 |
 |
 |
Spreading the word to Christians
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11187
Comments
1
.
jenzane
said:
The vast majority of Christians support Israel. After the Presbyterians pulled thier stunt many of the rank and file started petitions and left the church. I know many of them. The Unitarians ARENT Christians. Their beliefs are vastly different and Christians do not consider them even close to a part of their religion. Don't be fooled by a few older denominations and ignorant groups among the entire Christian church. Christians are the Jews best friends far more often than they are an enemy. Hence the United States' support of Israel (not the government, the people). The government is currently enraging the Right in this country.
Posted by: jenzane on November 10, 2005 02:16 AM
2
.
BobW
said:
Agree, but step 1 is not acquiring the pictures. A national organization must be available with a commitment to this excellent idea.
I'd hope the term "militant 'Islamic' nations" is broad enough to incorporate the pending "Palestine". This will allow showing what the barbarians did to the Church of the Nativity. The main feature at Manger Square, Bethlehem is now a mosque.
A prominent American Unitarian is former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on November 10, 2005 02:55 AM
3
.
Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm
said:
I am often called an anti-Semite because I love the Jews so much I want them all to be Catholic. However, I volunteered for the IDF in '67 and was turned down because I was a goy and I organised a blood drive for the troops in '73 (I was getting a bit older and with a wife and baby, didn't feel I could volunteer!). Don't worry about the extreme left-wing denominations! True Christians back Israel.
Posted by: Jovan-Marya Weismiller, T.O.Carm on November 10, 2005 03:18 AM
4
.
seebs
said:
I am well aware that terrorists are violent people doing violent things. I do not necessarily consider them any more representative of their religion than Fred Phelps is of mine, or of their government than the people firing white phosphorous rounds in Iraq are of mine. (In fact, I think they are rather less representative of their governments.)
However, I am a Christian, and that means that it is not my problem what my enemy does, or how awful it is; vengeance is God's, not mine. Or did they omit this part?
The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Chapter 5, Verses 38-39
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
I do not oppose Israel in principle, but I am just as bothered by their violence as by anyone else's. My faith does not offer convenient exceptions that just happen to align with the self-serving interests of my government or my allies.
I would rather see more people like AFSC than more excuses made for responding to atrocities with atrocities. If you want to talk to people about spreading the Christian faith, you might start by listening to those people who are practicing it.
Posted by: seebs on November 10, 2005 07:06 AM
5
.
Bill Narvey
said:
Seeb, your comment, "If you want to talk to people about spreading the Christian faith, you might start by listening to those people who are practicing it." presumes I think that you represent what practicing Christians believe.
Surely you recognize that practicing Christians come in all stripes with different views and who take actions that either affirm their beliefs or point to their own hypocrisy.
The views you have expressed clearly identify you as one who is politically left leaning and a religious pacifist. You also seem to be a moral absolutist when it comes to refusing to make any moral distinctions between acts of aggression you indiscriminately characterize as atrocities.
In the result, you conclude aggressive actions by both adverse parties in conflict are morally or immorally equivalent and reprehensible regardless of the nature and extent of the respective actions of either party and regardless of the purpose, reasons or beliefs behind such actions.
It seems that you have either renounced the need or your capacity to make value judgments. Your kind of pacifism is known by another name, appeasement whcih word has taken on very negative meanings.
Your statement “I am a Christian, and that means that it is not my problem what my enemy does, or how awful it is; vengeance is God's, not mine.”
This statement that eschews any concern for what your enemy plans or tries to do to you, is suicidal.
Your belief in that regard is also deadly for any other person or nation which an enemy acts against to cause harm or murder. It is one thing that you choose to lead your life that way for yourself, but quite another of imposing your views on others who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances where having or not having your help means life or death for them.
It appears you are quite willing to stand on the sidelines and watch or just turn your back on others at risk of harm and death, believing if something is meant to be done to help them, that help will not come from you, but rather from G_D, if G_D wills it.
While I certainly respect your right to believe as you will, it is beliefs such as yours that provides evil such wonderfully fertile ground to flourish in this world.
There is a another Christian expression that says, “G_D helps those who help themselves.”
It seems that you have not heard of it. Check it out. It could save your life one day. It might even save your immortal soul by moving you to fulfill your Christian duty to help others in need.
Posted by: Bill Narvey on November 10, 2005 05:07 PM
6
.
