I don't want to live in the "Christian" world of Theodore Roosevelt. If my ability to practice Christianity relies on the killing of Muslims, then I don't want to be that kind of "Christian." Frankly, I should be thanking Pastor Tom for this blog post as it sums up precisely what is wrong with this way of thinking. It reminds me of the saying, "why must we kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?" As long as we see the Christian faith as something that requires democracy and capitalism, as well as the militarism to defend it, we will be practicing some religion foreign to what Jesus came to proclaim. If Pastor Tom is saying something different then he needs to explain himself. As far as I can tell, he is supporting a crusade mentality that justifies killing of infidels. I suppose I should be fearful that he would declare me among them or that he will take the next step of supporting the killing of heretics of which I'm sure he considers me one.
Blog you later,
Pastor Ian
Friday, August 24, 2007
BULLY OR BULL?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Whether we like it or not Jesus was a non-violent protestor. And in the end, that model, although sometimes unattainable is the model we are to shoot for.
Hello Ian,
I know you to be better educated than this post suggests. No where does Tom purport the killing of Muslims, or anyone as a prerequisite to Christianity in his post. Indeed if you read the last sentence of the post you will find he calls us to be salt and light, particularly to those same Muslims you suggest he is calling for the murder of.
You also know that Christian faith does not require democracy or capitalism to thrive, as proof we both can agree that most of the spiritually strongest churches in the faith are found in nations who are most theologically and politically oppressive such as Theodore Roosevelt pointed out, Islamic theocracies. Add to that communist nations, and dictatorships.
As for militarism this has been a fact of human existence since the fall to one degree or another, and using military force to defend the gifts of democracy and free trade that Christian based nations enjoy is not anti-Biblical. Would you have made the same argument about the US Revolutionary War, Civil War, or WWII? Should we have prayed for Hitler, the Nazi party, and the SS officers who carried out crimes against humanity? I say yes, but I also praise God he moved us not to stand idle, but to bear arms against those who perpetrate evil, the military is after all a part of the sword given by God to those who govern to defend and protect as well as punish and execute. His Word even warns would be evildoers that sword is not held in vain.
Aside from this you seemed to miss the main thrust of the post, which is a plea for men of integrity to speak the truth rather than that which is politically correct or expedient. This is a call for men with spine to stand for what is before us as a nation and a world, if your not sure what that is, May I suggest Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation as a good place to start. War is inevitable, between those who love the Lord and those who reject Christ, as is the outcome. A point you also neglected to touch upon.
As for your heresy,real or supposed that is between you and God, your disconnect from Scriptural truth and sound doctrine in some areas is evident in your posts, Perhaps of most concern is your fearfulness of anyone. If God is for you who can be against you?
Most shameful, as a brother in Christ, is that you would suggest Tom would support the murder of a brother in Christ for any reason. Even as a literary poke meant in some form of jest, poorly done Ian, you bring shame on us all.
Pastor Tom has regularly and repeatedly decried Islam as religion not of peace but of violence. He perpetrates a fear of any Muslim since according to him they are all committed to the killing of infidels (i.e. any non-Muslim). I'll grant you that he didn't pack all that into this particular post, but I am not exaggerating the position I have heard him espouse regularly on his radio show and in previous posts on his blog.
And the nature of his quote from TR is that it was not only acceptable but preferable that Muslims had beeen battled on numerous occasions. This is most certainly a sanctioning of killing Muslims, if only through the work of the state. I'll concede that Tom is not calling on Christians to personally kill Muslims, but I am calling him out on his crusade mentality.
I don't intend to put words in Tom's mouth about defending Christianity through capitalism, democracy and militarism. It is hyperbole, but it is definitely a myth that some "patriotic" Americans would like us to believe.
As for militarism...
*American Revolution - taxation without representation is worth killing about? South Africans changed a racially repressive system with warfare, likewise India throughout the same British Empire without violence.
