onward christian soldiers Reviews & Opinions
Submit onward christian soldiers review or read customer reviews:
100 Reviews Found
Watch onward christian soldiers video reviews and related movies:
See Onward Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Onward Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Mormon Tabernacle Choir - Onward Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Onward, Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Cedarmont Kids - Onward Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Bill & Gloria Gaither - Onward Christian Soldiers/We're Marching to Zion (Medley) (Live) on youtube.
See Onward Christian Soldiers on youtube.
See Onward, Christian Soldiers on youtube.
Scroll down to see all opinions ↓
How can a so called "Christian dating" application encourage a same sex relationship. I had the option to pick which gender i was interested in after selecting which gender I am.. seriously doesn't sound right to me. What evs if your into that items but really? on a Christian app?
looks like it was thrown together in a hurry: there is not even a password verification when one signs up, nor can you see the password when you type. Tell me who has been this negligent in 25 years of the internet? Huge security risk!
I have NOT been able to log into your application EVER - right from the moment I signed up/created a profile on your website! I've tried reinstalling this useless application on my phone as well as changing my password via your website, and up to now, I have not been able to move pass beyond the log in screen. Perhaps it's about time you hire more experienced and better qualified Application developers to maintain your app, Christian Connection team...??
Has potential however it is very expensive to be a full member... I remember I created an acc and deleted it and then came back a few weeks later to create a fresh one... The fresh acc was the one I was getting frequent messages but your admin deleted it and created me go back to my old one I just didnt obtain it... On top of that although not the apps fault people do ignore your waves etc.. Are we not meant to be Christians?... Overall I just found the process of getting to know people a struggle...
Not a poor first effort for the application would like to see an easier log in instead of having to remember your username ( eg: use email or username) would also like to see it remember my log in info or stay logged in after the application is closed otherwise it's no various from using the www service on a mobile device... Which I might add at least remembers your log in for a while
It's good...when it works. It often gets stuck on the loading screen and eventually says that you are not connected to the internet (even though I am, and other apps etc are working) The chat feature looks better on the application than it does on the website.
That full members can only notice other full members is a complete deal breaker. This website seems a bit greedier than most. I've paid for just 1 month and even having paid, I cannot begin a conversation with any other members unless they've also paid.
one more untrustworthy so called Christian dating application place in your country and email address and then it ever stops saying please wait or something like that nothing but a scam under the guise of the heading Christian hmm wonder just how satisfied jesus will be about this on judgment day.
this globe bee amazing for what I need to haveing a amazing life with some one that's willing two love me and that can trust me .andcan note that I will be in love with you I tack my love life verey surat no disrespect but I don't like to go to bed with a woman on the first date I like to respect the lady by taking her out and having a amazing night and I would like to know what the lady would like to do in the near future what would you like to be I like to know more about the ladies and the lady knowi
This saying reflects the importance of Shintoism in Japanese family traditions, the trend toward "Christian" (western-style) weddings, and the popularity of Buddhist funerals. It also reflects the failure of Christian evangelists to bring more than a little percentage of Japanese into the fold. Beginning with Portuguese Jesuits in 1549, thousands of westerners representing every Christian denomination have worked in Japanese missions. Today, fewer than 2% of Japanese identify themselves as Christians. Why?This book is the author's doctoral thesis from Leiden University in Amsterdam. He was a twenty-year veteran in Christian ministries when he began to compile different scholarly writings into one coherent explanation of the enigma that is Japan's put in Christendom. I think he succeeds in presenting a coherent explanation, but it's NOT a easy one! This is a long, dense, thorough examination of Japanese history, culture, and psychology and how a lot of factors have combined to create this country so resistant to Christian 's academic writing and has not been altered to conform to anyone's idea of "good light reading." It opens with pages and pages of "endorsements" by experts, has more pages and pages of explanation of methodology, and the footnotes at the end of every chapter will give you a LOT more info than you wanted. Dr. Lee also has the academician's habit of telling you what he's going to tell you, then telling it to you, and then telling you what he's told you. College professors do this in why the five stars? Because, if you're patient and can do some skipping, there's a really amazing book in here. Lee's handling of this extremely complicated topic makes it understandable even to those of us who are not experts in the field. Of particular interest is the influence which Christianity and Christian missionaries have had on the development of modern Japan; an influence which is disproportionate to the numbers of Japanese who are professed Christians. If you're interested in Japan and Japanese culture, you shouldn't miss this one. It's fascinating reading.
