To InstaPundit: No, they won’t

posted at 1:45 pm on May 14, 2007 by Bryan

I get the warning and humor of this line, but frankly I’m tired of it. Prof. Reynolds needs to hit the books.

THE ANSWER TO THE EXAMINER’S QUESTION IS SIMPLE: It’s because people are afraid they’ll blow things up.

Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine.

He’s right that the credible threat of violence drives people all over the world to bow to unreasonable Muslim demands, demands they would laugh off if they came from Christians or members of any other faith. Demands like this, and this, and situations like this. But he’s wrong that “fundamentalist Christians” are going to take this as a cue to start up their own terrorism to get what they want. And he’s wrong because he starts with an error on the basics: Namely, that Christianity and Islam aren’t the same thing, don’t believe the same things and don’t teach the same things. The foundational texts of the two faiths are very different, and the differences make all the difference in the world.

The New Testament doesn’t teach that violence against non-Christians is ok. The Koran, especially the second half of it, does indeed teach that violence against non-Muslims is ok. In fact, it commands violence against infidels in certain circumstances.

If you want to talk about the Crusades, well, they were defensive wars against imperialist Muslims who were spreading Islam by the sword. If you want to talk about the conquistadors or the Inquisition, go ahead. Those actions were done in the name of God, true, but entirely outside any actual New Testament teaching. Tim McVeigh? Agnostic who had more in common with the Luddite Unabomber than any Christian. Eric Rudolph? Agnostic who preferred Nietzsche to the Bible. Three of the most murderous men of the last century — Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin — were all atheists/occultists. Should we start expecting effette latte-drinking Utne reader types to start engaging in terrorism if they don’t get their way? Perhaps, and leftwing ecoterrorism doesn’t get nearly enough coverage, but InstaPundit never makes that argument — he always draws the false parallel from Muslims to Christians as though they’re two sides of the same coin when they’re not. Bin Laden and Zawahiri and Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad constantly quote the Koran to justify their global jihad, itself a dual Islamic concept that includes both internal and external warfare. Saladin’s jihad followed Muhammad’s example. Christianity has no such concept and Christ provided no similar warlike example.

It’s a pity that five years into this war, or nearly 30 if you’re dating its beginning to the Islamic Revolution in Iran, so few people actually understand this. Most of our political leaders in both parties don’t understand it, secular humanists constantly conflate Pat Robertson with the Taliban thereby demonstrating that they don’t get it, and most of our pundits and most of our major bloggers obviously don’t understand it either. Our dominant strains of voluntary ignorance may literally kill us.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I can make even the Golden Rule something that can encourage violence, I can make Jesus out to be a warrior. I can use the old and new testaments to degrade women and different races. I can do it all, for Christianity is adaptive and simply because it is essentially nonviolent in the larger sense at this moment in time does not imply it will always be that way.

Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Glittering. Crystallized. Stupidity.

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Laura,

In terms of consequences (prepare for caveats galore), at this time, with current interpretations you are correct. That this will remain as the status quo is problematic, to say the least.

Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 10:06 PM

[Glen Reynolds] can do better, if he puts his mind to it. He shouldn’t be party to the Left’s current meme, to link Wahabbists with Christians by a suggestive use of “fundamentalists.”

naliaka on May 14, 2007 at 9:43 PM

Rational control is returning to this thread!!

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Three of the most murderous men of the last century — Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin — were all atheists/occultists Uhhh what about the biggest killer of the 20th century, ole Chairman Mao? I don’t think he believed in any God but himself.

deadbackpacker on May 14, 2007 at 10:14 PM

I can use the old and new testaments to degrade women and different races.

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Granted about the OT, but I, for one, would be interested in how the NT could be used in this manner. I’m not asserting that it *can’t* but am interesting in *how* merely for (my) enlightenment’s sake.

baldilocks on May 14, 2007 at 10:14 PM

baldilocks on May 14, 2007 at 10:14 PM

Please note that was NOT my view, I was pulling a quote from Krydor and failed to mark it as a quote. In fact I did label Krydor’s verbal incontinence as “Glittering. Crystallized. Stupidity.”

Sorry, to have created the confusion.

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 10:20 PM

Oh what fun!! Another faith thread!!!

I see all the usual players have chimed in with their “EEEEEVIL CRUSADE” posts and “Christian terrorist” remarks. Glad you all could make it.

First question…How many of you Agnostics and Atheists have ever read the New Testament?

If you had bothered, you would KNOW that “God sent not His Son to condemn the world, but that the world through Him may be saved”. Whether you “feel” you need to be saved from anything is quite beside the point. The point being that God did not send Jesus to wage Jihad. Quite the contrary. Jesus was sent as a sacrifice and offered up His life for ours. No bombs strapped to His chest folks, pay close attention.

Ever heard the line, “Love one another”???? That was Jesus. Notice that there were no exceptions. Gays, Muslims, Hindus, black, white, Atheists and even democrats. Christ said to love them all. He did. How do you argue with that?

In fact, if you read the NT you will see that Christ had a HUGE problem with the RELIGIOUS “leaders” of the era. Pious, self-loving, self-worshiping, egoists that had no real foundation in a relationship with a true living God. No connection at all with the Creator. Nope. It was ALL ABOUT THEM. And THEY had a HUGE problem with Christ. He threatened their power because He said that EACH INDIVIDUAL had FREE access to the Father. A direct line if you will with Christ as our mediator. I digress.

Timmy McVeigh was a Christian? He did what he did because Christ commanded it? He read it in the Bible? What page is that on? Do you people that spout this nonsense realize that you sound EXACTLY like every left-wing, nut-job that ever uttered a word? How pissed off would you be if Al Sharpton used Timmy as a poster boy for WHITE TERRORISM??? Timmy was white after all and so was his partner in crime. They were more white than they were “Christian”! There was a daycare center for underprivileged kids in that building. Maybe Timmy did it for socio-economic reasons? Wasn’t he sick of the welfare state? Perhaps he was a “war on poverty” jihadist?

In a nut-shell, some have posted here about “crazy Christians” adopting Jihadi tactics. I have a few questions about this.

1) When did they become crazy?
2) Were these people crazy before they got hold of a Bible?
3) What NT utterance of Jesus will these crazies use as their justification?

Last question for the agnostics and atheists that feel they are schooled enough in what the Bible says.

Chapter and verse, where in the Bible does it say, “God helps those that help themselves”???

**Hint** It’s right after the part where Jesus commands Christians to “Slay the infidels with steely knives”.

Talon on May 14, 2007 at 10:39 PM

Baldilocks,

Well, I’ve had this go-round but it involves a passage or two from James and from Matthew in which Jesus is quite explicit that he is not here to negate the law, but fulfill it. That’s the part you can interpret until the cows come home, but it can be read as Mosaic code being the code by which to live your life. The Seventh Day Adventists try and do just that, down to promoting vegetarianism just to be on the safe side.

