The phrase in my title comes from Mencken, but the reality that we must deal with every day comes from . . . from our thought leaders, I think. It is a bad business when a nation’s thought leaders quit thinking.
A radical Muslim, working the ISIS angle, shot up a homosexual nightclub, murdering 49 people there, and then he himself was killed by police. His name was Omar Mateen, he did what he did in solidarity with ISIS, and apparently was shouting “allahu akbar” during the shooting. This means that his root motivations are a mystery to officials, and that if we drill down diligently we will find that the pressing problem of the day would have to be homophobic evangelical bakers and Islamophobic preachers. And guns. Don’t forget guns.
Public discourse today is one throbbing mass of sentimentality . . . but only of the approved sentiments. We refuse to analyze what happened dispassionately, whatever happens — because that would cause the approved narrative to collapse instanter. Instead we emote wildly in response, and if anyone dares to dissent, or is known to possess dissenting proclivities, they are promptly boiled in cauldrons of molten tolerance outrage.
The very first question I was asked about this murderous rampage was this one:
@douglaswils Could you confirm please Pastor that all the Florida victims gunned down are now in hell? Thanks.
This question was made a bit more relevant by the fact that the gunman’s father had said on Facebook that his son should not have done what he did, and that it was up to God to punish homosexuality. This is of course quite true, but it is also true that God will punish radical jihadis who murder homosexuals in nightclubs.
No morally serious theology believes that someone’s eternal destiny should rest upon whether or not the criminals involved in his death were being wicked or not. We will all of stand before God and answer to Him. And for any mortal man, this is a dreadful prospect, and the only possible way to prepare for it is to take refuge in Christ. I cannot take any refuge in the possibility that the person murdering me might be more in need of forgiveness than I am.
And if some prissy moralist wanted to say that these homosexuals died because they were greater sinners than the rest of us, the words of Jesus should rebuke him immediately.
“Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”” (Luke 13:4–5, ESV).
Some people look at the fact that these unfortunate people died while in pursuit of a sinful lifestyle. That is quite true — they did. But do you think they are the only ones deserving of judgment? After this story dies down, America will calmly resume the slaughter of babies by the tens of thousands, and the abortion carnage is only the capstone of any number of abominations. You think those 49 should have repented? Show them how easy it is. When that story disappears from the front pages, we will all return to our presidential campaign, with two of the most corrupt public figures in living memory vying for your vote. Don’t forget to vote, everybody! Your choices are between two different kinds of supporters of the Planned Parenthood meat merchants.
I should acknowledge that my questioner on Twitter should not be reckoned among the heavyweights, for he only had three followers. And I am guessing that those three followers were his sister and two mommies, but I cite him because it is an almost perfect example of a very common irrational emotional response to a situation that cries out for the very opposite of an irrational emotional response.
Notice that my questioner did not ask me if the murderer was in hell. The reason he did not ask that question is because it would not advance the narrative, which is that evangelical “haters” are the problem, and that we are the ones polluting the earth with our disapprobation of both homosexuality and Islam.
This is not straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. It is straining out baby gnats and swallowing caravans of camels.
No, no, they will say. It is all connected. Evangelical opposition to homosexuality and opposition to COEXIST religiosity both contribute to a climate of rejection, exclusion, and division, which in turn helps create a climate of fear. We have to eliminate all such expressions from our public discourse because it actually contributes (eventually!) to tragedies such as this. In other words, they put their heads down and soldier through a long chain of subtle reasoning in order to get some of the blame onto the Christians, and with their heads down like that, they are able to overlook various Islamic outrages against homosexuals. The finest example of this most recently was PayPal’s official disapproval of North Carolina’s traditional bathroom policy, and all while doing business merrily in countries that execute homosexuals. This level of inconsistency is only possible if something else is going on, if another game entirely is being played.
The fundamental war here is on the remnants of our Christian civilization, and it would be good if Christians could eventually come to grips with that fact. Homosexual activists and jihadis do hate one another, and they know it. Sometimes that hatred breaks out, as it did here. But taking the averages, they both hate the vestiges of Christian culture more than they hate one another. They are not allies, but they are co-belligerents, and their shared task is to deal with the Christianity first.
It will be a fine day when the Christians start thinking of the Christianity first.
Thank you and amen!
Great article until the last sentence. I suppose it depends on how you define Christianity.
But the last sentence flows from the rest of the piece. I think he means Christianity in the true, biblical, lasting sense – not merely Christendom as it now exists in some parts of the West (i.e. evanjellyfishland).
