← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 13648 | Posts: 29 | Started: 2004-05-10
2004-05-10 19:10 | User Profile
What is it with most American Evangelicals? Why are they so eager to support US war crimes in the Middle East and beyond?
I watched Hal Linsdey lie on tv last night -- the insane hatred he was pouring on Arabs and Muslims (in effect calling their religion Satanic) was mind-blowing. Conversely, his nauseating praise of Jews and Israel was surreal in its crass flattery. I guess being hated by 2 billion people is well worth offering Israel unconditional financial and military support.
[QUOTE]What Will It Take?
As day by day Americaââ¬â¢s shame blazes across the television sets of the world, and we craft a multi-generational bloodbath to bequeath our children, I have a question for my evangelical Christian brothers and sisters: What will it take for us to come to our senses regarding our long gruesome trail of wreckage in Iraq?
First, however, I must confess that despite my conviction from the beginning of the folly of our attacking Iraq, other than having written a couple of articles and expressed my views among a few friends, I have played the coward. I have worried about my own popularity, respect, career, and peace. I have feared men and not God. Now I ask Him to forgive me for my faithlessness and my lack of love for Him and my neighbor. I ask Him to empower me to disregard the fear of man and to speak the truth with boldness to my generation.
What I need to know is what it will take for conservative Christians to cease enabling "our man in the White House," George W. Bush, to carry on his disastrous war against Iraq. The effects of the sanctions our nation placed on Iraq after the first Gulf War and kept on it for twelve years did not do it. That is, our forcing the withholding of water purification chemicals and many other supplies crucial to the health of the people, especially old folks and children. The 227,000ââ¬â350,000 children on-site United Nations officials estimate the sanctions killed did not do it. Nor did the bombs U.S. airmen dropped on the civilian Iraqi infrastructure that contaminated water and prevented hospitals from functioning due to lack of electricity and running water. No, we Christians prefer to call such men heroes and award them medals.
Paul Craig Roberts, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury, writes that for a period in 2001, the administration of our Christian President "even embargoed infant vaccines and medical equipment from being sent to Iraq."
A colossal militaristic empireââ¬â¢s storming into a small country less than one-tenth its own population and forcing its will and culture on that country did not do it, either. Not the thousands of civilian Iraqi men, women, and children we have slaughtered in our "liberation" of their country, nor the many more killed by anti-American factions for cooperating with us. Professional organizations such as Global Policy Forum, Amnesty International, and the Future of Freedom Foundation report that at least three thousand Iraqi civilians died during the initial Spring 2003 American onslaught, and many thousands more since then.
The nearly eight hundred U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq, and the thousands of wounded have not brought Christians to our senses. Rather, we support the President as he continues to send ââ¬â and keep ââ¬â troops there.
No, the reported treatment by American soldiers of Iraqi civilians, inside prison and out ââ¬â some beaten to pulp with rifle butts, others shot in the back, others sexually abused, and still others tortured to death ââ¬â have failed to do it. So, too, the wedding party we gunned down "by mistake." Likewise, our Marines shooting up ambulances bringing food, water, and medical aid to hungry and injured civilians, as well as the containers of food and water intended for them. And Fallujah, too, and the other towns, where the soccer fields are now cemeteries for the people.
The American sharpshooter blasting away from atop a tank did not do it, either, as he shot down various Iraqis, resisters and civilians alike, then shrugged and told a disturbed English journalist that the woman he had just blown apart was "just some chick" who got in the way.
Neither did the exposure of a cavalcade of Bush Administration claims for the falsehoods they were: claiming Iraq had "drones of death," mobile germ laboratories, a stash of Scud missiles, a pipeline to al-Qaida and "poison camps," chemical munitions bunkers, smallpox or anthrax to unleash on America, that it attempted to purchase uranium from Niger in order to develop its secret nuclear program, that it "continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," including nuclear weapons.
The tens of thousands of cluster bombs and the brightly-colored bomblets they spawn that we and the English dropped on Iraq did not do it. Nor have the thousands of bomblets which remain undetonated on the ground at this writing, waiting for yet more arms and legs of Iraqi children and adults ââ¬â and American soldiers ââ¬â to blow off. Rather, we prefer to put those airmen on the covers of our own Christian magazines, interview them on our syndicated Christian radio programs, and honor them in our church services.
