It's very difficult for instance to avoid political and theological analysis of contemporary events and leave the American Founding off limits. But I discipline myself in not so doing at American Creation; so when I so do, well, I guess I'll be very open about it.
A commenter at a listserv I am on noted the following about the recent terror bombing by a self professed "Christian":
Christianity doesn't align with what he did.
Islam DOES align with what Islamic terrorists do.
There is a difference.
This is my reply:
To the skeptical outsider looking in, arguably this appears self serving sophistry. Something can present itself as "Islam" and "Christianity" and do X or be against doing X. How does one tell what is the authentic version of X apart from its self presentation? Verses and chapters of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran can be proof quoted in favor of or against X.
This isn't to say these holy texts can be used to support *any* position; but yes, they can be used to support many positions.
That's why I support the more enlightened, liberal, rationalistic understandings of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
-– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
10 comments:
Adams wrote to Noah [of the "Jewish persuasion"] that he was sympathetic to Zionism so that the Jews could someday become Unitarian Christians.
"I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation. For as I believe the most enlightened men of it have participated in the amelioration of the philosophy of the age, once restored to an independent government & no longer persecuted they would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character [and] possibly in time become liberal unitarian Christians for your Jehovah is our Jehovah & your God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob is our God."
John Adams post-presidential musings on religion---probably drunk---are an embarrassment, Jon, not a source.
What a tool.
You wrote about this yrsef, Mr. Rowe
http://jonrowe.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-adams-zionist-unitarian.html
[Did I give you the pointer to it? I remember finding it myself, and being appalled at his arrogance.]
I think that quote is in Hutson's book.
.
Johathon, you have opened and interesting door. You ARE referencing the Norway incident, right?
.
Everything changes.
.
Religion and politics are joining in a way that is changing both at a more rapid rate than has been previously seen.
.
I don't think Christianity can any longer be defined by some Biblicist view. It is more and more a very obvious political movement. Think about Bachman and some of the outrageous statements made in the past by Palin.
.
Yes. This refers to the Norway incident.
When will society quit putting blame on an entire group for the actions of the one (or the few)?
When certain highly politicized people with an antipathy toward Christianity think of it, yes, I imagine they do think of Palin and Bachmann, Phil.
Since the Roman Church represents about 2/3 of Christianity worldwide, other people might be tempted to think of Pope Benedict, tho.
.
When certain highly politicized people with an antipathy toward Christianity think of it, yes, I imagine they do think of Palin and Bachmann, Phil.
.
Not being "highly politicized" in our representative government's present condition seems like the depths of apathy.
.
Tea Party, baby.
.
Tea Party, baby
.
I guess I don't understand your point.
.
Post a Comment