I’m sorry Wilson got such a foolish question. On a much smaller scale, I got some hurtful questions about faith too, and I didn’t appreciate it. So, Christian values created a world where gays are free to gather in a nightclub in relative safety while Islamic ideals would have them all executed. So what do the powers that be and the court of public opinion do? Throw Christians under the bus and embrace Islam. That’s downright suicidal. Ironic, because as both a Christian and an American, preventing this kind of hatred and tragedy is exactly what so many of us… Read more »
“So Christian values created a world where gays are free to gather in a nightclub in relative safety.” Except for the minor detail that in Doug’s theocracy there would, in all probability, not be any gay nightclubs, or at least not any legal ones that weren’t constant victims of police harassment. I’m confidant in saying this because back in the days before gay liberation, when Christians mostly did control the culture, that was indeed the state of things. The values that allow gays to gather at a nightclub in relative safety are actually the result of secularization, not Christianity, and… Read more »
50 years of secularization?
Not 240 years of secularization?
Isn’t your position that the USA was never Christian ?
In conception or execution?
In any case, even went certain sex acts were illegal, the penalty was not death.
Hence relative (secular?) safety.
Check?
Secularization is a relative term that “took” in some parts of the country earlier than in other parts. We can quibble about which date to use, but the main point is that the kind of theocracy Doug routinely calls for would not result in a free society for gays, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. And actually, yes, some people were executed in Christian America for homosexuality. The Massachusetts Bay Colony had at least two and so did California. Those weren’t recent executions — the California ones were in 1802 if my memory is correct — but they did happen.
Check, your definition of “Christian America” is too squishy. You change it to suit your rhetorical needs. The Mass. Bay Colony was part of England at that time, not the USA. The California incident you mention was in 1802. California was not a state until 1850. Dates “quibbled”.???? I suppose our actual difference is about the seminal formative culture of any nation. For the USA, a strong case has been made that its formative culture was “Christian” but not denominational. You seem to insist that it was more secular, and “Christians” mucked it up later.? Again, one lesson Christians learned… Read more »
The dates are irrelevant to my central point, as is the political status of the Mass. Bay Colony. The question on the table is whether the values that allow gays to enjoy a night out at their own place come from Christianity or from secularism. How is the fact that California wasn’t a state until 1802 relevant to that point? And by the way, the Irish, whom Cromwell enslaved, would completely disagree with you that English non-denominational government was a good thing. Can we agree that in 1950 American culture was more Christian than it is today? If so, then… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: Can we agree that in 1950 American culture was more Christian than it is today? If so, then look at the relative freedom all people have today to what they had then. Like NovaCore, Krychek_2 ignores the debt slavery that we and our children now live under, to the tune of $19 trillion. Krychek_2 also ignores the loss of the middle class since 1950, and the widening income inequality that has resulted from progressive economic interference. Krychek_2 doesn’t mention the rampant entitlement culture and culture of secular government dependency that was only in seed form in 1950. Finally,… Read more »
The debt slavery is mostly the doing of a Republican Congress that spends like drunken sailors but refuses to raise the taxes to pay for it. And the destruction of the middle class is mostly the doing of Reagan’s policies; to put it politely, trickle down is based on a badly flawed premise. By the way, did you know that two of the last four Democrats in the White House — Johnson and Clinton — balanced the budget, but you have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to find a Republican who did? And you know why that… Read more »
Agreed, hence Donald Trump and the teaparty.
Clinton got he Internet Bubble which bailed him out with paper money.
Odd that Krychek_2 wants to give the Republican Congress the blame for their drunken spending habits, but wants to give Clinton credit for balancing the budget, even though that was under a Republican Congress (and wasn’t really balanced anyway). Regardless of the petty partizan blame shifting, I thought Krychek_2 was touting the glorious advance of secular freedoms since 1950? Is he saying that secularism correlates with more economic liberty since 1950, or with more economic slavery? Notice that Krychek_2 simply makes excuses, but doesn’t explain how bi-partizan secularism has failed so dramatically in the timeframe of his own choosing. Also,… Read more »
Actually, you’re the one who brought up the debt, and it’s far more complicated than you’re making out. But to answer your question, if I were an unborn black baby I’d far rather be an unborn black baby today. If I’m born, I’ll grow up with far more freedom than I would have had in 1950. And if I’m not born, I’d never know the difference anyway.
No, $19 trillion of debt slavery is not all that complicated. Krychek_2 just doesn’t want to own it as the fruit of his beloved secularism since 1950.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Notice the actual disregard for equality for all. Take away the equality before they ever realize they had it. Spoken like a true secularist.
As a consequentialist, equal dignity of life is not an external virtue, to be upheld and observed out of principle and duty, but a mere expedience, to be sacrificed in competition with other internal pragmatic impulses.
What’s not complicated is if you’re going to spend money, you need to raise revenue. Democrats understand this. Republicans don’t.
Krychek_2 thinks raising taxes is going to pay for $19 trillion in current debt, plus $100+ trillion in future liabilities. Apparently neither Democrats, Republicans, or Krychek_2 understand classic pyramid schemes.
