Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jesus, Jihadists and a Just War
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The world is too dangerous to live in—not because of people who do evil, but because of people who sit and let it happen.

- Albert Einstein

There’s a prevalent perception among Christians that when it comes to conflict (like the War on Terror), Christ’s teachings go limper than an ED laden Pillsbury Dough Boy after six hours in a Sioux sweat lodge.

Yeah, Jesus is seen in certain sectors of emasculated evangelicalism and in some spiritually castrated Catholic circles as an altruistic bearded lady who traipsed around Israel spitting out courteous clichés and nifty narratives like an over-medicated Garrison Keillor.

Because of these notions, which were constructed by torturing the scripture via inane eisegesis and icky exegesis, it’s hard for the follower of this Effeminized Christ to come to a place of clashing with the likes of Osama and his mama.

Just a cursory glance at the gospel of Mark, unaided by a Nancy’d pastor or priest’s thoughts or a 21st century Lysol-disinfected, Politically Correct New Testament commentary, will leave one thinking, “Holy Crikey! Christ confronted anyone and anything that was oppressive and abusive.”

When you take the accounts of Christ’s life straight (as I do my whiskey) you come away with an entirely different picture than the one that pantywaists have painted of God’s Prophet.

You do not see Him as a passive peacemaker in the face of evil. If something threatened those He came to save, well then, He took it on. If something or someone was malevolent in its/his intentions then it/he was about to clash with Christ. Guaranteed.

Christ is portrayed in the gospel according to Mark (which was, BTW, inspired by the Holy Spirit and not Richard Simmons) as a dragon slayer. Yes, the Incarnate One showed up on this terra firma 2,000 years ago as a throttler of the works of darkness. Mark whipped out his inspired quill and depicted Jesus as a warrior picking fights with that which was detrimental to people and places.

Whether it was in the whipping of the avaricious religious glitterati who were desecrating the Temple, casting a nest of demons out of a 1st century Emily Rose, publicly rebuking a bad politician or priest or foreswearing the wrath of God upon those who would harm kids—one cannot skip away from the holy script thinking Christ was cool with creeps. That is, unless of course, he chooses to close his eyes to these ubiquitous texts.

So, what about all those “love your enemy,” “do good to those who harm you,” “turn the other cheek,” “howdy, bad neighbor” verses? Well, as far as I can tell, these passages apply to personal insults and injury . . . like the ones I get week after week from those who hate what I write.

Am I to create a Haitian voodoo doll, conjure up some wicked curse and level it at the bloggers who are having fun at my expense? Absolutely not. It’s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race. Anyway, most of their quips are hilarious . . . and being the narcissist that I am, I appreciate the attention be it good or bad. Since I dish it out on a regular and prolific basis, I should be a good sport and not wince when I get it.

Here’s where the “love stuff” comes into play: by not going postal when you get picked on. In this entitlement, lawsuit-ready, hair-triggered, I’ll-kill-you-in-your-sleep-if-you-wrong-me culture, “love and patience” is a needed maxim and is an appreciated reprieve from the ripe hate that inundates petty America.

However, when it comes to terrorists sticking planes into buildings and blowing up trains, buses and Pizza Huts around the planet, I think the balance of the scripture and the common sense God’s given us show the multifaceted Jesus morph from being a gentle lamb into a rough lion. Can you handle that?

Look, if Christ went to town on a punk unclean spirit that was oppressing one individual in a grave yard, I kind of think that He might green light the US military cleaning the clock of Islamo-facist death dealers trying to wipe out Western Civilization. Duh.

“But, shouldn’t we err on the side of love, tolerance and grace in dealing with these people?” I can hear some whine. Uh . . . not when it comes to glaze-eyed, militant Islamic monsters who intend to kill millions of people who don’t think the way they do.

Need an example?

Here’s one among many. The ecclesiastical lack of confrontation by the German Church in the early ‘30’s towards Hitler allowed him to wreak havoc in Europe. These “believers,” being focused on their own little world and being flaccid when they should have been firm, assisted Hitler by not resisting what was fermenting in Ole’ Yahoo’s demented pea brain.

The lack of involvement of the Deutsche Christens with what was going down in their day aided the destruction of everything they held dear—not to mention the lives of millions of Jewish people. Oops.

The German Church, which should have been a major player in defying Nazism, instead kum-ba-yah’d their way into Stupidville and assisted those goose-stepping asses in rolling out the red carpet for Adolph’s Mein Krap.

Twentieth-century German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer was relentless in his attack upon the testicle-less Teutonic congregations of the thirties. He decried the thought that Christians were to turn the other cheek and tint their windows to such a violent, demented critter and seek a life of peace in some spiritual niche on the sidelines of life. He called such a squeamish, fish-stickered community a group of “salvation egoists,” an “escapist’s church” that was no longer the salt of the earth or the light of the world.

So. What do I suggest a Christian/Christian church should do? Try this . . .

Drop the repellently corny “let’s love ‘em” slop. You sound, and are, ridiculous. You have officially become nicer than Jesus. Look, I love the men, women and kids that have to live unwilling under the apocalyptically deluded dictates of these wizards, but that’s where it ends. The others can go to hell.

Pray biblical imprecatory prayers against the Islamo-fascists. See my Townhall.com column from 07/03/2004

Make the snuffing out of the life of any Islamo-fascist who has nuclear wet dreams a major issue in both how you vote and for whom you vote in the next 1,379 elections.

Send cash to Christian organizations ministering within the Axis of Evil nations. Church, take some cash from your offerings this Sunday and instead of having a portrait painted of your minister or buying a new pagoda for your senior pastor to sit on, send it to nervy missionaries who are attempting to bring good news into places governed by bad men.

* Logon to ClashRadio.com and check out Giles’ latest interview with Gregg Jackson, author of the must have book, Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
A WIN FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS A MUST
Amusing imagery, but although Islamic extremists do lend themselves to ridicule, that will not by itself be enough to protect us from them. There is more than one way to take the offensive. Fundamentalist Islam is threathened with obsolence from within. Nuking the heck out of them is great sabre-rattling but we must consider it the last option. For now, let us leave the sabre-rattling to them and capitalize on the seeds of their self-destruction. Those seeds are there, if we only recognize them for what they are.

You may wish to take a glance at one of my recent blogs:
http://almagz.blogspot.com/2006/08/when-cultures-clash-open-letter-to.html

DOUG GILES DOESN'T GET IT
Why is it that every time I really, really want to get on board with what columnists like Doug Giles and Mike Adams are writing, do I always come away from the read with a bad feeling I can't shake, a disillusionment I can't define, and an overall feeling of disconnection and complacency? And they are probably wondering, why is it that our articles aren't creating a stronger call to action, when our words are so bold and our positions so compelling? The problem is that both of these men, while trying to be witty, are creating an environment of hostility towards the only part of the population with the necessary power to "change the hearts and minds" of the dangerous Islamic Fascists we are facing - THE WOMEN. Riddled throughout all of Doug's and Mike's articles are contemptuous, derogatory remarks about the God-given virtues bestowed upon women, as if those virtues are bad, weak and undesirable. He even goes so far to say that if Christ is in any way portrayed as encompassing any virtues normally attributed to women, then he is no more than an "emasculated bearded lady" and therefore His message is weak and impotent. No, only when we consider Him as a big bad manly Dragon Slayer can He be worthy of our respect and obedience!

The truth is, in order for Jesus Christ to be the perfect example to all the men and women on the earth, then he must posses both male and female-attributed virtues in their perfect form. So stop doing such a disservice by putting down women!! Why is it that if a man is behaving badly in Doug's and Mike's eyes, then they are labeled with such feminized adjectives as "girly" or "effeminate" or "bearded ladies" or "pantywastes"....why can't you ditch the "woman, bad...man, GOOD" mantra and start labeling the bad behavior after what it really is, cowardice, weakness, impotence, fear. Don't you realize what you're doing?!?! You are creating more feminists, more people who will not join with us in this war of all wars and use our powers and God-given virtues to stand together and defeat these Islamic thugs! You say we cannot defeat these cockroaches with only military power, that we need to "change hearts and minds" but you are casting off the 50% of the population of this country that CAN actually change hearts and minds! Instead you are playing into the "why can't women be more like us men" fallacy and influencing women to become more like men! What do you get when a woman wants to become more like a man? A Feminist! Great going, Doug and Mike.

So please, please, I beg you to tone down your hard-wired habit of demeaning women. It is as plain as the nose on your face that the reason why the Islamic world is so nutty is because its society is void of feminine virtues, since the females are not allowed to exercise the power of their virtues and teach right and wrong to their children. If you need another reason why, then just look at your own example, Jesus Christ. He was a man, a perfect man, after the image of His own Father, yet did he come here to do the things that men value on this Earth, rise to the top of his profession, become a famous inventor, receive worldly acclaim and titles, ranks and prestige? No, his holy mission was more symbolic of a mother's role, to love, heal, teach, and endure the pain of our sins so that we may have life, eternal life, in Him. Hmm, maybe that's why his ministry was so controversial, as the Jews were expecting a big, bad war hero who would free them from their Roman oppressors, what they got was a man filled with love, peace and power and they despised him for it. Something to think about anyway.

Oh Please, Turelie, YOU don't get it!
It simply is not putting down women! It is putting down men who act like women. An entirely different thing. Women are what they are (in general) and men are what they are (in general). That doesn't make either of them wrong or right they just are. We have completely different roles. He never once denied the softer loving side of our Lord. He specficaly noted that softer side and demonstrated where it ia applicable. Simply stated, there is a time for the WARRIOR and a time for the LOVER. I find women so disgusting when they fail to see that. It makes us all look silly and whiney, and so ready to take offense. Most women I know are very offended when men (faced with evil)do not act like men. I love being a woman! I love a MANLY man. That doesn't mean he is violent or oppressive, it means he is just and ready to defend against evil, or anyone trying to hurt or oppress others. I think that is perfectly clear and you, forcefully refuse to see it that way, so you could get your "men will be oppressors if they act men" meme going. As far as I am concerned, men ARE contemptuous when they refuse to confront evil.

On Judging Others...

Doug,

Your refer to "certain sectors of emasculated evangelicalism" and "some spiritually castrated Catholic circles."

Nice slur, Doug. I suppose that is in keeping with your ecumenical outlook - the "spirit of unity" among Christians for which Christ himself prayed most fervently? Of course, you get in the insulting remarks prefaced by "some" and "certain sectors", which gets you off the hook on a point of logic, but not on a point of charity.

And of course, easy pickings. "Wishy washy" Christianity has few attractions, but there is nothing original in your article. The Church's teachings on "Just War" date far before your time. The problem is applying that theory to particular situations, on which good men (OR woMEN!) may differ.

Now, let's briefly look at your example of "silent Christians."

"The ecclesiastical lack of confrontation by the German Church in the early ‘30’s towards Hitler allowed him to wreak havoc in Europe."

This statement is completely UNtrue. Coming from a "straighttalker" such as yourself, Doug, you ought to check your facts before slandering Christians living in a different era, and a more difficult one. Yes, Hitler did rise to power in a desperate and impoverished Germany. he was the de facto leader, elected by the populace. The Churches had to deal with him.

But in 1937, the ONLY statesman in Europe or elsewhere, to speak out against what the Nazis were doing in Germany, was in fact the Pope, with his encyclical "In Burning Sorrow." As for the Christian churches' responsibility for the havoc he later caused in Europe. Utter nonsense. As Stalin once disparagingly remarked, "How many divisions has the Pope?"

That havoc was caused by a lack of political will on the part of Britain and France to contain him. Again, easy to judge in hindsight. France lost something in the region of 10% of her adult male population in WWI. Those are appalling numbers, and beyond our imagination. Hitler marched into the Rhineland, at which point he could easily have been defeated by the combined powers of France and Britain.

He was allowed walk straight into Austria, without a shot fired in anger. And swallowed up Chechslovakia at which point again, he could have been stopped in his tracks. By the time he was ready for Poland, it was already too late. But it is easy to say what should have been done. "Judge not." You werent in that position.

