As I have reported previously, one of my "favorite" anti-Christian Right sites is talk2action.org. Recently, I went to comment on their site, and was soundly rebuked for offering any counterpoint. I guess I didn’t read the Terms of Use which states that you have to "agree with their purpose" to join.
Actually, I agree with their purpose, and understand if they want to limit membership to prevent flame wars, but I had problems with their lack of accuracy. Outright lying will serve the purpose of stirring up their members, but not making good people. But now I am banned after one comment! You can see the interchange on this article. But for posterity, I have captured the interchange below. Wow, talk about being intolerant and sanctimonius – and I was gracious too ;)
Also, smearing Rick Warren as a Dominionist is also probably inaccurate. I know that you lefties are in a tizzy about the Dominionists and their influence, but putting everyone who shares some of their values in that same basket is disingenous and misleading.
You may want to check out the distinctions that are well described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_mandate
by danielg on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 02:44:32 PM EST
-
danielg, you are a troll who clearly does not support the purposes of this site. You joined the site under false pretenses and will be banned. When you checked off the box in order to obtain the priviledge of participating, you were stating that you agreed with the site’s purpose. Clearly you do not.
Nevertheless, as site owner, I am going to make an exception and allow your comment and links to stand, in case anyone cares to read your critque and reply in this space.
But I do want to underscore that this is not a venue for debate with people who disagree with the purposes of this site. While debate and dialog is good in a democratic society, (and I enourage everyone to jump right in, the water’s fine) like-minded people also have an absolute right to gather together and to publish as we will without interference. Please respect our right to do so.
As for your disingenuous concern that we might "look bad," as we shine some light into dark places, I would urge you to reflect on your own behavior.
by Frederick Clarkson on Fri Jun 02, 2006 at 04:32:07 PM EST
[ Parent ] -
I think you’re being "wildly inaccurate" to say that that is the consensus opinion on the Cadre site. Indeed, the comments there reflect a range of views.
What I did see was substantial nit-picking about facts and interpretation but little attempt to address some central and critical issues: 1. Is this game about "Christianity" or about one rather narrow (and fictionalized) theological view? 2. Is a violent game the appropriate vehicle for spreading any message about Christianity when we live in a culture that is already so saturated with violence that people (including children) have become desensitized to it? 3. Is there an implicit message that organizations such as the UN which are struggling to bring peace are the "Anti-Christ?" 4. Is this game really about spirituality of any stripe or is it a cynical marketing ploy that uses religion as a tool to make megabucks by distributing it through churches to the "Christian Market?"
As for the "Cultural Mandate" (if, indeed, this is what Warren subscribes to), I’m not convinced that, if one considers the goals, this isn’t a bit of semantic dressing up of theocracy.
If you think this site is simply a home for "lefties..in a tizzy about the Dominionists" or that we dump "everyone who shares some of their values in that same basket," I would guess that you haven’t spent much time reading here or that the discourse is broader than you are able to appreciate.
You should see Hutson and Clarkson defend their careful research here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/203330/24…
If I were Warren, I'd be having lawyers contact the talk2action folks. But Warren's too nice for that.
<shrug> The game sounds like a "Grand Theft Auto" for evangelicals. Instead of car jacking it's converting. No matter what it's message, it won't catch on unless it's actually fun to play. Though it may have a stupid premise like GTA, if it's fun kids will play it. I think that is what is what worries people. Cultural mandate and dominionism are almost synonymous in my eyes Seeker. The end result is the same. As to why you were banned, the site owner makes it clear. I can direct you to some other leftist sites like http://j-walkblog.com/ where the "lefties in a tizzy" would love to discuss your "counterpoints." :) It's the opposite of 2or3 in that respect.
I'm an evangelical Christian and to say I'm grateful for that article would be an understatement. I also don't see anything anti-christian about that article. Nothing could be more damaging to Christianity than the demonic game itself.
Furthermore, I don't want my child wandering around New York city fighting the forces of the antichrist. I don't want my child to even have the possibility of killing anyone in the name of Jesus. I don't want my child to see smoke pouring out of skyscrapers while he fights an extremist jihad against infidels. I don't want my child controlling virtual military weapons. I don't want my child to be taught that non-Christians are an enemy to be fought instead of human beings to be loved and valued. I don't my child to see any of this when he shuts his eyes at night. And I definitely don't want my child to be able to put himself at the service of the antichrist by switching roles in the game.
