ISLAM IN THE WORLD

[Aardverk]

until everything is accomplished. Mathew 5:18 [NIV]

Before anything else let me point out that the translator of the NIV has repented. That being said, Jesus cried "It is finished!" on the cross. So, I ask you what was 'finished'? Maybe you should read Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; or 11 "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing."

Yes, what could He have meant by 'It is finished'? He could have meant, 'The vinegar is finished', He could have meant, 'my life is finished', 'my struggle is finished', 'my mission is finished', and plenty of other things besides. What he very clearly didn't mean is that the earth is finished (disappeared). It is still here - ergo, Matthew 5:18 still applies. "I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law".

If you prefer a literal translation, how about: for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. [YLT]

Off-topic, I know, but please tell me more about 'the translator of the NIV repenting'. Arguments about accurately copied 'original' texts and appropriate translations have been going on for nearly two thousand years. We will not resolve it here.

 

[tessiewebb]

Thank you. It is sad that many people do not recognize the wisdom in these wise words.

should note the words, "if it be possible". It is not possible to "live peaceably" with those led by and inspired by the devil to steal, kill, and destroy. They will not "live peaceably" with those they consider apes and pigs, nor with those who do not espouse their false religion. And as Christians, we should neither be those who have "laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over." (Isa 51:23)

Paul told the idol worshippers on Mars Hill, "...[Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you....And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter]. So Paul departed from among them." In another city, "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook [his] raiment, and said unto them, Your blood [be] upon your own heads; I [am] clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence..." (Acts 17:22-23, 33; 18:6-7)

Wherever Paul went, he caused trouble in the eyes of the non-believing Jews and pagans. So why didn't he obey his own words in Rom 12:28?

I'd really like for you to explain how you think we should live in peace with those who deny Jesus and do their best to destroy the faith of those who believe either through threats, torture or murder? What would "living peaceably" with those look to you?

 

[tessiewebb]

Um, you think? Hey, Anyone got any comebacks to this?

 

[Potluck]

Instead of marching on Washington on 9/11 to focus people's attention on the REAL problem presented by their violent brothers, radical Islamists, the US Muslims are going to protest victimization. It's the radicals giving other Muslims a bad name but they prefer to blame the American non-believer. They claim insensitivity by others while planning a march on 9/11.
Makes a lot of sense that.

 

[Sparkey]

Hey, Anyone got any comebacks to this?

I don't like stuff that looks like justification for ill-will or trolling. What I do like is the admonition to love our enemies. It's a worthy fight, that one. One focused on something that I hope to increase, that is, my self-control, without which none may serve our Father.

 

[Free]

Thank you. It is sad that many people do not recognize the wisdom in these wise words.

should note the words, "if it be possible". It is not possible to "live peaceably" with those led by and inspired by the devil to steal, kill, and destroy. They will not "live peaceably" with those they consider apes and pigs, nor with those who do not espouse their false religion. And as Christians, we should neither be those who have "laid thy body as the ground, and as the street, to them that went over." (Isa 51:23)

Paul told the idol worshippers on Mars Hill, "...[Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you....And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter]. So Paul departed from among them." In another city, "And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook [his] raiment, and said unto them, Your blood [be] upon your own heads; I [am] clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. And he departed thence..." (Acts 17:22-23, 33; 18:6-7)

Wherever Paul went, he caused trouble in the eyes of the non-believing Jews and pagans. So why didn't he obey his own words in Rom 12:28?

I'd really like for you to explain how you think we should live in peace with those who deny Jesus and do their best to destroy the faith of those who believe either through threats, torture or murder? What would "living peaceably" with those look to you?

But that is precisely what the Gospel requires of us and why Paul said what he did. It's about how we treat people and how we speak to them and about them, not about how they may treat us and speak against us. Just look at the context:

Rom 12:12-21, 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. 14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (ESV)

 

[By Grace]

One of the factors that many people on this forum need to face up to, is separating the fairly common Muslim hatred of Americans from the perceived hatred of Christians. Hatred is aimed at Americans for some pretty obvious historical reasons. I am sure I don't need to spell them out. If the Islamophobes would just take the trouble to quietly and humbly get to know a few Muslims they would realize that they are people - just as Christian, Buddhists, Jews, Druids, Shintoists, etc are. We are all the same mix of intelligence and stupidity, kindness and cruelty, honesty and villainy.

Oh, what a canard!!