But dont lay a guilt trip on Christian churches of a different era, who were helpless to stop what was happening. Dietrich Bonhoeffer earned that right by ultimately sacrificing his life in a concentration camp. With all due respect, Doug, you didnt.



Demeaning women?
How on earth can their columns be demeaning women merely by stating care and compassion is not a suicide pact?

The idea that the exclusive virtues women have are compassion and caring is itself sexist. I don't see Mike or Doug lambasting women, but I do see them lambasting improperly utilized tolerance and compassion.

I mean, if, heavens, we say that sometimes tolerance and compassion is misplaced, we are surely offending a girls sensitivities. Oh horrors beyond horrors, who will save us from the evil opinions of others? Where is our knight in shining armor that will save us from such offenses, oh, its more than a girl can take!

Mike and Doug do not demean women, they demean misplaced tolerance and false compassion.

To Linda from Whittier:
You are making my point exactly.

"It simply is not putting down women! It is putting down men who act like women."

You are completely reinforcing the idea that "men who act like women" should be "put down." Why is "acting like a woman" bad, unless it is because YOU are conditioned to believe that women's behavior is by nature, bad, and that "acting like a woman" means it is behavior that must be corrected. Why are you conditioned, like Pavlov's dogs, to believe this? Because people like Doug Giles and Mike Adams and many other men repeatedly equate feminine virtues as undesirable by labeling bad behavior in feminine tones (like pantywastes or bearded ladies). My question to them is, why can't they label the bad behavior as bad behavior and leave the feminine adjectives out of it? Is that too much to ask? If it is, then they both must consider that they are taking part in creating the very feminists that they themselves despise, and that the reason we as a nation are fracturing in the face of true evil - Islamic Fascism - is because women are not using the power of their virtues to unify it as they are told that either their virtues are "bad" or that "they don't have any virtues to begin with, because that would be sexist to say that." No, being endowed with certain virtues by God is not sexist. Just because virtues are different does not mean they are not equally necessary and equally powerful.

Men as men
What I see in Turelie's stridency is someone ready to take offense. Yes, 'take' it. I did not see offense being offered. As a woman who grew up in the bra burning era *I* did not find his remarks offensive. I want my man and the men around me to act like men. For a man to act like a woman, or a woman to act like a man, or for that matter, a dog to act like a cat...and someone points out their disengenuous behavior it is NOT demeaning to the person they are acting like! If my dog started acting like my cat, and we ridiculed the dog for acting like a cat, my cat would not get offended at us for pointing out the dog's silliness...she would look at the dog and say "What's the matter you freak! Don't you know who you are?" And she would probably add "Stop acting like me--you do a bad impression! I am unique and when you try to act like me you do it so badly people laugh at you!"

Same with men acting like women or vice versa. We women are so great and there are so many of us to go around--why a guy would want to act like us is totally messed up. It is good for a manly man to point out the girly man's ineptitude and it doesn't bother me a bit because using the language of 'girly man' in no way belittles me!

Good article, I give it 3 checks...
gee turelie really touched a nerve on that one. Since these posts seem to be all about her, I can say I partially agree that the ladies do have a bad rap when it comes to insutls, as a guy with a daughter myself its hard to ignore all the "phrases" we've made up that do trash the females somewhat, and you've gotta wonder what kind of effect it has on the gals....and what it would be like if they constantly used similar "phrases" against guys....but really I think doug's words are harmless but I guess you never know....
but I do agree anything we can do to stomp out the growth of the feminists is fine by me

"Whiny females?"
Looks like another one of Pavlov's Dogs just entered the kennel.

Turlie
Because frankly men are not supposed to be acting like women! They are not supposed to go around emoting and trying to talk to evil. We women (in general) are physically weaker than men, so when we are confronted with evil we try to work around it. That is a good idea until you can get to safety, but as a long term strategy is stinks!. You will find your self compromised into wearing a burka, and walking 3 paces behind a "superior male". I am having a little trouble understanding why that is so hard for some women to accept. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ACTING LIKE A WOMAN, if you are one.

Woof Woof
Well even if you are a drooler, at least you're Anti-Muhammed! ;-)

Linda from Whittier:
Two issues:

The reason why those poor muslim women are wearing those burquas is because the muslim men have convinced their entire society on the mantle of their own religion that women are weak, that they are inferior, that they are subservient. There are two ways in which women (or men) in a society will respond to this constant onslaught of negativity. One is that they will actually believe these men instead of looking to God for their own true worth, and allow themselves to be subject to a lifetime of oppression and abuse. The other response is that of feminism, where if anything to do with femininity is constantly being portrayed as undesirable and inferior, then the women will strive to evolve behaviors that mimic what they perceive is desirable and superior, the behaviors of men. My point being that as "harmless" as it seems, men who constantly attach bad behavior with feminine characterization are doing much harm to the unity of our society, and that is the very source of the phenomenon of feminism.

Along with that I would like to point out that you are confusing virtues with behaviors. It is unreasonable at best to imply that only women "emote," and only women "talk evil," as these behaviors can exist in any person (yes I know for a fact that men do indeed, express emotions and gossip about others). A woman can have the Godly virtues of love, compassion and mercy but that doesn't mean that because she is loving and compassionate, that she will "try to work around Evil" and take a weak position in its defeat. On the contrary!!! Why, if she has love and compassion for her fellow men, would she roll over and do nothing while the enemies destroy all that she holds dear? So you must understand that cowardice and complacency are behaviors, not virtues, and that bad behaviors can exist in either sex, male or female.

Nazi Christianity Should Be Cautionary
As a Libertarian Christian who is not a pacifist, I have three reading suggestions for Doug Giles before he again essays publicly to dragoon the Prince of Peace into his jihad on "Islamofascists", and for those who would go even further than Giles and wage "holy" war on all Muslims or any other groups perceived as enemies of the American State:
1) Read the New Testament in its entirety, slowly and with an open mind and heart, attending closely to both Christ's Sermon on the Mount and His *rejection* of Satan's offer of worldly power during His temptation in the desert;
2) Read Murray Rothbard's *For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto* (The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006). Among his other powerful observations is the following from page 68 of the book:
"The State 'established' the Church and conferred upon it power, prestige, and wealth extracted from its subjects. In return, the Church anointed the State with divine sanction and inculcated this sanction into the populace. In the modern era, when theocratic arguments have lost much of their lustre among the public, the intellectuals have posed as the scientific cadre of 'experts' and have been busy informing the hapless public that political affairs, foreign and domestic, are much too complex for the average person to bother his head about. Only the State and its corps of intellectual experts, planners, scientists, economists, and 'national security managers' can possibly hope to deal with these problems. The role of the masses, even in 'democracies,' is to ratify and assent to the decisions of their knowledgeable rulers."
3) Read *The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity*, 1919-1945, by Richard Steigmann-Gall. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003). In his review of the book in *The Christian Century* (August 10, 2004), Tom Aitken summarizes some of Steigmann-Gall's observations based on documents of the period in question:

"MOST OF the Nazi leaders considered themselves not merely Christians but instruments of God's will. Many people think that if the Nazis had any religion it was derived from Wagner's operas and Teutonic mythology. Not so: the paganists were a minority, much derided by Hitler and Goebbels, who remained nominal Catholics and paid church taxes to the end.

"The impression that Nazis despised Christianity derives from two factors: our revulsion at what the Nazis did, and statements near the end of the war by Nazi leaders, including Hitler, which seem to indicate bitter antipathy toward the church. These statements, however, reflect less an abandonment of what those Nazi leaders considered their own Christian values than disappointment with the Protestants of Germany, whom they believed had badly let them down.

"Nazi Protestant Christians had two great heroes and role models. The first was Jesus Christ, whom (following the English fascist Houston Stewart Chamberlain) they believed to be the first and greatest Aryan and the first and greatest anti-Semite. Most of the Nazi leaders worked the cleansing of the temple into their discourses at some point, and they were ingenious at giving some of the parables an anti-Semitic slant. The other great hero was Martin Luther; whom they saw as the first and greatest German.

"In his translation of the Bible he had virtually invented the German language, and with it the idea of the German nation. He had rebelled against the Jewish domination exerted by Rome. He had made Germany the center of the Christian world. Better still, in his later years Luther had written a virulently anti-Semitic tract, 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' Nazi leaders showed a close acquaintance with at least this aspect of his teachings, praising and quoting the tract at every suitable opportunity. Nazi Christian rallies and services often ended with the singing of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God." Luther, they believed, had merely begun the German Reformation, not completed it. That was up to the Nazis, and one thing many of them saw as essential was the removal of the Jewish Old Testament from the Bible.

"Nonetheless, after 1937 the Nazis became disenchanted with the Protestants. In their analysis, the Protestants were engaged in internecine wrangling which made them less and less credible as an aid to German national unity. As war approached and then broke out, unity became increasingly desirable. The Nazis might more accurately have perceived that it was their attempts to manipulate Protestantism for their own ends that lay behind a large part of the disunity.

"The Nazi Christians remind us that Christianity in all times and places has been at the mercy of the frailties and fears of its adherents and of the law of unintended consequences.

"Steigmann-Gall quotes theologian Richard Rubenstein: 'The world of the death camps and the society it engenders reveals the progressively intensifying night side of Judeo-Christian civilization. Civilization means slavery, wars, exploitation, and death camps. It also means medical hygiene, elevated religious ideas, beautiful art, and exquisite music.'

"Steigmann-Gall concludes that the story he has to tell is not 'an admission that Nazism is somehow redeemable, but rather that it is that much closer to us than we dare allow ourselves to believe. The discovery that so many Nazis considered themselves or their movement to be Christian makes us similarly uncomfortable. But the very unpleasantness of this fact makes it all the more important to look it squarely in the face.'"

Yes, it certainly does.




Interesting essay, Hoosierdaddy
I have strongly disageed with some of your earlier posts on other threads, but I find myself in your camp here. I had over-emphasized the pagan aspect of Nazi ideology in an argument I had with Movwater, and I have to concede that you-and he-are correct.
I also wonder at the strangly combative and insulting language that Mr. Giles uses, while supposedly maintaining a Christian witness. I can't really hit him too hard there, as I have made intemperate remarks at times, yet his insistance on namecalling seems bizarre and sophomoric. As a GLBT person, I no would doubt incur his plentiful hostility as a "Nancy"-whatever or a "pantywaist". Lol, I suppose being a door-gunner on a helicopter and carrying an M-60 (with the spare barrel bag and TOE device! I didn't have an assistant gunner.) around Korea doesn't count for much, hmm?

Real Courage
Macho posturing is not the antidote to whiny Christianity. Besides, Giles is the one who’s trying to marshall the minions of the faith behind a government policy of war and interventionism – so his attempt to analogize himself to Bonhoffer has it backwards. Real courage today is found among conservative believers who speak out against "Christian Zionism". Try it and you'll find out how vicious some people can be.

Christian Doctrine
In my never to be humble opinion the idea of turn the other cheek has been taken way to far. The initial command meant to give someone a second chance, don't over react, everybody makes a mistake, cut them some slack, etc. The command was never to continually turn your head and continue to get smacked.

Blessed are the peace makers. They maintain our humanity but what happens when they fail? Do we all line up until our enemies get tired of killing us and hope to be close to the end of the line?

Scripture, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact. During peaceful times they're both great roadmaps for life. But, it doesn't do any good to adhere to a wimped out translation if in the end your lack of action causes you, or your culture, to disappear.

The first people recorded in scripture had a history of standing up when they had to. It wasn't until much later interpretations that we were told that in order to be good christians we had to lay down and die.

Estrogianity
On the whole, I agree with this article.

I haven't crossed the finish line yet, but a few years ago I've started on the road to developing True Faith. In my experience, True Faith gives a man peace, clarity, strength, courage, and, here's the tough part to swallow: natural moral authority over women. Screech away, but women are the emotional, unsteady, worldly sex.

Once my eyes opened on the way to becoming a Real Man, it was (and still is) shocking how alone I was in our culture. The feminine mindset is absolutely everywhere; completely pervasive.

Because of the breakdown of the family, and the watering-down of True Christianity, the majority of American men have been raised in homes led by women. As a result, our electorate as a whole is probably 80-90% either female or effeminized men.

