Theme Song for Religious Fanatics (Banal Na Aso, Santong Kabayo)

[Acts23]

---

So, Religious Fanatics are not really Hypocrites?

So, who are the Religious Fanatics BTW?

Are you saying you are a Religious Fanatic but not Hypocrite?

Ask your angel...or maybe go into meditation...

bye for now reg...

[regnauld]

Ask your angel...or maybe go into meditation...

bye for now reg...

I see. So, how's your prayer and worship? Mag meditate basad ang BORN AGAIN or mag sige lang ug PRAISE THE LORD?

PAX amigo!

[handsoff241]

Reg, pan-os na man ni. I love the song, but im not a fan of serving rotten foods.

hi hi hi hiiii

[regnauld]

Reg, pan-os na man ni. I love the song, but im not a fan of serving rotten foods.

hi hi hi hiiii

Yes this is just to remind the Religious Fanatics and Self Righteous esp. ayaw nalang!

[pigrah]

I think the newbie is right mr Reg, focus on the idea of ur thread.

Its much fun to read ur discussions that way.
lemme run to the groceries first for some snacks

[regnauld]

I think the newbie is right mr Reg, focus on the idea of ur thread.

Its much fun to read ur discussions that way.
lemme run to the groceries first for some snacks

Ok let us focus on the thread and no more bible verses para walay masuko!

So, how do you interpret the song according to YANO? Is the song only applicable to Hypocrites and not to Bible Fanatics? What do you think my friend?

[pigrah]

Ok let us focus on the thread and no more bible verses para walay masuko!

So, how do you interpret the song according to YANO? Is the song only applicable to Hypocrites and not to Bible Fanatics? What do you think my friend?

hahaha sorry but im leaning towards the Newbie..
The song is telling a story about someone who's doing what a "normal" religious person should be doing(praying, preaching the word of God) but is behaving on the contrary.

The word fanatic is quite overrated.

[regnauld]

hahaha sorry but im leaning towards the Newbie..
The song is telling a story about someone who's doing what a "normal" religious person should be doing(praying, preaching the word of God) but is behaving on the contrary.

The word fanatic is quite overrated.

So, does that mean that a BIBLE FANATIC cannot be a HYPOCRITE?

Study LOGIC my friend!

[regnauld]

Possible Fanatic Scriptures


There are some who think that certain scriptures can influence fanatic and even violent behaviors. In Volume 3 of his book, The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, J. Harold Ellens indicates a few possibly fanatic stories in The Bible.

• Story of the blind born man: Ellens speaks in depth about the story of Jesus's miraculous healing of a blind man living on the city streets. The story goes as such: Christ was walking in the city when he saw a blind man. Jesus approaches the man, applies some clay to the man's eyes like a salve, and sends the man to bathe in the pool of Siloam. [6] The man emerges from the water and is able to see. Jesus, though, is nowhere to be found. Later, the Pharisees see that this man has been healed and try to interrogate him a total of four times, asking him who had healed him and where that person was, and asking him to admit that whoever healed him was a sinner for doing so on the Sabbath. [7] The now seeing man responds, saying, in essence, "Whether my healer is a sinner, I do not know. This one thing I do know, once I was blind, now I can see". [8] Most logical people think that anyone would consider it very kind to be healed of blindness; however Ellens finds fault in Christ in this story, saying:

It was abusive for Jesus to abandon the healed man to the assaults of the Pharisees, whose psychology was . . . taking the role of the scolding parents and putting the healed man down into the role of the naughty child. . . .The gamesmanship of the healed man does not obviate the fact that Jesus abused him, exploited him for his own purposes, abandoned him to significant persecution, and only thereafter, when all the damage was done, embraced him in a redemptive way. [9]

• Christ's cleansing of the temple: Ellens makes his case again in the story of Christ purging the temple during Holy Week, saying that during his cleansing, "Jesus had one of his fits of violence". [10] He says that Christ, in cleansing the temple, "chase[d] cattle, release[d] birds, overturn[ed] money tables, annoy[ed] legitimate assistants to the temple program, and attack[ed] the temple itself". [11] Ellens's explanation for this is:

