Fundamentalists wrong to enhrine their interpretation of prophecy as a guide for foreign policy
Yoginder Sikand (http://www.countercurrents.org/us-sikand171105.htm) has described how American fundamentalists such as Michael Evans, act as if their individual interpretations of very mysterious ancient scriptures, should play a major role in the formulation of US government policy. Looks like American fundamentalists are turning millions against Christianity while converting a few dozen.
Re Sikand's article, it is true that certain fundamentalists claim that the only respectable interpretation of hard to understand Christian prophetic scriptural passages, is their own interpretation of these hard to understand, mysterious scriptural passages.
Yet St. Paul, thought that the world was going to come to an end before the youngest persons in his congregation died. Therefore for the early church the traditional establishment respectable point of view, championed by persons who wrote the scriptures and are considered to be the greatest saints of Christianity, was that the events mentioned in Old Testament scriptures such as Daniel and Jeremiah, and in New Testament scriptures such as the Book of Revelation, would all have come true within 100 years from the time at which they were living.
Therefore Christianity's greatest men, held a different view of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation than that held by powerful Christian fundamentalists in the modern USA. Therefore, for men who are much lesser men than the saints who wrote the scriptures they admire, to be pompous and self righteous regarding their own interpretations of such scriptures, is nonsense, because the greatest saints of Christianity interpreted the scriptures of the Book of Revelation differently.
If the great saints of old were wrong in the way they interpreted scriptures such as Revelation, this throws the pompous self righteousness of the fundamentalists out the window. If the greatest saints of old were correct in they way they interpreted scriptures such as Revelation, this also throws the dogmatic pomp of the modern fundamentalists out the window.
St. Paul who wrote large portions of the Christian bible was wrong to think that the world would end before the youngest people in his church died. Therefore for persons who are lesser than St. Paul to be self-righteous re interpretations of such scriptures is unacceptable. And also therefore, it is unacceptable that modern Christians should put such a high emphasis on the criteria of how "correct" someone's interpretations of mysterious prophecies are, and, therefore, it is unacceptable that such fandamentalists should let the interpretation of mysterious prophecies play such a leading role in the formulation of government policy.
These fundamentalists would if sensible admit St Paul was a greater man than they, despite his being wrong about the end of the world and the different interpretation of prophetic scriptures that he ascribed to; yet the government would undoubtedly be better off under St. Paul than it would be under them.
It is bizarre that certain fundamentalists would think that the promises made to Israel in the Bible, and the prophecies made re Israel in the Bible, refer to the descendants of the jews who did not become Christians as opposed to the descendants of the jews who became Christian such as the descendants of individuals such as Mary, Mary's cousins and siblings, the apostles and their families, and the disciples and their families. Look at the way Christ derided the jews who rejected him. Christ thought of many of the jews who rejected him, as no better than non-jews or worse.
It is bizarre that fundamentalists should behave as if the mere fact some group gives itself a certain name such as Israel or some individual gives himself a certain name, proves that some prophetic scripture thousands of years old refers to that group. It would be easy for a selfish group to give itself a name that resulted in fundamentalists worshipping that group, if fundamentalists were to ascribe such importance to the names groups and individuals give themselves. Yes, you can find a Jerusalem in Israel and a Babylon in Iraq; but you can also find places named Jerusalem and Babylon all over the world.
"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
-- 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
True the Scripture says, " Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 18:3) but it also rebukes childishness. Yet still American Christians are unable to balance two different scriptures against each other, unable to distinguish between childishness and the child-like, and still they insist on treating scripture as if it was a buffet, helping themselves to and misinterpreting the dish that appeals to them (the scripture advocating a child-like nature), while ignoring the dish that does not appeal to them (the admonition not to be childish).
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
Re Sikand's article, it is true that certain fundamentalists claim that the only respectable interpretation of hard to understand Christian prophetic scriptural passages, is their own interpretation of these hard to understand, mysterious scriptural passages.
Yet St. Paul, thought that the world was going to come to an end before the youngest persons in his congregation died. Therefore for the early church the traditional establishment respectable point of view, championed by persons who wrote the scriptures and are considered to be the greatest saints of Christianity, was that the events mentioned in Old Testament scriptures such as Daniel and Jeremiah, and in New Testament scriptures such as the Book of Revelation, would all have come true within 100 years from the time at which they were living.
Therefore Christianity's greatest men, held a different view of the interpretation of the Book of Revelation than that held by powerful Christian fundamentalists in the modern USA. Therefore, for men who are much lesser men than the saints who wrote the scriptures they admire, to be pompous and self righteous regarding their own interpretations of such scriptures, is nonsense, because the greatest saints of Christianity interpreted the scriptures of the Book of Revelation differently.
If the great saints of old were wrong in the way they interpreted scriptures such as Revelation, this throws the pompous self righteousness of the fundamentalists out the window. If the greatest saints of old were correct in they way they interpreted scriptures such as Revelation, this also throws the dogmatic pomp of the modern fundamentalists out the window.
St. Paul who wrote large portions of the Christian bible was wrong to think that the world would end before the youngest people in his church died. Therefore for persons who are lesser than St. Paul to be self-righteous re interpretations of such scriptures is unacceptable. And also therefore, it is unacceptable that modern Christians should put such a high emphasis on the criteria of how "correct" someone's interpretations of mysterious prophecies are, and, therefore, it is unacceptable that such fandamentalists should let the interpretation of mysterious prophecies play such a leading role in the formulation of government policy.
These fundamentalists would if sensible admit St Paul was a greater man than they, despite his being wrong about the end of the world and the different interpretation of prophetic scriptures that he ascribed to; yet the government would undoubtedly be better off under St. Paul than it would be under them.
It is bizarre that certain fundamentalists would think that the promises made to Israel in the Bible, and the prophecies made re Israel in the Bible, refer to the descendants of the jews who did not become Christians as opposed to the descendants of the jews who became Christian such as the descendants of individuals such as Mary, Mary's cousins and siblings, the apostles and their families, and the disciples and their families. Look at the way Christ derided the jews who rejected him. Christ thought of many of the jews who rejected him, as no better than non-jews or worse.
It is bizarre that fundamentalists should behave as if the mere fact some group gives itself a certain name such as Israel or some individual gives himself a certain name, proves that some prophetic scripture thousands of years old refers to that group. It would be easy for a selfish group to give itself a name that resulted in fundamentalists worshipping that group, if fundamentalists were to ascribe such importance to the names groups and individuals give themselves. Yes, you can find a Jerusalem in Israel and a Babylon in Iraq; but you can also find places named Jerusalem and Babylon all over the world.
"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
-- 1 Corinthians 13:8-12.
True the Scripture says, " Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 18:3) but it also rebukes childishness. Yet still American Christians are unable to balance two different scriptures against each other, unable to distinguish between childishness and the child-like, and still they insist on treating scripture as if it was a buffet, helping themselves to and misinterpreting the dish that appeals to them (the scripture advocating a child-like nature), while ignoring the dish that does not appeal to them (the admonition not to be childish).
@2005 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 12:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home