Are Evangelical Christians Warmongers?

[poncho]

I’ve been an evangelical Christian since I was a child. I’ve been in the Gospel ministry all of my adult life. I attended two evangelical Christian colleges, received honorary degrees from two others, and taught and preached in several others. I’ve attended many of the largest evangelical pastors’ gatherings and have been privileged to speak at Christian gatherings–large and small–all over America. I have been part of the inner workings of evangelical ministry for nearly 40 years. I think I learned a thing or two about evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity in America. And I’m here to tell you: I don’t like what I see happening these days!

Let’s get this straight right out of the gate: nothing touched by man can be perfect, because none of us is perfect. There is no perfect church, perfect school, perfect mission board, perfect Sunday School class, perfect pastor, perfect deacon, or perfect Christian. Until the afterlife, we are all yet encased in Adamic flesh, complete with human weaknesses and imperfections. And only the Pharisaical among us are too proud to admit it.

That said, I do think it is more than fair to say that, historically, Christians have always attempted to be–and have always publicly taught the importance of being–peacemakers. Historically, Christians have preached–and tried to practice–love and brotherhood. The early church was born in a baptism of love and unity. Oh sure, there were always individual misunderstandings and differences, but, on the whole, the church was a loving, caring, compassionate ecclesia.

Mind you, Christians historically were not afraid or ashamed to defend themselves, their families, and their country. The Lord Jesus, Himself (the Prince of Peace), allowed His disciples to carry personal defense weapons (see Luke 22:36,38). Yes, while some Christian sects were conscientious pacifists, these were the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of Christian believers understood the Biblical, Natural Law principle of self-defense. But believing in the right of lawful, God-ordained self-defense was never to be confused with warmongering.

So, what has happened to turn the most peace-loving institution the world has ever known (the New Testament church) into the biggest cheerleaders for war?

CONTINUE . . .

I've been asking the same question for years Chuck. I think it may have something to do with the bride of Christ falling into bed with Caesar. What do you all think?

Not that I really expect an answer. Normally you folks fall silent or turn to ridicule when asked the hard questions. Let's see if this time is any different.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Excellent, Poncho. Chuck Baldwin got my vote in '08.

I dare say that the modern Warfare State would grind to a screeching halt tomorrow if evangelical Christians would simply stop supporting it! And the thing that most evangelical Christians fail to realize is that the Warfare State is one of the primary tools that the evil one is using to usher in his devilish New World Order that even babes in Christ know to be of Satan. Hence, Christians are helping to promote the very thing that Satan, himself, is using to enslave them.

 

[billwald]

Or is it a logical outcome of dispensational eschatology? The faster the world goes to pot the quicker Jesus will return for us.

 

[poncho]

Or is it a logical outcome of dispensational eschatology? The faster the world goes to pot the quicker Jesus will return for us.

Maybe for some "neo" Christians but the majority it would seem have taken up idolatry and worship at the feet of the state, just like the good preachers have been teaching them to do for years.

All hail Caesar!

 

[Eric B]

The links lead to this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-s-critique-us-foreign-policy-draws-debate-jeers

“We’re there, occupying their land,” Paul continued. “And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

Santorum shot back, “Someone who’s running for president of the United States [for] the Republican Party should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11.”

“We are not being attacked, and we were not attacked, because of our actions. We were attacked, as [former House speaker] Newt [Gingrich] talked about, because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadists,” he said. “And they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for.”

Given the opportunity to rebut, Paul responded, “This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true.”

“Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit,” he said, as boos erupted from the audience. “They have been explicit and they wrote and said that ‘we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment …’ ”

As the booing grew louder, Paul said, “I didn’t say that. I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing.”

The answer is that we developed a "we're the good guys" mentality, so whatever we do is right, and this includes helping things along to the return of Christ.
Plus the fact that there are postmilennialists and amilennialists who get mixed in among us, and some of that has influenced Christians (think, the Reconstructionists).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Excellent, Poncho. Chuck Baldwin got my vote in '08.

I dare say that the modern Warfare State would grind to a screeching halt tomorrow if evangelical Christians would simply stop supporting it! And the thing that most evangelical Christians fail to realize is that the Warfare State is one of the primary tools that the evil one is using to usher in his devilish New World Order that even babes in Christ know to be of Satan. Hence, Christians are helping to promote the very thing that Satan, himself, is using to enslave them.

Wow, when we were growing up & pretty much destitute, Government assistance kept us alive....so are you saying it was wrong to feed the poor & destitute. Dont tell me you believe the churches would do it?

 

[InTheLight]

Wow, when we were growing up & pretty much destitute, Government assistance kept us alive....so are you saying it was wrong to feed the poor & destitute. Dont tell me you believe the churches would do it?

What in the world does your post have anything to do with the topic?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What in the world does your post have anything to do with the topic?

The comment about the welfare state.

 

[billwald]

>Plus the fact that there are postmilennialists and amilennialists who get mixed in among us, and some of that has influenced Christians (think, the Reconstructionists).

