WWJK, Part II

by Lee

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 01:56 PM from

Praise Jeebus.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 08/21/07 at 02:37 PM from

Let’s face it: Christian groups (usually of the Baptist variety) have the money to put this kind of stuff out. If they want to swing swords at empty air as a “Metaphor” that’s their business, but how the hell do they expect this to appeal to anyone except their own? Granted that’s who it was aimed at, but the militant tone suggests these people are scared to death of losing their political influence if a Giuliani or (Jeebus help us) Hillary gets elected.

Posted by John Cross on 08/21/07 at 03:13 PM from

Yes, they represent only themselves.  They are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 03:42 PM from

I got news for ya WVA Reb, they should be worried about Romney, too. I have, shall we say, first-hand knowledge that Mitt isn’t going to kow-tow to the fundies.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 03:48 PM from

They are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

The terrorists are not true Muslims.  Islam is a religion of peace.  Terrorists are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 03:56 PM from

John (of the?) Cross...pwn3d

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 03:48 PM from United States

The terrorists are not true Muslims.  Islam is a religion of peace.  Terrorists are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 04:20 PM from

I have to hand it to you on this one Lee, not only is the video extremely unchristian. It is also sad that a man of god would say such things. Though there are parallels to terrorists, for now there hasn’t been violent action on the part of baptists.
I also, might add that Southern baptist is just one of many christian sects. This video is not indicitive of Catholics, methodists, episcopalians etc.

Posted by Manwhore on 08/21/07 at 04:31 PM from

They are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

The terrorists are not true Muslims.  Islam is a religion of peace.  Terrorists are clearly extremists and are not representative of the religion they claim to be representing.

All your base are belong to us.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 05:03 PM from

Though there are parallels to terrorists, for now there hasn’t been violent action on the part of baptists.

This is the important distinction.  My belief is that this is cultural more than religious.  The same person will act two different ways in two different situations.  To use one grim example, consider the soldiers who raped and murdered that girl in Iraq.  Would they have been rapists and murderers had they never enlisted and been sent into a war zone?  We have no real way of knowing, of course, but my guess would be probably not.  So it was the situation they were in, with killing and explosions and dead bodies and dead comrades, which brought out something in them.

In a similar manner, the vast majority of Muslims in the United States are not terrorists, have no sympathy for them, and would never consider committing a violent act.  But an identical Muslim, living in a country like Iraq, probably would.  So what is the difference?  It’s the society in which they live.

We live in a lawful, peaceful society.  These Christians, despite their angry hateful rhetoric, are not going to go killing anyone.  There are the occasional exceptions, of course, such as the killers of abortion doctors, but those are relatively rare.  But if you took away our lawful, peaceful society and replaced it with a violent, lawless society like those you find in the Middle East, I think those Christians would be as unrestrained in their violence and bloodshed as any Muslim we see today.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Christians in that video would, if they knew they wouldn’t be punished for it, exact violence on unbelievers or anyone else they perceived as a threat to their faith, just like Muslims do.  Note that the quote at the beginning is Jesus talking about returning not with peace but with a sword.  If you don’t have a system of secular laws restraining your religious commandments, you end up with a violent theocracy.

In that respect, these Christians are just as much a threat to me as the Muslims.  And this also explains why I am so opposed to blurring the line between church and state—the people in this video are the people trying to push their way into our secular government.

No way am I standing by and letting that happen.

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 05:16 PM from

My belief is that this is cultural more than religious.  The same person will act two different ways in two different situations. 

I think this is correct, and it’s the reason why I think comparisons between Pat Robertson and Ahmadinejad have some merit. Give Robertson the same power that Ahmadinejad has, and I doubt it would be long before gays are sent to “re-education camps”, non-Christians are relegated to second-class status, wars are started to spread the word of Christ, and so on. The only thing limiting Robertson now is lack of power, not any sort of personal restraint on his part.

