Pope Francis close confidantes published a scathing rebuke of fundamentalism

[Maraya1969]

The article attacks the decades-old partnership between two strands of American Christianity ― fundamentalist evangelicals and Catholics who are brought together by the “same desire for religious influence in the political sphere.” Although these two groups differ on a number of theological issues, they have come together since the 1980s and 1990s over issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, according to the AP.

One of the most worrisome aspects of this alliance for the pair is how it encourages hatred of different ethnicities and conflates Islam with terrorism. This view of the world stands in stark contrast to Pope Francis’ interfaith outreach and his repeated calls to build bridges, not walls.

“The most dangerous prospect for this strange ecumenism is attributable to its xenophobic and Islamophobic vision that wants walls and purifying deportations,”


Spadaro and Figueroa wrote that the desire of these Christian fundamentalists is to “submit the state to the Bible with a logic that is no different from the one that inspires Islamic fundamentalism.”


Much more at link





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/popes-confidantes-pen-blistering-critique-of-steve-bannons-view-of-christianity_us_5968e8a3e4b0d6341fe8706c?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics

[dalton99a]

1. Nice last paragraph

"Spirituality cannot tie itself to governments or military pacts for it is at the service of all men and women. Religions cannot consider some people as sworn enemies nor others as eternal friends. Religion should not become the guarantor of the dominant classes"

[TheBlackAdder]

2. This is exacerbated by those Pentecostals and Charismatics who believe in Two-Stage Baptisms.

They believe that when the they are touched by the Holy Spirit, that they are forever blessed to sit by the right hand of Jesus in Heaven, no matter that they do. They believe that the Holy Spirit has selected them, and once selected, the Spirit lives within them. Those who have not had this experience, often believed to be indicated by speaking in tongues, are not selected because of some reason. Hence, these people walk around believing that their actions are justified and sanctified, and that they are actually better than the others. To be fair, many Charistatics believe that this touching is momentarily performed, to convey a church good, and to keep the Spirit within, one must continually live a good moral life.

While Pentecostals remain mostly within churches such as the A/G or COGIC, Charismatics mostly do not have dedicated churches, instead, they move out to inject these beliefs into mainstream churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. Many churches, in order to keep attendance up, adopt these Charismatic positions into their primary services or hold two services--traditional and Charismatic influenced.

After all, who doesn't want to believe that the Holy Spirit as selected someone and that God lives within them, instead of God being on the outside?

[Igel]

3. Interesting.

It's wrong to "submit the state to the Bible."

But at the same time they call upon the state to be merciful, generous, and tolerant based upon their interpretation of the Bible. Do what they say, not what they do.

They just don't like it when the opposition makes the argument. It's a common enough bit of hypocrisy: "How dare they cite the Bible, what--they want a theocracy?" Then, two minutes later, "No, ignore those theocrats. We're different: we demand that our government act in accord with Jesus' 'as you do to the least of these'!" Nah, they're the same, merge church and state, just make damned sure it's my church and not theirs--it's really "separation of their church and my state" that's at issue.

It's like all those who accurately cite the Tanakh in having mercy for the "stranger," because "you were strangers in the land of Egypt." We apply that to the present and claim that our foes should be subject to this. In some cases, it's trying to use what we don't believe against them, always a difficult proposition; in other cases, it's something we do believe, we just think our religion should dominate their actions.

Note that there are a lot of places in the Tanakh where it says there's one law for the stranger and for the Israelite--they are to keep the Sabbath, for example, and put away their gods. Judaism, if that's what you want to call 1st temple Israelitish religion and its predecessor, was to be imposed on immigrants. In other words, they're to assimilate--that's the standard for most of the world and always has been. There's also no recognition of a means for them to remain "strangers" and acquire land outside of cities. Even when you cherry pick you still get the pits.