of (Crackpot) Christians, who are lending their support to Israel's bombing and invasion of Lebanon, because, as Rev. Margaret Stratton told her 200 Methodist Church attendees in Waco, Texas, "'What is happening in Israel today, with their neighbors is prophesied in the Bible. The whole world should understand the reason for the conflict in the Middle East,' she said, adding this has all been foretold." ["Save Israel, for Jesus?" ABC News, August 3, 2006]

Now, there are at least two problems associated with Crackpot Christianity's End of Time's biblical literalism. First, these crackpots make this claim virtually every time violence flares up in the Middle East. As Mark A, Noll writes in his exceptionally wise book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, within weeks of the outbreak of the Gulf War of 1991, "evangelical publishers provided a spate of books featuring efforts to read this latest Middle East crisis as a direct fulfillment of the biblical prophecy beholding the end of the world." [p. 13] Moreover, as historian Paul Boyer has concluded (in his study of prophecy belief in modern American culture, When Time Shall Be No More):"popular interest in Bible prophecy burgeoned under the impetus of the atomic bomb, the founding of Israel in 1948, and other factors." [p. 10]

The second problem with the End of Time's fixation by Crackpot Christians also was highlighted by Professor Noll. End of Time's believers "all shared a disconcerting conviction that the best way to provide moral judgment about what was happening in the Middle East was not to study carefully what was going on in the Middle East. Rather, they featured a kind of Bible study that drew attention away from careful analysis of the complexities of Middle Eastern culture or the tangled twentieth-century history of the region toward speculation about some of the most esoteric and widely debated passages of the Bible." [pp. 13-14]

Thus, just from these few examples, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that America's Crackpot Christians are no less delusional than the Islamic jihadists who expect virgins in paradise as the reward for their martyrdom. (One scholar of ancient Semitic languages believes that the Koran's "virgin" is a mistranslation of the term "hur," which should be translated to read "white raisin," a prized delicacy in the ancient Near East. See Alexander Stille, "Scholars Are Quietly Offering New theories of the Koran," The New York Times, March 2, 2002)

But an understanding of their delusion goes far to explain the election of a Crackpot Christian as President of the United States, America's subsequent invasion of Iraq for the sake of oil and Israel, and the current indifference to the tremendous suffering precipitated there by the United States -- all of which has resulted in the precipitous collapse of America's moral stature around the world.

http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/crackpot.html

[footstepsfrom#27]

Yawn...are you going here again? I thought the Israel thing was enough to keep you busy? Do you ever sleep? It's 3:40 in the AM where you are.

For the record...I'm an evangelical...seminary trained...believe in literal interpretation...don't support Bush...don't want to see a fundamentalist theocracy in America...am not a crackpot...and the people you're describing...though once prominent...are now a small minority who remain vocal.

That's all the energy I have today...;D Go to bed.

[gunns]

There's a very interesting and long article on Billy Graham on MSN. He's 87 years old now and it was detailing his thoughts in the twilight of his life. He was stating that he's discovered that the Bible is definitely, and should be open to interpretation by any good Christian, that it is not as literal as he once thought. Also that he no longer makes moral judgments about certain topics, nor about who might make it to heaven. Although his son does these things, he states that his son is young and as you age you come to this stage of your life, that none of us can judge another we need to worry about our own salvation and what we've done. We are just to love one another and we can hate the sin but not judge the sin. Too bad we might have to wait for some these "radical religious" to age.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...and the people you're describing...though once prominent...are now a small minority who remain vocal.

These people have enough sway with the current administration to interrupt a Bush vacation - something even Hurricane Katrina couldn't accomplish.

One of their reps here on the OM was just trying to convince me that these folks were the most powerful lobby in America (next to AIPAC, that is.)

That's all the energy I have today...;D Go to bed.

I wish!

Just taking a break here - then it's time to finish a project I'm working on.

With any luck, I'll be able to get horizontal before 8:00 PDT. :D

[enjolras]

That's actually a good article. I hate the verbage of 'crackpot christians' because its a very incomplete description. Many of these 'crackpot' Christians are really quite rational, just a bit misguided when it comes to matters of faith.

I've found that in my personal interactions with these Christians that they have been quite interested in many of the issues in this article. They simply have never been exposed to the issues with the bible itself... the issues with scribes and multiple versions of the same book in circulation.

I've had some really great chats concerning things like dispensationalism (which gave rise to the modern concept of the rapture). These conversations have almost always caused these Christians to look at their faith in a more critical light. I've found that when these people are presented with these new ideas, they are quite open and receptive to them. Its not that I talk them out of being Christians (never my goal), but rather it encourages them to become more spiritually responsible.

The problem here is that religious education is left up to the churches, which are (as a whole) rather unqualified to do it. They teach religious indoctrination, convienently leaving out important facts and historical issues. That's fine, but it means that people are putting their faith behind something that they really don't know very much about. Learning about the historical context of Christianity is not that accessible to people unless they go LOOKING for it, which most people don't have the energy to do. I'm not sure how you solve this problem (although increasing 'religious studies' classes at the university level would sure help), but its most definitely a problem that would benefit us greatly if we solved it.

The message Jesus brought deserves to be heard in the way it was intended... that message, when put in its proper historical context, is much more sensible than the hate-filled lunacy modern interpretation has made it become.

[W*GS]

Just taking a break here - then it's time to finish a project I'm working on.

Mopping the back room at the Kwik-E-Mart?

[footstepsfrom#27]

That's actually a good article. I hate the verbage of 'crackpot christians' because its a very incomplete description. Many of these 'crackpot' Christians are really quite rational, just a bit misguided when it comes to matters of faith.

I've found that in my personal interactions with these Christians that they have been quite interested in many of the issues in this article. They simply have never been exposed to the issues with the bible itself... the issues with scribes and multiple versions of the same book in circulation.

I've had some really great chats concerning things like dispensationalism (which gave rise to the modern concept of the rapture). These conversations have almost always caused these Christians to look at their faith in a more critical light. I've found that when these people are presented with these new ideas, they are quite open and receptive to them. Its not that I talk them out of being Christians (never my goal), but rather it encourages them to become more spiritually responsible.

The problem here is that religious education is left up to the churches, which are (as a whole) rather unqualified to do it. They teach religious indoctrination, convienently leaving out important facts and historical issues. That's fine, but it means that people are putting their faith behind something that they really don't know very much about. Learning about the historical context of Christianity is not that accessible to people unless they go LOOKING for it, which most people don't have the energy to do. I'm not sure how you solve this problem (although increasing 'religious studies' classes at the university level would sure help), but its most definitely a problem that would benefit us greatly if we solved it.

The message Jesus brought deserves to be heard in the way it was intended... that message, when put in its proper historical context, is much more sensible than the hate-filled lunacy modern interpretation has made it become.
I've been exposed to all the issues you speak of. I have 6 years of formal education at the college and seminary level (masters degree) at one of the most rigorous academic environments in the world for this stuff, followed by several more years of independent study, and yet I reamain one who believes firmly in a literal interpretation of the Bible...go figure. I have studied the orginal languages, prologomena, textual, genre and historical criticism, apologetics, heremenetics, church history...etc...etc...etc...so believing as I do is not a function of ignorance. Please don't make the assumption that because somebody is "educated" they no longer believe that the Bible is inerrant or that a literal interpretation is only for morons. I'm to tired to look for it but you can search and find my posts on this subject in here from previous go-arounds if you're interested. I state many of the theological basis for a literal interpretation and differentiate what that means vs what people like to say it means.

Second, you are only partially correct that the church has not done a good job by and large of educating people about the Bible and how to study it. I think you should keep in mind that that level of intensity in studying this stuff really can't be adequately done in the church...not on any level that approaches mass delivery that people can effectively grasp, nor should they be doing that. That is the job of seminaries, and 100 years ago when churches were doing this, most ministers had a seminary education; something that is no longer true. Those 19th century ministers taught theology in the pulpit, unlike today where it's often personal viewpoints rather than theology being taught. It takes 20 years of concentrated study in theology before you earn the right to even consider calling yourself a "scholar"...and unfortunately we have very few of those around. Having said that, there are lots of evangelical churches that do teach a solid foundation for studying the Bible...but you won't find them on television and for the most part, they make up the great silent majority of evangelical churches that don't involve themselves in all this public wrangling and poltical gamemanship. They adhere to the belief that Jesus taught us to change PEOPLE through love and committment to faith, not through attempts to REFORM SOCIETY. That's been the single biggest failure of the evangelical church...not confronting those that have moved the mission of the church by forcing them to bring it back to where it was supposed to be...about PERSONAL faith, not public policy.

[enjolras]

Completely agree.. I'm certainly not charging that there aren't scholars within the evangelical movement, or that there aren't evangelicals teaching a complete view of theology. As you point out, however, they are few and far between. The broader movement has most definitely allowed personal agenda to trump actual literalism.

I used dispensationalism quite intentionally, since it is the basis for so much of the modern evangelical movement. In particular the ever popular 'end times' theology that is so much a part of majority evangelical thought. A pre-tribulation rapture is not motivated by a literal reading of the bible, for example. The existence of the rapture is there, but the timing is not (the closest revelations come is to a post tribulation rapture).

Even that is questionable, since Revelations is such an odd book to begin with. It was not written by an apostle, and its imagery is quite unique. The fact that it was canonized at all was controversial, even in the 4th century, as its author had very little credibility. He was hardly the first (nor the last) person to craft a book after claiming to have talked to God. What gives him more credibility than say..Joseph Smith? Other than the fact that a bunch of 4th century politicians seemed to beleive his account?

That's what is quite bothersome/interesting to me. Evangelicals have become obsessed with end times thinking.. and the popular theology surrounding that is based on anything but a literal interpretation of the bible. It is furthermore compounded by some big questions surrounding the book that their interpretation is largely based on. Instead of focusing on Christ and his teaching, it seems like they are largely focused on something else entirely.

[DBruleU]

These people have enough sway with the current administration to interrupt a Bush vacation - something even Hurricane Katrina couldn't accomplish.

One of their reps here on the OM was just trying to convince me that these folks were the most powerful lobby in America (next to AIPAC, that is.)



I wish!

Just taking a break here - then it's time to finish a project I'm working on.

With any luck, I'll be able to get horizontal before 8:00 PDT. :D

Just out of curiosity, what do you do as a profession?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Completely agree.. I'm certainly not charging that there aren't scholars within the evangelical movement, or that there aren't evangelicals teaching a complete view of theology. As you point out, however, they are few and far between.
Actually I was referring to Christianity at large...not to evangelicalism in partiular.
The broader movement has most definitely allowed personal agenda to trump actual literalism.
Not sure what that means...evagelicals are an extremely diverse group...and they differ on many things, but remain united on the core theology of scripture...ie; "the fundamentals" or essentials of Christian faith.
I used dispensationalism quite intentionally, since it is the basis for so much of the modern evangelical movement. In particular the ever popular 'end times' theology that is so much a part of majority evangelical thought. A pre-tribulation rapture is not motivated by a literal reading of the bible, for example. The existence of the rapture is there, but the timing is not (the closest revelations come is to a post tribulation rapture).
You're talking to a dispensationalist...Dallas Theological Seminary...they don't come more dispensational than that...LOL...though I think for myself and differ on some issues...but obviously I don't agree with any of the above statement. Is this an appropriate topic for discussion? Sure. Will it be so in here? Heck no....not even close. I've spent HUGE amounts of time in here on this whole subject of biblical interpretation...doing so around something like this would magnify it 20 fold...not interested in that...but just wanted to let you know where I stand.
Even that is questionable, since Revelations is such an odd book to begin with. It was not written by an apostle, and its imagery is quite unique. The fact that it was canonized at all was controversial, even in the 4th century, as its author had very little credibility. He was hardly the first (nor the last) person to craft a book after claiming to have talked to God. What gives him more credibility than say..Joseph Smith? Other than the fact that a bunch of 4th century politicians seemed to beleive his account?
Again...major disagreement; you're entitled to your opinon and me to mine. Let's do the smart thing and leave it at that...I doubt either of us has the time to pull this off...I certainly don't. I'm glad to see you're interacting with the Biblilcal text.
That's what is quite bothersome/interesting to me. Evangelicals have become obsessed with end times thinking.. and the popular theology surrounding that is based on anything but a literal interpretation of the bible. It is furthermore compounded by some big questions surrounding the book that their interpretation is largely based on. Instead of focusing on Christ and his teaching, it seems like they are largely focused on something else entirely.
Actually there is a fairly small percentage of evangelicals that I would call "obsessed" with "end times thinking"...VERY small in fact. Second, it's not based on Revelations as you imply...more like the discusion about the fig tree in the gospels as it relates to Israel...Revelation comes in a distant 2nd...and 3rd, so called "end times thinking" is based on literal interpretation.

And that's all I have to say on this subject. I know a rabbit trail when I see one...and I'm spending to much time in here as it is...;D Again...I'm glad you interact with the biblical text and think about these issues instead of just tossing stuff out there without any thought. We need more of that.

[DBruleU]

Completely agree.. I'm certainly not charging that there aren't scholars within the evangelical movement, or that there aren't evangelicals teaching a complete view of theology. As you point out, however, they are few and far between. The broader movement has most definitely allowed personal agenda to trump actual literalism.

I used dispensationalism quite intentionally, since it is the basis for so much of the modern evangelical movement. In particular the ever popular 'end times' theology that is so much a part of majority evangelical thought. A pre-tribulation rapture is not motivated by a literal reading of the bible, for example. The existence of the rapture is there, but the timing is not (the closest revelations come is to a post tribulation rapture).

Even that is questionable, since Revelations is such an odd book to begin with. It was not written by an apostle, and its imagery is quite unique. The fact that it was canonized at all was controversial, even in the 4th century, as its author had very little credibility. He was hardly the first (nor the last) person to craft a book after claiming to have talked to God. What gives him more credibility than say..Joseph Smith? Other than the fact that a bunch of 4th century politicians seemed to beleive his account?

