1
   

Is George Bush a fundamentalist christian?

 
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 10:49 pm
Sophia wrote:
I think ALL Christians believe the basic entrance into Heaven...

I may be wrong... Catholics? Methodists? I know ALL Baptists believe there is only one path to Heaven. Belief in Christ as the Son of God, and submission to His will.


Foxfyre wrote:
That's the doctrine of many of the formal Christian denominations. I would guess that it is the personal belief of a minority of Christians.


I suspect that the truth is somewhere between the above two statements, (all and a minority). The one path is derived from a strict literal interpretation of a few verses, and is very exclusionary, which is why Bush has to tap dance around the issue.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 06:51 am
This piece doesn't speak to the issue of Bush's personal beliefs, but it does speak to the growing control of Christian groups by conservative voices...a purposeful and planned strategy to radicalize these denominations. Though there may not be consequences for Bush's own beliefs, there are very real consequences for Republican policies because this religious community is now entrenched within the power structure of the party and because of their significance to the Republican voter base and strategies.
Quote:
Conservative Group Amplifies Voice of Protestant Orthodoxy
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: May 22, 2004

As Presbyterians prepare to gather for their General Assembly in Richmond, Va., next month, a band of determined conservatives is advancing a plan to split the church along liberal and orthodox lines. Another divorce proposal shook the United Methodist convention in Pittsburgh earlier this month, while conservative Episcopalians have already broken away to form a dissident network of their own.

In each denomination, the flashpoint is homosexuality, but there is another common denominator as well. In each case, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a small organization based in Washington, has helped incubate traditionalist insurrections against the liberal politics of the denomination's leaders.

With financing from a handful of conservative donors, including the Scaife family foundations, the Bradley and Olin Foundations and Howard and Roberta Ahmanson's Fieldstead & Company, the 23-year-old institute is now playing a pivotal role in the biggest battle over the future of American Protestantism since churches split over slavery at the time of the Civil War.

The institute has brought together previously disconnected conservative groups within each denomination to share resources and tactics, including forcing heresy trials of gay clergy members, winning seats on judicial committees and urging congregations to withhold money from their denomination's headquarters...
continued here
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 06:58 am
All this talk of bush and nips is making me a little horny...religion doesn't matter much when love is in the air...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 07:06 am
There's more where that came from, b:

Quote:
This country, like it or not, is overwhelmingly dominated by the ideology of the Christian story. It is not so much that our founders were all Christians. Rather, they lived in an atmosphere scented throughout by Christian thought and rhetoric. Just as most of us can't imagine how to keep things cold without refrigeration, so too our founders couldn't help but think through the lens of the Christian story. And what they saw was that America had become the New Israel (the new Promised Land) of God. America has understood itself as a benevolent nation seeking only the good of all. We have understand our wealth as a blessing given to us as a sign that we are a "chosen, special people" whose larger meaning is to help the world into an era of peace, prosperity and justice. Every politician draws on this "civil religion story", which gives authority to the politicians ambition and agenda. Another way of saying this is that every nation needs sacred legitimacy. It needs the authority of transcendence: of a story larger than itself; a story that connects past with present and future. An Empire needs an even broader story: one that connects with cosmic and/or historical redemption and new creation.


That was written Reverend Richard Lang, of Trinity United Methodist Church, in Seattle WA.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 07:13 am
I must admit, I prefer bush in the 'lower' case, but not in the capital (or is that Capitol?)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 09:13 am
Blatham writes:
Quote:
This piece doesn't speak to the issue of Bush's personal beliefs, but it does speak to the growing control of Christian groups by conservative voices...a purposeful and planned strategy to radicalize these denominations.


Nonsense. The conservative voices within the mainstream Church are not 'growing' though the few may be more visible and vocal in an effort to maintain the status quo. Undeniably, the Church overall is becoming steadily more liberal.

Twenty five to thirty years ago, the issues at the forefront now were not even issues in the Church as any Christian gays in the churches were still largely in the closet. There were virtually no denominations--the Unitarians might be an exception--who would have even considered ordaining an openly gay clergyman. It would have been unthinkable. Back then most denominations were still dealing with integrating women into the ordained ministry and/or diaconate. They had certainly given little or no thought to homosexual rights issues. There are still mainstream denominations who will consider ordaining neither gays nor women, but these are in the minority and they are essentially as they have always been.

The splits among the various denominations are due to numerous factors, not the least of which are issues of women and gays. That is not exclusively the problem however. The Southern Baptist Convention for instance suffered internal ecclesiastical wars over how the Bible should be interpreted--more liberally vs more fundamentally.

