The Fundamentalist Goal, Absolute Power Over Their Enemies
There is no other way to explain the preoccupation with Supreme Court Nominees, redistricting and anti gay theology than this.
One could start by asking in this way, why walk across the street to punch someone who has done nothing to you. The answer is because it feels good--makes one see himself as the better and the one that is more important.
Conservative politics is like that. If a woman has an abortion and you do not know her why get all upset? You can oppose abortion yourself in your own life because you are acting on your religious views. But the woman you have never heard of nor will ever know need not share your religion. Why is it then necessary to put your religion into laws that she has to obey?
The link discusses how terribly offended some religious leaders are by the concept of humans finding themselves not completely male nor female. In their view, something so revolting should not even be discussed publicly. My goodness, I remember reading about this in the 1970's. That there are thousands of people who find themselves between genders affects the white Christian men not at all. Why not just shrug and go on about their business? Because, their business is revenge, justice. People should not be able to think humans can experience two genders at once.
Then there is discussion inside the fundamentalist's world about when Christianity should be taught to children. One theory is the teaching should begin at three to four years old. But, that sets off an alarm bell in others. They say training should begin at 18 months because some other impression or thought might creep in and the child will be lost forever. Three to four years is not adequate, complete control is the goal and 18 months provides more.
Fundamentalists talk much of a "Biblical Worldview" as if it was native to our government or our country. It is not. The founding fathers did not endorse any religions and to say they did is to make up history. Royalty and religion went hand in hand back in the old country. They wanted neither.
Fundamentalists want their version of royalty, themselves, and religion back in their control.
O Lord, how long, O Lord? how long must you repeat and repeat the same old crap. don't you ever sit back and reflect. reflect on the fact that you and your friends live in a sordid intellectual ghetto from which there seems to be no escape. that said, I am not going to argue these assertions with you, except to say that "absolute" power is, in this context. a ridiculous term to use.
ReplyDeleteUnknown September 18, 2020 at 6:10 PM, “[living] in a sordid intellectual ghetto from which there seems to be no escape”
DeleteGot to hand it to you Unknown. Life imprisoned in a “sordid intellectual ghetto” is a brilliant description of “a biblical worldview” referred to in the Jon’s link. Barna and Green are not having much luck resuscitating the hypoxic Christian faith so far. Marketing some new products in an effort to indoctrinate children as young as 15 months to “a biblical worldview” should in the long run improve the vital signs of the faith, right? That’s the sordid part.
If a biblical worldview is seeing everything and everyone through the lens of a Bible, then with tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, fractured and fractious Catholicism, hundreds of versions of the Bible in English, using the term “a biblical worldview” seems much more appropriate than using “The Biblical Worldview”. Which biblical worldview goggles is one to use? That’s the intellectual part.
A biblical worldview must include the so called fallen nature of humankind and its inability to save itself. As if we are born helpless into a filthy moral slum of sin and doubting. Hark! Redemption may be found in the shadow of an instrument of torture and death. That’s the ghetto part.
Unknown -- "except to say that 'absolute' power is, in this context, a ridiculous term to use."
ReplyDeleteI've asked social conservatives here, including you, to outline what rights a pregnant woman has in a world where abortion is outlawed? Matt said she has one right. That is to have the birth. That's the power he, and I assume you, want over women. To me that is absolute power. It seems ridiculous to claim otherwise.
I knew that you would say that: sooo predictable. but cheer up, it gives you leave to carelessly, expansively use words like "absolute". Gee, tho' I thought that economists were taught to use precise language.
DeleteUnknown "I knew you would say that"
DeleteI say when I have a winner, stay with it. I have asked time and again for you or other ardent opponents of abortion to list the rights of pregnant women. You NEVER do. NEVER. That can only mean you think she has none. If I'm wrong about that, give us the list of rights she has over her own body. You just cannot come up with any rights she would have in your anti abortion world than you advocate absolute control over her. That is quite precise usage of the term.
does that mean that we want to take away her right to free speech, her right to buy and sell property, her right to go shopping, her right to hold public office, her right to vote, and so on and so forth? you probably do, because you think of child bearing as a form of slavery, as a life inhibiting condition. silly old man.
DeleteUnknown -- "does that mean ... take away her right to free speech...."
ReplyDeleteI mentioned specifically right over her body. So, instead of diverting the discussion away from a requirement you do not want to deal with, in fact are unable to deal with because of the philosophical box you have jumped into, how about just admitting human life at conception is an unsustainable theology.
I don't have time to have you keep posting unrelated things. Deal with it or we're done.