Why Christianity is a Religion of Peace and Islam is Not
As we reflect on the anniversary of 9/11, I think it important for us to reflect on the contrast between how the genuine Christian faith is advanced with how the religion of Islam is advanced. Robert Spencer is one of our nation’s most articulate and spot-on critics of Islamic extremism. He is the author of The Truth About Muhammad, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), as well as other books on the relationship between Islam and terrorism. His more recent book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, includes a short bio that informs readers that “Spencer lives in a secure, undisclosed location.” The reason for his self-imposed seclusion is because he fears for his life.
Considering what we know about Islamic radicalism in words and deeds, you would think that there would be dozens of authors who would be issuing similar warnings. Sadly, it’s not the case. Instead, we find shelves of books warning about Christian fundamentalism. “In 2006 alone,” Spencer writes, “major New York publishing houses unleashed such titles as”—
American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century by Kevin Phillips.
The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right’s Plans for the Rest of Us by James Rudin.
The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker.
Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg.
Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical’s Lament by Randall Balmer.
Did you enjoy this article?
Piety & Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom by Barry Lynn.
Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right by Mel White.
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges.
The impression I get from a list like this is that these authors consider conservative, Bible-believing Christianity to be America’s biggest threat. It is not unusual to hear some critics of Christianity point to the Crusades as an example of the violence of Christianity, and yet the study of Scripture and history illuminates the fact that the Crusades were often only ostensibly Christian—ambitious politics wrapped in Christian garbs. The Reformation happened to correct many of the deceptions and ignorances behind many of the ideas and practices involved in the Crusades. Some will then point to examples of retaliatory persecution by Christians in the 1500′s when Christians were still cleansing away from their understanding hundreds of years of humanistic syncretism from the mindset of the Church.
Then again, as I noted in yesterday’s article, it may be that as humanism has taken a renewed stranglehold over the worldview of many in the Church of America, misconceptions about violence’s place in advancing Christianity are misleading many Christians again today, and this has led Jewish people such as Mark Alan Siegel to view Christianity once again as a violent faith. We may well ask ourselves: Have our military operations in much of the Middle East over the last 60+ years been built on some of the same misconceptions as those behind the Crusades?
Make no mistake. Whenever we look into history and see where Christianity truly advanced in the world, it was not by the tip of a sword or the barrel of a gun. It was not accomplished by forcing western culture imperially on third-world countries. God has sometimes been gracious to allow the Gospel to spread in spite of such missteps but not because of them. To think otherwise would be to substitute humanistic methods for the method Jesus prescribed in Matthew 28:18-20.
Whenever Christianity has truly advanced, it has done so by taking root in the hearts of the people of a land, not by forcing external Christian facades on them. (Christianity does not teach, as does evolutionistic humanism, that man is merely the product of his environment.) It was done under circumstances of patient and charitable perseverance through hardship and sometimes even martyrdom. It was the Holy Spirit who moved powerfully in the hearts of people as frail human instruments of God faithfully preached the Word of God. The greatest advancers in Christianity from the Apostle Paul to Augustine to Bradford to Carey, have been those who personally sacrificed to persuade and build. We think, for example, of the ministry of Patrick in the British Isles. What a contrast to the history of Islam, which has almost exclusively advanced and maintained its control by threat of force.
The next time you go through security at an airport, ask yourself why you have to show your ID at least twice, put small bottles of liquid in a quart-size bag, remove every bit of metal from your body and place the whole lot in a plastic container, remove your belt and shoes, take your computer out of its bag and place it into a plastic container, undergo a near-strip search if one of the metal detectors goes off, be subjected to a forensic analysis of your carry-on bag due to a random call out. Is it because TSA suspects that Bible-toting, fundamentalist Christians might hijack the plane or that a group of Islamic extremists who have just prayed to Allah might do it?
Spencer highlights the absurdity of the near paranoia of liberal, leftist, anti-Christian pundits by recounting a story from February 2006 when he and Dr. Andrew Bostom were engaged in “an animated conversation with a liberal writer from New York who is well acquainted with Islamic terror” and now resides in the Netherlands. She “insisted that Christian fundamentalism was just as dangerous as the Islamic variety, and that equal attention should be devoted to defeating both.” As the conversation was winding down and it was nearing dusk, she told Spencer and Bostom “that she had to be going, as she was on a bicycle and couldn’t be out after dark, or she risked being attacked. ‘Who is going to attack you?’ asked Dr. Bostom. ‘Christian fundamentalists?’”
Of course, she had no such fear from Christians. It wasn’t a Christian who shot Theo van Gogh eight times while he was bicycling to work in Amsterdam on November 2, 2004. It wasn’t a Christian who then cut van Gogh’s throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest with two knives and left them implanted with a five-page note attached. It wasn’t a Christian who wrote the note threatening Western governments, Jews, and former Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has been in hiding ever since.