That's what is quite bothersome/interesting to me. Evangelicals have become obsessed with end times thinking.. and the popular theology surrounding that is based on anything but a literal interpretation of the bible. It is furthermore compounded by some big questions surrounding the book that their interpretation is largely based on. Instead of focusing on Christ and his teaching, it seems like they are largely focused on something else entirely.
John wasn't an Apostle?

[enjolras]

John wasn't an Apostle?

Most likely, it was very much a different person. There are a number of reasons to beleive this, first and foremost among them the fact that its very difficult to place John the Apostle as an exile on the island of Patmos.

There are a large number of differences between Revelations and the books that can be firmly attributed to John. The book is written in Greek, but it is a very disjoint form of Greek. This compares poorly with other Johinian books which are written very well. They are stylistically discongruent. You'll find some handwaving around this, primarily around the idea that John is serving as a literal translator for God (in which case God speaks bad Greek).

The actual content of the book is also quite different than anything else in the bible. It does maintain much of the same verbage as the Johinian gospels (particularly in how it references god and christ), but is otherwise gramatically incosistent.

Bigger issues come into play with how Revelations directly conflicts with even other Johinian books. Particularly in chapters 2 and 3. My favorite example occurs right at the beginning of chapter 3 in which the people of Sardis are condemned:

'I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. 2 Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. 3 Remember then what you received and heard; keep that, and repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.

This conflicts rather heavily with Johns own writings which say that man is not saved through works, but by faith alone (interestingly work vs. faith is an ongoing theological argument that seperates Catholics and most protestant denominations today).

" He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:18

"For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:40


There are actually many of these issues between revelations and the rest of scripture. In the end, historical issues make apostlistic authorship quite unlikely. Actual examination of the text makes it unlikely. Furthermore, while the author of Revelations identifies himself several times, he fails to identify himself as an apostle even once. While this isn't proof that he didn't write it, it certainly doesn't help the case.

If you take all of that together the most logical conclusion is that John of Patmos (or John the divine) is quite different from John the Apostle.

[DBruleU]

Most likely, it was very much a different person. There are a number of reasons to beleive this, first and foremost among them the fact that its very difficult to place John the Apostle as an exile on the island of Patmos.

There are a large number of differences between Revelations and the books that can be firmly attributed to John. The book is written in Greek, but it is a very disjoint form of Greek. This compares poorly with other Johinian books which are written very well. They are stylistically discongruent. You'll find some handwaving around this, primarily around the idea that John is serving as a literal translator for God (in which case God speaks bad Greek).

The actual content of the book is also quite different than anything else in the bible. It does maintain much of the same verbage as the Johinian gospels (particularly in how it references god and christ), but is otherwise gramatically incosistent.

Bigger issues come into play with how Revelations directly conflicts with even other Johinian books. Particularly in chapters 2 and 3. My favorite example occurs right at the beginning of chapter 3 in which the people of Sardis are condemned:



This conflicts rather heavily with Johns own writings which say that man is not saved through works, but by faith alone (interestingly work vs. faith is an ongoing theological argument that seperates Catholics and most protestant denominations today).



There are actually many of these issues between revelations and the rest of scripture. In the end, historical issues make apostlistic authorship quite unlikely. Actual examination of the text makes it unlikely. Furthermore, while the author of Revelations identifies himself several times, he fails to identify himself as an apostle even once. While this isn't proof that he didn't write it, it certainly doesn't help the case.

If you take all of that together the most logical conclusion is that John of Patmos (or John the divine) is quite different from John the Apostle.

Interersting. But I disagree with you. I've heard that before. External evidence supports the view that it was indeed John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee.

[enjolras]

Hit me with it..I'd be interested in evidence outside of 2nd and 3rd century speculation.

Keep in mind that the eastern orthodox church treats the book as something of an outlier... with questions about attribution playing a role (not the whole reason, but a contributing factor) in that decision.

[mhgaffney]

The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking -- oh if we could only go back to the good old days when everyone walked in the way of the lord.

Only it turns out the good old days never actually happened.

The other point is that when you look closely fundamentalist Christians don't understand their own religion. Their understanding of scripture is highly selective. As someone said, anyone, even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

They also read stuff into the bible that isn't there. The so called rapture has no scriptural foundation and is a bunch of nonsense.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be understood in the context in which it was written. This means studying history -- and very few people are willing to put the time and effort into it. No wonder that very few Christians understand the bible.

In fact, I believe the bible actually causes more harm than good. We need a new incarnation of God on earth to take humanity to the next level. At present, the loonies who think they understand the bible -- but don't -- are leading us toward world war III.

[footstepsfrom#27]

The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking -- oh if we could only go back to the good old days when everyone walked in the way of the lord.

Only it turns out the good old days never actually happened.

The other point is that when you look closely fundamentalist Christians don't understand their own religion. Their understanding of scripture is highly selective. As someone said, anyone, even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

They also read stuff into the bible that isn't there. The so called rapture has no scriptural foundation and is a bunch of nonsense.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be understood in the context in which it was written. This means studying history -- and very few people are willing to put the time and effort into it. No wonder that very few Christians understand the bible.

In fact, I believe the bible actually causes more harm than good. We need a new incarnation of God on earth to take humanity to the next level. At present, the loonies who think they understand the bible -- but don't -- are leading us toward world war III.
:bs: Poet boy morphs into a theologian now...LOL

[fdf]

Evangelicals have become obsessed with end times thinking.. and the popular theology surrounding that is based on anything but a literal interpretation of the bible.

I know an awful lot of evangelicals. There are a few, to be sure, who would properly be characterized as 'obsessed' with end-times thinking. Eg, the Assemblies of God services I've been to seem to spend quite a bit of time on the subject. On the other hand, I've spent quite a bit of time in an AOG men's study group and the Rapture was never mentioned. So the services I attended might not be a representative sample of AOG churches and I don't want to characterize the whole denomination. But on the whole, it's a really small portion that spends much time on the subject--I think a lot wonder about it occasionally but haven't really formed an opinion. It certainly doesn't seem to drive a lot of lives amongst folks I know.

Have you been to many evangelical churches; or just read when the media reports some goofy thing Pat Robertson says as typical of those crazy right-wing Christians? A lot of misinformation is circulated about evangelicals by folks whose total exposure is reading about some lunatic who is being selectively quoted in the NYT. My experience is that the NYT tends to shy away from sensible representatives of movements they disapprove of.

As to your comments about the failures of the churches, it's hard to teach theology with 45 minutes on Sunday. About the best you do is hit the high points and try to direct people into life groups, ALC, or private study. But the reality is that not a lot of folks are going to pick up Bultmann and N.T.Wright and really study who is correct. Putting Paul into, eg, the proper context of Second Temple Judaism and the dispute between the Saducees and the Pharisees about the nature of the afterlife is essential to understanding parts of Paul. As a result, I'm pretty confident that most Christians today completely misunderstand what early Christians taught about life after death. This is just an example. I don't pretend to be a scholar on this stuff. I have only been able to glide over the surface.

But fortunately, scripture (even read by the unwashed) has an amazing ability to transform lives. I've seen it happen over and over again. Some folks develop some goofy opinions about details; but that does not alter the power of Grace in their life. Giving their life to Christ seems to be the important thing; not a detailed understand of, say, Second Temple Judaism.

[DBruleU]

The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking -- oh if we could only go back to the good old days when everyone walked in the way of the lord.

Only it turns out the good old days never actually happened.

The other point is that when you look closely fundamentalist Christians don't understand their own religion. Their understanding of scripture is highly selective. As someone said, anyone, even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

They also read stuff into the bible that isn't there. The so called rapture has no scriptural foundation and is a bunch of nonsense.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be understood in the context in which it was written. This means studying history -- and very few people are willing to put the time and effort into it. No wonder that very few Christians understand the bible.

In fact, I believe the bible actually causes more harm than good. We need a new incarnation of God on earth to take humanity to the next level. At present, the loonies who think they understand the bible -- but don't -- are leading us toward world war III.


Right when I thought you couldn't be any more loonie, there ya go.

[fdf]

We need a new incarnation of God on earth to take humanity to the next level.

I guess He goofed last time, huh. Just can't count on Him to get anything right I guess. You would probably have done a lot better.

But don't worry, it'll happen when He's ready.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How is it possible that otherwise intelligent, educated, and even erudite individuals can become fundamentalists and Biblical literalists?

Same way all those German intellectuals were seduced by Hitler: It's untimately about appeal to emotion and an irrational commitment to a set of foregone conclusions - not reason or logic.

(Disclaimer: Before somebody has a conniption fit, I'm not saying fundies = Nazis.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right when I thought you couldn't be any more loonie, there ya go.

Name one thing he said that isn't true.

[mhgaffney]

This is for fdf, footsteps, dbruleu:

We've seen the sort of fluff you guys post. It's vacuous.

I stick to areas where I've done serious research. I don't go beyond what I know. And not once has any of you taken apart and deconstructed even one of the points I've made on this board.

Instead, you engage in ridicule, slander, and personal assault. Is that all you guys can manage? How lame you are.

Footsteps I hold you especially responsible here. For someone who has done serious academic study of religion -- assuming you are telling the truth about this -- you show no indication of having gained anything positive from the experience. You especially should know better.

What ever happened to open ness? Tolerance of other ideas? Charity?

You guys are so mean spirited it makes me want to puke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And not once has any of you taken apart and deconstructed even one of the points I've made on this board.

That's true.

Unfortunately, this is typical of the majority of right-wingers and GeeDubya supporters on this forum.

Instead, you engage in ridicule, slander, and personal assault. Is that all you guys can manage?

When the facts and the truth aren't on their side, this sort of thing is their only recourse.

[fdf]

The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking -- oh if we could only go back to the good old days when everyone walked in the way of the lord.

I haven't found any golden, good-old days in my, admittedly limited, study of the Bible. Rather, it's pretty much been murder, mayhem, sexual immorality, worshipping false Gods, lying, and cheating and then more of the same. When God came, we murdered him. When the apostles preached, they were burned to death, stoned or crucified. The Bible pretty much documents fallen man-as-he-is, not as you would want him to be. Post biblical history is pretty much the same--Slavetraders, Nazis, Communists, Rwandan tribesmen, and Islamists, all vying to see who can be more monstrous--and thats just in the last 200 years.

Perhaps you are just repeating stereotypes you have heard. I would suggest getting to know some of these Christians you think are so dangerous. You will find them a lot different than the cartoons that you have in year head. You might even learn something from them.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Name one thing he said that isn't true.
None of it's true...but this one should do. Poet boy obviously is not an evangelical Christian...which means he has no idea how we think...unless you think he has the ability to read minds...:thumbsup:
1) The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking.

That's a bunch of nonsense. In 28 years of being a Christian, including some initial ill fated membership in "fundamentalist" churches, I've met some oddball people, but I've met ABSOLUTELY NOBODY who thinks like that...NOBODY....not a single one. But I'm sure that my 10,264 days of experience as a Christian are no match for the musings of Mark Gaffney...who knows everything about everything.

I love how some on the left preache tolerance for everyone except those THEY hate...in this case Jews and Christians.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

None of it's true...but this one should do. Poet boy obviously is not an evangelical Christian...which means he has no idea how we think...unless you think he has the ability to read minds...

No mind reading required: Evangelicals are, by definition, completely outspoken about what they think and believe. Also, it's possible that someone in Mark's immediate family is a fundie.



1) The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking.

That's a bunch of nonsense. In 28 years of being a Christian, including some initial ill fated membership in "fundamentalist" churches, I've met some oddball people, but I've met ABSOLUTELY NOBODY who thinks like that...NOBODY....not a single one.

Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I know I've encountered more than a few of them (some on this board.)

These people are all about "kill 'em all (usually Muslims) and let God sort 'em out." (Errand springs to mind.)


I love how some on the left preache tolerance for everyone except those THEY hate...in this case Jews and Christians.

Speaking for myself, I don't hate any particular religious tradition, nor am I anti-religious. I'm simply opposed to religious imperialism - whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

I can't stomach religious conservatism, fundamentalism, literalism, or any sort of proselytism/missionary ethic.

[footstepsfrom#27]

This is for fdf, footsteps, dbruleu:

We've seen the sort of fluff you guys post. It's vacuous.

I stick to areas where I've done serious research. I don't go beyond what I know. And not once has any of you taken apart and deconstructed even one of the points I've made on this board.
Mark...you are laboring under the bizarre missconception that I take anything you say seriously. But in case you're wondering...ask LABF if I can bring it...see what he says...or better yet search and retrieve my posts on this board that discuss theology...because I have no time to waste on you. I don't mind engaging LABF in a battle of whits because he's obviously somebody whose been here a very long time devoting absurd amounts of time to something he believes in, and we in fact agree on certain things...I can tell he's got a sharp mind and cares about what he's doing, though I often doubt it's having any real impact, I have a certain amount of respect for him. The point is...he's earned a response, but you I just consider a hateful little small minded bigot. Basically you're not worth my time...not more than a 5 minute increment that it takes to type something like this.
Instead, you engage in ridicule, slander, and personal assault. Is that all you guys can manage? How lame you are.
Not lame enough to be spamming this board trying to sell my book like you are though...a book nobody wants to buy or even comment on...LOL
Footsteps I hold you especially responsible here. For someone who has done serious academic study of religion -- assuming you are telling the truth about this -- you show no indication of having gained anything positive from the experience. You especially should know better.
The fact that a hateful little bigot like you "holds me responsible" means absolutely NOTHING to me. I find it amusing you'd think it does.
What ever happened to open ness? Tolerance of other ideas? Charity?
LOL...YOU are talking about "tolerance" and "charity"...that's pretty funny...I bet Herman Gering had a sense of humor too though.
You guys are so mean spirited it makes me want to puke.
You're the one spouting hatred in here...first against Jews and now against Christians. I'm not really fond of over the hill ex-hippies stuck in a 1960's time warp who brag about their silly accomplishments and try to sell me books on left wing drivel either...one of the most idiotic things I've seen on this board...but I don't waste a lot of time thinking or worrying about it. You need to grow up...for a 50 something year old guy, you're incredibly imature.

