Monday, May 18, 2009

Fundamentalists Never Cease To Be Laughable

Here is a post from Bruce Prescott: on the subject: Mainstream Baptist: Mohler Contemptuous of Islam:
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Mohler Contemptuous of Islam

While the Pope makes a visit to the Middle East trying to defuse conflict between Christians and Muslims, Southern Seminary President Al Mohler fans the flames of conflict with a religiously arrogant and contemptous blog that denounces extending any respect to Islam.

After the arrogant and contemptuous way Mohler and other fundamentalist takeover leaders treated the Mainstream and moderate Baptists in their own denomination, I have exceedingly low expectations for civility from any of them. But, lives are at stake in the Middle East and around the world when people like Mohler persist in fomenting a clash of civilizations.

Mohler would not consider it respectful to him as a person if an Imam had said:
"We can respect Christian people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Christian scholarship in the Roman era and the wonders of Christian art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies that Mohammad was a prophet, insists that he was a demon-possessed pedophile, and encourages soldiers to evangelize millions in occupied lands." (Note: This is a hypothetical quotation, not an actual quotation)


Why would he think that any Muslim feels respected when he says:
We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive. (Note: This is an actual quotation)


Frankly, in my experience, I find Muslims more respectful of Christianity than I find Evangelical Christians respectful of Islam. When will Evangelicals learn that it is possible to respectfully disagree?

Posted by Dr. Bruce Prescott at 10:20 AM


I have to agree with Tauratinzwe's comment:
Tauratinzwe said...
What do you expect of Mohler? He's contemptuous of committed christians also if they don't bow down to him.
I must add too that Mohler must also be jealous of Islam's hold on the Middle East via fear and theocracies in certain countries---after all that is Mohler and his cronies' goal to Christianize America by fear and establishing a Calvinazi theocracy here in America. No thanks, I'll pass on a theocratic police state---for we saw how well it worked out in Geneva especially for the Anabaptists and in the Puritan colonies. I'd rather keep America a secular nation where we have the freedom to choose our religious expressions or non-religious expressions without fear of being put to death. I'm not sure if it would get that bad if Mohler and the Religious Right did succeed in establishing a fundamentalist theocracy but some of their statements scarily allude to it especially in their defense of Calvin's atrocities such as:
Calvin’s Persecution

I think the scariest thing Todd says is this about Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus:
Now, putting the execution aside, which of us has it right, and which of us has it wrong here? Whose attitude — forget the execution — whose attitude is more biblical and more correct? … one is tolerant, the other one is intolerant of heresy. Period. It’s that black and white. So were they wrong or are we wrong?


This is like saying, “Except for the part that is wrong, who is right or wrong?” The issue at point is not whether we should hate heresy. It is whether people should be killed for it. You can’t put that aside. It’s not rational only to discuss the attitude about heresy, since people on both sides are against it. Same with the abortion issue — all of us know that some babies are unwanted, and they’re expensive — but the issue isn’t the reasons for it, it’s the murder part!

Todd also says:
… the government was designed and put in place to make sure that people kept in line. And according to the Bible in Romans 13, God puts governments in place to protect people and to make sure that people follow the rules. So if the government happens to be so closely linked with the church, like it was in Geneva — if one of the rules was blasphemy or correct theology on the Trinity, they must have understood that crime in a much deeper way than we do to have somebody executed for not understanding the Trinity (or for theology).


So time and culture determine what is right and wrong. This is a slippery point to make in this argument. Todd is unwilling to view our current culture through this lens, and especially unwilling to look at the Islamic states this way. If he’s going to defend the Reformers’ persecutions by saying it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce the rules, then I have a new rule for Todd. You’re not allowed to play the Paul Washer clip about the young boy who was shot by the Muslims for refusing to deny Jesus. You can’t have that both ways — either religious persecution is right or it’s wrong. It’s that black and white.
See also: WOTM Transcription 2008-08-22, Hour 1, Defense of Reformers and listen to the clip of Al Mohler's disciple, Todd Friel: here. Imagine the arrogance if this came about today.

6 comments:

La Espada De Dios said...

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that reads, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Please, visit to:
http://thewordofgodistheswordofthespirit.blogspot.com/

Rhology said...

