Comments on: Islam leads to a Misogynist, Homophobic Theocracy

By: Benjamin9

Benjamin9 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:49:39 +0000

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.

By: Louis

Louis — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:36:01 +0000

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?

By: Benjamin9

Benjamin9 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 02:43:44 +0000

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.

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:49:57 +0000

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.

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:12:59 +0000

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

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:45:42 +0000

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.

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:45:36 +0000

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.

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:50:57 +0000

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?

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:44:15 +0000

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.

By: Benjamin9

Benjamin9 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:25:59 +0000

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

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:29:08 +0000

"Christian warrior." Now there's an interesting concept.

By: Benjamin9

Benjamin9 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:52:40 +0000

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.

By: Louis

Louis — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:08:34 +0000

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.

By: danielg

danielg — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:53:34 +0000

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

By: danielg

danielg — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:47:33 +0000

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

By: Benjamin9

Benjamin9 — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:31:01 +0000

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.

By: Cineaste

Cineaste — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:36 +0000

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