Now look at the modern morass; the Nanny State is feminine. Political correctness is feminine. Appeasement is feminine. Liberalism is feminine. Art, music, media, Hollywood...our homes, our schools, most of our churches...

A wild-eyed emotional preacher crying and hollering and dancing in the aisles doesn't have True Faith. A political pundit frothing at the mouth and appealing to your emotionality does not speak for Goodness.

A Christian Man is bold, calm, strong, patient, fierce, restrained, and rare.

Swords
Jesus commanded His disciples to carry swords. Why?

Double standards
Celtic deplores "the strangly combative and insulting language that Mr. Giles uses". Has he ever heard the language used by the left to describe (neo)conservatives?! Language that, again, is rarely deplored in leftist circles…

Indeed, these are the very same people who wring their hands, saying “love your enemy,” “do good to those who harm you,” “turn the other cheek,” “howdy, bad neighbor” and “But, shouldn’t we err on the side of love, tolerance and grace in dealing with these people?”

The basic criterion for Christian love (or any kind of love and any kind of a peaceful soul), I think, is a determination to apply such principles with a smattering of consistency.

But the same people who arbor peaceful smiles and wonder about erring "on the side of love, tolerance and grace in dealing with" Ba'athists, Iranians, and "allies" in Europe are those who get all riled up, sputtering that conservatives must be defeated at all costs, their being, as it is, "clueless morons", "greedy thieves" and "fascistic war-lovers and baby-killers."

Perhaps, charity (Christian or otherwise) ought to begin at home…

Giles' column
First, Von Mises was an atheist, so that isn't the first place I would go for an opinion on this subject (not that anyone who adheres to his beliefs and opinions would necessarily have to be). Secondly, regarding Christians, Scripture says, "by their fruits you will know them." The Nazis weren't Christians, at least those at the highest levels, and did not claim to be. Finally, an encyclical is of no more significance, in and of itself, than Mein Kampf. It is what is done with it that matters. That is what Giles is talking about. The great majority of Christians in and around Germany did nothing to stop the evil going on around them. Where my judgment has its limits is that here in the US we often don't do much better and if the same situation was to replicate itself we might not, either. That, too, is what he is talking about. Or at least that is how I interpret his remarks. His judgment his directed at those of us who consider ourselves Christians. That is scripturally OK.

Asteriks
I did mention that I have made intemperate remarks. I am trying to clean up and civilize debate on my side at least. I am aware of the hateful things said on the left, but have little power to affect them since I am a partisan Republican and get smeared like the rest of us, even if I am GLBT. That brings up another subject: the correct pronoun is 'she' rather then 'he'. Jerubaal still insists on using 'he' or 'man', and I generally take no notice because I prefer the current detente between us, and I don't think he is trying to be mean.

Nick
Nick says:

"In my experience, True Faith gives a man peace, clarity, strength, courage, and, here's the tough part to swallow: natural moral authority over women. Screech away, but women are the emotional, unsteady, worldly sex."

This is indefensible, and is an anachronistic misogynist view of women. You would be well advised to consider the activities at Dachau, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Freetown (In Sierra Leone), Uganda (under Idi Amin), Cambodia, and Yugoslavia before you make any more patronizing and self serving remarks on the supposed "natural moral authority" you have over women. Men have created, abetted and carried out virtually every unjust war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and violent criminal act in history. Where you find women who particpate in these activities, then you also find that their representation is the merest fraction.
I would further advise you to read the book "In A Different Light" by Carol Gilligan, which details how women deal with moral dilemas and why their approach to solving them is different from men. A hint: Men are concerned with justice in a way that "balances the scales", so to speak. Women are concerned with solutions that maintain the integrity of family and community relationships. Neither approach is superior, but they do have very different goals.

Nick
I anticipate that you will counter that your faith sets you apart from the evil-doers I mentioned. Fair enough. So, how do you explain your "moral authority" over female Christians? As a male, you certainly have no surplus to start with, as the examples I gave you demonstrate. Do you posit that God gives you more authority and grace then He does to women upon acceptance of Christ?

Re: Nick 1 & 2
The offending quote was that true faith imparts a man with the quality of moral authority over women, and that women were the emotional, unsteady, worldly sex.

No typos.

Since you already answered your first question, I'll go on to the second.

Yes, I have moral authority over female Christians. Yes, God puts men in that position. Simple enough, but you seem to be want the argument-tennis. Here goes.

The aura of authority does not exist amongst females. A woman in a position of "authority" over a man is false and unnatural. The influence that women do have, they achieve subversively through manipulation.

Simply put, a good man can, and does, lead a woman to God, while a woman could only attempt to trick a man to God. A man can correct a woman's sins, a woman can only nag.

Furthermore, our society has decayed morally since women were allowed voting influence over the culture. And, looking at statistics, fatherlessness seems to be the main cause of social deviancy. Female moral authority, even over their own sons, does not exist.

Good or evil, men are moral creatures. Women are emotional creatures. We have different talents, and compliment eachother well as long as we don't choose to argue away Reality.

Men lead a society, women are led.


Doug is so right
I love this guy's columns...and those women taking issue with how he writes, as a woman, I want to ask you: Do YOU think the "public square" has benefitted from its "feminization"? I do not.

No where in the Bible does it even hint that we are to tolerate evil, but rather, we are to destroy it and put it away from us.

Get your swords bloody folks. Jesus will be here soon enough, and He is coming as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

I'm for Linda, Brian, HotMama and Kraut
If I say that a given pot of stew is too salty,
I'm not saying that all salt is evil and no one
should ever use any salt at all; I'm saying that
the current pot of stew contains too much.

Society tends to make pendulum swings between
one extreme and another. There have been times
(plenty of them) when male machismo was exalted
above all, and ANY consideration of gentleness
and compassion was despised as weakness. But we
are not in such a phase now in America. What we
have now is an excess of the gentle side, with
people trying to rely ONLY on diplomacy and
sweetness. Correcting this imbalance does not
mean scorning women.

Isaiah 26:10 warns, "If favor is shown to the
wicked, he does not learn righteousness." This
does not mean that we can't ever be forgiving
and patient--but it does mean that we must not
so pamper and indulge evildoers that we end up
effectively PREFERRING them OVER their victims.
And, if one is forced to speak in generalities,
it is more a feminine attribute than a masculine
one to overextend gentleness in a way which does
produce this harmful result.

Joseph Ravitts, USN Ret.

Worth Adding
I didn't gain my perspective from the Bible, rather it was something that I observed to be true. The Bible does, however, agree with me, for those who are concerned.

1Corinthians 11:3-10

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head...forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

1Corinthians 14:34-35

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.




Religion and the Nazi's
I thought it was an interesting comment that Hitler and his crowd were "nominal" Christians. I would like to expand on this thought.

The "pagan" concepts were very popular at the time and the Nazi’s used whatever worked. It seens impossible to believe that anyone could have believed all that “pagan” claptrap along with the nonsense about being descendants of those who survived the destruction mythical Atlantis. As for those who weren't "pagans? They liked the idea promoted by these whackos because it made them feel special. They then, as many today, held two totally opposing concepts in their heads at the same time and believed they were both to be correct.

As for Hitler's beliefs? William Shirer makes some comments, which I think are insightful in his book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Hitler was deliberately undermining the churches and Biblical authority. He pointed out that the Nazi’s required the churches to replace the Bible on the alters of the churches with copies of Mein Kampf. What could possibly have been their rational? Their rational was that the most important people in the world to God was the German people and the most important book in the world to the German people is Mein Kampf, it was the most important book in the world to God. Correspondingly, it replaced the Bible on the alters of the churches. Hitler and his crowd believed in gaining and holding power. That was their only real belief. If he had won the war the churches in Germany and anywhere Germany prevailed, if they would have been allowed to survive at all, would have been substantially different and then only if it was useful.

The interesting question we have to ask ourselves is this. Have the churches substantially changed anyway, and how? The reality is that the churches have been very compliant to that which is popular or powerful. This philosophy has been their history for almost 2000 years, starting at that end of the first century. This was seriously expanded in the fourth century when Christian bishops permitted the head of pagan religion, Constantine the Great, to make decisions as to what would become doctrine for the church and it continues down to today.

They promote teachings, which are in direct violation of what is Biblical, holding two totally opposing thoughts in their heads at the same time and believing both to be correct. We could take a whole list of modern issues, which are as old as humanity, and find this to be true. The churches have corrupted themselves for centuries with their actions. Does it really matter what they say? After all, it could change tomorrow. Maybe that is the benefit of holding opposing views in your head and believing both are true. That way you can never be accused of being entirely wrong.


WWJD
whoa ya'll this is not about pride, battle of the sexes, whose least or whose best; it has been said "Be still and know that I am God." ...stand up or stand down; WWJD

HoosierDaddy . . .
has a good, well-researched post.

The Nazis established a resurgence of nationalism in Germany that also lifted the Deutsch Christen from its doldrums.

The world-wide depression had also affected Germany. The USA had its "Roaring 20's", but Germany sufered under the oppressive Treaty of Versailles during that period. The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) had less than 10% of popular support in Germany in the late 1920's; its support was boosted by the depression to the point it would take over in 1934.

To say, however, that Christians were not concerned with Hitler is disingenuous. I'm not a Christian (nor a Jew, for that matter), but history indicates that many Christians spoke out against the Nazis, to no avail, of course.

Stalin's statement (taken out of context), "How many divisions does the Pope have?" is appropriate. The Church couldn't, and God didn't, stop the nationalistic ferver that swept Germany in the 1930's.

The USA and England could have stopped Hitler in 1936 - 1937, but because of the traditionally isolationist policies of the Democratic Party, the USA failed to even enhance our military readiness until 1941.

Don't blame the church for Hitler.

Few points..
Once Hitler took leadership of the Nazis, church leaders who spoke out against Hitler's ways were tortured to death. These "deaths for example" soon intimidated the leaders of the various churches into silence (obviously, there were no St Pauls or St Johns within the leadership.)

There were no Christians in the leadership of the Nazi party (it is common for the communist left of the USA to falsely associate Christianity with Nazism in order to eliminate Christianity from our society as any form of fascism can't exist where Christianity is free to exist).

The church of Rome & the Catholic church are two completely different bodies (though the church of Rome preferes to be addressed as Catholic).

There's nothing degrading in the differences between men & women. One only degrades themselves by not accepting themselves for which they are.

Common Diversity
My, what diametric diversity within our own Christian community. Difference of opinion is perfectly fine. Don't take it so personally. (for those who do). However, I perceive much subjective hostile retaliation over two articles riddled with opinion (this is their job) about who, what, why, where and how the US should take out the "Islamofascists", by people riddled with opinion. Although, there are the select few who chose to throw in Divinly Inspired Scripture in with their opinion. Oh, how dangerous to recite scripture,wielding it in an attempt to support ones arguement. Here, I've got one. "Get the log out of your own eye". And then when you can see with that eye, focus, not on wounded pride, but the issue.
As a self-professed, inadequate, undeserving, smallminded (in comparison, which there is none, to the omnicient Creator, Saviour, Father) Christian, the best I believe I can do is keep my foolhardy opinion to myself and get on my knees and pray. As Christians, I'm sure we can all agree on this. Jesus prophesied this and these current events and His will be done.
Read these comments, editorials, etc., with a tongue in cheek approach, be entertained, not offended and then go on growing in the Lord. Pray for our "secular" or "no such thing as secular" government, that their endeavours be that of glorification to God. Pray for the nonbeliever, who may be within our government and elsewhere that they experience a come to Jesus epiphany, or if they may be evil doers, that they be taken out. Pray for the unsuspecting children in the mideast who's experiences of sheer terror and horror most of us can only imagine. And let's pray for one another within our common Christianity, those who believe in Jesus Christ as our personal saviour, who covered our disgusting sins with his freepouring blood from the cross, where he experienced every evil, dispicable, sinfully human induced act against his Father, all the while in separation from Him. God's word (truth) is a Divine gift, that we may be able to live a pleasant earthly life, while giving unselflessly of ourselves to one another, in His name, without being offended if we happen to disagree.