Hello,

It's the very height of irony for you to decry Mohler's statements when you make statements such as:

-after all that is Mohler and his cronies' goal to Christianize America by fear and establishing a Calvinazi theocracy-

-I'll pass on a theocratic police state-

-especially in their defense of Calvin's atrocities -

For one thing, you are woefully ignorant of the actual history of Calvin and Servetus.

Anyway, yes, I would consider whether the imam respected ME AS A PERSON as open question if he had said that, b/c he is discussing my position, not me. Why even bring this up? Can we not just talk about the position? YOU'RE the one who brought up the non-respect of persons. Mohler even says at the end:

-In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.-

You ask whether it is possible to learn to respectfully disagree? What about "must show respect for Muslims" and "love and respect Muslims" don't you understand in Mohler's post?

Further, take a look at Tauratinzwe's comment you mentioned - how respectful is he of Mohler AS A PERSON? Looks like it's not just Evangelicals who have trouble respectfully disagreeing.
So, since you're just as guilty as Mohler, indeed guiltier (since I missed any reference to Nazism in Mohler's article), of the thing you decry, what is your point?

Peace,
Rhology

TheoPoet said...

Thanks for visiting La Espada De Dios...God bless and keep up the good work.

TheoPoet said...

Thanks for your return visit as I said before as always insights from others are always appreciated here. Sorry it took so long to respond to that previous post but I'm not use to getting actual comments here instead of spam comments which I get from time to time. Anyways, thanks for the video link...very informative, but I do not go Dan Barker's route as I don't think people who follow Calvin are morally corrupt or I wouldn't be friends with so many of them nor would I admire Calvin as a theologian though there is much I respectively disagree with him on. Although that still does not excuse the fact that he was wrong for his part in Servetus'execution because of his beliefs---but such were the times. Even-so, what makes these things any different than those who put Jesus to death for His beliefs? Your next part is from Dr. Prescott's post but to answer your question: "What about "must show respect for Muslims" and "love and respect Muslims" don't you understand in Mohler's post?" Translation of Mohler's thoughts: if you don't believe as we do you aren't worthy of our respect. Speaking of Mohler, I do respect him otherwise I wouldn't agree with him from time to time such as: TheoPoetic Musings: Shocker: for once I actually agree with Al Mohler...at least,. I can also respectfully disagree with him but I'd still stand up for his right to believe as he wishes. A liberty Mohler and his friends wouldn't afford to the Moderates, Liberals and Progressives within the SBC. See Al Mohler and the Nemesis of Liberal Theology for example.

TheoPoet said...

As far as your last paragraph: "Further, take a look at Tauratinzwe's comment you mentioned - how respectful is he of Mohler AS A PERSON? Looks like it's not just Evangelicals who have trouble respectfully disagreeing.
So, since you're just as guilty as Mohler, indeed guiltier (since I missed any reference to Nazism in Mohler's article), of the thing you decry, what is your point?" I admit the reference to Calvinazism was a little harsh---call it my fundamentalism coming out as we all are fundamentalists to some degree when we harp on our pet issues---but it is an apt statement as it describes the type of theocratic Calvinism the Religious Right is gunning for by being in bed with the Republican party. Theocracy is something any true freedom loving Baptist detests. As for Tauratinzwe's statement, I can't speak for him but if he was there during the hostile takeover of the SBC, he knows what he's talking about---as for me I was in the womb then, so I only know from what I've read and my experience of the effects of the takeover on Baptist life.

Rhology said...

Hi Theopoet,

Benig older doesn't excuse Tauratin for his hypocritical and nasty comment. Besides, the takeover of the SBC from the liberals is the best thing that ever happened to the SBC. Liberalism is not only a completely ridiculous and internally inconsistent philosophy, but it's also a completely different religion from Christianity.

Also, I'd like to remind you that the "Religious Right" has very little Calvinism in it.
And yes, "Calvinazism" was very very harsh. In fact, it's crap. You don't really understand much about Calvinism, really, to say something like that.
Liberalism would shut down the conservative voice. That's not freedom.
Biblical freedom, by the way, is not "you can do what you want"; it's doing what Christ wants, b/c "My yoke is easy and My burden is light." I encourage you to start thinking biblically.

Peace,
Rhology