You people want to screw with my child's head? You won't know what hit you. Take that from me and several million other parents, Christian and non-Christian.
You people want to screw with my child's head? You won't know what hit you.
Violent pacifism?
This is probably not for your 5 year-old, but pre-teen and teen boys like fighting games. Heck, *I* like fighting games. I dunno, maybe I shouldn't like killing Nazis or aliens or zombies.
While I share your distaste for violence in the name of religion, just war, per se, is not a bad thing for kids to learn about. And maybe this game will help them develop an interest (health?) in theology? Ok, that's a stretch, I admit.
I am not defending this game per se, but I am trying to get the radical left to stop spreading lies about the game, if that is what they are doing.
I used to be a pacifist, until I read the bible more closely. God is against hate and violence, but He is FOR justice, takes sides in war, and though the gospel can not be spread by violence, sometimes justice must bring the sword. This is how we stopped Hitler. A pacifist view would not have stopped him – that is, it is a nice sentiment, but totally impractical in political matters. I think most people take this stand, not only because of the horror of war, but because they are confused about the use of military action for the sake of justice v. trying to spread one's religion by force, which is condemned by scripture.
> And maybe this game will help them develop an interest
> (health?) in theology? Ok, that's a stretch, I admit.
No, not a stretch at all. It is definitely theology. Demonic theology, and children will develop an interest in it if given a chance.
Sending children out to fight the antichrist on the streets of New York City, giving them military weapons and allowing them to kill people in the name of Jesus is as demonic as it gets. It is a declaration of war on Christ.
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever that the purpose of the game is earn spirit points, which would only make it a fraction less demonic. A lie is a lie.
> though the gospel can not be spread by violence,
> sometimes justice must bring the sword. This is how we
> stopped Hitler.
I didn't talk about pacifism, but I did talk about keeping violence away from children – completely different.
Whether or not God does or doesn't support 'just war' is irrelevant. This issue here is about changing the message of Jesus Christ. This is about teaching children that guns, violence and death are synonymous with Christianity. Only someone demonically inspired could conceive of so radically perverting the gospel… to children.
If you're a Christian, you don't fight the antichrist, the devil or demons with guns and physical violence. You do it through love, prayer, self-sacrifice, giving and holiness. And sometimes you should be prepared to lay down your life. There is no other gospel of Jesus Christ.
Aaron said:
> Violent pacifism?
No Aaron. There are many ways to hit someone that don't involve physical violence.
God is against hate and violence, but He is FOR justice, takes sides in war, and though the gospel can not be spread by violence, sometimes justice must bring the sword. This is how we stopped Hitler.
Everything is wrong with this sentence.
1. God is against hate and violence Not the God in the Old Testament.
2. but He is FOR justice How can he "be for" justice if He is justice?
3. (He) takes sides in war Every army throughout history has thought "God was on their side." Look at the American Civil War. It's always just wishful thinking and never provable.
4. and though the gospel can not be spread by violence Cough, cough, ahem the Crusades anyone?
5. sometimes justice must bring the sword. This is how we stopped Hitler. We didn't stop Hitler. It was a world wide effort so for this to be true, "We" would have to also entail the Soviets who played the biggest role in Hitlers fall (from a casualty perspective 20 million). They also killed the most Germans.
> Not the God in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is also called The Old Covenant. The New Testament is also call The New Covenant. With the New Covenant, the emphasis on many things changed completely.
In the Old Testament, they fought like dogs. In the New Testament everyone was suddenly allowing themselves to be killed, starting with Jesus who could have called down millions of angels to rescue Him, but didn't.
Later on, the early church Christians went like lambs to the lions in the Colluseum. In more recent times, people have gone to tribal regions knowing they would be killed, and knowing that those who went before them would be killed.
Martin Luther King and his movement allowed themselves to be beaten and abused. Christians get killed that way, but that's God's way.
See, it's different in the New Covenant.
> How can he "be for" justice if He is justice?
Because He isn't injustice, and injustice is everywhere.
> Cough, cough, ahem the Crusades anyone?
The crusades had as much to do with the gospel as Left Behind: Eternal Force. In other words, nothing whatsoever. The crusades have caused centuries of pain, which we're still paying for now. A huge number of crusaders died. If they'd adopted Martin Luther King's approach, they'd have lost a lot less people and would have actually achieved something.
Some deeply misguided 'Christains' think that the war in Iraq is 'advancing the kingdom'. Only love advances the kingdom – nothing else. Nothing.
