The War Against Christianity


“In reality, the groundwork for this has been laid very slowly in the institutions, in our schools for a very long, long time,” he said. “I’m a child of the 90s. I grew up in the 90s. … I just remember all the pop culture that I consumed … from Disney movies, every kids show — the message of everything that I consumed as a child was like, ‘Follow your heart.'”
Click to expand...

With this obsession with living out one’s “authentic self,” Berry said many people might not have realized where things were going, but added the current circumstance is where “it had to conclude logically.”

And that conclusion, he said, is one rooted in “narcissism.”

“It’s really the ideology of self-worship,” he said. “You hear the phrase, ‘Your truth,’ ‘my truth’ a lot.”

Berry continued, “I think our culture has migrated away from this idea of truth being a thing that exists outside of ourselves, that exists independently of us.”
Click to expand...
 
Evil has been at war against Christianity for 2,000 years. Evil has already lost.

Romans 8:31-39 NKJV
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written: “For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
 

Here is an oldie but a goodie. If you publicly speak up against abortion, or gay mirage, or any other such degeneracy, you will be cited for "disturbing the peace." Doesn't matter that you're not breaking the law. The goons who call themselves "law-enforcement officers" will bully and intimidate you regardless.

Jeff Durbin is one of the few who actually puts himself on the front lines standing up for the Gospel. He is a man whom I have the upmost respect for.
 
Separation of Church and State is very often misunderstood:
This sentiment has evolved and is now used to deny the participation of Christians in public life. In our society, there are those who find a religious argument behind any policy they deem unacceptable. There are indeed many such characters in Australian politics, the mainstream media, and academic circles who simply cannot accept, let alone tolerate, that any politician, or indeed any public figure, should be influenced by Christian morality.
Click to expand...
Common to see those claim since Christians are against abortion that by default abortion must be legal, even though one does not have to be Christian to be against abortion.


“Extremists” who are against baby murder. Of course it’s a black woman saying that.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Separation of Church and State is very often misunderstood:

Common to see those claim since Christians are against abortion that by default abortion must be legal, even though one does not have to be Christian to be against abortion.


“Extremists” who are against baby murder. Of course it’s a black woman saying that.
Click to expand...
Separation of Church and State is in itself a Christian doctrine. When it was coined, it was in reference to the sacralist systems that dominated Europe at the time of the Reformation. It has since been hijacked and bastardized by the Communists who have repurposed it to mean "freedom from religion (Christianity in particular)." The law that America was founded on was based on a recognition of God's Law. It was almost theonomic.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
"War Against Christianity"

Oldest war in the world.

"I come to bring a sword, not peace."
Click to expand...
Didn't Jesus tell his apostles that "he who takes up the sword, will die by the sword"?

Is the point there meant to be that while he will fight and destroy our enemies, we shouldn't, because we might act too hastily, or make mistakes, or not realise when we can bring them to God?

I mean, I found this video where a man asks Jews about Isaiah 53, and many of them accept Jesus almost on the spot. One of them describes it as being almost like this mental block against talking about Jesus in their culture.

Link:
 
Giordano Bruno said:
Didn't Jesus tell his apostles that "he who takes up the sword, will die by the sword"?

Is the point there meant to be that while he will fight and destroy our enemies, we shouldn't, because we might act too hastily, or make mistakes, or not realise when we can bring them to God?
Click to expand...

I was doing a quick search, and found this blog (which appears Protestant but I am not sure):


In Matthew 26:52, Jesus made a statement that has become famous: “Put your sword in it’s place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” The statement was made to Peter who had drawn his sword in order to defend Jesus from being captured and crucified. The saying of Jesus is often paraphrased as “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” What it means, of course, is that people who conquer through violence ultimately end up dying by violence. Or to put it more simply: what goes around comes around. Live a peaceful life towards others and they will generally be peaceful to you.

As with essentially all of Jesus’ teachings, stories from the Old Testament teach similar themes. In the case of “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword,” Genesis 31 gives us a vivid example of how this principle works through the story of Jacob and Laban. Prior to chapter 31, Jacob stole his brother’s birthright and then tricked his elderly father into blessing him rather than his elder brother. Jacob then left the promised land to obtain a wife from his uncle Laban’s family. Laban ultimately lied and tricked Jacob into serving him for many extra years to obtain the wife Laban originally promised him. Jacob, in turn, cheated Laban out of the strongest lambs from his flock after they had reached an agreement. Ultimately, Jacob flees Laban and Laban and his tribe pursue Jacob.

From this story we can see what Jesus later taught explicitly: “he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” If our life consists of lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, and fighting with others, then we can expect the same in return. If we wish to hold everyone accountable “an eye for an eye,” then we can expect the same from them. But God provides us with a different option. At the end of chapter 31, we see that although division and fighting and separation are part of our human existence, we can overcome these tendencies. At the end of chapter 31, Jacob and Laban reach a truce, an agreement to stop the cycle of violence.

And ultimately, stopping the cycle of violence and creating a new cycle of forgiveness and mercy is what Jesus offered us. Rather than fighting back against his captors, he tells Peter to put away the sword. Instead of cursing his persecutors he says, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34). Even if our life has been full of deception, division, and fighting with others, we have an opportunity to follow the example of Jacob and Laban in Genesis 31:43-55, and “put away the sword.” We have the ability, like Jesus, to begin a different cycle: one based on mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
Click to expand...

