Religion, Judgment, and Political Correctness

[RAMOSS]

What you intend to say when you say it and how somebody else hears it are two different things. Pastor Wright has no control over anything others read into his remarks. Had I prayed a prayer like that I would mean exactly what I said. What you choose to read into it I have no control over, but what you read into it that I did not say has absolutely nothing to do with what I intended to say.

Well, that is the problem with conservative religious folks, I guess. They don't see how they appear to others, they make assumptions. They don't' see how their actions effect others or can be viewed by others. The blinders are on, and they cause the resentment against them by their own actions.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There is no need to "read into it". On the very face of it, he's complaining and apologizing to god, in the middle of a government funded session, about us worshiping other gods. How dare we celebrate a free society with freedom of religion.

We as a society have gotten together and decided that our words have meanings Owl. His words speak for themselves.

I think his words speak for themselves but I take what he says at face value and while you insist he means something other than what he said. I don't see confessing our sins as anything like apologizing to God. And the legislature is a 100% appropriate place to do that because they are the only ones who can fix some of those sins and are the representatives of us all.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well, that is the problem with conservative religious folks, I guess. They don't see how they appear to others, they make assumptions. They don't' see how their actions effect others or can be viewed by others. The blinders are on, and they cause the resentment against them by their own actions.

Conservative religious folks think it is far more important to be honorable and obey God than it is to worry about how they appear to others. They have control over being honorable and obeying God. They have no control over what others think.

 

[roughdraft274]

I think his words speak for themselves but I take what he says at face value and while you insist he means something other than what he said. I don't see confessing our sins as anything like apologizing to God. And the legislature is a 100% appropriate place to do that because they are the only ones who can fix some of those sins and are the representatives of us all.

Right, him saying a prayer in which he criticizes our society for worshipping other gods in no way criticizes our society for allowing people to worship other gods. :roll:

 

[RAMOSS]

Conservative religious folks think it is far more important to be honorable and obey God than it is to worry about how they appear to others. They have control over being honorable and obeying God. They have no control over what others think.

Yes, they do. Of course, they can't show they are actually obeying God. That is why there is conflict with conservative Islam verse Conservative Christianity, to Conservative Hinduism. People also resent when someone tells them that their beliefs are wrong, and appear to be 'less'. See how those pieces fit together.

On edit;

how would you feel if it was an IMAN, and rather than talk about "Christ", replace that with the 'We have taken a man, and turned him into a God"?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Right, him saying a prayer in which he criticizes our society for worshipping other gods in no way criticizes our society for allowing people to worship other gods. :roll:

I am pretty sure what he meant by 'other gods' which is not what you are likely interpreting as 'other gods'. When a conservative Christian speaks of idolatry or worshipping other gods, he is almost always not speaking of Allah or Buddha or Krishna etc. He is speaking of those things which we worship in place of or give more importance to than God.

 

[roughdraft274]

I am pretty sure what he meant by 'other gods' which is not what you are likely interpreting as 'other gods'. When a conservative Christian speaks of idolatry or worshipping other gods, he is almost always not speaking of Allah or Buddha or Krishna etc. He is speaking of those things which we worship in place of or give more importance to than God.

Read his quote regarding "multiculturalism". When he uses that word in there it makes it very clear that he's talking about religions that are prominent in other cultures IE: non-judeo-christian god. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with "worshipping money" or whatever else you're trying to insinuate he meant.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Read his quote regarding "multiculturalism". When he uses that word in there it makes it very clear that he's talking about religions that are prominent in other cultures IE: non-judeo-christian god. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with "worshipping money" or whatever else you're trying to insinuate he meant.

I don't see that he makes it every clear. I don't see that is what he means by 'multiculturalism'.

 

[roughdraft274]

I don't see that he makes it every clear. I don't see that is what he means by 'multiculturalism'.

You're having to do alot of interpreting to get away from the exact words that he said.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You're having to do alot of interpreting to get away from the exact words that he said.

I haven't been doing any interpreting. I am taking his words at face value.

