Sunday, March 26, 2006
Islam: The religion of peace
How much longer are we going to be fed this "Islam is a religion of peace" crap? This is yet more proof that Islam is definately not a religion of peace. Threatening to riot because one man converts to Christianity and isn't killed for it doesn't speak volumes about the peaceful leanings of Muslims in Afganistan. What's next, rioting if the weather isn't what they want?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
How much longer are we going to be fed this "Islam is a religion of peace" crap?
says the ¨christian¨ that supports war.
can you truly not recognize your own hypocrisy?
lets just say for a moment that a buddhist or an atheist were to read your comments on ¨christian¨ politics and perspectives...married to your thoughts on the politics and persperctives of war. how, i ask you, could they not be led to ask the same question in reply...how much longer are we going to be fed this ¨Christianity is a religion of peace¨ crap?
doug
I don't remember the last time that Christians rioted and murdered people and destroyed property in protest over cartoons or books or supported the eradication of an entire race of people. I don't believe that being a Christian that supports the war makes me a hypocrite. Would Jesus carry a gun and fight in a war? No, I don't believe he would. By the same token, would Jesus stand by and let countless thousands be butchered and do nothing to stop it? Again, I don't believe he would. You don't have any idea why I support the war, yet you label me a hypocrite. I think that's awfully presumptuous of you. I disagree with your stance on the war but I don't doubt for a second your faith or you Christianity. It would be nice if you would extend me and others who disagree with you that same courtesy.
Mike
Mike,
I don't want to be an ass here.
Without doing the research at this moment - we may agree that black persons in our country were enslaved, mobbed, and murdered (for much less than cartoons and books) by many who declared themselves Christians.
Maybe you didn't know that the majority of the Christian church in Germany supported the ideals of Hitler. This is when they supported the eradication of an entire race of people.
"By the same token, would Jesus stand by and let countless thousands be butchered and do nothing to stop it?"
I don't think we disagree about this, but we do disagree with what it means to "not stand by".
just a few thoughts.
I have to look at it from the perspective of this: our religions are represented as our actions, not our beliefs. It is as it has been said by Erwin McManus, "It is more important to change what people care about than what we believe." It is obvious that Muslims "believe" in a religion of peace, but "care about" actions that sometimes contradict that belief.
It is obvious that Christians "believe" in Jesus, given His place as the founder of our religion, but we "care about" protecting the democratic legality of faith at the expense of, well, pretty much anything that threatens "God's chosen people."
Can you see where this is coming from? America claiming to be a Christian nation and then bombing the hell out of people who present a "global threat"? Can you see where this doesn't make sense? I know the way Doug said it was point-blank, but to me it's like being pro-life and pro-death penalty. There seems to me to be an obvious contradiction.
Again, just thoughts.
big sexy
Travis is certainly correct, in our past the Christian faith has some pretty sordid marks against it. I did not mean to imply that wasn’t the case. Those black marks however lie on the practitioners of the faith, not the faith itself. The point I was initially attempting to make is that as a faith, Islam advocates the destruction of those who don’t follow Allah. During all its history Islam has never been a religion of peace. That’s not to say that all Muslims are blood crazed savages. But their faith is a violent one. The whole notion that it is a religion of peace is a bunch of politically correct garbage that we’re being fed by the government, CAIR and others.
Casey, I see your point, but that’s not where I’m coming from. As Americans, we all care, at some level, about preserving our way of life. But I don’t think that America can be classified as a “Christian nation”. Rather, it is a nation populated by many Christians and people of other faiths (or no faith). The distinction is that our government is not a theocracy and putting a Christian label on the United States is misleading. One can look at Iran and say they are a Muslim nation. Not because their population is predominantly Muslim, but because their government is run by the religious leaders. I also don’t think that being American qualifies us as “God’s chosen people”. The only think that qualifies us as one of God’s chosen is faith in Jesus Christ, and that obviously transcends nationality, race, etc.
Hopefully, that clears some things up.
