A warning about Pentecostalism

[zooterkin]

I repeat, since you clearly consider other religions to be at least as bad as pentecostalism,

You must be reading different posts from me, I don't see him saying that.

are you going to change the thread title?

Why would he do that? He didn't start the thread, for a start.

 

[ahhell]

An unelected person in government.

I repeat, since you clearly consider other religions to be at least as bad as pentecostalism, are you going to change the thread title?

ETA - Sudden thought - the obvious group of people who consider thamselves to be the ones in charge are those who read PPE in university and enter politics with the express intention of governing. The religion of PPE is strong.

I'm sorry but what's wrong with personal protective equipment?

The real reason even the US doesn't have to worry about these folks is that even among them selves they don't agree on what their theocracy would look like. As soon as they try to actually implement their ideas, they'll get voted out.

ETA: There is truth in the notion that really we just need to worry about the folks that really want to be in charge regardless of their religion.

ETA: Pentacostals are the only protestants that seem to believe in some form of Dominionism nor the only ones that believe some form of prosperity gospel.

 

[theprestige]

I think the concern being implied here is that a Pentecostal might abuse the power of their high office to cause harm for superstitious reasons.

Kind of pointless to vote the prime minister out of office *after* she's sold the state secrets to China because God promised her it was all part of his plan to bless the country. Or whatever harm it is that the Australian executive can do, bypassing the checks and balancces "for the greater good."

Interestingly, while history abounds with people betraying their community out of a secret loyalty to some higher power or principle, I don't think any of the historical examples are notably Pentecostal. Ed Snowden isn't Pentecostal, as far as I know. Neither is Bradley Manning. Neither was Ronald Reagan, nor is Ollie North. Nor Kim Philby. Nor Margaret Thatcher. Nor Donald Trump.

Closer to home, Paul Keating seems to be greatly disliked. I don't know what he did to piss off so many Australians, but I'm sure many of them are convinced he betrayed his society in some way. Was he motivated by the higher morality of Pentecostalism and a direct "break a few eggs to make this omelette" commandment from his personal Pentecostal deity? Or was his higher morality of some other form?

 

[psionl0]

When you say "more insidious that other religions", do you mean 'all other religions" or "some other religions"?

You would have to ask the person I quoted (unless I summarized their POV incorrectly).

Why are you bringing climate change denial and eugenics into this discussion about religion? Are they associated with Pentecostalism?

I seriously doubt that they have anything to do with Pentecostalism. They are views that may be held because of some religions though.

If you want a more direct example, some extreme forms of Islamism ("Sharia Law", "Jihad" etc) seem a lot worse than Pentecostalism.

 

[Lplus]

You must be reading different posts from me, I don't see him saying that.

moved onto Calvinism (the worst) and Mother Theresa

Why would he do that? He didn't start the thread, for a start.

Because the thread drifted straight off towards other denominations of the Christian Church and hadn't even touched on other religions which are at least as oriented to governance by the clergy.

ETA ok, it got back to Pentecostalism, and someone mentioned Islam, but either the thread sticks to Pentecostalism or it widens to consider every religions' desire to govern from on high.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove Forum Management content / rule 12.

 

[jimbob]

I think the concern being implied here is that a Pentecostal might abuse the power of their high office to cause harm for superstitious reasons.

Kind of pointless to vote the prime minister out of office *after* she's sold the state secrets to China because God promised her it was all part of his plan to bless the country. Or whatever harm it is that the Australian executive can do, bypassing the checks and balancces "for the greater good."

Interestingly, while history abounds with people betraying their community out of a secret loyalty to some higher power or principle, I don't think any of the historical examples are notably Pentecostal. Ed Snowden isn't Pentecostal, as far as I know. Neither is Bradley Manning. Neither was Ronald Reagan, nor is Ollie North. Nor Kim Philby. Nor Margaret Thatcher. Nor Donald Trump.

Closer to home, Paul Keating seems to be greatly disliked. I don't know what he did to piss off so many Australians, but I'm sure many of them are convinced he betrayed his society in some way. Was he motivated by the higher morality of Pentecostalism and a direct "break a few eggs to make this omelette" commandment from his personal Pentecostal deity? Or was his higher morality of some other form?

I read it differently. That is only an extreme version. There's a different one, where, due to the doctrines of the faith, a politician who's elected from such a group is utterly uninterested in particular areas of public policy because it conflicts with their interpretation of God's plan.

 

[zooterkin]

You would have to ask the person I quoted (unless I summarized their POV incorrectly).

I'm asking you because it's your words I'm asking about, not arth's. Which did you mean?

I ask because the post you quoted just seems to be saying that Pentecostalism is a problem, not a worse problem than any other particular religion, and I'm trying to see if what your point is, or whether you have misunderstood or misrepresented what arthwollipot is saying.

 

[theprestige]

moved onto Calvinism (the worst) and Mother Theresa



Because the thread drifted straight off towards other denominations of the Christian Church and hadn't even touched on other religions which are at least as oriented to governance by the clergy.

ETA ok, it got back to Pentecostalism, and someone mentioned Islam, but either the thread sticks to Pentecostalism or it widens to consider every religions' desire to govern from on high.

And Darat can do anything. : p

Doesn't Islam have "subterfuge in Allah's service" as an explicit principle of the faith? If we're worried about Pentecostals, we should probably be worried about Ilhan Omar. And communists.

One of these days a closet anarchist is going to worm their way into high political office and break something really important. For all we know, it's Mayor Pete, and all these train derailments are part of his master plan to bring down the nation's transportation system, and the nation along with it.

I kid, I kid.

But if the premise is that Pentecostalism should be singled out for special concern, then I think it behooves us to compare it to other ideologies and superstitions and loyalties to a higher principle, that politicians might be smuggling into high office.