> How can he “be for” justice if He is justice?
God isn’t justice. God is just.
How can he "be for" justice if He is justice?
Let me rephrase this to the old question, "If God is just, why does he allow all the injustice in the world?" It's as if He does not care, or more likely, does not exist. Unfortunetly, I don't think mankind can answer this question for God.
> Let me rephrase this to the old question, "If God is
> just, why does he allow all the injustice in the world?"
> It's as if He does not care, or more likely, does not
> exist. Unfortunetly, I don't think mankind can answer
> this question for God.
I don't know, but I can guess. Do you want God to take away your free will?
So threatening to "hit" someone is not the equivalent of physical violence? What exactly does hit imply to anyone else? Is threatening okay as long as it is not physical in nature?
I have never played the game, nor do I have any desire, too. But it just struck me as odd that someone who seems so pacifists would threaten others. Now, I don't know any of the nuances of pacifism, so maybe Paul or someone else can explain that to me. I honestly am curious now.
I don't know, but I can guess. Do you want God to take away your free will?
People can have free will and also be just.
> So threatening to "hit" someone is not the equivalent of
> physical violence? What exactly does hit imply to anyone
> else?
The term "you won't know what hit you" is rarely used to mean punching someone. That's pretty obvious and I get the feeling you're going to score your little point, whatever.
> Is threatening okay as long as it is not physical in
> nature?
Of course. Listen to this: "You steal from the poor, we'll take you to court". That's a threat.
Here's another one: "You hurt another child, we'll put you away for life". That's a threat too.
> But it just struck me as odd that someone who seems so
> pacifists would threaten others.
Hey, go back and read. Who said anything about pacifism? You did, but I didn't. This is about keeping violence away from children – completely different and you know it.
> People can have free will and also be just.
Yes, but people can have free will and also be unjust. That's a consequence of free will. Maybe there are people who don't mind if God takes away their free will. My guess is that most would. If he doesn't take away yours, should why should he take away theirs? After all, free will is only free will if they have the choice and are able to stick with it.
People often give the example: "How God can let people starve in the third world?" My theory is that there's plenty of food in the world, and it's you and me who let people starve.
I didn't talk about pacifism, but I did talk about keeping violence away from children – completely different.
So you are against all FPS games? Or only the ones you deem as spiritually dangerous? I'd call that censorship. That's what the rating systems are for. What makes your theology so superior? The reality is, in the last days, the anti-christ might be using government forces (the UN?) to persecute and kill people. I may need to take up arms while the pacifist xians are slaughtered like lambs.
This issue here is about changing the message of Jesus Christ.
So Christ prohibits us from taking up arms against invading forces run by the one world government? Does he probhibit us as citizens or merely as christians? I can't protect my family? That doesn't seem very xian. I think the just war argument does have something to do with this. You are arguing that unless a game is non-violent, it can't be xian – same with movies, I guess.
If you're a Christian, you don't fight the antichrist, the devil or demons with guns and physical violence.
Actually, if the anti-christ is an earthly organization or person who has hired thugs to force me to comply, you bet I can take up arms. I may die in the process, but your theology is a little too over-spiritualized for me, and your interpretation of who/what the anti-christ is should be made more clear.
God is against hate and violence Not the God in the Old Testament.
Justice. God hates evil. But you are right, God did condone some violent stuff.
How can he "be for" justice if He is justice?
Because He is not justice. He is *just*, and executes justice, and expects us to do the same through civil govt.
Every army throughout history has thought "God was on their side." Look at the American Civil War. It's always just wishful thinking and never provable.
You're right. Hitler though so too. I wonder if he was right? Re: the civil war, maybe the outcome shows us whose side he was on, eh?
We didn't stop Hitler. It was a world wide effort so for this to be true, "We" would have to also entail the Soviets who played the biggest role in Hitlers fall (from a casualty perspective 20 million). They also killed the most Germans.
I meant we, the Allies. Don't be a nitpicker.
See, it's different in the New Covenant.
I agree and I disagree. Personal faith may lead you to lay down your life, but when it comes to society, I'm not going to let some thug invade my home and kill my family. This type of simplistic pacifist position is unbiblical. Why did Jesus, in one scripture, tell his disciples to bring swords with them? So they could cut up their dinner? Would you advise all of the black Christians in southern Sudan not to defend themselves? Pacifist theology is overly simplistic and wrong. There is a balance to be had.