FOCUS!!!!!! Train your children the way they should go and eat, drink or whatever you do, unto the glory of God, never cease praying and thank God with every fiber of your being that you know him. If you do, you know it's gonna be alright. AMEN

Let's get off our computers and go to church.

Over Feminized?
Thank you, Doug, for that reminder of what happens when a culture (and a church) becomes feminized.

Western civilization has deluded itself that it can escape the cosmic battles of good and evil by being really, really rational and really, really nice to its enemies. You remind us that Jesus took decisive action. He understood his enemy.

When civilized meets savage on the "battlefield"
it has already lost.

The western mind has allowed itself to become so saturated with post enlightenment chic that it has lost all memory of how to defend itself. Defense begins with understanding your enemy.

Fuzzy Words
I read the whole article and spent half the time just looking up the meaning of all these new words. I even found one the dictionary on my iMac (and it is a new iMac at that) said was unknown -- "eisegesis" -- wasn't in the dictionary but "exegesis" was. That ruined my day.

I hasten to add that Baptists and Catholics have a Hell but there is no Hell in the Jew's sacred book. Why is that?

Lack of trust
I have to wonder does Doug trust God as much as he trusts his gun?

If I had to come up the the number one problem with Christians and the church today, it probably would be that we choose to conform to the world instead of trusting God.

It's all about making money, and then defending that stuff, the conveniences, and the security that that money brings. It's the world's way, and unfortunately, it's the modern day Christian's way, me included.

A quick look at the book of Acts and some of Paul's letters show that early followers of Christians did not take up the sword, even in self-defense. Peter was condemned for trying to save Jesus from the cross. Paul and Silas could easily have overpowered the jailer at Philippi, but chose not to.

Christians did not take up the sword until they became corrupted by the state when Constantine found a use for the church. Once being a Christian became acceptable intead of radical, allegience to Christ appears to have diminished, and Christians conformed to the world which accepted them

Oh to be more radical and less accepted.




Amen to that.
I haven't even read all the comments yet, but I can't imagine what people - Christian people - would see here to disagree about. I don't know what Jesus people follow, but the one I see in Scripture was a troublemaker. In the best possible way.

Turelie writes
As for this person's comment, where on earth in this article is demeaning talk about women? How about addressing the points that were made concerning the jihad that we are facing in this world right now?

Celtic
No, I'm not trying to be mean. But the best I can do is refrain from using gendered pronouns, and the only ones that aren't gendered are, well, offensive.

I like the detente too, at least on the way to getting to know and like you better.

BorntoFarm
Jesus told his followers to carry swords, so perhaps a modic_um (yes, you can't say modic_um on Townhall) of trust in the sword , then, would serve the constructive end of making His words efficacious.

They were never for spreading the religion, though, just for self-protection while we spread the religion.

We are not called to be defenseless.

I give up.
I don't come here that often, and comment even less. But I thought this article had some good points to make.

And then I went to read the comments. (I got about 3/4 down, so maybe I missed something in the last few.)

Barely a word about the subject of the article itself. Mostly arguing about some insult to women that was made. (I'm a woman, yet I missed it.)

The point of this article was that as Christians, we need to stand up against evil the way Jesus did. But I saw not a word on that. Why not? As far as the general message of the article goes, what is there to fight about? And if people are going to fight, why not at least fight on the topic itself?

We are in deep trouble, indeed.

No problem
I have no problem with what Doug says or how he says it. There is a time for soft words and a time for being straightforward. This id the time for straight talk.

We are to be the followers of Christ, but Christ was a revolutionaty. He did not call us to lie down and die at the first sight of a threat. We have a right to live, and we have a right to fight for our lives. what's so wrong with saying it?

Mo,
Very well put. Thank you.

I think I'll make some coffee and sit outside instead.

Lydia, Lydia, Lydia
In your zeal to denounce me, perhaps you failed to notice the part where I said *drumroll*

"I am trying to clean up and civilize debate on my side at least."

means just that. I am trying to reduce the venom and start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I really have to ask you: why are you so consumed by hatred?

Morons!
Giles and respondents can be congratulated for presenting such an informative distillation of the pathology of the Christian right. The real tragedy: in the dawn of the twenty-first century the future of our species may still be in the hands of superstitious tribalists who base their "world view" on the scribblings of iron age savages.

Nick: I can't even think of an appropriate response to your revelations about women. Like Giles and the supermarket tabloids you're such a master of self-parody, there's no room for ridicule.

Celtic: Having followed your posts on a number of threads, I can only express admiration for your efforts to maintain a civil level of discourse in the face of so much thinly disguised contempt. Like Log Cabin Republicans and pilot fish you've chosen to swim in strange company. I'll say this too: as a veteran of Korea, you need defer to no one in matters of courage!

OldManL: FYI - "Eisegesis" is "exegesis" with which you disagree. Does that help? It's too bad Giles didn't avail himself of a dictionary in writing his prolonged ill-tempered bray. Perhaps then he would have avoided his misuse of the word "foreswear." But then, that might seem too intellectual and effeminate!

Incorrect Exegesis
Nick writes: 1Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The Apostle Paul wrote to many churches, but only admonished two (2) not to have women speak in the pulpit (Corinth and Ephesis). Why? Because those cities were having problems with pagans infiltrating the church and in those times women were not allowed to learn Scripture, thus, they did not know what they were talking about.

Therefore, it is incorrect to state that for all time women are not allowed to speak in the church; they are to be under God's authority, yes, and the congregation's as well.

Giles' articles are written in such a way to attract the younger crowd - that's probably why some of us old f**ts find it more scatalogical than necessary - but it gets the point across.

Laura Root

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!
Good job Doug Giles!

We need more of this, and less of the opinions of folks who have never actually read the Bible trying to tell Christians how to be "tolerant."

Thanks!

Jenn Sierra
http://www.jennsierra.com
and
http://jennsierra.townhall.com/

anti-socialist: No Paul or John?

By your own words: "church leaders who spoke out against Hitler's ways were tortured to death." Yes, there were Pauls and Johns present. Unfortunately, not all church leaders are of that stripe; to our regret and shame. Would that we all match up favorably with the Apostles.

Giles' writing and message
Giles' metaphors and similes can be over the top sometimes. The "ED laden Pillsbury Dough Boy" and "over-medicated Garrison Keillor" quips are examples. They just aren't very funny.

But I agree with what he's got to say. Christ was no wuss. He gave a tongue lashing to the Pharisees that sent them running for cover. He stood up and set an example of bravery that we can all hope to emulate. So I say, right on! No need to wear kid gloves when dealing with Osama and his ilk.

Jesus, Jehadist & etc.
Doug Giles doesn't know what he is writing about.
He should read the long, long list of Catholic
and other christians who were jailed and killed
by the nazi's. -- The list is long and most of
them were more brutally tortured than others.
I'm sure they didn't get there by appeasement.

Nick

Acts 2:17 says: "'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams."

How do daughters remain silent yet 'prophesy'?

Doug Giles Gets It Right
Doug Giles makes several good points. He opens the door suddenly and wide, to get his reader's attention...then to start the thinking process. No shortage of females who get all hung up over certain uses of his for giving comparisons. Get over it! Be thankful, Sisters, that we are not living in a Muslim environment where we are made to dress looking like second-hand sofas, wearing oversized slipcovers found in a bin found out in back of a thrift store.

Lydia
As for refering to my ability to defend myself, I saved those comments for people who seemed overtly threatening, like Luis. He assured me that he was not trying to make a physical threat. I make no apology for my comments to C. Watson that you pointed to. He is an admitted pedophile, and I will not tolerate such a person near my family. If anyone hurt my son, then my reaction would be swift, effective and utterly ruthless. Not a Christian thing to say, admittedly, but certainly human. Since you are so occupied with picking specks out of my eye, perhaps you would like to take care of the lumberyard obscuring your own vision? BTW, when I have given offense and I felt an apology was necessary, then I have given it. I feel little need to apologize for defending myself from hateful and potentially dangerous people such as you.

Picking and choosing
It is hard to turn the other cheek after a Zarqawi type has sawed your head off but it is the Muslims who are always saying that Kill the Infidel does not really apply to modern times but to the time of Mohammed when he was defending Islam, except those that say that would not dare say it in person to Olsama bin Laden just to try to placate Infidels into a state of not feeling threatened from those who would blow them up. So you can pick and choose what Christ really meant and you will be playing the same propaganda game that Islam plays only they are much better at the game.

hoosierdaddy gets it wrong
On so many counts, you have failed to persuade.

"None" addressed some of the shortcomings of your arguments, but I need to go a bit further.

First of all, please don't condescend to try and instruct Doug Giles in theological matters. Like a first year med-student trying to tell a brain surgeon how to operate, you arrogantly tell Doug what to read because you've read a couple books and think you've got it all figured out, when he has been there and done that in spades.

Secondly, the Sermon on the Mount is, above all, a illustration of why we need a Savior. Jesus repeatedly laid out standards that no one can truly live by all of the time. In other words, only He could truly follow those standards - ordinary humans can't possibly do it. Sure, we should strive for perfection, but it can't be done, and that's why we need Him.

Thirdly, as Doug said, the admonitions about turning the other cheek, etc... are about individuals, not nations. The sermon on the mount does not address how nations should handle the protection of its citizens, or the use of the military.

Fourth, you quote someone who claims that the state "established" the church. One need read no further, as you have just illustrated that you are Biblically and spiritually illiterate. Jesus Christ established the church.

Fifth, people who have claimed Christ throughout history and acted as the Nazis did, are simply false Christians. They use it (as "None" pointed out) to further their goals, and that's the extent of it. It's akin to the clothing they put on, in that it presents them in a certain light when they want to be seen that way.

Sixth, the church WAS silent while Hitler was in the early stages of his dictatorship and the implementation of his world domination goals.
That's what allowed him to become powerful. Later, genuine Christians began to speak out, but the momentum was already on Hitler's side. This is largely Doug's point - that it's incumbent upon civilized people to stop evil before it spreads if at all possible. We can only guess what might have happened if the church had not been initially complacent about Hitler, but rather, confronted and exposed him before he began his quest for total power.

What you fail to understand, hoosierdaddy, is that the apostle Paul warned of people who followed a different Jesus. In every generation, you have false Christians who claimed to know God and to be following His will. These are the people to whom Christ will one day speak these words; "Depart from me, I never knew you."

While the people you quote, and undoubtedly you yourself, would like nothing better than to broad brush Christianity by pointing to times in history when certain evil people claimed Christ but were as far from Him as it's possible to be, a closer examination of the facts renders those theories to be little more than nonsense.









Lamb of God/Lion of Judah!
This is very simple: Jesus came as the lamb of God for a way of salvation and to provide a way to the Father. He will return as the Lion of Judah. And He’s coming back to make war and to claim what is His. Guess what the unrighteous are not going to be part of it, if fact they and satan himself is who Jesus will be making war on, it will be the time of judgment and you don’t get a lawyer.

Check our Rutgers and Cornell Law School
hoosierdaddy: Who is your history teacher?

Below is a link to an extensive collection of documents about the plan of the Nazis to eliminate Christianity. Read the author Doug refers to, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison. There was the state sponsored Lutheran church and there was the "Confessing Church"

www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

The first installment includes a detailed 120-page document titled "Nazi Master Plan: Persecution of the Christian Churches," which offers a glimpse into Nazi Germany's horrific plan for persecution and genocide by spotlighting the Third Reich's attitudes toward non-Aryan Christian faiths.

The document is accompanied by an original article, "The Nazis' Persecution of Religion as a War Crime: The OSS's Response within the Nuremberg Trial's Process," drafted by British legal scholars Claire Hulme and Michael Salter.

"This is the first time that a lot of this top-secret information from a landmark era of world history is available for public review," said Nuremberg Project editor Julie Seltzer Mandel, a third-year student at the Camden law school and the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. "Gen. Donovan kept extensive, detailed records of Nazi atrocities. Some of his work was not entered into the Nuremberg proceedings, but will be available for public review for the first time ever through this project."

http://ur.rutgers.edu/focus/article/War%20crimes/900


http://www.geocities.com/nazis_persecuted_churches/index.htm

Annfan: very well written.