Do you blame the Americans for the burning of so many Coptic churches in Egypt? Or do you conveniently forget that the Muslim-brotherhood media is telling people that the Christian churches are to blame for the ouster of Moresi? Do you also blame the Americans that the only time that more Christian churches were burned is in the 1400s?

You see the FACT that the Muslims burned many more churches in that time was one of the legitimate reasons for the Crusades. Your predecessors offered the captives in Jerusalem and in other places a choice: convert to Is,am, or be decapitated, or play Daniel Pearl, and have a blood bucket ready.

I still advocate following Jesus's instructions plus keeping a balanced view rather than succumbing to the ravings of all the Islamophobes spreading hate and fear. Deal with the criminals, don't get diverted into hatred.

Do you think that your predecessors should have done the same thing, or else are you forgetting about that--as a matter of convenience, and playing ostrich?

 

[By Grace]

]Quote Originally Posted by tessiewebb View Post Hey, Anyone got any comebacks to this?

I don't like stuff that looks like justification for ill-will or trolling. What I do like is the admonition to love our enemies. It's a worthy fight, that one. One focused on something that I hope to increase, that is, my self-control, without which none may serve our Father.[/quote]

Having missed the stuff Mike edited out, I can see your point, Sparrow.

However it is often difficult to speak the truth plainly when there are many verses in the Qur'an that speak about killing Christians and Jews and "infidels" on the basis of them NOT being Islam. I could post others than I posted on this site, but the fact remains that the religion of Islam is violent towards ALL who are not Muslim.

 

[Sparkey]

Having missed the stuff Mike edited out, I can see your point, Sparrow.

As a Mod, I can see what was edited. You didn't miss anything of note or consequence. But more back to the point, where the rubber meets the road so-to-speak, Christians are told to become more like our Father. We are given very specific instructions about such things. Okay, time for a story. I was in class last quarter. The news about another bombing was spoken of. One of the students who sat just behind me entered the discussion to confess her first thought and confided to us that she was almost ashamed to admit it because she and her family had suffered reprisals from members of our community for being Muslim. Her first thought when she heard about the bombing? "Oh! I hope it was not another Muslim who did that."

Ever smell gasoline in the air? If you do, it's not the time to strike a match. Same goes for the times we live in as we are indeed and at heart are peacemakers.

 

[By Grace]

Ever smell gasoline in the air? If you do, it's not the time to strike a match. Same goes for the times we live in as we are indeed and at heart are peacemakers.

It is my opinion that the "gasoline in the air" was first placed there by the Muslims since before the Crusades and before both attacks on the WTC. It is plain and obvious to anyone who does a modicum of research about the Qur'an.

It is one thing to want peace, and to work for peace, and quite another thing to engage in self-preservation. That is reasonable. It was not Mormons, nor Mennonites nor Methodists who flew those planes into the WTC; it was a crew of 100% Muslims. It seems to me that the extrapolation of your position would have had the total capitulation of Great Britain and the US to the whimsey of both Hitler and Hirohito.

Since we have to deal with the things that exist, and not the things we hope do not exist, it is impossible to erase those words from the Qur'an. Nor is it possible for a "good Muslim: to vilify or renounce the gasoline in their "holy book" because in doing so, they become infidels themselves, and thereby bring on the punishments supposed to be meted out on other "infidels" (like the Jews and Christians) upon themselves.

As a college student, you have the right to be somewhat naive and idealistic, but as a Christian, you must see the deep roots of sin in the world. No amount of "peaceful activity" will ever eradicate the totality of sin, nor the consequential actions of that sin in the world. So when the Muslim says "My Qur'an tells me to kill infidels.", and then states "You are an infidel." common sense tells you to watch that rear-view mirror. Without any snarkiness, your position reminds me of Prime Minister Nevile Chamberlain who ran for election in Great Britain as a peace candidate in the late 1930s. After a trip to Berlin to see Hitler, he triumphantly returned, waiving a piece of paper proudly proclaiming "I have achieved peace in our time!". Several months later he had to declare war on Germany because Hitler amply demonstrated that he had no such intention of living up to that promise he made to Chamberlain. (condensed version of history)


What you are missing in your noble quest for peace Sparrow, is that there is a remarkable similarity to the Qur'an and Mein Kamph. Both spell out in detail the horrid steps that the authors wanted to do with Jews, and history demonstrates that Hitler did exactly as he said he would do in his book, and that SOME of the followers of Mohammad do exactly as he commanded.

