Militant Christianity?

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by tulianr, Sep 16, 2012.


  1. Mechwolf

    Mechwolf Monkey+

    My perspective is you may be seeing more Christians prepare for what they may see as a coming attack on their religious views. When the Nazi's rounded up the Jews not many fought back. They may be getting ready for what is supposed to happen in the book of revelation. I would never fight someone just because but I would not hesitate to defend myself either. Now as to your question: "Are we seeing a trend that will permanently reshape the image of Christianity?". I think that maybe we are. Take the Hutaree for example. Many more people are being persecuted for their way of live whether it being Christian a prepper etc etc..
    To me it seems they are preparing for what might be coming down the line at a later time.
     
    kellory and tulianr like this.
  2. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    My mistake Tul, there may be a more militant approach to Christianity in some urban areas but out here in the country our church still tries to show love the same way Jesus did. The early church at Antioch said "you can recognize Christians by their love for the brethren". True Christianity has never been oppressive or belligerent. It is when some who practice "religion" get into power that Christianity gets a bad name.
     
    oldawg, Minuteman, kellory and 2 others like this.
  3. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor Site Supporter+

    Becoming more militant may be the only way to survive. If other religions with a nod from their governments and not so radical peers are allowed to go unchecked in actions like the following, where and when does it end?
    .
    Over the weekend the monstrous villains of Boko Haram attacked local civilian populations and slaughtered more than 200 Christian students on their way to take state sponsored exams.
    The students, according to sources, lost their lives as the sect embarked on multiple attacks that affected no fewer than four communities in the state.
    [​IMG]Sources disclosed that the Muslim insurgents laid in ambush for the students, who were in eight vehicles and who were on their way to Biu from Maiduguri, to write the exams. It could not be ascertained if all the students in the eight vehicles were killed during the attacks.
    Reacting to the incident, the Senator representing Borno Central, Zannah Ahmed, told journalists on Friday that at least 210 people have been killed so far in the attacks that lasted between Thursday night and Friday morning.
    The two-day attacks, he said, were unleashed on communities such as Dikwa, Kala Balge, Gambulga and Gwoza.

    The Islamic nations of the world have been unsurprisingly silent about the evil acts committed by Boko Haram. All of this is happening as Boko Haram strengthens its relations with other Islamic groups like Al Qaeda in an effort to entrench themselves in northern Nigeria.
    If you notice recent trend of Islamic terrorist activity popping up all around the world… don’t worry, it’s not just you. Islamic groups are terrorizing the populations in India, Pakistan, the USA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria… and more.
    Islam is ravaging our world.
    Boko Haram has been busy in recent months. Back in February they killed 59 students at a boarding school, going as far as incinerating some of the bodies.

    Read more at Islamic Extremists in Nigeria Slaughter 200 Christians » Eagle Rising
     
  4. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    True; fear of being victimized by extremists from other religions may be the source, or at least part of the source, of the perceived change in attitude in many Christians.

    But, I don't see Christianity, as a whole, if there is such a notion, reacting to other atrocities around the world - rewriting Christianity's identity in response to those atrocities.

    For an example, forty-eight women are raped every hour in the the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I don't see a groundswell of condemnation and calls for action by Christianity to stop this; or an attempt to find an appropriate response to such actions in the scripture. It doesn't affect the average Christian in the way he or she thinks about their religion.
    Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo, study finds | World news | The Guardian

    In Myanmar, Muslims have been the victim of Buddhist mobs for several years now. Many, many Muslim men, women, and children, have been beaten, killed, dispossessed. Even Buddhist monks have joined in the rampages. There is no audible response from the Christian community in this country, or in others; and it hasn't affected basic attitudes of American Christians toward Muslims or Buddhists. Muslims, still bad; Buddhists still good.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/world/asia/myanmar-violence-buddhists-muslims.html?_r=0
    BBC News - Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
    Muslim victims say Myanmar police aided attackers - Yahoo News

    Atrocities of all sorts are occurring all over the world, but the right-wing and Christian groups appear to be very selective about which ones they publicize and spin for consumption. Is the publication and discussion of attacks on Christians around the world, such as the one posted above, a cause of a more militant version of Christianity, or a symptom? Are we being deluged with news of these sorts of atrocities which display Christians as victims, rather than a more balanced view, because those with a more militant view of Christianity need such reinforcement to explain their views?