Sorry Hoosier

The topic of the article
What I thought he was getting at was that some people are trying to say Jesus was a pacifist and maybe he was at that time, since he came to be "sacrificed" for no "legal" reason. However, our role as individuals under Christ isn't the same as the role of government in any nation and especially a "nation under God." What does the Bible say
quote:
Romans 13
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
=============
We are to use our system of government to over come evil whether that evil is the burlar, the murderer or the terrorist or the nation causing "evil" to threaten our nation or its international interests and how we react as a nation is not how we should conduct our lives as individuals toward other individuals. The "Law" of the city, county, state, and international community is what determines much of what individuals do and what nations do. We as individuals are to show "love" even while sentencing someone to prison or waging a war such as rebuilding a nation after we win a war with it as we did after WW II in all of Europe that we had bombed, even in Germany.

After we won the war against Saddam, it was our duty as a "nation under God," to help rebuild it. (all 50 state constitutions have God in them)

Vorian writes
And, Vorian is right, Jesus will come back to wage war.
Quote:
Revelation 19
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND Lord OF LordS
====================

I too have a problem with some of the terms in the article about "women." Woman are a balance to "men." As some pointed out, we are different for a good reason. We need both views and womem and men who exhibit "womanly" characteristics, when listened to by "manly" men, can lead to solutions besides war. (Not all "manly" men want war, either) This, case with "Islamofascism" needs both views. We need "war" with the hard core, can't be reasoned with, and we need "negotiation" with those who don't support the death of all infidels but are on the fence and supporting the terrorists with funding or though just not speaking out against them. If they can be reached, negoiate. If they can't use war.

The "woman" has always been the nurtureing, caring, loving, empathetic member of the husband/wife team needed to raise children to be responsible members of society. The male that exibits "female" empathy and concern isn't to be ridiculed any more than a woman. Likewise the woman who want to be a marine and "kill the enemy" isn't to be ridiculed any more than the man who wants to be a marine. They may be in the minority of their sex but they are still important. However, "the manly" and "the womanly" views are both equally valuable and at times each should prevail depending on the circumstances.

I see his point in the article but think he could have worded it better. But, he writes to stir up controversy and get more readers, not stop it.

To Kraut: cultural context
"In my never to be humble opinion the idea of turn the other cheek has been taken way to far. The initial command meant to give someone a second chance, don't over react, everybody makes a mistake, cut them some slack, etc. The command was never to continually turn your head and continue to get smacked."

Listening to a historian on the radio once, he stated that actually it was a statement on equality.

Romans would strike their slaves on the right cheek with the left hand (the toilet hand, coincidentally). Turning the other cheek meant offering the other side so that they'd have to hit you with the right, and thus stating you were not a slave, but a social equal. You have to remember that Judaea had been Romanized some years before, so this sort of reference would not be lost on Jesus' listeners. The nuance did get lost over the centuries however.

Jesus WAS quite a rabble rowser. No wonder the Romans executed him as an enemy of the State - I don't buy the Sanhedrin argument for a minute. Remember the audience these books were written for; the Imperial government HAD to be excused. Maybe the Sanhedrin was complicitous with the Romans, but them being the sole cause of Jesus being crucified? Not for a minute do I believe that.

Jerubaal
No doubt about it, in Luke 22 Jesus tells his disciples to go buy a sword if they don't have one. But I can't find anywhere where he tells them, or even suggests the they use it on their enemy. Do you suppose you could point that part out for me?

In fact, just a 12 verses down, someone asks if they should use the sword to smote the enemy that comes to take Jesus. They use it, and he rebukes them for it.

I suggest Jesus intention of them having swords had nothing to do with use against enemies. He certainly never endorsed the use against enemies.

The world returns evil for evil. Christ commands good for evil and forgiveness. Nowhere will you find any Christians in the Bible using the sword against their enemies.

But today, Christians are prosperous and acceptable. So, they take up the world's methods to keep what they have.

The use of the 22nd Chapter of Luke to return evil for evil is certainly a misinterpretation of scripture, yet it certainly not that uncommon. Perhaps it is the prosperity we have today that makes us worship our goods and our worldly security instead of following Christ as early followers did.

...got cows to milk. Back later if you want to discuss this.

AB


Yes!
I just read this and agree whole-heartedly.

I am sure most of my thoughts have been addressed, but Christ was not just a loving person. Sure, He acted out of love, but He also was downright confrontational.

Our lesson today should also be to remember that we need to call out what we think is wrong without fear.

Ajhil
You can call us morons all you like.

One of us is right. The other thinks he is.

It truly takes more intellect to believe in God than to not. Its easy to believe in yourself.

Church, State, and War
Historically, the mainstream Christian theologians--whether Roman Catholic or Protestant--affirmed Paul's teaching in Romans that God was the source of earthly governments and governmental authority. This did not mean that an individual ruler or government might not do evil. It did mean that the functions of government--to protect society, administer justice, etc.--were given rightly by God to the state and not to the church.

St. Augustine addressed this problem in a text in which he recounts a letter he received from a Roman judge. The judge was troubled because he had become a Christian and yet, in his role as judge, sentenced men to death in an imperial court. Could he do this and remain a Christian? St. Augustine's answer was that as long as the judge did his job honestly and fairly, to the best of his abilities, there was no conflict between the judge's duties to the Roman state and his Christianity.

Don't forget the just-war doctrine, which is stated in a variety of ways in the history of Christianity, but was never repudiated by either the Catholic Church or the major Protestant figures such as Luther and Calvin. The just war doctrine imposes what we can call humanitarian limits on the waging of war, but it does not condemn war as such.

Now a comment on Doug Giles: He writes as if he is a posturing clown, producing almost a parody of the positions he is arguing. Perhaps he does this for his conservative audience; perhaps he's really like this. His rhetoric is, to put it mildly, overripe, and his vocabulary is filled with his strained attempts to coin insulting phrases. Still, he is on to the fact that many contemporary Christians have a very uncertain grasp of their own doctrines. Waging war against our Islamic enemies is not something that Christian teaching should regard as wrong by definition. Whether Americans like it or not, we are entering a time of religious war. We need to understand it and draw on sources of strength to deal with it.




Doug,
Obviously, you have a personal relationship with The Risen Lord. You KNOW Him, rather than just know of Him. Far too many people are content to say, "Sure, I believe in God!" but lack Faith that comes with a personal relationship with Him.
It is nothing to say that you believe, even demons believe and shudder.(James 2:19)
Evil MUST be battled. Even Angels are not limp little faries, but mighty Warriors.
God Bless You for your work in telling the Truth!

Lord of Hosts
I like Mr. Giles article but think a stronger case can be made than he conveys. After the last supper, Christ told his apostles that the protection that covered them in their mission to the Judeans would not cover them in their mission to the Gentiles. He told them to take swords and, if they didn't have any, to sell their other possessions to buy them. Some of his apostles misunderstood and thought He was telling them to take stock of their armaments because He was about to begin the revolution which would elevate Him as the King-Messiah. That is the obvious meaning of these passages in St. Luke's gospel. A couple of things are clear. One is that it is permissible for Christians to use deadly force in self defense. Second, it must logically follow that what is permissible personally is permissible for the community. The strained interpretation is that the swords were for show to scare enemies away. Anyone travelling in the countryside in those days would have had to have been armed and had to use the arms to defend himself. That's why they had the swords in the first place.

However, there is a broader point to be made here. Like some here, including Mr. Giles, I believe that Christ's sayings are often misunderstood by pacifists. In context, they amount to a blanket injuction to be gracious and show restraint. These virtues are the very heart of chivalry, not pacifism.

It says in Exodus that the LORD is a Warrior. He is called the LORD of Hosts. Hosts are armies. Sabaoth means armies. The armies of Israel and the armies of angels in heaven. The God of the Old Testament, whom Christ claimed to be, is clearly no pacifist. Simple logic should tell you that if Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity as Christianity teaches, and He was begotten before all worlds, then He was God when God ordered the extermination of enemy tribes under Moses and David.

The Judeans were a subject people when Christ was among them. He simply tailored his message to fit the context.

Should Nazi Christianity Be Cautionary?
annfann
Please forgive this Christian's presumption in questioning Doug Giles' interpretation of Scripture as supporting the Christian equivalent of Islamic jihad against the enemies du jour of the US government.

Whether you can forgive me or not, please take a few minutes to look at the picture gallery documenting displays of their fealty, religious and political, by the Fuhrer and prominent members of the Deutsche Christen found at the following link: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

I also call to your and Doug's attention just a few things that Hitler said regarding his *own* somewhat bellicose interpretation of Christianity and the political value of The Redeemer to the German State. Just mentally substitute "Muslims" for "Jews" and see what major differences you can detect in the rhetoric of Mr. Giles and that of Mr. Schicklegruber, who, by the way, was born and raised in the Catholic Faith.

"My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their [gaunt] faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's *The Holy Reich*]

“I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. . .
“As a human being it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did that old civilization two thousand years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin by the Jews. . . I am convinced that I am really a devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as Christ did two thousand years ago, against those who are stealing from and exploiting these poverty-stricken people.
“Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this particular race which today denounces and blasphemes all over the place. That man was dragged before a court and they said: he is arousing the people! So he, too, was an agitator!”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922; from Charles Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989, pp. 261-262.)

I'm fully aware, of course, that Doug Giles in not alone in espousing the American equivalent of "Gott Mit Uns", it's just that his is a particularly explicit example of it and this forum provides an opportunity to challenge a rather widely-held interpretation of Christianity that is subservient to the State and its geopolitical ambitions.

Another Libertarian Christian (besides me), Lawrence Vance, has published a collection of his essays entitled, *Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State* of which you can find reviews at Amazon.com, and I commend it to your and Doug's (and everyone else's) attention as an example of Biblical exegesis that facilitates a rather fuller understanding of the Mission on earth of the Prince of Peace than that suggested by Doug's somewhat gerrymandered version. For a foretaste of the book's theme, Dr. Vance says this about it:

"These thirteen essays, organized under the headings of Christianity and War, The Evils of War, Specific Wars, and The U.S. Global Empire, have one underlying theme: opposition to the warfare state that robs us of our liberty, our money, and in some cases our life. Although many of these essays reference contemporary events, the principles discussed in all of them are timeless: war, militarism, empire, interventionism, the warfare state, and the Christian attitude toward these things. It is the author’s contention that Christian enthusiasm for the state, its wars, and its politicians is an affront to the Saviour, contrary to Scripture, and a demonstration of the profound ignorance many Christians have of history."

Interventionist Liberals as well as nation-building Conservatives and freedom-spreading Neocons who try to press scripture into the service of their empire-building and warmongering ways really ought to see what Vance has to say, as it's representative of what many of us Christians think who are equally serious about human liberty, the continuity of Western Civilization, and the physical survival of the human race.



JoeS
I don't know about Cornell, but Rutgers U is hardly a bastion of objective and rational thought.

Maybe those documents (which I couldn't find) will prove you right. Maybe not. I don't know.

"Wild Bill" Donovan (OSS) was known to exaggerate from time to time.

I'm sure that any fascist state would want to reign in religious organizations as standard procedure, similar to the Socialist-Democrats' (formerly the Democratic Party) harangues against evangelical Christians in this country.

Presidents
Presidents get too much credit and too much blame for what Congress does.

One reason we so rarely kept presidents for 8 years was because we credited them or blamed them for the previous administration and what Congress did.

Since it take about 3 years to see real change, most President's are actually under the influence of the previous Congress's legislation. For 40 years that was Democrats and each decade saw more and more jobs leave, more and more problems with social security (21 tax increases to "fix" it) and more imports of Asian goods.

Yet, it wasn't Congress getting blamed. It was the Presidents and even they were not even getting blame or credit for what their own Congress was doing, but what the previous one had done.