And just so you know...this is not a seminary environment...and I have no intentions in engaging you in such a discussion. To quote you...

I don't cast my pearls before swine either.

[enjolras]

Have you been to many evangelical churches; or just read when the media reports some goofy thing Pat Robertson says as typical of those crazy right-wing Christians? A lot of misinformation is circulated about evangelicals by folks whose total exposure is reading about some lunatic who is being selectively quoted in the NYT. My experience is that the NYT tends to shy away from sensible representatives of movements they disapprove of.

I most definitely have. My longest stint (although not only) was at a pentacostal church in Arkansas. Attended for about a year. Was VERY active in the church, and I learned alot. Met a lot of good people (I did find them rather misguided, but good intentioned for sure).

As to your comments about the failures of the churches, it's hard to teach theology with 45 minutes on Sunday. About the best you do is hit the high points and try to direct people into life groups, ALC, or private study. But the reality is that not a lot of folks are going to pick up Bultmann and N.T.Wright and really study who is correct. Putting Paul into, eg, the proper context of Second Temple Judaism and the dispute between the Saducees and the Pharisees about the nature of the afterlife is essential to understanding parts of Paul. As a result, I'm pretty confident that most Christians today completely misunderstand what early Christians taught about life after death. This is just an example. I don't pretend to be a scholar on this stuff. I have only been able to glide over the surface.

Actually, that's a point I've been trying to make. I think you CAN teach theology in church, particularly Christian theology. The key is to actually get to literalism. The gospels (in particular) are incredibly easy to read and to understand. Christian theology is summed up by one golden rule... its really the only commandment Jesus gave us. The bulk of the gospels are parables used to illustrate the application of Christs great commandment. Teaching that isn't hard.

What IS hard, is to sloth through the various interpretations of the bible. I've picked on dispensationalism, because that is a particularly complicated bible view. It begins by defining a viewpoint (restoration of Judaism.. and footsteps: forgive me for simplying:) ) and applies that viewpoint to interpreting the bible. While it is definitely interesting (and theologically logical), this approach needlessly complicates what is a very simple message.

How the new and old testament fit together is irrelevant, the core message of Jesus is not. This is why I'm highly critical of the canonized bible. The bulk of the new testament is in writings which have little bearing on Jesus's message. They are specific instructions, to specific churches, at specific times. These letters bear little theological importance (in my mind), as they are the details of MAN attempting to establish a man-made instution. They only serve to cloud and confuse the wonderful simplicity of the gospels (which themselves have been modified over the first 2 or 3 centuries for various ends).

To me, we need to spend time focusing on the core of Christian philosophy. Instead of spending a couple of hours every week in church waving our hands in the air, lets instead establish "churches" whose ongoing mission is not complicated theology and needless morale fist pounding...but rather teaching Christ through example (just as Christ did). Christ delivered very few sermons, instead choosing to demonstrate morality through action, and I beleive that our churches should be compelled to do the same.

But fortunately, scripture (even read by the unwashed) has an amazing ability to transform lives. I've seen it happen over and over again. Some folks develop some goofy opinions about details; but that does not alter the power of Grace in their life. Giving their life to Christ seems to be the important thing; not a detailed understand of, say, Second Temple Judaism.

Absolutely... I'm a heavy advocate for religion. I'm also a religious 'liberal'. I've seen lives transformed by Christian scripture, Islamic scripture, buddhist teachings, hinduism, and even pagansim. While I am a Christian, I do see god in each of these (and other) philisophies. I beleive that god manifests his grace in many ways, and wholeheartedly beleive that grace is not reserved for Christians alone. That is certainly one detail where I depart quite deeply with evangelical belief.

[Rohirrim]

“There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.” ~ Rabbi Sherwin Wine

This is really true. It goes back to pre-revolution days when Ben Franklin was fighting the Mathers in the press and beyond to the first English settlements, and all the way up to the present. It's the two Americas; In a constant battle for the soul of America.

[fdf]

. . .

Actually, that's a point I've been trying to make. I think you CAN teach theology in church, particularly Christian theology. The key is to actually get to literalism. The gospels (in particular) are incredibly easy to read and to understand.

What IS hard, is to sloth through the various interpretations of the bible. I've picked on dispensationalism, because that is a particularly complicated bible view. It begins by defining a viewpoint (restoration of Judaism.. and footsteps: forgive me for simplying:) ) and applies that viewpoint to interpreting the bible. While it is definitely interesting (and theologically logical), this approach needlessly complicates what is a very simple message.

How the new and old testament fit together is irrelevant, the core message of Jesus is not. This is why I'm highly critical of the canonized bible. The bulk of the new testament is in writings which have little bearing on Jesus's message. They are specific instructions, to specific churches, at specific times. These letters bear little theological importance (in my mind), as they are the details of MAN attempting to establish a man-made instution. They only serve to cloud and confuse the wonderful simplicity of the gospels (which themselves have been modified over the first 2 or 3 centuries for various ends).

To me, we need to spend time focusing on the core of Christian philosophy. Instead of spending a couple of hours every week in church waving our hands in the air, lets instead establish "churches" whose ongoing mission is not complicated theology and needless morale fist pounding...but rather teaching Christ through example (just as Christ did). Christ delivered very few sermons, instead choosing to demonstrate morality through action, and I beleive that our churches should be compelled to do the same. . . .


I think most evangelicals would agree with you that Christians need to teach by example. But I respectfully disagree with some of your other points.

Christ was pretty clear that he came in the context of the scriptures (not to overturn but to fulfill them). Reducing his message to "do unto others as . . . etc" does not do it justice. Any old moral teacher could announce that. Jesus was a little different as, unlike most moral teachers, he came back from the dead and announced the coming of the Kingdom of God, that it was now for all men (not just the Jews), that the Father had invested all authority in Jesus to judge and forgive us, and that by his sacrifice, we were forgiven. That's a crazy message coming from most people. Coming from a man who returned from the dead, it's earthshaking and seems to me a little more core, imho, than "do unto others . . . " If true, it was the most important message in history.

It all hinges on the Resurrection. If you don't believe in the Resurrection, then all the old testament stuff is pretty unimportant as Jesus is just another guy that said some good things from which you can pick and choose. But if Christ was resurrected, then we, like Paul and the others who encountered the risen Christ, have to radically adjust our worldviews and we have to take what Christ said quite a bit more seriously than, say, what Winston Churchill or Albert Schweitzer or Mother Teresa said.

So I see Paul's epistles as key. He was the earliest writer to document the bodily resurrection maybe 10-20 years after the Resurrection and most of his work seems to me to be the work of a man who is fitting together the pieces of the puzzle left by a man who said he had come to fulfill scripture, that all authority on earth was his, and then proved it by appearing in the flesh to hundreds of folks, including Paul. These events were worldview shakers--even for Christian killers like Paul. He had to reorder his worldview when he encountered the risen Christ. What did it mean? That was the question Paul addressed.

And Paul does a pretty elegant job of assembling the oral history that would become the Gospels some years later, Old Testament Scripture, and the fact of the resurrection into a coherent whole. My belief is that Paul's encounter on the Road to Damascus was orchestrated by the Lord because Paul was the man uniquely suited to put the pieces together properly (the guy was steeped in scripture, had an IQ of about 220, fluency in multiple languages, etc). So I see Paul's epistles as being something we need to pay very close attention to.

But it ain't simple. Nothing that came out of the Pharisiacal (sp?) tradition (both Jesus and Paul's tradition) should be expected to be simple.

All that said, Christ's social and moral behavior messages were an important component of the "how to live" part of his message. Men need to be generous and help the poor. The must behave morally. I don't, however, see that message in the same way as does the Christian-left. I don't think you can get from there to, "have the government take other people's money (at gunpoint if necessary) and give it to the poor and never, under any circumstances, suggest that the Christ's teachings might not be consistent with a person's sexual behavior." I read the social and moral messages as a personal imperative, which I try to live by, not as Christ's blueprint for the nanny-state or Christ's adoption of "If it feels good, do it" as his message for our times.

[Smiling Assassin27]

more polemical, anti-Christian garbage by those dedicated to amoralism. sad. doesn't warrant more than the preceding statement. next.

[bendog]

And Paul does a pretty elegant job of assembling the oral history that would become the Gospels some years later,

WTF? Paul assembling oral histories? whoa.

Seriously footsteps, that post should prove the theory of the thread.

And enjolras, I think one should make a distinction between pentacostals and the RR. The pentacostals spearheaded racial diversity, and they tend to have a suspicious view of any govt involvement in religion. And, they tend to shun world possessions. Falwell and Robertson are quite different.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

more polemical, anti-Christian garbage by those dedicated to amoralism. sad. doesn't warrant more than the preceding statement. next.

If this is what you got out of the article, then your comprehension game is pretty messed up.

The article was an indictment of Christian Dominionists - not Christians in general.

Further, if you're suggesting that there's some sort of necessary connection between Christianity and morality, then you couldn't be more off base.

[footstepsfrom#27]

No mind reading required: Evangelicals are, by definition, completely outspoken about what they think and believe. Also, it's possible that someone in Mark's immediate family is a fundie.
I've cautioned you several times in the past about failing to distinguish between evangelicals and "fundies". I think Taco's new server move may have dumped my previous posts on this topic so to summarize; fundamentalism and evangelicals share only the core elements of Christian theology. Fundamentalism once defined a theological position, distinguishing those who accepted the core tennents of Christian teaching from theological liberalism that rose from the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. Fundamentalism still represents a distinct theological difference from liberalism, but those core beliefs do not differentiate it from evangelicalism. Both evangelicals and fundamentalists share adherance to core Christian theology...ie; "the fundamentals". But fundamentalism is now a cultural, not a theological point of view at this point in history, and it's subcultural peculiarities are not shared by evangelicals. It's defined by behavior and attitudes, primarily towards other Christians and the world at large. If you do not understand this, you do not understand fundamentalism...nor do you understand evanglicals. Most of what evangelicals are blamed for...things that non believers, incluidng theological liberals, find culturally offensive...represent the subcultural practices that fundamentalists have adopted and popularized publicly as representative of Christianity as a whole. In truth, "fundies" are a dying breed, replaced for the most part almost two decades ago by a much stronger groundswell of evangelical Christianity. In short...you cannot use the terms "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals" interchangeably. They are not the same thing.

Second, Christianity is something you experience, not something you offer mental assent to. Nor is it a set of rules, a code of behavior or even a creed or list of beliefs. It's a relationship, which means it doesn't matter how many "Christians" or "fundies" you know...if you have not experienced spiritual rebirth you do not understand the Christian mind. No amount of study, observation or conclusions drawn from such will give you a spiritual mind; one regenerated by the mind of Christ. Hence, it is impossible to say you understand that mind.
Just because you haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist.

I know I've encountered more than a few of them (some on this board.)
Are you telling me you know of Christians or those who claim to be who have blown up people with car bombs, strapped dynamite to their children to become suicide bombers, tortured and beheaded those they dissagree with or dedicated themselves to the overthrow of the US government? That's what these Islamic fundamentalists have done. So do you know somebody at the First Baptist Church looking to fly planes into buildings or hoping to get their hands on a nuke? Come on LABF...I know you don't expect me to buy that.
These people are all about "kill 'em all (usually Muslims) and let God sort 'em out." (Errand springs to mind.)
I think you may hear lots of Americans of all kinds of beliefs, including non Christians...expressing frustration with how our government seems unable to protect our shores or interests from terrorists. Does that mean these people are going to start setting off car bombs or wish to see Arab children incinerated in a nuclear blast? Get back to me when that happens. In the meantime, you have no justification for saying Christians have the same mindset with those who are sworn to murder anyone not of their faith. No real Christian church in the world teaches that. I think you know that.
Speaking for myself, I don't hate any particular religious tradition, nor am I anti-religious. I'm simply opposed to religious imperialism - whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.

I can't stomach religious conservatism, fundamentalism, literalism, or any sort of proselytism/missionary ethic.
Two contradictory statemets here. I think the real problem is a lack of understanding about what constitutes "relilgious imperialism". If you're defining it as forced coercion at the end of a gun...I agree. Sharing what you're experience with someone else is hardly "imperialism", nor is expressing your opinion at a ballot box.

[mhgaffney]

How the new and old testament fit together is irrelevant, the core message of Jesus is not.

To me, we need to spend time focusing on the core of Christian philosophy.

Christ delivered very few sermons, instead choosing to demonstrate morality through action, and I beleive that our churches should be compelled to do the same.

I beleive that god manifests his grace in many ways, and wholeheartedly beleive that grace is not reserved for Christians alone. That is certainly one detail where I depart quite deeply with evangelical belief.

You make excellent points. I disagree, however, about one of them. The difference between New and Old Testaments is extremey important. To explain this I will briefly tell a story.

One day not long ago I went for a stroll across the campus of UC Berkeley. I was enjoying the fine day when I encountered a rabbi. He was sitting alone at a card table on Sproul plaza. On the card table was a sign that read: ASK THE RABBI.

So I did.

The rabbi had the full beard, black garb and hat of orthodox Judaism. I walked up straight away and asked him the mother of all questions: “Sir,” I said, “Is it possible to know G-d?”

The rabbi gave me a stern look. He was not pleased with my question. But after a thoughtful silence he answered, “Yes, when the Messiah comes.” His words did not really surprise me. They confirmed what I already suspected: That Orthodox Judaism has not changed appreciably in 2,000 years.

Certainly in the Roman period it was axiomatic in Judaism that man cannot know God. Jews believed that the face of the Almighty was too awesome to behold. No human could survive the experience. Recall the words from Exodus (33:20), “No man can see me, and live.” The famous curtain that hung before the throne of the holy of holies in the temple of Jerusalem had a purpose: to shield the priests from the power, the glory and the wrath that would destroy them if they gazed upon it.

Here, then, is the most important distinction between the Old Testament and the New; because in the first century CE a young rabbi named Yeshua introduced a number of spiritual innovations so profound that for a time they swept aside the veil.