 

[Removable Mind]

An interesting perspective. Others would say that it was a prayer of confession, and that would absolutely make it a prayer.

AO...

Remove the word, "WE" and replace it with "I", then I might consider it to be a prayer of confession.

To me it's nothing more than set of opinions based on his social observations that's been crafted into a metaphorical lists of what the pastor sees as the sins of a nation. He is entitled to his opinions just like everyone else.

Basically the list appears to be way more like a obiter dictum than a prayer...in my humble opinion.

Oh...

The second item was really interesting: "We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism." In other words, if other people don't worship the same god (or in the same manner) as does the pastor then all others are lesser persons in their spiritual beliefs and practices than he is? So should his congregation also be as condemning for "WE" having a different belief? :shrug:

I wished your pastor had been much more specific in describing who WE is - especially with regard to this particular item. And also maybe he could have been way more specific about what other gods he was referring to. That way the guilt parties would know who he was referring to...and a hint as to why...based on the name of a particular other god.

I mean is "other gods" like movie stars, politicians...etc.?

By the way, I don't support "multiculturalism". But I don't necessarily equate that to simply mean worshipping other gods.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Ironically, it's just the same sort of religiosity that Jesus criticized the pharisees for.

 

[AlbqOwl]

AO...

Remove the word, "WE" and replace it with "I", then I might consider it to be a prayer of confession.

To me it's nothing more than set of opinions based on his social observations that's been crafted into a metaphorical lists of what the pastor sees as the sins of a nation. He is entitled to his opinions just like everyone else.

Basically the list appears to be way more like a obiter dictum than a prayer...in my humble opinion.

Oh...

The second item was really interesting: "We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism." In other words, if other people don't worship the same god (or in the same manner) as does the pastor then all others are lesser persons in their spiritual beliefs and practices than he is? So should his congregation also be as condemning for "WE" having a different belief? :shrug:

I wished your pastor had been much more specific in describing who WE is - especially with regard to this particular item. And also maybe he could have been way more specific about what other gods he was referring to. That way the guilt parties would know who he was referring to...and a hint as to why...based on the name of a particular other god.

I mean is "other gods" like movie stars, politicians...etc.?

By the way, I don't support "multiculturalism". But I don't necessarily equate that to simply mean worshipping other gods.

"I" would be entirely inappropriate in a corporate prayer. He didn't say multiculturalism simply means worshipping other gods or that is the definition of multiculturalism. I'm pretty sure he was referring to a form of idolatry justified by calling it multiculturalism.

 

[RAMOSS]

Read his quote regarding "multiculturalism". When he uses that word in there it makes it very clear that he's talking about religions that are prominent in other cultures IE: non-judeo-christian god. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with "worshipping money" or whatever else you're trying to insinuate he meant.

With his comments about Jesus at the end, it looks to me like he is talking about any non-Christian religion.. because I get the feeling he is excluding Jews and Muslims.

 

[AlbqOwl]

With his comments about Jesus at the end, it looks to me like he is talking about any non-Christian religion.. because I get the feeling he is excluding Jews and Muslims.

He didn't comment about Jesus. He closed the prayer with a Christian 'benediction' of sorts as most Christians do. He was not denying he was a Christian or what God he was directing that prayer to, but it was not a dismissal of people of other faiths.

 

[RAMOSS]

He didn't comment about Jesus. He closed the prayer with a Christian 'benediction' of sorts as most Christians do. He was not denying he was a Christian or what God he was directing that prayer to, but it was not a dismissal of people of other faiths.

He invoked Jesus. To someone who is not Christian, that is enough, particularly after the tone of the rest of the commentary. You are on the inside looking out, but that is not how it looks like to the outside looking in.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Sure he did because most Christians know that Jesus was God and it was, after all, a prayer of confession to God. To pray in Jesus name is to recognize Jesus as the Christ, Messiah, son of God, and God himself. Many things are not as they seem to many, but that does not change what they actually are.

 

[Sherman123]

Ironically, it's just the same sort of religiosity that Jesus criticized the pharisees for.