Posted by HARLEY on 08/21/07 at 05:20 PM from

I just saw that video Battle Cry....WOW…
thats fucking Nutz....
interesting to note that, some of those people have Roman Gladis’s and Japaneses Katina’s NOT very christian to say the lest.. and i noticed a number of the posts have a negative attitude towards teh video..
On any Islamic forum, such dissenters would have been threatened or at the lest had their post removed…

Posted by HARLEY on 08/21/07 at 05:23 PM from

I love this quote....

geekay3added: 1 days ago
Honestly, it’s starting to get to the point that I’d rather go to hell than be in a Heaven with such ignorant, close-minded people who think that anyone who offers even the slightest viewpoint difference from them are vehemently touted as wrong, confused by the devil, the enemy, or any other hyperbolic garbage. Constant scripture quoting and spiritual butt-slapping does not a Christian make.

Posted by Loud on 08/21/07 at 05:33 PM from

One of the swords looked like a replica of the sword Mel Gibson used in Braveheart.  I don’t remember exactly what it looked like, but they had one of these replicas at a shop in the mall I used to work in years ago.

Posted by Manwhore on 08/21/07 at 06:04 PM from

One of the swords looked like a replica of the sword Mel Gibson used in Braveheart.  I don’t remember exactly what it looked like, but they had one of these replicas at a shop in the mall I used to work in years ago.

the katana was a nice touch. As much as I’ve read, I don’t know if Christ and bushido necessarily mixed. I thought killing yourself was the only un-forgivable sin. Unfortunately for the samauri, it is the only way to save face from shame.

then again, christ usually adorns monster trucks, so I could be all wrong.

Posted by John Cross on 08/21/07 at 06:22 PM from

If I found a video of murderous atheists and said that they represented atheists and agnostics as a whole, you all would call me nuts.  That is like saying that Mao represents all atheists, and that Stalin and Lenin did as well.  They represent two cultures....Oriental and Occidental....and both sanctioned genocide.  Therefore, all atheists support the killing of the uneducated and religious. 

Atheists are just as much of a threat to me....in fact, mathematically and statistically, more of a threat to me....than any Christian or Muslim.  There is no way any atheist or agnostic is going to push themselves into the government....every time they do, millions die.

With all due respect, let’s get the emotionalism and rationalization out of the thought process.  I get the point being made, but Islam and Christianity are not the same religion, they have dissimilar goals and dissimilar methodologies.

Posted by John Cross on 08/21/07 at 06:24 PM from

If you think the middle comment in the last post was ridiculous, you were supposed to.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 06:36 PM from

I get the point being made, but Islam and Christianity are not the same religion, they have dissimilar goals and dissimilar methodologies.

And you believe this because you are a Christian.  The Muslim believes the exact same thing, only about Islam.

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 06:49 PM from

Dude.

This base argument of this post is just nonsense.

The fact of the matter is that there was no reference whatsoever to any literal political or violent action in this painfully x-games style ad.

Whereas memri is chock fucking full of direct calls to specific action/fatwa/policy/apostate beheading/wife beating in response to specific offenses to moral/political islamic ideals, you could leave the wording of this video wholly intact, give them some gatorade and a basketball and it would be completely indistinguishable from a nike commercial.

Beyond toothless.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 07:04 PM from

The fact of the matter is that there was no reference whatsoever to any literal political or violent action in this painfully x-games style ad.

Of course.  Because people run around with swords slicing things open all the time.  It’s part of every standard Christian service I’ve ever heard of.  And people who run around with swords, screaming about how they’re not going to take it any more, they’re just kids having good, clean, wholesome Christian fun.  Some quotes from the spot:

“I will not avoid the difficult jihad fight.”
“I will be targeted.”
“I will not be intimidated.”
“I will fight until my last breath.”
“My enemy will bow before me.”

Now, you good Christian folk can deny it or put whatever spin on it you like, but that is IDENTICAL to what we see coming from the Middle East.

it would be completely indistinguishable from a nike commercial.