No, raising taxes all along so we didn’t acquire $19 trillion in debt in the first place would have been the solution. I agree we’re in over our heads now, but again, you can thank the Republicans who decided to throw everything on a credit card because they didn’t want to tax their rich friends. And at this point, taxes are just going to have to go up no matter who is president. At the end of World War II the United States had a manageable debt because FDR understood that if you’re going to go to war, you have… Read more »
I’m certainly not here to defend the drunken excesses of the Republicans, but it is beyond dishonest for Krychek_2 to pretend that the Democrats haven’t been worse in their economic insobriety. Unfunded socialist programs have been the platform of the Democratic party for generations. It is naive to think that raising taxes would somehow have rescued FDR’s pyramid scheme given the change in life expectancy, inflated and debased fiat currency, and the reduced ratio of workers to beneficiaries. Remember that it is Congress that controls and creates the budget and federal spending. For reference, here is a chart showing which… Read more »
It’s kinda like the atheist/Christian thing. When the Republicans spend like drunken billionaire frat boys, they’re being untrue to their stated ideology. When the Democrats do it, they’re being consistent or at least neutral. You couldn’t call them out on it by accusing then of being un-Democratic.
I doubt FDR could have predicted demographic changes 70 years down the road that impact social security, but my central point is unassailable: Yes, Democrats spend, but they also raise revenue. Republicans spend but they don’t raise revenue; they just throw it on a credit card. And in most states headed toward a fiscal cliff the issue is the same: Can’t get Republicans in the legislature to raise taxes, but they will increase spending. That’s certainly the problem in California.
Pyramid schemes are still pyramid schemes even without our ability to predict major demographic changes. Unplanned demographic changes simply accelerate the collapse. Apparently Krychek_2 didn’t bother to consult the chart that I referenced above, which shows that federal debt was expanded under Democratic Congressional regimes, and slowed or reduced under Republican Congressional regimes. Regarding debt at the state level, Krychek_2 attempts to blame the Republican minority for not raising taxes and for increasing spending, but it is the Democrat majority in those states that ultimately controls spending and continues to authorize the increased spending even when there are no funds.… Read more »
What’s truly not complicated is that we waste billions and don’t need to spend so much. Tons can be cut before we talk about raising anything. Outside of a few people like Ron Paul, neither party seems to get that part.
So what you’re saying is, life is worse now for middle class white people than it was in 1950. Yes, you’re probably right.
Comparing pre-civil rights life for black people to the modern abortion crisis is apples and oranges.
The 1950 model became Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas, happily telling the 2016 edition he is a lazy stupid thug in training’-a threat to their white friends…I mean, “us”.
‘chek, a properly broad view of “secularism” does not get a pass on “relative Freedom” for anyone. In 1950 the Soviet Union was at least as secular as it is today, and homosexual acts were illegal for most, but not all of Soviet history. As for more relative freedom since 1950 in the US, for various minority, ethnic and gender groups, “secularism” simply does not get all the credit. For instance, MLK was a Christian after all, so the civil rights movement can’t be correctly defined as secular alone. Niether can it be defined as “christian” alone. In light of… Read more »
I’m not sure about a few of these, and I was alive back then. Would a black child living in a northern state in 1950 be much more likely than now to be living with a mother and a father in the home? Would the father be more likely to be employed, and less likely to be involved in the criminal justice system? Despite low wages and discrimination, would that black family not have been better off then than now? The 1950s housewife might have been bored out of her wits sometimes, but she did not have to work 40… Read more »
“Paranoid schizophrenics were not forced to live unmedicated in cardboard
boxes under bridges, getting their only hot meals and medical attention
when the police take them off to jail for a day or two.”
Yes. That’s another thing we have gotten terribly wrong.
“Can we agree that in 1950 American culture was more Christian than it is today? If so, then look at the relative freedom all people have today to what they had then.” No. If I wanted to start a business in the 1950s, I could do so without going through an alphabet soup of federal agencies, myriad state laws, unions trying to stop me, etc. I could also smoke in public, find 10 ft swimming pools with diving boards, and do hundreds of other things I can’t do today. Your “relative freedom” is relative for your own purposes. It’s laughable… Read more »
“No. If I wanted to start a business in the 1950s, I could do so without going through an alphabet soup of federal agencies, myriad state laws, unions trying to stop me, etc.” I’m not sure how true that is. Some true probably. I do think unions were stronger in the ’50s than they are now. I also think regulation of all sorts of things was pretty well established by the 1950’s, at least in bigger cities. Since then it seems to have crept out into small towns and rural areas more than I remember it when I was young.… Read more »
I think it is important to distinguish between groups and the individuals who make up those groups. I am personally aware of Jews in Canada who had to conceal their religious identities in order to be hired as school teachers and administrators in the 1950s.
Krychek_2 continues to assume that matter in motion ought to move differently than it does. Krychek_2 tries to impose an expectation on the motion of matter which is completely irrational, given his materialism and purposeless, accidental universe.
With no rational or authoritative justification for morality in the first place, Krychek_2’s impassioned sentimental language never gets out of the gate. His secular morality is DOA.
You’re very silly. Now please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
Insults are not an answer to the logical problems with Krychek_2’s materialism.