    Putin is claiming abuse of Russian speaking minorities within Crimea and eastern Ukraine as the cause of a more aggressive Russian attitude being displayed to the world, but is it the cause, or are these claims of abuse a symptom of the fact that Russia is simply becoming more internationally aggressive?
     
    chelloveck likes this.
  5. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Last I checked, not one Buddhist was trying to kill me and mine. Not a small group of a peaceful whole, not one fanatic Buddhist working to hit me with a plane. Somehow, I'm just not on their hit list.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2014
    chelloveck and oldawg like this.
  6. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    There could be a Buddhist monk in a Cessna circling your house at this very minute. Stay vigilant! ;)
     
    kellory and chelloveck like this.
  7. Sapper John

    Sapper John Analog Monkey in a Digital World

    Well...not in this lifetime anyway...
     
    tulianr likes this.
  8. co9mil

    co9mil Monkey

    Could you expound a bit more on the contradictions you've found?

    Thanks,
     
  9. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor Site Supporter+

    Too many variables and too many opinions, and to many sects of Christianity. Many of the sects are at odds with each other or have been at one time. Multiple versions of the Bible. Do you read Hebrew? I don't. How about Latin? I don't. Obviously all the Bibles I have been able to read have translations that can vary from Version to version. I do not care to argue theology. Read your own version of the Bible. If you don't find differences ie contradictions in some things from old to new testament so be it. Peace be with you.
     
    tulianr and chelloveck like this.
  10. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    @co9mil

    I appreciate that your remark was addressed to tac, but I hope you'll forgive my input to your question.

    The following sites may help in answering your question about biblical contradictions.

    BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized
    Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon (includes Old and New Testaments, Quoran, and Book of Mormon)

    A List Of Biblical Contradictions

    Strongly Agreed. You forgot Ancient Greek and Aramaic; neither of which I am literate. Some other issues are: copyists errors, and the interpolations and subtractions made by scriptural editors through the course of canonical development.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2014
    tacmotusn and tulianr like this.
  11. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    I see/hear this error stuff all the time but I defy you to show any significant variations from the Dead Sea Scrolls to present translations. You will find different words as some versions are trans literations and some trans lations. Then there are those that translate absolute word for word. Skeptics fail to mention that early Hebrew/Arabic was written from lower right to upper left with no punctuation, no paragraphs. Some of the New Testament was written in Greek which was the newest language coming onto the scene. All the present day scripture was scrutinized/gathered/voted on about 100 and again about 300. The Apocrypha was voted out as not being written by the apostles but the Catholics still use it. I have a copy of it and several translations still keep it. Nothing mysterious about the Bible. Just a recorded history of the people of the Jewish faith that God chose to bring Jesus to us through(OT) and then a record of his life/ministry/death/resurrection/reappearing/ascension/and then what his apostles did afterward. Most of the rest are letters written to different budding churches around the Mediterranean Sea addressing specific issues/encouraging/and sometimes scolding. It is designed to be very relevant to not only to entire cultures but to individual lives. It's aim is to give us a picture of God and His desire to love us. That is a very simplistic "drawing" of the Bible but you will find warmth for your soul there and the ultimate peace through practicing it's precepts. Do not let scoffers/skeptics rob you of the treasures within. Read it for yourself, study it, and you will find out that most who discount it are merely parroting others ignorant words. Best to you as you discover the "light" within it's pages.
     
  12. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    I'm not disputing the light and warmth that you find within the pages of the Bible; and I don't wish to deride the Bible in any way. It is an amazing collection of writings. But from the perspective of someone who translated Middle Eastern languages into English as a job for many years, I do think that it is incorrect to discount the alterations in meaning, both dramatic and subtle, that occur any time that any document is translated into another language.

    The more different the cultures are, the more dramatic the alterations in meaning can be, even if the translator has no agenda and is doing his best to faithfully capture the true meaning of the words. There are cultural concepts expressed in words which sometimes have no translation in other languages; and there are concepts for which multiple words from another language may be used, but none will capture the true meaning.

    You mentioned that some of the New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek words ἀγάπη (agápē), ἔρως (érōs), φιλία (philía), and στοργή (storgē), can all be faithfully translated as "Love" in English. But they mean very different things. The first word means "Love" in a spiritual sense; the second word means "Love" in a physical, passionate sense; the third word means "Love" in a friendly, affectionate sense; and the last word means "Love" in familial sense. A translator may render each of these words into English as "Love," but he will inevitably lose or distort much of the meaning of the word, even if he has no bad intentions or an agenda to pursue.

