Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice

[Celtic Warrior]

Again, my posts were not aimed at governments, but at the vehement postings attacking Europeans because they believe in a different, more peace oriented approach to the problems confronting the world.

Have you heard about Brittain deciding not to teach about the Holocaust anymore so as to not offend the Muslims?

Is this what you would call a "peace oriented approach"?

I'll say it again - appeasement is slavery.

Actually, and this is to all responders, I don't really care how the world views or does things, I care what Jesus calls us to do, and Christians are called to be separate from the world AND this world is going to end and be replaced by one led by Jesus doing things His way. Being warriors of the world for any reason only plays the worlds (i.e. Satan's) game. I will stick by my understanding of Scripture until someone shows me that it is wrong THROUGH the Holy Scriptures, NOT through the opinions of men; no matter what religion they claim to be fighting for. A reading of the history and attitudes of the 1st and 2nd century Christians shows a markedly different attitude than contemporary conservative Christians have, and, as for me, I'll continue trying to follow their examples in attitudes and actions, not those of modern interpretation. Interpretations based mainly on the works of early 19th century thinkers like John Nelson Darby and Schoefield, NOT Christ.

Be as warlike as you wish, the list of quotes I supplied included many military leaders who came to realize war was not an answer, or if it was used it should ALWAYS be a means of LAST RESORT, not as current thinking seems to follow. Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt ALL lead this nation into war reluctantly and their countenances showed the strain on them, unlike George "what me worry" Bush who looks like the kid who was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar instead.

Did any of you ever think that perhaps Europe has become "appeasement" oriented because they have suffered the costs and horrors of wars 1st hand for centuries and perhaps they are tired of the pain, misery and lack of change that war ever really brings???? War NEVER solves anything, and always is the breeding ground for another future war. Seeking Peace first is NEVER an Evil. What IS Evil is going to war without attempting to find a peaceful solution first.

Perhaps if you'd do a read of the early Church (and I mean the early Christian Church, NOT the Judaean forerunner) you might find that your attitudes are completely backwards, and they grew from a small church in Jerusalem to the main religion of the Roman Empire in less than 300 years. ALL BY PEACEFUL MEANS!!! Since that time the attitudes showing on this board have created an atmosphere where many view the Christian church as evil itself, for it's inquisitions, crusades, justifications of slavery, anti semitism, the exploiting of native populations in the Name of Christ for economic and political gain. Must we go through another era of Evil by Christians before Christian's will again recognize Christ's real teachings on how to treat others?

[nebula]

Dear Mr. Celtic Warrior -

I've been trying to consider how to respond to your reply to me. What I am reading is a good piece of ideologue, however it quite clearly fails to avoid both the question I proposed and the current issue of which this thread is about.

As I consider further your words, I am wondering if what several of us are saying here and what you are saying have a completely different perspective on what is currently occurring in Europe with regards to Islam? Or even more, if there is a different belief or understanding of the intention and successfulness of Islam taking over the world.

Now, can Islam be resisted without war? Possibly - but Europe isn't even resisting! And that's what is troubling us.

[Celtic Warrior]

Dear Mr. Celtic Warrior -

I've been trying to consider how to respond to your reply to me. What I am reading is a good piece of ideologue, however it quite clearly fails to avoid both the question I proposed and the current issue of which this thread is about.

As I consider further your words, I am wondering if what several of us are saying here and what you are saying have a completely different perspective on what is currently occurring in Europe with regards to Islam? Or even more, if there is a different belief or understanding of the intention and successfulness of Islam taking over the world.

Now, can Islam be resisted without war? Possibly - but Europe isn't even resisting! And that's what is troubling us.

Perhaps so, I started my input simply by supplying quotes about preferring peace over war, not pacifism as some are accusing me, and also to make an attempt to remind Christians that God is in control, that Peace is His preferred approach for Christians and that bashing Europeans for their stance/views as this thread seemed to be doing is contrary to that.

