Time for Gus to drink the Red Ned served at Communion or sing “god is my way” with Brian Houston’s deluded multitudes?

As usual the ABC "Religion and ethic" department publishes more crap from the believers who are picky about some "mistaken" interpretation of their precious pentecostalism… Long live The Monthly! Amen… 

Here Stephen Fogarty and Mark Jennings go on and on and on and on about it. First Stephen Fogarty :

In the February issue of The Monthly, popular writer and historian James Boyce trains his critical gaze on the Prime Minister, is an essay entitled "The Devil and Scott Morrison." In a manner reminiscent of Marion Maddox's God Under Howard, Boyce's attempt at an exposé concludes that Morrison belongs to a potentially dangerous, manipulative, heretical, demon-obsessed and essentially cultish sect, and that he is obligated to deliver a confession of faith to the Parliament and the Australian people, who must pronounce judgment on his political soul.

...

 

Australia's Constitution does not say much about religion. Section 116 makes clear, however, that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." But this is exactly what James Boyce and The Monthly are demanding: to determine whether Scott Morrison is fit to be Prime Minister on the basis of his religious beliefs. There is something profoundly intolerant about such a demand, and it undermines the principle of secular governance that has been central to Australia's flourishing.

Professor Stephen Fogarty is the President of Alphacrucis College.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/pentecostal-pm-scott-morrison-in-the-hands-of-angry-secularists/10855540

————————————————


And now a high jump from Mark Jennings:

The rise and rise of Australia’s first Pentecostal Prime Minister Scott Morrison sparked a rush of reporting and stories on Pentecostalism as journalists attempt to catch up. Some of the coverage has been excellent, such as Anabelle Crabb’s analysis for the ABC. Some has not been that useful, like Kara Schlegl’s piece in the normally excellent Crikey, which is light on facts and insight.

So it is troubling when experts let the media down, leading to strawmen and distorted pictures. One recent example of this is a report on the ABC’s The Signal, which quotes Deakin University academic Andrew Singleton’s claim that Pentecostalism “sprung up” in the 1920s. This is an egregious factual error. In fact, the first documented Pentecostal congregation in Australia, Good News Hall, began in Melbourne in 1908, and there is evidence of an Aboriginal Pentecostal church in Innisfail, Queensland, even earlier. The antecedents of Australian Pentecostalism, Edward Irving’s Catholic Apostolic Church, were in Australia as early as the 1850s.

The “prosperity” red herring

By way of conclusion, Almond asserts that it would be difficult for Pentecostals to hold to the “Biblical teaching” that homosexuals are bound for hell. The question of whether such a statement is in fact biblical has exercised many Pentecostals recently, as I have documented in my own research. Indeed, one Pentecostal pastor I interviewed asserted that sexuality is not a “salvation issue,” meaning one’s LGBTQ status has no bearing on whether one is bound for hell. This was a common view among other pastors with whom I spoke. Such nuance is absent from Almond’s generalisation, which distorts the complex reality that many Pentecostals are currently wrestling with the issue of LGBTQ inclusion.

The “happy-clappy” strawman

As Stephen Fogarty has pointed out, Boyce has simply provided little more than a caricature, when what is urgently require is a clear picture of the actual shape of Australian Pentecostalism and how this will be likely to effect Morrison’s policies and government. Boyce is right, of course — the Australian public does have “a long-standing democratic right to be informed.” But that’s what makes it so unfortunate that this caricature does more to conceal the actual issues than reveal them.

What lies beneath

It is, in fact, this acute awareness of personal guilt which makes Pentecostalism highly susceptible to the neoliberal project of responsibilisation — the process whereby responsibility is devolved from the state and laid upon the shoulders of individuals. Evidence of Scott Morrison’s commitment to responsibilisation can be seen in his rhetoric and policy, which is geared toward “those who have a go” getting “a go” — effectively excluding those so marginalised that they are not in a position to “have a go” in the first place, such as the homeless, asylum seekers and disabled people and their carers attempting to navigate the neoliberalised rolling out of the NDIS.