Wellstone, you probably have very good intentions but name a socialist nation using Clinton's policies that in the long run has had success. Tax increases only work for a couple of years before their effects are really known and they start decreasing tax revenues. Remember when Clinton made his tax increases. His first term was hated by Democrats because they said he was working too much with Republicans in Congress.

But, after his "trial" he started paying back favors to the democrat party, and that is when they started enacting policies that a few years later were being felt as indicated by the statistics on job growth. Remember those stats are on "job growth" not unemployment. They are the decline in how fast jobs are being created, not lost. They are an indicator of a pending disaster not a disaster already in progress.

We grew jobs until the recession hit, but the decline in that rate, just as we are seeing now under Bush is a symptom of a pending problem. Bush tax cuts won't keep us from another recession because they were the wrong ones for that. While they stimulated spending, they haven't stopped the loss of manufacturing jobs.

The June 175,000 job growth report had 48,000 jobs LOST in manufacturing and another 10,000 LOST in high tech. Those jobs will continue to leave as long as we can't compete with low tax nations like Ireland.

Those are all the results of Congressional action, not just some President who is "used" by Congress to get what they are willing to pass or not pass. What Clinton wanted and what Bush wanted can be blocked by the Filibuster or just having enough that don't want what the President wants. They, in turn are usually driven by their voters in their respective states.

Clinton and Congress
quote:
Clinton's 1993 and 1994 budgets included cuts in government spending and tax increases that helped reduce the federal deficit. They were approved by Congress, which had a Democratic majority. In the elections of November 1994, however, the Democrats lost control of Congress to the Republicans. The Republicans called for larger spending cuts, with the goal of erasing the deficit by the year 2002. Clinton said some of the proposed cuts were too sharp, including those for spending on education, welfare, and Medicare. He responded with his own plan to wipe out the deficit.

By the start of the government's new fiscal year on Oct. 1, 1995, Congress had failed to pass some of the appropriations bills that fund the government's operations. It then passed a series of bills to allow spending to continue for short periods. But the bills included certain other provisions that Clinton opposed. For example, one bill increased Medicare premiums. Clinton vetoed bills with provisions he opposed, and Congress refused to remove the provisions. The resulting lack of funding forced many federal government operations to shut down for 6 days in November and for 21 days from December 1995 to January 1996.
===================

Those tax increases were what he had to live with in his 2nd term from 1997 to 2001 when Bush took office.

But, as we saw some of the effects were already showing up slightly but still beginning the trend, in 1996,1997, 1998, where job growth peaked and started its decline.

Yet, was he to blame? Who passed the tax increases? Not Clinton. Congress did. Also, some of the stonewalling under his 2nd term was from Republicans. Should we blame Clinton if they did something we didn't like? Yes, he vetoed some things but he also made "deals" to get some passed. Bush has made deals by "reaching across the aisle" that infuriated Conservatives but who passed the legislation? Congress and it was a majority of Republicans that could have blocked it.

Presidents don't run the Country. "We the people" run it through our votes for Congress. Congress even has the power to override a veto. It was never the founder's intent for the President to "run" the nation. He has certain duties but they didn't include much. Congress had the task of representing "we the people."

We are using the policies of France and will become like France if we don't change what we are doing and adopt the polices of new Europe, Ireland and other capitalist nations. Socialism can't compete with those nations.

Christian Fools
I wish I had read this article before having a conversation with a religious nut who was screaming "What doesn't George Bush understand about 'thou shalt not kill.'" I tried to steer the conversation in a sane direction, but to no avail. However, if I run into this same scenario in the future, I plan to clarify the meaning of "turn the other cheeck." Thanks for this excellent clarification.

NAFTA and SuperHighway
Many say the immigration is what is holding wages down and that is Bush's fault even though we never closed the border after the last Amnesty 3 Presidents ago and then had this,
quote:
Clinton achieved one of his major foreign policy goals in November 1993, when Congress approved the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Clinton strongly supported the pact, which will gradually eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. In December 1994, Clinton won Congress's approval of an expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). This expanded GATT plan called for large reductions in trade barriers among many nations.
-------------------------

Many in both parties say that agreement that has led to the "superhighway" and Mexican truckdrivers that will use the Highway are the fault of NAFTA. Should we blame Clinton? He may have signed it and wanted it, but Congress passed it and they represent the voters.

"We the people" have also blocked social security reform which is why Congress and possibly the President want millions of immigrants here to keep the ratio of workers to retirees at 3 to 1. That $84 trillion unfunded liability for social security and Medicare has little to do with Bush and everything to do with Congress that passed not only the Bush prescription plan for which the Democrats also had one that was just as expensive, but the mandatory COLA increases that are the main source of that unfunded liability and that was passed long ago when Democrats were in control of Congress.

Presidents are just "whipping boys" for what Congress does and doesn't do.

Giles
You sound like a Islamic jihadist. They murder in the name of God, and you propose the same.



Brian and others
Yes, both Adams and Giles demean women, you are not women and have no idea.

Pore God
I be doing this for GOD! Pore old God gets in the middle of more wars than he should. Any politician worth his salt knows a person hell bent on killing for God makes a better willing idiot. Fanning the flames of Religion emotionalizes the zeal for "the cause" better than just drafting a bunch of poor boys. Do the sons of the military industrial complex give up their jobs to die or do the politicians quit thier jobs and go with the troops? Of course not.

No Terrorists Under Every Bed?
John Mueller, Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University has written an essay for *Foreign Affairs* entitled "Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?" in which he marshals some perspectivizing and fear-allaying facts regarding al-Qaeda's and other terrorist groups' ability to strike targets inside and outside the US:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html

Excerpted from the essay:
"Those attacks demonstrated, of course, that al Qaeda -- or at least 19 of its members -- still possessed some fight. And none of this is to deny that more terrorist attacks on the United States are still possible. Nor is it to suggest that al Qaeda is anything other than a murderous movement. Moreover, after the ill-considered U.S. venture in Iraq is over, freelance jihadists trained there may seek to continue their operations elsewhere -- although they are more likely to focus on places such as Chechnya than on the United States. A unilateral American military attack against Iran could cause that country to retaliate, probably with very wide support within the Muslim world, by aiding anti-American insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq and inflicting damage on Israel and on American interests worldwide.

"But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaedalike operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

"Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists."

The blind leading the blind
I love how the focus on a few and forget those making nuclear weapons, calling for the complete distruction of Israel and the U.S. and all infidels and any muslims who "negotiate" with the "Zionists."

Not just al-Qaeda, not just Hamas, not just Hezbollah but groups of radicals around the world.

BorntoFarm
I don't think we disagree at all, man. Peter was not defending himself with that sword. He was acting in religious zeal. That whole event happened to show that Jesus went willingly, even with determination, to His death. If not, He could have told Peter to leave the sword at a friend's house to prevent him from using it.

The sword is for simple self-protection, not for anything else. The arresting officers did not come to kill anyone. Killing them would have made Peter a murderer, thus explaining the phrase "whoever kills by the sword is slain by the sword".

Christians are not permitted to use the sword for anything else. Of course, in a war for their country, self-defense will likely often be triggered. There were soldiers in the Bible who believed.

more ammo
To those like chicagosusanna who get annoyed at Christians who misuse "thou shalt not kill": Remind them that about a page later, after the decalogue in Exodus, the penalty for intentional murder is given as execution. "Ratsach", the verb used, actually refers to unlawful killing; i.e., murder. It's the same in modern Hebrew too. When protesters chanted "Sharon Rotseach" after Sabra and Shatilla, they meant "(Ariel) Sharon is a murderer". To have called him a killer would be meaningless - - he was a general, of course he killed (not that I agree with those protesters).

Christianity is simply not the religion that the sheepish types make it out to be.

jerubaal
While I'm not from the "show me" state, I'm from Ohio actually, sometimes folks just have to show me where they are coming from.

Your explanation of Peter using the sword with religious zeal, as opposed to self-defense certainly has merit, but it doesn't follow that using it in self-defense is appropriate.

I've never run across anything that Jesus said where He approved of anyone using the sword to defend themselves. This is counter to EVERYTHING that He taught. So, if you please, show me.

If Jesus didn't say it, I'll accept word from Paul or John or Peter or any other NT writer. To be perfectly honest, I don't think it's in there.

Show me from the Bible where Jesus said that using the sword for self-defense is allowable, but any other use is not.

Odd, isn't it, that nothing is written about Stephen attempting to defend himself when he was stoned. Nor is there anything in tradition about the apostles that were mayrtered defending themselves as well.





show me
"And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing."
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - St. Luke 22:35-36

show me
Of course, a person could rationalize that to mean it was only for show, or a spiritual sword, or some other drivel. There is no way to convince somebody if they're not open to it. If Jesus was out of step with the previous witness regarding violence given in the Old Testament, then He couldn't be Who He said He is, and no one need pay attention to what He said.

the sword?
Also, Jesus taught He would return as a warrior.

Rev. 19 is the description of Him when he returns.

Also, what about the teaching in Romans 13 where he tells us that when we are in the service of "government" we will slay the evil people?

Quote:
for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
----------------

Not much doubt about it there.
quote:
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain
====================

He even uses the word sword and unless you think only the ruler and not his army, his police and his servants of all types that maintain order, is going to use the sword, I would then have severe doubts about the author of Romans.

While the "ruler" is symbolic of the head of government, it is by no means intended to mean only the ruler is going to use his sword in fighting evil.

Also, Christians that settled the western states and where there was no law enforcement but plenty of bandits, are you saying that since they were Christians they had no religious right to defend their family?


burden of proof
Those like myself who claim that Christ was/is very far from pacifism have only to prove that there is allowance for violence in His example. Those who claim He was a pacifist have to show that there is no evidence of this.

First, Christ was God, one of the Three Persons of the Trinity, begotten before all worlds. So He, Himself is responsible for the violence ordered and carried out directly by God in the Old Testament. If He was not God, then He was a liar and we have no reason to pay attention to what He said.

Second, Christ spoke in hyperbole as a habit. "Pluck out your eye" and "cut off your hand" comes to mind. There is no precedent in the Judean religion for non-violence as a rule. His comments regarding violence should be taken as an injunction to be gracious and exercise restraint, not as a new rule on violence cut from wholecloth and directly contradictory to the Old Testament witness and His other actions.

Third, He cleansed the temple (with non-deadly violence)and told His apostles to arm themselves (deadly force).

Fourth, in St. John's Revelation, we see some very violent imagery associated with the last days. These images are inexplicable from a pacifistic perspective. Why employ the violence even as a metaphor? Why not all sweetness and light? The images are in keeping with a non-pacifist interpretation.

Fifth, recall that Christ surrendered to lawful authority, not bandits. The Apostles were armed for a reason. It was not safe to travel in the countryside without weapons and the will to use them. A sword that you're not willing to brandish does little good against would be attackers.

Sixth, neither Christ nor John the Baptist told those soldiers with whom they spoke to quit the military life. They had every opportunity to do so.

Now perhaps there are those who can rationalize all that away. I can explain Christ's words that may seem to some on their face to be pacifistic. Try explaining all of the above from a pacifistic perspective - - and while keeping a straight face.

by the way
By the way, this is all old news. New heresies are just old heresies repackaged. In the second century there was a heretic named Marcion, a gnostic, who rejected the God of the Old Testament as too nasty a brute and edited his own version of the New Testament mostly out of a redacted version of Luke and some of Paul's letters, excising anything remotely approving of violence. Now we have large sections of the Church in a semi-Marcionite state of mind.

Anti-Muhammed . . .
wrote that "Stalin died cursing God."

As much as I despise socialists/communists, I can't let that one go. By all accounts, Stalin suffered a massive stroke late at night and although he lingered on for a while, he never spoke.

Some say Berea finally shot him, ending a far more brutal regime than Hitler ever dreamed of. No one really knows exactly as his death was secondary to who was to succeed him. Typical Russian politics, huh?

Mincing words...
I think I understand what you are trying to say, Doug, but I wish you would just say what you want to say instead of beating around the bush!!! lol

Greg

"The great majority of Christians in and around Germany did nothing to stop the evil going on around them."