Perhaps it will take the forcible government conscription of our own children so that they too might gain the opportunity to be separated from their families for months or even years, shot, burned alive in their humvees, or cluster-bombed. Or maybe have half their face blown off by a suicide bomber like my old college buddy did as he worked to help our government pump oil out of Iraq. He calls himself Mr. Pumpkin Head now and says one time when he blew his nose, the air came out his forehead.
We do know, donââ¬â¢t we, that some of those Republican Congressional leaders to whom we conservative Christians offer so much moral and monetary support are now calling for consideration of a national draft of our children? This, despite the United States Constitutionââ¬â¢s prohibition both of standing armies and "involuntary servitude." (Last time I checked, not one Congressman, nor Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter is "serving their country" in Iraq, even as they champion the herding of hundreds of thousands of other peopleââ¬â¢s children to do so.)
Or will it take other things, things we wish not to speak or think of, even more heart wrenching than our already-gathering tragedies? Will it take having our own beloved sons ââ¬â or daughters ââ¬â drafted and placed in situations neither they nor we would ever have intended for them, as they attempt to uphold the honor of their country and protect their loved ones? Situations that result perhaps in their beating unarmed prisoners to death, shooting mothers in the head, or blowing up buildings with children in them, as others of our young people have already done in Iraq. Situations they will carry around with them the remainder of their scarred lives. Will that finally do it?
"When you see a child five years old with no head what can you say?" asks one doctor in Fallujah. "When you see a child with no brain, just an open cavity, what can you say? When you see a mother just hold her infant with no head and the shells are all over her body."
What will it take, fellow Christian?
May 10, 2004
John J. Dwyer (send him mail) is chairman of history at Coram Deo Academy near Dallas, Texas. He is author of the historical novels Stonewall and Robert E. Lee, and the upcoming historical narrative The War Between the States, Americaââ¬â¢s Uncivil War. He also is the former editor and publisher of The Dallas/Fort Worth Heritage newspaper.
Copyright é 2004 LewRockwell.com[/QUOTE]
2004-05-10 19:27 | User Profile
Good article.
When American Christians come to their senses and start to think like Mr. Dwyer, the war is won. :yes:
2004-05-10 19:41 | User Profile
I wouldnt jump the gun just yet. Theres too much insanity on the "Judeo-Christian" right for that to change quickly anytime soon.
Luckily, the madmen who represent those opinions are a receding minority against a broad emerging coalition that is throughly repulsed by the war. Thats where our hope lies. The Israel-firsters and armageddon lovers are not going to see the light of sanity anytime soon (will they ever?).
Luckily also, we dont have such people in Britain. And the vast majority of British public opinion now favours a complete pull out. Blair is in real strife now and a few more damning photos of torture would be the straw that breaks the Camel's back.
2004-05-10 20:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]What is it with most American Evangelicals? Why are they so eager to support US war crimes in the Middle East and beyond?
I watched Hal Linsdey lie on tv last night -- the insane hatred he was pouring on Arabs and Muslims (in effect calling their religion Satanic) was mind-blowing. Conversely, his nauseating praise of Jews and Israel was surreal in its crass flattery. I guess being hated by 2 billion people is well worth offering Israel unconditional financial and military support.[/QUOTE]
Islam is satanic. That is the Christian perspective.
Israel is also satanic. Their religion is satanic. Offering Israel unconditional financial and military support, is satanic, even if they weren't satanic. Hal Lindsey is satanic.
Zionism has been a most effective way of subverting conservative Christians.
2004-05-10 20:11 | User Profile
Islam (and presumably other religions) is Satanic?
That is not the position of mainstream, orthodox Christianity.
2004-05-10 20:27 | User Profile
The position of Orthodox Christianity (and I believe Catholicism and most Protestants, as well) is that the only way to salvation is through Christ. However, the non-Christian may be saved in spite of the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God. Therefore, I think that saying "Islam is Satanic" might be going a little far.
2004-05-10 22:00 | User Profile
Islam is a heresy, and a misfortune, but 'satanic' is too strong a word.
