LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY adoka)

Many Bible believing scholars argue that “other gods” such a Buddha, Mohamed, Krishna, Vishnu, and the rest are, in fact, demons who hide themselves behind the masks of these long dead teachers, and mythical characters. As such, the other religions of the world are not only contrary to Christianity, but are by nature demonic. Christian scholars argue that all other spiritual doctrines (especially Eastern) have been crafted by Satan himself to lead the world astray. They teach that the “spirit guides” of the New Age Revolution are the “spirits of devils,” and their purpose is to lead mankind into darkness.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY gleef)

[This was originally intended to be a reply to this post by thornewilder, but I got interrupted halfway through writing it, and I realized it was of more general use, so I decided to make it a separate post.]

Many churches and other religious organizations put forward a "Statement of Beliefs" or similar document. Many of us are trying to figure out which churches and other religious organizations are Dominionist, which are scary but not Dominionist, and which can be either safely ignored or safely worked with. It would be very useful to know more about these Statements of Belief and what they do and don't tell us about the group we want to know more about. This post explores this issue, using the Statement of Beliefs of the Nazarene group linked to in an earlier post.

( Statements )

I'd say, chances are they aren't Dominionist (but don't expect sweetness and light out of them), but don't count 100% on that.

From a more general viewpoint, I hope I've better illustrated how these Statements can be used as part of an exploration of a group.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY dulcinbradbury)

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

I particularly like the "contraditions" section. You can get side-by-side biblical quotes that stand in direct opposition to one another. :)

What better way to argue with Fundys/Dominionists than to throw The Book back at them?

On occassion it *does* get them thinking a bit.

Oh... they also have the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY inkedgeekfreak)

Hey, I joined a while ago and have just recently jumped in the fray with comments.

I am not sure if pointing this site out is on topic, but I found it interesting, scroll to the bottom and look at the note to ministers. Jesus would be ashamed.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This interesting Times of London article talks about the literal interpretation of the Bible:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY gleef)

Heard a song on the radio this morning today (WRPI - a local college station), it was a Christian Country/Folk song by Eliza Gilkyson called Man of God, from her album Paradise Hotel. It's some powerful Christian backlash against the Dominionist pretensions and general attitude of this administration:

( lyrics )

If you regularly listen to a Country station on the radio, I suggest you call in to request they play it. :-)

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Here's a post from Chip Berlet on the DefCon blog about Prophecy, Belief, and Constitutional boundaries. Here's an excerpt:

A group of ultraconservative political operatives have harnessed a particular reading of Biblical prophecy, known as Premillenial Dispensationalism, (embraced by tens of millions of evangelical Christians) and transformed these beliefs into campaigns to deny basic rights to groups of people framed as sinful and subversive.

Premillennial means a belief that Jesus Christ returns in the End Times and, after a series of confrontations and battles against evil, he reigns over an earthly utopia for a thousand years…a millennium. Therefore, Christ returns before (“pre”) the Godly millennial kingdom. Dispensations are epochs, or blocks of history, during which certain things happen. Premillennial Dispensationalists think that we are poised on the edge of that historic epoch during which the End Times preface the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign.

A large portion of Christian evangelicals who hold these specific theological beliefs also believe that devout and Godly Christians, before the tremendous confrontations or “Tribulations” that culminate in a huge global Battle of Armageddon, will be spared injury or death when they are brought away from Earth and held in God’s protective embrace in an event called the “Rapture.”

It is easy to poke fun at these types of religious beliefs, but it is deeply offensive and provocative in a way that undermines a serious and important public debate over the proper boundaries for religious belief and public policy decisions. It is not accurate to dismiss Christians who hold these beliefs as ignorant, uneducated, or crazy. Social scientists have thoroughly refuted these stereotypes with polling data and in-depth interviews. In addition, it is not fair to ask people of faith simply to abandon their beliefs when they step into the Public Square or political arena.

It is also not fair, however, for those in the Religious Right to use God as a trump card in public policy debates.

