APATHETIC, WIMPY CHRISTIANS AND HYPER-AGGRESSIVE ATHEISTS/LEFTISTS: WHY CHRISTIANS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE LOSING THE CULTURE WAR: I hope any Christian who thinks that Christians are supposed to WIMPS FOR JESUS (weak, spineless, and non-confrontational when it comes to opposing the lies and misled human hordes of Satan...atheists, evolutionists, liberals, radical Muslims, etc) will take this in a spirit of love, but rebuke, as I have shared this with Clint Martin [https://facebook/clint.martin.75] and Malachi Sewell [https://facebook/malachi.sewell] who run the Facebook group The Conscientious Christian...https://facebook/groups/conscientiouschristian/ that I will share this clarion call on my personal Facebook page, and all of the other pages I admin. I want all milquetoast Christians, like Clint Martin and Malachi Sewell to know that MY LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST WAS AND IS NO WIMP! Furthermore, I want them (and all who call themselves Christian to know that being wimps for Christ or as they like to put it kind and respectful even of your sworn enemies, like this militant atheist who has led thousands of malleable young minds astray (towards Hell), Richard The Dick Dawkins... The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. ~Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (pg. 31) en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#The_God_Delusion_.282006.29 Real Christians are not Wimps...real Christians are hard to find. They are the wheat among the choking weeds. They are the few clergy who will not be silent when the law of the land becomes an anathema to God. They are the remnant that bases their votes on God’s immutable word. Real Christians do not run from debate (as I dont, and as you Clint and Malachi do) when it concerns God’s Truth being attacked. They stand and fight as soldiers in the army of the LORD. canadafreepress/index.php/article/21867 Some well-meaning Christians claim that any rebuke is ‘unloving’ (see next section), as do some skeptics who try to neutralize Christian opposition! When confronted by the examples in the previous section, these same Christians try to evade the force of these examples by claiming, ‘Jesus was God, so He had the authority and a moral right to say these things. So did God’s Apostles, as well as Elijah when he mocked the prophets of Baal. We do not have either of these.’ But this fails to realize the historical context. Modern western culture is engulfed in political correctness with a victim culture, where we simply mustn’t offend members of liberal-appointed victim classes. But ancient public forums, and some modern ones, were often conducted under a challenge-riposte paradigm. In the New Testament cultural milieu, ‘the game of challenge-riposte [tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html] is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public.’ The object of each party was to try to undermine the honor, or social status, of the other in an exchange that ‘answers in equal measure or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return).’ Instead of merely defending himself, an honorable man in that culture would counterattack. We see countless examples in the Gospels where Jesus refuses to defend himself, and instead shifts the debate by a counter-question, and insults if necessary. For example, in Matthew 21:23–27, Mark 11:27–33, and Luke 20:1–8, Jesus entered the temple, and the chief priests and elders confronted Him and demanded to know by what authority He acted. Jesus responded with a counter-question about John the Baptist. When they refused to answer Him, Jesus refused to answer them, which was an insult. Love your enemies (Matthew 5:44). The biblical word ‘love’ in this passage is the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaō), related to the noun ἀγάπη (agapē). This word ‘is not a matter of sentiment and emotion but concrete action and practical concern.’ The NT in general uses agapē to refer to the ‘value of group attachment and group bonding,’ and it ‘will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity.’ There is also the issue of needing to love those who are being, and will be, led astray by false teaching. Clearly, from the above, agapē did not preclude discrediting and refuting enemies of the truth as opposed to personal enemies. In some cases, agape corresponds to today’s ‘tough love.’ creation/refuting-compromise-refutation-of-hugh-ross-introductory-chapter-and-reviews https://facebook/photo.php?fbid=621200424588161&set=a.229416597099881.56168.229132990461575&type=1&theater
Posted on: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 20:43:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015