This was the spiritual revolution that later became Christianity. It had to do with direct experience of the inner divinity. Unfortunately, the revolution was soon betrayed by the institutional Church, which proceeded to persecute Jews, pagans, and the very people (gnostics) who were hanging onto the original core teachings. This is why Christianity failed to advance by a single step after the 4th century. And the rest, as they say, is history.

[enjolras]

All really good points, and for the most part the Knuckleheads have stayed out of this.. which is great:)

Christ was pretty clear that he came in the context of the scriptures (not to overturn but to fulfill them). Reducing his message to "do unto others as . . . etc" does not do it justice.

Absolutely, but what this MEANS exactly is a very interesting question. This drives directly to the idea of salvation through faith or salvation through works (which itself is a loaded word...I'm using it in the context of 'action' not 'hail mary's'). I beleive that faith is expressed not by belief, but by the actions taken on that belief. Salvation through christ doens't simply mean 'beleiving' in christ, but rather living a life in the spirit of christ. Does this even REQUIRE a true belief in Christ or simply a desire to do good? Is salvation simply the result of an abritrary choice, or living in a christly way? If mother Teresa was a Zen Buddhist is her status diminished in the eyes of god? I don't beleive that this what Jesus was saying...Jesus fulfilled hebrew prophecy, and in doing so moved salvation past it.

Here, then, is the most important distinction between the Old Testament and the New; because in the first century CE a young rabbi named Yeshua introduced a number of spiritual innovations so profound that for a time they swept aside the veil.

This was the spiritual revolution that later became Christianity. It had to do with direct experience of the inner divinity. Unfortunately, the revolution was soon betrayed by the institutional Church, which proceeded to persecute Jews, pagans, and the very people (gnostics) who were hanging onto the original core teachings. This is why Christianity failed to advance by a single step after the 4th century. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Absolutely agree...I think you misunderstood (or I mistated :) ) my argument. I beleive that the difference bewteen new and old testament is hugely important. I'm arguing that the effort to make the new testament make sense in THE CONTEXT of the old testament is what is fundamantally flawed. The differences that you highlighted are exactly why :)

[cbs1177]

Jesus tended to use the less thought of crowd. the irs, David killed a man to be with that man's wife. King Solomn King of wisdom had hundred of wives and mistresses. God used a whore to save certain spies. Moses had a temper and speech impairment even killed a man. Jesus picked Judas who would stab him in the back. The bible is filled with many many juicy gossip stories. Noah as soon as he got off the ark planted a vineyard and when it was mature got drunk and ran around naked. All is in the bible. Jesus spoke to a woman who had have five husbands and the man she was living with was not her own. None are perfect. Even the pope fails some how some way.

[alkemical]

Even the pope fails some how some way.


it's the hat ;)


anyway good convo guys.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I've cautioned you several times in the past about failing to distinguish between evangelicals and "fundies".

OK - then replace "fundies" with "evangelicals" in the offending sentence.

Second, Christianity is something you experience, not something you offer mental assent to.

"Christianity" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people - particularly people who call themselves Christians. One problem with the sort of subjectivist argument you're proffering here is that it leaves the door wide open to the sort of "my subjective experience is valid and yours is not" thinking that is prevalent among religious imperialists of all faiths. As for your claim re: "mental assent," there are a lot of people who call themselves "Christians" who believe that getting the formulation of dogma just right is the most important (if not the only important) thing. You might not be one of these people, but you have to admit that they exist in large numbers.


Nor is it a set of rules, a code of behavior or even a creed or list of beliefs.

It most certainly is all that to many people who call themselves "Christians" - even when the rules or codes of conduct are unspoken.


It's a relationship, which means it doesn't matter how many "Christians" or "fundies" you know...if you have not experienced spiritual rebirth you do not understand the Christian mind. No amount of study, observation or conclusions drawn from such will give you a spiritual mind; one regenerated by the mind of Christ. Hence, it is impossible to say you understand that mind.

I would dispute the notion that there is a singular, collective "Christian mind."
This is immediately evident in the fact that there are so many different sects and denominations - most of whose members believe theirs is the only "true" understanding or interpretation of Christ's message.

I would also contend that the claim "you can't possibly understand the Xian mind" is an imperialist statement insofar as it would probably be more intellectually honest to simply acknowledge that your understanding isn't the same as mine, and that neither is necessarily or exclusively "true" or "valid" (insofar as, according to you, were talking about a subjective experience here.)

Further, there is more to Christianity than subjective experience. Non-believers can observe the actions and the history of the believers. They watch what people who profess to be Christians do and say in the name of their god or religion.

Are you telling me you know of Christians or those who claim to be who have blown up people with car bombs, strapped dynamite to their children to become suicide bombers, tortured and beheaded those they dissagree with or dedicated themselves to the overthrow of the US government? That's what these Islamic fundamentalists have done. So do you know somebody at the First Baptist Church looking to fly planes into buildings or hoping to get their hands on a nuke? Come on LABF...I know you don't expect me to buy that.

I never said any of these things.

However, if you're into keeping score, you have to include all the crusades and inquisitions of history.

Two contradictory statemets here.

Not at all. When I say I can't stomach "x, y, and z," I simply mean I can't buy into it, that it doesn't ring true for me, or that it doesn't resonate as authentic with me. I'm not denying anyone else the right to believe whatever he wants to believe.


I think the real problem is a lack of understanding about what constitutes "relilgious imperialism". If you're defining it as forced coercion at the end of a gun...I agree.

To me, religious imperialism is the belief (and its manifestation in various deeds) that one's own religious beliefs or experiences are the only "true," "right," or "valid" beliefs or experiences.

Sharing what you're experience with someone else is hardly "imperialism", nor is expressing your opinion at a ballot box.

Sharing your experience and/or beliefs is only OK when someone asks or expresses an interest in hearing them, IMO. If you ask a person "do you want to hear about my religious beliefs?" and he says "no thanks," then you have to respect his wishes. Pretty obvious, I know, but a lot of religious types don't get it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...the people you're describing...though once prominent...are now a small minority who remain vocal.

If these people are as insignificant as you suggest, then why has the Bush WH convened a series of meetings with them?

Israel, the US, and the Christian Right: The Menage a Trois From Hell

As I reported for the Nation in my most recent article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," the White House has convened a series of meetings over the past few months with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Brog, the former chief-of-staff to Arlen Specter, is now the first full-time lobbyist for the Christian Zionism movement. He claims that CUFI's lobbying efforts, including organizing 3500 evangelical activists to visit congressional offices as Israel and Hezbollah exchanged their first salvoes of missiles, are having an impact. "There is an ongoing debate in Washington over how long to let Israel continue the campaign against Hezbollah--how long will we let Israel fight its war on terror as we fight our own war on terror?" Brog told me. "And I think the arrival in Washington at that juncture of thousands of Christians who came for one issue and one issue only, to support Israel, sent a very important message to the Administration and the Congress, and I think helped persuade people that they should allow Israel some more time."

But CUFI has more on its agenda than simply "supporting Israel." Its founder and president, Pastor John Hagee, is determined to see America and Israel adopt his Armageddon-based worldview as their foreign policy. Consider what Hagee wrote this year in Charisma magazine: ""The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide."

Hagee's desire to doom the now-dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process is equally disturbing. As I detailed in the Nation, in his book, The Beginning of the End, Hagee celebrated the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and glorified his assassin, Yigal Amir. More recently, Hagee's allies, like nationally syndicated evangelical radio host Janet Parshall, became ecstatic at the outbreak of violence in Lebanon and Israel. "These are the times we've been waiting for," Parshall told her audience on July 21. "This is straight out of a Sunday school lesson."

Time and again, Christian Zionists have delighted in events that most Israelis considered grave tragedies. And yet, Israel continually expends more energy cultivating their support than it does on earning much-needed international goodwill. Case in point: after calling Ariel Sharon's descent into a comatose state God's punishment for the "dividing the land," Pat Robertson was granted a personal meeting yesterday with Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert. Afterwards, Robertson told his 700 Club viewership that the Lebanese people were "sheltering a terrorist group" and urged them to pray for an Israeli military victory.

Even as Israel alienates the international community by pursuing extreme militaristic solutions to its problems, it can count on unflagging support from America's evangelicals. It has recycled a strategy employed during the Cold War by authoritarian, anti-communist governments waging purportedly existential battles against dark-skinned barbarian hordes. For these regimes, the Bible Belt provided a natural constituency.

When international opinion turned against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980's, it presented itself to evangelicals as a final redoubt of Christian civilization in a sea of Afro-militant communism. Robertson responded with repeated denounciations of Mandela and the ANC on the 700 Club. Similarly, when evangelical Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios-Montt initiated a scorched-earth campaign (with Israeli military assistance) to exterminate his country's Mayan population, he called on Robertson for PR help. Robertson leapt to aid his friend, hosting a telethon for Guatemala's military. He even funded the construction of "model villages" (read: concentration camps) for the Mayans who survived the massacres. Israel has clearly applied the lessons of the past.

But it would be simplistic to expect Israel to continue down the dead-end road paved by regimes like those of P.W. Botha and Rios-Montt. For all its flaws, Israel has one of the most resilient and politically sophisticated societies in the world. When the dust clears in Lebanon, Israelis will realize that their problems can only be solved through politics. And someday, they will have to deal with the Palestinians again. But then what?

What if a future Israeli government decides, as Yitzhak Rabin did, that Israel can live in the world and survive -- and even thrive? And what if a future American government backs Israel by mobilizing international allies behind a new land-for-peace effort? Most Americans would probably support this as they did in the past. American Jews would back a peace process if convinced there was a viable partner. And polls consistently show Israeli opinion in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state. But in such a scenario, so-called Christian Zionists would reveal themselves as one of Israel's worst enemies. They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with peace.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/israel-the-us-and-the-c_b_26995.html

[footstepsfrom#27]

If these people are as insignificant as you suggest, then why has the Bush WH convened a series of meetings with them?

Israel, the US, and the Christian Right: The Menage a Trois From Hell

As I reported for the Nation in my most recent article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," the White House has convened a series of meetings over the past few months with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Brog, the former chief-of-staff to Arlen Specter, is now the first full-time lobbyist for the Christian Zionism movement. He claims that CUFI's lobbying efforts, including organizing 3500 evangelical activists to visit congressional offices as Israel and Hezbollah exchanged their first salvoes of missiles, are having an impact. "There is an ongoing debate in Washington over how long to let Israel continue the campaign against Hezbollah--how long will we let Israel fight its war on terror as we fight our own war on terror?" Brog told me. "And I think the arrival in Washington at that juncture of thousands of Christians who came for one issue and one issue only, to support Israel, sent a very important message to the Administration and the Congress, and I think helped persuade people that they should allow Israel some more time."

But CUFI has more on its agenda than simply "supporting Israel." Its founder and president, Pastor John Hagee, is determined to see America and Israel adopt his Armageddon-based worldview as their foreign policy. Consider what Hagee wrote this year in Charisma magazine: ""The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty. Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide."

Hagee's desire to doom the now-dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process is equally disturbing. As I detailed in the Nation, in his book, The Beginning of the End, Hagee celebrated the murder of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and glorified his assassin, Yigal Amir. More recently, Hagee's allies, like nationally syndicated evangelical radio host Janet Parshall, became ecstatic at the outbreak of violence in Lebanon and Israel. "These are the times we've been waiting for," Parshall told her audience on July 21. "This is straight out of a Sunday school lesson."

Time and again, Christian Zionists have delighted in events that most Israelis considered grave tragedies. And yet, Israel continually expends more energy cultivating their support than it does on earning much-needed international goodwill. Case in point: after calling Ariel Sharon's descent into a comatose state God's punishment for the "dividing the land," Pat Robertson was granted a personal meeting yesterday with Sharon's successor, Ehud Olmert. Afterwards, Robertson told his 700 Club viewership that the Lebanese people were "sheltering a terrorist group" and urged them to pray for an Israeli military victory.

Even as Israel alienates the international community by pursuing extreme militaristic solutions to its problems, it can count on unflagging support from America's evangelicals. It has recycled a strategy employed during the Cold War by authoritarian, anti-communist governments waging purportedly existential battles against dark-skinned barbarian hordes. For these regimes, the Bible Belt provided a natural constituency.

When international opinion turned against South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980's, it presented itself to evangelicals as a final redoubt of Christian civilization in a sea of Afro-militant communism. Robertson responded with repeated denounciations of Mandela and the ANC on the 700 Club. Similarly, when evangelical Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios-Montt initiated a scorched-earth campaign (with Israeli military assistance) to exterminate his country's Mayan population, he called on Robertson for PR help. Robertson leapt to aid his friend, hosting a telethon for Guatemala's military. He even funded the construction of "model villages" (read: concentration camps) for the Mayans who survived the massacres. Israel has clearly applied the lessons of the past.

But it would be simplistic to expect Israel to continue down the dead-end road paved by regimes like those of P.W. Botha and Rios-Montt. For all its flaws, Israel has one of the most resilient and politically sophisticated societies in the world. When the dust clears in Lebanon, Israelis will realize that their problems can only be solved through politics. And someday, they will have to deal with the Palestinians again. But then what?

What if a future Israeli government decides, as Yitzhak Rabin did, that Israel can live in the world and survive -- and even thrive? And what if a future American government backs Israel by mobilizing international allies behind a new land-for-peace effort? Most Americans would probably support this as they did in the past. American Jews would back a peace process if convinced there was a viable partner. And polls consistently show Israeli opinion in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state. But in such a scenario, so-called Christian Zionists would reveal themselves as one of Israel's worst enemies. They have their own agenda and it has nothing to do with peace.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/israel-the-us-and-the-c_b_26995.html
There are so many things wrong with this it's tough to know where to start. I'll address one primary issue here...but first, let me clarify two things; first, don't expect me to translate anything Bush does into making actual sense...cause I can't...nor do I favor his cozy relationship with some evangelicals. I think the man's nothing but a political opportunist who recognizes the power of numbers and ballot box participation. Second, I object to the idiotic phrase "Israeli expansion". You've been big on terminology...case in pont...your rejection of "Islamic Fascism", a term I consider highly appropriate. But it's pretty hard to make the case that a country that consists of 1/6 of 1% of the middle east land area is "expansionist" That's nonsense...but I digress...let's examine this other stuff.