If there is no expectation on the motion of matter in an accidental universe, then imposing moral expectations is completely irrational. It is even more irrational when we consider that matter is reactionary and is not even capable of taking abstract moral expectations into consideration as it moves along according to the laws of physics.
Except this isn’t even a conversation about morality; it’s a conversation about whether as a practical matter personal freedom is more likely to come from Christianity or secularism, which is almost entirely a utilitarian inquiry. So it’s not even that you’ve again wasted everyone’s time with your piffle about my belief system; it’s that you’ve done so entirely gratuitously in a thread where it is completely off topic.
So, please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
If it isn’t about morality, then why is Krychek_2 engaging in a fit of moral posturing about personal freedom?
As such, it’s quite relevant to point out that Krychek_2’s moral posturing is completely contradictory to his materialism.
Speaking of wasting time, Krychek_2 hasn’t seemed to grasp that I don’t recognize his authority to define the limits of conversation here.
I’m not limiting your ability to say whatever you like; I’m limiting wasting my own time by responding to it. You’re very silly; please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
Except this isn’t even a conversation about morality; it’s a conversation about whether as a practical matter personal freedom is more likely to come from Christianity or secularism, which is almost entirely a utilitarian inquiry I am sure you derive comfort and assurance from your moral code, but it just got smacked up the head by an Islamicist with a hard-on for infidel blood. Unfortunately for team heathen, you guys are going to have to fight this yourself. I will not help you in your damnation, you will have to do that yourself with me screaming in your ear “REPENT… Read more »
“Except this isn’t even a conversation about morality; it’s a
conversation about whether as a practical matter personal freedom is
more likely to come from Christianity or secularism..”
Freedom is morality! And it’s not secularism people are ushering in, it’s this perverse, upside down world where Islamists and gays are perceived as being on the same side…..united against Christians. It won’t be secularism that steps in to fill the void, it will be a radical theocracy, the precise same thing so many falsely accuse Christians of.
You mean women in Hijabs sort of thing?
Freedom is efficient. Free people are happier people, who in turn are more productive people. As a side benefit, there’s something to be said for happiness all on its own.
Magic Dirt does not work.
The killer is second generation “american” was, by your defintion free.
Tell me why the killer was not free.
He was. He chose to abuse his freedom. What bearing that has on anything I’m not sure.
/facepalm
Molecules in motion are not free in any sense of agency or intentionality. Atoms move only with regard to laws of matter, and without any regard for abstractions or fanciful notions like freedom. Krychek_2 makes a very confused materialist the way he waxes so sentimental about freedom and moral expectations. One almost expects him to extol the efficiencies of personal therapeutic deities.
You’re very silly. Now please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
Productive to what end? More happiness? I’m interested to know what you think of Nozick’s Experience Machine: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
There’s an important distinction between transitory pleasure and long-term pleasure. This morning, transitory pleasure would have been sleeping late and skipping work, but long-term pleasure means hauling my butt out of bed so I can make my mortgage payment, keep my lights on and serve lamb at my next dinner party. And the problem with hedonism is that it’s pretty short sighted. It’s the philosophy of a four year old: I want more candy, more cookies, more ice cream, and now I need to go throw up. In other words, what feels good is often not what is good for… Read more »
There’s an important distinction between transitory pleasure and long-term pleasure. Yes indeed, there is. That’s why we will build a Machine that induces both, at levels and times that are expertly calculated with appropriate feedback to give what the receipent considers the most pleasure over the course of his life. And the problem with hedonism is that it’s pretty short sighted. It’s the philosophy of a four year old: I want more candy, more cookies, more ice cream, and now I need to go throw up. In other words, what feels good is often not what is good for you,… Read more »
If only Krychek_2 had some access to principled goodness, and true virtue, outside of his utilitarian consequentialism, then he might be able to escape the Experience Machine. On his own terms, he has no reason to want to escape it. Virtue, and duty, and principle don’t enter into it. It’s just neurochemistry.
Those sacred synapses of the prefrontal cortex.
Yes, and yet, he does want to escape it. And for the same reason that you and I want to escape it – he knows that he wasn’t created for that. The imago dei screams it to him, from his very own soul.
I will admit that I did not read your link carefully; I just skimmed it. Having now read it carefully, and your further elaboration on it, I think my basic objection is that it attempts to segregate pleasure from the rest of human experience and treated it as an isolated phenomenon in a vacuum. And of course no human experience can be treated as an isolated phenomenon in a vacuum. For example, I have a job that on many mornings I would prefer not to go to. But I also know people who for a variety of reasons don’t work,… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: In other words, what feels good is often not what is good for you, and doing things that are good for you often leads to long-term and more lasting pleasure down the road. Often? Not always? Can Krychek_2 give an example were “what is good for you” does not lead to long-term pleasure, but we ought to do it anyway? Can he then explain why, on his consequentialism, anyone ought to do such things anyway? Krychek_2 seems to be leaving room for an inherent principle of goodness that creates a duty and obligation on us in spite of… Read more »
Now you’re really being silly. Please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
Krychek_2’s obligation seems to be “the cost to society”. This places his thinking in the camp of the many, as opposed to the individual. His dilemma then becomes a lack of freedom for the individual.
