Who Would Jesus Kill?

November 2, 2004 10:14 AM

Jesus Built My M16 (474.9 MB Music Video torrent)"The Future Patriots were established in 2002 by the Honorable Donald Rumsfeld as a method of training our nation's youth in the arts of propaganda, fear-mongering, race-baiting, dis-information, and electoral fraud. We aim to assure that the control of this great nation will never be handed over to the liberal homosexual atheists who threaten our way of life by their very existence. May these songs profit the Revolution! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!"
posted by quasistoic (22 comments total)

What a tease you are....
posted by lodurr at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2004

Jesus Christ: The End and Ground of Tolerance

"[S]ince the wrath of Jesus will consign to everlasting punishment all who do not obey the gospel, therefore we must give place to wrath, and love our enemies. Since Christ alone, crucified-for-sinners, has the final right to kill his religious enemies, therefore Christianity will spread not by killing for Christ, but by dying with Christ - that others might live. The final triumph of the crucified Christ is a call to patient suffering, not political success." (>>)
posted by aaronshaf at 10:45 AM on November 2, 2004

Note to anyone who might be confused: the first site is a parody, but the second one is real. Real. Real.

To quote Max von Sydow's brilliant line in Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters:

If Jesus Christ could come back today, he would never stop throwing up.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:49 AM on November 2, 2004

sidhedevil: not surprisingly he uses citation from Paul in a pretty convenient appeal to authority. If my memory serves Paul wasn't far from being a full blown Taliban and we can imagine what these guys like Taliban, but disguised as christians, are up to.
posted by elpapacito at 11:03 AM on November 2, 2004

... but the second one is real. Real. Real.

I'm confused; which second site?
posted by lodurr at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2004

Thank you, iMovie. The new torrent for the new video (23.42 MB) is here.

I'm surprised that it came out such good quality. Go Apple. Hurrah.
posted by quasistoic at 11:23 AM on November 2, 2004

(That should be understood to mean that it's the same video as before, just at a smaller filesize.)
posted by quasistoic at 11:26 AM on November 2, 2004

> I'm confused; which second site?

The one only he can see, where he read the Protocols of the Elders of Texas.
posted by jfuller at 11:32 AM on November 2, 2004

The one only he can see, where he read the Protocols of the Elders of Texas.

ROFL!
posted by quonsar at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2004

I am no less confused than I was before. The "first" link is a bit-torrent of what I take to be a music video for (what appears to be) the parody band whose site is target of the second link. What am I missing? (Bearing in mind that I'm at work where I can't installl BitTorrent and can't very easily watch a loud video, anyway.)

Or is Sidhedevil saying that the second site is really, really, really a parody band?
posted by lodurr at 11:39 AM on November 2, 2004

lodurr, there are two links in the first line of the post.
posted by anathema at 11:40 AM on November 2, 2004

Ummm.... Yes.... See my post. One is to a video, the other is to what appears to be a parody band called The Future Patriots. Is the point that they're really not a parody band?
posted by lodurr at 11:44 AM on November 2, 2004

No, no, no. I meant the second site linked on the thread (by aaronshaf).

Also, I'm a girl. I mean, a LADY! I mean, a person with XX chromosomes living as a woman.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:52 AM on November 2, 2004

No, no. Sidhedevil is calling aaronshaf's link "the second link".

My first link is to a bittorrent of the (very large) music video. My second link (on the same line) is to the band's website.
My third link is to a bittorrent of the (much) smaller version of the same music video.

aaronshaf's link is not a parody.
posted by quasistoic at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2004

Phfew. Had me worried, there.

But I'm still confused: Do you see something sinister in that? Because while it's far from ecumenical, and it does have a bit of an elitist tinge, it looks to me like the opposite of worrisome.

Also: Don't be hard on him. He probably doesn't know how to pronounce "Leohannon Sidhe", either.
posted by lodurr at 11:56 AM on November 2, 2004

I decided to go ahead and host the smaller version of the video.

If anyone is willing to download it and mirror the file, please do so and email me the link.
eatmyhotpants[at]quasistoic.org
posted by quasistoic at 1:11 PM on November 2, 2004

that video definately doesnt need 473 mb of quailty
posted by Satapher at 2:24 PM on November 2, 2004

No, it really doesn't, which is why I posted a torrent for the smaller version also. And yet, looking at the stats for the two torrents right now:

Small file
6 Seeders, 2 Leechers

Big file
16 Seeders, 30 Leechers
posted by quasistoic at 2:56 PM on November 2, 2004

Did you actually read the second link, elpapacito?

To put it another way: All religious tolerance will end because Christ will come. And therefore it dare not end until he comes. ... Or to put it more personally, you not only may, but must, make room for religious pluralism in the world, not in spite of, but because of, the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ over all false religions.

Therefore Christian graduates of Wheaton College will not play the Joshua (emphasis mine) of the conquest of Canaan, which was a redemptive-historical season of savagery and judgment, appointed by God for a limited time and place. But now with the coming of Jesus into the world and the kingdom of God (by which the author means "membership in the favored people of God", ie Christianity) being taken away from Israel (Matthew 21:43) and given to a people bearing the fruits of it from every tribe and tongue and nation-Palestinian, Jew, Saudi, Afghani, Latino, Chinese-a new time and a new way is here. The way of suffering and patience and love and courage, persuading and pleading with the world to be reconciled to God.

Suffering, as opposed to infliciting it. Patience. Love. Courage.

Finally, God, should we fight to spare our Christ the shame of rejection and the cross? No. Put your sword away. ... Don't kill to spread your faith. Die to spread your faith. Christ is the end and the ground of your tolerance and your suffering. Give place to wrath. Love your enemies.

For a Protestant fundamentalist, the author makes a very Franciscan argument: it is God's right, and God's alone, to take vengeance.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:18 PM on November 2, 2004

The one only he can see, where he read the Protocols of the Elders of Texas.

Classic, just classic.
posted by mkhall at 5:13 PM on November 2, 2004

The John Piper speech, though I approve of its conclusion, is still a bit unsettling for a non-fundamentalist Christian like me. I mean, the whole argument for tolerance of non-Christians is that eventually, Jesus himself will come down from Heaven and destroy all the infidels in one fell swoop. It's just freaky logic and a disturbing worldview for someone on the outside.

Fun fact: I know someone from rural Illinois who was raised as a fundamentalist and once considered going to Wheaton College. He went to Houghton College instead - also a Christian school, but in New York, so it's cool.
posted by skoosh at 5:16 PM on November 2, 2004

Whoops. By "non-fundamentalist Christian", I mean I am neither Christian nor a Christian fundamentalist.
posted by skoosh at 5:18 PM on November 2, 2004