The term "Christian Zionism" needs to go. Why? Because it's innacurate and theologically impossible. The phrase denotes something that is a theological impossibility to about 98% of the Christians in this country who support Israel. Why? Because those who support Israel overwhelmingly accept an Eschatology (the doctrine of "last things") that is 1) premillennial and 2) pre-tribulational. Those two theological beliefs make so called "Christian Zionism"...impossible to hold. You are partially right; most evangelicals support Israel, but not for the reasons you think. It is not Christian Zionism as it's defined; the beliefe in Israel's "end times destiny" to control the middle east...that motivates evangelicals to support Israel, but a link to the very origins of Christianity through Abraham, the starting piont for both Christians and Jews. Christians support Israel because of origins, not endings.

This is where you get yourself in trouble, because you don't understand or examine the beliefs behind the behavior you observe, or the players exhibiting that behavior; seeing only that something that draws high profile scrutiny is going on that looks "Christian" or "evangelical" in nature so it must be characteristic of the larger church as a whole. It's not. The truth is, only a tiny fraction of evangelicals can theologically subscribe to "Christian Zionism", as you're calling it. To understand this, you need some background:

Premillennialism is one of three primary categories of Eschatology that evangelicals subscribe to and it's a defining characteristic; the other two being amillennialism and post-millennialism. Amillennialism uses a biblical hermeneutic that is non literal in it's approach, spiritualizing scriptures at will to make them subject to personal perception rather than the laws of the science of interpretation (hermeneutics) that all forms of spoken or written language must utilize in order to communicate with a common frame of reference. Amillennialists do not believe in a literal kingdom promised either to Israel or the church. This is the key point to understanding the difference. Ammillennialists believe "the kingdom is within you"...in other words, it's spiritual, not literal and physical.

Post Milleniallismis the denial that the so called "rapture" of the church preceeds the 7 years of war, famine, pestilence...etc...on the earth that is referred to as "tribulation" in Revelation. Post millennialism denies the existence of a rapture at all, and it also holds that the church will "reform society", making the world better and better until it eventually ushers in the Kingdom of God on earth through it's own efforts at converting the lost. This is a critical point to understand, because only these people believe that the Christian church can or will be able to do anything in regards to Israel that ushers in the Kingdom of God on earth. Their numbers are small compared to the next group...premilleniallists. If you are theologically consistent the only way to be a "Christian Zionist", is to be a post-millennialist also. There are very few of them around these days.

Premillennialists are overwhelmingly the largest group in the US church, and fit into three sub-groups; pre-trbulation rapturists, mid-tribulation rapturists, and post-tribulation rapturists. By far the largest group of evangelicals, and the most politically involved, are premillennial/pre-tribulational rapturists. These individuals cannot hold to "Christian Zionism". The reason they cannot, is because they believe the Bible teaches that nothing man can do will further or advance the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth...that only God can do that and he will do it at a time of his choosing apart from any effort by the church or Israel.

In a nutshell....no premillennial, pretribulational rapturist evangelical in the world who understands this fact can hold that the church, or any other entity...ie; a state or country like the US...can bring about the rapture, the tribulation or the kingdom. It's theologically impossible to hold that position.

Hagee, BTW...is somebody I consider a nut job. I suspect he's a TV evangelist type con artist, having watched him several times down here just out of morbid curiosity. His theological teachings have almost no acceptance in mainline evangelical churches, none I know of...though obviously he has a following in some places. That does not make him indicative of "what evangelicals believe".

So where does the evangelical favor for Israel come from? Right here, in the passage known as the "Abrahamic Covenant":

The Lord said to Abram: “Leave your country, your kinsfolk and your father’s house, for the land which I will show you; I will make a great nation of you. I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you shall be a blessing. I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you. In you shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. 12:1-3)

The Abrahamic Covenant is a key pivitol point in the OT, the point where both Judaism and Christianity REALLY begins. New Testament writers (expecially Paul) referenced it in Romans, Hebrews and elsewhere as the point of historical origin for faith in Christ, and the "blessing" referred to here is two fold, both universal (to all men in the form of Christ) and national (to Israel as the physical seed of Abraham/Issac/Jacob). The physical/national blessing had to do with the land Israel was promised through Abraham that was to eventually reach ultimate fullfillment with the coming of Messiah and the establishment of his Kingdom. Hence, the admonition to bless rather than curse Israel is not born out of eschatology (last things), but out of FIRST THINGS(the roots of faith). Premillennial/Pretribulational Evangelicals hold that the national blessing for Israel in terms of acquisition of land will only occur when Christ returns to the earth to set up his Kingdom at the end of the 7 year tribulation period, thus NOTHING that the chuch can do is able to bring about this event, or for that matter...nothing that Israel can do either. In this theological view, only Christ can or will bring about the "last days", and be extention...the Kingdom of God on earth.

It's probable that most of what gets labelled as "wanting the end of the world", is actually only the belief that we're living in the last days and it's coming upon us with nothing we can do to stop it. That implies no emotion...favorable or unfavorable...to this belief. Incidently, the belief that we're in the last days is rooted in the gospels, not in Revelation. Therefore, MOST of those who speak about the last days, are referencing what they think is coming, not what they hope is coming or what they think they can make happen quicker.

Hagee and other "prophecy" preachers have been around a long time...in the 70's it was Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey, in the 80's Tim LaHaye...later you've had an entirely new group develop, of which Hagee is part. What makes Hagee's beliefs objectionable are not that he thinks we're in the last days, but the fact that he thinks the church can do something to usher in the return of Christ. Hence, the political lobying effort to help make it happen. That makes Hagee out of touch with probably 98% of the evangelical church. Pat Roberson also has been largely marginalized by most evangelicals who are NOT part of the Charismatic movement, and his acceptance is also rather limited in the larger evangelical church.

You've insisted we not classify all Muslims as terrorists or sympathizers because they subscribe to Islam. It's about time you started offering that same consideration to Christians, and to evangelicals in particular. That means knowing something more than what you see Pat Roberson or John Hagee doing.

Don't you think?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There are so many things wrong with this it's tough to know where to start. I'll address one primary issue here...but first, let me clarify two things; first, don't expect me to translate anything Bush does into making actual sense...cause I can't...nor do I favor his cozy relationship with some evangelicals. I think the man's nothing but a political opportunist who recognizes the power of numbers and ballot box participation.

Agreed, but this reply doesn't really address my previous question, i.e., if groups like CUFI are insignificant, or are no longer "prominent" as you suggested, then how do you explain their considerable influence with the Busheviks?

Second, I object to the idiotic phrase "Israeli expansion". You've been big on terminology...case in pont...your rejection of "Islamic Fascism", a term I consider highly appropriate. But it's pretty hard to make the case that a country that consists of 1/6 of 1% of the middle east land area is "expansionist"

Simply pointing to Israel's geography or size doen't take the political considerations into account, e.g., the fact that Israel is a settler state carved out of Palestine by an occupying power (the allies) following WWII.

The allies did to the Palestinians what the colonists in our own country did to the Native Americans.

The term "Christian Zionism" needs to go. Why? Because it's innacurate and theologically impossible. The phrase denotes something that is a theological impossibility to about 98% of the Christians in this country who support Israel. Why? Because those who support Israel overwhelmingly accept an Eschatology (the doctrine of "last things") that is 1) premillennial and 2) pre-tribulational. Those two theological beliefs make so called "Christian Zionism"...impossible to hold. You are partially right; most evangelicals support Israel, but not for the reasons you think. It is not Christian Zionism as it's defined; the beliefe in Israel's "end times destiny" to control the middle east...that motivates evangelicals to support Israel, but a link to the very origins of Christianity through Abraham, the starting piont for both Christians and Jews. Christians support Israel because of origins, not endings.

It seems to me that the phrase "Christian Zionism" is used, in the present context, simply to denote those Christians who, for whatever reasons, support the Zionist movement.

The problem with the theological exposition you present here is that you don't speak univocally for everyone who calls himself a "Christian." That is to say, some people who call themselves "Christians" support Israel because of Biblical "origins" as you put it, while others most certainly support Israel because they believe in the "end times" scenario (the members of CUFI serving as the present example.) Others who call themselves "Christians" support Israel for both reasons.

In any event, my original point was that those Christians who believe in the end-times scenario have considerable sway with the bush crime family.

You've insisted we not classify all Muslims as terrorists or sympathizers because they subscribe to Islam. It's about time you started offering that same consideration to Christians, and to evangelicals in particular.

But the subject of the present discussion has never been Xians in general - the subject has always been those Xians who belong to groups like CUFI.

As for evangelicals, I'm opposed to evangelism in general - no matter what the religious tradition. I already explained my reasons for this.

That means knowing something more than what you see Pat Roberson or John Hagee doing.

Don't you think?

The problem here, once again, is that both of these men consider themselves to be Christians, and both profess to act and to speak in the name of Christ. Like you, both men claim to be in possession of the only "true" understanding of Christ's teachings or message, interpretation of scriptures, etc.

This is how it looks to the outsider or non-believer: A plethora of competing sects, denominiations, cults, and public personas, most or all of whom lay claim to the one and only "true" understanding.

My outlook is simple: There's no such thing as one exclusively "true" religion. If you and I both approach the same mountain from different sides, we're going to end up writing two completely different accounts of the same mountain. It doesn't follow that your account is right and mine is wrong - or vice versa.

[RMT]

The Christian fundamentalists have much more in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than with anyone else. They share the same way of thinking -- oh if we could only go back to the good old days when everyone walked in the way of the lord.

Only it turns out the good old days never actually happened.

The other point is that when you look closely fundamentalist Christians don't understand their own religion. Their understanding of scripture is highly selective. As someone said, anyone, even the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

They also read stuff into the bible that isn't there. The so called rapture has no scriptural foundation and is a bunch of nonsense.

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, must be understood in the context in which it was written. This means studying history -- and very few people are willing to put the time and effort into it. No wonder that very few Christians understand the bible.

In fact, I believe the bible actually causes more harm than good. We need a new incarnation of God on earth to take humanity to the next level. At present, the loonies who think they understand the bible -- but don't -- are leading us toward world war III.

One of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen at the Mane - ever. It isn't the Bible that does more harm than good, it's sometimes those who claim to live by it by their words but don't by their deeds. We are all human and no one is perfect. There are two groups that perpetuate the mentality you mention above: 1) those who expect Christians to be perfect (impossible because we are human) and 2) Christians who do not model what the Bible espouses. And, then, of course, when non-Christians see "Christians" who fit in #2, they stereotype all Christians which is grossly unfair.

[mhgaffney]

One of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen at the Mane - ever. It isn't the Bible that does more harm than good, it's sometimes those who claim to live by it by their words but don't by their deeds. We are all human and no one is perfect. There are two groups that perpetuate the mentality you mention above: 1) those who expect Christians to be perfect (impossible because we are human) and 2) Christians who do not model what the Bible espouses. And, then, of course, when non-Christians see "Christians" who fit in #2, they stereotype all Christians which is grossly unfair.

You didn't hear me, RMT. The problem with the bible is that it is so very difficult to understand. How many people understand it? Maybe one in a thousand? If that. So how can it be relevant to our problems today if so few people can understand it.

How many wars have been fought by so called Christians in the name of the bible? How much blood has been shed over it? The answer: an ocean of blood.

There have been other dark times in history. Like this time. When things get really bad humans begin to long for a way out of their suffering. Heaven responds with a divine incarnation, a Krishna, a Buddha, a Jesus. They come to teach humans again the proper interpretation of the scriptures and to show the path to higher consciousness.

Look around at the Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells of the world who insult the name of Jesus every time they speak it. I'd say we are in dire need.

MG

[footstepsfrom#27]

Agreed, but this reply doesn't really address my previous question, i.e., if groups like CUFI are insignificant, or are no longer "prominent" as you suggested, then how do you explain their considerable influence with the Busheviks?
Easily. I've written extensively on this in the past...remember the posts on the power of white evangelilcals and catholics in the current voting demographic? I think Taco's server change dumped it unfortunately. The "Busheviks" (good name) hold sway with white evangelicals and catholics mainly because of moral issues, not because Bush believes in some end time "Christian Zionism". Evangelicals in general, who support Israel because of it's connection with the Abrahamic Covenant, hold Bush in high esteem on that issue (support for Israel), but it has nothing to do with what the CUFI thinks. Pat Roberson believes Christ died on the cross for humanity. Christians are exorted to hold THAT as the basis for fellowship, meaning there's a basic connection over the issue of redemption, but that's probably as far as it goes for guys like him and Hagee. I'm not saying these guys don't have followings...I'm saying it's not EVANGELICALS who typically follow them, it's charismatics. Some charismatics ARE evangelicals, and some are not. For example, there are also Catholic charismatics, and they are not evangelicals.
Simply pointing to Israel's geography or size doen't take the political considerations into account, e.g., the fact that Israel is a settler state carved out of Palestine by an occupying power (the allies) following WWII.
Nonsense. "Palestine" was not a country...ever. It was the name loosely applied to that area and the people living there lived in what was essentially a place where Arabs (and Jews BTW) existed there apart from any national charter. So called "Palestinians" had no more "right" to that land than Jews who lived there. I've offered other arguments on Israel's right to exist, but in this case I choose geographical size because you are suggesting an on going policy by Israel spanning 60 years that you all "expansionism". If Israel is bent on expansion, they really aren't very good at it, since in 60 years they've managed to hang on to an area twice the size of Rhode Island. That's like saying the guy holding a "will work for for food" sign is a "capitalist" becuase he believes he should get to keep his money that he panhandles instead of spreading it around to other pan handlers. Technincally, that might be correct, but it's an absurd analogy.
The allies did to the Palestinians what the colonists in our own country did to the Native Americans.
There is no such thing as "Palestinians". "Palestine" was never a country. You're argument ignores the fact that the world community in the form of the UN created the NATION of Israel, while Europeans who seized the land from the Indians did so merely by force. Most Indians, BTW...did not recognize the concept of "ownership" of land to begin with, which is why so many were nomadic. So when you say we stold their land, that's no truer than if another tribe of Indians moved in, because most didn't recognize ownership, even if they obviously did recognize the benefits of territorialism and it's accumulated advantages (hunting grounds, strategic military positions, etc). In any case, you're living in this country, and unless you plan to live on an Indian reservation...you're tacitly accepting the reality of European colonialization simply by being here and willingly participating in the benefits that this society has to offer. If you really feel strongly about it, you ought to live on a reservation.
It seems to me that the phrase "Christian Zionism" is used, in the present context, simply to denote those Christians who, for whatever reasons, support the Zionist movement.
Yes...it seems that way to you. I just told you why it's inaccurate, and theologically impossible. "Zionism" is defined in wikipedia as;