This is true, but the problem is that it is far too easy for us, and for Mr Giles, to make "judgements" from the safety of our present free world. There was little that the individual could do, under the circumstances, and any action taken required enormous reserves of moral courage. Because opposition to the Nazis meant either the concentration camp or execution.

Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian Catholic who refused to be drafted into the Army to fight in defense of the Nazi German regime, on the grounds that Germany wasnt fighting a "just war" was executed. And he wasnt regarded as a "hero" by his neighbours... but as a traitor. This is physical courage combined with moral courage of the highest order, placing him in the context of heroic Christian inDIVIDUALS, such as Bonhoeffer.

"Where my judgment has its limits is that here in the US we often don't do much better and if the same situation was to replicate itself we might not, either.... His judgment his directed at those of us who consider ourselves Christians."

Excellent point, except for your conclusion. Let's take a simple example.

30+ million abortions in the US since 1973. And what have the American Christian Churches - of all denominations - done about it? Nothing. This is a country where we choose our representatives, and where we arent threatened by death by choosing for Christ - and for life -in this particular matter.

I say "nothing" in the sense of collective action. What would happen for example, if EVERY Catholic followed the Church's teaching on this matter, and refused to vote for ANY candidate who took a "moderate" view on killing the unborn? Then no Catholic could vote Democrat, for one thing. (Yes I know... Ted Kennedy is "Catholic".... how embarrassing is that??)

I would go further, and say that the US Christian Churches stand under FAR greater judgement than the overwhelmed Christian Churches in Nazi Germany, for not addressing the single greatest evil in our midst.

In conclusion, it is easy to SOUND tough, and "macho" when the price to be paid for ACTION is so low. What price will Mr Giles pay for his macho expressions? A few criticisms, more than offset by his "right on - high fiving" approvals. And that is no price. Precisely what such posturing is worth. Nothing.









Christians and War
Good debate here. Personally, what I perceive from Christ's words are that we should let God have the vengence on those who wrong us. One reasoning for this is that God is capable of so much more than we. If we put a terrorist in jail or even condemn him/her to death, it is nothing compared to God's judgement of eternal damnation.

Christians go to war for their country because Jesus comanded us to obey our government and its laws. However, this life is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity.

To the point- if we have salvation, we don't need to worry about tomorrow, our tormentors will be condemned by God. We will be rewarded for eternity. Knowing and trusting that God will not fail in his promises makes it more bearable in this world.

p.s.- Celtic - I once thought we would rarely agree on things but I was wrong. I generalized about your positions due to our original debate on evolution/creation. Since then, I've seen many of your posts on other subjects that were, indeed, helpful and thought provoking.

on just war
One thing ignored by some when considering just war and whether it exists in this or that case: St. Augustine recognized the problem and left the call to Christian rulers. They were to make their case in terms of just war but they, being responsible for the physical security of the people and having the most information about the situation, were trusted with the decision. Just war theory was not formulated in a society where the views of this or that individual conscience were considered to have any authority, even for the individual himself.

Trying Too Hard ~
"When you take the accounts of Christ’s life straight (as I do my whiskey).."
______________________________
Doug, you could have talked all day and not thrown that out. Sometimes you do more damage than you do good trying to be "cool".

aspacia, re: Giles
How exactly did Giles propose that we murder in the name of God? I missed that in my reading of this column.

aspacia, re: Brian and others
First, why are we talking about the subject of Adams and Giles demeaning women in relation to this article? The subject doesn't come up in it, so why do you bring it up?

Second, they may not be women, but several other people posted in favor of Giles, and they are women. So, what's your point?

ajhil,
you might get more readers if you save the "morons" for the end of your post. Of course, they probably won't read any further posts from you, so maybe you should hold off on it altogether.

Celt,
Giles language might be over the top, but he's essentially correct. Having said that, another poster said something about his stance not being original, which is true. That wouldn't matter if there was a need to address the topic, but it seems like most evangelical churches support the war anyway.

What'd Jesus say about oil?
I'd like to know from the biblical scholars, seeing as how oil's the issue here, no matter what some faux columnist with serious gender issues and a shot at the bad-writing-contest gold medal might conclude.

This phony Islam-vs.-infidels conflict asks us to believe that multitudinous pockets of young Muslim men just sat around one day and decided to start targeting us.

Clearly, the billions of infidels in China and South America, among other places, aren't targeted.

It's about our U.S. troops sitting on their land, to protect the oil, as we have in Saudi Arabia and/or Iraq since 1990.

That wrought the anger that spawned 9/11.

That brought us more than 90 percent of the suicide bombings of the last 25 years (study by University of Chicago professor, and a good strategic Republican to boot, not some phony unable to correct strategic error).

Now, it's not evil per se, our troops sitting on their land. We do have good intentions, including our own economic profits. But if somebody else's troops sat upon our land in numerous places, we'd freak.

One time, we had a president who realized this and removed the troops. The suicide bombings halted in the country from which he removed them.

Our last true leader.

Reagan.

A JUST JESUS
I can only imagine the shock of many "believers" on judgement day when they find out that neither Jesus or God are Americans. I'll have many sins of my own to answer for on judgement day, but using the name of the Almighty to advance American interest without regard to the well being of God's children of other nations will not be one of them.

double cappuccino writes: Oil
Yes it is about oil. So? We also have to have copper, iron and rare earths for high tech manufacturing. We also import gasoline, and other commodities. All of those things require our government to "interfere" because the voters demand a high standard of living.

Of course the highest demand is for oil and our currency has been based on oil for decades. So, again, what is the point of dragging oil into it?

The Islamofascist are the ones that want to control the oil in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia (yes they have been attacked too), Nigeria, Sudan and any other oil producing nation they can get terrorist cells into. We are seeing high oil prices partly because of lost Nigerian production which is where we get a lot of the light sweet crude our refineries need.

But, if oil were the only reason, we would have been in there according to your implication. Yes, we will go into a nation for oil if there are other reason like Iraq where an ongoing war that Clinton resumed to teach them a lesson and then backed off but with the promise we would return if the violations of the cease fire didn't stop.

Saddam was threatening to sell oil in Euros to destablize the dollar but we didn't go in then. We only went in when it became obvious he wasn't going to stop training terrorists, funding suicide bombers, shooting at our planes, harboring Zarqawi, and continueing his efforts at a nuclear weapon. Regardless of his attempt to get the urainium that Wilson claimed was false, we do know and have proved with the Saddam tapes we seized that his "plasma research" on enrichment was going on and right under the noses of the UN.

Then we used that opportunity to try and create an economic system of prosperity that may or not succeed but, was worth the try since it will take both military and economic weapons to win this war.

Oil? Sure. What's wrong with that when the voters demand a high standard of living and that depends on oil. Without it we will enter a decades long recession. But, socialists would like that because then they would have even more ammunition for socialism.

Jesus and the Just War Theory
One needs to read "The Church Impotent" by Leon Podles to get a grip on why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. We Christians are often not quite sure why young males are so attracted to a religion that is only about justice, i.e., the Muslim religion. On the other hand, we Christians have a savior who is both a judge and good shepherd,i.e., the Sermon on the Mount, who exalts those who are willing to take up the cross and follow Him. This means confronting evil.
Two thousand years of saints and martyrs can't be other than those who chose to be lifted up on the cross. If only one could see the thousands of Christan martyrs who Nero burned on crosses to light up the city of Rome, maybe we would not shirk our responsiblity to be saints and martyrs , and not just taking up space each Sunday in a church pew to hear a pastor tell us what we already know, we are redeemed by the shed blood of Christ. What we don't often hear is that we must be doers and not just hear the Word.
Three year ago I visited Dachau, a Nazi concentration camp from WWll where almost 3000 Catholic priests were tortured, humiliated and killed for their faith. They along with their bishops were not ever going to compromise their faith.
Though Doug giles does not share my Catholic faith, he is a brother in Christ who can show young males like my two boys, both military officers who served in combat in Iraq, that the Jesus who Doug Giles describes is the one that Christians have known since calvary.

Lydia...huh?
Since when did I say that you hate me??? I have said that I believe you have made ubfortunate and possibly hateful comments, but I have never editorialized how you might personnally feel about any other person. I don't know you, and I have little basis to ascertain your like or dislikes. You do seem to use the word "evil" an awful lot. As to your repeated references to Luis, here is what he told me:

"Nope. He does not represent the past. The past was represented by people who didn't understand the homosexual and feminist desire to destroy the family. He does understand all of that. He will NOT be happily left in the past. He will lead us into the future where we return to homosexuals staying modestly in the closet or suffer the consequences."

Suffer the consequences. Sounds like a threat to me. Maybe you don't see it they way, but we in the GLBT community see that as an endorsement to lynching and murder, and I believe it was meant to convey just that message. I have no apologies for anouncing my willingness to defend myself and my family. Deal with it. I won't be anybody's victem.

You must be kidding
To suggest somehow that the author's intent was to belittle women is amusing. Ahem, the topic was Christian's historicly weak attempts to stop despotism in it's tracks.
Once, churches held moral authority in Christian nations - not to be confused with fiscal or military might - but the foundation for what is right and what is wrong. Sadly, that is no longer so true in this nation - but that is a topic for another day. Had the Germanic Christian churches bellowed from the pulpit just what evil was rising, the German people just may have been convinced to VOTE against Hitler in his rise to power. Failing that, there may have been fewer so easily convinced and perhaps less apt to join or at least attempt to dissuade the rising swatstika tide.
Whether one is male, female, masculine or feminine or any combination - they are subject to the risen tide of radical jihadism. Seems some of our sensitive feminists (both male and female) or war averse citizens cannot discern good from evil and as such have a hard time with churches and, God knows, politicians who find the difference to be readily apparent.
So, where did the conversation leave the track of 'what would Jesus do about radical jihadism' and careen onto Jesus was a feminist?

Lydia and the "hate" ?
When I asked you:

"why are you so consumed by hatred?"

I was not trying to imply that you somehow hated me personally. You seem contemptuous of GLBT people in general, and have described them as "evil". If your attitude is not one of hate, then I would be interested in your clarification.

Curt
"Though Doug giles does not share my Catholic faith, he is a brother in Christ who can show young males like my two boys, both military officers who served in combat in Iraq, that the Jesus who Doug Giles describes is the one that Christians have known since calvary."

With respect, I can see from your post that you are a good man, and no doubt have raised two very fine Christian sons, who have actually served in combat. I'm sure Mr. Giles would be the first to agree with me that it is he who could learn from your sons, rather than the other way round.

In addition, I appreciate your mentioning of the thousands of Catholic priests who gave their lives in Dachau. They should not be forgotton. How many of US would make THAT choice?

Pope Condemned Invasion of Iraq
Presumably, Pope John Paul II and America's Catholic Bishops were somewhat conversant with Just War Theory, and they condemned the invasion of Iraq in no uncertain terms.

According to a March 18, 2003, Dallas Morning News article: "One of the strongest anti-war voices belongs to the pope. He sent an envoy to visit with Mr. Bush this month with a letter that called the war 'immoral, illegal, unjust.'"

"John Paul was not a pacifist — he describes war as a 'last resort,' not as an impossible resort. At the same time, though, he never thought that the invasion of Iraq had reached the 'last resort' stage. Catholic Bishops in the United States and Great Britain were unanimous in their support for his message of peace.

"According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not 'meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.' Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind."
http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm

No, I'm afraid that people must look elsewhere than to Just War Theory for justification of their sin against God and their crime against humanity when they so blithely espouse the mass homocide attendant on the invasion of Iraq.

Hoosier Daddy
Just a note. If you were a Catholic you would know that disagreement on the "Just War Theory" is OK among Catholics. The Catholic bishops cannot, however, disgaree with the deposit of faith from the beginning of Christianity on murder, abortion, premarital sex, divorce, infanticide, and anything else that condradicts the teachings of the apostles and the Church Fathers.
We Catholics respect the teachings of the US Conference of Bishops, but we also know where we cannot disagree, the teachings of Christ.
To be a Catholic is to be from two thousand years ago, to the very beginning of Christianity. Being a soldier, and going to war is most admirable,i.e, Christ and the Roman Centurion. Nowhere, does our Pope forbid any American from fighting for our great nation.