*Civil War - you can't be suggesting that the initial motivation was the end of slavery, it was about states' rights and protecting economic interests
*WW2 - the Holocaust was known about for a long time before any of the Allied nations did anything about it, yes it was about Hitler's aggression, but his rise to power certainly had a lot to do with the way Germany was devastated by the Treaty of Versailles
Yes, there can and should always be alternatives to militarism. Except for the ancient Hebrews, there is no biblical justification for any nation to go to war with God's blessing. We are not a theocracy and I don't want us ever to become one.
If there is one thing that I will apologize for is the over-the-top suggestion that Tom might even suggest the killing of heretics. But let's admit that it is not far-fetched that he might consider me one.
According to the Koran, Islam is a religion of violence, see 'The Immunity' (chapter 9), v.5, and 'The Ranks' (chapter 61),v.4 for just the smallest of reference, and remember that the Koran is not divided into testaments like the Bible is, these "words of Allah" stand for all time, for today. And this does not include the Fatwas of the Imams today, who most certainly perpetrate a continual state of aggression against the infidel.
This being true however, makes all Muslims a source of fear the same way all Germans and Japanese were a source of fear in WWII, through ignorance and blind bigotry of those who do not know Christ, or care only to follow the mob mentality.
Not all Germans were Nazis, not all Japanese were imperialists, and like so many Christians, not all Muslims are devout, they being human also twist, water down, and soften the edges of the words of Allah, denying what the Islamic belief system declares as immutable.
We have no more violence to fear from a weak, doctrinally compromised Muslim, than an atheist would have to fear hearing the Biblically correct Gospel of Christ from a weak, mislead, Sunday go to 'meetin Christian.
But Tom's point is about those who do follow The teaching of Mohammad, and the will of Allah, which is fundamentally conversion to Islam or death.
There is a saying in the culture of these people, "First Saturday, then Sunday". This refers to the destruction of Israel and the Jews first, then the US/West and Christians second.
You know eschatology, you know the fight to come from the Word of God, railing against it will not change it. Neither will raising cries of a peace that will not exist until Christ returns, against the voice of a brother giving sound historical account of the enemy's past. The footsteps of the children of Ishmael were laid long ago according to His Will.
The debate of militarism can go on for ever, yes, we could have stayed subjects to the crown, the black South African population engaged in years of violence against Apartheid, we all saw it on the TV, and well they should have. The Hindu's fought a guerrilla war against the English for years, their history is also available.
Should we have allowed slavery to have avoided the Civil War, or hold the Union together? Abraham Lincoln certainly was a Christian man, and I am sure he prayed to tears war would not come, but when it did I am just as sure he sought God's guidance, blessing, and forgiveness as well.
I won't continue on the WWII issue, to assume Hitler had no other choice than to wage a world war and exterminate millions because of the Versailles Treaty is a leap, Germany's empirical pursuits of WW I cost her dearly, if Kaiser Wilhelm had not lead his nation into disaster then, Hitler may have become an artist.
The battle we face today is against a religious ideal that sees everyone as the enemy, Jew, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, and western culture in general which I will grant you is not all good and in working order. The difference here is that there will be no truce, no treaty, and no compromise offered by those who wish to destroy human beings who do not believe as they do, and are indeed called to by the basic tenets of their faith.
True enough that each of the conflicts you mention involved violence in the name of justice and that is a well-subscribed principle among Christians. Still, I'm going to steadfastly choose the higher moral ground of peaceful non-violent resistance fully understanding the cost of pacifism. Since when has earthly freedom (or worse, possessions) been of greater value than the freedom of salvation in Christ? God is happier that I kill to protect my freedom than to peacefully resist? Wouldn't your own theology teach you that if you were to kill a Muslim who attacked you that the Muslim would go to hell without a chance of salvation while you, who are already promised eternal life in heaven, go on living on earth until the day you go to heaven? Wouldn't a more loving thing be to allow the Muslim to live and continue the hope that he or she may one day find Christ, while for you to die is gain?
