Christianity: First Line of Defense for the West?
The one solid, inescapable organizing principle that stands as the bulwark against radical Islam is Christianity.
From PJM:
In a nation consumed with political correctness, there is one group whose sensitivities count for next to nothing — Christians. I don’t mean nominal Christians or even Catholics. I am talking about those Christians who get up every morning and genuinely reflect on how they could become better people by becoming more like Jesus.
The kind of Christian that would never consciously be hired by a university faculty committee; the kind that receives the brunt of jokes from late-night comics; the kind that believes virulently in prayer. I am talking about the kind of Christian that Thomas Friedman and urban sophisticates mockingly refer to as “American Hezbollah.”
Strange, how I have never seen a Christian blow himself up on a bus full of innocent people, declare holy war on the unbeliever, or stone a congregant for adultery. In fact, one congregation I knew of that was rocked by a sexual scandal prayed for the sinners and sought to forgive them. There were no pits in front of the church with the sinners buried up to their heads, the pastor deciding which stones were not too big or too small for the occasion, and the families seeking to redeem their sacred honor by casting the first stone.
I am not a Christian, but the most impassioned and meaningful words I ever heard against racial discrimination came from a Christian pastor in Ohio. To him, discrimination was evil, an affront against God’s creation, an act and thought that was a violation of faith. Those who held such thoughts, he intoned, were not real Christians. There could be no justification or tolerance for such evil.
In a secular, pseudo-sophisticated society, such moral precision offends. As social-climbing intellectuals, we know which talking points to mouth and which groups to mock. Moral clarity threatens us because it runs counter to all the analytical incisions we feel compelled to make, and all the caveats we like to append to any problem. But worse, moral clarity threatens our inconsistent view of the world.
Liberals hate Christians because they are against abortion. But liberals don’t hate Muslims or Orthodox Jews who are also against abortion. Liberals hate Christians because they want to pray — often silently — in the public square. But liberals will uphold the rights of school systems to take students into a mosque, have the women and girls separated from the men and boys, and have the latter invited and induced to pray, all on the taxpayers’ dime. Liberals treat Christian attitudes toward gays as indistinguishable from Muslim executions of gays.
On the Jewish High Holidays in the aftermath of 9/11, some of the local rabbis in my part of the world, as if reading from the same playbook, sermonized against the evils of radical religion — fundamentalist Christianity, that is. Did I miss something?
Was it a bunch of Jesus followers that crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center? Is it Jesus followers who attack Jews on the streets of Paris so frequently and violently that French is now the most commonly spoken language in sections of Tel Aviv? Are the armed guards standing outside the synagogues in America on the High Holidays — as the liberal rabbis sermonize on the danger of Christian fundamentalism — there to protect the congregation from Jesus followers?Page 1 of 2 Next ->
20 comments:
wait what?
whats the snarky crack lumping catholics in with nominal christians? meaning christian in name only,
making a point that I and other catholics dont get up every day pray and want to try to be more christ like in our dealings with our fellow man?
I liked the article but come on that was bullshit.
Yeah, I understand. I was only interested in the guy's larger point. I don't really agree with everything he wrote.
Sadly the Christian Scripture itself predicts the defeat of The Church.
The last resistance to be defeated by the Mohammedans is the Jews.
IMO Al Madhi is the Antichrist and the Mohammedan Jesus or Issa is the False Prophet.
I also believe that Al Madhi will declare himself to be Mohamed in some manner like in a spiritual sense if not a directly resurrected murderous pedophile profit.
Never thought about it, but it makes sense that Issa would be the false prophet.
Is this supposed to be in "answer" to Ed Cline? Are we heathens still in the loop here? Just trying to stay informed.
Our Founding Fathers were wise enough not to establish a state religion or religious requirement for holding office (har! might as well not have bothered on that one).
I don't get up in the morning and ask how I can be more like Jesus. I bet Geert Wilders doesn't, either. He may or may not be atheist, but it seems pretty clear he's not the sort of fundie Christian who would pass muster at Abe Miller. Those Christians may be a bulwark against Islam, but they will always look slantwise and suspiciously at people like me until we satisfy their requirements by coming to their altar.
So, between the Christians and the "Culturists", how are we going to be marginalized this time?
Am I supposed to have "faith" that people like commenter "Marc Malone", who contends that "Christianity... is the only line of defense" will tolerate those of us who stubbornly remain outside the fold as "allies"?
Maybe. But forgive me for not keeping my back turned.
Oh, and this to "learn quran online": learn how to spell English if you plan to take over the countries that speak it, you stupid brainwashed raghead moron.
I was thinking of it more as being in answer to Culturist John, but yes, it could also be an answer to Ed Cline.
Both Ed Cline and Culturist John deny the fact that a concept of God has anything to do with the locus of power which is behind the American Constitution.