Zionism is a national liberation movement[1], a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe and in many parts of the Muslim world during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed much of the existing Jewish society in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

"Zionism" is merely the idea that Jews deserve a homeland in Israel. It's evil connotations that are used by yourself and others to suggest shadowy plots, worldwide conspiracies, political intrigue and cloak and dagger relationships by the world's super rich with the media, etc...all fall into the caregory of propaganda designed to accomplish one thing; take away that homeland. You're definition conveniently ignores the horrifying realities that existed not only during the holocaust, but for centuries prior to that. Why does the idea of a homeland where they can be spared state sponsored genocidal policies of destruction hold so much disgust for you? If they don't have a right to exist in Israel, where can they exist? It's been proven over and over than they are singled out for persecution, even in America, but much more so in Europe. I support the Jews right to live in Israel. That has nothing to do with some end times scenario based on my interpretation of the bible. If you'd like to refer to me as a "Christian Zionist" because I think Jews have a right to exist in their own homeland in Israel, fine; but do not connect my feelings on that issue with some vague doctrine of "end times scenarios" that amounts to post-millennial theology, because that's not what I believe, and it's not what the vast majority of evangelicals in this country believe.
The problem with the theological exposition you present here is that you don't speak univocally for everyone who calls himself a "Christian."
I'm not attempting to speak for all Christians, nor does this discussion have anything to do with my personal beliefs. I'm giving you the facts about how groups of Christians are organized along theological lines, not trying to convince you which position is correct. Christians, and by extention...evangelicals...fall into various categories theologically. I know what those categories are because I've interacted in this community for three decades, and I'm explaining them to you. You don't get to ignore my characterization of the demographics of the Christian church by casting this as a personal viewpoint that's subjective and built around theologically diverse doctrines or different ways of looking at things among the church. This is commonly accepted stuff by any theologian in the evangelical world, regardless of which position they hold.
That is to say, some people who call themselves "Christians" support Israel because of Biblical "origins" as you put it, while others most certainly support Israel because they believe in the "end times" scenario (the members of CUFI serving as the present example.) Others who call themselves "Christians" support Israel for both reasons.
Others on this board argue for the same principals in lumping all Muslims together as terrorists and jihadists, and you call them on it. As I've explained already, those who support some kind of manifet destiny that the church or any political state can bring in by their own actionsis very small. Because Hagee has a TV show and a large church you know his name, but he represents a tiny fraction of Christians. I'm merely suggesting you aknowledge for Christians what you are already very willing to aknowledge for Muslims...that they don't all believe the same things. As someone close to the situation who understand the theological demographics of the Christian church in America, I'm telling you what that reality is. Why do you accept Muslim denials of universally held theology but reject it when it applies to the Christian church? I don't hear you calling out Muslims who say they don't subscribe to bin Laden's philosophy by telling them, "you don't speak for all Muslims". You are wildly inconsistent on this point.
In any event, my original point was that those Christians who believe in the end-times scenario have considerable sway with the bush crime family.
ALL Christians believe in some kind of "end times scenario", hence all those who Christians subscribe to Bush's politics will obviously bring that forward as well, but that has nothing to do with a belief that the church can assist bringing in the Kingdom through helping Israel expand...NOTHING AT ALL. Black evangelicals ALSO believe in an "end time scenario", but 90% don't support Bush. Why are you creating a correlation around this single issue where none exists? You're error is in failing to distinguish between those who believe the world will end as it says it will in the Bible from those who think they get to help make it happen and should do so. Those are two completely different animals. The real issue here...and I'm suprise you haven't picked up on it...is simply that Bush is an opportunist who is able to identify another market demographic where he can score points without alienating other sectors of his constituents. He can cozy up to somebody like Hagee, and since all evanglicals (even those who don't support or agree with Hagee) understand the ramifications of the Abrahamic Covenant and the churches relationship to Israel...he will lose no votes but gain some he would not have otherwise.
But the subject of the present discussion has never been Xians in general - the subject has always been those Xians who belong to groups like CUFI.
Fine...then limit your remarks to the tiny fraction of Christians who think that the church can help usher in the Kingdom. You are speaking about something (Christian theology) that you don't really understand. Do you not recognize that the beliefs of any group of people must be first understood in order to account for their behavior? I know you understand this with regard to Muslims because I've heard you state as much. My point, is that you do not understand the same principal with regard to Christians or evangelicals.
As for evangelicals, I'm opposed to evangelism in general - no matter what the religious tradition. I already explained my reasons for this.
I have no problem with that. I'ts a free country. I do have a problem with you missrepresenting what we believe, especially since you don't really know what we believe, which is why I'm trying to explain it to you.
The problem here, once again, is that both of these men consider themselves to be Christians, and both profess to act and to speak in the name of Christ. Like you, both men claim to be in possession of the only "true" understanding of Christ's teachings or message, interpretation of scriptures, etc.
First of all, I don't claiim to have the only "true understanding" of Christ's teachings. Nor do most evangelical Christians I know or am familiar with. If anything, evangelicals are probably more tolerant than they should be of divergent opinions in the church...which is why the biblical practice of church discipline is not being practiced today. Second, the issue is not that these guys profess to be Christians. The issue is whether or not what they believe and teach is widely held by most evangelicals. You suggest it is, but you lack the understanding of the current church to demonstrate that. I'm telling you it's not. And since I think you ought to agree that I'm closer to the situation than you since I'm on the inside and you're not...why are you disputing with me when I tell you what's going on in the church? I should think you'd want to get an accurate understanding of it from an insider.
This is how it looks to the outsider or non-believer: A plethora of competing sects, denominiations, cults, and public personas, most or all of whom lay claim to the one and only "true" understanding.
"How it looks" is not always "how it is". Do you think "how it looks" to Muslims living in Afghanistan is really "how it is" here in the US? Obviously the further removed you are from a culture, whether it's geographical or philosophical...impacts your ability to accurately discern the truth. Look up the term "Christendom" and you'll have a better understanding of what constitutes Christianity in terms of it's actual belief system from the larger umbrella of mere association for political convenience. That's an absolutely critical point to understand, and it's where you're argument is weakest...failing to understand the difference.
My outlook is simple: There's no such thing as one exclusively "true" religion. If you and I both approach the same mountain from different sides, we're going to end up writing two completely different accounts of the same mountain. It doesn't follow that your account is right and mine is wrong - or vice versa.
This discussion is not about whether your account is wrong or mine is right. That's an arbitrary monkey wrench you're throwing in to confuse the issue. THIS DISCUSSION is about what the majority of evangelicals in America believe and why they believe it. You are arguing that as an outsider, you know more about that than me.

You don't.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The "Busheviks" (good name) hold sway with white evangelicals and catholics mainly because of moral issues, not because Bush believes in some end time "Christian Zionism".

The question was "why do groups like CUFI have so much influence over the Bush administration - not vice versa. That is, If CUFI's influence with BushCo is such that the WH is actually holding meetings with the group, then how can the group be characterized as "not prominent?"

Nonsense. "Palestine" was not a country...ever. It was the name loosely applied to that area and the people living there lived in what was essentially a place where Arabs (and Jews BTW) existed there apart from any national charter.

That's like trying to argue that the displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of our own continent was justified because America wasn''t a nation state when Columbus landed. A weak moral argument, to say the least.

So called "Palestinians" had no more "right" to that land than Jews who lived there.

This assertion sort of makes my case for me, doesn't it? To believe this assertion is to affirm that both sides have equal rights and should be entitled to equal consideration of their interests.

There is no such thing as "Palestinians". "Palestine" was never a country. You're argument ignores the fact that the world community in the form of the UN created the NATION of Israel, while Europeans who seized the land from the Indians did so merely by force.

It doesn't make any difference whether the displacement is facilitated by the U.N. (funny how the U.N. suddenly becomes relevant when convenient) or by force - the end result is the same.


Most Indians, BTW...did not recognize the concept of "ownership" of land to begin with, which is why so many were nomadic.

That's not true. Indians understood and practiced trade. But you don't need an understanding of the European concepts of ownership or private property to recognize when you are being pushed off the land you inhabit and when another human group takes your resources without offering anything in return.

BTW, many of the tribes which could be characterized as "nomadic" were really "nomadic" in the same sense as the snowbird from CO who heads south to AZ for the winter and returns to his home in the spring.

So when you say we stold their land, that's no truer than if another tribe of Indians moved in...

Which is to say "we stole their land" is a true statement. As a Christian, don't you have a problem with stealing?

Yes...it seems that way to you. I just told you why it's inaccurate, and theologically impossible. "Zionism" is defined in wikipedia as;

Zionism is a national liberation movement[1], a political movement and an ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE. While Zionism is based in part upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the modern movement was mainly secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in Europe and in many parts of the Muslim world during the 19th century. After a number of advances and setbacks, and after the Holocaust had destroyed much of the existing Jewish society in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

The Wickepedia definiton you provide here is exactly the definition I've had in mind since the outset of this discussion.

A "Christian Zionist," in the sense that the name is being used to describe groups like CUFI, (groups which, if you remember, are the original topic of this thread) is a Christian who supports the political/ideological movement described in the definition because of a belief in an eschatological scenario in which Israel plays a role.

"Zionism" is merely the idea that Jews deserve a homeland in Israel.

The problem here is that the judge and the advocate are the same person, if you will. Why do the Jews 'deserve' 'a certain piece of land more than, say, the Palestinians? How can such deserts be calculated? It all just boils down to a question of subjective bias and political expediency.

Why do you accept Muslim denials of universally held theology but reject it when it applies to the Christian church?

???

Haven't I been arguing just the opposite in my last few posts? Didn't you read what I said about different Xian sects and denominations (each with its own interpretations of scriptures, etc?)

"How it looks" is not always "how it is".

So you're denying that there is a plethora of different sects and denominations within Christianity, most of whom claim to be in possession of the only "true" (or the "best") understanding of Christ's teachings?

Obviously the further removed you are from a culture, whether it's geographical or philosophical...impacts your ability to accurately discern the truth.

Not necessarily. Sometimes those who stand outside a given culture are able to obtain insights into and perspectives on that culture which either could not or would be less likely to come out of the culture itself.

THIS DISCUSSION is about what the majority of evangelicals in America believe and why they believe it.

No, it isn't.

You have been trying to steer the discussion in that direction, but the real topic (remember - I started this thread) is groups like CUFI and their influence with the Bush WH.

You are speaking about something (Christian theology) that you don't really understand.

This statement is presumptuous and arrogant to an obnoxious degree, and it illustrates perfectly the problem I have with most evangelicals:

The sort of arrogance that says "there's only one correct approach to or understanding of Christian theology: mine."

Bottom line: you have no clue re: my background, upbringing, education, life experience, etc.

In any event, it doesn't take a doctorate of divinity to understand the thread topic.

[Spider]

Most Indians BTW...did not recognize the concept of "ownership" of land to begin with, which is why so many were nomadic.
well it is alot more complex then that , The connection was more then ownership , Indians had a spiritual relationship with the land , hunting grounds and burial grounds , while the Indiand didnt believe in private ownership , they did belive in tribal spiritual ownership of land .......

[footstepsfrom#27]

The question was "why do groups like CUFI have so much influence over the Bush administration - not vice versa. That is, If CUFI's influence with BushCo is such that the WH is actually holding meetings with the group, then how can the group be characterized as "not prominent?"
How many meetings? What was discussed? How do you know these meetings are not merely PR for Bush to score points with a group he thinks can pull a few extra votes? It's more likely he's interested in pulling American Jews who vote democratic into the next election for the GOP. Are you suggesting that this guy in San Antonio is influencing US policy in the middle east? If true...and we're light years from proving that at this point...it would have to have more to do with Bush than any natural influence these groups have based on their numbers. As I said...I'm not interested in explaining the behavior of Bush...who can? But I don't think you've made a case for influence yet because you have evidence of a meeting.
That's like trying to argue that the displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of our own continent was justified because America wasn''t a nation state when Columbus landed. A weak moral argument, to say the least.
Not really. We don't know who the Indians pushed off the land. This was an enormous piece of land populated with a comparateively tiny fraction of humanity. If "finders keepers" is your basis for deciding ownership, then somebody may "own" North America that we don't even know about. To subscribe to your view, you'd need to beleive that an individual settler in the middle of nowhere was "stealing" the land from an Indian tribe a hundred miles away just by being there. This is an argument that doesn't really have any relevance to the present reality anyway. Let's deal with current reality instead of questions of Indian ownershp 500 years ago.
It doesn't make any difference whether the displacement is facilitated by the U.N. (funny how the U.N. suddenly becomes relevant when convenient) or by force - the end result is the same.
It's not funny at all. The UN in 1948 was not the same UN we have now, the one dominated by leftists and dedicated to the destruction of Israel just as Hezbollah and it's cronies are.
The Wickepedia definiton you provide here is exactly the definition I've had in mind since the outset of this discussion.

