« Cho Seung-Hui Motivated By Religion of Peace? | Main | Someone Besides Imus Himself Really Was Hurt by His Infamous Remark »

From TCS:

First it was Johnny Muhammad, now it was Cho Sueng Hui aka Ismail Ax. Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it? Islam has become the tribe of choice of those who hate American society. I'm not talking about people who grew up as Muslims, confident and secure in their faith, good fathers, sons and neighbors. I'm talking about the angry, malignant, narcissist loners who want to reject their community utterly, to throw off their 'slave name' and represent the downtrodden of the earth by shooting their friends and neighbors.

Several radio shows have played the clips of the various clergy speaking at the service for the slain students. Listening to the sappy, cringing statements from the "Evangelicals" was embarrassing and infuriating. It's my guess that the Lutheran minister was hand-picked for the task because the powers that be knew he wouldn't "offend" anyone by proclaiming the message of the Gospel.
"For whoever shall be ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed..." Luke 9:26

>>>Precisely how many mass shooters have to turn out to have adopted Muslim names before we get it?

It would have helped if TSC had written "mass murderers" instead of the politicly correct term "shooters". What is the problem with people these days? Not only do they excuse these idiots, but they go out of their way not to OFFEND them!

Sad indeed that the 'Lutheran' clergy couldn't even bring himself to utter the name "Jesus Christ" nor mention the Easter Season's proclamation of our Lord's Resurrection. This 'Lutheran' may belong to the ELCA, whose professors & clergy generally do not believe in or teach the physical resurrection of Christ, making them 'Lutheran' in name only. Real Lutherans still believe, teach, & confess both our Lord Jesus's bodily resurrection, and the resurrection of all believers to eternal life.

Guarantee if Martin Luther were around, HE would have mentioned our Lord. Also he would have uttered some very damning words for the murderer and the lunacy of gun control laws. Luther was no fool and he didn't put with crap. Too bad many churches that bear his name have little semblance to the man who headed the protestant reformation 490 years ago. We sure could use the likes of him today.

Luther was a vicious anti-semite...but hey, if your into that...

Luther was a vicious anti-semite....just so you know...

That comment about "vicious anti-semite" has been foisted upon Christians for a long time, so I'd like to set the record straight.

When Luther was young, he admired the Jews and understood why their aversion to Christianity existed in light of the current Catholic teachings. As he aged, his views changed for several reasons and he sought to have Jews expelled from Germany. Evenso, in his last sermon, he asked his audience to act kindly toward Jews as they might convert to Christianity at some later point. I don't advocate Luther's violent suggestions; however, it appears that he recognized that judaism, like all non-Christian religions was in the wrong and as such, shouldn't exist, because it denied the role of Jesus of Nazareth as Christ. You must remember that anti-semitism and bashing of other religions was commonplace in Roman Catholicism during Luther's time. In other words, he was reflecting the common view.

BTW, despite what others say, Hitler only mentioned in passing Luther *once* in Hitler's writings and then only, in a casual way. Luther was by no means a major influence in the nazi cause. That "cause" had plenty of fuel from other sources, including a new age sources (Blavatsky for one).

Despite his venonmous anti-semite words, which Christians should never emulate, Luther was a great man who stood against the most powerful religious and political force known in the world at that time.

Fellowes,

Luther reflected the common view of the time, huh? In your original post it seems to be the time you are pining for. You also seem to imply that Luther would fight for rights of gun owners...Are you kidding? Would Jesus have carried a gun? Do you think Jesus would advocate the buying and selling of deadly assault weapons, or any weapons for that matter? The love thy enemy, turn the other cheek Jesus? How any gun toter can call himself a Christian is beyond me...Jesus was a pascifist! Why does this idea seem to escape all you Christian fundamentalist wingnuts?