    The Greeks word τιμή (timé) is generally translated as "Honor," but the word also means "Price" or "Value." The Greeks have another word, κλέος (kleos), which can also be translated as "Honor," but it is generally used to capture a sense of glory that follows one after his death; and because their society was one circumscribed by honor, vice shame, as in the case of most Christian cultures, it was an important word.

    The Greek word παιδεία (Paideia) is used many times in the New Testament, and generally means "Culture(d)," but it also means properly rearing a child, and "Education." And even if you translate it as "Culture(d)," you need to understand what the Greeks meant by "Cultured." Their idea of a "Cultured" person is very different than the what the Jewish idea of "Cultured" was in the 2d century BCE. Homer used "Paideia" in the Iliad, in the 8th century BCE, in reference to the Greeks' superior physical stamina and ability.

    And you can't discuss the New Testament without running into the word λόγος (Logos). "Logos" is used exhaustively in the New Testament, and it must have close to thirty meanings in Greek. It can mean "Word," "Reason," "Communication," "Speech," "Account," "Complaint," "Matter," "Sayings," and "Teaching," just to name a few. It is even translated in the New Testament to mean the spirit of Christ. A translator is going to hit the word "Logos" and then have to decide for himself how to render that word into English.

    Reading the Bible, or any other ancient document(s), without a thorough understanding of the languages and cultures involved in its writing, requires a lot of faith in the various translators; that they found just the right nuance of each word when they converted that document to English. Ultimately, I think you can find in the Bible whatever you go into there to find. If it is warmth and light, it is there in abundance. If you want to find confusion and contradiction, that too is there for the taking.
     
    tacmotusn, chelloveck and kellory like this.
  13. -06

    -06 Monkey+++

    As in anything one usually finds what one is looking for be it life or a nursery rhyme. The people that translated the Bible were and are great historians/theologists/linguistic knowledgeable people. If one ever meets John Phillips (Phillips translation) he would get a glimpse of the depth of knowledge some have and the dedication to correctly doing the job. Ancient copiers were so meticulous that they would count the number of words, divide by two, and go to the middle. If it was not in the same place as the original it was destroyed. Monks often would use new "pens" on every book/chapter to prevent any "sin" from besetting their work. Our Bibles we have today have been lovingly and carefully handed to us.
    As for word changes--no doubt about how meanings have changed but those translators knew what they were doing and we can feel comfortable and secure in today's "Word" for our lives and spiritual well being.
     
  14. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    And that is what "faith" is all about. [beer]
     
    chelloveck likes this.
  15. D2wing

    D2wing Monkey+

    God created the universe, I am pretty sure he can make his meaning clear to us. The real Gospel is so simple a child can understand it.
    As far as being militant, this can be a dangerous trap. Now I am a combat veteran. I was not a Christian then. I did have to decide that I would kill as needed as a soldier. The Bible says how to behave as a soldier and also the Centurions child was healed making it clear it clear that being a soldier is acceptable.
    Some Christians believe "Thou shall not Kill" means just what it says. The Bibles says let your conscience be your guide basically and to do all things in faith.
    I think both are right for each group.
    But there are many situations in between. Peaceful protests like those led by Martin Luther King. Civil disobedience like the Quakers mugging slaves.
    The Bible says to obey out rulers and pray for them.
    Then we have rebellion like our founding Fathers and others. I think everyone agrees that most of our founders were Christians and fought for a just cause, freedom.
    Modern Christians in Americas are in a dilemma. Many like me are veterans or other public servants are sworn to uphold our Constitution and we see it being betrayed by our leaders especially the President and even our highest courts. And while we are supposed to be able to vote out tyrants it is not happening. Over the last century our schools have been overtaken, especially colleges by progressives/communists. They have over time undermined patriotism, particularly Christianity, altered teaching on history and replaced fact about our Government with all sorts of leftist ideas and falsehoods. Our populace is awfully dumbed down and wildly misinformed. The liberals by fraud and lies have led the majority of brainwashed and ignorant voters into something that our fathers escaped.
    Now what do we do? If we revolt. I think they are trying to provoke violence so that they can declare martial law. I think that is the major trap. I believe the answer is prayer and repentance. Hopefully our nation will be spared to some degree. At this point I don't know what will happen or just what to do.
     