Ignoring the Pope on War
Curt,
I have three questions for you:
1)On what grounds do you disagree with Pope John Paul II and the American and British Bishops regarding their unanimous condemnation of the invasion of Iraq as being "illegal, immoral, and unjust"?
2)How in God's name can you interpret Christ's healing of the Centurion's child as His endorsement of the Roman or any other army and their aggressive wars? Would you interpret a contemporary doctor's life-saving treatment of a serial killer's child as his endorsement of serial murder?
3) How old are you?


Hoosier Daddy
Question number 1: As I said, a Catholic gets to disagree with his Pope, in all due respect, on the Just War Theory. On the other hand, I am forbidden to divorce my wife, be responsible for an abortion, commit sodomy or go against the deposit of faith from the beginning. I disagree with many Roman Cardinals, the Pope notwithstading because I haven't read a denial of the Iraq War from him if it does exist. I do trust my president, and that is my prudential judgment as a Catholic.
Question number 2: Roman centurions were fierce fighters responsible for 100 soldiers. They were never denied by Christ. Christ never condemmed a Roman soldier. In fact he greatly exaulted one when he was most humbled by our Lord.
Question number 3: As my Mom used to say, I'm three times seven and most old enough to pray for my boys fighting in combat.
Question for you, are from a paleoconservative website? I've been through this driil before. Go Bless the USA!

Ignore the Church and Obey the State?
Curt,
No, I'm not "from" *any* website. But I am a Christian, and as such want to challenge, literally for the love of God, any attempted perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the service of the American or any other Empire.
Your cavalier dismissal of the Pope's and the Bishops' condemnation of the Iraq invasion, and your suggestion that Christ's healing of the Centurion's child proves that He was some avid admirer of the Roman Empire and its conquering legions pretty much says it all concerning your current bottom-line allegiance. What do you make of His rejection of political power in His temptation in the desert? That He was holding out to be offered the German, British, or American Empires and *their* legions?

Hoosier Daddy
I think your post of Wednesday 9.21 pm was beyond the bounds of courtesy, regardless of whether you agree with Curt or not.
Additionally, the first point he made in his reply to that post, which you term "cavalier dismissal" is central and valid.

Certain issues, among which Curt listed, are non negotiable. Abortion for example, is ALWAYS wrong because of its nature. War is NOT always wrong, such as when it is a "just war"

However, APPLYING the just war theory to a PARTICULAR situation is a matter of judgement. Pope John Paul II in his PRIVATE judgement considered the invasion of Iraq to be unjust.

On this, Catholics are NOT bound to share his view, though his view should be accorded respect. It so happens that I share his view, but as a Catholic, I am under no compulsion to do so. My opinion either way is open to persuasion.

I had a look at the article at the link you were good enough to supply, and the conclusion to that link was interesting:

"Eventually, though, even Pope John Paul II had to give up his opposition to the war and deal with the cold, violent realities on the ground. He no longer inveighs against the invasion and Vatican officials insist that Western troops need to stay in Iraq as long as is necessary in order to ensure the stability of the nation and freedom of the Iraqi people. To quote one source at the Vatican, “The vase had been broken, and we have to try to find a way to mend it.”"


Hoosier Daddy
".... your suggestion that Christ's healing of the Centurion's child proves that He was some avid admirer of the Roman Empire and its conquering legions pretty much says it all concerning your current bottom-line allegiance."

I dont know how you could draw this conclusion from Curt's reference to the Centurion. He was making the point that soldiering in itSELF is a most honorable profession. Ie, a Christian may be a soldier and serve honorably. Christ praised that PARTICULAR Centurion for his faith. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"What do you make of His rejection of political power in His temptation in the desert?"

No relevance at ALL to the present discussion. I think you introduce it here as a point of mockery and discourtesy.

"That He was holding out to be offered the German, British, or American Empires and *their* legions?"

Yes. Thought so.

Christ's Rejection of Worldly Power
Jimmy Joe,
Inasmuch as Curt wrote, "Being a soldier, and going to war is most admirable, i.e, Christ and the Roman Centurion.", it should be obvious why I questioned his apparent conclusion from Christ's healing of the centurion's servant that Christ admired the Roman Empire and its conquering armies, of which the centurion was a member. And inasmuch as he didn't offer a single reason for his disagreement with the Pope and the American and British Bishops that the Iraq invasion was "immoral, illegal, unjust", it's perfectly accurate to characterize his unexplained disagreement with them as a "cavalier dismissal." Regarding Christ's temptation in the desert, how on earth can you assert that it is irrelevant to the question of Christ's attitude and relation to the political and military power of earthly kingdoms or nations? "Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, 'All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"(Matthew 4:8-10). Christ did not say to Satan that the nations were not Satan's to give...instead, He emphatically rejected Satan's plenipotentiary offer of worldly power. How can Christ's rejection of earthly power be irrelevant to the question of whether our allegiance is to God or to the State? Do you think it is also irrelevant to our discussion that He said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."(John 18:36)? Christ has made clear His attitude toward worldly power. Whether we follow Him or Satan regarding it is, of course, up to us.


Hoosier Daddy
" "Being a soldier, and going to war is most admirable, i.e, Christ and the Roman Centurion.", it should be obvious why I questioned his apparent conclusion from Christ's healing of the centurion's servant that Christ admired the Roman Empire and its conquering armies, of which the centurion was a member."

Not so. Christ praised that PARTICULAR Centurion for HIS faith. Nor was there ANY condemnation of his profession.

You are reading a meaning into a PARTICULAR example used, and drawing a GENERAL conclusion which doesnt necessarily follow. I wouldnt have thought of it at ALL, for example, from what Curt wrote, but that YOU drew it.

And yes, I know all that the gospels have to say about Christ in the desert. That applies to HIS particular mission, not to politics in general. Imagine a politician whose response to a starving populace was "Man doesnt live on bread alone"!! You take it out of context.

Hoosier Daddy
You said:
"And inasmuch as he didn't offer a single reason for his disagreement with the Pope and the American and British Bishops that the Iraq invasion was "immoral, illegal, unjust", it's perfectly accurate to characterize his unexplained disagreement with them as a "cavalier dismissal.""

He HAD previously stated:
"I disagree with many Roman Cardinals, the Pope notwithstading because I haven't read a denial of the Iraq War from him if it does exist. I do trust my president, and that is my prudential judgment as a Catholic."

Which means again, that what you said was inaccurate. He couldnt have been much clearer, in offering not just a "single reason" for his disagreement, but TWO.

Christ's Mission Not Ours?
Jimmy Joe,
YOU write, "Not so. Christ praised that PARTICULAR Centurion for HIS faith. Nor was there ANY condemnation of his profession." But CURT wrote, "Being a soldier, and going to war is most admirable, i.e, Christ and the Roman Centurion.", clearly implying Curt's belief that Christ wouldn't have praised the centurion's faith and healed his servant unless Christ thought "being a soldier and going to war is most admirable.", which is a blatant non sequitur. And then we know via the temptation in the desert that He rejects all worldly power and also states quite clearly that His kingdom is not of this world, that being the reason why He does not let His servants physically fight the political/religious authorities on His behalf. As to your assertion that Christ's posture toward worldly power is peculiar to His mission and has nothing to do with ours (His followers and participants in His Body), let me remind you, before it's too late, of what He says in Matthew 7:21-23: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers'."

Hoosier Daddy
"CURT wrote "Being a soldier, and going to war is most admirable, i.e, Christ and the Roman Centurion.", clearly implying Curt's belief that Christ wouldn't have praised the centurion's faith and healed his servant unless Christ thought "being a soldier and going to war is most admirable."

YOU draw that conclusion, but you cannot KNOW that is what CURT was implying, unless you can read his mind. There is NO "implication" in what Curt said above, that he believes the Centurion's servant was cured for the reasons YOU conclude that HE implies. I have NO doubt that Curt believes the Centurion was praised and his servant healed because of his FAITH, because that is the reason given in the GOSPEL.

Yes, I am quite familiar with Matthew's gospel, and see no relevance in your concluding quote to the present argument.

I draw the conclusion that you are a Christian pacifist. I may be wrong in drawing that conclusion from what YOU write, but if that is true, we are in fundamental disagreement which all the scriptural quotations in the world wont bridge. We simply disagee.

Disregarding Inconvenient Scripture
JimmyJoe,

The relevance of Matthew 7:21-23 to our discussion is that although one can BS others and one can BS oneself about whether one is succumbing to the blandishments of Satan in the pursuit of worldly power or one is following Christ in pursuit of *His*
Kingdom, one cannot BS God about it.

As to any "fundamental disagreement which all the scriptural quotations in the world won't bridge", you stand judged out of your own mouth by your placing your extra-scriptural political commitment above a scripture-based one, to which you confess being impervious.

Jesus pacifist?
Please show me anywhere in scripture where Jesus negotiated with evil? Show me anywhere in scripture when Jesus gave into evil? Pacifist give into evil all the time, they are called appeasers! Show me in scripture where Jesus ever appeased evil?

Hoosier Daddy
One most important aspect of being a Catholic, one can never cavalierly dismiss a bishop or most importantly, our Pope. We can disagree,however, on matters of , for instance, politics and economics. That is why Pope John Paul ll gave us the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" in 1993 that includes St. Augustine's Just War Theory.
As a Catholic, I am under the authority of our Church in faith and morals. From the very beginning our Church fathers were not going to be in line with Rome on its treatment of family,i.e., wives and children were just chattel. The Church and many of its popes were martyed for this. We as Catholics cannot interpret Scritpture on our own. We must defer to our teachings from the beginning. We call this the Deposit of Faith. It is in our Catechism.
This country, Hoosier Daddy, is not an Empire. It is a liberator. We depose despots who threaten us, and then we leave. It is a Christian nation from the very beginning regardless of what the ACLU says.

Hoosier Daddy
Your last post makes no sense to me at all. Sorry. I think you are completely disconnected from reality.

Hoosier Daddy
This is going on and on. The point is that I do recognize the authority of the Pope. I was trying to explain to you that I am, as a Catholic, under the authority of the Church and Bishop of Rome. I cannot go against the teachings on faith and morals, but that doesn't mean that whatever a bishop or pope says is mandatory for me to believe. A pope only guards the Deposit of Faith, that of the apostles and the early church fathers. He can never claim absolute authority on anything else.
I recommend Catholic.com or EWTN.com for further help. Maybe this will help. God bless you.


Imperviousness to Inconvenient Scripture
JimmyJoe,

If what I said in my last post "makes no sense to [you]at all", then what you so blithely refer to as "reality" is thin gruel, indeed.

I'll put it as plainly and simply as I can:

Our Lord and Savior, Whom we will all do well to emulate to the greatest degree possible each day of our lives, was offered worldy political power on a grand scale by Satan. Rather than denying that such power was (and is!) Satan's to give, Christ *rejected* Satan's offer. To the extent that anyone alive today endorses, as a member of an earthly kingdom or nation, acquiring and using political power against others, he or she is *accepting* Satan's offer.

Those who accept Satan's rather than Christ's offer("My kingdom is not of this world."), face the prospect of His judgement, as follows: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers'."

In other words, He warns us that calling ourselves Christians, but then participating actively or passively in the Satanic machinations of worldy powers (only most *blatantly* as wars of aggression) is not exactly going to cut it as far as He is concerned.

Think here of the people who thought of themselves as Christians, yet who supported Adolf Hitler's aggression. Think, too, of the Americans who think of themselves as Christians, yet supported the invasion of another country that Pope John Paul (who, I should think was at least passingly familiar with Scripture, Just War Theory, and current events) called "immoral, illegal, and unjust."

Yes, you and Curt and everyone else in the world is free to disagree with me, the Pope, or with Christ, Himself regarding anything.

But when you tell me that you and I may have a "fundamental disagreement which all the scriptural quotations in the world won't bridge", you indicate, do you not, that you have closed your mind to the possibility of understanding Scripture in a new way that might require you to change your mind regarding the spiritual efficacy of (satanic) power politics, the most horrific manifestation of which is war?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.