2004-05-10 22:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The position of Orthodox Christianity (and I believe Catholicism and most Protestants, as well) is that the only way to salvation is through Christ. However, the non-Christian may be saved in spite of the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God. Therefore, I think that saying "Islam is Satanic" might be going a little far.[/QUOTE]That describes the Catholic position as well.
Catholics are not monolithic in their views on the salvation of people who die outside the Church, but some believe that Christ's statement "No one comes to the Father but through me" need not refer only to conscious belief. It might also be understood to mean that, while Christ's sacrifice is the one and only thing that makes all salvation possible, those who honestly do not believe in Christianity (because of being brought up Muslim or Buddhist, for example) but who try to live good lives will also benefit from Christ's sacrifice. There's even a Bible verse (I don't know the citation offhand) that says, "Christ is the savior of all, especially of those who believe." "Especially" can be taken to imply "but not only".
In addition, I've often wondered about the symbolism of the seven baskets of leftovers in Christ's feeding of the 4000. In ancient Hebrew literature, the number seven was often used to symbolize perfection and universality. The feeding of the 4000, regardless of whether or not the miracle actually occurred, was meant to symbolize Christ's sacrifice being used to "feed" those who listened to him (in the crowds), and also those who weren't around to hear him (they got the leftovers). The point seems to be that Christ's sacrifice was so effective that everyone could be forgiven by it (as long as they didn't knowingly reject Christ).
Part of the reason I still haven't ruled out Christianity is because of certain Bible stories like the feeding of the 4000 (and the related one about the feeding of the 5000). These stories suggest to me a kind of universalism that resonates with the idea of a compassionate God (the only kind I can conceive of). Since I think the Bible was tampered with and strongly suspect that threats of hell as punishment for unbelief were inserted (possibly on Constantine's orders), it may be that Christ's death saves people from oblivion rather than hell. (I once even met a Catholic priest who believed this. He admitted to the congregation that it's heresy, but he said he couldn't help believing it anyway.) That makes much more sense to my conscience than infinite punishment for finite crimes.
It's also worthwhile to note that there are at least a few verses where Jesus tells his listeners that the way to get into heaven is by keeping the commandments, as opposed to mere belief. I trust that everyone reading this is familiar with the verses:
Man: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Jesus: "You know the commandments: Thou shalt not steal, Honor thy father and thy mother...", etc.
And also:
"I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink...."
Those are obviously works Jesus was describing, not belief. So, it may very well be that Muslims and other non-Christians can get into heaven if they act according to God's will, even though they don't believe that Jesus is God's Son and may have never even heard of Jesus.
Also, let's remember the classic saying of Jesus: "By their fruits you will know them." If someone is a bad person, he'll do bad things. If someone is a good person, he'll do what's good. That would seem to apply to everyone, regardless of his religion. I have met quite a few Muslims, and they were all decent, unselfish people. I cannot believe that there's anything "Satanic" about Islam. I don't believe in it one bit, but that doesn't mean it exhorts its adherents to do evil.
Of course many here will disagree with these thoughts, but they're just ideas....
2004-05-10 22:56 | User Profile
Any religion that denies the death and resurrection of Christ is by nature satanic. The only thing left to discuss is how satanic. A religion that calls Jesus a prophet of God, but denies his resurrection is not nearly so satanic as a religion that teaches that Jesus is an evil man being punished by being boiled in excrement.
I believe that a person of any religion can be saved. A righteous person of any faith who is merely mislead in academic details is still saved through Christ by grace. Conversely, every professed Christian should be warned that even though they know the name Jesus, Jesus may not know them.
Islam has some good teachings, especially on morality (it is cribbed from the Hebrew scriptures), but a righteous Muslim is righteous in spite of his religion, not because of it.
2004-05-11 00:15 | User Profile
Angler, once again you show impressive understanding of Christian doctrine, and that rare ability to be sympathetic to a viewpoint, even when you don't personally hold to it. You are a gentleman, sir.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Any religion that denies the death and resurrection of Christ is by nature satanic. The only thing left to discuss is how satanic.[/QUOTE] HH, I think this may be a question of semantics. In my opinion, there is a difference between satanic and mistaken. Satanic refers to willful defiance of God, not being simply misguided.
2004-05-11 00:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]HH, I think this may be a question of semantics. In my opinion, there is a difference between satanic and mistaken. Satanic refers to willful defiance of God, not being simply misguided.[/QUOTE]
Mohammed wasn't mistaken.
