A response to a Dominionist blogger

There’s really no “inclusiveness” in the bible, to be honest Christianity is a pretty exclusive club, open only to those who accept Jesus as their Lord and savior and are willing to subjugate themselves to his rules. In fact Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5 to:

Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.

We don’t make “room at the table”, the table is set for those invited to the feast. As followers of Christ we are called to preach His word, not edit it for political acceptance. Christ Jesus made the church, He decides who is to be among his bride and who is not, and he probably didn’t appoint a retired general to re-write the bible for him. 

– from http://christianfighterpilot.com/2015/08/18/retired-general-tells-military-chaplains-to-be-inclusive-or-get-out/comment-page-1/#comment-167995

Mr. Evans is quite correct about Christian beliefs — at least as written and taught in their NT. It is indeed an “exclusive club” and a “my way or the highway” (to “Hell”) system, just like the religion that bred it (Judaism) and the later spin-off (Islam) — though there are those among its believers who have sought to moderate the hard-core theonomy and exclusivity that is indeed part and parcel of its beliefs and to become more open and tolerant. 

However, as we see, Mr. Evans (and likely LCOL Dowty, from what I have read of his puerile blog) are more than willing to cheerfully condemn those who don’t believe as they do — and my guess is that they would almost certainly enforce their beliefs if given the power to do so, because they are not about tolerance or real freedom of conscience — except for those who believe just as they do. 

Christianity has preached a “gentle Jesus meek and mild” theology at only two times in its history — when it was initially a persecuted minority struggling to gain traction, and later, when it had wiped out all its competitors for power. (Of course, there was the long and painful period of protracted in-fighting that transpired among the various flavors of Christianity that arose in the Reformation.)

History clearly demonstrates time and again that once Christianity (or any religion) gains official state backing and control, they almost inevitably become egregious tyrants.

All of which was why the best and most influential of our Founders and Framers determined there should be no established religion in these United States. (They were wise enough to know that religion could not be banned entirely or restricted to state control.)

Madison once wrote (in response to a question as to why he had encompassed freedom of religion, speech and the press in the first amendment instead of enumerating them separately) that he had done so on purpose, because while a faction might wish to extinguish one, they could not do so without tugging at the others — and he had doubted there would be such a faction or even combination of factions who would support the destruction of all of these freedoms. 

I am always (sadly) amused by the doubtless consciously unintentional homo-erotic aspects of Christian beliefs as evinced below by Mr. Evans’ “He decides who is to be among his bride and who is not” (sic), and by such epics as Gibson’s bloody and plainly sado-masochistic film “The Passion of the Christ” — not to mention the symbolic cannibalism implied in the “communion” ritual.  

These clearly reflect an underlying libido which is aroused by such concepts — which is even more amusing considering that they are otherwise supposedly violently opposed to these practices (outside the construct of their religious beliefs).

(I say “supposedly” because another source of sad amusement is the unending stream of pious hypocrites who publicly rail against these and other practices, while often privately practicing them — Jewish rabbis, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox priests, Protestant preachers of all stripes, and Muslim leaders and muftis — many of whom are continually being caught and exposed in flagrante delicto in all of these practices and more — while the gullible “sheeple” of their appropriately named “flocks” just keep being deceived and fleeced by these sorry criminals and con artists.)

And of course, they are so vehemently “pro-life” that they are willing to slaughter anyone who believes differently. (Of course, they also believe in the death penalty, despite its many flaws in practice, and in making war on others who believe differently — especially people of color / ethnicity (whether here or abroad), as witness LCOL Dowty, who styles himself a “Christian Fighter Pilot” — as if Yehoshua, who (if he ever lived) never heard or would have dreamed of such a thing as a jet fighter — and judging from the majority of his supposedly “received” words (i.e., those allegedly spoken by Yehoshua in his lifetime during his supposed “ministry” as opposed to those supposedly imparted after his death during the “resurrection” or in “visions” to believers), he does not seem much in favor of killing – so little so that later “church fathers” such as Thomas Aquinas had to develop a jus bellum concept after they came to power to “sanitize” their various murderous  wars and “crusades”  — much as the Jews had done in their version of their various murderous wars and war crimes (such as the slaughter at Midian), and as the Muslims in their various wars and power struggles, which are ongoing to the present time as may be seen in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

Best,

F. J. Taylor

USMC (Ret.) 

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*