Spencer’s book is a horror and a delight. It’s a horror because it describes the goals and tactics of radical Islamists. It’s a delight because it describes the goals and tactics of radical Islamists and shows that there is no comparison between them and the goals and tactics of Christians.
About the Author
Gary DeMar Gary is a graduate of Western Michigan University (1973) and earned his M.Div. at Reformed Theological Seminary in 1979. He is the author of countless essays, news articles, and more than 27 book titles, His most recent book is Exposing the Real Last Days Scoffers. Gary lives in Marietta, Georgia, with his wife, Carol. They have two married sons and four grandchildren, Gary and Carol are members of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA).
Related Posts
New Atheists Attacked by Fellow Secularists for ‘Islamophobia’ →
It’s Hate Speech to Tell the Truth about Economics and Islamic Terrorism →
Smiling towards Gomorrah: Osteen on Mormons as “brothers in Christ” →
How can anyone have a “meaningful” dialogue with muslims when their holy book teaches them it’s OK to lie to further Islam? Someone is naiive!
Just because adherrents to Islam are easily radicalized, moved to violence by the slightest afront, partly because they have come to accept violence as a normal part of life, and partly because Jihad is a tenent of Islam, does not mean that the official narrative of 9-11 is true, any more than the warren commission findings on JFK’s public execution. It is tragic that a site I respect, for the high premium you place on critical thinking and truth, so thoroughly swallow this evil lie, told by a government that has given American’s little reason to trust anything they say. One does not have to know WHO or WHY to know that it is physically impossible for the 9-11 commission ‘official’ account. I would gladly debate anyone connected with this website concerning any aspect of this diabolical event, which was, without an iota of doubt, an ‘inside job.’ Codename: Northwoods.
I don’t see how Christianity is peaceful. The Salem Witch trials and the Crusades would say otherwise. Heck, pretty much all of Western Europe was awash with religious executions and violence. How can you not call the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of natives at the hands of Spanish conquerors who killed in the name of Christ violent? Yes, Christians aren’t like that now, but I think it is safe to say that Islam is going through their version of the Christian dark ages. Hopefully, they will come upon their own Renaissance. But calling Christianity peaceful is a huge fallacy.
Here is yet another book that would raise the ire of militant Muslims: “The Sword of the Prophet: the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam” by Serge Trifkovic. I ought to know; I have personal experience to that end. I made the mistake of having it with me when a young man by the name of Freddie Santistevan, Jr. saw it, asked to have a look at it, and got all “excited” because he was a fervent Muslim, and demanded that I BURN the above-entitled book…whilst, and at the same time, promising to “give” me two booklets that praised Muhammed “up one side and down the other”.
Islam is a “religion of peace”? Right! And I’m the Caliph of Baghdad.
No religion of our one living GOD teaches or preaches hate, especially the three Abrahamic faiths – Judism, Christianity, and Islam. In any of these religions, there were times of rebellion by fundamentalists who claimed the representation of their respective religion; yet were not recognized by the real leaders.
When any of us looks at “the other” with vengeance, then we are the ones teaching and preaching hate, no better than the ones we criticize. What would have Moses, Jesus, or Mohammad have asked of the multitude?
All are complimentary of each other; and to pray for the aggressor.
Prayer is the best negation via negotiations by God …
Why Christianity is a religion of peace and Islam is not: Because Jesus Christ is God Almighty, the eternal Son. He is the Prince of Peace! He is the source and sustainer of true Law and order without which there can be no peace. There is only one true religion – Christianity. Jesus Christ is God, just as He said – and He proved it by rising from the dead. He left an empty tomb behind and before He ascended He announced His Kingship over all the earth. Matt. 28:18-20 “… All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” (This is the 2012th year of His reign as King of the earth)
So what about Islam? Who cares? Christianity is the only true religion, the rest are false. Only one religion has a leader who is actively helping those who trust and follow Him. He is Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God. Jn.20:28 All other leaders of world religions like Mohammad, Buddah etc. are dead and can do nothing for those who follow them. Most of the growth of Islam has come through child birth or gunpoint evangelism. Their doctrine requires forced conversion. For those who resist, well, they get to Rest In Peace, if you know what I mean. That’s as close as they get to being a peaceful religion.
Beware of any religion that says it is a religion of peace. King Solomon wrote “to everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven. … A time to hate ,and a time to love; A time of war, and a time of peace Ecclesiastes 3:1,8. Jesus is the Prince of peace ,but says He judges and makes war Isaiah 9:6, Rev.19:11. Another way to answer would be, whose war and peace shall prevail and will be King of kings and Lord of lords. Jesus the Messiah!