In my previous response I tried to distinguish between those mislead (mistaken) and those who are not (satanic).
2004-05-11 01:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Mohammed wasn't mistaken.
In my previous response I tried to distinguish between those mislead (mistaken) and those who are not (satanic).[/QUOTE] Well, I agree with you there, HH. Mohammed was a pretty bloodthirsty sonfabitch, from everything I've read.
2004-05-11 02:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Angler, once again you show impressive understanding of Christian doctrine, and that rare ability to be sympathetic to a viewpoint, even when you don't personally hold to it. You are a gentleman, sir.[/QUOTE]Well, I wouldn't go that far, but it's awfully nice of you to say so. ;) Thanks, Quantrill.
2004-05-11 02:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Any religion that denies the death and resurrection of Christ is by nature satanic. The only thing left to discuss is how satanic. A religion that calls Jesus a prophet of God, but denies his resurrection is not nearly so satanic as a religion that teaches that Jesus is an evil man being punished by being boiled in excrement.
I believe that a person of any religion can be saved. A righteous person of any faith who is merely mislead in academic details is still saved through Christ by grace. Conversely, every professed Christian should be warned that even though they know the name Jesus, Jesus may not know them.
Islam has some good teachings, especially on morality (it is cribbed from the Hebrew scriptures), but a righteous Muslim is righteous in spite of his religion, not because of it.[/QUOTE]
Hi Happy Hacker
Is justice more important than belief?
It is a violation of the Koran for the Muslim invaders to practice their evil doctrine within Christian nations, yet they do.
Christianity is a peaceful religion based on the teachings of Christ. Christians as a body are the church. The Christian church can continue to function with out a priesthood at it's head as a moral authority if need be. As Christians we only need gather together in order to pray and practises are faith.
The problem with Islam is that they do not except our lords true status. Islam is a fabricated Arab doctrine intent on world domination. No Christian or Jew can except Islam's message even if it is a derivative of both. Judaism on the other hand is a form of self deification. The Arab and the Jew are the same in that they seek mastery of others.
As Christians we should be peaceful and not partake in the wars of these heathens. Do not be deceived by their rhetoric. We shall exile them from are Christian lands and if they leave, we shall be good neighbors and live along side them in peace. All those whom persecute and kill Christians are cursed and invoke a Messianic wrath. Let them answer to are lord at the day of judgment.
Gregz
"The unapparent connection is more powerful than the apparent one." - Hippolytus
2004-05-11 08:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Peter Phillips]Luckily also, we dont have such people in Britain. And the vast majority of British public opinion now favours a complete pull out. Blair is in real strife now and a few more damning photos of torture would be the straw that breaks the Camel's back.[/QUOTE]
Is the British Parliament ever going to hold a confidence vote on Mr. Blair? Is this even being discussed? Its amazing to me that he can enforce such an unpopular policy and pay no substantive price. I realize the Tories and maybe the LDPers are pro-war, but doesn't Labour constitute an overwhelming (and anti-war) majority? Why don't they give "Tony" the boot and pick an anti-war Labourite as their new Prime Minister? What am I missing here?
2004-05-11 09:23 | User Profile
[COLOR=Red] - Originally Posted by Happy Hacker: "Any religion that denies the death and resurrection of Christ is by nature satanic. The only thing left to discuss is how satanic. A religion that calls Jesus a prophet of God, but denies his resurrection is not nearly so satanic as a religion that teaches that Jesus is an evil man being punished by being boiled in excrement."[/COLOR]
I am a man who loves paradoxes. Therefore I announce my opinion that false friends are worse than open enemies.
It could be argued that Islam is EVEN WORSE than Judaism in its attitude towards Lord Jesus, in that at least announces its hostility openly and without pretensions (at least in Talmud).
In contrast, Islam takes a condescending, patronizing attitude towards Christ: it makes Him practically just a shoeshine boy for Muhammad, his relatively insignificant predecessor as a prophet.
In other words, Islam robs Jesus all of His real glory, and almost contemptuously throws Him few scraps from its table, Jesus being "a prophet of Allah" (like myriads of other people in Muslim mythology too).
The closer the lie is to the truth, the more dangerous it is.