There are some very interesting comments to this post which seem to be going along the lines of some of the commentary here in this community. Some people understand the need to reach out and engage moderate Christians, and others feel that there isn't any way to establish a dialogue when one side speaks English and the other is speaking in tongues. All in all, it's a thorny question, and a difficult matter to unravel. How can we disengage the political and theocratic elements from the spiritual ones? How can we confront the horrible monster that this politico-religious synergy has spawned?

Go read the post and its comments. I'll be interested in hearing your comments.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

"Twelve percent [of American Christians] believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife." ~Bill McKibben

..okay, I'm on the phone with shamangirl when the truth of the above statement hits me..*laughs like goon*..Goddess Bless, what a bunch of pinheads..

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

"Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up." ~Bill McKibben

This is linked to the long article in my LJ.

I am trying to find an analysis of the Bob Jones University curriculum (I remember seeing it online but have, unfortunately, since lost the link).

However, Texas Freedom Network has done their own analysis of a "Bible Education Curriculum" promoted for use in public schools by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS).

Needless to say, the curriculum is supported by a who's who of the dominionist movement and is explicitly dominionist itself.

A plethora of Biblical scholars have issued a joint statement that even in use as a theology curriculum the NCBCPS material is woefully inadequate.

Full analysis is here (warning: PDF).

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY squidflakes)

According to this article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

The Catholic Church is now stating that some parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. Could this be RCC's attempt to wrest worshippers from the Dominionists?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY juno_domina)

I thought this letter to the Editor in "The Age" (Melbourne) might appeal:

Short and sweet

HERE is an even shorter version of the Bible than that condensed by John Crace ("The 378-word Bible, Opinion 26/9):

After Adam and Eve failed the temptation test, God made Jews his chosen people. As a result, they became paranoid overachievers until Jesus came in to provide non-competitive, huge-gain-for-little-pain equal opportunity for all. Whether being superior was better than just being good posed a problem at polls throughout the ages. After much soul-searching, leaders seeking re-election reached a brilliant compromise. They simply wed Superiority by Birthright to Equal Opportunity. This auspicious marriage led to the modern practice of pre-emptive strikes in the name of both the Father and the Son forever and ever. Amen.
Piri White, Brighton

I wish I had the John Crace one.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY metaphorge)

Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism--biblical literalism--is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true. But religious enthusiasm is not all bad. Like love or political activism, it can help troubled souls transform their lives. And if what we're looking at is an America with an ever-larger and boxed-in working class and tighter competition for high-paying jobs among the elite, fundamentalism is exactly the thing to manage decline: It schools the downwardly mobile in making the best of their lot while teaching them to be grateful for the food pantry and daycare over at the church. At the same time, taking advantage of existing currents of anti-intellectualism and school-tax resistance, it removes from the pool of potential scientists and other creative professionals vast numbers of students, who will have had their minds befuddled with creationism and its smooth-talking cousin, intelligent design. Already, according to a study by University of Minnesota biology professor Randy Moore, 40 percent of high school biology teachers don't teach evolution, either because it's socially unacceptable in their communities or because they themselves don't believe in it.

The following story from RawStory is a pretty good discussion on Bush and how dominionist ideology can be construed as a form of idolatry.

(It's good backgrounder for those not so familiar with the issues around Bush and dominionism, at any rate)

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

from The Guardian

Unholy strictures

It is wrong - and dangerous - to believe literal truth can be found in religious texts
Karen Armstrong
Thursday August 11, 2005

Guardian
Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY brigidsblest)

(I've got the code in here for an lj-cut, but it's not working, and I don't know why. Weird.)

God said it. I believe it. That settles it." This familiar bumper sticker slogan appears to sum up the Religious Right's decision-making process on matters of heated public debate.

But when policies involving human biology and behavior are being hammered out, faith alone isn't always sufficient to win over voters and decision-makers. At such times, a bit of scientific evidence comes in handy, and some of the Religious Right's operatives aren't too choosy about where they get it.

