Liberal and Leftist "Christian" apostates exposed and criticized

[Petr]

Leftists have been pushing this shitty meme for a long time:

But in the same gospel that contains the Sermon on the Mount, we find this rather un-Leftist parable:

Socialism and Gnosis Part II by Cunha Alvarenga

Material Goods Are Glorified in the Parables: Our Lord used parables to show his approval of inequalities, ownership of private poverty and inheritance

www.traditioninaction.org

Where the rights of property and inheritance are even more strongly stressed is in the parable of the revolted renters of a vineyard: “There was a man, the head of a house, who planted a vineyard and surrounded it with a hedge. He dug a well in it and built a tower and rented it to husbandmen and went to a faraway country. As the time of the crop drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen to receive the fruits of his land.

“But the husbandmen laid hands on his servants, beating one, killing another and stoning another. So he sent other servants, a larger number than before, and they treated them in like manner.

“Last of all he sent to them his son, saying, ‘They will show respect for my son.’ But the husbandmen, seeing the son, said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and we shall have his inheritance.’ And taking him, they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

“And when the lord of the vineyard will come back, what will he do with those husbandmen? They answered him: ‘He will kill those wicked men without mercy, and will rent out his vineyard to other husbandmen who will render to him the fruit in due season’” (Matt 21: 33-41).

In this beautiful parable, we see that Our Lord emphasized not only the right to property and inheritance, but also a man’s right over the land he rents. The murderous husbandmen prefigure the proletariats in Russia, China, Cuba or other communist places who sustain that the land belongs to those who work on it and think they can violently expel its legitimate owners from it.

If we should seek to pinpoint the exact moment when this notion of Christ as a "Leftist cult leader" became widespread, I think it was with the Saint-Simonian movement in the early 19th century. After the French Revolution had been temporarily defeated by the Bourbon Restoration, some Jacobins decided to change tack and attract followers by pretending that egalitarian revolution was what Christ's teaching had really been all about.

Nesta Webster commented on this scheme thus:

World revolution; the plot against civilization : Webster, Nesta Helen : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Illuminism.--The first French revolution.--The conspiracy of Babeuf.--The growth of socialism.--The revolution of 1848.--The Interationale.--The revolution of...

archive.org

Like Robert Owen, Saint-Simon frankly declared that the existing social system was dead and must be completely done away with. The French Illuminatus, however, did not fall into the error of his English contemporary, of alienating public opinion by the repudiation of Christianity; on the contrary, faithful to the directions of Weishaupt, Saint-Simon, in his book Le Nouveau Christianisme, set out to prove that his system was simply the fulfilment of Christ's teaching on the brotherhood of man, which had become perverted by the belief in the necessity for subduing the flesh; "therefore in order to re-establish Christianity on its true basis it was necessary to restore its sensual side, the absence of which strikes its social action with sterility."1 ​

...​

​

Of course, as Weishaupt had foreseen, the method of identifying Christianity with Socialism proved immensely effectual. The wild-eyed revolutionary waving a red flag will never gain so many converts as the mild philosopher who preaches peaceful revolution carried out on the principles of Christian love and brotherhood. It was this old deception of representing Christ as a Socialist which made the strength of Saint-Simonism, and that, practised later on by the so-called Christian Socialists of our own country, not only drew countless amiable visionaries into Socialism, but at the same time drove many virile minds from Christianity to seek relief in Nietzscheism. ​

 

[Petr]

Another example of right-wing Christian "sellouts" - literally so, for it seems that these misguided fundies had sold themselves as mercenaries for neocon imperialism. Who knows how many such types are serving the Globohomo empire?