Dislike of Judaism is no reason to like Islam. "Can devil drive out a devil?"
Petr
2004-05-11 18:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]It could be argued that Islam is EVEN WORSE than Judaism in its attitude towards Lord Jesus, in that at least announces its hostility openly and without pretensions (at least in Talmud).
In contrast, Islam takes a condescending, patronizing attitude towards Christ: it makes Him practically just a shoeshine boy for Muhammad, his relatively insignificant predecessor as a prophet.[/QUOTE]I have to disagree with that assessment. To consider Jesus a "mere prophet" is hardly equivalent to holding Him in contempt. I've noticed that when Muslims say the name of Jesus, they often follow it with "peace be upon him," an expression of reverence the Muslims also use of Mohammed. Okay, so the Muslims don't believe Jesus was divine. Should we expect them to act as though they do? At least they're respectful of Christian beliefs, unlike the Jews.
When people differ in their fundamental religious beliefs, the most one can really ask for is mutual respect. All of this "But MY beliefs are right!" "No, [u]MINE[/u] are right!" is just ridiculous and fruitless, yet many well-meaning folks get caught up in that sort of thing. Even in the midst of the Crusades, St. Francis of Assisi showed that peace between Muslims and Christians is possible:
In 1219, Francis went to the Holy Land to preach to the moslems. He was given a pass through the enemy lines, and spoke to the Sultan, Melek-al-Kamil. Francis proclaimed the Gospel to the Sultan, who replied that he had his own beliefs, and that moslems were as firmly convinced of the truth of Islam as Francis was of the truth of Christianity. Francis proposed that a fire be built, and that he and a moslem volunteer would walk side by side into the fire to show whose faith was stronger. The Sultan said he was not sure that a moslem volunteer could be found. Francis then offered to walk into the fire alone. The Sultan who was deeply impressed but remained unconverted. Francis proposed an armistice between the two warring sides, and drew up terms for one; the Sultan agreed, but, to Francis's deep disappointment, the Christian leaders would not. Francis returned to Italy, but a permanent result was that the Franciscans were given custody of the Christian shrines then in moslem hands.
[url]http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/10/04.html[/url]
In short, I think Western hostility toward Muslims is misplaced. No, they really don't belong in Western lands, but there's no reason why we should be at war with those people. Ideally, I'd like to see us get rid of the noxious Jewish influence in our midst and totally end US support of Israel; then, if people insist, send the Muslims back to their ancestral lands to live their own lives unmolested by any ZOG.
2004-05-11 18:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] In short, I think Western hostility toward Muslims is misplaced. No, they really don't belong in Western lands, but there's no reason why we should be at war with those people. [/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
2004-05-11 18:47 | User Profile
Gosh. I'm getting choked up and misty-eyed at all the interfaith tolerance and ecumenism expressed on this thread.
Granted I agree about US support of Israel and in the oil bidness we do daily profitable business with numerous Arab states, so I don't see any need for outright antagonism. But there is no doubt that those that adhere to the religion of Islam are not in the Truth and it remains our Christian mission to proselytize. So as a hypothetical, what do you suggest Western governments reaction should be, if any, when the next group of Christian missionaries in an Arab state are slaughtered for doing the Lord's work?
2004-05-11 19:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Is the British Parliament ever going to hold a confidence vote on Mr. Blair? Is this even being discussed? Its amazing to me that he can enforce such an unpopular policy and pay no substantive price. I realize the Tories and maybe the LDPers are pro-war, but doesn't Labour constitute an overwhelming (and anti-war) majority? Why don't they give "Tony" the boot and pick an anti-war Labourite as their new Prime Minister? What am I missing here?[/QUOTE] Blair is already very unpopular. The majority of Labour voters dont like him. Also, the Liberal Democrats are against the the Iraq war and have always been.
Its also a misnomer to think that all the Conservatives were or are pro-War. See here:
[url="http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-05-08&id=4567&searchText"]http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-05-08&id=4567&searchText[/url]=
Why hasnt Blair been removed? Because its the extreme step. The far-left hates him because he doesnt endorse the more hard-left policies of his predecessors and Iraq but doesnt want to ditch him because they fear that without Blair its easy for the opposition (i.e. the Tories) to simply paint the Labour party as "old left" of miner's strikes and industrial action that refused to grow up.