Actually, there’s a much better example.  Until recently the Marine Corps used that same music in one of their commercials.  Marine recruiting ads also make extensive use of swords.

But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.  After all, these are Christians.  They’d never, you know, actually hurt someone with one of those flaming hot swords.  Why, I have an iron forge right here in my living room, and I wave swords around just for the fun of it.  It’s a great family activity that will really bring you closer to the compassionate message of love that Jesus gave to the world.

Honestly, you guys are beyond blind.  You should take that sword and shove it in both your eye sockets because you’re sure as hell not willing to see the truth when it’s presented to you.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 07:09 PM from

If I found a video of murderous atheists and said that they represented atheists and agnostics as a whole, you all would call me nuts.  That is like saying that Mao represents all atheists, and that Stalin and Lenin did as well.  They represent two cultures....Oriental and Occidental....and both sanctioned genocide.  Therefore, all atheists support the killing of the uneducated and religious.

Wrong.  Mao and Stalin were communists.  They didn’t do what they did because they were atheists, they did what they did because their religion was the communist state.

Go ahead.  Find me an atheist movement which puts out propaganda like that where atheism is THE SPECIFIC REASON for the violence.

If the guys in this video were all plumbers, and they were encouraging other plumbers to take pipe wrenches and fight against all who would threaten the honorable profession of plumbing, the fact that the plumbers might also be Christian would be completely incidental. 

Mao and Stalin weren’t a couple of atheists sitting around.  They were totalitarian communists.  To try and conflate this with death threats by the former head of the SBC, or with high-dollar productions like this is beyond pathetic.

But hey, look, Muslims!  And they’re saying violent stuff!  But we should take their violent stuff seriously, whereas the Christian violent stuff is nothing to be concerned about at all.  After all, Jesus is love and compassion.  (Despite the sword quote at the beginning.)

Posted by on 08/21/07 at 07:38 PM from

Ok, so you can do a differential on what matches between both sides, and completely throw out what *wasn’t* said between both sides, and they’re identical.

Again, it’s just faulty and toothless logic. I’ve flipped past LOGO a few times recently on ye olde cable box and have seen the same “I will be targeted/I will not be intimidated” rhetoric in ads regarding being out of the closet in public. Same could be said in the board room of oh.. I dunno, a startup company that intersects the MS/google/yahoo venn diagram.

So, you could make an argument that GALA and Baptists are identical based on superficial items that were said, /or/ you could separate the two based on one saying “we guys like fucking dudes” and “we guys don’t like you guys fucking dudes”. Somehow the latter seems to be the more substantial difference to note.

I considered mentioning the Marines ads but thought the metaphor would get a bit mixed comparing an organization that offers no compunction about its dedication to uphold the orders of the commander in chief under the US constitution in destroying valued military targets both personnel and material, to a roman age metaphorical suit of religious “armor” describing proselytization methods without /any/ reference whatsoever to any specific or generally excluded group for violent action.

Trust me, my firmly agnostic blood boils to have to defend this, but to draw any hard link to a textual basis in christian theology for specific violent action is to grasp at straws.

I know you’ve lost a lot of readers recently over telling us what we really, really didn’t want to hear as we were all sliding down the shit-greased “iraq is working” rope. I respect your honesty on that. Please don’t start trying to climb a new one yourself.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 07:50 PM from

Ok, so you can do a differential on what matches between both sides, and completely throw out what *wasn’t* said between both sides, and they’re identical.

You’re ignoring the context.  Both the Christian and the Muslim are speaking in terms of holy war.  I believe that the only reason the Christians are not as violent as the Muslims is because they happen to live in a society which does not condone violence.  Muslims who live in the west eschew violence as well. 

A guy I used to work with was a white African from Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.  He said the Christians in that country were just as violent and bloodthirsty as any other religion, be it Muslim or pagan or anyone.  Why?  Because that was socially acceptable.