It doesn’t matter if you read it that way, or I read it that way but it can be read that way. Mohammed had it read to him that way, as well. It’s a slog, but all the bases are covered.

The interesting thing, in spite of whatever the Ritz may think, is that the Christian faith is an adaptive faith. Every few generations, it reinvents itself to remain relevant. If peacenik hippy Jesus falls out of favor, that other Jesus who comes with a sword will reappear.

I love putting this into these topics:

Matthew:

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So, there it is. There isn’t enough room in this limited space to lay down the law in Leviticus. It’s the bridge that leads us to the old Testament.

Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Their stated goal was to destroy Christianity in Germany and replace it with paganism. If you care about the truth, go and find a copy of the 30th anniversary edition and read page 240. The HA filter must be picking up N..i or Hi..er and preventing the post.

TheBigOldDog on May 14, 2007 at 8:33 PM

Oh, I’ll check it out, but I seriously doubt that “their stated goal was to destroy Christianity”, not with all the God talk in Mein Kampf, the fact that the majority of the SS listed their religion as “believes in God”, et cetera et cetera. The source documents I’ve seen don’t support it.

You can’t win, anyway. Even if you try to argue that the Nazis were not really Christian, you’ll inevitably end up arguing that they just used Christian rhetoric to appeal to the German people. Which means the German people were Christian. And their behavior during WWII was not honorable.

You guys should just face up to the fact that sometimes people can just go bad. This can and has even happened to “Christians”. At the very least you could stop portraying the Nazis as atheist when there’s Christian references and God talk all over the place.

dorkafork on May 14, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Baldilocks,

RE: Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 11:04 PM

I’m sure that cleared it up for you.

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 11:13 PM

This much like many recent post topics I can think of is a true waste of everyone’s brain power. There are plenty of intellectual, well thought out arguments for all sides of this issue. I think the bottom line however, is that Bryan and Glenn have way more in common in what they think than what they disagree on as do the rest of the commenters on this thread. Lets talk about something useful like maybe Paris in jail.

RobertCSampson on May 14, 2007 at 11:16 PM

Krydor,

First develop coherence, then join the debate.

The Ritz on May 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

dorkafork on May 14, 2007 at 11:05 PM

It’s not that simple. Especially in Germany – you really can’t lump all Christians together. There were different Protestant groups, German Catholics…

While Hitler may have played lip service to these groups initially, he ultimately arrested priests, stifled Christian education, siezed church land and established the Reich Church, perverting the cross into a swastika.

So ya, he could win that argument. Just wanted to clear that up.

As for this whole thread, Christianity has a huge umbrella, with many very different groups, I think people need to start being more specific in debates. Are you afraid of Catholics? Lutherans? Baptists? Anglicans? Come on now, do a little research.

As for people whining about not having a place in the GOP based on religion, grow up. The GOP is all about individuals. I can’t remember ever seeing Republicans goose-steeping behind their leaders in unison. If you feel threatened or excluded, that’s your problem.

It is always hilarious to me that atheists are more afraid of God than believers are.

reaganaut on May 14, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Give me a break. As soon as Tammy Faye gets up from her bed and bombs my local Baptist Church, I’ll become a truther.

Until then, watch out for those agnostic girlscouts. Their cookies are killers.

BacaDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Bryan,

Fantastic write up.

O fer the love of…if I’d have thought for a second that this post would generate all of this noise I wouldn’t have bothered.

Ignore the ignorant….it’s hard to believe they can eat and survive lol.

Highrise on May 15, 2007 at 12:05 AM

The Ritz,

Your contributions to this debate have consisted of insulting me and adding nothing to the larger issue. See, I thought I knew my audience, that being people who were versed in the Bible and some of the history behind Christianity.

For the most part, they have been quite open to debate and discussion. I’ve enjoyed plenty of back-and-forths with the Christians ’round these parts. You, however, are almost unschooled in the fine art of debate and nearly illiterate with regards to religion.

Your flames are weak. Your grasp of the source material is feeble. I will expend no more time discussing things with a fellow who cannot read, nor create, a coherent sentence. Thanks for playing.

Krydor on May 15, 2007 at 12:20 AM

So, there it is. There isn’t enough room in this limited space to lay down the law in Leviticus. It’s the bridge that leads us to the old Testament.

Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 11:04 PM
you are misinterpereting the passages Krydor. In the first Jesus is saying He has come to FULFILL the law. By his crucifixion Jesus paid the price for the whole of every violation of the Law. The person who teaches anything else is not cast in hell but will be the least in heaven is not the same as what a persons fate would be in Leviticus. Lastly the Seventh Dayers beleive the some dude came around in the mid 1800′s and had his own vision of what a ‘Christian’should be. These people are a full blown cult.

sonnyspats1 on May 15, 2007 at 12:55 AM

As if on cue

John on May 15, 2007 at 1:09 AM

Well, All I know is that it is ONLY the teachings of Christianity that prevents me from going out and choking the life out of all you assorted atheists, agnostics and Christian bashers.

That’s not REALLY true; my religious beliefs are quite hodgepodge and my Faith in any of them is weaker than I wish it was.

But you guys that mistrust and maybe even fear Hard Core Christians really do make me angry. Everything I have ever Heard and read about modern day Christ based religions is about being peaceful and at least TRYING to get along with everyone, including those who would harm you, and forgiving even those who sin against you.

It’s like you are more worried about getting scolded by a Fundamental Christian than you are of being beheaded by a Fundamental Islamist.

Guys like Fred Phelps an Timothy McVey are NOT Christians by ANY stretch of the imagination. They are weak minded people who merely try to cloak their hatreds (and probably latent tendencies) by invoking the name of Christ and attributing their own misdeeds incorrectly to his teachings.

LegendHasIt on May 15, 2007 at 2:08 AM

okay, this post was funny (not in a good way).

Instapundit is right, of course, but I assume this wasn’t about right or wrong but more about the threat posed by the Islamofascists. With that, I agree. However, many people have died over religious nonsense and ALL religion is based on adherence (not love).

True: the Koran is different than the Bible. But also True: This is not about books, this is about interpretation and action. -the willingness to kill is not merely about morality. It’s more about being able to get away with it and even more about acceptance (if not the same).

The Twisted Logic of the Blind Crusader is Always Dangerous
-Anthony Tafoya, Opinionnation

Opinionnation on May 15, 2007 at 2:30 AM

Does it go for the Amish too? Sorry, I don’t see it. It’s like saying a dog lover will step on a puppy one day because there are other people getting away with it. Kinda goes against the grain really.