Hi, ME, could you explain a little about “freedom is morality”? Are you meaning that in the sense that liberty is the freedom to do what is right? But what happens when that is not the kind of freedom desired by most people in the culture?
Jilly, Memi can speak for her self, but the “A” dad short version is:
“You can take the slaves out of Egypt, but it’s hard to take the Egypt out of the slaves.”
Does that help? ; – )
God is our absolute truth, He is our definition of morality, and God allows us the freedom even to make bad choices if we want, therefore freedom is moral. Jesus Christ Himself came to set the captives free. Galatians 5:1 tells us, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty where with Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” So what happens when “freedom is not desired by most people in the culture,” is that you wind up with a whole lot of people in bondage. This shooter was in bondage and he went… Read more »
“it’s a conversation about whether as a practical matter personal freedom is more likely to come from Christianity or secularism” Well, we have history as our proof and it was Christianity and not secularism that brought about liberty and personal freedom. Western Civilization is based on Christian morality and principles. The very freedom that you have is a result of centuries of Christian thought. The founding of this country is based on the idea that our rights come from God, not men and not governments. Secularism rejects this outright. We have seen what secularism does in countries like Russia, North… Read more »
Unchecked Christianity gave us the Inquisition, the divine right of kings, European religious wars, the Crusades, and the dark ages. The Renaissance de-fanged unchecked Christianity and gave us individual rights. At some point Christianity decided that if you can’t beat them, join them, but it had to be dragged kicking and screaming along, and is now trying to claim credit for what it spent several centuries being hostile to. I don’t think we have had enough secular societies to be statistically significant, but you might look at success stories like Scandinavia and Japan, which have left religion behind and are… Read more »
As I’ve pointed out before, it’s evident from history that those aspects of Christianity were aspects of pagan culture that Christianity had not yet transcended. Christianity didn’t “give” religious intolerance, religious wars, and deified rulers to Europe in any sense whatsoever.
Secularism didn’t manage to steal ideas like limited government and personal freedom from Christianity until Christianity had developed them through nearly a millennium of Christian culture.
If it took Christianity a millenium to develop those ideas, that’s pretty solid evidence they weren’t Christian ideas or Christianity would have developed them a lot faster.
Except that they never developed anywhere except where there was first Christianity, or significant cross-pollination with Christian cultures.
Besides that, your statement is purely conjecture. On what basis is that evience of your propositon? On what principle is it true that if something is in the nature of something else, it must develop quickly? Is the scientific method somehow “not in the nature” of human thought since it took about 5000 years from the beginnings of civilization to develop it?
That would come as a huge surprise to the ancient Greeks. Democracy was a pagan Greek invention, not a Christian one. In fact, I defy you to find a single word anywhere in the Bible in praise of democracy.
The scientific method had to contend with 5000 years of cultures steeped in superstition from various revealed religions. Nevertheless, it, too, managed to emerge in pagan ancient Greece centuries before Christianity. And in places where superstition has been suppressed, it generally takes off fairly quickly.
It was a millennium before all of Europe had a chance to experience Christian culture – and even then, not quite all of Europe. The unfortunate truth is that Christianity also assimilated ideas from the surrounding culture. That still happens. The fortunate truth is Christianity has a fixed reference point that enables Christians to recognize when this is happening. Of course it only works when Christians look.
The hilarious part is that you think that’s bad.
I rest my case.
Pardon me if I don’t believe you. ;-)
Since your comment implies that you think those things are good, what more is there to say?
“what more is there to say?”, he said, as he hurled his subjective moral expectations into the open mouth of a reactionary, purposeless, accidental void.
What more is there to say, indeed.
Orlando used to be a nice town. It chased out God and is now reaping the fruits of their rebellion. Thinking yourselves liberated, you are instead, enslaved. It gets worse for you from here and you will have caused it, not Christ, you.
You’ve been to that section of town –its desperately sinful. They put a facade on it, but it still reeks of rebellion. Mass murder is not out of keeping with the character of your people.
Except that the guy who shot up the nightclub was neither an atheist nor a liberal. I have not said a word about assigning blame for the mass shooting, but if you want to have that conversation, this one goes in the theist/theocrat column.
Nice goalpost move.
Try , try to equate Christ with Islam. Go ahead.
Other than that you believe one but not the other, could you perhaps enlighten us on what you see as the differences?
Christ gives us the free gift of eternal life. He gives us Himself which frees us from the hell we create for ourselves because of our sinful nature. This gift is extended to every body. This is extended with love to the people in that bar who are killing themselves, both the gays blaspheming God and the Islamicists honoring their devil. “but we are not killing ourselves, we just want to dance…” you will bleat. Dude. O-Town South Orange ain’t about dancing, its about reveling in sin. God does not command us to kill sinners. He commands us to love… Read more »
“Other than that you believe one but not the other, could you perhaps enlighten us on what you see as the differences?”
