Whole Reason

Islam leads to a Misog­y­nist, Homo­pho­bic Theoc­racy
Trans­la­tion: Islam leads to Seeker.
Sorry Seek, but I couldn’t resist. :)

after the Arch­bishop of Canterbury’s call for the adop­tion of sha’ria law for the “dis-enfranchised” fol­low­ers of allah in Eng­land, i would call on my cousins to lock and load, you know, as a last resort and a just in case … but, alas, the enlight­ened gave up on that a long time ago.

cin,
no prob­lem, I am smil­ing, but you know, you are con­firm­ing my first bul­let under point one above ;)

Ben,
Seri­ously, lock and load was part of my arti­cle
Deal­ing with Islam: Pas­sive or Active Resis­tance?
You might also like:
The Dan­ish Model for Deal­ing with Islam
Fight­ing Islam­o­fas­cism Like Cold-War Communism

I agree with you, seeker, about Islam. I am ecsta­tic that I live in the West and not in an Islamic cul­ture. How­ever, xianity’s his­tory resem­bles that of modern-day Islam in its per­se­cu­tion of gays. I attribute the mod­ern, enlight­ened treat­ment of gays as equals more to sec­u­lar human­ist and Enlight­en­ment val­ues than to xian doc­trine. Cer­tainly, 13th cen­tury xian­ity looked more like modern-day Islam than modern-day Amer­ica. These issues are far more com­plex than you state above.

seeker,
great minds think alike it seems. thats not an orig­i­nal thought though, few thoughts are. but that isn’t my point.
the West­ern male has allowed him­self to be socio-engineered into some­thing other than the great
war­rior he once was. as the West turned social­ist, all of what was once con­sid­ered manly and mar­tial has been cast as vio­lent, bar­baric and anti-social, giv­ing the gov all con­trol over who or what is allowed to be pro­tected. all in the name of “enter fav lib rea­son here”.
it is easy for your gov to sell you out when they con­trol what you read, what you are taught, the abil­ity for a com­mon defense, etc. these events are only the tip of the spear, so to speak. the events that we have seen recently, say the Paris riots, are very tame given what can take place if the right event or mil­i­tant leader comes forth.

“Chris­t­ian war­rior.” Now there’s an inter­est­ing concept.

absolutely louis. the ones who help keep you safe at night but are so despised at the same time.

Actu­ally, have you never heard the old hymn “Onward Chris­t­ian Sol­diers (March­ing off to war).“
Paul the apos­tle used the anal­ogy of war for describ­ing the chris­t­ian and spir­i­tual life in many places. It’s just that the war is not against peo­ple, but against “pow­ers, prin­ci­pal­i­ties, and every idea and thought” that is counter to christ.
But it still requires a warrior’s mind­set, not just a pacifist’s lovey dovey approach.

I attribute the mod­ern, enlight­ened treat­ment of gays as equals more to sec­u­lar human­ist and Enlight­en­ment val­ues than to xian doc­trine.
That’s not a bad argu­ment. Oth­ers would say that the enlight­en­ment, cou­pled with the ref­or­ma­tion, brought xian­ity out of such errors.
What’s also inter­est­ing is, why don’t Jews kill apos­tates as com­manded in the OT? And for how long have they not been killing apos­tates? I think since before the enlight­en­ment. So why?

I don’t know why Jews don’t kill apos­tates, but xians cer­tainly did.
By the way, seeker, you might check the lyrics before using the hymn to sup­port you war apolo­gia:
1. Onward, Chris­t­ian sol­diers, march­ing as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Mas­ter, leads against the foe;
for­ward into bat­tle see his ban­ners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Chris­t­ian sol­diers, march­ing as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
2. At the sign of tri­umph Satan’s host doth flee;
on then, Chris­t­ian sol­diers, on to vic­tory!
Hell’s foun­da­tions quiver at the shout of praise;
broth­ers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
(Refrain)
3. Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
broth­ers, we are tread­ing where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
one in hope and doc­trine, one in char­ity.
(Refrain)
4. Crowns and thrones may per­ish, king­doms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus con­stant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church pre­vail;
we have Christ’s own promise, and that can­not fail.
(Refrain)
5. Onward then, ye peo­ple, join our happy throng,
blend with ours your voices in the tri­umph song.
Glory, laud, and honor unto Christ the King,
this through count­less ages men and angels sing.
(Refrain)
“March­ing as to war…” “Like a mighty army…“
The author uses war­like images as a metaphor for Chris­t­ian action, but he doesn’t intend it as a lit­eral incite­ment to vio­lence or war. Chris­tian­ity, here, is an alter­na­tive to war, using war­like imagery to invoke spir­i­tual and peace­ful meth­ods. Thus, xian­ity replaces the worldly vio­lent and war­like mind­set. War and vio­lence is the antithe­sis and per­ver­sion of xian­ity. The war­rior mind­set you speak about is turned towards good­ness and strug­gle against spir­i­tual pow­ers: it is a non-violent strug­gle which Christ embod­ied and mod­eled to the world.
And, despite Ben’s usual stu­pid sar­casm, I’m not a paci­fist, nor to I depre­ci­ate the sol­diers who sac­ri­fice to pro­tect us. In this imper­fect world, some­times vio­lence must be met with greater and more pow­er­ful vio­lence to avoid even worse evil. It is a mark of the tragedy which is human life. But it shouldn’t be the mark of a xian mindset.