Dan, “beware?” Is it the Quran or muslims who make the claim to a “religion of peace?” Despite your quotations, I hear Christians saying this about Christianity all of the time. Should I trust that? Shouldn’t there be a distinction made between the literal reading of a scripture and the ideals of the people who hold to it? It’s an admirable ideal.
Keep it simple!
You do not look at what they say but what their actions are. Which religion has martyrs who kill others and themselves? Which religion then praises this killing? Which Religion has martyrs who die because they refuse to reject their religion with words? Which religion denounces all killing especially when committed by those professing that religion?
Exactly James. Ye shall know them by their fruits (behaviour/actions) … which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. I don’t see any of this in the streets of Egypt and Libya, nor 9/11, beheading of Christians, kill those who don’t believe islam. Sorry, this religion has a lot to prove their claim to peace.
James, I considered submitting a longish comment regarding what “martyr” means in different religions, “Warrior Bishops,” “Christian Military Orders,” the difference between the IDEAL of Christianity (again, mostly noble and beautiful) and the reality of how it is lived out in history and in the daily lives of some.
Instead, I’ll simply submit this: That when it does come right down to it, presently and historically, theists give themselves special dispensation to threaten violence and death when there beliefs are threatened. (See “Thomas Stevens” and “muslims are Pigs” in this conversation). This is COMMON and easy to find for anyone who knows how to type “Christian violence” into Google.
Lastly, there the casual – and sometimes apparently gleeful – brutality pointed out in comments to the Fox News’s Facebook page (and this is just about atheists):
http://onemansblog.com/2011/08/06/christians-openly-advocate-killing-athiests-on-fox-news-facebook-page/
“Facebook Christians Advocating Death, Rape and Harm to Athiests”
And PLEASE, someone complain about how these people don’t really represent Christianity or how they’re not “real Christians.”
I have read that the prophet Mohammed was actually raised and trained by St. Augustine! Notice the similarities in both religions. Look up the phrase “Hegelian Dialectic”. How else would the Vatican control those that did not adhere to Mother Church? Things did get out of hand as no plan is perfect. So what did they do? Crusades! And the Pope institutes the first income tax to pay for it.
Excellent article Gary – I agree completely. And I think many of our libertarian friends do not understand the extent of that threat.
THEY HAVE BLINDERS ON AND LIE THEM SELFS WHEN THEY LOOK IN THE MIRROR.YOU HAVE TO CALL THE KETTLE BLACK WHEN THAT WHAT IT IS.DON’T YOU.
Joel, What do liberatrians miss in understanding Gary’s post? Gary says that Christianity advances at its darkest hours.
Against the crucifiction of the leader of Christinaity itself and intense Jewish persecutions, Christianity grew in Israel to where Israel itself was a Christian nation by 300 AD.
In the crushing persecutions of the Roman Empire, Christ’s love prevaled and Roman Emperor Constantine proclaimed tolerance toward Chritainity in all of Rome in 313 AD.
As Gary says, against pagan barbarians in Ireland, Patrick prevailed with no army. Every pagan invading army into the Roman Empire ended up Christian, the vanquished religiously defeating the conquerer.
In 637 AD, Jews created Islam through a local tribal leader named Mohammad and retook Jerusalem from Christians by military force, and by military force made the Christian residents become Muslims.
The Crusades military campaign to retake the Christian Lands stolen from Christians in 637 AD, held land for a short time, but Christianity did not spread to the former Christians, now Muslims. The Crusaders were soon thrown out by the Muslims again.
By 737 AD, Islam had control of Christian Spain.
For the next 800 years, there was a stalemate, until 1453 AD when Constantinople fell to the Muslims.
Spainish Christians, from mountain strongholds, with what I’m sure waa the refram “Remember Constnatinople” started a military counter strike against Islam and won control of Spain for Christinaity. Immediately, the incenst Muslims from the Constantinople campaigns were landing on the Italian coast for an expedition toward Rome itself.
So, new and fragile Spain began the Inquistition to weed out any internal arsonists among its ranks, who would help a new Muslim campaign into Spain. Unbelieving Jews were a special threat and ordered expelled in 1492 AD, as well as the search for a non-Muslim route to India and China.
Chrisitanity spread like wildfire in the pagan new world discovered by Columbus.
All in all, I think the Crusades failed, not just because they were too foreign for the native Muslims to warm up to, but because they were too confident that “might makes right”. The Byzanntine Empire knew the people of the region and could have won them back to Christ with Christian love, needing of course the might of the West to keep their head on their shoulders long enough to do the trick, but bickering between the two Christian groups would not allow this to happen. The Crusaders did not trust the Byzanntines they were there to bail out and therefore created Crusader States all for themselves. In the end, the supply lines were too long, the natives were not happy, the Byzantinnes were not cooperative, and they were doomed.