Christ told us to love our neighbor while Islamists are told to kill all the infidels?
I grow seriously annoyed with such foolish questions. A hate filled Christian is an aberration, while a violent Muslim is simply displaying his worth and value and assuring his place in heaven.
You can cherry pick passages about loving your neighbor. You can also cherry pick verses like Luke 19:27 in which the king (Jesus) says that those who don’t want him to be king are to be killed in his presence. And pre-Renaissance, Christianity mostly focused on the bloody passages rather than the loving ones. You have the benefit of living under a Christianity whose worst elements were defanged by the Renaissance.
Those who do not want Him to be King have just now been killed in His presence.
God was there at Pulse on South Orange O-town offering Himself in exchange for their rebellion.
You talk of bloody….well, try not to slip on the dance-floor coated in it.
Do you really think you will escape this without blood? Do you really think our forbears–who killed their meat instead of buying it–did not know the consequences of moral choices? That they are matters of life and death?
You haven’t created anything Eric. You are an old story with an all-to-familiar ending.
“You have the benefit of living under a Christianity whose worst elements were defanged by the Renaissance.”
I just pray we never have to live in a culture in which Christianity has been defanged because those who already do tell me that what happened in Orlando is a pretty normal experience for them.
And which places would those be?
Nor would there be Islamist to shoot them up.
BTW, Trump’s speech at St. Amselms is very good.
Unlike me, he goes out of his way to defend the gays …and the Christains… and the Jews …against radical Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFIVXkJWzfA
It is big-hearted, (beyond) tolerant and steadfastly American. Curious if you agree with it.
I agree that Islam is a vile and toxic ideology that is misogynistic, homophobic, hostile to science, hostile to education, and the cause of much misery. If you’re under the impression that I’m pro-Islam, you are mistaken. But if this were 1500 I would make the same claims against Christianity, and I would be right. If Islam ever has an enlightenment, it too may become a benign philosophy rather than a world scourge.
But if this were 1500 I would make the same claims against Christianity How about 40? Christianity is not a benign philosophy; it is radical insurrection. It seeks always for redemption and resurrection. The Hound of Heaven–that dog hunts. You seek to tame Christianity–you will not do it. It cannot be done. You may have space, under Trump (A Kennedy Democrat in my view) to actually implement your vision of freedom of association. I will support you in it, confident that God don’t quit and your sorry ass will be saved. Unfortunately, you will have to bake your own damned… Read more »
In my perfect world, nobody has to applaud anything; a mutual non-aggression pact will be just fine. That means gay couples can marry, but you don’t have to bake a cake for them. I suspect, however, that you would not be willing to go along with that.
I am fine with it. I don’t think, given the spirit of the age that you or I will have any influence on the matter. I hope I am wrong. I would love space and time for the Holy Spirit to convert your sorry ass before a jihadist hits your section of O-Town (Thorton Park? Winter Park? ) and ends our conversation. You have a duty. Tell team-heathen that they don’t have the manpower to go full-tilt-boogie on their totalitarian dreams and back the fsck off. You are in a war now and losing, and we Christians are just sitting… Read more »
I like you, Timothy.
Me too
But if this were 1500 I would make the same claims against Christianity,… misogynistic, homophobic, hostile to science, hostile to education, and the cause of much misery.
Apart from Christianity’s opposition to sodomy, your claim about Christendom in the 16th century is false.
Wow, I missed this initially. Medieval Christianity hostile to education? The mind boggles.
Krychek_2 wrote:
As a materialistic utilitarian, Krychek_2 is overflowing with emotional language that his own worldview does not have access to. He is out of order according to his own paradigm. All he can really say is that certain behaviors are less efficient, or less expedient toward some arbitrary value system that the neurons between his ears fabricated.
You’re very silly. Please be a dear and let the grownups talk.
So, Christian values created a world where gays are free to gather in a nightclub in relative safety while Islamic ideals would have them all executed. Gently, no. It created a world where the sexually oppressed could breathe free from both sin and the mores of a sin-soaked culture and return to the sexually expressive world God made for us. The people of Paul’s mileu wanted relief from the sexuality of the day. Sarah Ruden’s book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375425012/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 turns our presuppositions upside down. St. Paul was living in a culture where Pulse Audio on South Orange was what culture was. It… Read more »
That’s an interesting perspective, I’ll check it out.
It will be a fine day when the Christians start thinking of the Christianity first.
Amen
right after News manipulation; or the zionism that owns it; and somewhat after What Public Opinion of Christianity IS.
If you go to the comment sections of various “news” websites, you will find that the country is in a veritable tsunami of bile over the gun control issue to the point of downright hatred–while not a single person on either side of the debate seems to recognize that hate does the killing.
It’s almost like the Islamic State knows exactly what kind of attack will cause the greatest political destruction.