It is frustrating that Almond’s and Boyce’s extensive understanding of religious thought was not combined with a genuine knowledge of Australian Pentecostalism. Perhaps they too simply did not ask anyone who actually knows.

Mark Jennings is a Lecturer in Religious Studies at Murdoch University, Western Australia, and the author of Exaltation: Ecstatic Experience in Pentecostalism and Popular Music.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/academic-misrepresentation-of-australian-pentecostalism/11605668


—————————————————————



What other silly comment that Gus can say about all this vacuous writing than BUGGER ORF?… 

I did not read the precious contradictions in Boyce’s article that Pentecostals do not adhere to "detailed statements" of belief, but that "Scott Morrison’s Pentecostal church holds closely to a statement of belief — one that requires acceptance of personal devils and premillennialism". Is this a definition of silly CREATIONISM? Which is it, "detailed or not detailed" asks Mark Jennings in a reprimanding ecstatic finger pointing? 

Simply said: I do not care! I DO NOT CARE WHICH. I DON’T CARE! And you should not care about this crap as well!...

That one pentacostalian needs to hold one right arm up in the air like a Hitlerjugend to affirm a Scummo’s belief in god is somewhat repulsive. The Chinese do not demand such demonstration of commitment, though they have cameras to spy on people’s niceness and toilet cleanliness. Let me say this: Pentecostal songs and dance are as relevant as the Taliban’s rejection of both form of entertainment. Okay? 

Believing in this religious Scheiße, whether it’s the Mohamed adaptation of Abraham’s lonely looniness sacrificing his son to obey His (god is a male) god, the Catholic arcane Constantinusian format to go and conquer land — or a “Protestant” happy clappy ritual in a spartan entertainment centre, now with laser lighting and guitars — take us away from the important natural knowledge for the future of humankind, whatever this is. These old stupid crutches have passed their used-by-date by a long shot. We deserve better doings… Go away!

Yes the Chinese are bastards as far as religious beliefs are concerned but we might have to come to this eventually, if we can’t make decent "intelligent(?)" people realise, that what they believe in is total crap, with a nice “go fuck yourself”… Yeah... Sorry... Ah welll I'm not sorry...


Take David and Goliath... David was a sex-obsessed polygamist who by chance found a little stone to defeat a Gath, a (giant) Philistine warrior. David is also known because "he played the harp and wrote psalms". OhMyGoody, he was a pentecostal!!. However, these were only some of David's many accomplishments. David's story also includes many marriages (18 wives at the same time and a zillion concubine for sex on the side) that influenced his rise (and fall— did he catch the clap?).

And furthermore in the good book: Michal was David's first wife who found herself in a family feud that "many women face” (I hope you do not, but then we have “Bride and Prejudice” on the box at the moment), except that Michal’s was on a scale that determined the future of Israel. Geez! She was used as a pawn, first by her father, King Saul, and then by her husband King David. The fucking bastards! Yes after she helped David escape the clutches of Saul through a window, she was in love with David, but David "wasn't in love with her". He only needed her, to escape... But he had to marry her...

 

As the dowry for Michal, Saul demands that David bring him 100 foreskins from the penises of Philistine warriors. Fanbloodytastic! It held great significance for the Israelites, mind you. First, it would prove David's prowess as a warrior(?). Fuck no… It would prove that Saul was the guy who delegated his little war against 100 of the big guys… Second, because circumcision was the symbol of their covenant with god, foreskins would prove that David had killed Philistines and not some other tribal group. How did they know they came from the Philistines? DNfuckingA???? Finally, the collection of so many foreskins would demonstrate Israel's military strength to its neighbours. Yes hang the fuckers by the doorway, like Israel's more discreet nukes nowadays. 

Hey you morons, this is what you believe in!

And I haven’t started with Noah’s Ark yet!

You fucking little bourgeois from the shire...

———————
Go away, fucking idiots…

wilcox today (SMH 17/10/19)