 

[Petr]

 

[Petr]

The historian Will Durant was an "Old Left" type, which means he still had some intellectual integrity, not being just a progressive propagandist. Thus he managed to address the "Leftist Jesus" stereotype which certain objectivity, and while duly noting the radical nature of Christ's message, he was honest enough to observe that there was also a conservative side to His teachings:

THE GOSPEL - Jesus 4 B.C.-A.D. 30 - THE YOUTH OF CHRISTIANITY 4 B.C.-A.D. 325 - Caesar and Christ - by Will Durant

THE GOSPEL - Jesus 4 B.C.-A.D. 30 - THE YOUTH OF CHRISTIANITY 4 B.C.-A.D. 325 - Caesar and Christ: A History of Roman Civilization and of Christianity from Their Beginnings to A.D. 325 - by Will Durant

erenow.net

Many have interpreted the Kingdom as a communist utopia, and have seen in Christ a social revolutionist.78 The Gospels provide some evidence for this view. Christ obviously scorned the man whose chief purpose in life is to amass money and luxuries.79 He promised hunger and woe to the rich and filled, and comforted the poor with Beatitudes that pledged them the Kingdom. To the rich youth who asked what he should do besides keeping the commandments, Christ answered: “Sell your property, give your money to the poor, and . . . follow me.”80 Apparently the apostles interpreted the Kingdom as a revolutionary inversion of the existing relationships between the rich and the poor; we shall find them and the early Christians forming a communistic band which “had all things in common.”81 The charge on which Jesus was condemned was that he had plotted to make himself “King of the Jews.”​

​

But a conservative can also quote the New Testament to his purpose. Christ made a friend of Matthew, who continued to be an agent of the Roman power; he uttered no criticism of the civil government, took no known part in the Jewish movement for national liberation, and counseled a submissive gentleness hardly smacking of political revolution. He advised the Pharisees to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”82 His story of the man who, before going on a journey, “called on his slaves, and put his property in their hands,”83 contains no complaint against interest or slavery, but takes these institutions for granted. Christ apparently approves of the slave who invested the ten minas ($600) that the master had entrusted to him, and made ten more; he disapproves of the slave who, left with one mina, held it in unproductive safekeeping against the master’s return; and he puts into the master’s mouth the hard saying that “to him who has, more will be given, and from him who has nothing, even that which he has will be taken away”84—an excellent summary of market operations, if not of world history. In another parable workers “grumbled at their employer,” who paid as much to one who had labored an hour as to those who had toiled all day; Christ makes the employer answer: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?”85 Jesus does not seem to have thought of ending poverty; “the poor ye have always with you.” He takes for granted, like all ancients, that a slave’s duty is to serve his master well; “blessed is the slave whom his master, returning, finds performing his charge.”86 He is not concerned to attack existing economic or political institutions; on the contrary, he condemns those ardent souls who would “take the Kingdom of Heaven by storm.”87 The revolution he sought was a far deeper one, without which reforms could only be superficial and transitory. If he could cleanse the human heart of selfish desire, cruelty, and lust, utopia would come of itself, and all those institutions that rise out of human greed and violence, and the consequent need for law, would disappear. Since this would be the profoundest of all revolutions, beside which all others would be mere coups d’état of class ousting class and exploiting in its turn, Christ was in this spiritual sense the greatest revolutionist in history.​

 

[Petr]

Moving from the Gospels to apostolic writings, it is true that there were some seemingly Socialist arrangements (of temporary nature) in the Acts of Apostles, but afterwards Apostle Paul authoritatively makes it clear that the body of believers has many different kinds of members, with no levelling equality - using a similar image as the one that had been mentioned by the conservative Roman senator in Livy's history of Rome, as this old commentary (the 1811 edition, written when the French Revolution was still fresh in the minds of men) of Tacitus pointed out:

The Belly and the Members - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Tacitus' A Dialogue Concerning Oratory, by Arthur Murphy, Esq.

www.gutenberg.org

[a] Menenius Agrippa was consul A.U.C. 251. In less than ten years afterwards, violent dissensions broke out between the patrician order and the common people, who complained that they were harassed and oppressed by their affluent creditors. One Sicinius was their factious demagogue. He told them, that it was in vain they fought the battles of their country, since they were no better than slaves and prisoners at Rome. He added, that men are born equal; that the fruits of the earth were the common birth-right of all, and an agrarian law was necessary; that they groaned under a load of debts and taxes; and that a lazy and corrupt aristocracy battened at ease on the spoils of their labour and industry. By the advice of this incendiary, the discontented citizens made a secession to the MONS SACER, about three miles out of the city. The fathers, in the meantime, were covered with consternation. In order, however, to appease the fury of the multitude, they dispatched Menenius Agrippa to their camp. In the rude unpolished style of the times (prisco illo dicendi et horrido modo, says Livy), that orator told them:​

