Is Santorum destroying Christianity?

Originally posted by JS357
"It would be convenient to nominate Jesus as the authoritative source for Christianity but he wrote nothing and did not establish any new religion at all. What he said and how he said it has to be established through the accounts of others. The single most consistent source point for Christianity, in my opinion, is in the teachings of St Paul. A Christian prob ...[text shortened]... So the next step would be to establish exactly what Paul said about their relative status.

Like I have always said, the name christianity is a misnomer, it by rights should be called Paulism.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This could happen whether or not Ron Paul gets elected.

War is good for business, after all.

Ron Paul has said that a war should be declared by congress and that is the
only kind of war he would agree to.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ron Paul has said that a war should be declared by congress and that is the
only kind of war he would agree to.

given the tiny miniscule chance that old ron could get elected, there is nothing he would be able to do since all of the bought and sold congress would stand against him.

the usa doesn't believe in declaring war anymore, unless it's a war on intangible things like terrorism, drugs, hunger, global warming, etc.

Originally posted by whodey
Devotion to anti-intellectualism? What exactly are you referring to Epi?

Are you saying that you don't believe in such stories as Noah's ark or Jesus healing and raising people from the dead or simply that you reject the notion that the earth is only thousands of years old?

As far as Santorum goes, however, he could very well be sincere in all that he ...[text shortened]... ow is that if anyone other than Ron Paul gets into office the US and Iran will soon be at war.

Devotion to anti-intellectualism? What exactly are you referring to Epi?

By anti-intellectualism I'm referring to the popular mantra among Christian fundamentalists that "knowledge is of the devil," as well as the fundamentalist's unwillingness to even attempt a clear understanding of scientific theory (e.g., evolution). It is no secret that fundamentalists are in an all out flight from science or any human acquired, non-revelatory knowledge.

Are you saying that you don't believe in such stories as Noah's ark or Jesus healing and raising people from the dead or simply that you reject the notion that the earth is only thousands of years old?

I'm not committed to the idea that the story of Noah's ark is literal truth (it may be metaphorical and no less significant). And I similarly reject a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. As most bible scholars are aware, the Genesis account was written for an audience from an ancient civilization and to simply foist one's own interpretation on that account, without any understanding of that civilization or what the author(s) intended to convey, is a recipe for misinterpretation and error. It is no surprise, therefore, that those who nevertheless insist on understanding Genesis from a literalistic, twentieth century cultural perspective, are doomed to make obviously false assumptions such as a 6-10,000 year old universe.

However, I do believe in the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus because I find it to be the best explanation of the evidence available (burial, empty tomb, the disciple's testimony, etc.).

The most that can be gleaned regarding the universe from the Genesis account is that God is responsible for creation, that the physical world is "good", and that God has a plan for humankind. Beyond that, there's nothing to justify claims that the universe isn't anything other than multiple billions of years old.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Devotion to anti-intellectualism? What exactly are you referring to Epi?

By anti-intellectualism I'm referring to the popular mantra among Christian fundamentalists that "knowledge is of the devil," as well as the fundamentalist's unwillingness to even attempt a clear understanding of scientific theory (e.g., evolution). It is no secret that ...[text shortened]... claims that the universe isn't anything other than multiple billions of years old.[/b]

I reject the notion that if you are a literalist then you must think the earth only to be thousands of years old. OEC diagree with that notion. There are two approaches from what I have seen. One approach is to say that the ancient Hebrew terminology was not translated accurately enough, thus the text was not taken literally enough regarding the "days" of creation. I tend to lean towards this approach which was further aided by a book called, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. I highly recommend it. Another approach is just to say it is merely representative which is where I think you are coming from.


As for Noah's flood account, it is clear when studying other ancient manuscripts from other cultures in the region, that a great flood occured. The details are all that is in question. After all, it is well known that the Bible is a wealth of knowledge about the history of the region that is unparalleled.

So there you have it, I guess as a fundamentalist I have broken the stereotypical mold. I would also say you are correct in that many of faith disdain science. That seems to incur the wrath of society, however, those in science that treat theology in much the same way seems to be "OK", hence the fundamentalists become the bad guys. I guess the reason I have not blinded my eyes to either position is because I have an appreciation for both fields of study. That is what it takes in order to connect any dots that may be there.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This could happen whether or not Ron Paul gets elected.