In a lot of ways I think the Pharisees were right.

 

[CrabCake]

As I said, I strongly dislike chopped up posts like that. And you did it again. I am willing to discuss any reasonable topic with you, but not like that. Thanks for understanding.

You don't get to dictate the syntax and structure of the posts other participants in the debate make. It would be a very difficult atmosphere if we all had to memorize the specific post structure requests each person on this forum makes before we responded. You can ignore my posts if that seems a reasonable approach to you. But my responses will remain un-rebutted.

I prefer to break every point in a person's post down so I can address it individually to prevent a mountain of garbage from looking like a legitimate argument. Anyone can spout off a mountain of nonsense and win by sheer volume. But if you break down each claim in the mountain and realize that every single one of them was wrong...well, it's not a formidable mountain anymore is it? It is instead, a pile of dung.

The fact remains, I have shown (and it remains unrebutted) that:

1. You came up with the idea of debating what the core message of Jonah was. Which seems to be nothing but a ruse since no one else is interested in that or has brought it up.
2. The bible does not show Jesus speaking to a multitude in the sermon on the mount, but rather going up a mountain to get away from them and then speaking to his disciples on the mountaintop.
3. The sermon on the mount was not a hard, politically incorrect message.
4. Ergo...The argument that Jesus proved on the sermon on the mount that a hard, politically incorrect sermon given to a wide audience is a good idea, fails on both counts (he neither gave such a sermon, nor was the sermon he did give given to a wide audience).

We can add a number 5 to that which wasn't included in the previous exchange but is a logical followup to it:
5. Even if you were to prove that Jesus gave such a sermon and supported such sermons, doesn't that only apply to sermons? This was supposed to be a prayer, not a sermon. The guy was invited to open the session up with a prayer, not to preach a sermon. My whole argument was that this guy gave a sermon he wasn't invited to give. So, even if you were right about the sermon on the mount, it would still prove my point, not yours. When invited to give a prayer to open the session, this pastor took that opportunity to give a sermon that was disguised as a prayer instead.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You don't get to dictate the syntax and structure of the posts other participants in the debate make. It would be a very difficult atmosphere if we all had to memorize the specific post structure requests each person on this forum makes before we responded. You can ignore my posts if that seems a reasonable approach to you. But my responses will remain un-rebutted.

I prefer to break every point in a person's post down so I can address it individually to prevent a mountain of garbage from looking like a legitimate argument. Anyone can spout off a mountain of nonsense and win by sheer volume. But if you break down each claim in the mountain and realize that every single one of them was wrong...well, it's not a formidable mountain anymore is it? It is instead, a pile of dung.

The fact remains, I have shown (and it remains unrebutted) that:

1. You came up with the idea of debating what the core message of Jonah was. Which seems to be nothing but a ruse since no one else is interested in that or has brought it up.
2. The bible does not show Jesus speaking to a multitude in the sermon on the mount, but rather going up a mountain to get away from them and then speaking to his disciples on the mountaintop.
3. The sermon on the mount was not a hard, politically incorrect message.
4. Ergo...The argument that Jesus proved on the sermon on the mount that a hard, politically incorrect sermon given to a wide audience is a good idea, fails on both counts (he neither gave such a sermon, nor was the sermon he did give given to a wide audience).

We can add a number 5 to that which wasn't included in the previous exchange but is a logical followup to it:
5. Even if you were to prove that Jesus gave such a sermon and supported such sermons, doesn't that only apply to sermons? This was supposed to be a prayer, not a sermon. The guy was invited to open the session up with a prayer, not to preach a sermon. My whole argument was that this guy gave a sermon he wasn't invited to give. So, even if you were right about the sermon on the mount, it would still prove my point, not yours. When invited to give a prayer to open the session, this pastor took that opportunity to give a sermon that was disguised as a prayer instead.