​

"At the time when the powers of man did not, as at present, co-operate to one useful end, and the members of the human body had their separate interest, their factions, and cabals; it was agreed among them, that the belly maintained itself by their toil and labour, enjoying, in the middle of all, a state of calm repose, pampered with luxuries, and gratified with every kind of pleasure. A conspiracy followed, and the several members of the body took the covenant. The hand would no longer administer food; the mouth would not accept it, and the drudgery of mastication was too much for the teeth. They continued in this resolution, determined to starve the TREASURY of the body, till they began to feel the consequences of their ill-advised revolt. The several members lost their former vigour, and the whole body was falling into a rapid decline. It was then seen that the belly was formed for the good of the whole; that it was by no means lazy, idle, and inactive; but, while it was properly supported, took care to distribute nourishment to every part, and having digested the supplies, filled the veins with pure and wholesome blood."​

​

The analogy, which this fable bore to the sedition of the Roman people, was understood and felt. The discontented multitude saw that the state of man described by Menenius, was like to an insurrection. They returned to Rome, and submitted to legal government. ​

​

Tempore, quo in homine non, ut nunc, omnia in unum consentiebant, sed singulis membris suum cuique consilium, sum sermo fuerat, indignatas reliquas partes, suâ curâ, suo labore, ac ministerio, ventri omnia quæri; ventrem in medio quietum, nihil aliud, quam datis voluptatibus frui; conspirasse inde, ne manus ad os cibum ferrent, nec os acciperit datum, nec dentes conficerent. Hac irâ dum ventrem fame domare vellent, ipsa unâ membra, totumque corpus ad extremam tabem venisse. Inde apparuisse, ventris quoque haud segne ministerium esse; nec magis ali quam alere eum; reddentem in omnes corporis partes hunc, quo vivimus vigemusque, divisum, pariter in venas, maturum confecto cibo sanguinem. Livy, lib. ii. s. 32. ​

​

St. Paul has made use of a similar argument;​

​

"The body is not one member, but many: if the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it, therefore, not of the body? and if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it, therefore, not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members everyone of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body: and the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again, the head to the feet, I have no need of you. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it."​

​

First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. xii.​

​

This reasoning of St. Paul merits the attention of those friends of innovation, who are not content with the station in which God has placed them, and, therefore, object to all subordination, all ranks in society.​

 

[Petr]

And this is how Nesta Webster, who was like Ann Coulter of her own day, a tough right-wing lady, criticized Christian Leftists in the mid-1920s - back in this era, the Great Britain was a much more pious society than it is now, and thus many British Socialists and labor activists liked, or were forced to, to pay lip service to religion (as Lula in Brazil still has to do):

Secret societies and subversive movements

www.gutenberg.org

It is true that a certain section of the Socialist movement proclaims itself Christian. The Illuminati made the same profession, so have the modern Theosophists and Rosicrucians. But, as in the case of these secret societies, we should ask of so-called Christian Socialists: What do they means by Christ? What do they mean by Christianity? On examination it will be found that their Christ is a being of their own inventing, that their Christianity is a perversion of Christ's real teaching.​