I’m not doing a differential diagnosis on two unrelated things.  Basketball and soccer are not the same sport because they both use balls and have referees.  I’m doing a direct comparison between the violent propaganda of one religion and the violent propaganda of another.

Trust me, my firmly agnostic blood boils to have to defend this, but to draw any hard link to a textual basis in christian theology for specific violent action is to grasp at straws.

Well, it depends on a few different factors.

1) Was the violent action inspired by Christian doctrine?
2) Was the violent action justified after the fact by Christian doctrine?
3) Does the violence happen enough to where a causal relationship can be discerned?

With Islam, especially in the Middle East, the answer is clearly yes.  With Christianity it is less clear.  We know that at one time Christianity was astonishingly violent (the Crusades, the Inquisition, and so on) but now it is less so.  The lessening of violence in Christianity happens to coincide with the rise of contemporary democracy.  So the question then becomes, is Christianity itself less prone to inspire violence than Islam, or is Christianity’s violence tempered and kept under wraps by the secular democracy the Christians live in?

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 07:53 PM from

And, for what it’s worth, I’ve said a million times that, excluding all other factors, Islam is a religion which is far more accepting of violence than Christianity.  If an alien race came down from space and read a copy of the Bible and the Koran, knowing nothing else about humanity or human history, I think objective analysis would show that Islam is more tolerant of violence.  But I don’t think that Islam’s acceptance of violence completely explains the violence perpetrated by its followers.

Posted by mikeguas on 08/21/07 at 07:57 PM from

But hey, look, Muslims!  And they’re saying violent stuff!  But we should take their violent stuff seriously, whereas the Christian violent stuff is nothing to be concerned about at all.  After all, Jesus is love and compassion.  (Despite the sword quote at the beginning.)

As soon as I see organized Christian movements backed by the Church, and tapes of priests or ministers talking about how they’ll be able to wipe out a city of people ‘God willing’ I’ll be right there with you. A few nutters here and there is nowhere close to the structured education of violence that comes out of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 07:59 PM from

As soon as I see organized Christian movements backed by the Church, and tapes of priests or ministers talking about how they’ll be able to wipe out a city of people ‘God willing’ I’ll be right there with you.

Just keep letting religion creep into the state.  It’ll happen eventually.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 08:00 PM from

A few nutters here and there is nowhere close to the structured education of violence that comes out of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.

Indeed.  And all these countries lack a separation of church and state.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Posted by mikeguas on 08/21/07 at 08:05 PM from

I’m all for the separation of church and state. I’m just not for taking a video here and there and assuming there must be some structure out there where Christians are planning some violent overthrow. Then again, we can just be a proud nation, bomb the shit out of them, and chant USA USA. I guess anything can be spun if you work at it.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 08:10 PM from

I’m all for the separation of church and state. I’m just not for taking a video here and there and assuming there must be some structure out there where Christians are planning some violent overthrow.

I think it’s a little more than a “video here and there” or some oddball preacher.  Like I said, this guy was the head of the SBC.  16 million people, 42,000 churches.  Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that 20% of the people in those churches agree either entirely or in large part with this message.  That’s 3,200,000 people at 8,400 churches.

That’s a LOT of fucking people.  If 90% disagree with that message it’s still 1.6 million gung-ho militant Christians.

19 Muslims were able to bring down the WTC.  Imagine what 19 out of those 1.6 million fundie psychopaths could do if they wanted.

Posted by mikeguas on 08/21/07 at 08:13 PM from

19 Muslims were able to bring down the WTC.  Imagine what 19 out of those 1.6 million fundie psychopaths could do if they wanted.

In that case, if they did, or were caught by our incompetent government ahead of time, then I’d be right there with you, and I’d also be just fine with bombing the shit out of them as well.