So why did Spain succeed where the Crusaders did not? The same problems for the Muslims in reverse.
The Muslim leaders were too foreign, although they did know to embrace the Sephardic Jews of Spain to help them maintain control for 800 years. But in the end, the greatest reason has to be that the Christians who won were a lot like themselves. They were easy to trust, and many of the native Muslims easily converted, freed of their slave religion. The foreign Muslims could likewise not reinforce long supply lines and so had to concede Spain.
What about going forward? Our Crusader nation-building deep in the heart of Islam will, no has, failed. The Bush doctrine is folly.
A better approach would be to allow a newly Christianized Russia see if it can re-Christianize Constantinople and Aisia Minor. These are European peoples who would easily adjust to a Christian life, freed of their slave religion. Russian Orthodox Christians have a strong desire to retake their former capital and they would give those people far more Christian love and compassion than any of us would someone from Iraq or Afghanistan.
Jews Created Islam???????
When Mohammad moved to Yathrib (now known as Medina) he tried to convert the three groups of Jews there. They rejected him and eventually he defeated them militarily. After taking Mecca he sent a message to all Jews and Christians in the Arabic peninsula to leave or die.
Get your history correct.
Jews did NOT create Islam. It sprang from the mind of a deranged Arab who was led astray by Satan disguising himself as Gabriel. The mere fact that Islam was implanted in the Arabian peninsula by the sord should be dvidence enough!
A few typos in the last post and I failed to edit. Sorry,
Christianity offends. It holds up a standard that few men are willing to accept. Sure there have been a lot of charlatans in the church that have done some really bad things and have made everyone that embraces Christ look bad. What better way for Satan to make the church look bad. The old adage ” If you can’t beat’em, join’em.” And that’s what he did, join’ed them.
John 3:19-20 (KJV)
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
And incidentally, Gary, depite the title of your editorial, you’ve not really said why Christianity is a religion of peace, nor why Islam is not (And I do believe there are credible reasons for each statement.). You seem to use Islam’s history to suggest the reason for the latter, while dismissing history when it comes to rationalizing and justifying Christianity. Judging from some of the responses, it simply looks like another conservative match to a pile of tinder.
From “Matt:” “…maybe we should just nuke the whole lot of them so they can get up to allah and get their 70 virgin goats.”
I love the kind of smart, charitable Christian fervor that editorials on this site elicit. I greatly appreciate the response of the Catholic bishops on this matter, and find myself dismayed that the editorial’s author did not see fit to comment.
“Whenever Christianity has truly advance…”
I’m going to comment here because American Vision, despite my numerous attempts to get it to stop sending me email notifications of editorials like this, continues to do so. So I came by this article.
I’ll begin by pointing out that the author here makes note of Muslim “radicalism.” Unless you’re willing to lump all Muslims into the same pot, a “radical,” by definition, sits at an extreme, non-mainstream end of a continuum. And yes, I’m aware of the difference in the prescriptions and proscriptions between the Muslim and Christian faiths
The “truly” in the comment belies that when apologists for the Christian faith speak of things like violence not being a part of the faith, they are speaking of an ideal laid out in Christian scripture – not the reality of Christian history; that Christianity was made the state religion of what was, at the time, the most powerful nation on earth; that not long after, the practice of anything other than Christianity in Rome simply became illegal; not long after these, that nation fell and finally; most of Europe was plunged into what are popularly known as “The Dark Ages,” overseen by Christianity. It almost goes without saying, sidestepping the idealism that characterizes Christian excuse making, that a large component of this European oversight was violence.
The “true advancement” that’s made note of, (and yes, I have my problems with the Muslim faith and history, as well as those of Christianity) ignores a Medieval Islam that was making true advances when Christian Europe was wallowing in superstition, atrocity and a mostly backward intellectual tradition. While I don’t think that Islam has ever really been a close friend of the Jews, it was Christian crusaders who were slaughtering European Jews in the Rhineland on their way to glory in the first Crusade. I know, merely weak, fallen men. The secularist’s excuse would be “They’re only human.” Still atrocity carried out in the name of Christianity, no matter what the ideal tells us. (And yes, I’m aware of how Islam managed to gain so much architectural influence in Europe – as I said, I have problems with each.)
The term “Islamist” should be taken much like that of “radical” or “extremist.” Are you really describing the majority of Muslims with any of these words?
Islam is roughly 600 years younger than Christianity. What were Christians doing with and to one another 600 years ago? To their various out-groups? Between then and now, even the revered John Calvin was having someone jailed (Cartelier) for “speaking insolently” to him at the man’s own table. Violence and abuse of power has characterized Christianity even beyond the Middle Ages. Though it has done good, much of that good may be seen as simply repairing the damage it has inflicted on civilization.