​

The Christ of Socialism invoked in the interests of Pacifism as the opponent of force and in the interests of class warfare as a Socialist, a revolutionary, or even an "agitator," bears no resemblance to the real Christ. Christ was not a Pacifist when He told His disciples to arm themselves with swords, when He made a scourge of cords and drove the money-changers from the Temple. He did not tell men to forgive the enemies of their country or of their religion, but only their private enemies. Christ was not a Socialist when He declared that "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things that he possesseth." Socialism teaches that a man must never rest content as long as another man possesses that which he has not. Christ did not believe in equality of payment when He told the parable of the ten talents and the unprofitable servant. Socialism would reduce all labour to the pace of the slowest. Above all, Christ was not a Socialist when He bade the young man who had great possessions sell all that he had and give it to the poor. What School of Socialism has ever issued such a command? On the contrary, Socialists are enjoined by their leaders not to give their money away in charity lest they should help by this means to prolong the existence of the present social system. The truth is that, as I showed in connexion with the fallacy of representing Christ as an Essene, there is no evidence to show that He or His disciples practised even the purest form of Communism. Christ did not advocate any economic or political system; He preached a spirit which if applied to any system would lead to peace among men. It is true that He enjoined His disciples to despise riches and that He denounced many of the rich men with whom He came into contact, but it must not be forgotten that His immediate mission was to a race that had always glorified riches, that had worshipped the golden calf, and by which wealth was regarded as the natural reward of godliness.742 Christ came to teach men not to look for present reward in the form of increased material welfare, but to do good out of love to God and one's neighbour.​

​

I do not doubt that in the past such men as Kingsley and J.F.D. Maurice sincerely imagined that they were following in the footsteps of the Master by describing themselves as Christian Socialists, but that the present leaders of Socialism in England are Christians at heart is impossible to believe in view of their attitude towards the campaign against Christianity in Russia. Never once have they or their allies, the Quakers, officially denounced the persecution not only of the priests but of all who profess the Christian faith in Russia.743 ​

...​

​

I ask, then: Why should the Socialists of Great Britain be differentiated from the Bolsheviks of Russia? In every question of importance they have always lent them their support. In the great war on Christianity they have acted as the advance guard by the institution of Socialist Sunday-schools, from which all religious teaching is excluded. Socialists are very anxious to disassociate these from the "Proletarian" Sunday-schools which teach atheism. But from ignoring the existence of God to denying it is but a step; moreover, it will be noticed that the Socialists have never issued any protests against the blasphemies of the Proletarian schools. The real attitude of the Socialist Party towards religion may perhaps be gauged by the notice, reproduced on page 341, which once appeared in its official organ the Daily Herald, of which Mr. Lansbury, widely advertised as a fervent Christian, was once editor and is now managing director.​

​

It was to the party controlling this organ that 700 clergymen of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland saw fit to offer their congratulations by means of a memorial presented to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in March 1923. Shall we yet see the scene of Brumaire 1793 repeated and a procession of prelates presenting themselves at Westminster to lay down their rings and crosses and declare that "henceforth there shall be no other worship than that of liberty and holy equality"?​

 

[Petr]

To genuine old-school Christians, this was the worst thing about MLK - not his personal immorality, not his Black Power Commie politics, but his publically expressed support for Christ-denying heresies.

In the 4th century, many Arians were undoubtedly men of immoral lives, while others lived more uprightly. But it was ultimately all secondary compared to the doctrine they espoused.

Here we can see this idea illustrated: Gonzalez is mostly correct here, but on the deepest, most meaningful level, Thomas Jefferson was not any better than MLK, for he was a self-conscious, conspiring enemy of the Holy Trinity, and thus, ultimately, the enemy of whole traditional Christian civilization, and all the political good deeds he supposedly did (and let us not forget how he mightily paved way for the modern idolatrous cult of Equality with his words in the Declaration of Independence) pale before this awful spiritual reality. Jefferson might have gained the world, but he lost his soul.

Gary North wrote:

https://www.garynorth.com/conspiracyinphiladelphia.pdf

Jefferson was systematic in his hatred of trinitarian Christianity. In his old age, he sent a letter to James Smith, which he stressed was confidential, in which he expressed confidence that “the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States.”97 In a letter to Benjamin Watterhouse that same year, he wrote: “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”98

 

[Nikephoros II Phokas]

To genuine old-school Christians, this was the worst thing about MLK - not his personal immorality, not his Black Power Commie politics, but his publically expressed support for Christ-denying heresies.

In the 4th century, many Arians were undoubtedly men of immoral lives, while others lived more uprightly. But it was ultimately all secondary compared to the doctrine they espoused.