[Christ] walked into the temple . . . trying to find a place of tranquility in which to pray and an audience with whom he could discuss the coming kingdom of God. All he could see was the hated priests in their formalistic rituals. All he could hear was the bawling of the cattle. All he could smell was the odors of the stable. . . .He cracked. He picked up a riding crop or bullwhip and . . . abuse[d] those most available, expending his long-anguished anger, his weariness with the spiritual mediocrity of human life. [12]

• Other possibly fanatic scriptures: Grant R. Shafer suggests that there are a number of teachings of Jesus that have a preoccupation with death and violence. He says, "The parable of the wicked husbandmen ends with the Lord of the vineyard killing them (Matt. 21:41; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). One version of the parable of the wedding feast includes the king sending his armies, killing those who murdered his servants, and burning their city (Matt. 22:6-7; Luke 14:16-24 omits these details). [13]

It should be known, though, that although Ellens's arguments are valid, there are many other interpretations of these stories that may be equally valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_fanaticism

[regnauld]

Ever since Christianity was brought to power, those in authority have sought to expand and control the church, often through the fanatical use of force. Grant Shafer says, "Jesus of Nazareth is best known as a preacher of nonviolence. Yet Christians, in persecutions of other religions, in wars about religion, and in wars of conquest, have perhaps been more violent than members of any other religion except Islam". [14] The start of Christian fanatic rule came with the Roman Emperor Constantine I. Ellens says, "When Christianity came to power in the empire of Constantine, it proceeded almost to viciously repress all non-Christians and all Christians who did not line up with official Orthodox ideology, policy, and practice". [15] An example of Christians who didn't line up with Orthodox ideology is the Donatists, who "refused to accept repentant clergy who had formerly given way to apostasy when persecuted". [16] Fanatic Christian activity continued into the Middle Ages with the Crusades. These wars were attempts by the Christians, sanctioned by the Pope, to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Charles Selengut, in his book Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence, said:

The Crusades . . . were very much holy wars waged to maintain Christianity's theological and social control . . . . On their way to conquering the Holy Land from the Muslims by force of arms, the crusaders destroyed dozens of Jewish communities and killed thousands because the Jews would not accept the Christian faith. Jews had to be killed in the religious campaign because their very existence challenged the sole truth espoused by the Christian Church. [17]

Shafer adds that, "When the crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they killed Muslims, Jews, and native Christians indiscriminately". [18] Another prominent form of fanaticism came a few centuries later with the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisition was the monarchy's way of making sure their people stayed within Catholic Christianity. Selengut said, "The inquisitions were attempts at self-protection and targeted primarily "internal enemies" of the church". [19] The driving force of the Inquisition was the Inquisitors, who were responsible for spreading the truth of Christianity. Selengut continues, saying:

The inquisitors generally saw themselves as educators helping people maintain correct beliefs by pointing out errors in knowledge and judgment. . . .Punishment and death came only to those who refused to admit their errors. . . .during the Spanish Inquisitions of the fifteenth century, the clear distinction between confession and innocence and remaining in error became muddled. . . .The investigators had to invent all sorts of techniques, including torture, to ascertain whether . . . new converts' beliefs were genuine. [20]

In addition, John Edwards, in a review of an article called "Was the Spanish Inquisition Truthful?" says, "Ferdinand and Isabella's Inquisition . . . repressed . . . the natural yearnings of . . . Jews who had converted to Christianity . . . after the attacks mounted against numerous Jewish communities in the early summer of 1391." [21]
During the 19th century, most Christian nations have adopted the principle of separation between church and state. Religious fanaticism is since an internal problem of the Christian churches or merely a personal (psychological) problem. However, this is not so in most modern Muslim countries (except, for example, Turkey under Ataturk.)


That is Fanaticism and Hypocrisy 101!