Only premil people think they are closer to the rapture BECAUSE the world appears more evil. The postmils and amils have no THEOLOGICAL reason to be pleased the world is being trashed. We want to clean up the world so the grand kids and great grand kids will have a better place to live in. You premils want an immoral world to sell your eschatology. Talking up the Ten Commandments is only hype so you will get converts.

 

[FundyPat]

I despise Santorum and I depise Ron Paul even worse.

Both are two extremes of that argument.

Peace through strength; not domination of the world by Military Might NOR irresponsibility by extreme Isolationism.

THAT is what I believe in. :thumbs:

 

[FundyPat]

Ah yes, Chuckie Baldwin, the Paleo-Conservative racist, Anti-Semite who wants to legalize slavery.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So that's what passes for intelligent debate in the neo-fundy circles ? I thought you would be against slander, and not a party to it.

My Blog :tonofbricks:

Keep it. So far everything you have posted here is nothing but opinion, no counter-point, no debate. Just slander. I imagine your blog would be just as well-thought-out.

Poncho, I have sent this link far & wide. Thanx for posting it.

 

[NiteShift]

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? For centuries Christians have not regarded war as inherently bad, it all depended on what it was being used for. Christians were at the forefront of our War of Independence. Christian abolitionists thought it was right and proper to use violence against slaveholders. Christians agreed that war against piracy, against conquering empires, or what have you was justifiable. This is not some Neocon conspiracy, or what you all are now calling Neo-Christianity.

Baldwin says, "Oh! And don’t forget that it was the US government that was responsible for putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with. The US government set up Osama bin Laden, too." Baldwin is a flake, and he repeats the same junk that's now the accepted wisdom.

The US did not put Saddam into power. Saddam managed to come to power in Iraq without any help from the US. He took part in the 1958 overthrow of King Faisal, the 1963 Baathist revolution, and eventually gained control for himself. In the 1970’s he was receiving 90% of his weapons from the Soviets, not the US.

The US did not "set up" or supply bin Laden. Michael Scheuer, whom you "blowback" folks like to quote, said as much - "We had run across bin Laden in a lot of different places, not personally but in terms of his influence, either through rhetoric, through audiotapes, through passports, through money-he seemed to turn up everywhere. So when we [created the tracking unit in 1996], the first responsibility was to find out if he was a threat." Well what do you know, the CIA didn't even know who bin Laden was prior to that time.

 

[poncho]

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? For centuries Christians have not regarded war as inherently bad, it all depended on what it was being used for. Christians were at the forefront of our War of Independence. Christian abolitionists thought it was right and proper to use violence against slaveholders. Christians agreed that war against piracy, against conquering empires, or what have you was justifiable. This is not some Neocon conspiracy, or what you all are now calling Neo-Christianity.

Baldwin says, "Oh! And don’t forget that it was the US government that was responsible for putting Saddam Hussein in power to begin with. The US government set up Osama bin Laden, too." Baldwin is a flake, and he repeats the same junk that's now the accepted wisdom.

The US did not put Saddam into power. Saddam managed to come to power in Iraq without any help from the US. He took part in the 1958 overthrow of King Faisal, the 1963 Baathist revolution, and eventually gained control for himself. In the 1970’s he was receiving 90% of his weapons from the Soviets, not the US.

The US did not "set up" or supply bin Laden. Michael Scheuer, whom you "blowback" folks like to quote, said as much - "We had run across bin Laden in a lot of different places, not personally but in terms of his influence, either through rhetoric, through audiotapes, through passports, through money-he seemed to turn up everywhere. So when we [created the tracking unit in 1996], the first responsibility was to find out if he was a threat." Well what do you know, the CIA didn't even know who bin Laden was prior to that time.

Well what do you know you still leave out the best part of the story to fool people into thinking there is no story. That's dishonest NS. Especially when you keep spinning the same yarn after you've been shown the truth.

You said . . ."Baldwin is a flake, and he repeats the same junk that's now the accepted wisdom." And yet you do exactly the same thing does that make you a flake too?

As I have explained to you many times in the past the CIA funneled money to the Mujahideen through the Pakistani ISI. And alot of it was drug money, just like in the Iran Contra "affair".

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000.

When are you going to get it through your thick noggin that the CIA works for corporate interests and not the interest of U.S. citizens?

Originally posted by Bro Curtis

Poncho, I have sent this link far & wide. Thanx for posting it.

No problem Bro. Just doing my duty. The truth cannot set us free if we fail to recognize it. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NiteShift]

As I have explained to you many times in the past the CIA funneled money to the Mujahideen through the Pakistani ISI.

No kidding. This has always been known. (At least you are no longer saying that the US "Created and trained" Al Qaeda so I guess that is some improvement.) CIA funneled money to the Afghan mujahideen. The Arab Afghans, bin Laden's group, on the other hand, had their own sources of funding:

"The report states that al Qaeda received $300 - $500 million in funding from wealthy bankers and businessmen, mostly from Saudi nationals or residents."

That's dishonest NS.