This book is the best overview of Christian history of Japan that I have read. Finding books that cover not only the 16 th century, but also post Globe Battle 2 is difficult. I choose this rating because I gained such a huge amount of info from the book. It is not difficult to read! I would recommend this for all adults interested in Christianity in Japan.
Dr. Lee does a amazing job covering all aspects of a subject that is so complex, even the experts argue the root cause of the problem. It's broad enough to cover everything without going into unnecessary depth, making it extremely accessible to the casual reader.
Having just finished this, first of all do understand this is a thesis that's been created available as a book and possibly a bit prematurely.I picked this up hoping for a solid overview of the history of Christianity in Japan along with some critique of how the Japanese church and foreign missionaries could be better placed to contexualise the Gospel, I ended up feeling it didn't really obtain there.I'm not sure if this kindle ver I read was an OCR of the print edition but there was a lot of typos and the layout created it harder than it need be to read. Generally there's a fluidity and simplicity to the author's writing that means you can carve through it faster than most theses; yet there's enough turns of phrase that are awkward, along with repetitive rhetoric that it gets a bit frustrating if you're expecting an edited book.I felt that it is a powerful critique to Western involvement in the Japanese Church and whilst trying to encompass it all it's simply isn't thorough enough. The author clearly has read a lot in researching this subject yet some of the errors in happenings or references left me unsure how acquainted he was with some of it. I found that it jumped from anecdote to anecdote sometimes with a century between them trying to thread the needle on an arguments that often ended in a non sequitur. It's one of those books that I felt only half of it was on the cash but that's mingled in with the other half of unnecessary content. I felt it was trying to be factual on one hand yet had enough private determinations that it shaded most Western Christian activity in Japan as negative. Whilst it was trying to span the spectrum of missionary and indigenous church beliefs in Japan, also it never established really what was the Gospel, as in what was the point of Christianity.Overall I felt that it might be better to begin with Atsuyoshi Fujiwara's Theology of Culture in a Japanese Context that attempts to cover related ground, yet in more academic language, and putting it within a framework and critique of Niebuhr's missiology.
Dr. Lee's comprehension of and passion for the problems that stand versus the salvation of the Japanese are obvious. This book is very impressive--well researched, easily understood and extremely well documented: a must for anyone with a heart for the Japanese people.
Especially critical book for future missionaries to Japan! It's not so deep in detail and history, but it gives you enough to certainly have a handle on the complex relationship between Japan and Christianity.
Betrand is not advocating for the abuse of Christians, be it verbal or non verbal. He is advocating for free thought and rational thinking to the extent that the human mind can conceive. He respectfully acknowledges the uncertainty in life. We cannot be 100% certain about most things. Just as there is no scientific proof for the existence of God, there is neither a scientific proof that disproves the existence of God. THIS BOOK IS NOT A PROOF versus the existence of God. Betrand is only sharing his thoughts as he understands religion and in specificity, Christianity. These are his subjective thoughts. As reader, appreciate them and come up with your own subjective thoughts. Your thoughts will be incomplete until you READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF. Don't worship Betrand, he is a human being just like you. Read the bible and come to your own conclusion on whether it is or is not absolute.
I read this book when I was 13 years old and the result was profound.I highly recommend it. If I could give everyone on the planet a free copy of this book I I return to it decades later and Russell's logic is just as devastating as it was when I first read it.Warning believers: Cognitive Dissonance ahead. Fasten your seat belt.
The next time some superstitious myth repeating Christian moron tries to corner you, or even if they are respectful about it, there is plenty of info / ammunition in this book to support you obtain them off your back. You might even obtain them to begin questioning their beliefs.
Sir Bertrand is not just a amazing philosopher, but a amazing writer. He won the Nobel Prize for literature, so that tells you. This book has several essays on the general topic of religion and its evils, the best being the first one, "Why I Am Not a Christian". There, his discussion of Jesus is fascinating and powerful. He explains why Jesus was not really that "wise", and also why he was not really a very caring person. Everyone, believer or atheist, and everyone in between should read this book. It is wise, intelligent, honest, moral, and never mad or condescending.
Bertrand Russell was a polymath: a mathematician, a philosopher, a historian, a pacifist who was jailed for his anti-war views, and a Nobel Laureate in Literature. His essay "Why I Am Not A Christian," a lecture he delivered in 1927, is a clear, succinct, and well-reasoned brief versus Christianity and the existence of a Deity (Christian or not). His hard to refute arguments presented in the essay are for those who are begin to concepts which may not agree with their own views or their upbringing. But to read it is a journey worth the effort and may begin to the reader fresh vistas.