Well said. 911 was indeed staged as a media event, as were the beheadings, the destruction of antiquities, and on and on.
“This means that his root motivations are a mystery to officials, and that if we drill down diligently we will find that the pressing problem of the day would have to be homophobic evangelical bakers and Islamophobic preachers. And guns. Don’t forget guns.” Here are Obama’s comments: “We’re still at the preliminary stages of the investigation, and there’s a lot more that we have to learn. The one thing that we can say is that this is being treated as a terrorist investigation. It appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated on the Internet.… Read more »
“At this stage, we see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. It does appear that at the last minute he pronounced allegiance to ISIL, but there’s no evidence so far that he was, in fact, directed by ISIL, and there are also, at this stage, no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot. In that sense, it appears to be similar to what we saw in San Bernardino, but we don’t yet know.” he thundered.
Right…is there a problem with the quote?
Adding “he thundered” to the end points up what a weak sauce comment it was in light of the fact that someone who declared himself allied with our enemies slaughtered 49 Americans and attacked at least double that number.
So what should he have said? Surely we can agree that the president should not go off on some half-cocked rant without knowing the facts. Obama stated the facts and left it there–Bush would have already declared a new Axis of Evil.
1. Was Bush wrong about the axis of evil per se? 2. Would it have been possible to condemn the actions in the strongest possible terms without explicating the doubts about the motivation of a specific actor? It’s not being able to strongly condemn what happened and the person who did it, instead majoring on quibbles over the precise extent of his association with our enemies (when it was known that some degree of association did in fact exist) that is the problem. It undermines the force of what should have been a clear condemnation of an attack on Americans… Read more »
1. Entirely. Beyond “countries we don’t like” there was no reason to associate Iran, Iraq, and North Korea together. Thankfully he only managed to invade one of them.
2. We don’t know whether there was any association with ISIS, that’s the point. He appears to be a lone wolf at this point. It matters because stopping lone wolf attacks is near impossible without some kind of Trumpish expulsion of all Muslims.
Publicly associating himself with ISIS is being more or less associated with ISIS. The question of whether ISIS returned the favor pales in significance compared to 49 dead, 50 wounded, whatever the motivation. That question should not have been brought up in the immediate context of condemning a mass murderous attack upon Americans. That you don’t see that is a problem you share with Obama, not an apologetic for his approach. I wasn’t aware that Bush’s intention was to imply they were associated together. I took it at the time to mean simply that there were three focal points for… Read more »
It seems rather that you all just don’t like Obama’s style, or maybe more accurately just don’t like Obama and find fault with everything he does. But people not in the right-wing camp don’t have any problem with what Obama said or how he said it.
So, if he was inspired by the Internet, perhaps we should pass Internet control legislation, right?
Yes! Then some gal in a pantsuit could:
“Wipe the Internet, with, like, a cloth!”
Put that way, I’m not certain that Mrs. Pantsuit has done much cleaning recently, at least where anything got, like, clean!????
I dunno, I think she wiped some emails pretty clean. :) Oh, and it’s MS. Pantsuit.
Sounds like the FBI found some email residue on their white gloves.????
Anyway let’s just settle on
“Secretary Pantsuit” and hope that’s as high as she goes!????
We have come to an agreement.
I guess I can only say I’m confused by Doug’s obvious double-think. He rightly criticizes the sentimentality of our age and the left’s continual propagation of the now bullet-ridden narrative, but then attacks the most politically incorrect, non-saccharine presidential candidate in recent history–the same one who has literally called for Muslims to be banned from immigrating to the country. Since Trump is obviously right about the Muslim question, Doug has to arbitrarily bring in abortion, but only superficially since any additional exposition on the topic may remind the reader that Trump is the only candidate who at least claims to… Read more »
Well said. I think in The Current Year the main form of worldliness Christians have to be on guard against is the temptation to accept the moral judgements of the zeitgeist. “Love not the the world, nor the things in the world” especially means not loving its approval or fearing its disapproval — and being particularly suspicious when one’s opinions do line up with the bien-pensant party line.
ON my twitter feed this morning was “Orlando and the Evangelical Responsibility.” Yesterday it was “Hillary Clinton should support turning over the 2nd Amendment.” I kid you not.
exept that Trump does not support the meat market/another lie/and then on to his seamless garment baloney……, btw; who’s gonna believe that leading up to Pride week a assault rifle toting islamists who beats his wife and is a security guard(patsy range) (of course their were ‘multiple shooters’) who was on that baad internet radicallizing…….I could go on; srsly, this is toooooooo perfect to the n degree. Oh, don’t forget it takes hours to get in?(no fire codes in Fl.?) and to get out with the doors being kept shut from the outside….but hey; that’s just what I heard on… Read more »
Where is BJ?
I don’t know. I have been missing him as well.
“The reason he did not ask that question is because it would not advance the narrative, which is that evangelical “haters” are the problem, and that we are the ones polluting the earth with our disapprobation of both homosexuality and Islam.”