Perhaps you should minor in history? :yes

 

[Sparkey]

Perhaps you should minor in history?

I appreciate your comparison of me to you, sir or ma'am as the case may be. Thank you kindly. Sadly, I can no longer call myself innocent but do appreciate the work that the Lord is doing in me so that even those things from which I was scarlet are being seen white, like snow.

But this isn't about ye and me, as you know.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[By Grace]

But this isn't about ye and me, as you know. Cordially, Sparrow

Indeed so, Sparrow!

BTW I was offering that comment about history as a joke, and not a jab; hence the smiley.

 

[Aardverk]

...... Do you also blame the Americans that the only time that more Christian churches were burned is in the 1400s?

You see the FACT that the Muslims burned many more churches in that time was one of the legitimate reasons for the Crusades.

How many people do you think is it 'legitimate' to kill if one church is burned by some unknown person or persons?:naughty

I'm afraid you will have to help me a bit with the history you have in mind. The 9th and last crusade was in 1272 well before the 1400s. The last couple of crusades descended into pretty disgusting looting expeditions with Roman Christians looting Orthodox Christian cities, most famously Constantinople.

Your predecessors offered the captives in Jerusalem and in other places a choice: convert to Is,am, or be decapitated, or play Daniel Pearl, and have a blood bucket ready.

Are you mistakenly assuming that I am a Muslim? No, I'm afraid my Christian ancestors were slaughtering Christians who followed a different denomination or burning those who would not convert to Christianity. Untold millions were killed by Christians. I think that is something we should all be ashamed of and we should NEVER forget.

Do you think that your predecessors should have done the same thing, or else are you forgetting about that--as a matter of convenience, and playing ostrich?

It is not I who am forgetting the horrors of history. Religious hatred is a terrible thing. The founding fathers had the wisdom to guarantee freedom of religion. Live in peace with that.

 

[Aardverk]

.....What you are missing in your noble quest for peace Sparrow, is that there is a remarkable similarity to the Qur'an and Mein Kamph. ....

I don't want to interfere with your discussion with Sparrowhawke but this ignores some of the points made earlier.

Both the Qu'ran and The Bible advocate killing. Apparently I'm not allowed to spell out where but you MUST know there are 50 or thereabouts instructions in The Bible to kill.

Should Christians follow those instructions? - NO!
Should Muslims follow the similar instructions? NO!

The leaders of BOTH religions tell us that we should NOT. It is only a few idiots who choose to interpret their scripture as an incitement to violence.

Neither religion follows those instructions; we have all grown up a bit. Quoting them in the Qu'ran is no more relevant today than quoting them in The Bible.

Is it fair, reasonable and acceptable to ferment religious hatred on a Christian web-site? It does not seem so to me.

 

[By Grace]

Both the Qu'ran and The Bible advocate killing. Apparently I'm not allowed to spell out where but you MUST know there are 50 or thereabouts instructions in The Bible to kill.

As I pointed out earlier, you miss the point, and that is s significant issue. The Bible does advocate for killing of humans, but that is for the SINFUL THINGS THEY DID.

The Qur'an advocates killing people FOR WHO THEY ARE, MEANING NOT MUSLIMS

Is it fair, reasonable and acceptable to ferment religious hatred on a Christian web-site? It does not seem so to me.

Since when is telling the truth "fermenting religious hatred"? We in the West no longer stone people for adultery, nor is it considered a matter for a criminal court. But the same thing can not be said for what your religion teaches. The penalty for adultery is death. In Saudi Arabia, women are not permitted to drive, and the basis for that is supposedly found in the Qur'an. Also in Saudi they have the "religious police" (I forget their real name) who attack women for not wearing a head covering. would you then dare to state that the nation of Saudi Arabia is run by "... a few idiots who choose to interpret their scripture as an incitement to violence."?

Here is a puzzle for you, and I am assuming that you indeed are a Muslim. Since the penalty for adultery, sex by consenting adults is grounds for judicial execution, should the same standard hold true for those who have sex with children, who by their nature being children are incapable of giving an informed consent?

Yet your Qur'an details the relationship that Muhammad had with Aisha, who was "married" at age six, and by her own accounts had the "marriage" consummated when she was nine. Any clear-thinking adult would call that child sexual abuse, and pedophilia. Yet for any of you Muslims to use those terms to describe Mohammad is to insult him, and then be worthy of the death penalty. Does it NOT strike you as being rather inconsistent that the one who tells the truth about your prophet suffer the death penalty, and that your prophet is somehow exonerated?