As for the largely fundamentalist bent of the editorial and the commentaries that followed, here’s an interesting article pointing out what fundamentalism in ALL faiths have in common:
“The Fundamentalist Agenda” by Davidson Loehr: http://www.uuworld.org/2004/01/feature2.html
Wade, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Wade, your statements seem to assume a lot. You preach about a “conservative tinderbox”. Really? My complaints were rather specific, and it was a complaint about CONSERVATIVES, AMERICAN CHRISTIANS, and DISPENSATIONALIST being libelled as (basically) murderous. I don’t call it a tinderbox, when I decide to stick up for a group of people who are being FALSELY called murderous.
On the other hand, we have a group of people who routinely terrorizes and murders, teaches those things in school curriculums and mosques (over in the middle east)…and (as a culture) is soft on such acts, even here in the US (asking for ever more “tolerance” and “understanding” even as more people are murdered). This forms a “soft arm” and a “violent arm” of Islam. Like the mafia, or like “good cop/bad cop” they get what they want, by hook or by crook. The more power they gain in any culture, the more muslims adopt Quranic Law which ENDORSES violence and oppression toward outsiders. And you get even more of the same, directed toward whoever is DEEMED to be not in line with the Quran and Mohammad.
So tell me, whose tinderbox is being ignited here? YOURS? Maybe you would like to side with Occupy Wall Street and decry the Christians of ages past. Mind you, that was under a Papacy which had yet to feel the effects of the Reformation. (Interestingly enough, the Papacy seemed to not have a good view of Jews at all… seeing as it’s two officially-endorsed eschatologies both involve massive killing of Jews. One theory (Preterism) basically says that the Jews were no more after 70ad, and says that was God’s justice that did it. The other theory seeks to explain God’s conclusion for the Jews that are still around. Both theories are wacko. But Preterism (because of its historical focus on 70ad) seems to be more realistic, and hence more politically dangerous. There are people with a focus on 70ad, who HATE the Jews, who would deny them land or borders, and Preterism is a mask for them. Just because there is a state named Israel, it infuriates this crowd. Just because Jews are living there, it infuriates this crowd. Just because the Jews living there are defending themselves in a land called Israel, it infuriates this crowd. And because this is “prophecied” by the competing eschatology (that also came from Roman Catholicism) they blame this other eschatology. Put it this way: NOBODY IS TO BLAME. A state named Israel exists to defend its own citizens, and it should be ALLOWED to do so. Period.
And, Wade, we have come a long way since the middle ages.. because of the Bible! Not because of some mystical human evolution. It’s because the Bible was printed and studied, that “Western Civilization” became more, well, civilized.
It is not so with the Quran. The more the Quran is FOLLOWED, the more it reveals its statist and terrorist roots (as a twisted monotheistic cult inspired in part by the original Roman Catholic order). There never will be an Islamic Reformation. Because (we have it on THEIR OWN TESTIMONY, and IN THEIR OWN BOOK) that the closer their holy book is followed, the more “Islamic” they become…to the point of oppression, homicidal martyrdom, etc. Any “Reformation” in Islam is in the direction of THEIR “word”. And I DARE you to challenge the things written in THEIR Holy Book. And you will see the nature of Islam. Block-headed, simplistic, monolithic (at least the desire to be), statist, violent, deceptive, and anything but really free. They rally around the sword.
When Ron Paulites, Christian Reconstructionists, Libertarians, seek to join with Occupy and the Obama-bots in mutually slamming the state of Israel and “American imperialism” I start to worry. Because Christian Libertarians should not be in favor of collapsing all nation-states BEGINNING WITH America and Israel into a messiness that will result in messy & destructive totalitarianism. That is NOT what Christian Reconstructionists want.
There are a lot of people reading this who are not true Christian Reconstructionists. They are here for one purpose only: to try to infiltrate the “Christian right” and keep them distracted from the truth. The truth is: Christians didn’t cause the middle east. Period. Not even the Dispys did it. The single largest factor was the UN and popular sentiment in the US (and maybe Europe). And it may have been intended a giant “screw you” to the Papacy, in order to add force behind a monotheism that competed with “Christianity.” It was certainly done by people who weren’t all that worried about the effects it would have in the region. But now it is there. There are people there. AND PEOPLE ARE WORTH PROTECTING, DEFENSIVELY.
70ad was SUPPOSED to be the end-all for the Jews (according to some Preterists). But it didn’t end the Jews. And now a Jewish State called Israel makes Preterists FLAMING MAD.
That’s my theory.
Prove me wrong.