The crusades had as much to do with the gospel as Left Behind: Eternal Force. In other words, nothing whatsoever.
Agreed. See The Real History of the Crusades http://www.wholereason.com/2005/06/the_real_histor…
> The reality is, in the last days, the anti-christ might
> be using government forces (the UN?) to persecute and
> kill people.
Oh dear!
> So Christ prohibits us from taking up arms against
> invading forces run by the one world government?
Oh dear! Some people are already beginning to believe this game!
> Why did Jesus, in one scripture, tell his disciples to
> bring swords with them? So they could cut up their
> dinner?
He told them to bring swords so that the prophesies could be fullfilled…
Luke 22
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
But when it actually came down to it, he scolded them for using it:
Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
> The reality is, in the last days, the anti-christ might
> be using government forces (the UN?) to persecute and
> kill people.
> So Christ prohibits us from taking up arms against
> invading forces run by the one world government?
I was probably a bit too polite. What I should have said is that this is the language of extremism. This is the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. This is hysterical nonsense dreamt up by Pat Robertson and his version of militarist, paranoia. I'm totally amazed that anyone could quote it.
I meant we, the Allies. Don't be a nitpicker.
Ya, the Soviets are not worth mentioning eh comrade Seeker?
See The Real History of the Crusades
I have read enough books about the crusades to know that reading your revisionist history will cause the death of many innocent little brain cells.
(God) expects us to do the same (justice) through civil govt.
I see no indication of this "expectation."
> I have read enough books about the crusades to know that
> reading your revisionist history will cause the death of
> many innocent little brain cells.
LOL!
> I can't protect my family?
Of course you can protect your family! Just don't put my child into a virtual world full of guns, death and violence. And don't call it Christian.
> That doesn't seem very xian. I think the just war
> argument does have something to do with this. You are
> arguing that unless a game is non-violent, it can't be
> xian – same with movies, I guess.
I'm saying don't put my child into a virtual world full of guns, death and violence. And don't call it Christian.
I meant we, the Allies. Don't be a nitpicker.
I was going to bite my tongue as I read through this thread, but this is just too much.
Ummm…seeker the Soviets were the part of the Allies during WWII that brought down the Nazi's. They were most definitely not a Christian goverment. I am sure you know this, but hey…
It may seem like nitpicking, but if you are going to espose a historical view point like this, then get it right.
> The reality is, in the last days, the anti-christ might
> be using government forces (the UN?) to persecute and
> kill people.
Based on the current attitude of the US, I don't think the UN will even exist a few years from now.
The fact is, that no one know who the antichrist is and what his vehicle will be. Don't even go there. You don't know. Here's an example of where that kind of silliness could lead:
If you want to get into silly speculation based on nothing, the first place you should is somewhere you don't expect, because many of the righteous will be fooled. People aren't fooled by something obvious, so that probably rules out an Islamic extremist madman who would be unlikely to lead righteous Christians astray.
If you want to go with the one world government theme, that's more likely to be the United States 30 years from now than the UN. In the unexpected stakes, for maximum 'fooled ya' factor, the antichrist is more likely to a president of the United States, wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross than the leader of the U.N.
So, probably better not to indulge in hysterical, politically convenient speculation. No one knows, and it won't be obvious. Don't go there. The UN thing is already stupid enough thanks to Pat Robertson and his paranoid delusionalists.
The fact is, that no one know who the antichrist is and what his vehicle will be.
Sure, but we can speculate.
you want to go with the one world government theme, that's more likely to be the United States 30 years from now than the UN.
Based on what evidence? That's just cynical liberal anti-US talk, with no basis in fact. The real fact is, most of the world doesn't like us, and would probably like to STRENGTHEN the UN to resist the US influence.
the antichrist is more likely to a president of the United States, wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross than the leader of the U.N.
I'd like to see your hermeutic for that, connecting the scriptures with that conclusion.
No one knows, and it won't be obvious. Don't go there.
I share your caution in trying to interpret and apply apocolyptic literature. But I don't share your absolute avoidance of it.
They were most definitely not a Christian goverment.
I didn't say that God takes the Christian side in war. I said he takes the just side. The Soviets were on the just side of that war, whatever their philosophy.
You just made an assumption about what I said, perhaps I was not clear. Are we clear now?
> Based on what evidence?