I haven't dictated to anybody how they should structure their posts. I have only advised what I prefer if they are going to have a discussion with me. And I do have every right not to respond to any post I choose not to respond to, yes? So I prefer not to respond to people who chop up their posts, most especially when that destroys the context of the argument made.

And nobody requires you to like or appreciate the prayer Pastor Wright gave, but it was NOT a sermon. It was a prayer of confession, and in that context many would say quite appropriate. Who has the right to dictate what a prayer can and cannot include when they ask a person of faith to give the prayer?

 

[nota bene]

I haven't dictated to anybody how they should structure their posts. I have only advised what I prefer if they are going to have a discussion with me. And I do have every right not to respond to any post I choose not to respond to, yes? So I prefer not to respond to people who chop up their posts, most especially when that destroys the context of the argument made.

And nobody requires you to like or appreciate the prayer Pastor Wright gave, but it was NOT a sermon. It was a prayer of confession, and in that context many would say quite appropriate. Who has the right to dictate what a prayer can and cannot include when they ask a person of faith to give the prayer?

That's a good question.

I'm glad you posted the prayer; it caused me to think and reflect, so thank you. And I wanted to repeat what Risky said earlier: "I also believe that it is a huge mistake to refuse to consider the message of prayers outside of one's faith. Truth doesn't care who tells it."

 

[humbolt]

That's a good question.

I'm glad you posted the prayer; it caused me to think and reflect, so thank you. And I wanted to repeat what Risky said earlier: "I also believe that it is a huge mistake to refuse to consider the message of prayers outside of one's faith. Truth doesn't care who tells it."

I don't think it's possible for a Christian to pray in a manner other than Christian anymore than it's possible a Hindu would pray in a non-Hindu manner. That reality doesn't exclude the possibility that much of the content of such prayers might be the same for both the Hindu and the Christian. I also believe that his reference to gods, with a small "g", refers to who or what many worship - perhaps in spite of personal protestation. Such things are evident in the examined life.

 

[CrabCake]

And nobody requires you to like or appreciate the prayer Pastor Wright gave, but it was NOT a sermon.

It is quite clear, at least to the rest of us, who the audience of his prayer was. It wasn't God. The fact it's been passed around to the point where you brought it to this forum proves what it is.

Who has the right to dictate what a prayer can and cannot include when they ask a person of faith to give the prayer?

The people who invited you to do so. He was invited to open the session with prayer. It should not have been a prayer of confession, it should have been an invocation.

Even if we buy into your claim that it was a heartfelt prayer of confession, which seems clear to the rest of us that it was not, it is still the wrong prayer. He was invited to give an invocation.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I don't think it's possible for a Christian to pray in a manner other than Christian anymore than it's possible a Hindu would pray in a non-Hindu manner. That reality doesn't exclude the possibility that much of the content of such prayers might be the same for both the Hindu and the Christian. I also believe that his reference to gods, with a small "g", refers to who or what many worship - perhaps in spite of personal protestation. Such things are evident in the examined life.

Right. Idolatry in the Christian faith is not necessarily the worship of somebody else's named diety, but is rather more often whatever somebody replaces or makes more important than the God Christians pray to.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It is quite clear, at least to the rest of us, who the audience of his prayer was. It wasn't God. The fact it's been passed around to the point where you brought it to this forum proves what it is.



The people who invited you to do so. He was invited to open the session with prayer. It should not have been a prayer of confession, it should have been an invocation.

Even if we buy into your claim that it was a heartfelt prayer of confession, which seems clear to the rest of us that it was not, it is still the wrong prayer. He was invited to give an invocation.

Again who has the authority to say what is and is not a 'wrong prayer?'

Do you know what the definition of 'invocation' is? It is the concept of invoking someone for assistance or help, usually someone in authority. It is the act of petitioning somebody who supports your ideas, and/or a prayer for guidance and blessing at the beginning of a ceremonial occasion or some such as that. Pastor Wright's prayer was all that. A prayer is not a prayer if the intention is to be politically correct. A prayer is not really a prayer unless it comes from the heart and is an honest petition or praise of God directed to God even though it is intended to speak for all present.