As to the comments I made in my reply to you, I just used your post to post a general reply to all of todays posters. My apologies, but my time is limited and I took a shortcut. I shouldn't be up this late to post again, but something needs saying and it's more important than adequate rest. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to do the same this time, Post a general topic in my reply to save a few moments

And besides, what really makes you think that God wants you to resist Islam? Perhaps His plan is going just as He wants it to go? Did you ever consider that? God is, afterall, much more powerful than allah, or satan or any other god. And His plan WILL come to pass. He beat allah more than 2000 years ago, when He beat satan. I have no fear of islam or buddism or toaism or any other ism. I don't care how many commies, pinkos, liberals, muslims, whatever, are hiding behind the nearest bush, God is more powerful than all of them AND YOU as well. He don't need you, or me, or Leonard or AK or Yod or anyone else to do anything at all to win. The victory is already won, and was, in my view, won before Creation, since Christs sacrifice was planned that far back, and it is the victory we seek

Regarding Pacifism. First I would like to quote from Lee Stobel's Book "The Case for Faith". I trust his works are acceptable as a Christian work for most of you. But either way the point will be made.

concerning Early Christians

"The Case for Faith" paperback edition, chpt 7, p 282.

Comments by aethist turned Christian, Patrick Glynn:

"Part of the reason for Christianity's rapid spread, historians have remarked, was simply that the early Christians were such nice people. The very kindness of the Christians and their service to the poor and downtrodden attracted new adherents. 'Christians astounded the ancients with their charity,' as one historian put it"

p 282. Quoting John D. Woolbridge, Ph.D.

"One explanation of its rapid spread, as Glynn indicated, is that many Christians were not just taking care of their own, but they were caring for neighbors, the poor, and widows, the hurting, and they were basically very loving. They showed compassion toward children, who were often treated very callously by the Romans and Greeks at birth, especially baby girls. The lifestyle of Christians matched their teachings, so that many early Christians were not afraid to say, "Imitate us as we imitate Christ.'"

"Having said that, Woodbridge added a bit sheepishely; "Unfortunately, in contemporary evangelicalism sometimes people say, 'Don't look at us, look at Christ,' because we are worried what people will find if our lives are scrutinized. That wasn't true of many of these early Christians--there was a consistency between their beliefs and behavior."

p 283. Quoting John D. Woolbridge, Ph.D. reading aloud the observations of Lucian, a second-century Greek satirist and critic of Christianity:

"These misquided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the resutl that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

At this juncture I will add some personal notes, easily checked up in any history library. The early Christians suffered much persecution, torture and even death at the hands of Romans, Greeks, Jews and others. They welcomed such martyrdom and DID NOT resist that evil. They NEVER organized and went to war against the "evil empires" or the evils of the world. They silently and quietly accepted what was put on them. THAT made them pacifists my friends, like it or not. As some seem to think, that would make the Early Christians "stupid pacifists" and EVIL by the definitions being used here, and I, for one am happy to be counted among their number, NOT yours! I only pray that if the time comes when I am faced with such, that I face it as well as they did, AND as passively (as a pacifist). I will happily be honored if Christ requires me to be a pacifist and give up my life in persecution, torture and death in his service. I will repeat, a study of the Early Christians might teach you a bit more about True Christianity, and perhaps that would be better than debating over the meaning of words, phrases and clauses in your Bibles. The translators have done a good enough job for you to know what is really important without the need for extra sources or fancy explanations or special dictionaries and concordances and commmentaries, etc. The rest? well it will come as God reveals it. It would also be much better than bashing those who's views are different than yours.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Celtic Warrior

[nebula]

Perhaps so, I started my input simply by supplying quotes about preferring peace over war, not pacifism as some are accusing me, and also to make an attempt to remind Christians that God is in control, that Peace is His preferred approach for Christians and that bashing Europeans for their stance/views as this thread seemed to be doing is contrary to that.

Well, that is a whole other debate - the responsibility of the individual vs. the responsibility of the government.