I know very little about Islam, but from my perspective, the vast majority of Muslims in the world today are capable of peaceful coexistence with Christians.
While you may be right that an atheist has less to fear from a Christian, I can certainly imagine a comparable argument made by atheists about the danger of Christians. There are plenty of passages in the Old Testament about the conquest of the Promised Land that on a face-value, literal reading can be used to support genocide. How is an atheist to know that most Christians don't make that connection? Even so, what about the few who might, or do. Certainly history shows that Christians are capable of killing those they don't accept. The Salem Witch trials took the lives of 19 people not far from here and not long ago. Today in Salem there are those who boldly proclaim that they are waging spiritual warfare against the pagans there. Sure, it is just a metaphor, but it would only take one significantly violent act to cause a tremendous fear that more will come.
How is this any different for the kind of view of Islam you are suggesting? It seems to be more a matter of degree than of substance.
The first section of your response has undeniable merit. A peaceful solution is always the preference, yet in the case of the devout Muslim a peaceful solution is not an option according to his god. Yes the freedom of Salvation in Christ is of the greatest value, and because of this freedom we in this country and others enjoy many blessings this freedom brings. God also gave us the means to defend those gifts, just as He equipped us to battle principalities and powers.
I do not desire to kill anyone, but I will stand in defense of my nation, my brothers in the Lord and my daughter against an assault from a declared enemy who's intention in known, in this case from both the Koran and the Bible.
Picture the possible scene you present, twenty or thirty years from now Europe, Asia, Australia, and most of South America are under Muslim rule, Sharia Law reigns. North America is being strangled from supplies of food, energy, and under sporadic military incursion and small scale nuclear attack by Islamo-fascist jihad armies who have according to Mohammad, executed a possible 3.5 billion people who resisted conversion to Islam. While we in America held up signs saying 'war is not the answer', chanted songs of peace in gatherings of tens of thousands, and held candlelight vigils for the slaughtered millions in neighboring countries, Our spineless liberal leaders placated the enemy, sought truce and treaty only to have them broken repeatedly (as the aggressor with single minded purpose is wont to do; ie.US vs the American Indian)
The forces of Islam went about it's stated purpose. Finally North America is conquered,the last of us Christians are rounded up for the slaughter, burned to death on a pyre of Bibles and books of theological doctrine that is of any kind but the word of Allah. All to the cheers of thousands of new 'converts' who sold their souls to a false god for fear of their lives.
Sounds like a Stanly Kubrick film Ian, but if we do not resist, Speak out loudly and boldly the truth of the intent of true Jihad, go to war if need be, and let the enemy who has no room for Jesus as Saviour in their doctrine literally dominate the world to a man, who will be left to witness to the Muslim? And will they then not all go to Hell?
I praise God that in His Wisdom, Mercy, and Grace this will not be the case and that His Word gives us that promise.
Salem is an interesting point, but bare in mind the OT Law was limited, and to suit God's purpose at the time, we are no longer called to be the conquers as the Hebrews were, Atheists either will not understand this, as they use it for cannon fodder against a perceived threat, or can not understand because He has not elected them to do so. I feel as with the Spanish Inquisition, and the 1800's and 1600's North and South American Mission teams who brought diseased horse blankets in mock gestures of peace, and worked with their sponsoring governments to subjugate or eliminate rather than truly convert, these wolves in sheep's clothing were no more 'Christians' than a shark is a rabbit. No matter how favorable a light they historically recorded themselves in.
It may well be you need to understand Islam a little better, I feel we all do. It is not a religion of degree, but of black and white. In that way it is very much like Christianity, except we have standing orders to witness in truth and hope to convict and convert by example, and God saves by Grace whom He Will. With Islam the standing orders are to convert by persuasion, then to murder failing the desired outcome. It may have something to do with following the doctrine of a prophet of a god who never in all his word states he loves his creation, or his created.
Post a Comment