( Continued... )

The story can be found at: http://www.alternet.org/story/24000/ ; the comments to the story are just as interesting.

(Crossposted at my own journal).

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Here is an excerpt from the current issue of Harpers Magazine. To read the whole essay, you need to purchase the current (August 2005) issue.

The Christian Paradox
How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong
By Bill McKibben

What it means to be Christian in America.

Only 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY seshen)

As the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, Jack Spong ordained the first openly gay Episcopal priest in 1989. He has claimed that over 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay and that even the Apostle Paul was homosexual. For these and other opinions, his opponents have called Spong a heretic. His latest book, 'Sins of the Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love,' brings a new round of criticism.

Q. Why did you write The Sins of Scripture?

A. Texts in the Bible are being used to hurt, oppress, and denigrate. The Bible was quoted to support slavery and segregation, to hurt Jews, and to not educate women. Today, I see the Bible being used politically for all sorts of evil things. We have a president who wants to quote the Bible to condemn homosexual people. Somebody from within the heart of the religious community needs to speak out against it.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Religious Right Watch does an interesting comparison of what Christ asks of his followers, and what the Religious Right asks:

The least Jesus asks is not what the Religious Right asks

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31-46, Jesus tells a parable in which admittance to heaven depends on a person's demonstrated ability to have done six things in life:

1) Fed the hungry
2) Gave drink to the thirsty
3) Welcomed the stranger
4) Clothed the naked
5) Cared for the sick
6) Visited prisoners

Listening to the typical conservative evangelical or, especially, Fundamentalist sermon in 10,000's of churches in America, you would seldom get the sense that Jesus will care more about the above than he will that you:

1) Remained a virgin until your wedding night
2) Supported pro-Israel foreign policy on the belief that Israel basically can't do anything wrong
3) Refrained from ever touching a member of the same sex in any but an utterly chaste manner
4) Voted for "Godly," "Bible-believing," or "values" candidates--i.e. Republicans per the Religious Right's definitions of "Godly," "Bible-believing," or "values"
5) Believed that Jesus would be returning in the sky soon, quite possibly within your lifetime
6) Kept yourself and your children from listening to "secular" music or viewing "secular" films or TV

The whole post is worth a visit.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

The Slactivist talks about the error of taking the Bible literally:

The story of the Good Samaritan is a good story, a beautiful and well-crafted story. It is a story that conveys important truths. But it is not a true story. Jesus never claims to be retelling an actual event that actually happened.

It's not the kind of story that anyone could tell as a "true story." There was no journalist present to offer such a report. No one was present to witness all the elements in this story, which is told from the perspective of an omniscient, third-person narrator and not from the perspective of an eyewitness.

If your response to the tenth chapter of Luke is to set out on an archaeological expedition in search of the actual site of the actual Good Samaritan's Inn, then you've completely misunderstood the story. Not only would you have utterly missed the point, but you'd be inflicting other, different meaning on the passage. This is a refined and elaborate form of illiteracy, but it is still illiteracy.

Many Christians insist on this same illiterate approach to the first chapter of Genesis. They insist on reading it "literally," by which they mean taking a story that is not a journalistic eyewitness account and pretending that it is one.

A commenter put it in succinct words:

Huston Smith has some very valuable things to say about Logos and Mythos. They are the two categories of knowledge, and have been since the beginnings of human civilization.

Logos is the knowledge of number and fact.

Mythos is the knowledge of symbol and metaphor.

Both exist side-by-side, or hand-in hand. Or they did, until Reneé Descartes. Mythos got thrown out with the bathwater, because you coudn't "prove" such knowledge.

Logos is deductive. Mythos is inductive,

Logos is…logical. Mythos is intuitive.

The Bible is Mythos. We treat it as Logos at our peril. And it doesen't help that John uses Logos, "the Word" to describe Jesus.

It's too bad that the Biblical literalists do not understand this. I believe that understanding this would bring about a lot of peace, if minds could be changed.