ETA: I mean, why are we being warned about Pentecostalism? And why are we being warned now? We've already been warned about Communism and Catholicism and Mormonism. Is Pentecostalism really that much more insidious?

ETAA: At least with Dominionism, we're getting the elected official's own sense of right and wrong, of what is moral and what isn't. We're getting the decision-maker we voted for. Mitt Romney and JFK have to go to their elders and priests for instruction. Ilhan Omar must seek guidance from an imam. Unelected persons who might have a worryingly outsized influence on our elected government.

 

[zooterkin]

moved onto Calvinism (the worst) and Mother Theresa



Because the thread drifted straight off towards other denominations of the Christian Church and hadn't even touched on other religions which are at least as oriented to governance by the clergy.

ETA ok, it got back to Pentecostalism, and someone mentioned Islam, but either the thread sticks to Pentecostalism or it widens to consider every religions' desire to govern from on high.

It hasn't 'moved on', people have given examples of how particular beliefs, which might be more well-known than Pentecostal ones, might be at odds with what most people would consider desirable outcomes if a believer were in a position of power.

 

[theprestige]

I read it differently. That is only an extreme version. There's a different one, where, due to the doctrines of the faith, a politician who's elected from such a group is utterly uninterested in particular areas of public policy because it conflicts with their interpretation of God's plan.

On re-read, I think you're right.

Which makes the whole thing much more banal, and not worth warning about. You know the guy's value system and his politics, and you either vote for him or you don't. You're not going to be surprised when his crypto-Dominionism results in a lack of policy efforts in certain areas.

Every ideology has its superstitions and priorities and blind spots. This is no different from Communists having it in for the bourgeoisie, or socialists having it in for private industry. Look out! AOC sides with Palestine! Bet you didn't see that coming!

 

[Wildy]

ETA: I mean, why are we being warned about Pentecostalism? And why are we being warned now? We've already been warned about Communism and Catholicism and Mormonism. Is Pentecostalism really that much more insidious?

It's not so much that we're being warned now, this is just an offshoot of a discussion in the Australian politics threads that has reignited after former PM Scott Morrison released a biography. In terms of Australian politics he was probably the most religious PM in living memory, if not ever, and people were discussing whether his actions while in office were influenced by his religious beliefs. And also how those beliefs could influence future actions were he to win re-election.

This thread is just a continuation of an argument between Arthwollipot, whose position is well described in this thread, and psionl0. The reason why psionl0's position on this issue isn't brought up is because apparently the man who believes that he got a religious vision fortelling his success and spoke about laying hands and praying over people when he could be bothered visiting disaster sites was in no way influenced by his Pentecostal beliefs and is instead just a generic Liberal Party member.

 

[sphenisc]

Quakers?

Yeah, you can accuse them...what are they gonna do about it?

 

[Darat]

Yeah, you can accuse them...what are they gonna do about it?

Tut. But very loud tuts!

 

[Foster Zygote]

The following is reproduced from the Australian Politics thread.

Basically, the argument is that Pentecostalism is more insidious than other forms of religion (especially in politics) because it embraces the idea of "Dominionism".

Discuss.

Nowhere in the quoted text do I see anything justifying your weighted summary of arthwollipot's position.

 

[theprestige]

It's not so much that we're being warned now, this is just an offshoot of a discussion in the Australian politics threads that has reignited after former PM Scott Morrison released a biography. In terms of Australian politics he was probably the most religious PM in living memory, if not ever, and people were discussing whether his actions while in office were influenced by his religious beliefs. And also how those beliefs could influence future actions were he to win re-election.

This thread is just a continuation of an argument between Arthwollipot, whose position is well described in this thread, and psionl0.

Thanks, I see it now.

The reason why psionl0's position on this issue isn't brought up is because apparently the man who believes that he got a religious vision fortelling his success and spoke about laying hands and praying over people when he could be bothered visiting disaster sites was in no way influenced by his Pentecostal beliefs and is instead just a generic Liberal Party member.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Lplus]

Yeah, you can accuse them...what are they gonna do about it?

Quake, of course. Visibly if possible.

 

[dudalb]

Thanks, I see it now.


I don't know what this means.

For one thing the Liberal Party in Oz would be cosidered right wing in the US....

 

[dudalb]

I'm sorry but what's wrong with personal protective equipment?

The real reason even the US doesn't have to worry about these folks is that even among them selves they don't agree on what their theocracy would look like. As soon as they try to actually implement their ideas, they'll get voted out.

ETA: There is truth in the notion that really we just need to worry about the folks that really want to be in charge regardless of their religion.

ETA: Pentacostals are the only protestants that seem to believe in some form of Dominionism nor the only ones that believe some form of prosperity gospel.

Actually a great many Calvinist are into Dominionsim, and Calvinists don't have a high opinion of Pentecostal beliefs.

 

[dudalb]

I think that there are far worse ideas than "Dominionism" or "Prosperity Theology". For example, climate change denial or that we should not allow "inferior" races to breed.

As far as politicians go, one thing they believe in above all else is votes.

If you knew what Dominionism was you would not say that.

 

[ahhell]

Actually a great many Calvinist are into Dominionsim, and Calvinists don't have a high opinion of Pentecostal beliefs.

Sorry, typo, should have been "Aren't" not "Are".

ETA: Pentacostals are not the only protestants that seem to believe in some form of Dominionism nor the only ones that believe some form of prosperity gospel.

Frankly, I'm mostly skeptical of the scare mongering about dominionism. Its one of those labels coined and used by folks that don't actually ascribe to it. As far as I know, there's not a single person out there that calls themselves a dominionist or says they believe in Christian dominionism.

That being said there some folks out there that thing the law should be based on christian theology.