Now if Instapudding is saying someone who gets it all wrong . . . .well no that really doesn’t work there either, because that’s an entirely different argument.

- The Cat

MirCat on May 15, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Glenn was absolutely right but then he blew it by kicking Christians in the teeth. Wouldn’t this point be made exactly as well, maybe even better, without widening the divisive issue of religion and politics which plague the GOP? This is the same sore spot that many feel cost the GOP a congressional majority in 2006, if we keep picking at it it’ll leave a scar and cost us 2008 too.

Buzzy on May 15, 2007 at 3:32 AM

Christians have more to fear from radical atheists than the other way around. Dawkins and Hitchens and their hate filled books and the comments on some of these threads by others towards Christians would reveal a real resentment towards people of faith which could lead to violence. Students are already being verbally assaulted by radical professors. The hate is coming from the atheist side.

Rose on May 15, 2007 at 3:55 AM

The degree of casuistry in this thread is astounding. Glenn makes the every day and commonsense observation that rewarding bad behavior gets you more of it and that if we keep the rewards coming we can expect some fundamentalist Christians to join in. Bryon and many of the commenters are offended and argue that Christians would never indulge in violence. When others adduce examples to show that yes, actually, they do, we are treated to an argument that says it’s definitionally impossible: anyone who would use violence in the name of God is ipso facto not a Christian. The crusades? Self defense. The inquisition? Outside the faith (although perpetrated by the Church itself). Eric Rudolph? He admired Nietzsche (but also justified his acts by pointing to the Bible and considered himself a member of the Army of God). David Koresh? A cult of personality. Salem witch burnings? Jonestown? Abortion clinic bombings?

You can, if you like circular arguments, claim that your definition of Christian precludes anyone who uses violence, but don’t expect others to be impressed with your argument or to take you seriously. Look, no one’s claiming that mainstream Christians are going to turn, en masse, to violence, much less that Christians are chomping at the bit to become jihadists, but it’s just silly to argue no Christian group will turn to violence after they see how well it’s worked out for the Islamists.

student on May 15, 2007 at 7:54 AM

Sorry, I’m with Bryan on this one. There’s absolutely ZERO evidence that Christians, in any sizable numbers at least, will indulge in violence and justify it on a religious basis to get concessions from society.

I’m not buying it.

flipflop on May 15, 2007 at 8:07 AM

student, the key word is “fundamentalist.” Now if Glenn had said “nominal” Christians might go off on you in order to achieve political or social goals, I doubt anyone would argue.

Laura on May 15, 2007 at 8:18 AM

It’s not that simple. Especially in Germany – you really can’t lump all Christians together. There were different Protestant groups, German Catholics…

And were any of these groups you mentioned atheists? Were the German Catholics atheists? You seriously expect me to think that the fact that they set up a state church (that promoted “positive Christianity”) is convincing evidence that they were atheists?

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 8:19 AM

student on May 15, 2007 at 7:54 AM

You too just made Bryans point. You compare a few madmen, or mistate othewr ancient historical events in order to TRY to compare devout Christians to Radical Islam. That is dangerous because it detracts from facing the reality of the enemy we face, their goals and objectives and the methods they use.

When fundamental Christians start flying planes into buildings, beheading non-believers and posting the video on the Net, blowing themselves up in crowds, driving car bombs into crowded markets, etc., and are praised by many leaders of the Church and a substantial number of other Christians, then, you can make the idiotic comparison.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 8:22 AM

And were any of these groups you mentioned atheists? Were the German Catholics atheists?

“As Bormann, one of the men closet to H, said publicly in 1941, “National Soc. and Christianity are irreconcilable.”

“It would be misleading to give the impression that the persecution of Protestants and Catholics by the N State tore the German people asunder or even greatly aroused the vast majority of them. It did not. A people who had so lightly given up their political and cultural and economic freedoms were not, except for relatively few, going to die or even risk imprisonment to preserve freedom of worship.” [What did aroused them was the economic, military and political successes of the N party]

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 8:27 AM

biographers have defined Himmler’s theology as Ariosophy, his own religious dogma of racial superiority of the Aryan race and Germanic Meso-Paganism, partly from his interests in folklore and mythology of the ancient Teutonic tribes of Northern Europe. (wiki)

The national Reich Church was set up by Rosenburg “an outspoken Pagan.” Rule 13: “The national Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.” Rule 18: “The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.” Rule 19: “On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf, and the left of the altar, a sword.”

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 8:39 AM

And were any of these groups you mentioned atheists? Were the German Catholics atheists? You seriously expect me to think that the fact that they set up a state church (that promoted “positive Christianity”) is convincing evidence that they were atheists?

I have no idea what you are talking about, I never mentioned atheists, I was pointing out that the Nazis were not Christians. Is it really that easy to get sidetracked?

reaganaut on May 15, 2007 at 9:03 AM

The national Reich Church was set up by Rosenburg “an outspoken Pagan.” Rule 13: “The national Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.” Rule 18: “The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of Saints.” Rule 19: “On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf, and the left of the altar, a sword.”

And do you think this is the complete picture of religion in Nazi Germany? What about the German Christian movement, their support for the Nazis and a Reich Church? The Nazi party platform specifically supported “positive Christianity” and Hitler repeatedly described himself as Christian.

What is the background on this source you offered? Did Ludwig Muller implement and agree with all these rules? Even if this did describe the official rules, how do you explain the following:
Rule 9: In the N German men and women, German
youths and girls will acknowledge God and his eternal works

Rule 19: ON the altars there must be nothing
but “Mein Kampf”, to the German nation and therefore
to God
the most sacred book and to the left of the
altar a sword. (emphasis added)

You guys keep saying these people who believed in a God were atheists. It’s ludicrous. Are you unclear on the definition of “atheist”?

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 9:45 AM

I never mentioned atheists, I was pointing out that the Nazis were not Christians. Is it really that easy to get sidetracked?

I entered this thread responding to an assertion that the SS were nationalistic atheists. TheBigOldDog’s first reply to me argued that they didn’t believe in God. Although you can find Nazi atheists, the Nazis weren’t some sort of atheistic movement. They largely were self professed Christians. You can certainly debate whether they were good Christians, traditional Christians, but quite frankly, that’s your problem, not the atheists’.

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Well, this is fun.

Let’s everyone accuse each other of being Nazis. It’s not like anyone else does it to us, right?

..right?

Talk about Godwin’s law.

Reaps on May 15, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Wow, quite a thread!!