It's difficult to determine with any certainly exactly what MLK believed about theology - his Socinian doctoral thesis was entirely plagiarized so such views can hardly be attributed to him. He ran his own "church" more like a left wing political group in which theological subjects rarely made an appearance, relagated to mere window dressing. In a way his religion was very much in the pattern of Gnostic Christianity - an alien religion that coöpted Christian figures, terminology and symbolism.

Here we can see this idea illustrated: Gonzalez is mostly correct here, but on the deepest, most meaningful level, Thomas Jefferson was not any better than MLK, for he was a self-conscious, conspiring enemy of the Holy Trinity, and thus, ultimately, the enemy of whole traditional Christian civilization, and all the political good deeds he supposedly did (and let us not forget how he mightily paved way for the modern idolatrous cult of Equality with his words in the Declaration of Independence) pale before this awful spiritual reality. Jefferson might have gained the world, but he lost his soul.

Jefferson was ultimately proven right. Moralistic Therapeutic Deism eventually became the quasi-official religion of the United States.

 

[Petr]

In a way his religion was very much in the pattern of Gnostic Christianity - an alien religion that coöpted Christian figures, terminology and symbolism.

The early church historian Socrates of Constantinople described Manichaeism thus:

https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalh02valogoog/page/56/mode/2up?view=theater

Hence it was that a little while before the time of Constantine a species of heathenish Christianity made its appearance together with that which was real: just as false prophets and false apostles heretofore insinuated themselves amongst those who were constituted of God. For at that time a dogma of Empedocles, the heathen philosopher, was by Manichaeus attempted to be amalgamated with Christian doctrine.
…

Now the contents of these treatises are apparently accordant with Christianity in expression, but thoroughly Pagan in sentiment: for Manichaeus, being an impious person, incited his disciples to acknowledge a plurality of gods, and taught them to worship the sun.

 

[Petr]

I actually do not think that the Confederate South should be too much idolized, in a glitzy nostalgic manner, but it does seem that the Yankee North whipped itself into pharisaical moral hysteria (that last year's "Slava Ukraina" campaign can give us some slight notion of), as it sought to cover with pious rhetoric - perhaps to hide even from its own self - the very concrete Realpolitik goal of not letting the South go.

For example, the North's grim enforcer, William T. Sherman, was no religious enthusiast, but he had coldly calculating imperialistic conviction that they could not afford to let Dixie secede; that the future grandeur of American nation depended on strong central government and some fundamental geopolitical factors:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002826.html

"He felt that a North shorn of the south could still survive and thrive as long as it possessed the Mississippi. But not if Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas should secede: “Then there must be war, fighting that will continue till one or the other party is subdued.”"

Ultimate Cause of War Against the Constitution — Part I

Pertaining to war one of the more famous quotes is from the Prussian Military genius Carl von Clausewitz who said; “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” What von Clausew…

ironink.org

Thomas Fleming in his book, “A Disease in the Public Mind” brings this out. Quoting Fleming;​

​

“The abolitionists convinced themselves, based on their evangelical experiences, that smearing the South’s reputation in every possible way would create the “anxiety” that would lead to a mass conversion of the North to their crusade. In an analogy that was tortured at best, and blasphemous at worst, the South was portrayed as a province ruled by Satan that would consume the North’s soul if her citizens did not vow to expunge the sin of slavery. It was the evangelical camp meeting on a National scale, accusing the South of four unforgivable sins: violence, drunkenness, laziness, and sexual depravity…. Abolitionist clergymen developed a jeremiad on the Slave power. They identified it as the Anti-Christ, come to terrifying life in America after their Protestant ancestors had defeated this evil being in a centuries-long struggle with the Catholic Church in Europe. The South was the ‘apocalyptic dragon’ of the book of Revelations, rising to strangle freedom in the North as it already extinguished it in the South…. Senator William Sumner of of Massachusetts summed up his rampaging hatred with three questions he roared at the rapt audience in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. “Are you for freedom? Or are you for slavery? Are you for God or the Devil?​

Thomas Fleming​

A Disease In The Public Mind — pg. 177-178​

 