Mike
Incidentally, I am pro-life and pro-death penalty and I don’t think there is a contradiction. But that is a discussion for another day.
my only question, that may begin the pro-life/death penalty discussion is this:
are known transgressions against God and fellow human beings higher and more serious than known transgressions of civil/criminal laws of a particular nation or state?
are they not one in the same? if so, then if we as followers of Christ can critique our punitive system based on God's activity towards us, shouldn't we advocate treating transgressors as God has treated us when we followed suit? isn't this the higher of the standards--to act in the way of God? our political system, as you've said and I agree, is not based on a Christocentric worldview--so do we prophetically critique it or not?
is not life spared on both ends in the same fashion?
just stimulation. not that kind, though...
Transgressions against God are obviously more serious that transgressions against civil law. Reflections of the Ten Commandments can be found in almost every nations system of law. So civil authority draws (at least in part) from God’s laws. In the Old Testament, murderers, kidnappers, rapists, liars, etc were put to death, at God’s direction. In Romans 13, Paul talks about the authority of government:
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
Government is invested with the power to prosecute criminals by God. Verse 4 in particular demonstrates this. If you do evil, there are consequences. Government does not have the luxury of turning the other cheek.
I don’t see that there is a contradiction in being pro-life and pro-death penalty. I’m a firm believer that each person is responsible for their own actions. Any person who breaks the law is responsible for their actions and must face the consequences of those actions, whether it be community service, prison time or death. A child that is aborted is innocent and has done nothing to warrant the gruesome death that is abortion. The same cannot be said of a murderer or rapist. Their actions deserve the ultimate price. Whereas God extends us mercy instead of justice through Jesus, the government cannot. Laws exist for the protection of mankind. Without laws and government we would have anarchy.
Stimulation of a different sort, but still not that kind.
Mike
if the government does not have that luxury then that government is not truly subject to God and therefore the Romans 13 equivocacy does not fit. realize that Paul had no love for Caesar and was not saying anything good about government but about God being over and above that government.
if the government does not have the luxury of turning the other cheek and implementing Christological principles then it is not a Romans 13 government and therefore cannot be honored in it's quests.
life is more valuable before a person is able to make mistakes? was grace not extended from God prior to our sin?
I guess my only question is...
"If" the muslim religion is, in its essence, and according to its teachings, a violent religion...
AND
if the Christian religion is, in its essence, and according to its teachings, a religion of Peace...
then who is the more faithful: Muslims who support violence, or Christians who support violence?
If you affirm that Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion concerned with the welfare of all, then aren't we more hypocritical to promote war and wealth than the muslims, who according to your calculations, are supposed to be violent, according to the tenets of their faith?
I’m not saying that infant life is more valuable than other life since lack the capacity to make mistakes (sin) in the womb or for the first year or so after birth. My point is that government exists to enforce laws. It is only necessary because of the fallen state of Man. If a government doesn’t enforce laws, then it serves no purpose. A government cannot enforce laws without there being some kind of consequence for breaking the law. If we sin, there are consequences, God makes that clear. If we break the law, there are consequences.
I don’t support violence per se. I support defending those who can’t defend themselves. If it takes violence to do that, so be it. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, I’m not going to sit back and let him do whatever he wants just so I won’t commit an act of violence. If I were walking down the street and saw a man being beaten by two other men, I would intervene, with violence if necessary. I don’t think it makes me hypocritical to resort to violence in defense of others.
I’m willing to admit that my beliefs on these particular issues could be wrong. If that’s the case and God challenges me about them, then I pray I would have to courage to change how I believe. Until such a time, that’s how I believe and it doesn’t make me (or others who believe the same way) any less Christian.
Mike
I know this seems like ambush but I appreciate hearing your perspectives.
the reason I don't agree with you is that I see two systems being allowed to stand separate but in the same space: a government that is necessary because of fallen man and a salvation/Kingdom that is necessary because of fallen man. I guess I just believe that if they both exist for the same purpose then they should be pursuing the same solution.
I know you believe Christ is the only adequate resolution to sin and I don't doubt your confession of Jesus. My position in the same turn is to say that if Christ is the only adequate solution to fallen man then the government should take a look at pursuing life instead of punishment, peace instead of war, community instead of empire.
I'm ending my comments here, because I think we see where each other is coming from. I've enjoyed the "merry banter" and I hope you have been stimulated (okay, maybe THAT KIND this time...)
Casey, any conversation with you is stimulating in multiple ways. :)
Mike
just don't tell my wife...she thinks I keep it all for her.
cheater!
Post a Comment