War is good for business, after all.

Mark my words, whether it be Obama, Santorum, Newt, or Romney any one of them will go to war with Iran.....undeclared, of course. 😛

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ron Paul has said that a war should be declared by congress and that is the
only kind of war he would agree to.

Poor old fart. He seems to want to win at a game where no one gives a damn about the rules. What he needs to do is embrace a bit of Chicago style politics where the dead are raised to vote, union members become double agents when rigging up election booths, and the homeless are rounded up to vote for you just for a donate and coffee.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Devotion to anti-intellectualism? What exactly are you referring to Epi?

By anti-intellectualism I'm referring to the popular mantra among Christian fundamentalists that "knowledge is of the devil," as well as the fundamentalist's unwillingness to even attempt a clear understanding of scientific theory (e.g., evolution). It is no secret that claims that the universe isn't anything other than multiple billions of years old.[/b]

You say, "By anti-intellectualism I'm referring to the popular mantra among
Christian fundamentalists that "knowledge is of the devil," as well as the
fundamentalist's unwillingness to even attempt a clear understanding of scientific theory (e.g., evolution). It is no secret that fundamentalists are in an all out flight from science or any human acquired, non-revelatory knowledge."

You apparently associate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the
devil. There is such thing as right knowledge, which is good, and wrong
knowledge, which is bad. The following is from the Holy Bible:

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: “See, I have called by name Bezalel the
son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. And I have filled him with
the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner
of workmanship, to design artistic works, to work in gold, in silver, in bronze,
in cutting jewels for setting, in carving wood, and to work in all manner of workmanship." (Exodus 31:1-5 NKJV)

Why would Solomon ask God for Knowledge if it were of the Devil?

On that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask! What shall I give you?”
And Solomon said to God: “You have shown great mercy to David my father, and have
made me king in his place. 9 Now, O Lord God, let Your promise to David my father be
established, for You have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in
multitude. Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before
this people; for who can judge this great people of Yours?”

Then God said to Solomon: “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked
riches or wealth or honor or the life of riches or wealth or honor of your enemies,
nor have you asked long life—but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that
you may judge My people over whom I have made you king— wisdom and knowledge are
granted to you; and I will give you riches and wealth and honor, such as none of
the kings have had who were before you, nor shall any after you have the like.”
(2 Chronicles 1:7-12 NKJV"


The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel:

To know wisdom and instruction,
To perceive the words of understanding,
To receive the instruction of wisdom,
Justice, judgment, and equity;
To give prudence to the simple,
To the young man knowledge and discretion—
A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
But fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:1-7 NKJV)


Wisdom calls aloud outside;
She raises her voice in the open squares.
She cries out in the chief concourses,
At the openings of the gates in the city
She speaks her words:
“How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
For scorners delight in their scorning,
And fools hate knowledge.
Turn at my rebuke;
Surely I will pour out my spirit on you;
I will make my words known to you.
Because I have called and you refused,
I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
Because you disdained all my counsel,
And would have none of my rebuke,
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,
When your terror comes like a storm,
And your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
When distress and anguish come upon you.
Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge
And did not choose the fear of the Lord,
They would have none of my counsel
And despised my every rebuke.
Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
And be filled to the full with their own fancies.
For the turning away of the simple will slay them,
And the complacency of fools will destroy them;
But whoever listens to me will dwell safely,
And will be secure, without fear of evil.”

(Proverbs 1:20-33)

There are many more.

Originally posted by whodey
Poor old fart. He seems to want to win at a game where no one gives a damn about the rules. What he needs to do is embrace a bit of Chicago style politics where the dead are raised to vote, union members become double agents when rigging up election booths, and the homeless are rounded up to vote for you just for a donate and coffee.

When I was a youngster in Texas the Democrates were already allowing
dead people to cast votes for the democratic party. That is nothing new.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
given the tiny miniscule chance that old ron could get elected, there is nothing he would be able to do since all of the bought and sold congress would stand against him.

the usa doesn't believe in declaring war anymore, unless it's a war on intangible things like terrorism, drugs, hunger, global warming, etc.