Doh! That was the whole point!! It's not based on any evidence. It's completely void of evidence and totally barmy. It was a deliberately very silly example, used to illustrate why one shouldn't indulge in useless, baseless speculation, because useless, baseless speculation leads to 'silly land', the land where pigs can fly.
> That's just cynical liberal anti-US talk, with no
> basis in fact.
Sigh!
> The real fact is, most of the world doesn't like us,
> and would probably like to STRENGTHEN the UN to resist
> the US influence.
Double sigh!
My theory is that there's plenty of food in the world, and it's you and me who let people starve. -Paul
I have the same view, but it's not just a theory, I thinks it's the truth.
Based on what evidence? That's just cynical liberal anti-US talk, with no basis in fact. The real fact is, most of the world doesn't like us, and would probably like to STRENGTHEN the UN to resist the US influence
I think that statement is just a reaction to an institution you simply do not understand and never will. Things you do not understand you instantly label as Arch-liberal.
I actually doubt you know anyone that has actually worked there or has a clear understanding of how the institution functions. The United Nations and the League of Nations before it was created by the United States. If you don't like it because you don't agree with certain social policies it advances then fine. Write your Senator and Congressman and urge the funding for the UN to be abolished.
However it serves as a forum for dialog amongst nations that simply does not exist elsewhere (especially if the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with all nations — cough Iran, North Korea, etc).
If you don't have that forum where are you going to get that dialogue? Wait, I know…at the tip of a MIRV enabled balistic missle. That seems to be the attitude of the US since 9/11 with everyone abroad. Diplomacy plays a backseat to everything we do now.
The fact that the United States is not well liked has nothing to do with the influence of the UN on the US. That is a complete non-starter and filled with flawed logic.
The power the US has in the post cold-war as the only bonified Super Power and the amount of weight it has thrown around with complete disregard for consensus with our European allies is one of the sources of the world's displeasure with us.
It took 100 years to build up goodwill towards the United States interationally and only 15 years to bring it to an all time low (see NPR report from last week).
Given the current trend with the US's power and the parallels with the fall of the British empire I find it far more probable that the Anti-Christ will be the US and the source of one world government.
Any nation with a overdeveloped sense of hubris is ripe for oppressing others. In my book the US is well on its way.
Liberal sentiment on my part? I think not. I am coming at this with the perspective of 50+ years of US Foreign policy.
Where are you coming from? Probably just theory since you have not lived it. So, you knock down what you don't understand to support an unrelated theory.
Doh! That was the whole point!! It's not based on any evidence. It's completely void of evidence and totally barmy. It was a deliberately very silly example, used to illustrate why one shouldn't indulge in useless, baseless speculation, because useless, baseless speculation leads to 'silly land', the land where pigs can fly.
So you are saying that a premillenial outlook that puts the antichrist at the UN has no merit? I agree, he'll probably be pope ;)
have the same view, but it's not just a theory, I thinks it's the truth.
I agree, that's part of the Overpopulation Myth, but that's another thread.
> and would probably like to STRENGTHEN the UN to resist
> the US influence.
The current two contenders for the role of antichrist in the minds of Pat Robertson and 'Left Behind: Eternal Delusions'
1) The UN
The antichrist is going to have huge power, unrivalled in history. So, where does he turn? To a few Turkish and Romanian UN peacekeeping forces and a really good mine clearance team of course. They've go no bullets and absolutely can't agree on a single thing… face it, that's a total non-starter for the antichrist. He's probably even a bit pissed off you thought of it.
2) Islamic Extremism
These guys had better be clever, because they're going to have to fool a heck of a lot of righteous Christians…
"HEY, righteous Christians, come over here and be fooled. If you'll join us, we're going to blow up your country with a nuclear weapon."
"Sure, 75,000,000 of us will be right over in a minute. We've got jam for brains and love your beards".
Hello?
2) Islamic Extremism
You got a reference for that? Esp. since protestantisms most likely candidate, since the reformation, has been the Catholic church? http://www.challies.com/archives/001907.php
> 2) Islamic Extremism
> You got a reference for that? Esp. since protestantisms
> most likely candidate, since the reformation, has been
> the Catholic church?
Nah, the Catholic church doesn't have quite enough tanks and F16's.
As far as Judeo Christians go, Pat Robertson thinks just about everyone is the antichrist – Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Jews but I couldn't find anything on him regarding Catholics.
"Presbyterians are the spirit of the Antichrist." (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, p. 239)
"The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today." As quoted in "The Christian Paradox", Harper's Magazine (August 2005)
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." — Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991