This is also how Orthodox view the quote as well, i.e. Chrysostom and other Patristic fathers.

That said, the problem is enemies will come and you will be forced to defend oneself. We can turn the cheek to a point but at some point the righteous will need to defend themselves. In Christian history this moment is understood as the rise of Constantine, whom God called when Rome was ready to convert.
 
Giordano Bruno said:
Didn't Jesus tell his apostles that "he who takes up the sword, will die by the sword"?

Is the point there meant to be that while he will fight and destroy our enemies, we shouldn't, because we might act too hastily, or make mistakes, or not realise when we can bring them to God?

I mean, I found this video where a man asks Jews about Isaiah 53, and many of them accept Jesus almost on the spot. One of them describes it as being almost like this mental block against talking about Jesus in their culture.

Link:
Click to expand...


I believe that those who live by the sword will die by the sword is not an injunction to pacifism but for those who take it upon themselves to exert righteous force, to be prepared to meet a death by force.

I'll never get tired of shilling the book On Resistance to Evil by Force for a paradigm of force and violence in the Christian worldview
 




UK-based Methodist Church issues guidance discouraging use of terms 'husband' and 'wife'​

Church told CP they are 'very proud' of their guidance 'to repent of any hurtful language'

The Methodist Church in Great Britain released an "Inclusive Language Guide" this month advising Methodists to avoid using gendered terms such as "husband" and "wife" because such allegedly assumes what is not "the reality for many people."

"As Christians, we need to have the courage for conversations that can sometimes be difficult, to recognize that we sometimes exclude people, to listen with humility, to repent of any hurtful language and to take care with how we listen and what we say or write, in the Spirit of Christ," says the guidance, which will be updated every six months.

The guidance offered as a general principle the idea that there is "infinite variety in the way that God’s creation is expressed in human life," and offered "husband" and "wife" as examples of terminology that "may sound inoffensive but it makes assumptions about a family or personal life that is not the reality for many people."

The guidance offered the words "parent," "partner," "child," and "carer" as suitable alternatives.

The guide goes on to list extensive categories of people with whom Methodists are advised to use "sensitive and inclusive" language when addressing minorities that have been "marginalized and/or demonized by common culture."

The guide urges steering clear of "ageism" by avoiding terms like "old people," to embrace "anti-racist language" by encouraging use of "ethnicity" instead of "race," and to avoid language that negatively emphasizes a person's immigration status or English skills.

Antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric are also discouraged, and the guidance also encourages Methodists to tread carefully with their terminology when addressing "disabled and neurodiverse people" and those with mental illness.

The guide emphasized why its important that the U.K.-based Methodist Church "uses language that is inclusive of LGBT+ people," and advised using the language an individual prefers, including the pronouns by which they choose to identify.

The denomination passed resolutions in 2021 to approve the blessing of same-sex unions and recognize cohabitating couples.

"Using the language that individuals use for themselves shows that we care as a Church and that we affirm them as a child of God," the guidance says.

The guidance concludes by pointing readers to nonprofits that include the left-wing Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and Stonewall, an LGBT charity in the U.K. whose guidance found its way into schools throughout the country.

“We are proud of our Inclusive Language Guide," a spokesperson for the denomination told The Christian Post. "It helps the Church hold conversations without making assumptions or inadvertently causing upset. Some find this especially useful when talking with those who may have had a different life experience to their own."

Regarding whether gendered language would still be used in Methodist marriage ceremonies, the spokesperson said: "Couples getting married in a Methodist Church will discuss with the minister how they wish to be referred to during their service. This ensures that the ceremony reflects who they are."

Father Calvin Robinson, who has been outspoken in fighting progressivism in the Church of England, blasted the U.K.-based Methodist Church for its guidance and suggested it's symptomatic of a neo-Marxist attempt to effectively destroy it.

"This is not Christianity," Robinson wrote on X. "It is Critical Theories: 'smash heteronormativity.' It is no longer enough to acknowledge disordered lifestyles. Everything normative and ordered must be demolished for fear of causing offense."

"Critical Theories is neo-Marxism. It is a communist ideology, antithetical to the Christian faith. It is not possible to be a communist *and* a Christian. One must make a choice. Embrace the ways of this trendy yet toxic ideology, or embrace God’s order," he continued, and urged the Methodist Church to "pick one."
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't sure where to post this, and it is NOT meant to bash the Pope, or Catholics. It is meant as a newsworthy article, in the same light that bad behavior of any Christian leaders should come under scrutiny and discussion. Perhaps there is a need for such a dedicated subforum, considering what's going on in the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant denominations, and so on. That being said, I have BIG respect for Archbishop Viganò for continuing to speak up for moral rectitude.

 
Last edited:
My understanding is that Archbiship Vigano is in hiding, keeps himself incommunicado, and has been for a number of years. I'm not sure if this somehow prevents Francis from sanctioning him (defrocking etc) by Francis being unable to deliver and serve Vigano with original physical documents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top