And as for "bashing", well I would say Jesus did His fair sharing of "bashing" some - ie. Pharisees, Herod. Or would you consider that to be something different? (Just looking for clarification here.)

Now - if you were to argue a constructive alternative to this discussion/debate - for instance - instead of wagging your tongues at Europe, why don't you pray for them? - I would be 100% behind you!

As to the comments I made in my reply to you, I just used your post to post a general reply to all of todays posters. My apologies, but my time is limited and I took a shortcut. I shouldn't be up this late to post again, but something needs saying and it's more important than adequate rest. I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to do the same this time, Post a general topic in my reply to save a few moments

Fair enough.

And besides, what really makes you think that God wants you to resist Islam?

Sorry, but if some Muslim were to try to rape me - as is his right to do to a female "infidel" - you bet your cahooties I'm going to resist him!

Now I know this may not be what you were thinking of, but it is something I have to be concerned about.

Perhaps His plan is going just as He wants it to go?

I am reminded of the story about the man on a roof in a flood:

A man was at his house when heavy rains poured down, the river crested, and the town flooded. As he stood on his front porch, the neighborhood completely under water, two men came by in a rowboat. "Can we take you to safety?" one called out.

The man shook his head. "No, thank you. I have faith in the Lord and He will save me."

A while later, the waters had risen so much that the man had to climb up to his roof. Then a couple of men happened along in a motorboat. "Say, there, would you like to come with us?" one of them called.

"No, thank you," the man replied. "I have faith in the Lord, and He will save me."

The waters continued to rise with alarming speed, and the man soon found himself on the top of the chimney. A helicopter came by and hovered overhead as the pilot broadcasted, "Let me drop a line and get you out of there."

"No, thank you," the man called back. "I have faith in the Lord, and He will save me."

The waters kept rising, and the man perished in the flood. He went to Heaven, where he was met at the Pearly Gates by Saint Peter. Extremely saddened and upset, the man requested to talk to God. His request was granted.

"Heavenly Father," the man cried, "I had faith in you to save me from the flood, and you didn't come through for me!"

Astonished, God replied, "What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

Did you ever consider that?

I have been considering much lately about the role of Islam in the End Times. So, yes, I have considered. However, to let Satan have his heyday while we sit idly by to me is the same as "doing evil that good may result." There's another thread in another forum arguing over Christians supporting the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple or not, knowing how it will be used by the Anti-Christ (given that this is how certain prophetic passages are to be interpreted). Some say that we should support it, and thus helping usher in the End Times and thus Christ's return. Others argue that we shouldn't support anything that will help usher in the Anti-Christ.

I know this is veering off what you have asked, but what I mean to point out with this is to show just how complicated this line of thinking can go around in general.

God is, afterall, much more powerful than allah, or satan or any other god. And His plan WILL come to pass. He beat allah more than 2000 years ago, when He beat satan.

Agreed!

I have no fear of islam or buddism or toaism or any other ism. I don't care how many commies, pinkos, liberals, muslims, whatever, are hiding behind the nearest bush, God is more powerful than all of them AND YOU as well.

No argument there!

However, any one of them can do great harm and damage if we just let them go and do as they will. The KKK is a good example of evil men getting away with whatever they wish without resistance.

He don't need you, or me, or Leonard or AK or Yod or anyone else to do anything at all to win.

Hey, watch the personal attacks here, please.

The victory is already won, and was, in my view, won before Creation, since Christs sacrifice was planned that far back, and it is the victory we seek

But yet the world is still in control of the Evil one.

[nebula]

All that being said -

I have a question for you - why did not John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, nor Paul tell any of the Roman soldiers and centurions whom they interacted with to put down their swords?

[Celtic Warrior]

All that being said -

I have a question for you - why did not John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, nor Paul tell any of the Roman soldiers and centurions whom they interacted with to put down their swords?