Let me try to put Glen’s comment in a more favorable light. Let us posit an imaginary future: We all agree that Fred Phelps is considered a Christian by the vast majority of mainstream Christians. Never the less, he considers himself a Christian, and refers to himself as such.

Now let us imagine that he begins to use violence to extract concessions from society at large. Seeing that he has been successful, more people begin to flock to his church. Greater numbers give him more power, and the effect begins to snowball.

Other “Christian” churches, seeing the effect he’s had begin to imitate his tactics. Terrorism and terrorist organizations of this kind become widespread.

Mainstream Christians find themselves at pains to explain that “true” Christianity does not support these actions, but increasingly, these Christians are drowned out by the radicals, and eventually intimidated into silence.

At this point, who are the “Christians”? Of course, most would argue that “real” Christianity doesn’t support violence, but to someone outside the religion, Phelps and his ilk would be pretty much all they’d be seeing.

My point here is that Glen is not necessarily saying the local Presbyterian church is going to start making pipe bombs in the basement, so I don’t think y’all need to get so down on him. There are other ways to look at it.

Farmer_Joe on May 15, 2007 at 10:21 AM

The Source is “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” It’s unequivocal. The words of the Nazi leaders are unequivocal (“National Soc. and Christianity are irreconcilable.”). The actions of the Nazi regime are unequivocal. You may be offended by the fact the were pagan atheists but that does not change the facts:

“And fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi Regime intended to eventually destroy Christianity in Germany, it it could, and substitute the old Paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists” …

What the Hitler government envisioned was clearly set out in a thirty-point program from the National Reich Church drawn up by Rosenburg, an outspoken pagan…] Page 240.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Arrrgh. OK. Second paragraph should say “We all agree that Fred Phelps is NOT considered….” etc.

Farmer_Joe on May 15, 2007 at 10:22 AM

Anti-gay: It’s harder for me to find 5 PRO gay churches. None of that “love the sinner, hate the sin” cop out, either. The churches that are openly against that kind of discrimination, to the point of allowing gay priests are considered heretical.

This is ridiculous. Christian text teach that homosexuality is a sin. Obviously if you allow a homosexual to run your church, you aren’t considering it a sin, and fine I suppose, but to do that, you’ve got to be using something other than the Bible for your guidance.

And this isn’t to be discriminating. Gay people are welcome at church and are welcome to make up their own minds about what is and what is not a sin, but to have someone leading the church doing something that is considered wrong for followers in the church is ridiculous.

By that same token, we may as well have preachers who don’t pray, or preachers who strictly bow to Chrishna.

It’s a sin for us, maybe it isn’t for you, but that’s your business not ours. Saying something is a sin, and discriminating against those who act in that sin are two different things. If you cannot tell the difference, then that’s your problem.

I suppose this means you think Jews are discriminating against the men who don’t want to wear those things on their heads and eat certain meals?

Anti-Science: any church that openly pushes for creationism to be taught. Seriously, that’s way more than 5 of either category.

How is that anti-science? They’re not pushing for evolution to be banned; they’re only pushing for something extra to be taught.

And when it comes down to it, science cannot explain how the earth came to be. Even in that athiest debate, the guy admitted that something must be eternal, either God or the universe itself. But either way, at some point we’re left with a huge supernatural mystery.

Anti-Woman: Any Church that teaches birth control is a sin. Last I checked, my wife and daughters weren’t baby factories.

Seriously? This is anti-women to you?

1. Last I checked women can do more than have sex, so it’s really not natural to assume that not using birth control automatically means you’ll be a baby factory. In fact, I’m a little shocked that you went straight there with that.

2. Birth control isn’t always the best for women; it can make them more moody than is natural; it can cause them to gain weight unnaturally; it can cause blood clots, especially in smokers; it can cause infertility; and it can even lead to certain forms of cancer.

This hardly rises to the level of genital mutilation, ya know since prohibitting birth control actually has positive effects.

3. The main beneficiaries of birth control are the men who sleep with women on birth control. They get to go in naked without having to worry about leaving early or worrying about any unwanted consequences of sex.

The point is that these things are a commonality between Islam and Christianity.

In your warped mind they are.

Let’s go through these again.

Homosexuality:
They hang their gays.

We tell our congregations not to engage in that behavior the way Jews prohibit themselves from eating pork; maybe the former is harder for some than the latter, but it’s merely something our religion tells us we shouldn’t do.

Anti-science:
You’re pissed because we want more of an education.

Anti-women:
They engage in genital mutilation, beatings as a way of instructing insubordinate women, chaperones so that women are never allowed to leave alone, prohibition of women drivers, death for women who are raped, etc., etc., etc.

Catholic churches (and only Catholic churches for that matter) tell women that birth control is wrong.

Wow, you can really tell those Catholics hate women; of course they also preach that male masturbation is wrong too since it releases semen without producing a child. So they must hate men too.

Or it could be that they just feel even the component of life are sacred. I don’t know, maybe you could figure that one out.

You know, this is disappointing. I was hoping you’d come up with something better for your bigotry.

Esthier on May 15, 2007 at 10:27 AM

This is a good example of where blogging simply is not the best format for some debates. There are simply waaayyy too many issues being discussed here for any comment to be relevant to all the topics. Frankly, just reading the original posts here, at InstaP and the Examiner was pretty confusing.

So I’m going to contribute to the problem with my two cents!

Of course some “Christians” have committed violence to further the goals of their faith (as they saw their faith through their murderous eyes) in recent times. Did they represent even a significant minority of Christians when an abortion clinic or physician’s office was bombed? Of course not.

Some historians have argued that John Brown’s raid was the first example of what we define as terrorism today. He certainly felt he was acting in accordance with a Christian God’s wishes.

It is true that the Nazi leadership wished to replace Christianity. But, my understanding from a pretty long list of books read about the period is that this never carried much weight with the rank and file. It was, after all, a religion under construction, even by the end of the war.

However, by definition this means even those Nazis who “believed” this religion under construction during WWII, were not atheists. Also, I think it would be the heights of revisionism to pretend most Nazis were not Christians. Again, this has no bearing on Christianity as a faith. It has to do with mankind’s unfortunate ability to rationalize the most barbaric behaviors, even when they have cultural and legal prohibitions from doing so.

I agree it is unlikely that many Christians will run off and commit violence just because it is working in many cases for Muslim extremists. But if the law keeps kowtowing to Muslim fanatics, then it probably is only a matter of time before some Christian fanatics turn to violence. For a couple of days after 9/11, you could have talked me into just about anything.

doufree on May 15, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Let me try to put Glen’s comment in a more favorable light. Let us posit an imaginary future: We all agree that Fred Phelps is considered a Christian by the vast majority of mainstream Christians. Never the less, he considers himself a Christian, and refers to himself as such.