Posted by Lee on 08/21/07 at 08:15 PM from

In that case, if they did, or were caught by our incompetent government ahead of time, then I’d be right there with you, and I’d also be just fine with bombing the shit out of them as well.

But you can see why, given the numbers above, I find it a little disconcerting that the leaders of this religious movement (Dobson and Robertson) have such a close relationship with the president of the United States.

Posted by mikeguas on 08/21/07 at 08:24 PM from

I have all kinds of issues with this president; however, it is only going to get worse. The root of the problem is no one gives a rat’s ass about the checks and balances of the Constitution. It’s been that way for decades, and gets worse every year. That should be the issue. Corrupt politicians, religious nuts, bribery, nanny states, those are all effects of the problem, not the cause. So yes, I agree it is an issue that televangelists, etc. have the government’s ear, but it’s no different than all the other lobbyists using the power of the state to promote their vision of the perfect world.

Posted by on 08/22/07 at 01:10 AM from

Sorry for the delay, was just about booze o’clock as I submitted the last.

Well, it depends on a few different factors.

1) Was the violent action inspired by Christian doctrine?
2) Was the violent action justified after the fact by Christian doctrine?

This is the fun part of the equation. The answer as to whether there was a doctrinal backing is absolutely no on both.

Strange but true, there is no biblical reference to initiating war between any generic unbelievers. In every old testament instruction for war there has been a specific nation, specific time and specific justification. No such thing as dar-al-harb.

The reason for both of the above is absolutely the problem with muslim nations—the complete integration of religion and state.

Yes, there will be lobbying and concessions to the christian base. Yes, it will be really fucking disturbing to see fights over a zombie chained to food and air machines. Yes, it is a matter of fact that within constitutional constraints (ideally..) groups large enough to garner sufficient representation will push for wacky-assed laws. The absolute difference, though, is that there is no christian doctrinal basis whatsoever for any claim that political integration is required.

It’s been said many times before, but islam does not have a “render unto caesar”.

3) Does the violence happen enough to where a causal relationship can be discerned?

With Islam, especially in the Middle East, the answer is clearly yes.  With Christianity it is less clear.  We know that at one time Christianity was astonishingly violent (the Crusades, the Inquisition, and so on) but now it is less so.  The lessening of violence in Christianity happens to coincide with the rise of contemporary democracy.  So the question then becomes, is Christianity itself less prone to inspire violence than Islam, or is Christianity’s violence tempered and kept under wraps by the secular democracy the Christians live in?

Chicken and egg. Contemporary democracy coincided with a shiny new nation being built without an entangled thousand-plus year old religious financier. Curiously enough, the vast majority of the founding fathers were under the “christian” umbrella and could not find any doctrinal basis to require that the state be integrated.

It still boils down to christian doctrine being a system of moral beliefs, details left up to judgement, based on the purported ramblings of some dude who fixed peoples’ legs and eyes, whereas islam bears similar moral clauses plus an immutable set of laws describing specific crimes and punishments based on the purported ramblings of a warlord whose life, to the letter, is to be imitated as closely as possible as the ideal.

Posted by on 08/22/07 at 01:59 AM from

The doctrinal point is moot because holy books tend to be so vague you can find something to justify anything you want to do. The thing is that religion is a powerful tool to manipulate people, more powerful than most, and the fundie lunatics are adept at doing that. If you want to see what religious rhetoric applied to uneducated and uncivilised people leads to, look at what the Lord’s Resistance Army has done in Uganda.

Posted by HARLEY on 08/22/07 at 02:11 AM from

I think it’s a little more than a “video here and there” or some oddball preacher.  Like I said, this guy was the head of the SBC.  16 million people, 42,000 churches.  Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that 20% of the people in those churches agree either entirely or in large part with this message.  That’s 3,200,000 people at 8,400 churches.

That’s a LOT of fucking people.  If 90% disagree with that message it’s still 1.6 million gung-ho militant Christians.