ACtu­ally, I don’t use the lyrics to jus­tify war, I use it to counter the lib­eral myth that a Chris­t­ian would never use a war metaphor — did you not see that i said it was an anal­ogy?
How­ever, as I have often said, while the Chris­t­ian FAITH does not involve war, the Chris­t­ian view of gov­ern­ment does include the estab­lish­ment of just laws and pun­ish­ment, which can be extended to a view of just (and unjust) war. Many peo­ple con­fuse these two.

You mis­quoted the lyrics. I googled them in a few sec­onds. ’nuff said.

From my dis­cus­sion, it was clear that i under­stood the metaphor­i­cal con­tent even if i mis­quoted it. My bad on the quote, yours on not see­ing that my point was valid even when mis­quot­ing the hymn.
Again, the term “Chris­t­ian sol­dier” is bib­li­cal and his­tor­i­cally accu­rate, and I have out­lined the dif­fer­ence between mil­i­tarism as a means of spread­ing the faith or sup­press­ing oth­ers, v. enforc­ing sec­u­lar jus­tice. I think this per­spec­tive is both rea­son­able and biblical.

and my point was not to glo­rify war, but dealt with the notion of self defense, which sadly explodes into large con­fla­gra­tion when the root prob­lem is ignored.
the root prob­lem being, in this case, the nearly unchecked immi­gra­tion of mus­lims into europe:
“Lib­eral Euro­peans are under­es­ti­mat­ing Islam’s anti-freedom ten­den­cies, and their free­dom is being taken away by the Islam­i­fi­ca­tion of their cul­ture.” ——-
and then my point that west­ern males are becom­ing less mas­cu­line in my opin­ion under the rule of social­ist govs, and los­ing per­sonal free­doms under those govs. the truest and most orig­i­nal of these free­doms is self defense. the social­ist out­look is that this right must be granted by gov offi­cials, not that it is a right given by God. but then socialist’s at their core despise God.
when the masses have no way to defend home and hearth, as these rights and the devices which help insure their per­sonal safety are being vam­pir­i­cally removed,
what hap­pens if a mil­i­taris­tic move­ment actu­ally begins in the streets of Paris? Lon­don? Rome? all across a europe being islamo-fied?
the peo­ple will have lit­tle say since they will be the socio engi­neered sub­jects caught between an under­manned gov and MILLIONS of poten­tial bomb throw­ers. the resource that could be called upon in an instant, does not exist, no “lock and load” capa­bil­ity.
the gov and all its min­ions and cronies will have the means to pro­tect them­selves, but what of the peo­ple? will they(gov)have the polit­i­cal will, heck, the gonads, to do what they should? or, will they sell out the peo­ple all in the name of “enter fav lib cause here.” the once proud, prin­ci­pled chris­t­ian war­rior has been switched out for the emo-culture.
we have exam­ples here in the US to exam­ine. the sanc­tu­ary cities based upon the polit­i­cal model of europe, and there will­ing­ness to do as they see fit, even at the cost of the sov­er­eign cit­i­zenry and com­mon sense in most cases.

Yeah, I agree. And, come to think of it, that Jesus sure didn’t exhibit tra­di­tional mas­cu­line qual­i­ties either. What a wimp, tak­ing that lovey-dovey approach when he should have stood up to the Romans like a real man and, at the very least, led an armed insur­rec­tion like the Mac­cabees before him! All that talk about lov­ing your ene­mies and turn­ing the other cheek and con­demn­ing those who live by the sword, and going as a lamb to slaugh­ter just makes me sick to my stom­ach. Where was the Chris­t­ian war­rior when we needed him?

good, there is hope for you yet! :)
i would dis­agree with your assess­ment of JC’s man­li­ness, tho. 40 days with­out sus­te­nance … 3 and a half years hik­ing through the urban and rural set­tings with lit­tle in the way of mate­r­ial goods(that kind of 3+ year stint would put a Ranger to shame)… never com­pro­mis­ing his val­ues even under the threat of torture(dang, this is sound­ing like Mc)… con­fronted satan face to pres­ence and stood tall … and died like a com­mon crim­i­nal. i think he did stand up to the Roman thug­gery quite well.
was JC a Chris­t­ian? i won­der, since the term Chris­t­ian was not used till some years after his death, once the fol­low­ers had grown in num­bers and had become orga­nized.
and i posted on the mat­ter of self defense. i would think JC would say “defend your­self by any means nec­es­sary” if asked. he had the means of his own defense at hand, twelve legions worth i believe, but he had a mis­sion to accom­plish, so that was out of the ques­tion.
we as Chris­t­ian men on the other hand, being nei­ther mes­siah or heaven sent, do not need to sac­ri­fice our­selves to tyranny. in fact, i believe we have a duty to stand up to it. a duty to protect.