From last week's Economist:
It is hard to imagine a prime minister doing such a thing now, and even then it seemed rather surprising. In May 1988 Margaret Thatcher went to the General Assembly of the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland and gave what would soon be called the Sermon on the Mound. It was an impassioned statement of a certain form of Christianity. The Conservative leader stressed individual salvation over social reform, the legitimacy of moneymaking when combined with altruism, and the “responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ”.
In religion, as in so much else, Mrs (later Lady) Thatcher was a bundle of paradoxes. She was the last British prime minister openly and emphatically to acknowledge the influence of Christianity on her thinking, in particular terms not fuzzy ones. Her fellow Tories, John Major and David Cameron, have presented themselves as loyal but lukewarm Anglicans. “I don’t pretend to understand all the complex parts of Christian theology,” Mr (later Sir John) Major once said, reassuringly. As for Labour’s leaders, Gordon Brown inherited the ethos but not the zeal of his father, a Presbyterian minister. Tony Blair is passionately religious but was famously discouraged by his advisers from “doing God” in public because of the fear that he might sound nutty.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21576092-christian-political-tradition-died-margaret-thatcher-high-office-low-church
~The Conservative leader stressed individual salvation over social reform, the legitimacy of moneymaking when combined with altruism, and the “responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ”~
Is this a political interpretation of Christian teaching that could unite Christians living in secular states?
Tsk, tsk, a conservative and a Christian. You must have really hated her FMF. 😛
I think that we are all after the same things, namely, justice. However, what accounts as justice and how to go about it certainly depends upon ones worldview.
One thing that I've noticed is that atheists/agnostic typically lean left and those of faith to the right. I think that we all innately seek a "good shepherd". Those of faith already have one in their God, but those of faith, not so much. So those who do not believe in a God naturally seek to find a "good shepherd", and the only game in town is some dope who claims to care about them and solve all their problems for them. Usually they don't even allow them to die as they are embalmed like some half living diety like Lenin or Mao.
So depending upon your worldview, where does "salvation" come from? Does it come from God or man? If it comes from man, then you inherently seek after anyone who proports to be able to deliver it to you and the rest of the world. Of course, they always fall short, don't they FMF? Then we go back to the drawing board to understand why they failed and we are left with how someone else will reinvent the wheel.
Make no mistake, collectivists are the very people who offer us some form of societal salvation with the added premise that their poo does not stink like everyone elses. In ancient times, the collectivist tried to convince us that they were god. Then when that began to get harder and harder to sell to the masses, they proported to speak for God. Then when that became harder and harder to sell to the public, they told us that there was no God, thus elevating their own power above any possible Diety. In the process, they convince us that their intellect is far superior to our own, thus they are then able to not only live their lives, but also direct ours as well better than we can do it ourselves.
Originally posted by whodeyThe question is: Is the interpretation of Christian teaching attributed to Thatcher - bold letters, near the end of the OP - one that could unite Christians living in secular states?
Tsk, tsk, a conservative and a Christian. You must have really hated her FMF. 😛
I think that we are all after the same things, namely, justice. However, what accounts as justice and how to go about it certainly depends upon ones worldview.
One thing that I've noticed is that atheists/agnostic typically lean left and those of faith to the right. I t ...[text shortened]... only live their lives, but also direct ours as well better than we can do it ourselves.
Originally posted by FMFI don't know that it would unite them. Jesus is the only possible way to unite them. If not, then they are not Christians.
The question is: Is the interpretation of Christian teaching attributed to Thatcher - bold letters, near the end of the OP - one that could unite Christians living in secular states?
I think it fair to say that if Christians did as they know Chist would have them do, then looking after those in need would not require the boot of the state at the necks of its citizens. Looking at charities around the world, the vast majority are faith based. Of course, even atheists must fight with their inner conscience, so some also give their time and money to the poor as well. However, a vast majority of atheists would rather the state step in as the middle man, mismanage their funds, and then distribute the money to those in need by force in order to help appease their inner conscience.
Originally posted by whodeyThe OP isn't about atheists. How about the power of the succinct statement of Thatcher's outlook - of how her faith underpins her politics - to unite Christians living in secular states [aside from having their belief in Jesus in common]? Can you sign on to Thatcher's outlook? Do you think all Christians should be able to agree with her outlook as stated in the OP?
However, a vast majority of atheists would rather the state step in as the middle man, mismanage their funds, and then distribute the money to those in need by force in order to help appease their inner conscience.
Originally posted by FMFThe fact of the matter is that Thatcher towards the end of her reign
The OP isn't about atheists. How about the power of Thatcher's succinct statement - of how her faith underpins her politics - to unite Christians living in secular states [aside from having their belief in Jesus in common]? Can you sign on to Thatcher's words? Do you think all Christians should be able to agree with her words [in the OP]?
as Conservative Party Leader and Prime Minister suffered from
delusions of Grandeur. She thought that all she did was right and
as she said herself, the lady is not for turning.