[Petr]

Feudal Germany : Thompson, James Westfall, 1869-1941 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxiii, 710 p. 24 cm

archive.org

 

[Petr]

Yet another word about Manichaeism; as G.K. Chesterton observed, it serves the useful purpose of showing the Nietzschean critics of Christianity, who accuse it of being an "anti-life" religion fuelled by poisonous resentment, that they do not know what a real anti-life religion looks like:

The Everlasting Man

The modern critic will say lightly enough that Christianity was but a reaction into asceticism and anti-natural spirituality, a dance of fakirs furious against life and love. But Manes the great mystic will answer them from his secret throne and cry, 'These Christians have no right to be called spiritual; these Christians have no title to be called ascetics, they who compromised with the curse of life and all the filth of the family. Through them the earth is still foul with fruit and harvest and polluted with population. Theirs was no movement against nature, or my children would have carried it to triumph; but these fools renewed the world when I would have ended it with a gesture.'

 

[Petr]

When the proto-Progressive movement arose in the Enlightenment era, one of their first and most important goals was cutting and gutting the influence of conservative Christian leaders (whom they called "bigots") - it is clearly hinted here that also in Brazil they need to cultivate pliable Christian dhimmi lackeys who will go smoothly along with shitlibbery, pinching incense at the altar of egalitarian globalism:

 

[Petr]

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

It is a matter of no small consequence to me, sir, that your statements are redolent with baseless accusations and unwarranted derogatory invective against Mohammedanism. The term "dhimmi", which you frequently utilise in an ahistorical and derogory fashion to describe non-Mohammedans who reside in societies wherein the majority adhere to the Mohammedan faith, is not as simplistic as the crude caricature to which you have alluded.

The true historical nature of dhimmism, spans many centuries and (trigger warning!!!!!) cultural contexts. It is far more complex, multifaceted, and (trigger warning!!!!!!!!!!) nuanced than you have suggested. But what can one expect from someone who proudly confesses to his own willing ignorance of Mohammedan beliefs in general, and the contents of the Koran in particular? Your commentaries on Islam are the fruit of your own ignorance and (trigger warning!!!!!!!!!!!) prejudicial worldview.​

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

To proceed. The concept of dhimmi, or protected non-Mohammedan minority, derives from Mohammedan law and pertains to those non-Mohammedans who reside in Mohammedan societies, and who, in exchange for a specific tax that benefits the entire society, are graunted legal protections, rights, safeguards. Whilst this concept has evolved over time, taking on multitudinous variations, each contingent upon various historical and cultural contexts in which it was implemented, the fundamental purpose of dhimmi has always been, from its incipience, solely to safeguard the security of non-Mohammedan minorities within majority-Mohemmedan societies, and to protect their faiths.

The erroneous equivalency that you try to make "dhimmi" and "lackey", as if "dhimmi" were representative of a deficiency of autonomous agency, is an egregious oversimplification that utterly misconstrues the true historical realities of the relationship between Mohammedan-majority societies and the non-Mohammedan minorities therein. It distorts the complexities of that relationship and in your case betrays an underlying impercipience to the (trigger warning!!!!!!!!!!) naunces of that relationship, an attitude rooted not in reason but in your own (trigger warning!!!!!!!!) prejudice and (trigger warning!!!!!!!) bigotry.
​

Note: Whenever I use words that have become trigger-words to right-wing simpletons, by their repeated association with left-wing talking-points, which has unfortunately generated a pavlovian type response in the majority of right-wingers to any use of the said terms - I always use those words in their correct, historical, pre-PC senses. There is no hidden left-wing connotation to my use of these words. Believe it or not, those words exist for a reason, and have their proper uses.

 

[Petr]

Islam is a false religion and state of dhimmitude is a shameful thing to be avoided if at all possible.

 

[Lord Osmund de Ixabert]

Islam is a false religion and state of dhimmitude is a shameful thing to be avoided if at all possible.​

It is paramount that Christians surcease from this peddling of false propaganda. Embracing lies isn't a "win" for the Christian side, even if those lies give you a rhetorical advauntage in a debate. Christians should adhere to a strict code of honesty, telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth, at all times.