A "Christian Zionist," in the sense that the name is being used to describe groups like CUFI, (groups which, if you remember, are the original topic of this thread) is a Christian who supports the political/ideological movement described in the definition because of a belief in an eschatological scenario in which Israel plays a role.
Believing something is going to happen is not the same as thinking you have some kind of role in making it happen. I may think that a giant meteor will rub out earth one day...doesn't mean I'm planning on participating in the event other than to watch it happen. You're suggesting that simply by virtue of believing that Israel plays a role in the end times, that means that evangelicals are "Christian Zionists". I'd support a state for the Jews based on historical neccessity and the democratic nature of the country even if I was an atheist. Why not create an "athesitic Zionist" category as well? In any case, the reference in Genesis is far more of a motivation for Christians to support Israel, which is why I don't understand why you're not using that instead of this "end times" nonsense.
The problem here is that the judge and the advocate are the same person, if you will. Why do the Jews 'deserve' 'a certain piece of land more than, say, the Palestinians? How can such deserts be calculated? It all just boils down to a question of subjective bias and political expediency.
See above.
So you're denying that there is a plethora of different sects and denominations within Christianity, most of whom claim to be in possession of the only "true" (or the "best") understanding of Christ's teachings?
No, I'm arguing that you consider the differences much greater than they are, and second, that the difference themselves are explicitly stated in the Bible as something that are not supposed to divide believers. The fact that they do, is a product of human failure, which is obvious. However, the exclusivity of truth idea is way overplayed. That's true at the fundamental level of acceptance that "Christ is the answer" so to speak...not neccessarily true when you get into nuances of theological tennents.
Not necessarily. Sometimes those who stand outside a given culture are able to obtain insights into and perspectives on that culture which either could not or would be less likely to come out of the culture itself.
So we don't need to understand Muslim culture in order to effectively solve some of these contionuous problems, relate to the people or maintain credibility with that religion?
You have been trying to steer the discussion in that direction, but the real topic (remember - I started this thread) is groups like CUFI and their influence with the Bush WH.
If you've got hard proof of actual influence with this specific group, and if you're maintaining that this influence stands apart from evangelicals in general...in other words you're not using this example to indict the entire evangelical community as being the evil "Christian Zionist influence" over Bush's middle east policy...I have no problem with that. Is that what you're saying?
This statement is presumptuous and arrogant to an obnoxious degree, and it illustrates perfectly the problem I have with most evangelicals:

The sort of arrogance that says "there's only one correct approach to or understanding of Christian theology: mine."
Nope...not arrogant at all. It's simply the acceptance of "truth" as a concept that exists in the spiritual/moral realm just as you accept it everywhere else except that.
Bottom line: you have no clue re: my background, upbringing, education, life experience, etc.
I've heard enough to know you don't know that much about what evangelicals really believe on a large scale.
In any event, it doesn't take a doctorate of divinity to understand the thread topic.
Never said that...but it does take you making clear who you're talking about, which up till now has been murky. If you're limiting your remarks to this one obscure group...fine. If you're indicting all evangelicals on the basis of a meeting Bush had with this guy, that's a different thing entirely.

[footstepsfrom#27]

I just happen to glance at this...didn't bother with it the first time. Interesting stuff...wrong...but interesting. Why? Well we can start with the obvious...the fact that the author's bio contains references to left wing ideology and absolutely nothing to indicate he knows didly doo ha about Biblical theology, Christian theological positions, or any of the specifics that he pontificates about. Move from there to the fact that his characterization of Bush's presidency as the sole result of Christians, particuarly those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible...voting him into office, ignores the fact that white Evangelicals (his real target) and Catholics make up only 25% of the elctorate. Black Evangelicals (they're also Christians) voted overwhelmingly for the DEM ticket, as they always do (yet they're given no credit by the author for this). Others responsible for heavy participation in the last two elections include corporate America, white males in general regardless of religious affiliation, southerners, conservative democrats not alligned with the far left's homosexual rights agenda, Catholics, and a variety of other people accross a wide spectrum of interests. Walter Uhler obviously isn't qualified to speak on Christian theology, so instead he relies on quoting what somebody else says.

Who can't do that?

Readers of Michelle Goldberg's new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, can see Crackpot Christianity at work today, subverting America's liberal democracy in an attempt to impose Christian "Dominion" - essentially southern political and religious culture -- over the entire country. According to Ms. Goldberg, "Dominionism is derived from a theocratic sect called Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates replacing American civil law with Old Testament biblical law." [p. 13].
What Goldberg describes as "dominion theology" is actually "liberation" theology, and BTW (you'll love this part)...it was the driving force behind the Marxist movements couched in the language of Latin nationalism advocated by the Latin American Catholic Church in the mid 1980's. Dominion theology has nothing to do with taking over society. It's primary spokesman, John Wimber of the American Vinyard movement is charismatic, not evangelical. Dominion theology subscribes to the view that Christians should excercise dominion over demons and Satan. John MacArthur, one of the most noted Evangelicals in America, pastor of the Grace Community Church in Panorama City CA calls it false teaching and points out that the Bible never tells Christians to attempt dominion over demons...though this really has nothing to do with what Uhler thinks is going on. So called "dominion" (liberation) theology, the "Christian reconstructionist" movement...more properly called...involves the idea that believers can take dominion over the world system Satan controls. Note what I told you earlier about postmillennialism...because this is where you find it...among the small minority of reformed Christians and other postmillennial eschatological advocates who want to bring in the kingdom by reforming society...a theological impossibility for most evangelicals because they are not postmillennialists. This theology was in vogue 100 years ago and lost adherants in the wake of WWI. Wikipedia notes:
Dominion Theology is derived from the Biblical text where God grants humankind "dominion" over the Earth. It is influenced by postmillennialism, a view of the End Times which believes that godliness will eventually pervade secular society (some so-called "Golden Age postmillennialists" believe the present age will culminate in a literal one-thousand-year period of virtual heaven on earth, a millennium) before Jesus returns in a Second Coming...Most mainline Christian denominations (and most Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists) reject Dominion Theology.
An example of Dominionism in reformed theology is Christian Reconstructionism. While acknowledging the small number of actual adherents, authors such as Sara Diamond and Frederick Clarkson have argued that postmillennial Christian Reconstructionism played a major role in pushing the primarily premillennial Christian Right to adopt a more aggressive dominionist stance.[1] [2]. According to Diamond, "Reconstructionism is the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology."
Note that Diamond and Clarkson admit that reconstructionists are small in number, though they apparently think (as do you) erroneously...that the premillennialists are influenced by this theology rather than broader concerns about moral and spiritual breakdowns in society. I doubt 1 in 100 premillennialist evangelicals even knows what reconstructionism or "dominion" theology is...and most probably don't know what postmillennialism is either.
"'Dominion theologians,' as they are called, lay great emphasis in Genesis 1:26-27, where God tells Adam to assume dominion over the animate and inanimate world." Moreover, "dominionism...has been hugely influential in the broader evangelical movement," [ibid] thanks to the influence of the Crackpot Christian par excellence, Pat Robertson.
That's absolutely false. Robertson is influential in Charismatic circles, including the Vineyard movement, of which SOME are Evangelicals, and most are not. Robertson has never held wide appeal in the Evangelical church at large.
Thus, both the threat posed by Crackpot Christianity and the source of its moral degeneracy spring from attempts to impose on others the ridiculous belief that the Bible is literally true and inerrant.
How and why Uhler made this bizarre leap from dominion (actualy liberation) theology to biblical literalism is a mystery he doesn't explain or even attempt to connect. The two are unrelated concepts in theology, literal interpretation and innerancy having to do with issues of ancient languages, textual source material, translational methodology, biblical and textual criticism...etc; and Dominion theology having to do with eschatology, doctrinal positions on the Holy Spirity, evangelism, Christian living, etc...basically two things that have pretty much ZIP to do with each other.
Fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Bible to be literally true. And when you ask Evangelical Protestants whether the Bible is literally true, an astounding 83 percent say, "Yes."

Astounding? Yes, incredibly! Especially when you consider the informed observation of New Testament scholar, Burton L. Mack. According to Professor Mack: "Despite the enormous investment in biblical studies in our society, there is actually very little public knowledge about the Bible. One cannot assume that anyone knows why the individual books of the Bible were first written, how they were understood by those who first read them, when and why they were brought together in a single volume, what the historical significance of that moment was, how the Christian church has reinterpreted all of them many times in the course of Western cultural history, and what the lasting effect of that layered text has been."
Burton Mack? BAAAHAAA! Burton Mack is a liberal process theologian who basically thinks that God has no power but to influence or "persuade" events in history rather than control them...denying the sovereignty of God...Process theologians consider God a 98 pound weakling whose as confused as man is about what's happening in the universe and what to do about it. If you're going for somebody to establish credibility as an "unbiased scholar"...a VERY bad choice. It's like me quoting GW Bush to you...LOL
Here's an example that demonstrates the problem of thoughtless biblical literalism. When polled, 60 percent of Americans asserted that the Hebrew Bible's description of Noah's Ark is literally correct. Yet, biblical scholars have uncovered evidence, which indicates that the Hebrew Bible contains two stories about Noah's Ark. [B]They derive from distinct sources that they call P and J.

Thus, P (Genesis 6:19) has God instructing Noah to bring one pair (male and female) of each animal into the ark while J (Genesis 7:2) has God instructing Noah to bring seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. Moreover, P tells us that the flood lasted a year (370 days), while J claims it was forty days and forty nights. Finally P (Genesis 8:7) has Noah send out a raven, while J (Genesis 8:8) claims it was a dove.
Right...the so called "JEPD theory"...some added additional documents later... This is Biblical Theology 101, Textual Criticism 101...nothing more than classical liberal theology...the failed theoretical building blocks that have been around forever and soundly defeated. Wanta have a debate on this? I'm game. I think it'll take 2 weeks and 40-50 posts each (minimum)...go for it if you wish. ;D
But biblical scholars also know that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.
This is true if your definition of "Biblical Scholar" is "liberal" Biblical Scholar. Otherwise it's just a lie. This is old hat...VERY old hat. Conservtive theologians reject this completely. I would have a lot more respect for this guy if he acknowledged the fact that disagrement exists along theological lines here...but that would require him to be ETHICAL. But perhaps since Mr. Uhler is an expert on Slavic studies not biblical theology, he's simply ignorant rather than dishonest when he falsely characterizes this view as universally held by bible scholars. More than likely he's just a hate-monger though.
First, as Richard Elliot Freedman has observed: People "noticed that the Five Books of Moses included things that Moses could not have known or was not likely to have said.
Another liberal theologian...U of CA...basically this guy's simply an atheist...
Second, scholars now believe that the five books have been derived from four source documents; P and J, but also E and D. They believe that Genesis contains two distinct, but intermixed, stories. One story, which refers to God as Elohim, is based on the E and P sources. The other story, which refers to Yahweh, is based on the J source. As Professor Freedman notes: "In the case of the creation, for example, the first chapter of the Bible tells one version of how the world came to be created, and the second chapter of the Bible starts over with a different version of what happened. In many ways they duplicate each other, and on several points they contradict each other." [Freedman, p. 50]
Blah blah blah...more of the same. Again...it's UNETHICAL to the max to pretend that "scholars now believe..."; Freedman and Mack flunk the ethics test BIG TIME...something a lot of these guys do.
And, thus, it is from such mundane and erroneous considerations -- and not the literal word of Moses -- that today's Crackpot Christian dominionists claim their authority.
Again...Uhler provides no link to the so called dominionists and literalists...especailly since most literal interpreters reject dominion teachings.

So let me see if I have this straight, because I certainly don't want to missunderstand this. Uhler is basically saying that because the average person sitting in church on Sunday morning listening to his pastor...a guy who has never heard of Burton Mack or Richard Freidman...is a CRACKPOT because he doesn't know who these guys are and what they say about JEPD source documents and textual redactors. Is that right? Trust me...99.99% of the people on the planet who DO NOTbelieve the Bible is true or relevant...have ALSO never heard of this crap. I have...because it's part and parcel of what you do in seminary, most of it in year one BTW. I guess you need to attend a liberal theology school with atheists for professors in order to not be considered a CRACKPOT though...

Gimme a break.

I'm going to skip the rest of this BS unless you want to do Israel-Hezbollah II over it...but it's all the same kind of tripe. Let's go here instead:
But an understanding of their delusion goes far to explain the election of a Crackpot Christian as President of the United States, America's subsequent invasion of Iraq for the sake of oil and Israel, and the current indifference to the tremendous suffering precipitated there by the United States -- all of which has resulted in the precipitous collapse of America's moral stature around the world.
That's right! Bush...Iraq...Lebanon...toss in Katrina while we're at it...it's all because "Crackpot Christians" didn't bother reading Burton Mack and Richard Friedman...BAAAHAAA! That's great stuff. If only we could get Mr. Mack and Mr. Burton, and all their cronies together in a room and they can enlighten the crackpots of the world and all our problems will be solved.

Genius...SHEER GENIUS! Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I just happen to glance at this...didn't bother with it the first time. Interesting stuff...wrong...but interesting. Why? Well we can start with the obvious...the fact that the author's bio contains references to left wing ideology and absolutely nothing to indicate he knows didly doo ha about Biblical theology, Christian theological positions, or any of the specifics that he pontificates about. Move from there to the fact that his characterization of Bush's presidency as the sole result of Christians, particuarly those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible...voting him into office, ignores the fact that white Evangelicals (his real target) and Catholics make up only 25% of the elctorate. Black Evangelicals (they're also Christians) voted overwhelmingly for the DEM ticket, as they always do (yet they're given no credit by the author for this). Others responsible for heavy participation in the last two elections include corporate America, white males in general regardless of religious affiliation, southerners, conservative democrats not alligned with the far left's homosexual rights agenda, Catholics, and a variety of other people accross a wide spectrum of interests. Walter Uhler obviously isn't qualified to speak on Christian theology, so instead he relies on quoting what somebody else says.

Who can't do that?