19 Muslims were able to bring down the WTC.  Imagine what 19 out of those 1.6 million fundie psychopaths could do if they wanted.

you might have a point there Lee, but do remember, there are other groups out there with smaller numbers that have already showed them selves to be far more dangerous than the nutters that follow some whacked out guy on TV.

say like atheist-neo-Nazis…
like Timothy McVeigh…

on the christian side so far..  we only have Eric Rudolph.

As it stands right now, im more afraid o Muslim terrorist or left wing enviro wackos, than Christan warrior wannabes.

Posted by Manwhore on 08/22/07 at 08:42 AM from

And all these countries lack a separation of church and state.

Not all. In the case of Pakistan they want the integration of church and state, and the only thing that prevents it is a ruthless military dictator. I’m pretty sure the USA will at some point need to elect a military general that goes and wipes out the entire midwest.

Posted by on 08/22/07 at 09:56 AM from

Let’s face it: Christian groups (usually of the Baptist variety) have the money to put this kind of stuff out.

Be a little more specific.  Try “usually of the Independent Baptist variety”.  Any crazed fundamentalist loony can become an independent Baptist pastor, no seminary required, and preach whatever hatred he wants under the guise of being a member of the church.

Posted by on 08/22/07 at 09:16 PM from

It’s apparent to me that most of you aren’t Christian by your response.  As a devout Christian, perhaps I can offer perspective on what that clip is supposed to mean, and how it differs greatly from the type of stuff on MEMRI.

I found the clip to be strengthening to my faith, which is its purpose.  Christ teaches us that (despite the claims of many), he did not come to bring peace but a sword.  Now he wasn’t speaking literally, though many violent Christians have distorted the meaning of this.  Rather, the sword quote is part of a passage that describes how following Christ may destroy some relationships.  Division would happen in households because of one or more family members’ decision to follow Christ.  This is particularly true in his era, where Judaism’s influence was pervasive and many died due to their faith (e.g. Stephen).  But it is also true even today, where many families of non-Christian faiths may disown a son or daughter due to their decision to convert or marry outside their religion.  What’s important to note with this is that Christ speaks figuratively. This differs from the MEMRI stuff insomuch as their Islamic theology allows and even compels literal violence.

As to the militant imagery, it’s designed to address the fact that being Christian is not easy, and requires certain discipline (e.g. prayer, church, study).  Martial affairs certainly have a strong association with discipline and I suppose that it part of the creative decision to go with the militant motif.

Regarding the discussion of “enemy”, there is an important point to be made here.  The enemy that is referred to in this video is sin or Satan.  While even many Christians don’t understand this next point, it is strongly supported by Christ’s consistent example: Christ consistently consorted with “sinners” and clearly was able to distinguish between the person and their sin.  In fact, this is the whole idea of sin, that it is a corruption of something good.  Just as you hate and battle the cancer but not the person with that cancer, so too we must hate, and indeed, battle the sin, but not the sinner. 

As I Christian I can say with complete confidence that nothing in this video can nor should be taken as an incitement to literal violence.  This is the massive difference between this and the MEMRI stuff.

One more thing:  Lee, I’m afraid to say it, but you’re really cherry-picking here.  If this is the best you can come up with to associate Islamic extremist television and Christian programming, it only supports my point.  It seems just about everything on that site is pretty tame, although I did, for instance, find a great clip that showed the actual location of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem.  Doesn’t seem like the horrible thing you make it out to be…

Posted by on 08/23/07 at 09:18 AM from

Go ahead.  Find me an atheist movement which puts out propaganda like that where atheism is THE SPECIFIC REASON for the violence.

I tell you, this general anti-Christian buzz I am seeing on the web has me a LOT more scared than any whacky “Christian” viceo you dig up......

Listen to yourselves, then realize that this country is still a strong MAJORITY Christian.

Posted by on 08/23/07 at 09:20 AM from

19 Muslims were able to bring down the WTC.  Imagine what 19 out of those 1.6 million fundie psychopaths could do if they wanted.