It was only when anti-religious types became proactive to deny religious expression that had previously been national tradition--that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn or the prayer ushering in the Friday night football game, etc.--that the churches became proactive in politics to defend what they saw as anti-religious attacks and to preserve what they saw as their heritage and constitutional rights. Oddly this generated even more church wars as some more liberal church leaders joined with the ACLU and others to combat the conservative status quo crowd.

Are Christians more politically proactive than they were 30 years ago? Absolutely. But if social and political forces had left the churches alone, I doubt it would be any kind of issue today.

Source: me. I teach this stuff.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 09:39 am
Quote:
It was only when anti-religious types became proactive to deny religious expression that had previously been national tradition--that pesky creche on the courthouse lawn or the prayer ushering in the Friday night football game, etc.--that the churches became proactive in politics to defend what they saw as anti-religious attacks and to preserve what they saw as their heritage and constitutional rights. Oddly this generated even more church wars as some more liberal church leaders joined with the ACLU and others to combat the conservative status quo crowd.

Are Christians more politically proactive than they were 30 years ago? Absolutely. But if social and political forces had left the churches alone, I doubt it would be any kind of issue today.

Source: me. I teach this stuff.


Well, I suppose some relevant questions might be...Where do you teach this stuff? Who establishes the curriculum? What's on your reading lists? What's the course description? Who was the last guest lecturer invited in who holds contrasting views?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 09:52 am
The temporary title of the four-year course is "The Development of Christian Thought", the bibliography runs several pages to date, I teach it in my church to a fairly large class of extremely well educated adults--it's in its third field test at this time--and as the course itself provides all prevailing views relative to each issue, I do not need guest lecturers. I should have it ready for publication within the next year and you can read it for yourself. Smile
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 09:57 am
Isn't Bush more of a relativist than a fundamentalist?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 09:59 am
A class of extremely well educated adults -- you mean they are tested?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 10:04 am
Quote:
the course itself provides all prevailing views relative to each issue,


Examples?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 10:12 am
Quote:
I do not need guest lecturers.


Remember, b-man, indoctrination forbids contradiction.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 10:24 am
Example. Well this season we covered the basics of New Testament thought, how it was influenced by ancient Hebrew/Jewish thought and teachings, by the Hellenistic influences from Alexander the Great onward including Socrates, Plato, Artistotle et al, and how it is interpreted differently by the early Christian theologians and modern Christian traditions.

Tomorrow will be the last class in the series and will cover the basics of apocalyptic writings related to eschatological prophecies (including the 'Rapture' that is discussed on another thread.) This will include all the different ways these prophecies are interpreted from the speculatists like Hal Lindsey to the fundamentalists who take it all absolutely literally to some liberal traditions who think it is all fantasy and essentially bunk.

Next fall we will begin study of the history of the Church and the basics of teachings of all the great theologians from the Second Century A.D. through the Reformation.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 10:29 am
That sounds like a fairly liberal course, Foxfyre.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 10:43 am
LW writes:
Quote:
A class of extremely well educated adults -- you mean they are tested?

I am grateful that among others in my current class are a number of educators (public school and university), a nuclear physicist, a PhD geologist, a number of degreed engineers, a veterinarian, business executives, and a retired FBI agent who has done more reading and research on prophetic literature than I will ever hope to do. Some of these are taking my course for the second or third time as I do try to upgrade and improve it. These people are so sharp and so knowledgeable they require me to stay on my toes and they are not shy about keeping me honest. Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 11:07 am
Oh and LW, whether Bush is a relativist vs a fundamentalist, I guess I need to know your definition of 'relativist'. I think his Episcopal and Methodist backgrounds would pretty well rule out most, if not all, fundamentalist leanings in his faith, but only he knows what his view of the world is through the prism of his faith. I do believe all people of faith, including me, do view the world through that prism.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 11:15 am
Relativism:

1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing. b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 11:18 am
That "prism of faith" should break up the world into all it's colors. Unfortunately, too many possess a prism that breaks up the world into black-and-white.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 11:19 am
fox

That was very forthcoming of you. Thank you.

In a short time, I shall continue my merciless and godless attack on all things foxfyrish.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2004 11:25 am
LW writes:
Quote:
That "prism of faith" should break up the world into all it's colors. Unfortunately, too many possess a prism that breaks up the world into black-and-white.


I couldn't agree more. I get quite preturbed at some of my Christian brethren who are so tunnel visioned and judgmental I think they do a huge disservice to the cause of Christianity. Fortunately, these are now in a distinct minority. Unfortunately they get most of the press.

In defense of Christians however, I would have to say that the nonreligious can be just as tunnel visioned when it comes to the issues that are important to them. I guess I think we all use a prism of some kind to form our analysis of the world we live in.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2024 at 01:41:15