What makes you an authority on the USA?

Not sure either is true: I thought when the Roman empire was declining it utilized christianity as a unifying force and christianity for its part hijacked the military and administrative power of the Empire to gain spiritual dominance and political power over Europe and the near East the other name for the Austro-Hungarian Empire was the Holy Roman Empire until its own demise in 1918.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think if Christianity can withstand the Roman empire then it can come through anything.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
christianity didn't withstand the roman empire. it was wiped out by it.

Originally posted by whodey
I reject the notion that if you are a literalist then you must think the earth only to be thousands of years old. OEC diagree with that notion. There are two approaches from what I have seen. One approach is to say that the ancient Hebrew terminology was not translated accurately enough, thus the text was not taken literally enough regarding the "days" of h fields of study. That is what it takes in order to connect any dots that may be there.

I think Genesis is communicating certain doctrinal truths associated with an understanding of the spiritual realm exclusively; the author(s) having no intention to make any claims about physical reality (the domain of science). The same with Noah's flood. There's no physical evidence that a world-wide flood occurred within the last 70,000-100,000 years that homo sapiens have existed. It is my contention that Genesis is nevertheless true and invaluable, because it is suited to an entirely different understanding of the world (the spiritual).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I think what Santorum represents definitely will have a long term detrimental affect on American Christianity at least. I don't think there is any doubt that Christian fundamentalism, because of its devotion to anti-intellectualism and its unprecedented, even radical insistence upon biblical literalism, will eventually go the way of the dodo.

theologically doomed, in my opinion, and long before Santorum had anything to do with it.

Hi Epi! Thumbs-up thingy for that post; re your last post, above: people sometimes forget that myth (as well as poetry, allegory, and story in general--or any basically aesthetic expression, for that matter, such as music or iconography) can communicate existential truths (for lack of a better term) aside from any, even without any, historical facticity or propositinal claims of fact. And much, maybe most, religious (or "spiritual", if one prefers) language is not intended to be factual or poropositional, but allusive and elicitive (especially poetry).

Originally posted by rwingett
It is well documented that "the nones" (people with no religious affiliation) are the fastest growing segment of the population. They're around 16% of the population and rising. When people like Santorum get on the campaign trail and spew their bile, it further alienates large segments of the population, who are horrified at his medieval notions. The hard c ...[text shortened]... like Santorum continue to be the face of Christianity, I think this process is inevitable.

Not really; but there may be people on the margins of more “fundamentalistic” churches who will move to ones that are less so (e.g., Episcopal, ELCA Lutheran—just to cite two “mainstream” churches that I am familiar with); some Roman Catholics may move to the Episcopal Church (as did, e.g., Matthew Fox many years ago), or even to the Greek Orthodox (although there are more theological issues involved there). Of course, there are people who hold “conservative” theological positions while being “liberals” on social/moral issues—indeed who are so compelled by their theological positions.* Such people may find themselves less welcome in the churches—or the particular wing of Christianity—in which they currently are. (That is, some fundamentalists/evangelicals might make a move analogous to Bart Erdman—although don’t think his was based primarily on issues of moral dogma.)

There will always, of course, be charges of “No True Christian™”. But there has not been a singular Christian church since 1054 at the latest—and really since the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon (325 and 451 respectively). But I would see no reason for most Episcopalians, for example, to leave (in fact, the breakaways from the Anglican Communion have largely been by those who were in the more “fundamentalist” and “moralist” wing).

___________________________________________________

* The Episcopalian priest who was once my spiritual director was one such, who hammered bravely for full acceptance (not just “tolerance” ) for gays—based both on his agape-centered theology and his erudite reading of the biblical texts in their original languages. His theology was more “conventional” than mine, though he went to great pains to point out that my nondualism (then expressed as a panentheism) was also a valid position that put me “in good company”—his phrase—in the history of church doctrine ( e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, perhaps Pseudo-Dionysus, certainly Meister Eckhart, maybe Paul Tillich; maybe Kallistos Ware in the Orthodox Church, and probably Olivier Clement).

Originally posted by RJHinds
What makes you an authority on the USA?

unlike you, i read things.