Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2013-02-06 00:00||
Front Page|| [336 views ]
File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1 What motivates the leaders remains a mystery.
Money, power, yssup, sex ?
Posted by Besoeker 2013-02-06 07:34||
#2 For me, I draw the line at:
1. Do they want to convert me?
2. Do they want to take my freedoms?
3. Do they want to kill me?
Posted by JohnQC 2013-02-06 10:42||
#3 Fundamentalism has always been a *relative* term, because its always relative to a specific document that is read literally: a fundamentalist Christian takes the New Testament as primary and interprets the Old Testament in light of the New, while interpreting the New as literally as the language permits, while a Fundamentalist Jew would take the Old Testament as primary and read it as literally as the language permits. An Islamic fundamentalist would take the Koran as primary, interprets the Old and New Testaments in light of the Koran, and read it as literally as the language permits. Anyone who then says that the behavior of a fundamentalist is the "same" clearly flunked basic World Religions class because religions clearly differ because their base documents are different.
This might offend some Rantburgers at first blush, but I would say that over 90% of our regular visitors and commentators are Fundamentalists with regard to the Constitution of the United States: you probably wouldn't call yourself fundamentalists, but if you are a constitutionalist who holds to the current applicability of the language of the Constitution read as literally as the language of that day allows, then you are a fundamentalist in the strict sense of the term.
Given this, then it should be obvious why Christianity has as many denominations as there are "alternate readings" of the Second Amendment: People have agendas that cannot be fulfilled IF the literal meaning of the text was followed, so they come up with different ways to read the text so that a "figurative but accurate" alternate meaning can be conjured up with the hope that it would be accepted, and followed, as seriously as if it was the literal meaning of the text. When a liberal Catholic Bishop accused me of being a "Fundamentalist like the Taliban", I accused HIM of profound ignorance of the Biblical scriptures, of the Koran, or both. He never brought it up again, because he knew the REAL meaning of what "fundamentalist" really was, knew that I knew it as well, and knew that I had seen through his lame attempt at verbal intimidation.
The second category includes pacifist fundamentalists who non-violently want to establish states run strictly on "divine" laws...
I am rather proud of being a "real" Christian fundamentalist who can read the NT and notice the absolute lack of guidance for governing a nation. If you want an example of what the editorial is describing, look no further than the oh-so-very liberal (politically and theologically) United Methodist Church hierarchy, who think nothing of urging government to TAKE money from the rich and spend it on the poor, and don't mind higher taxes on everyone else. When God wanted to punish the house of Solomon for his idolatry, God let him jack taxes sky high and allowed his son to be too proud and too stupid to lower them, causing a revolution that split the nation.