How do you know for certain that they didn't? But, to answer fairly, I would say because they left it up to the conscience of the individual to decide, however that is not the same as what is going on here. Remember, this all started because of people attacking Europe for 'appeasing' and I merely posted some peace quotes, for which I was attacked, first by AK then by Leonard. AK for posting a quote by someone he doesn't approve of, and Leonard for being a pacifist, then by others about the evilness of being passive or a pacifist. Most of my responses since the initial one have been in response to those attacks. My posts ALL revolve around the evil practice of many Americans (most notably conservatives) of bashing (ie putting down) others because they don't share the conservative viewpoint. I have merely attempted (in some cases) to point out that even the early church didn't practice the current American conservative approach to Christianity.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Celtic Warrior

[CallMeBernard]

Have you heard about Brittain deciding not to teach about the Holocaust anymore so as to not offend the Muslims?

Must admit, speaking as an Englishman, I haven't heard this.

Before you make that staggering claim again, may I ask you to provide proof of that statement?

And as for appeasement in Europe- I'd like to point out, as an Englishman of Norman/ Viking descent, we've fought, at one point or another, virtually everybody.

We were certainly fighting Hitler- by ourselves by the way, after the rest of Western Europe collapsed- before you bothered to turn up. We were in WWI before you and all.

We were fighting in Sierra Leone a few years ago to protect their democratic goverment. Don't recall seeing too many US troops there.

It was the British Goverment that had to persuade the US (as part of NATO) to intervene in the falling apart of Yugoslavia. You boys didn't want to know. No oil in the old Yugoslavia, eh?

The British public view of US armed intervention is not that you do it out of principle, but rather to line the pockets of Haliburton et al. If the US Gov't didn't lie so much about the war- the reasons for it, and the events since- the Tandy affair, that football player who died etc, if the US hadn't sold it's moral superiority over the dictatorships down the toilet in dungeons of Abu Ghraib and the pens of Guantamano, then Europe would probably be more in favour of the US.

Europe believes that winning the war of hearts and minds is first, and physical war is second. The US seems to believe in it the other way around. That's the difference.

[Leonard]

Have you heard about Brittain deciding not to teach about the Holocaust anymore so as to not offend the Muslims?

Must admit, speaking as an Englishman, I haven't heard this.

Before you make that staggering claim again, may I ask you to provide proof of that statement?

And as for appeasement in Europe- I'd like to point out, as an Englishman of Norman/ Viking descent, we've fought, at one point or another, virtually everybody.

We were certainly fighting Hitler- by ourselves by the way, after the rest of Western Europe collapsed- before you bothered to turn up. We were in WWI before you and all.

We were fighting in Sierra Leone a few years ago to protect their democratic goverment. Don't recall seeing too many US troops there.

It was the British Goverment that had to persuade the US (as part of NATO) to intervene in the falling apart of Yugoslavia. You boys didn't want to know. No oil in the old Yugoslavia, eh?

The British public view of US armed intervention is not that you do it out of principle, but rather to line the pockets of Haliburton et al. If the US Gov't didn't lie so much about the war- the reasons for it, and the events since- the Tandy affair, that football player who died etc, if the US hadn't sold it's moral superiority over the dictatorships down the toilet in dungeons of Abu Ghraib and the pens of Guantamano, then Europe would probably be more in favour of the US.

Europe believes that winning the war of hearts and minds is first, and physical war is second. The US seems to believe in it the other way around. That's the difference.

Actually there are (or were) just a few teachers in heavily Moslem areas who decided not to teach about the Holocaust. It is NOT a decision of 'The British Government' or 'Britain' and I think those teachers will probably set straight by their superiors pretty quickly.

I also agree with you that it was absolutely shameful we didn't have troops in Liberia and Sierra Leone. I lost close to 100 acquaintances there.

HOWEVER: I must make three points regarding some serious errors on your part, dear Bernard:

1. If the Iraq war was 'for oil' as you suggest with your mention of Haliburton, then where is the provision in the Iraqi constitution that the U.S. gets 50% of the Iraqi oil, or 25%....or 5%......or even.0001%? Please don't be silly.