Lock ‘em up, pronto.....

Posted by Manwhore on 08/23/07 at 09:23 AM from

Listen to yourselves, then realize that this country is still a strong MAJORITY Christian.

Yeah, and the constitution is NOT! If you want people to listen to themselves, Christians should start listening to THEMSELVES!!

Posted by Manwhore on 08/23/07 at 09:37 AM from

I found the clip to be strengthening to my faith, which is its purpose.  Christ teaches us that (despite the claims of many), he did not come to bring peace but a sword.  Now he wasn’t speaking literally, though many violent Christians have distorted the meaning of this.  Rather, the sword quote is part of a passage that describes how following Christ may destroy some relationships.  Division would happen in households because of one or more family members’ decision to follow Christ.  This is particularly true in his era, where Judaism’s influence was pervasive and many died due to their faith (e.g. Stephen).  But it is also true even today, where many families of non-Christian faiths may disown a son or daughter due to their decision to convert or marry outside their religion.  What’s important to note with this is that Christ speaks figuratively. This differs from the MEMRI stuff insomuch as their Islamic theology allows and even compels literal violence.

Go fuck yourself zoomzoom. You’re peddling smut with that statement. If it is common christian knowledge that the Bible is figurative in speech then there would be any such thing as ‘creationism’ in the first place, you douchebag. To christians the Bible is the ‘literal’ word of God and that video is proof positive that at least THOSE christians take at least the word ‘sword’ literally. If it’s a piece of art or expression we’re discussing then that is a ‘literal’ interpretation of what the script is. the video makes no visual reference to any of the garbage you wrote. there aren’t any scenes referencing a division of family being the ‘sword.’

Trying inslting other peoples intelligence, not ours.

As to the militant imagery, it’s designed to address the fact that being Christian is not easy, and requires certain discipline (e.g. prayer, church, study).  Martial affairs certainly have a strong association with discipline and I suppose that it part of the creative decision to go with the militant motif.

What the fuck are you talking about? the militant imagery makes NO literal or figurative reference to an ‘identifiable’ enemy. In the psycho-semantic sense it is those actors training for a batlle with who knows what. And if that is the case, the video infers that EVERYONE outside of those who hold the swords are an enemy. that means they are paranoid, and consider everyone outside of the circle of trust (christians) to be hostile toward them.

They are also ‘literally’ letting people know they have no problem with being violent at all. If I saw a little girl holding a sword in my face I’d hardly think she was figuratively referencing violent behavior. I’d also add that that video is child abuse.

As I Christian I can say with complete confidence that nothing in this video can nor should be taken as an incitement to literal violence.  This is the massive difference between this and the MEMRI stuff.

that is pure denial and not backed up by anything other than your insistance of it being so. Back to the drawing board scumbag.

Posted by on 08/23/07 at 03:08 PM from

Manwhore, you’ve got to be kidding me.  What did I write that deserves such a crass and disrespectful response?  I was honestly trying to provide an informed Christian perspective, something that I felt would contribute to the overall understanding of the readership.  I shouldn’t even dignify your response with one of my own, but I really want to address the comments you raised.  To wit:

If it is common christian knowledge that the Bible is figurative in speech then there would be any such thing as ‘creationism’ in the first place, you douchebag. To christians the Bible is the ‘literal’ word of God and that video is proof positive that at least THOSE christians take at least the word ‘sword’ literally.

You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of what “literal interpretation” actually means.  Literalism does not mean “every single word is factual and wholly based in the real world”.  Rather, it is that “if the Bible says it, it is true”.  What this means is that Christ’s parables and metaphors are to be taken as truth not as literal fact.  With the sword quotation, most Christians agree with the proper interpretation which is that the sword is representative of the division that Christianity brings.  It is not an incitement to violence.  Try understanding the context before you engage in straw man arguments.

the video makes no visual reference to any of the garbage you wrote.