 

[poncho]

No kidding. This has always been known. (At least you are no longer saying that the US "Created and trained" Al Qaeda so I guess that is some improvement.) CIA funneled money to the Afghan mujahideen. The Arab Afghans, bin Laden's group, on the other hand, had their own sources of funding:

"The report states that al Qaeda received $300 - $500 million in funding from wealthy bankers and businessmen, mostly from Saudi nationals or residents."

You never cease to amaze me NS. You can look right at the proof that the CIA created and trained Al Qaeda and even agree with it then in the same sentence try and tell us that because the CIA used the ISI as a proxy in the creation of Al Qaeda the CIA didn't have a hand in it.

The whole jist of the matter is (and as history clearly shows) that the U.S. and UK governments have been using Islamic terrorists as proxy fighters in regime change "wars" since 1953. From Iran to Libya and back again to Iran if we count our support of the MEK terrorist organization in Iran to this day.

The "war on terror" is and has been one giant farce which anyone who does even a limited amount of (honest) research into it can see, well except for maybe the most ardent red white and blue flag wavers most of which seem to reside right here on BB.

This should be our national security slogan "we create and support international terrorists to combat international terrorism, hooah!".

 

[bacustic]

The comment about the welfare state.

it said WARfare state.

 

[NiteShift]

You never cease to amaze me NS. You can look right at the proof that the CIA created and trained Al Qaeda and even agree with it then in the same sentence try and tell us that because the CIA used the ISI as a proxy in the creation of Al Qaeda the CIA didn't have a hand in it.

Nope. You totally ignore that the ISI was funding the Afghan insurgency, not Arabs who decided to travel to that country and jump into the game. You do realize that Afghans are not Arabs right?

And as far as the "Evangelical Warmongers" nonsense goes, many of the very non-evangelical, left-of-center types were in favor of the wars at the beginning. A fact which they soon attempted to obscure.

 

[kyredneck]

......Christians are helping to promote the very thing that Satan, himself, is using to enslave them.

The links lead to this:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-s-critique-us-foreign-policy-draws-debate-jeers

The answer is that we developed a "we're the good guys" mentality, so whatever we do is right, and this includes helping things along to the return of Christ.......

That's exactly the point I was attempting to make with Shamir's point here.

It's no different than assisting Judas in his betrayal of Christ in order to further the redemption along.

Regardless of what one thinks 'must needs be', stick to the fundamental principles of right and wrong. Blessed are the peacemakes, not warmongers.

Well intentioned Christians have been exploited big time here.

 

[poncho]

Nope. You totally ignore that the ISI was funding the Afghan insurgency, not Arabs who decided to travel to that country and jump into the game. You do realize that Afghans are not Arabs right?

And as far as the "Evangelical Warmongers" nonsense goes, many of the very non-evangelical, left-of-center types were in favor of the wars at the beginning. A fact which they soon attempted to obscure.

Who was funding the ISI? The CIA. With our tax dollars and alot of drug money. You do know what drug money is right?

The very "non - evangelical" warmongers are a subject for another thread this one is dealing specifically with evangelical warmongers.

Report Identifies Organizational Nexus Of Islamophobia

A small group of inter-connected foundations, think tanks, pundits, and bloggers is behind the 10-year-old campaign to promote fear of Islam and Muslims in the U.S., according to a major investigative report released here Friday by the Center for American Progress (CAP).


The 130-page report, "Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America," identifies seven foundations that have quietly provided a total of more than 42 million dollars to key individuals and organizations that have spearheaded the nationwide effort between 2001 and 2009.

They include funders that have long been associated with the extreme right in the U.S., as well as several Jewish family foundations that have supported right-wing and settler groups in Israel.

The network also includes what the report calls "misinformation experts" – including Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, David Yerushalmi of the Society of Americans for National Existence, and Robert Spencer of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) – who are often tapped by television news networks and right-wing radio talk shows to comment on Islam and the threat it allegedly poses to U.S. national security.

"Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of ‘creeping Sharia’, Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran," according to the report whose main author, Wajahat Ali, described the group as "the central nervous system of the Islamophobia network."

"This small band of radical ideologues has fought to define Sharia as a ‘totalitarian ideology’ and legal-political-military doctrine committed to destroying Western civilization," the report said. "But a scholar of Islam and Muslim tradition would not recognize their definition of Sharia, let alone a lay practicing Muslim."

Nonetheless, the group’s messages receive wide dissemination by what the report calls an "Islamophobia echo chamber" consisting of leaders of the Christian Right, such as Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson, and some Republican politicians, such as presidential candidates Representative Michele Bachmann and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

CONTINUE . . .

From what I have witnessed here on BB y'all swallowed this particular brand of propaganda hook line and sinker and begged for seconds. Matter of fact this is one conspiracy theory all but a very few here loved to babble on and on about. I'd say the vast majority of you bought into it and became part of the "echo chamber" in thread after thread after thread. And to think you all call me a conspiracy theorist.


When it comes to believing in conspiracies I can't even hold a candle to you folks. So, what does that make you? Besides hoodwinked I mean.