At Abu Graib, those who degraded (not 'tortured') prisoners have been and are actually being prosecuted. They have received LONG prison terms, and been Dishonorably Discharged from the Armed Forces. I hardly think that our habit of holding our troops to a higher moral standard than anybody else on earth does, is a 'blemish' on our national character! Do pay attention to events as they unfold, old boy!

Lastly, Guantanamo 'imprisonment' is practically a resort setting, my friend! These 'worst of the worst' are living better than they lived in their own third-world 'rat hole' countries they came from. Don't believe everything you read in the internationally Communist-controlled press. You must dig a little deeper than than the Sun if you want to find the whole truth.

P.S.: Britain--at least with Blair at the helm--isn't quite as given to simply rolling over and playing dead, as is the rest of Europe. But you've got to admit you guys just haven't been the same since Churchill!!!

[CallMeBernard]

Actually there are (or were) just a few teachers in heavily Moslem areas who decided not to teach about the Holocaust. It is NOT a decision of 'The British Government' or 'Britain' and I think those teachers will probably set straight by their superiors pretty quickly.

I also agree with you that it was absolutely shameful we didn't have troops in Liberia and Sierra Leone. I lost close to 100 acquaintances there.

HOWEVER: I must make three points regarding some serious errors on your part, dear Bernard:

1. If the Iraq war was 'for oil' as you suggest with your mention of Haliburton, then where is the provision in the Iraqi constitution that the U.S. gets 50% of the Iraqi oil, or 25%....or 5%......or even.0001%? Please don't be silly.

Actually, I never said the war was for oil. I said the perception amongst many people was that it was a war for profit. Personally, I feel that war with Saddam was inevitable once it became evident that sanctions weren't working. I may not like the fact of war, but neither do I believe one should hide from it either.

At Abu Graib, those who degraded (not 'tortured') prisoners have been and are actually being prosecuted. They have received LONG prison terms, and been Dishonorably Discharged from the Armed Forces. I hardly think that our habit of holding our troops to a higher moral standard than anybody else on earth does, is a 'blemish' on our national character! Do pay attention to events as they unfold, old boy!

It's the fact they happened at all. Same with the disgusting lapses on the part of some of our armed people.

Lastly, Guantanamo 'imprisonment' is practically a resort setting, my friend! These 'worst of the worst' are living better than they lived in their own third-world 'rat hole' countries they came from. Don't believe everything you read in the internationally Communist-controlled press. You must dig a little deeper than than the Sun if you want to find the whole truth.

The Sun is owned by one R. Murdoch- same chappy who runs Fox. Hardly a Commie! And again, it's not so much the conditions- you should see the conditions in our jails- but rather the fact the Bush wanted somewhere out of the jurisdiction of the US courts. That looks bad, like there is something to hide.

The other worry that the British have (not sure if it's shared our European neighbours) is the accidental legitimisation of the terrorists that Bush has caused. During the Troubles, the British Goverment repeatedly treated the IRA & UVF as nothing more than murderers with no legitimate agenda. The Bush/ Blair tactic, with all this talk of a 'War on Terror', and the various special peices of legislation that both gov'ts have produced since, has effectively stated that the Islamofacists murderers aren't just normal murdering scum, but rather murderers with a cause, effectively glorifying them, even if only by accident.

P.S.: Britain--at least with Blair at the helm--isn't quite as given to simply rolling over and playing dead, as is the rest of Europe. But you've got to admit you guys just haven't been the same since Churchill!!!

Blair? Pffft. Not a natural leader. All he's interested in is short-term soundbites. Fashion over style, that man. Now Thatcher- she could lead.

[nebula]

Have you heard about Brittain deciding not to teach about the Holocaust anymore so as to not offend the Muslims?

Must admit, speaking as an Englishman, I haven't heard this.

Before you make that staggering claim again, may I ask you to provide proof of that statement?

It came from a news article that was posted in the News section of the Board:

Teachers drop Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims <<--Link