I think the Preterists have a MUCH WORSE track record when it comes to defending human life IN the state of Israel, than the Dispensationalists will ever have. You preterists are so intellectual. But I wonder if that just makes you eager to tear down your opposition (be it nation-states or Jewish nationalism), before you ponder its real-world affect on human life.
I’m sorry, E, though I appreciate your expanded definition of what you meant, did I somehow give you the impression that Israel didn’t have a right to exist as a state or defend its citizens? As for the “assumptions” that you mentioned, I’m having trouble picking them out, as you didn’t state them explicitly.
As for “Christ didn’t cause the Middle-East,” no he didn’t. People did. I don’t believe that I suggested otherwise.
“But they are the true suckers, by going for such quick-and-easy supporters. Occupiers are not standing on the side of Christ or Christians…but are standing on the side of Islamists, Marxist utopians, and division.”
E, though it represents a perfectly natural bias, this is otherwise known as a “false dilemma.”
“It’s all about blaming “the other” and finding some scapegoat for the world’s problems: other than individual responsibility for your own success.”
Yes, though I’d add “failures” to the end of the sentence while also keeping “success,” it sounds remarkably familiar.
“Jesus didn’t come to overthrow. He came to help us OUT-GROW!!! By PEACEFUL and PRODUCTIVE means, making all the old stuff invalid, making it fall away, each of us dying to the old (on a personal level).”
Should you be explaining this to me, or to “muslims are Pigs” or “Thomas Stevens?” Though I’m not a Christian, E, for some very specific reasons, I think that what you seem to be conveying here is an admirable sentiment. I’ll leave you with this, though, from Matthew (NIV). How many verses like this does it take to establish Christ’s message as one of conflict? Just the one, I think – taken in combination with how destructively Christians have, and DO, comport themselves. Simply because, as a religion, it must “play nicely” in order to be a part of modern Western civilization, doesn’t speak to “advancement” or how Christians would act in isolation without a supportive state or the rule of law. Much of the Muslim world lacks the latter, and the advantages of existing as part of the “first world.” There would be far less of the “turn the other cheek” mentality of idealized Christianity were this not the case. As it is, politicized Christianity is notoriously “pro-war.” Simply suggesting that this is not true Christianity takes you into a “no true Scotsman” dilemma.
“34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
(And this will be about the time that those who otherwise prefer a literal interpretation of the Gospels – i.e., miracles – will start protesting about “metaphors” and the symbolic nature of these verses.)
Does anyone know when open season on muslims begin??
Just as soon as the illegal alien muslim Pig, gets re-elected! If he doesn’t get re-elected, you’re poop out of luck on open season of the muslim Pigs!
I agree, Gary. “Make no mistake. Whenever we look into history and see where Christianity truly advanced in the world, it was not by the tip of a sword or the barrel of a gun. It was not accomplished by forcing western culture imperially on third-world countries.”
HOWEVER, if we are addressing the issue of “Zionism” along with Islam and other isms… we may as well admit that the past is shamefully imperfect.
But it cannot be un-done.
The Jewish state exists to protect its citizens (including non-Jews living within their borders), and foster peace. If they dropped their weapons today, and denied their nation-state borders… who would doubt that there would be a massive invasion of their lands, occupation of their cities, and massive DEATH of all Jews and “Jew-sympathizers”? Of course there would. It’s what Islam (and the Quran) TEACHES.
I know that there are a lot of Ron Paul fanatics, who don’t really believe that selfishness and violence is what drives human nature. But it is. And the Quran only AGGRAVATES this selfish instinct beyond ALL REASON. The Quran itself, is the primary enemy of the west: and the Communist manifesto is now #2. (ideologically)
Communists & Occupiers gain a sense of ENCOURAGEMENT by knowing that they can easily galvanize support from Islamists by uniting against Christians, Zionists, and the West.
The Ron Paulites seem to be standing right on the fence here: they too seem to gain confidence that they can rally Occupiers to their side by talking against Zionism and against American ‘imperialism’. But they are the true suckers, by going for such quick-and-easy supporters. Occupiers are not standing on the side of Christ or Christians…but are standing on the side of Islamists, Marxist utopians, and division. It’s all about blaming “the other” and finding some scapegoat for the world’s problems: other than individual responsibility for your own success. Jesus didn’t come to overthrow. He came to help us OUT-GROW!!! By PEACEFUL and PRODUCTIVE means, making all the old stuff invalid, making it fall away, each of us dying to the old (on a personal level).
I would be very careful with this. Too easy too look at history through Rose colored glasses. I think of the Crusades, of Torquemeda and the Spanish Inquisition, the treatment of Christian missionary schools with respect to the conversion of native Americans and Firsst Nation people in Canada, and Aboriginals in Australia. Nothing there to support your base proposition.