    Sapper John, Yard Dart and tacmotusn like this.
  16. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    To quote another forum member...

     
  17. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus


    There is a difference between a simplified categorisation of the religious adherence / non adherence of citizens in nations, and a simplistic categorisation of national religious / non religious adherence. It seems that you have applied yourself to the latter.

    The USA, Britain, and Australia are pluralistic democracies (of slightly different flavours), the majority of citizens of which identify, at least notionally, as being Christian. (though that demographic is steadily trending downwards). They are not Christian nations. The only nation, if it could be said to be a nation, that could be considered to be a Christian nation is the Vatican...and even then, many non-Catholic Christians around the world would deny that the Vatican is Christian in any sensible way at all.

    As to The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, and the Khmer Republic: they are, or were, totalitarian dictatorships that to a greater or lesser extent, at various times in their histories, imposed State Atheism (State atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia upon their citizens. The rapid resurgence of the Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches post the break up of the Soviet Union, would seem to suggest, that the Soviet Union was not so much an atheist nation, but a nation with a predominance of Christians, paying lip service to state atheism, whilst covertly maintaining their own core Christian beliefs.




    Not so....with the rise of secularism, Australia, and to some lesser extents, the USA and The UK: they are moving more towards the kind of non religious societies typified by Sweden and some of the other Scandinavian countries. Though the forces of counter secularism in the USA, ( militant Christianity, principally, though not exclusively known as Christian Dominionism / Reconstructionism / Theonomy ) would have much more in common with a degree of fundamentalism redolent of the theological absolutism of the Ayatollahs of Iran, and the Taliban of Afghanistan.

    Dominionism - RationalWiki

    Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2015
  18. D2wing

    D2wing Monkey+

    Really, Christian Reconstructionism? That sounds like some liberal talk to smear Christianity with yet another totally fabricated reason to equate Christians with Muslim terrorists. That is widely evident in articles the liberals have posted in prominent papers in the last few days.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
    Sapper John likes this.
  19. D2wing

    D2wing Monkey+

    Sorry, I guess calling some one a liberal is insulting. And of course nut case is redundant. I apologize and will try not to show my contempt in the future.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2015
  20. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    1. Christian Dominionism / Recontructionism / Theonomy are not representative of all Christians / Christianity...they are Christian ideologies that are not even representative of much of the conservative end of the US Christianity spectrum. However, Christian Dominionism etc does have much in common with some of the muslim fundamentalist ideals of subordinating the control of government to godly, theocratic rule. Although relatively few numerically, the CD movement does, however, wield considerable power and influence out of proportion to their numbers in the US body politic.

    It is not smearing Christianity to reveal the existence of Christian Dominionists and their ideology, any more than it is smearing Islam by revealing that Wahabists exist on the more conservative fringe of Islam. They both are, what they are: ultra fundamentalist ideologies, preferring theocratic rule, with strict adherence to scriptural laws, than to pluralistic, secular democratic forms of government.


    2. I made no claim of equivalence between Christians broadly, and Muslim terrorists. A valid equivalence would be between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists though. It is a mistake to necessarily equate religious fundamentalism (Christian / Jewish or Islamic) with religious terrorism. Not all religious fundamentalists are terrorists, and not all terrorists are religious fundamentalists.

    Christianity and Islam are not like two monolithic blocks of stone of uniform consistency and character. They both more resemble two separate piles of random sized rocks, stones, and pebbles, of variegated colour, lustre, and hardness. There is a continuum of adherence in the case of Christianity / Islam ranging from virtual apostasy to hard core fundamentalism...it's best to evaluate beliefs on specific examples rather than assume that all believers are the same, that they believe the same things, share the same ambitions or act in the same way.

    3. I am not aware of those articles. Am happy to examine them though, if you care to share the links.




    I don't buy into the liberal / conservative name calling, mud slinging sillyness. I am not offended, though it is with some degree of irony that I have to let you know that in the Australian context, that a Liberal is a supporter of conservative politics, which I do find highly offensive!!! ;) I find it better to address the issues being discussed, rather than attacking the supposed political allegiance of the proponents.

    There is no intrinsic problem of showing contempt. I do it quite often. Just that my contempt is usually for bad, poorly supported ideas rather than the individuals that float them. Doing contempt with some style and subtlety is ever so more enjoyable and entertaining than battering someone over the head with a rhetorical mallet.
     
    oldawg and tulianr like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7