What if evangelical haters are “a” problem, rather than “the” problem? There can be more than one problem, after all.
“What if evangelical haters are “a” problem, rather than “the” problem? There can be more than one problem, after all.” That’s a good point. I happen to believe in cause and effect and how one problem feeds off of another. Evangelical haters really tick me off, but here’s the difference, I confront them all over the internet, even in person and on the ground. I don’t do that with Islamic haters because I can’t, because it isn’t safe. You speak against them, they are likely to hunt you down and kill you. You call out the evangelical haters and all… Read more »
LOL
So a self-loathing, gay, Democrat, Muslim, Jihadist shoots up a gay nightclub and pledges allegiance to ISIS, yet somehow Christians are a problem.
I suspect that’s exactly what this will be spun into.
If Christians hadn’t created such an environment of rejection and hatred of homosexuality, the suppressed anger and self-loathing would not have resulted in the deaths of 49 people at a gay club.
It wasn’t hatred–it was a crying out for help.
It may not be laid on quite so strong, but I expect it to go in that general direction at least.
Of course leftist bigots will do anything they can to blame Christians for all the world’s problem. You must not ruin The Narrative.
It’s happening now – posts and shares on social media from Christians (and “Christians”) saying “this is our fault.” They’re not even waiting for the enemy to spin it that way. They’re doing it for them. What rabbit hole have I fallen down?
Here’s Planned Parenthood, right on cue.
I actually agree with a lot of what you post, and I am gay. You are the third person to post that liberals are connecting the whole ‘gay cake’ debacle and trying to make a causal relationship between that incident and this idiot who just murdered 49 people in Orlando. I am liberal and since this latest attack, I haven’t once tried to tie the blood shed in Orlando to evangelicals or the gay cake debacle, etc. The more the authorities investigate, it really looks like this guy might have been struggling with his own homosexuality, and he hated himself… Read more »
Great comment, BratticusFinch. I can’t speak for all the commenters here, but I’d like to see you back often.
Hey, thanks for that Jigawatt. All I know is that I would not care whether you agree with me politically, religiously, whatever. If someone opened fire with a gun, and you were next to me, I’d do my best to save you too, period. We could discuss Jesus and radical ISLAM later. lol The Lord I serve commands me to do the right thing, period. We can duke it out later concerning politics and religion. I was also very pleased to read that one of the managers of a Chik-Fil-A franchise in Orlando, opened his store Sunday, so his employees… Read more »
“They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.”
“And if some prissy moralist wanted to say that these homosexuals died because they were greater sinners than the rest of us, the words of Jesus should rebuke him immediately.”
Would you say that the homosexuals tacit agreement to the propriety of murder, in part led to their death?
You can use blockquote if you enclose it with greater than and less than signs.
Like this, but without the underscores.
Here be the quote
Thank you. That was my third attempt to post because the others kept getting rejected as spam. I got lazy and did it the easy way.
Wow. Turning a homophobic attack on the LGBT community into evidence of a war on Christianity is a pretty neat rhetorical trick.
Utterly dishonest, but pretty neat…
Their enemy is western civilization, with all of the economic and personal liberties that they find repugnant. The freedom homosexuals have to be homosexuals exists only because of the western Christian ideals of respecting property rights, personal liberty, equal treatment under the law, and limited government. This, in the minds of those who embrace the conquest-driven ideology of Islam, must be stopped.
The LGBT community owe their freedom to the rejection of judgmental Christian ideals. The ideals you’re appealing to are products of the Enlightenment and the over-turning of Christian religious dogma.
A comment straight from the AtheistKult: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hegXAo8IdUs
What’s the point of posting a link to that hare-brained white supremacist?
The point is that you didn’t even engage with it. You simply showed your own biases and went straight to a red herring. You want to claim things from Western Civilization you like but deny their ties to Christianity.
I don’t know or care was his other views are. And within an atheistic worldview, what’s the problem with being a white supremacist anyway? Obviously, you’re more a product of the current age than the rational, independent thinker you claim to be. You have your own dogma and own list of sins (racism, homophobia).
I don’t deny the positive contributions of Christianity actually, but I won’t ignore the negatives or the dehumanizing, hateful treatment of my LGBT friends and relatives by the Christian community. More to the point I find the the use of the slaughter of 49 people at a gay club to make an argument about how persecuted Christians in America are is simply laughable. Or at least it would be laughable if it weren’t so despicable. Still not sure what that Aurini video is supposed to prove here. Are you agreeing with him? Are you suggesting I agree with him (becasue… Read more »
This blog post writ small represents the Evangelical Christian persecution complex writ large.
As someone who both loves Jesus AND has truly suffered at the hands of people like this author and others in this branch of the Church, I have to say I am appalled and repelled, but unsurprised.
Like Jesus, I weep for people like these who may never understand their gratuitous and grievous sin until they stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
More like Theology That Bites….