Remember that it took Labour 18 years to regain power in Britain. Thatcher won in 1979 and the Conservatives didnt lose an election till 1997. The only reason Labour are in power now is because Blair gave Labour a facelift and managed to market Labour as the voice of the middle class. So while the majority of the Labourites hate him, they fear that they would become unelectable without him. Its a hobson's choice basically.
That said, Mrs. Thatcher was forced out in 1990 despite having won three elections by landslides. So its not impossible. I suppose things would have to get a lot worse before they get better.
The problem is if Labour lose we get Mike Howard. I dont look forward to that.
2004-05-11 21:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So as a hypothetical, what do you suggest Western governments reaction should be, if any, when the next group of Christian missionaries in an Arab state are slaughtered for doing the Lord's work?[/QUOTE]I would suggest the same reaction that takes place when they get slaughtered by Hindu fanatics in India, or mistreated by Jews in Israel: no reaction at all.
The last thing we need is to let some missionaries drag us into the internal affairs of another country. We have enough problems of our own as it is without letting the internationalists/globalists/neo-cons use these (often daft) missionaries as live bait for their interventionist fishing expeditions. Also, promoting the "true Christian faith" (which one, I wonder?) in other countries isn't one of the Federal government's legitimate functions as defined by the Constitution.
2004-05-11 21:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]The last thing we need is to let some missionaries drag us into the internal affairs of another country. We have enough problems of our own as it is without letting the internationalists/globalists/neo-cons use these (often daft) missionaries as live bait for their interventionist fishing expeditions. Also, promoting the "true Christian faith" (which one, I wonder?) in other countries isn't one of the Federal government's legitimate functions as defined by the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
Just as I expected. I hope you made no public comments in protest of Rachel Corrie getting mowed down by IDF bulldozers. What a shining example of the fact that for some, White racial solidarity is not all it's cracked up to be.
Also, I believe various states in Europe are still officially Christian. I would assume their state churches still support missionary work.
2004-05-11 21:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Also, promoting the "true Christian faith" (which one, I wonder?) in other countries isn't one of the Federal government's legitimate functions as defined by the Constitution.[/QUOTE]
No missionary worthy of the title "Christian" counts on any government to provide backup for them when evangelizing in potentially dangerous corners of the earth.
As for missionary misfortunes being used as a pretext to justify interventionist foreign policy, I would submit that recent events are quite the opposite....Congress, the White House, and the State Dept are happy to look the other way concerning the plight of Christians in China and West Africa because being cozy with Big Offshoring and Big Oil is more lucrative for the politicians.
Exhibit A in this regard would be the Bush Administration sweeping Angolan Christian rebel Jonas Savimbi's corpse under the rug to grease the palms of commie Jose Eduardo dos Santos in 2002.
[url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/26/01047.shtml]Angolan Christian Rebel Leader Assassinated[/url]
2004-05-11 23:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]So as a hypothetical, what do you suggest Western governments reaction should be, if any, when the next group of Christian missionaries in an Arab state are slaughtered for doing the Lord's work? [/QUOTE]
I must admit I have it a bit easy here, since Catholics do not start Missionary activities on their own, or from a local level. This is mostly specialist work of clerical orders, directed and supervised from Rome. And Romeôs policy is to respect the laws of any country. So, where the law forbids missionary activity, as in Iran or Israel, Catholic missionaries wonôt go.
Sounds awfully pragmatic, I know, but it means the question really doesnôt quite apply to Catholics.
2004-05-11 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Granted I agree about US support of Israel and in the oil bidness we do daily profitable business with numerous Arab states, so I don't see any need for outright antagonism. But there is no doubt that those that adhere to the religion of Islam are not in the Truth and it remains our Christian mission to proselytize. Two questions, Tex:
(1) The Muslims are just as certain that their religion is correct as you are that Christianity is correct. How will you (or anyone else) convince them otherwise?
(2) Isn't it your belief (and that of other evangelicals) that it's God's Spirit who draws people to belief in Christ? If so, then why bother proselytizing? If God wants the Muslims to believe, then He'll make them believe, so why are missionaries needed? I don't follow the reasoning there.