Well, well, was wondering when a troll would show up. I see you couldn't even muster a name either...coward.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Lord is not a "pascifist" (your misspelling). David and all of Israel was armed, they fought with YHVH's HELP and Christ was their Lord even then (read psalms 110, you biblically illiterate wingnut). The Lord of the Old testament is the same One in the New. And at the last judgment, the enemy will be destroyed. Hardly pacifist.

Christ came to save the world, not to condemn it (Luke Chap 9); however, because you're biblically illiterate and can't spell either, it likely escaped your attention that the disciples of Christ were armed for self-defense, as can be read of in Mark 14 and Matt 26.

And turning the other cheek refers to spiritually doing so, NOT physically allowing others to harm or kill you. Now why does THAT escape you sniveling little trolls? Is it because you've never read or understood? Obviously.

Well, well, was wondering when a troll would show up. I see you couldn't even muster a name either...coward.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Lord is not a "pascifist" (your misspelling). David and all of Israel was armed, they fought with YHVH's HELP and Christ was their Lord even then (read psalms 110, you biblically illiterate wingnut). The Lord of the Old testament is the same One in the New. And at the last judgment, the enemy will be destroyed. Hardly pacifist.

Christ came to save the world, not to condemn it (Luke Chap 9); however, because you're biblically illiterate and can't spell either, it likely escaped your attention that the disciples of Christ were armed for self-defense, as can be read of in Mark 14 and Matt 26.

And turning the other cheek refers to spiritually doing so, NOT physically allowing others to harm or kill you. Now why does THAT escape you sniveling little trolls? Is it because you've never read or understood? Obviously.

fellowes,
you clearly are the one who has "misunderstood". I didn't realize that "thou shalt not kill" was open to your particular individual intepretation.

Certainly, David was in no way a beacon of virtue. Potentially characterized as a murderer and rapist, he was not always in "god's" good graces. So what if he or disciples were armed? I asked you if Jesus was armed, or would be armed? Didn't Jesus, in fact, ALLOW himself to be physically harmed and killed? Isn't his suffering the point, supposedly? I don't claim to be an expert on The New Testatment, by any means, but if you can honestly intepret Jesus's teachings to indicate in any way that killing, or responding to violence in any other way than a PASSIVE manner is acceptable, I would be interested in hearing about this....How much time did Jesus spend talking about killing and violence actually? I would honestly like to know.I thought the foucs was on Love?

I guess God would be "allowed" to commit violence himself...being who he is, but I don't see how murder is condoned in the Bible without God's expressed consent for it. It seems to me anyone perpetrating violence is essentially playing God and implying God's personal approval of the act. This is a claim that in the "common view of the time" is pretty absurd.

Thanks in advance...

"anon" if you're truly interested, please invest in some bible software that has both Greek and Hebrew concordances. Biblesoft has an excellent program. Also, e-sword is freeware and it's quite good, if cash is tight.

The commandment is "You shall not MURDER". The word in Hebrew is "ratsach" which translates to "murder" vs. killing. I realize of course, that most churches and others who profess to know "bible" won't mention this, but they should. Christ didn't advocate violence, that much is true. He didn't carry arms because He was divinely protected until His goal was achieved. He allowed Himself to be murdered when He became sin for us. No other human could step in for that, so no, we mere mortals ars not to simply stand for violence against ourselves. If we find ourselves helpless in times of persecution then of course we must submit, but there is no commandment or duty to simply stand unarmed and "take it".

David, as you noted wasn't perfect (he didn't murder Uriah the Hittite directly...he had it arranged so that Uriah would be helpless when confronting the enemy). David paid a steep price for his sins and he submitted to the correction. He never turned from God but admitted all his flaws. This is the mark of a godly person, albeit not a perfect one. We can't be perfect therefore Christ is perfect for us.

As I mentioned before, Luther was wrong to advocate violence against Jews even though it was common in his time to advocate this. He was hardly the ideal Christian, although his view softened somewhat as seen in his last sermon. Apparently he either saw the error of his ways or he was beginning to just before he died.