But to be fair, even Phelps isn’t physically harming anyone.

The worst faux Christian example you can come up with is doing nothing but talking; his talking is disgusting, but it’s not bombs.

Esthier on May 15, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Damn, I forgot to accuse someone/anyone of being a modern Nazi, or proto-Nazi or a left-wing Nazi or right-wing Nazi or (my favorite Archie Bunkerism…well, one of them) a Nazzy.

doufree on May 15, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Sonnypants,

In the first Jesus is saying He has come to FULFILL the law. By his crucifixion Jesus paid the price for the whole of every violation of the Law.

That’s one interpretation. It’s pretty clear that Jesus says the law doesn’t change regardless. The reinterpretation came about with the conversion of Gentiles who wouldn’t keep kosher.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

One might think stuff like rebuilding the temple is included. At least, I would. That’s just me, and some others.

Anyway, the Bible is open to interpretation. It’s why there isn’t a single church.

Krydor on May 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Billy Graham’s son use to get high and shoot up trees with his machine gun! See Christians are crazy Crusaders!

Drtuddle on May 15, 2007 at 10:36 AM

doufree on May 15, 2007 at 10:28 AM

So people who say, “National Soc. and Christianity are irreconcilable,” ban the bible, ban the cross, ban clergy [Rule 7: "The National Church has no scibes, pastorsm chaplains or priests, but national Reich orators are to speak to them"] arrest and kill protestants and Catholics are Christians? You’re kidding right? Now that’s what I call revisionism.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Oh, my. I know I’m late to the party, but this is just too perfect…

Friends of yours, Allah?

Jaibones on May 15, 2007 at 10:45 AM

TheBigOldDog: You compare a few madmen, or mistate othewr ancient historical events in order to TRY to compare devout Christians to Radical Islam.

No, see, I didn’t compare Christians, devout or otherwise, to radical Islam, Believing and saying that may make it easier for you to avoid addressing my arguments, but it’s still not true. What I did say was that Christians have indeed used violence in the past to advance the faith and it’s silly to believe that some fringe groups, that are nevertheless Christian, won’t do so again if we continue to teach them that it is in their interest to do so. Are these groups representative of Christianity in general? Of course not. Can we expect that most Christians will acquiesce to the violence when it comes? Of course not. Do most Christians eschew violence? Of course. Can’t we conclude, then, that no Christian group will resort to violence? Don’t be silly.

student on May 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Big Dog, if you are claiming for one minute that the Nazi’s shut down all churchs in Germany that described themselves as Christian, you are dead wrong.

If you are claiming that the Nazi’s national church replaced Christianity in the hearts and minds of most of its supporters, you are dead wrong. And quoting one document over and over again will not make you correct.

You should have nothing to fear from the fact some Nazis also were Christians. Yet it seems to frighten you a great deal (based on your postings). Don’t be afraid. I promise you, Christianity is much stronger than anyone’s failings, no matter how great.

doufree on May 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I think the part that really rubs me the wrong way about Glenn’s original post is the knee jerk way he drags Christianity into it.

A far more realistic statement would be that if you reward the bad behavior of crazy islamists, then you encourage more bad behavior from crazy islamists.

It makes no sense to drag Christians into it, and it’s a bizarre slur, totally out of left field, at least without establishing any commonality between Christians and Islamists in regards to their propensity for violence and terrorism.

Kensington on May 15, 2007 at 10:51 AM

doufree on May 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

The question was not if Germans or members of the party were Christians, the question was, who killed the Jews? The Jews were killed by the SS and Nazi leadership.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Kensington on May 15, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I agree. Though I’ll admit that his post didn’t particularly offend me in any way. The reactions here have gone a little overboard, but I guess that’s what happens when you’re in a party filled with Christians and you don’t like Christians.

Esthier on May 15, 2007 at 10:53 AM

student on May 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

That is what this post is about – comparing radical Islam with fundamentalist Christianity and claiming it can become just like it if terrorism continues to be rewarded. Picking a nut or an event from ancient history and holding it up an example to prove this is even a remote possibility today has no basis in reality. There are fundamental differences that prevent millions and millions of Christians from embracing that strategy.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Walid Shoebat summed up the difference nicely in Obsession. I paraphrase, radical Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism. In Nazism it was the Fuehrer who was telling you to do something. In Islam, it is Gold Almighty.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Christians have more to fear from radical atheists than the other way around. Dawkins and Hitchens and their hate filled books and the comments on some of these threads by others towards Christians would reveal a real resentment towards people of faith which could lead to violence. Students are already being verbally assaulted by radical professors. The hate is coming from the atheist side.

Rose on May 15, 2007 at 3:55 AM

Bingo. Thank you Rose. This is apparent in every religious debate at Hot Air.

Buck Turgidson on May 15, 2007 at 11:05 AM

Oh, boy.

The Source is “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” It’s unequivocal.

Shirer is not the last word on the Nazis. “The Rise and Fall”, though considered a good work, is not above criticism. (Examples.) It is not the same as source documents from the Nazis themselves.

The words of the Nazi leaders are unequivocal (”National Soc. and Christianity are irreconcilable.”). The actions of the Nazi regime are unequivocal.

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.” – Adolph Hitler. Yep, unequivocal. Actions, too. “Positive Christianity” as part of the party platform.

You may be offended by the fact the were pagan atheists but that does not change the facts:

“And fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi Regime intended to eventually destroy Christianity in Germany, it it could, and substitute the old Paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists” …

An opinion of Shirer’s that is contradicted by Hitler’s writings.

What the Hitler government envisioned was clearly set out in a thirty-point program from the National Reich Church drawn up by Rosenburg, an outspoken pagan…] Page 240.

Rosenberg was not the end-all-be-all of the Nazis. He was opposed, for example, by Hanns Kerrl. And again, Hitler called himself a Christian. (You may be offended by that, but it does not change the facts.)

If you want actual facts, you could consider all the “Christians” that supported the Nazis, the German Christian movement that supported them, the fact that the majority of the SS described their religion as “believes in God”, et cetera ad nauseum.

It’s more than arguable that Nazis didn’t practice a traditional form of Christianity (hence the term “positive Christianity”), but you have utterly failed to show that they were atheists, as you repeatedly stated. Rosenburg’s program for the Reich Church, which you have offered twice now as evidence, specifically states a belief in God in Rule 19. Atheism means you don’t believe in God, it’s just that simple.

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 11:10 AM

Oh, my. I know I’m late to the party, but this is just too perfect…

Jaibones on May 15, 2007 at 10:45 AM

Now I’m ashamed. It’s true. Christians in other parts of the world are a part of the family. We have no excuse for sitting on our hands.