So as a hypothetical, what do you suggest Western governments reaction should be, if any, when the next group of Christian missionaries in an Arab state are slaughtered for doing the Lord's work?[/QUOTE]I'd say it depends on who slaughters them. If a Muslim government acts to slaughter Western guests in a certain country, then Western governments should condemn the killings and refuse to deal with that nation any further until it changes its policies, or at least until it properly investigates and punishes the killings. (That's what should have been done in the case of Rachel Corrie.) If common criminals or radical militants in a Muslim state commit the killings, then our government should deal with the problem diplomatically, depending on the circumstances (was better police protection expected, etc.).
None of this, in my opinion, should depend on what the Westerners were doing in that nation -- whether it was a religious mission or just a simple business meeting should be irrelevant as far as their government is concerned. A government's job is to protect its citizens, regardless of their religious belief. If Christians (of any denomination) want special status given to their religion by the government, then they first need to prove that their beliefs are true. Mere insistence that one's faith is the true one doesn't constitute proof.
2004-05-11 23:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Two questions, Tex:
(1) The Muslims are just as certain that their religion is correct as you are that Christianity is correct. How will you (or anyone else) convince them otherwise?
(2) Isn't it your belief (and that of other evangelicals) that it's God's Spirit who draws people to belief in Christ? If so, then why bother proselytizing? If God wants the Muslims to believe, then He'll make them believe, so why are missionaries needed? I don't follow the reasoning there.
Hello, Angler! Really, both 1 and 2 can be answered together with the words of St. Paul in Romans 10. Although he is writing about Israelites here, I believe the principles would also apply to Muslims or any other group that needs to hear the Gospel:
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them." But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the deep?' " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."
Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."
And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
So yes, one can only come to faith via the Spirit, but the Spirit comes in the Word and the Word must be preached.
Granted I don't have any significant personal experience in hard-core evangelizing to Muslims, but from what I read of those who do I understand that Muslims are quite taken by the Gospel message of free grace, since they are so rooted in their religion of meritorious works.
2004-05-12 00:00 | User Profile
QUOTE=Angler The Muslims are just as certain that their religion is correct as you are that Christianity is correct. How will you (or anyone else) convince them otherwise?
Those who love God will see that Christianity is a better way.
(2) Isn't it your belief (and that of other evangelicals) that it's God's Spirit who draws people to belief in Christ? If so, then why bother proselytizing? If God wants the Muslims to believe, then He'll make them believe, so why are missionaries needed? I don't follow the reasoning there.
Proselytizing educates, it doesn't bring people to God. Gospel = Good News
2004-05-12 00:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Proselytizing educates, it doesn't bring people to God. Gospel = Good News[/QUOTE]
Amen, HH. And what Good News it is! "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us!" and "all who believe in Him shall never perish, but have everlasting life."
That's Good News, indeed.
2004-05-12 00:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gregz]Is justice more important than belief?
I don't think I understand the question.
It is a violation of the Koran for the Muslim invaders to practice their evil doctrine within Christian nations, yet they do.
That's interesting. Do you know where in the Koran that is taught?
Christianity is a peaceful religion based on the teachings of Christ.
Right. Islam is a violent religion created by a warlord to motivate his troops to kill.
Christians as a body are the church. The Christian church can continue to function with out a priesthood at it's head as a moral authority if need be. As Christians we only need gather together in order to pray and practises are faith.
I don't think there is any priesthood in the Koran.
The problem with Islam is that they do not except our lords true status. Islam is a fabricated Arab doctrine intent on world domination.
Yes, and no. The Arab world is relatively impotent, as such, there is no danger of it using the sword for world domination. If we left them alone, they'd basically leave us alone. Although, that's no help to the Christian in an Islamic nation.
No Christian or Jew can except Islam's message even if it is a derivative of both. Judaism on the other hand is a form of self deification. The Arab and the Jew are the same in that they seek mastery of others.
Judaism is not the religion of the OT; it's a false religion built on the rejection of Christ.
As Christians we should be peaceful and not partake in the wars of these heathens. Do not be deceived by their rhetoric. We shall exile them from are Christian lands and if they leave, we shall be good neighbors and live along side them in peace. All those whom persecute and kill Christians are cursed and invoke a Messianic wrath. Let them answer to are lord at the day of judgment.
Amen.