Thank you, Harry.
Be careful, or the Quran may just come over here & beat me up, eh?
peaceful self respect and respect for your fellow man versus raving dictatorial macho maniacs; dah
Point blank, this is what appears to be happening. A tactic of the left, probably popularized by Alinsky.
As you are advancing the “big lie” make sure that ANY CRITICISM that could be aimed at you, FIRST BE FORCEFULLY USED AGAINST YOUR OPPONENT. So then it doesn’t seem like much of a big deal when it’s used against you. It will look (to the bystander) like “you’re both doing it. It’s the blame game.”
No. It’s Alinsky. Accuse your opponent of doing something that YOU (or someone on your “side”) is actually trying to do!! Islam is easy to spot, a mile away! So, take all of your discontent with Islam, and turn it against your “common christian enemy” in order to try to pacify Islam and gain a winning shot toward “unity” and “peace” and “victory” all at the same time! It’s a win-win for stupid people everywhere!
The name of the game: attack, divide, conquer CHRISTIANS. Use them as your common enemy, in order to bring the world (including Islam) to your side.
And leave Islam (Iran) and Communism (China/Russia) in “peace”, to conquer the planet together, as the NEW church/state complex.
The old formation: the inner realm governed by church, the outer realm governed by empire and then kings.
The new formation: the inner realm governed by increasing sharia, and the outer realm governed by communist empires.
Sharia Law and Communism are ATTEMPTING to merge. Strange bedfellows. Will not work. But they will play the game for as long as they can MAKE it work for them. Why is it working now? Because they have a common enemy: Christians and free markets!!!! As long as there are Christians and free markets (which will never go away), there will be a cause for unity between Islam and forces of Communism/Tyranny.
This is the NEW religion/sword complex, that replaces the old formation of “western civilization.”
Anti-Zionist rhetoric feeds into this. Israel is filled with Jews. Jews hated by muslims, AND the Quran which commands their death. Jews are enemies of Allah, and their deaths will HELP usher in world peace.
Interestingly enough, Communism has a vision for world peace as well: confiscate and dicate everything.
Marxism and Islam are allying themselves. The target is all ekklesias everywhere, that do not submit to tyranny or Sharia or both. Marxism and Islam SURVIVE on “others” that they can “blame.” As long as there are christians or free marketeers anywhere… there is a fresh batch of “others” to keep the marxists and islamists fairly united. This is the name of the GAME in 2012.
Thank you Barack Hussein Obama.
Of course, there will be room for tolerance of Christians in the “new order”.
So long as there are no criticisms of Islam (cuz that would aggravate violence), and so long as there are no conversions from Islam (as that would aggravate death and endless litigation under the Sharia system).
The writers of Star Trek invented the Borg to symbolize old christianity. They used words like “regeneration” to describe the borg drone’s sleep cycle. (And there are plenty other pointers.) Interestingly enough, it resembles communism and totalitarianism even more. The Borg’s quest was technology (over people), they euthanized, cannibalized on a regular basis, and they never compromised…and their pursuit was an earthly perfection. Death to anyone who opposed or who resisted assimilation. Same as communists and islamists, everywhere. Welcome to the ‘new (planned and hoped-for) order.’
Many people are not standing with Israel because they want to “baptize them”… “Jeee-sus”… But because they recognize that it’s RIGHT!”
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/09/11/israels-deputy-speaker-of-the-knesset-calls-into-radio/
People are people. Jews, as any people, should not DIE just for being Jews. Sure, they have a nation-state. Very few are in favor of how it was originated (by the UN). But it’s history. There are people there, who deserve mortal protection. Nation-states in a protective, defensive posture (to guard their own citizens from DEATH from external forces) should be encouraged.
There is a difference between expansive aggression, and defensive protection. We need to recognize the difference. The creation of the Zionist state (by the UN) had the flavor of expansive aggression. But that’s over 60 years in the past! Jews want peace. They want to live free and unworried. And their state (Israel) isn’t trying to expand… it’s trying to protect. The state of Israel deserves the same type of existence that the state of America deserves. Period. The fate of both are entwined.
so islam is a religion of peace and if you don’t believe it they will cut your head off…..yea sounds extremely peaceful.maybe we should just nuke the whole lot of them so they can get up to allah and get their 70 virgin goats
Interfaith leaders met September 7 in Washington D.C. to denounce categorically derision, misinformation and outright bigotry being directed against America’s Muslim community. As chairmen of the Committees on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, Domestic Justice and Human Development, and International Justice and Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, we voice our solidarity with these leaders. All acts of intolerance aimed at a religious community should find no place in our world, let alone in our nation which is founded on the principle of religious freedom.