They oughtn't willingly to embrace ignorance, as you have done, for you have openly proclaimed it to be your accustomed practice with respect to Islam. For that is to embrace the possibility of uttering falsehoods, which in turn is indicative of a general willingness to tell lies - on Christ's behalf, allegedly.

Christians ought rather to ensure that any pronouncements they make about Islam, or anything else for that matter, be grounded in reality, prior to offering them up as facts.

If this entails reading the Koran or studying the history of Islam, then so be it.

Lying even for the cause of truth is a very poor representation of Christliness. You might as well be uttering the most malicious slanders against Christianity if you are going to make your own voluntary ignorance and mendacity representative of the Christian faith.

Until one knows a matter to be true, one should not presume to assert it as such. All else is a form of lying, and leads only to the propagation of falsehood, and adds to the chaos and confusion of the world.

A disinterested spectator would conclude on the basis of this exchange that your side, which apparently is the Christian side, is the likelier falsehood,since you have essentially proclaimed yourself to be on the side of falsehood.

I take it you're some sort of Christian identitarian - that is, you really only care about the Christian identity, and do not adhere to the truth of your religion?

For the truth of the religion obliges you to embody the truth itself in our every word and deed.​

That means you can't be willingly ignorant of the Koran while making contentious pronouncements on its contents.

 

[Petr]

I actually do not think that the Confederate South should be too much idolized, in a glitzy nostalgic manner, but it does seem that the Yankee North whipped itself into pharisaical moral hysteria (that last year's "Slava Ukraina" campaign can give us some slight notion of), as it sought to cover with pious rhetoric - perhaps to hide even from its own self - the very concrete Realpolitik goal of not letting the South go.

In other words, The Battle Hymn of the Republic school of theology.

Thomas DiLorenzo noted that "Honest Abe" Lincoln himself was an expert in the base art of pretending to be pious for one's audience:

Leo Lincoln - LewRockwell

Ever since the New York Times published a long article explaining that most of the architects of the Bush foreign policy are "Straussians," more and more journalists have been asking the question, "What the heck is a Straussian?" A number of common principles have emerged after these writers...

www.lewrockwell.com

​

Straussian Principle #4: Fake religiosity. Several of the journalists who have recently written about Strauss have noted that he was a proponent of a greater role for religion in affairs of state, a position that has endeared some Christians to the neocon movement. But Strauss’ position was that the political rulers and the intellectual elite (philosopher kings?) need not be bound by religion themselves; religion was primarily a propaganda tool to be used to get the masses to acquiesce in state intervention on behalf of aggressive nationalism. As Ron Bailey of Reason magazine has pointed out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."​

​

Once again, Lincoln is the perfect Straussian role model. Lincoln never joined a church and was opposed by almost all the ministers of Springfield, Illinois, when he ran for president. He was infamous for his dirty jokes and even his criticisms of Scripture. There is no explicit evidence that he ever became a Christian, and some of his contemporaries even believed that he was probably an atheist. As James Ostrowski has written ("DiLorenzo vs. His Critics on the Lincoln Myth," LRC Archives), the "church of Lincoln" is "the church of a man who had no Church."​

​

Lincoln was nevertheless brilliant in his use of religious language and images to mesmerize Northern audiences, especially the hyper-puritanical New England Yankees and their upper Midwest brethren. After launching a war that he apparently thought would last only a few months, Lincoln distanced himself more and more from responsibility for his own decisions by invoking religion. By the time of his Second Inaugural, when over a half million young American men had been killed in the war, he was to the point of absolving himself entirely from any responsibility for all the war’s death and destruction. He declared that "the war came," as though he had nothing to do with it, and said that it was all out of his hands and a matter of God’s will. He theorized that God was punishing America for the sin of slavery. ​

...​

​

Lincoln’s cynical political manipulation of religion was the perfect Straussian subterfuge. It was the perfect propaganda tool for sugarcoating a bloody and imperialistic war of conquest.​

 

[Petr]