Bertrand Russell was arguably one of the best skeptical writers of the 20th century and his description of why a person of reason, observation, science and history could not continue to pretend that religion held anything of value for him, his neighbors and collegues or the public at large. Whether you're questioning the validity of religion, or just curious about how an athiest thinks and feels this is a amazing put to start. It's crystal clear, short and to the point.
Bertrand Russell is a terrific writer, and the essays collected in this book represent some of his best work. As the title makes clear, most of the book is dedicated to Russell's thoughts on religion, which are somewhat less than flattering. Be aware of what you're getting into, though. If you wish a thorough treatment on the rationality of religious belief in a philosophical context, you're better off with something like George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Versus God." Russell is more concerned with the social and moral effects of religion, which is certainly no less interesting, but it's a somewhat various e Amazon review of this book mentioned that some of the essays included herein are outdated, since they deal with contemporary social and ethical concerns of the early twentieth century. That may be true, but I still found them to be very interesting reading. Reading about the social hero of an age through the eyes of someone like Russell, rather than in a book of history, seems to create that part of our past all the more real. It's interesting to see what the globe was like at the time, and where Russell thought it was going. Sometimes there are surprises about what's gotten better and what's gotten addition to Russell's essays, the book contains an appendix which info the manner in which Russell was prevented from teaching philosophy at Fresh York Town College, which is also interesting reading, if rather disturbing. The number and the zealotry of those calumniators to whom the idea of a prominent atheist teaching philosophy was such anathema were simply disgusting.If you're interested in reading the freethinker's point of view, you could do small better than Russell. He is far more engaging than most philosophers, and all of these essays are thoughtful and well worth your time.
I enjoyed the essays and they were well written. Although I do search that they do not really respond anything I was looking for. In fact it created me decide that the arguments could be used in any context and probably be used for any belief. Anyway it did create decide I have some kind of belief even it is just agnostic.
Being a Vietnam Vet, this film brought back memories. Mel Gibson acting was superior. No doubt he did his home-work with filming this movie. The film has its sad moments...but when American soldiers are dying in battle...you can't support cry a small bit. However, I recommend this film to all Vietnam Vets...and obtain ready to shed some crying....deep down in your soul. A lot of young/0ld men died in this movie...that was actually fought in the central highlands or S. Vietnam. Today, when you see a man or woman in U.S. military dress...please shake their hand...and thank them for serving. No one ever thanked me for serving. But, I always shake any the hand of all U.S. military persons that I see. Only those that were there...really can understand...what we went through.. God bless our men and women serving our country. You will be proud of purchasing and watching this movie...it's well worth the money!
The hits just hold coming when it comes to Mel Gibson. I'm a huge fan of his work and this is just another fine l Gibson plays another true life character in Lt. Col. Hal Moore, US Army. The Vietnam Battle remains one of the most controversial conflicts that the US military has been involved in its storied history, but in this movie, the controversy takes a back seat to the heroism of the men who fought a battle that their country had told them to. These brave men of the US Army's 7th Air Cavalry fought, died and those fortunate to survive in the Ia Drang Valley of South Vietnam had their story told on paper and thanks to the involvement of Mel Gibson, that story comes to e training of the men involved in the months before the attack to their eventually deployment after the a lot of months after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution is told here as well as the principal three days of war as well. As well as the life of Colonel Moore and his family. Mel Gibson plays a reserved and devout family man who is wise and powerful on the battlefield with his men. Truly Mel has done a amazing job in playing tons of heroes before. The fact that its a true person he's portraying only adds to it.But there is also another really amazing story told on the part of actress Madeleine Stowe who plays Julie Moore, the colonel's devoted wife. A sort of homefront storyline in which she takes command of the military wives doing primary things as in taking care of their needs in the absence of their husbands but probably the best stage in which she takes it upon herself to notify them of tragedy in the Army's callous e acting is phenomenal and the action is brutal and real to life. Heroism can be told without silly propaganda and that's what is seen here, with respect and honesty. Mel Gibson, Madeleine Stowe, Greg Kinnear, Sam Elliot, Chris Klein, Keri Russell and so a lot of others create a strong movie. So much has been created about Vietnam's controversy, but its amazing to finally see a film of the men who fought it with uly a amazing movie.