It doesn’t need to.  The video is obviously designed to be viewed by Christians, who already understand the context.  As a non-Christian, I don’t expect the message to be as clear for you, nor should you expect as much yourself.

nd if that is the case, the video infers that EVERYONE outside of those who hold the swords are an enemy.

Try understanding the difference between an implication and an inference.  You infer that their enemies are non-sword-holders (my inference from that is that you are implying non-believers), but this is not the case.  Again, it requires at least an understanding of the Christian perspective, and as a Christian I can tell you that the enemy they speak of is Satan or sin.  Do you have any substantive comments regarding my distinction between the sinner and sin itself?

that is pure denial and not backed up by anything other than your insistance of it being so. Back to the drawing board scumbag.

Your claim that I am in denial is not backed up by anything other than your insistence.  I certainly grant that my views are not infallible, nor are they representative of all Christians.  But take my word for it, I have an incredibly deep understanding of Christian theology and teaching and my goal with the post was merely to offer that perspective to the rest of the readership.  Please don’t be so rude!

Posted by Manwhore on 08/23/07 at 03:36 PM from

You demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of what “literal interpretation” actually means.  Literalism does not mean “every single word is factual and wholly based in the real world”.  Rather, it is that “if the Bible says it, it is true”.  What this means is that Christ’s parables and metaphors are to be taken as truth not as literal fact.  With the sword quotation, most Christians agree with the proper interpretation which is that the sword is representative of the division that Christianity brings.  It is not an incitement to violence.  Try understanding the context before you engage in straw man arguments

Sword is written in the Bible=sword in video. Looks like a pretty literal view of what’s written in the piece. If there is no isightment to violence why are the people growlling/gnashing and brandishing blades in neighborhoods?  If your saying the sword is only to imply a division from others, there is no reference to it in the piece seen. a sword is a tool for one man to kill another, or kill something for food, it is a weapon for violence. It is not a tool to fix a car.

It doesn’t need to.  The video is obviously designed to be viewed by Christians, who already understand the context.  As a non-Christian, I don’t expect the message to be as clear for you, nor should you expect as much yourself.

the context is a bunch of whipped up christians dreaming of a battle they are either fighting or about to fight. It’s clearly ignorant to many things including history and context itself. It shows people from suburbia to Japan brandishing weapons and practicing for a fight. It’s prefaced by no reference to the idea that it is ‘figurative.’ Simply one qupte, and the jihad ready soldiers in response.

Try understanding the difference between an implication and an inference.  You infer that their enemies are non-sword-holders (my inference from that is that you are implying non-believers), but this is not the case.  Again, it requires at least an understanding of the Christian perspective, and as a Christian I can tell you that the enemy they speak of is Satan or sin.  Do you have any substantive comments regarding my distinction between the sinner and sin itself?

Okay, and Satan manifests himself in people, that’s why you burn witches.Sinning is immorality. the message is clear. Non-Believers are Satan and immorality is sin. Kill them all with a sword.

Your claim that I am in denial is not backed up by anything other than your insistence.  I certainly grant that my views are not infallible, nor are they representative of all Christians.  But take my word for it, I have an incredibly deep understanding of Christian theology and teaching and my goal with the post was merely to offer that perspective to the rest of the readership.  Please don’t be so rude!

Good for you. I don’t have Christianity as a hobby so spinning things isn’t my bag. And no, you do not offer anything more than your insistence that the video is peaceful. Muslims would say we simply don’t understand them when they saw off people’s heads too. Usually some blurb about the koran and they’re deep understanding of it.

Posted by on 08/23/07 at 04:23 PM from

Okay, and Satan manifests himself in people, that’s why you burn witches.Sinning is immorality. the message is clear. Non-Believers are Satan and immorality is sin. Kill them all with a sword.

After that comment, I’m done with this pointless discussion.  You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about and thus sound like a complete buffoon.  Good day, sir.