What Goldberg describes as "dominion theology" is actually "liberation" theology, and BTW (you'll love this part)...it was the driving force behind the Marxist movements couched in the language of Latin nationalism advocated by the Latin American Catholic Church in the mid 1980's. Dominion theology has nothing to do with taking over society. It's primary spokesman, John Wimber of the American Vinyard movement is charismatic, not evangelical. Dominion theology subscribes to the view that Christians should excercise dominion over demons and Satan. John MacArthur, one of the most noted Evangelicals in America, pastor of the Grace Community Church in Panorama City CA calls it false teaching and points out that the Bible never tells Christians to attempt dominion over demons...though this really has nothing to do with what Uhler thinks is going on. So called "dominion" (liberation) theology, the "Christian reconstructionist" movement...more properly called...involves the idea that believers can take dominion over the world system Satan controls. Note what I told you earlier about postmillennialism...because this is where you find it...among the small minority of reformed Christians and other postmillennial eschatological advocates who want to bring in the kingdom by reforming society...a theological impossibility for most evangelicals because they are not postmillennialists. This theology was in vogue 100 years ago and lost adherants in the wake of WWI. Wikipedia notes:


Note that Diamond and Clarkson admit that reconstructionists are small in number, though they apparently think (as do you) erroneously...that the premillennialists are influenced by this theology rather than broader concerns about moral and spiritual breakdowns in society. I doubt 1 in 100 premillennialist evangelicals even knows what reconstructionism or "dominion" theology is...and most probably don't know what postmillennialism is either.

That's absolutely false. Robertson is influential in Charismatic circles, including the Vineyard movement, of which SOME are Evangelicals, and most are not. Robertson has never held wide appeal in the Evangelical church at large.

How and why Uhler made this bizarre leap from dominion (actualy liberation) theology to biblical literalism is a mystery he doesn't explain or even attempt to connect. The two are unrelated concepts in theology, literal interpretation and innerancy having to do with issues of ancient languages, textual source material, translational methodology, biblical and textual criticism...etc; and Dominion theology having to do with eschatology, doctrinal positions on the Holy Spirity, evangelism, Christian living, etc...basically two things that have pretty much ZIP to do with each other.

Burton Mack? BAAAHAAA! Burton Mack is a liberal process theologian who basically thinks that God has no power but to influence or "persuade" events in history rather than control them...denying the sovereignty of God...Process theologians consider God a 98 pound weakling whose as confused as man is about what's happening in the universe and what to do about it. If you're going for somebody to establish credibility as an "unbiased scholar"...a VERY bad choice. It's like me quoting GW Bush to you...LOL

Right...the so called "JEPD theory"...some added additional documents later... This is Biblical Theology 101, Textual Criticism 101...nothing more than classical liberal theology...the failed theoretical building blocks that have been around forever and soundly defeated. Wanta have a debate on this? I'm game. I think it'll take 2 weeks and 40-50 posts each (minimum)...go for it if you wish. ;D

This is true if your definition of "Biblical Scholar" is "liberal" Biblical Scholar. Otherwise it's just a lie. This is old hat...VERY old hat. Conservtive theologians reject this completely. I would have a lot more respect for this guy if he acknowledged the fact that disagrement exists along theological lines here...but that would require him to be ETHICAL. But perhaps since Mr. Uhler is an expert on Slavic studies not biblical theology, he's simply ignorant rather than dishonest when he falsely characterizes this view as universally held by bible scholars. More than likely he's just a hate-monger though.

Another liberal theologian...U of CA...basically this guy's simply an atheist...

Blah blah blah...more of the same. Again...it's UNETHICAL to the max to pretend that "scholars now believe..."; Freedman and Mack flunk the ethics test BIG TIME...something a lot of these guys do.

Again...Uhler provides no link to the so called dominionists and literalists...especailly since most literal interpreters reject dominion teachings.

So let me see if I have this straight, because I certainly don't want to missunderstand this. Uhler is basically saying that because the average person sitting in church on Sunday morning listening to his pastor...a guy who has never heard of Burton Mack or Richard Freidman...is a CRACKPOT because he doesn't know who these guys are and what they say about JEPD source documents and textual redactors. Is that right? Trust me...99.99% of the people on the planet who DO NOTbelieve the Bible is true or relevant...have ALSO never heard of this crap. I have...because it's part and parcel of what you do in seminary, most of it in year one BTW. I guess you need to attend a liberal theology school with atheists for professors in order to not be considered a CRACKPOT though...

Gimme a break.

I'm going to skip the rest of this BS unless you want to do Israel-Hezbollah II over it...but it's all the same kind of tripe. Let's go here instead:

That's right! Bush...Iraq...Lebanon...toss in Katrina while we're at it...it's all because "Crackpot Christians" didn't bother reading Burton Mack and Richard Friedman...BAAAHAAA! That's great stuff. If only we could get Mr. Mack and Mr. Burton, and all their cronies together in a room and they can enlighten the crackpots of the world and all our problems will be solved.

Genius...SHEER GENIUS! Hilarious!


Bottom line: You don't need to know squat about Christian theology to know that you can't be a Christian and a warmonger (which is really the whole point here.)

[footstepsfrom#27]

Bottom line: You don't need to know squat about Christian theology to know that you can't be a Christian and a warmonger (which is really the whole point here.)
I thought the point was that "Christian Crackpots", defined as "all those who believe the Bible is literally true"...were the sole and exclusive cause of all the world's problems? No?

My bad.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How many meetings? What was discussed? How do you know these meetings are not merely PR for Bush to score points with a group he thinks can pull a few extra votes? It's more likely he's interested in pulling American Jews who vote democratic into the next election for the GOP. Are you suggesting that this guy in San Antonio is influencing US policy in the middle east? If true...and we're light years from proving that at this point...it would have to have more to do with Bush than any natural influence these groups have based on their numbers. As I said...I'm not interested in explaining the behavior of Bush...who can? But I don't think you've made a case for influence yet because you have evidence of a meeting.

You're joking, right?

The mere fact that people like this CUFI group have enough influence to obtain repeated audiences (audiences which aren't granted to just anyone, BTW) with the Bush WH is disturbing enough for me. The fact that Bush cuts his vacations short to pander to people like these is disturbing enough for me.

Not really. We don't know who the Indians pushed off the land.

Then we don't know they did such a thing - period.


If "finders keepers" is your basis for deciding ownership, then somebody may "own" North America that we don't even know about.

Actually, "finders keepers" more aptly describes the European settlers' concept of ownership and private property. The Indians didn't believe anyone 'owned' the earth. The indigenous people of this continent lived in harmony with nature, believed in sharing, believed in the interconnectedness of all things, and believed that taking more resources than you needed was a sin. Their conflicts with other tribes arose mostly in times or places of resource scarcity.


To subscribe to your view, you'd need to beleive that an individual settler in the middle of nowhere was "stealing" the land from an Indian tribe a hundred miles away just by being there.

Not true. Many of the first settlers, the French in particular, demonstrated a willingness and an ability to coexist peacefully with the native people.

Your view boils down to the usual political and socioeconomic Darwinism used to justify the displacement and slaughter of the native people (and the Palestinians, for that matter.)


It's not funny at all. The UN in 1948 was not the same UN we have now, the one dominated by leftists and dedicated to the destruction of Israel just as Hezbollah and it's cronies are.

The U.N. "dedicated to the destruction of Israel?" That's crazy talk. The U.N. (unlike BushCo) is dedicated to being a fair broker in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (as well as the present conflict in Lebanon.)

I'd support a state for the Jews based on historical neccessity and the democratic nature of the country even if I was an atheist. Why not create an "athesitic Zionist" category as well?

No reason why this category can't exist since Zionism is a political and ideological movement - not a religious belief system.


In any case, the reference in Genesis is far more of a motivation for Christians to support Israel, which is why I don't understand why you're not using that instead of this "end times" nonsense.

I use it because the "end times nonsense" is what the groups who have such considerable influence with the Bush WH believe. I thought we'd already established this.

So we don't need to understand Muslim culture in order to effectively solve some of these contionuous problems, relate to the people or maintain credibility with that religion?

How in the world did you get the impression that I was suggesting something like this?

If you've got hard proof of actual influence with this specific group, and if you're maintaining that this influence stands apart from evangelicals in general...in other words you're not using this example to indict the entire evangelical community as being the evil "Christian Zionist influence" over Bush's middle east policy...I have no problem with that. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along.

Nope...not arrogant at all. It's simply the acceptance of "truth" as a concept that exists in the spiritual/moral realm just as you accept it everywhere else except that.

There you go pretending to know my position re: matters about which you know nothing about my position again. That's what I mean by "arrogance."

I've heard enough to know you don't know that much about what evangelicals really believe on a large scale.

Shows how little you actually know about me. FYI, I was a serious student of comparative religion from about age 16 until I entered my early 30s (via both intense independent study and, eventually, at the university level.) Further, I was raised by evangelicals (both parents) and attended church, Sunday school, vacation Bible school and the whole nine yards regularly throughout most of my childhood and adolescence. To top it off, when I was 13, my dad gave up a lucrative career in television to study for the ministry. His seminary experience was probably identical to yours, judging from what I've read here.

So, reflect on all this before you assume I don't know anything about your world.

[freak6]

The original article is startling. Shocking stuff.

Christians are ignorant?!?!? Say it isn't so!!!

The bible guides our foreign policy?!?!? No way!!!

"I believe that God chose me to be President during these times" - Bush

Don't forget these gems.

"I wasn't on point, I didn't feel a SENSE OF URGENCY" - Bush on his inactions after being warned of the incoming hijackings 4 weeks prior to 9/11.

"There are some things I wish we'd have done" - Bush

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Remember - Circle 8/22, the day Glenn Beck says the Rapture starts!

Ed Schultz has been goofing on this: Beck actually says that the End Times begins on 8/22.

http://edschultz.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=17895&st=20

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.glennbeck.com/archives/08-09-06.shtml

And you can click on the REAL player links! :D

[footstepsfrom#27]

http://www.glennbeck.com/archives/08-09-06.shtml

And you can click on the REAL player links! :D
I'm not paying $6.95 to join his website so I can see the video...but I heard the show in question and unless this video is from something different, Beck didn't claiim the rapture was coming on August 22nd. Neither did Bernard Lewis, the guy he was interviewing. Lewis said that Iran's president has made statements related to a date that he (Lewis) identifies as August 22nd by interpreting the Iranian calander, as the day when Iran may launch a nuclear attack against Israel. Lewis just repeated what this idiot said. Lewis is not an end-of-the-world nut. He's one of the foremost scholars on Muslim societies in the world and the author of 30 books on middle eastern politics, religion, history and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Prof. Bernard LewisBernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916, London) is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in Muslim History and the interaction between Muslims and the West. His works on the history of the Ottoman Empire are considered authoritative on the subject.

Lewis is one of the most widely read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers. The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing has written that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." [1]

[footstepsfrom#27]

Here's the video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv9qcxj4q7s

Beck does not say the rapture is coming on August 22nd, and in fact he never mentioned the word rapture at all. He does state that Iran's president has said he will answer the questions about thier nuclear program on August 22nd and references Lewis, who says that the date holds apolcolyptic significance in the Iranian calander for their version of Armageddon. I saw nothing outrageous about anything he said in this video, an in fact he not only didn't say this would happen, he said he thought it wouldn't, but that it bears looking at when somebody like Bernard Lewis talks about it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not paying $6.95 to join his website so I can see the video...but I heard the show in question and unless this video is from something different, Beck didn't claiim the rapture was coming on August 22nd. Neither did Bernard Lewis, the guy he was interviewing. Lewis said that Iran's president has made statements related to a date that he (Lewis) identifies as August 22nd by interpreting the Iranian calander, as the day when Iran may launch a nuclear attack against Israel. Lewis just repeated what this idiot said. Lewis is not an end-of-the-world nut. He's one of the foremost scholars on Muslim societies in the world and the author of 30 books on middle eastern politics, religion, history and culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

Prof. Bernard LewisBernard Lewis (born May 31, 1916, London) is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in Muslim History and the interaction between Muslims and the West. His works on the history of the Ottoman Empire are considered authoritative on the subject.

Lewis is one of the most widely read scholars of the Middle East, whose advice is frequently sought by policymakers. The Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing has written that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East." [1]

Um, I realize I'm not supposed to know anything about theological matters, but wouldn't the coming of Armageddon suggest the rapture was imminent?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/1992_Rapture.jpg/200px-1992_Rapture.jpg

[footstepsfrom#27]

Um, I realize I'm not supposed to know anything about theological matters, but wouldn't the coming of Armageddon suggest the rapture was imminent?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/1992_Rapture.jpg/200px-1992_Rapture.jpg
Well if you're a pre-mill/pre-trib rapturist you believe there's a 7 year gap between the rapture and Armagedon. In this view the rapture's been "imminent" for 2000 years, meaning it could happen at any moment, though in reality most would argue that it couldn't happen until Israel was regathered into the land again (Matt 24) as a nation following the diasphora, which obviously would mean it couldn't have taken place prior to 1948. I have no idea what Beck believes but the point is he never said this was going to happen. He's only talking about what Bernard Lewis has stated in regard to the Iranian president's statements.

[mhgaffney]

How many times have we seen this before?

As the NT clearly states, no one knows the day or the hour.

[W*GS]

FYI, I was a serious student of comparative religion from about age 16 until I entered my early 30s (via both intense independent study and, eventually, at the university level.) Further, I was raised by evangelicals (both parents) and attended church, Sunday school, vacation Bible school and the whole nine yards regularly throughout most of my childhood and adolescence. To top it off, when I was 13, my dad gave up a lucrative career in television to study for the ministry. His seminary experience was probably identical to yours, judging from what I've read here.

The above explains a lot. You're still pissed at Dad...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Pat Robertson Laments Cease-Fire in Mideast

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (AP) -- The Reverend Pat Robertson, who prayed for victory last week with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, contends that the cease-fire with Hezbollah has rendered the entire bloody conflict pointless.

Back from Israel to resume hosting his "700 Club" broadcast, Robertson quoted a Bible passage from the prophet Isaiah: "We were with child. We writhed in pain, but we gave birth to wind."

"In other words," he said, "nothing came out of this at all. 'We writhed in pain,' but nothing was born from it."

Suggesting that the invasion of Lebanon failed to achieve its objective, Robertson said, "Israel went in, but what have they done? Is the word of Isaiah true? -- 'We writhed in pain but we gave birth to wind' -- I'm afraid so."

http://www.news10.net/storyfull3.aspx?storyid=19371