Going out Highway 19, west of Pleiku, there was the French tea plantation, where a Frenchman and his two daughters lived, in relative security throughout the American battle in Vietnam (LBJ had given orders that no American troops were to fire into the tea plantation, even if fired upon). A bit beyond, was LZ Oasis. And from there one could look off to the southwest, some 20-30 km, and see the Chu Pong massif. Beneath, and around was the river valley known as the Ia Drang. By 1969, it seemed that no American soldiers really knew what happened there, other than the all-encompassing “some poor s…”. The massif’s shadow reached the Oasis, darkly, but in a metaphorical anks to Joe Galloway, who was the only reporter at the War of the Ia Drang, in 1965, and who, in conjunction with the commanding officer, Lt. Col. Hal Moore, wrote the book “We were soldiers once, and young,” which was published almost three decades after the battle, we now have a fairly accurate and objective picture of the battle. I’ve read (and reviewed in 2009) the book and have now seen the film twice. The book was much better, for a key reason: the quote from Aeschylus, “In war, truth is the first casualty,” which was an epigraph for the chapter on the after-battle “spin” that was placed on the battle, some of which was spun in the was the very first query in the movie: “Where does it begin?” For me, in particular, it was a 6-star answer, another shadow, that stopped too soon: June 25, 1954. The ambush and annihilation of the 2000 men and 10 tanks of French Groupe Mobile 100, on Highway 19, near An Khe. What followed is a 2-minute Hollywood re-enactment of the ambush… and the viewer is treated to some French epithets: pute chaleur, pute herbe, even pute pays… all of which was quite true, for armies of occupation. What is unmentioned is that this war occurred six weeks AFTER the fall of Dien Bien Phu, when most of the globe thought the battle was over. Another ver of the latest men to die for a mistake. Further, unmentioned, is that American tanks fought in precisely the same area, only to be superseded by Soviet T-54’s, with Vietnamese crews, splitting southern Vietnam in half, in April 1975. That too could have been a lot of ways, the Ia Drang was unique. It happened so very early in the war. Though precise numbers remain a bit fuzzy, probably more American soldiers died in the Ia Drang than at more popular battles, for example, Hue and Khe Sanh. “Famous” for a reason: more reporters were at the latter ones! Would we know anything about the Ia Drang if Joe Galloway had not been there? There was no other war in which so a lot of Americans and Vietnamese fought out in the open. It was extremely rare for American troops in Vietnam to train, in the States, before deployment, as a unit. Far more typically, replacements were fed into troops piecemeal, knowing no one already there (which, I felt, was a better way, since “veterans” of 10 months can bring the newbies up to speed, quickly). It appears that Lt. Col. Moore was genuinely depicted as a “lead from the front” officer: “my boots will be the first on the ground, and the latest off,” “we will all come home,” and “take care of the men.” I knew two such officers. Regrettably, I knew a lot of others, including one who could not read a map. The 1st Cav patches in the film were yellow, real enough in 1965, before going to all black camouflage, and officers not wearing their rank (mindful of snipers!).Even Hollywood could not have created up another “shadow.” The 1/7th Cav, the unit that Moore led, was the SAME one that Custer led (and Moore fully appreciated the irony). Also, purportedly, the 1/7th lost its war standard in Korea. And now, in 1965, they were one of the very few troops ever to have to call “broken arrow,” meaning that it was being overrun, and EVERY plane in the zone of operation was to provide ere was a lot in the film I liked. A willingness to depict what one had to do when an American soldier got hit with white phosphorous – chop it out with a knife; a very accurate depiction of an American soldier hit with napalm; the callousness of delivering notifications of the death of one’s husband via a cab driver; the black wife of an officer unable to use a laundromat in the city outside Fort Benning, GA, in 1965, because it was “Whites Only”; the jackals of the press arriving just after the battle, with their inane questions; the efforts of the MACV high command to obtain Moore off the battlefield, ‘cause losing draftees is one thing, but losing a Lt. Col. is a “massacre”; and yes, Moore leading from the front and refusing to leave the battlefield.And there was a lot about the film I did not like. At Fort Benning, Moore is apparently reading what the French had done in Indochine, in French, based on the book he carried, and he had been to Harvard, pute Harvard if you will excuse my French, and yet does not ask the most fundamental questions about why America is in the same “shadow”; the “tell my wife I love her” sign-off of the dying soldier; the “John Wayne” charge, which “Moore” led, that never happened; the omission of the worse slaughter at LZ Albany (only the fighting at LZ X-Ray was depicted), and, yes, where was Aeschylus, when we really required him, as he was depicted in the book?Moore deserves much credit for being one of the first back to Vietnam, to lead in efforts of reconciliation with the former adversary. As for the movie, 3-stars.