Whether one believes in God or not, it is absurd to deny the notion that belief is a very large part of the power of the ideas our nation is based upon.
Notice that the False Prophet is described in terms of a 'lamb', but speaks like a dragon.
It's interesting that the term 'lamb' is used at all in describing one of the evilest men of all time considering that just about everywhere else in scripture they denote peace and sacrifice.
Jesus of course is depicted as a lamb.
Many who criticize Christianity for PERCEIVED slights always seem to hypocritically use those same slights when they themselves criticize Christianity. It's almost like clockwork to me.
I had forgotten the part about the lamb, cjk.
I'm glad you reminded me.
It's also interesting, of course, that the saints are "beheaded".
Right, beheaded, what a coincidence.
Another thought, how do you get the whole world to worship the dragon(Satan)? Maybe by calling him Allah.
After all much of the characterization of Allah in the Mohammedan Scripture mirrors the description of Satan in the Bible.
Yes, it does.
Read Nietzshce's description of what it was like to write Thus Spake Zarathustra.
Read "The Strange Life of H.S. Chamberlain" chapter from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".
And then, consider the similarities in between those descriptions, and the relative philosophies espoused by Chamberlain, Nietzsche, and Allah.
They're all the same.
Pretty much the whole world is already worshipping Allah. "Allah is the same as the God of the Bible" we hear that phrase all the time. Especially modern churches and synagogues preach that lie everyday. No one that has read both the Bible and the Quran can say honestly that the God of the Bible and Allah of the Quran are the same but Christians and Jews are bent on propagating that lie.
As for Isa. I don't know about whether Isa will be the false prophet. What I do know is that Isa already is THE false prophet. Don't forget that Isa has got nothing to do with Jesus not only because Isa is some other weird character but also because you don't say Isa if you want to say Jesus in Arabic...you say YESUA (Isa is more closely related to the ESAU of the Bible but there really is not connection). However, that fact is also not being preached by pastors all over the world. In fact, here in the Middle East, they teach Christians to avoid using the term "Christian" but use the phrase "I am a followe of Isa" instead so as to be able to build bridges with "our Muslim neighbors". I don't know about you guys over in the US and other Western countries but the way churches are in the Middle East, it seems like the Christians will be the first ones to follow the DRAGON when the time comes.
Can you explain how Isa is more related to Esau?
Is this a scriptural thing, or what?
No I was just referring to the way its written and pronounced. There is no connection, Mohammed was just a moron who couldn't get the story straight but the point is that Isa both as a person and as a word has nothing to do with Jesus. Its a big mistake that's all. Jesus has always been known as YESUA in Arabic.
And, of course, Yeshua in His native Aramaic (Yehoshua’ in Hebrew).
Nothing like 'Isa
I want to chime in with Rumcrook here. That was a stupid comment on Miller's part.
He would do well to remember - as would many others regardless of their denomination - that is it wasn't for the Catholic Church and all it's flawed and imperfect leaders and characters standing as it did for so many centuries against Romans and Muslims alike, there would be no other Christian religions/denominations and Europe and the West would look far different than they do now. If they'd exist at all.
Issa is how the Mohammedans call Jesus in their scriptures. That is how he is identified regardless of any direct translation. Mohammed triumphs all in Mohammedanism regardless of how much error may be involved.
The Issa of Mohammedanism never was crucified, nor is he anywhere near being the Son of God.
He is coming back however to eliminate Christianity and aide El Madhi in his world conquest. Eerily just like the false prophet of The Apocalypse.
The whole world isn't prostrating before Allah yet, that may be why the Bible prophesies speak of a 'great apostasy' to come.
I may be wrong, but I think Abraham Miller does not know much about Christianity.
I've always been fascinated by the bible as history, for the more it can be validated, the more it becomes fact and not faith.
But it is faith and because of this one faith can never be used to 'defeat' another.
But one culture can become too 'civilized' to defend itself against another which is embarked on a mission of one sort of another which contains less self doubt, or a lack of conscience due to arrogance.
Otherwise known as, "YOU NEED ME ON THAT WALL"
There may be those who think we can defeat Islam with Christianity or any other religion. I think this is not the way to proceed.
Islam is unique in its totality as a way of life. This requires one accept the legal and political implications or be on the verge of takfir and/or some kind of ostracism.
The way to defeat a political or legal system is WITH a political or legal response AND WEAPONS.
Islam which CAN accept the decision of the people as sovereign is fine.
Islam which cannot, cannot be acceptable in the USA.
OR
ANY
DEMOCRACY
Well put, Epa.
I agree.
However, people don't get as worked up about ideology as they do about Faith.
Faith puts motion behind ideology. That is the reason the Judeo-Christian tradition is so strong. Because people are both rational and irrational about it, as it has both rational and irrational strength.
Post a Comment