It’s like the video of the old man being beaten. Those bystanders should have done something.

We need to do something. But what?

Esthier on May 15, 2007 at 11:11 AM

O fer the love of…if I’d have thought for a second that this post would generate all of this noise I wouldn’t have bothered.

Bryan on May 14, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Atheist intimidation seems to be working already. Who’s the dhimmi now?

Buck Turgidson on May 15, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Dorkafork,

H–ler was not an atheist. He associated atheism with Bolshevism, which he hated. Neither was he a Christian. He was a deist who was heavily influenced by Darwin.

If you’re up for some light reading (not really), check this out.

John on May 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM

If you want actual facts, you could consider all the “Christians” that supported the Nazis

many who supported the Nazis in the early years were quickly disillusioned. Many were arrested. 234-240 “The persecution of the Christian Churches”

Pg 239:

“Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the “Confessional Church” were arrested in 1937 and hundreds more in the next couple of years… as for the majority of Protestant pastors, they, like almost everyone else in Germany, submitted in the face of Nazi terror.”…

Again, these aren’t the people who killed the Jews. That was Himmler and the SS, “The SS also received control of the Gestapo in 1934, and, that same year, Adolf Hitler had given the SS jurisdiction over all concentration camps…”

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 11:41 AM

“schiavo worshipping evangelical”

jummy on May 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM

I have never met a fellow Christian who worshipped anything or anyone other than the one true living God in Christ Jesus.

If you were trying to make a joke, it is a sad one.

If this is what you think we are about, the sadness of the remark is beyond appaling.

We now return you to your wicked ways.

.

The Machine on May 15, 2007 at 11:59 AM

John on May 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM

“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest…From political considerations he restrained his anti-clericalism seeing clearly the dangers of strengthening the Church by persecution….But, once the war was over, he promised himself he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches. ‘The evil that is gnawing our vitals,’ he remarked in February 1942, ‘is our priests of both creeds. I can’t at present give them the answer they’ve been asking but… it’s all written down in my big book. The time will come when I will settle my account with them…They’ll hear from me alright. I shan’t let myself by hampered with judicial samples.”

“The truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist. ‘The dogma of Christianity.’ he declared in one of his wartime conversations, ‘gets worn away before the advances of science…gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity… The man who lives on communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches and that’s why they’re heading for ruin – for science is bound to win’”

Hitler
A study in Tyranny
Alan Bullock
pages 389-390

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Well, no, Bryan. They are Abrahamic religions. That means they have common foundational texts. Neither Christians nor Muslims pulled their religions from thin air. So, let’s clear the air about that. Proponents of both religions have used their texts to justify all kinds of not-nice things.

Mohammed had very little knowledge of Christianity. He did have some knowledge of Judaism, but all of his ‘quotations’ of the Patriarchs in the Hadith don’t match up with the Bible at all. In a couple passages of the Qur’an, Surah 5:46-47 for example, Mohammed states things like this:

5: 46-47 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed they are (no better than) those who rebel.

So he’s paying lip-service to the teachings of the Bible, but his statements don’t agree with what is found in it. Islam has a different definition of the ‘God of Abraham’ entirely. It has a different definition of Abraham entirely, so to say that it is an ‘Abrahamic religion’ is not the same as proving it so.

There are, unfortunately, plenty of Christian Fundamentalists with more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists then people would care to admit. I suppose the argument could be made that sects who are virulently anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-science aren’t really Christian, but the same can be said for Muslims who espouse those beliefs.
Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM

This is a very unsupported statement. Tell me, how many theonomists/Christian reconstructionists do you know? How in-line with historic Christianity are these beliefs? I think you should read ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades’ by Robert Spencer.

That’s one interpretation. It’s pretty clear that Jesus says the law doesn’t change regardless. The reinterpretation came about with the conversion of Gentiles who wouldn’t keep kosher.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

One might think stuff like rebuilding the temple is included. At least, I would. That’s just me, and some others.

Anyway, the Bible is open to interpretation. It’s why there isn’t a single church.

Krydor on May 15, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Read Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10-11. The New Testament authors and Jesus himself refer to the fulfillment of the law because of it’s inadequacy to save man. The ‘temple’ was typological of Jesus body, which is why he stated ‘Destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it again in three days.’ (John 2:19) Not one ‘jot or tittle’ of the Law DID pass away, because it is fulfilled in the person and work of Christ, who is alive and reigning even now.

PRCalDude on May 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM

The Alienation of Allah and the Atheists

Maybe, instead of this constant drumbeat of anti-Christian propaganda and anti-atheist moralism, we might just once acknowledge that the great majority of both camps are law abiding citizens, productive and responsible.

Christians should be sensitive to the reality that atheists feel like illegal aliens when in the presence of believers, and that the Bible teaches us that the opposite should be true.

Reach out to Allah and seek forgiveness for all of your (my) previous insults and slights…

Jaibones on May 15, 2007 at 12:03 PM

TheBigOldDog: That is what this post is about – comparing radical Islam with fundamentalist Christianity and claiming it can become just like it if terrorism continues to be rewarded.

Actually not. Neither Glenn nor I made any such comparison or prediction. We merely observed that if we continue to reward bad behavior on the part of the Islamists, that behavior will be emulated by some Christian groups. That no more compares Christianity to Islam than does observing that both groups are religious, and it certainly doesn’t posit that Christians will become just like radical Islamists.

Picking a nut or an event from ancient history and holding it up an example to prove this is even a remote possibility today has no basis in reality.

Those who were offended by Glenn’s post are the ones claiming that Christians, just by virtue of their Christianity, are not capable of resorting to violence. The examples that I and others have offered show that that’s not true historically and, in fact, that it’s not true today since, among other things, Eric Rudolph, David Koresh, abortion clinic bombings, and the killing of doctors who perform abortions are modern phenomena, not ancient history. I understand why you’re uncomfortable with having Rudolph and the others in your camp, just as I understand why the atheists would rather not have Stalin and Pol Pot in theirs, but it is what it is and it doesn’t advance the credibility of either camp to deny the obvious.

There are fundamental differences that prevent millions and millions of Christians from embracing that strategy.

No doubt, but that is a straw man. No one that I’ve seen in this thread, Glenn’s post, or Bryan’s response suggests that millions of Christians are going to embrace violence, only that some may if we continue to reward it.

student on May 15, 2007 at 12:08 PM

John, that link you offered is absurd. The author quotes a passage of Hitler’s and says it was inspired by Darwin when it is the exact opposite of what Darwin argued.