Her inflexibility became her vulnerability. It was eventually used
successfully against her in a heave and she was ousted. It came as
a huge shock to her that she was rejected and it was made even worse
by the fact that it was her own that did her in. When Geoffrey Howe
resigned that started the ball rolling and she should have seen the
writing on the wall. But she was so wrapped up in her own self
importance that she could not see the danger.
It was timely that she was toppled when she was because she thought
she was such a force for good she didn't realize how bad she was.
She even referred to herself as we, just like the Queen would do so.
As for religion? That was no different. It was a wonder she didn't
look for the Pope's job never mind being British Prime Minister.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyFrom your knowledge of Christians living their lives in a secular state, do you think [1] individual salvation over social reform, [2] the legitimacy of moneymaking when combined with altruism, and [3] "the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ" could be something that pretty much all could sign on to?
The fact of the matter is that Thatcher towards the end of her reign
as Conservative Party Leader and Prime Minister suffered from
delusions of Grandeur. She thought that all she did was right and
as she said herself, the lady is not for turning.
Her inflexibility became her vulnerability. It was eventually used
successfully against her in ...[text shortened]... It was a wonder she didn't
look for the Pope's job never mind being British Prime Minister.
Originally posted by FMFI was raised in dreary old Dublin town as a Roman Catholic.
From your knowledge of Christians living their lives in a secular state, do you think [1] individual salvation over social reform, [2] the legitimacy of moneymaking when combined with altruism, and [3] "the responsibility that comes with freedom and the supreme sacrifice of Christ" could be something that pretty much all could sign on to?
I was never really a good Catholic. I stopped going to mass
years ago due to the corruption of the Catholic church and all
the abuses and atrocities that it is responsible for and still
will not accept accountability for.
As regards Christianity? That is a wider subject and as far as I know,
to be a good Christian you must follow the rules laid down by Christ.
Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself.
According to Jesus these are the two most important commandments.
Live by those two rules and do good works and salvation is allegedly
assured for you.
But I don't know, I am not a very religious man.
I don't believe that money has anything to do with it.
Some want to make out that Jesus was a communist.
Give all you have to the poor. Share the wealth.
What is important is to help each other.
Maybe he's right. I don't know.
I hear that Robbie has elevated you to LEGENDARY status.
Congratulations.
Originally posted by divegeesterFrom uncyclopedia: "They are inhabited by some legendary trolls, such as FMF a Brit living in Indonesia for reasons we'd rather not inquire into".
robbie carrobie is only good at elevating himself, FMF's credential as a legendary troll originate from here: http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Red_Hot_Pawn
Seitse used to accuse me of being a pedophile over and over and over again because he got all bent out of shape in some nondescript exchange with me on the Culture forum. He posted links to stories about child rapist Gary Glitter, and kept calling me Gary etc. before abruptly disappearing. Perhaps he wrote the entry at en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki.
Another poster who regularly attempts to insult me with references to bestiality and homosexuality because he disagrees with my opinions is joe beyser. robbie carrobie once joined in with one of joe beyser's running jokes about a me having sex with a gorilla. So, who knows? Doesn't his clan get a mention? Maybe robbie wrote the entry at en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki. Wouldn't put it past him, especially as he has mentioned the 'legendary troll' thing time and time and time again, sometimes in several posts in succession.
Originally posted by FMFI've been away for a week and I notice robbie isn't posting here at the moment, has he decided to leave the "forum dogs" to it again?
From uncyclopedia: [b]"They are inhabited by some legendary trolls, such as FMF a Brit living in Indonesia for reasons we'd rather not inquire into".
Seitse used to accuse me of being a pedophile over and over and over again because he got all bent out of shape in some nondescript exchange with me on the Culture forum. He posted links to stories about chi ary troll' thing time and time and time again, sometimes in several posts in succession.[/b]
Here is a very interesting discussion, lasting about 14 minutes, from a recent edition of Everyday Ethics ["Provocative weekly debate with William Crawley on moral, religious and ethical issues"] on BBC Radio Ulster, about Margaret Thatcher's faith and her political convictions. Well worth listening to.
mp3 [7MB] very user friendly download...
http://en.packupload.com/RVGPTRXFMDJ
Two guests: Phillip Blond, a British political thinker, Anglican theologian and director of the centre right think-tank ResPublica. And John Milbank, a Christian theologian and the Professor of Religion, Politics and Ethics at the University of Nottingham, where he also directs the Centre of Theology and Philosophy.
The programme's web page: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007cphf