Bill Levinson
said:
Bob W., I agree that an aggressive national organization would be very helpful. On the other hand, the leaflets at http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/ can be distributed without one; they can be downloaded for free by anyone who wants them. They are designed to fit on an 8 by 11 sheet for easy photocopying, and they are royalty-free-- any pro-American or pro-Israel activist can feed one into a copier and make as many as he or she wants without worrying about copyright. Of course, anyone who receives a copy can do the same. They are designed to spread.
Seebs, the choice to "not resist evil" is itself evil. If, for example, I have a weapon and I am standing between some Islamofascist thugs and some schoolgirls whom the thugs want to behead, my choice to not use the weapon is a choice to allow the murder of innocent children.
Furthermore, I would certainly respect the AFSC's choice to remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S.-insurgent conflict but the AFSC is actively siding with the enemy in both cases. This means that the AFSC should be expected to be treated (in the political arena) not as a neutral religious entity but as a hostile belligerent and I have in fact discovered some material that may disqualify them from being 501(c)(3) tax-exempt: promotion of civil disobedience, "tax resistance," and encouraging members of the Armed Forces to violate orders.
Posted by: Bill Levinson on November 10, 2005 05:42 PM
Spreading the word to Christians
By Bill Levinson
It is truly incredible that many Christian churches, especially the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA) but also Unitarian and other churches, are giving aid and comfort to the Islamofascists. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), for example, is not only consorting with the International Solidarity Movement and aiding the Palestinian cause against Israel, it is also trying to undermine the Armed Forces of the United States by urging soldiers to disobey orders to report for duty.
It is therefore necessary to deploy military-grade propaganda, i.e. the type used to promote loathing and hatred for an enemy during wartime, to show these chuches' rank-and-file members exactly what Islamofascists do to Christians whenever they have the chance. There is in fact plenty of precendent in Christianity's own "propaganda:" the Christians-to-the-lions stories that were later adopted in movies like The Sign of the Cross and Quo Vadis. It should be very easy to adapt scenes like this with militant "Muslims" standing in for Romans, with factual stories backing violent and inflammatory pictures.
The persecution of Christians began with the crucifixion of Jesus, a prisoner of conscience whose teachings the Roman Empire considered dangerous. Poignant stories of martyrs ("witnesses") dying on crosses and in various Roman arenas promoted the Christians' ideals; if people were willing to die for the belief, it obviously had merit. The Romans, meanwhile, did themselves no favors by inflicting horrific violence on nonviolent people, just as beating Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's nonviolent followers made the persecutors look bad hundreds of years later.
The key point is, however, that the Christians published numerous and graphic images of the martyrs' suffering. Examples are available here:
http://kamglobal.org/Martyrs/martyrsdirectory.html
and at Tortures and Torments of the Christian Martyrs "The original woodcut images are from Papal-approved documents dated 1591--1600," which reinforces the observation that many of these imaginative scenes were probably propaganda, although there is no doubt that many Christians were indeed martyred. And here is a famous picture of the line feed-- I mean lion feed-- that is characteristic of martyrdom stories. http://kamglobal.org/Martyrs/martyrs11.html
What is now necessary is to deploy and circulate similar pictures of Christian martyrdom in militant "Islamic" nations. The idea is not, of course, to encourage conversion to Christianity but rather to support the freedom of Christians to practice their religion without fear of persecution. As an example, Omdurman.org obviously does not share evangelist Jack Chick's theology but would be quite willing to work with him to expose the plight of Christians under Islamofascist rule.
Crucifixion images can be legitimately used because Sudan actually crucifies Christians, and Sharia (militant "Islamic" law) prescribes crucifixion as a punishment for opposing Allah and His Messenger (Mohammed). Other Sharia punishments like stoning, hanging, and amputation of limbs also can be depicted.
In all cases, the picture must be backed up by a factual story (e.g. three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded by Islamofascists in Indonesia, a Christian slave boy was crucified by his owner in Sudan, and so on). The picture attracts attention and the news excerpts make it impossible to dismiss the picture as mere propaganda.
If anyone has any moral or ethical reservations against using this kind of intentionally vicious propaganda to generate loathing and hatred of militant "Islam," they should first inspect this picture that was deployed by the Palestinians. In "Crucified Palestine," Palestine, depicted by a woman in green (the color of Islam) hangs bleeding on a cross while Jews with exaggerated Semitic features congregate beneath her. Leaflets like "The Twenty-First Century's Christ Killers" are simply payback, truth for falsehood and with compound interest, for material like "Crucified Palestine." The phrase "Christ Killers" was chosen specifically for its shock effect, and also because the Islamofascists hurl this accusation against Jews while they are the ones who would certainly kill Jesus for preaching his theology in their countries today.
Posted by Bill Levinson at November 9, 2005 09:53 PM