TheBigOldDog: Quickly disillusioned? Mein Kampf was published in 1925, it makes his feelings on the Jews pretty clear. They got disillusioned when they got arrested“…as for the majority of Protestant pastors, they, like almost everyone else in Germany, submitted in the face of Nazi terror.” The German Christians supported him, Hitler praised the Christian Socialists in Mein Kampf, they had similar views… It was all out there, for years before he came to power, and they still supported him.

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 12:14 PM

It’s threads like this that really do make me wish that we could split conservatives into two parties.

*notices the Libertarians over in the corner*

Well…two viable parties.

If we did it the libs would likely follow our lead since they are even more violently split than we are over some issues.

Benaiah on May 15, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Actually not. Neither Glenn nor I made any such comparison or prediction. We merely observed that if we continue to reward bad behavior on the part of the Islamists, that behavior will be emulated by some Christian groups

Which is both a comparison and a prediction. It says both groups have the capacity and, in the case of fundamental Christians, they will emulate that strategy (your words, not mine).

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Let’s also remind ourselves of what IP actually said shall we:

Sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands. Because, apparently, it works fine.

Not some. Not a small group or an individual but, fundamentalist Christians

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:20 PM

For the record Bryan, I meant no offense per the dhimmie remark. I was attempting to illustrate how the other side claims injury while assuming a more aggressive stance than the opposition. Remind you of anyone?

Buck Turgidson on May 15, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Here’s a blurb about the do gooder Gorebot fanatics Sheesh, just trying to save the planet ya know. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

sonnyspats1 on May 15, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Christians should be sensitive to the reality that atheists feel like illegal aliens when in the presence of believers, and that the Bible teaches us that the opposite should be true.

Reach out to Allah and seek forgiveness for all of your (my) previous insults and slights…

Jaibones on May 15, 2007 at 12:03 PM

I agree Jai. Too bad it seems to have little effect on the atheist axe grinding.
Do unto others implies no actual expectation of reciprocity.

Buck Turgidson on May 15, 2007 at 12:45 PM

sonnyspats1 on May 15, 2007 at 12:43 PM

That’s what drives me absolutely crazy. Why many on “our side” of the WoT would go out of their way to disparage Christians when they have plenty of examples of large groups on the Left who already embrace similar tactics is beyond me. It’s does not take a giant leap of faith to see them getting more and more violent yet they rather go after fundamentalist Christians who are more likely to embrace the family of the man who murdered their children in a one room school house than they are to use terrorism to achieve political objectives.

For the record, I am merely a bad Catholic so it’s not like I am POd simply because I feel attack – that’s not the case. I am sick of small minded people who try to paint all people of faith as a threat.

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:55 PM

BigOldDog: Which is both a comparison and a prediction.

It is a prediction, but not the one you accused me of making. I didn’t, as you claim, predict that Christianity would become just like Islam. I predicted that some Christian groups would resort to violence. Notice that this doesn’t predict that even these groups would “become just like Islam.” Also notice that it’s not much of a prediction since some groups (that would be the fringe elements of the right to life folks) are already there.

It also isn’t a comparison if by that you mean an equating of the two religions. I didn’t make any general statements about what the majority of Christians would do, only that it was very likely that some Christians would see the success of the Islamists’ strategy and seek to emulate it. You’re free to disagree and obviously do, but as Glenn says, we’ll soon see who is right.

student on May 15, 2007 at 1:02 PM

PRC,

That’s an interpretation. Don’t forget that the Jews themselves don’t think Jesus is the prophesied Messiah because he didn’t do what what was promised by the Old School Prophets. The reason the meaning was changed has little to do with what Jesus said, but more to what a Gentile who claimed to meet Jesus said.

Regardless, and I say this again, open to interpetation and has been used (in and out of context) for some bad stuff. That people think it can’t or won’t be used again in a similar manner is dreadfully naive.

Krydor on May 15, 2007 at 1:22 PM

But to be fair, even Phelps isn’t physically harming anyone.

I know, I just picked him because he’s pretty extreme, and everybody knows who he is.

Farmer_Joe on May 15, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Hitler didn’t particularly care for Christianity.

Too Jewish.

daveintexas on May 15, 2007 at 1:32 PM

When I grew up I don’t ever remember my Sunday School preach anything but love thy neighbor no matter what color. Nothing about ruling the world. Spread the Gospel but not by the Sword. Muslim terrorist seem selfish in their suicide bomber tactics. They are sold a bill of goods that they will have sexual pleasures if they blow there self up for Allah! How many would blow themselves up if they didn’t get offered the sexual prize. Jesus said suffer the little children unto him not blow off their arms and legs for their own good. Jesus wanted us to take care of the widow the unfortunate those who suffer in a fallen world and that if we didn’t it was like we were abandoning Christ himself. That ideology isn’t anything like Islam!

Drtuddle on May 15, 2007 at 1:33 PM

All I can say about this whole mess of a thread is
Be sure you don’t confuse Religion with Gods WORD.

abinitioadinfinitum on May 15, 2007 at 1:37 PM

abinitioadinfinitum: as a devout atheist, I couldn’t agree with you more. Everybody argues “religion” but faith is another matter entirely. How you “fight/argue” religion says so much about the fighter/arguer than anything else. I don’t believe in a god of any kind, I am an atheist, a traditionalist that believes that the commandments given Moses,, with a couple of exceptions were moral rules to live by as human beings. For me the man Jesus (whether he actually lived or not is unimportant) just filled in the final details that human beings still lacked after the commandments. He is simplicity itself: love your neighbor as you would love yourself! And, therein is the key: if you hate, you are incapable of love for any one including yourself. Without love nothing good is truly possible and everything evil is ruled by hate.

sharinlite on May 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM

sharinlite on May 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Now you pulled me in
.
Atheists often present the problem of evil to theists as if it is a fatal argument for the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, it is an absolutely unsolvable problem for the atheist. How does the atheist explain evil-the sense of moral right and wrong-in the absence of a moral Lawgiver? They can’t! If there is no moral Lawgiver, then there is no way to explain the sense of moral wrong and moral right we all possess. C.S. Lewis said that evil is God’s megaphone to a non-believing world. Evil speaks of moral law. Moral law demands a moral Lawgiver, and it is He that we call God!

God Bless You

abinitioadinfinitum on May 15, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Do unto others implies no actual expectation of reciprocity.