As Catholics bishops, we are also heartened by the statement from the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (September 8, 2010) condemning the planned burning of the Qu’ran in Gainesville, Florida to mark the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We make the words of the Holy See our own: “These deplorable acts of violence, in fact, cannot be counteracted by an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community. Each religion, with its respective sacred books, places of worship and symbols, has the right to respect and protection. We are speaking about the respect to be accorded the dignity of the person who is an adherent of that religion and his/her free choice in religious matters.”
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory
Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
Bishop William F. Murphy
Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
Bishop Howard J. Hubbard
Committee on International Justice and Peace
Excellent, Gary, thank you so much. There is unfortunately a lot of misunderstanding about Christianity, even among Christians, such as when violence is morally and Biblically justified, and when it is not. In addition, those who attack Christianity in books, lawsuits, harrassment, etc., are usually attacking Christ. They don’t want His rule or His commandments, and they lash out to protect their sin and their “autonomy.” And they are cowards. They know that Christians are not violent people, which is why they harass and write so many books. They know Islam is ideologically violent and far more dangerous, and so they are afraid to write as Spencer does. Spencer is very brave to speak out against Islam and the crimes Muslim extremists (consistent Muslims) commit, and he is wise to hide his location. I especially appreciate you stating that the advance of Christianity is spiritual in nature. It is the preaching and teaching of the word of God, and the blessing of the Holy Spirit at the decree of God. Never is Christianity advanced by intimidation, threats, violence, or bloodshed. You may know of a Christian martyr, but never a Christian “suicide bomber.”
it advances spiritually, however it needs a shield against Islamic forces(and other anti-christ forces) to do so.
The advance spiritually comes first (and possibly martyrdom, as Christians face in other anti-Christ societies), as we do not have a Christian state anymore. Christians took for granted and gave away what had been so hard won. The Bible, the doctrine of sin, and gospel of Christ left, and then there was no Christian state to protect Christians and Christianity from anti-Christian violence (either within or without U.S. borders). If Christians bring back the Bible, the doctrine of sin, and the gospel of Christ, God may bless us with a Christian state again, which will be a defensive shield for Christianity against evildoers. We are blessed with a Christian history and remnants of a Christian system in place, though crumbling. May we build the old waste places.
Calvin On Islam
In his Institutes (Book 2, chapter 6:4), Calvin writes: “So today the Turks, although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of Heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in the place of the true God.”
John Calvin in a sermon on Deuteronomy 18:15 maintained that Muhammad was one of “the two horns of antichrist.”
In his commentaries on Daniel 7:7-18, Calvin put forward the theory that the Muslim Turks were the little horn that sprang up from the beast.
Commenting on Daniel 11:37,
Calvin wrote that Muhammad “allowed to men the brutal liberty of
chastising their wives and thus he corrupted that conjugal love and
fidelity which binds the husband to the wife ” Mohamet allowed full
scope to various lusts � by permitting a man to have a number of wives
� Mohamet invented a new form of religion.� (Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel � John Calvin).
Jonathan Edwards on Islam
Jonathan Edwards, the first President of Princeton University, wrote in his �A History of the Work of Redemption.� �The two great works of the devil which he � wrought against the Kingdom of Christ are � his Anti-Christian (Romish or Papal) and Mahometan (Muslim or Islamic) kingdoms”
Many of the books you noted are not discussing “genuine Christian faith”, but the neo-con faux Christianity of George W Bush.
This is a good point, Hank. The churches have not taught rigorous Biblical doctrine and have not exercised discernment and discipline as they should. Through church discipline, apostates should either repent of their sins/unChristian acts, or give up using His holy name and admit publicly that they are not Christian. If Christians offend, it should be because of the cross and not because of our sin.
Hank, you are right on the money.
Here is a huge problem. Charlatans like George W. Bush, posing as bible-believing Christians, are looked upon as examples of the faith by many (most?) outside the faith.
So, is it any wonder that, when someone like him murders hundreds of thousands of human beings, Christianity takes a hit as a violent religion?
That is why, in my opinion, the failure of Christians to oppose murderous, unjust, unConstitutional wars is perhaps the greatest sin of the church at large for a hundred years.
Any man who is a full-time pastor should certainly have the time, resources, and intelligence to figure this out and act on it. Sadly few do.
and this is why I am very thankful for American Vision, Gary North, Rushdoony, et al.
Rodney Stark wrote an excellent defense of the Crusades, dispelling many of the worlds lies and distortions that they were ‘aggressive’ in nature.
Islam was founded with the intent and mandate to take over the entire world via the sword. Which is the only reason the Middle East is Muslim today.
We’ve been at war with Islam since its founding, and it is Defensive in every way.
No one here is demanding that Israel cease to exist. Do not bear false witness.