Mel Gibson's private vendetta's aside, here is one of the best, if not THE best, Viet Nam films every made. Lt. Col. Hal Moor, played by Gibson, arguably is the only soldier who ever stood entirely for his men (then or now), and this classic is the only film of its kind ever created about and for the soldier on the battlefield. You may not like or have fun battle movies, or even help the ravages of war, but this film is real to Moor's book he wrote about his men...brave and fearless men who were engaged in one of Viet Nam's most lopsided war that should have been won by the Viet Cong, except his men managed the impossible and defeated 'the perceived enemy.'
This is absolutely the best of all the Viet Nam Battle movies period. Based on the book written by Lt General (Ret.) Hal Moore and Joe Galloway it depicts the first war between the forces of North Viet Nam and the U.S. Troops in the Ia Drang valley in the central highlands of South Viet Nam. Hal Moore was used as a consultant on the movie and he indicated it was done right. According to General Moore all the other movies about the battle were not depicting the happenings as they truly were but had other agendas. The movie depicts both side of the conflict realistically and draws the viewer in to the futility that was the Viet Nam War. There were real heroes on both sides and after the war and all the casualties (especially to the North Viet Nam army/Viet Cong) the Ia Drang Valley still remained under control of the Troops of North Viet Nam.
This film is based on the book of the same title about the War of Ia Drang during the Vietnam Battle by Lt. Col. Hal Moore and Joe Galloway. It is offers a more accurate portrayal of combat in the Vietnam Battle as compared to the more metaphorical films such as APOCALYPSE NOW, FULL METAL JACKET or PLATOON. WE WERE SOLDIERS concentrates on heroism and sacrifice in Vietnam as opposed to the other aspects (anti-war/demoralized troops, civilian massacres, drugs, corruption,etc.) that are explored in the other Vietnam movies.Randall Wallace (BRAVEHEART) is the writer/director. Mel Gibson stars as Moore with co-stars Sam Elliott (ROUGH RIDERS), Greg Kinnear (AS GOOD AS IT GETS), Madeleine Stowe (12 MONKEYS), Barry Pepper (SAVING PRIVATE RYAN), Keri Russell (THE AMERICANS), Jon Hamm (MAD MEN) and Clark Gregg (IRON MAN). The ill-fated French bugler in the opening stage is Randall Wallace's son.WE WERE SOLDIERS lacks the stunning and artistic drama of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, but it still delivers a very amazing portrayal of heroism and sacrifice in a very controversial highlight of the film that, unfortunately, is only in the deleted scenes is Moore's post-battle meeting with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and Gen. William Westmoreland. This stage should have been kept in the film because it sums up the Johnson Administration's (particularly McNamara) misguided philosophy in Vietnam.WE WERE SOLDIERS is highly recommended as one of the best, if not the best, Vietnam Battle movies.
Although it seems real that the film captures a lot of of the sequences of the happenings of the War of Ia Drang, I'd be very surprised if the commander lieutenant colonel had really fought like a common soldier at the front line. I guess it's a kind of the notorious Hollywood's dramatization related to Airforce One and Independence Day, in which the President himself engages in the entire war e battlefield in the film does not look like a Vietnamese jungle. In a lot of scenes, the commander is just standing in the field wide-open without much protection, to talkie-talk to someone. I'd be very surprised if Viet Com didn't have any snipers that target the easily identifiable commander.I wonder what kind of people they are who enthusiastically supported this film and gave five stars.
The portrayal of the Colonel by Mel Gibson demonstrates these characteristics both in his family relationships and his leadership style with his men. Though this is now an older film and portrays an older time I think it accurately represents the men of that time whom I grew up with --- I grew up in western Kansas so I can't speak for the whole country-- those that like to isolate masculinity by calling it toxic and rewrite what should be normal in men will perhaps not be able to believe that this acting represents reality. However I can attest that it is the reality I grew up with, men that acted with courage, valor, integrity and loyalty and it is amazing to see a film that accurately portrays what masculinity should look like. For younger men who have not had amazing role models, there are several to choose from in this film besides the colonel.