Buck Turgidson on May 15, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Thanks, Buck, and I agree. The thing is, AP is obviously (*warning: shameless suckup ahead*) a very bright guy and not some hypersensitive atheist extremist, and yet:

“I do … often feel that unless you’re a family values evangelical, you’re a guest in the Republican Party — to be treated with hospitality (since, after all, your vote is needed), to be sure, but there’s no question whose party it is.” (Allahpundit on May 14, 2007 at 2:07 PM)

So, I’m just saying that this must be real. And who would know better how conservatives address the issues of Christianity than AP and Bryan, since about once a day they open the door of the dog cage and throw some red meat in there and stand around watching the carnage…

Jaibones on May 15, 2007 at 2:15 PM

That’s an interpretation. Don’t forget that the Jews themselves don’t think Jesus is the prophesied Messiah because he didn’t do what what was promised by the Old School Prophets. The reason the meaning was changed has little to do with what Jesus said, but more to what a Gentile who claimed to meet Jesus said.

The problem is not with what the Gentiles believed, but with what the Jews of Jesus’ day believed. The Jews paid attention to the OT passages declaring that the Messiah would come in triumph and put all things right, but they ignored Isaiah 53. They also ignored the Psalmist saying, ‘My bones are out of joint’ and ‘they cast lots for my clothing,’ and ‘cursed is the man who is hung on a tree.’ They also miserably failed to understand the underlying function of their sacrifices, the Passover, and so on and so forth. The problem is not with the Gentiles at all. The Jews thought that the Day of Judgment and the advent of the Messiah were one in the same, based on their reading of the OT, and selective readings of Messianic prophesies.

Regardless, and I say this again, open to interpetation and has been used (in and out of context) for some bad stuff. That people think it can’t or won’t be used again in a similar manner is dreadfully naive.

Krydor on May 15, 2007 at 1:22 PM

People can quote Scripture out of context, but we can easily contextualize it, if we know our Bibles. We can also point to the historic interpretation of passages in question. We still have the writings of Augustine, Ireneus, Origen, Polycarp, Calvin, and Luther. They are largely in agreement over the essentials: the Gospel, justification, etc. Calvin thought the idea of a Christian theocracy to be ridiculous. If you don’t believe me, read through the Institutes (his later writings). Theonomy/Christian reconstructionism has very little traction in the church today.

PRCalDude on May 15, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Bryan, John, Esthier, Buck, and others…

Keep fighting the good fight, you do well. Bryan, you are right to post on such a topic, maligning Christianity has become rather too common a participation sport in this country founded upon Christian principles and faith.

The term fundamentalist has begun being used in the last 25 years as if interchangeable with extremist, and that is disingenuous at best. A fundamentalist Christian is NOT one who would resort to violence to get his way. Perhaps a poorly taught or misguided believer would, but it would be proper to call them an extremist, not a fundamentalist.

There is nothing among the Christians fundamentals that directs followers to ignore Christ’s words, which includes the Golden Rule, the beatitudes, and a clear restatement of 9 of the 10 commandments. The time of physical struggle in the religious arena was past, the war has since been on the spiritual level.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints

– Ephesians 6:10-18

This is the manner and method of the Christian’s warfare. Not bullets or bombs. Anyone who does not follow this pattern is NOT a fundamentalist Chrisian, but a mistaken extremist.

Freelancer on May 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM

TheBigOldDog: You can quote other people’s opinions of Hitler’s beliefs all you want, but he laid them out pretty clearly in Mein Kampf. In fact, that last one you quoted was a third hand quote from “Table Talk”. All of the anti-Christianity Hitler quotes I’ve seen come from that one single book. Every other source says the opposite. Mein Kampf leaves little doubt. It’s all there, he repeatedly mentions God. He praised the Christian Socialists, the German Christian movement supported him, the Nazis promoted “positive Christianity in their party platform, and yet somehow they’re all atheists.

“…as for the majority of Protestant pastors, they, like almost everyone else in Germany, submitted in the face of Nazi terror.” “Submit”? Mein Kampf was published in 1925. They had no excuse for not knowing what he was up to. They still supported him. They didn’t get disillusioned by his rants against the Jews, they only got disillusioned when he turned on them.

dorkafork on May 15, 2007 at 3:49 PM

PRCal,

Your extended discussion with Krydor is evidence that you have far more patience than I.

When someone pulls out the thread-bare “I-can-make-the-Bible-say-whatever-I-want” proposition and credulously offers it as support for their argument, I have no interest in debate with this person since it’s futile! Krydor’s assertion that Scriptural meaning is maleable offers support neither to his position or any other. It’s ridiculous on it’s face.

The fact that scores of people twist, willfully misrepresent, or misunderstand the Bible’s meaning in no way negates or invalidates the meaning it’s Author actually intended. I can argue that my state traffic law can be interpreted to encourage DUI – nevertheless the state trooper and magistrate are going to hold me to the actual meaning intended by the author and prosecute me for violating it. In short, the myriad human interpretations of Scripture do nothing to change its actual meaning. This should be obvious to anyone, Christian or not.

Thanks for your strong constitution and persistence. Maybe your approach might send a little light in his direction.

The Ritz on May 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Freelancer on May 15, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Bravo!

sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 2:16 AM

TheBigOldDog on May 15, 2007 at 12:55 PM Yeah B.O.D. thats how they earned the name KOOK fringe isn’t it? Hey people from all walks have and will continue to do violent and stupid things. It’s hard enough trying to minimize the damage and grief caused by them, through church counciling and anger managment. So now enter the Koran and teach it from birth, whoa thats a potent force that becomes the persons reality.Whats to understand? Read medical books and become a doctor, read a book about killing people and become a killer. We as citizens should bring a class action suit against the U.S. government, on the grounds of discrimination (for one). the book propagates all manner of hate speech against those not of the Muslim belief. The publishing house where the Korans are printed should be held libal for the 9/11 deaths and more, just like the lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers for murders. The only way to stop the insanity is to eliminate the source, that is the Koran.

sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Crydoor. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. What Jesus is talking about accomplishing here is His resurection. The Bible may be a profound book the surpasses mans understanding, but I don’t agree that it’s up for individual interpretation.

sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 2:44 AM

Well, no, Bryan. They are Abrahamic religions. That means they have common foundational texts. Neither Christians nor Muslims pulled their religions from thin air. So, let’s clear the air about that. Proponents of both religions have used their texts to justify all kinds of not-nice things.

There are, unfortunately, plenty of Christian Fundamentalists with more in common with Islamic Fundamentalists then people would care to admit. I suppose the argument could be made that sects who are virulently anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-science aren’t really Christian, but the same can be said for Muslims who espouse those beliefs.

Krydor on May 14, 2007 at 2:56 PM

The next time theres a militant Christian rally, please notify us here. The only requirement is their must be thousands of people screaming ‘death to(fill in the blank)’ topped off with a couple beheading tapes all done with government approval. Thank you I can’t wait, it sounds like such a blessed event.

sonnyspats1 on May 16, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3