That is called "exposing inconsistencies" and is NOT "fermenting religious hatred" as you allege that others and I are doing here. Our Scripture describes your inability to see this, what I describes as "spiritual blindness" 2 Corinthians 4:4, and we all understand that because we Christians know that we ALL were once spiritually blind.

OOPS!

I just saw the other reply where you stated you were not Muslim

 

[Helm]

I think the Quran only says they should kill those who attempt to oppress/oppose them or until they submit and surrender to Islam. Though it does depends if they decide to see non-Muslims as opposing them/the true will of Allah or not.

 

[By Grace]

I think the Quran only says they should kill those who attempt to oppress/oppose them or until they submit and surrender to Islam. Though it does depends if they decide to see non-Muslims as opposing them/the true will of Allah or not.

Please do a web search on "infidel" as it pertains to Muslim, and in particularly as stated in the Hadith then go to the Qur'an. You will then re-evaluate that statement above.

 

[Helm]

According to the Quran Judaism, Christianity or any monotheistic religion is acceptable just inferior to the truth of the pure uncorrupted word of God as spoken by Mohammed. Mohammed claimed to have flown up to heaven on a horse though, so I probably won't be taking his word for it.

 

[Sparkey]

MODERATOR VOICE: I would like to ask again that the discussion and comments here remain on topic and that all members continue to refrain from personal remarks that could be seen as ad hom attack. This post includes the standard disclaimer that it is not necessarily directed toward the last member to post.

 

[turnorburn]

This entire thing is becoming nonsensical is that how you spell it? How about what will be will be, or even still God is in control and they can't do a thing unless he allows it, at least that's what Jesus said when Pilate said: I have the power to crucify you!!


Shut Up or Die, the Muslim Protesters Explained
By John T. Bennett

Would liberals support censorship in response to wife-beaters, skinheads, abortion-clinic bombers, gay-bashers, or any other violent group? Then why do they support censorship in response to terrorists?

It appears that some liberals want to offer Muslim extremists the benefit of voluntary, self-imposed censorship. Few violent groups in America -- or on earth, for that matter -- get such tender treatment. If the left responded to the above-mentioned groups the same way they respond to terrorists, here's how it would sound:

● Victims of wife beaters -- You can avoid abuse if you just shut up. Don't incite your spouse or boyfriend. Respect his volatile emotions.

● Victims of violent skinheads -- You shouldn't have gone outside; your presence incites those people. Consider the skinhead's perspective, and respect his deeply held racial views.

● Victims of abortion-clinic bombers -- You shouldn't be arguing for abortion so loudly. Quiet down your pro-choice views to avoid offending the sensitivities of abortion-clinic bombers. Respect the religious perspective of the clinic bomber.

● Victims of gay-bashing -- You should have stayed in the closet. Consider the perspective of the gay-basher.

As these examples show, it is a perversion of justice and morality to accommodate violent groups. Why, then, have some liberals decided to do exactly that when the violent group comprises Muslims? The short answer is that multiculturalism is strongly influencing foreign policy. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s "The Disuniting of America" described the process that led us to where we are today: any minority group that liberals label as "oppressed" will be treated with deference, to the point where some among us would rather surrender their freedom of expression than criticize an "oppressed" group. This is what happens in a society where toxic tolerance takes the place of values like free speech, free expression, and the Enlightenment belief in open inquiry and criticism. A cult of national self-criticism has become so dogmatic that we habitually equivocate instead of standing up for our own interests.

Thanks to multiculturalism, we can't even stand up for ourselves in a simple standoff between barbarism and free speech. We've become so obsessed with being unoffensive that we can't bring ourselves to make the most basic criticisms of group behavior, even when that behavior is violent. This applies both at home and abroad. In the case of the Libya attack two weeks ago, the resulting approach on the part of some liberals has been, in a word, cowardly.

As awful as the consequences are, liberals are really just expressing their priorities by advocating that we barter away rights in order to accommodate hordes of violent bigots. On one hand we have the right to speak and offend; on the other, we have the sensibilities of barbaric fanatics. So liberals prioritize the latter, and in the process have found a herd of bigots whom they'll essentially take sides with. Why did liberals choose this particular bunch? It could be that Muslim extremists are more culturally vibrant than wife-beaters, violent skinheads, and all the rest. The more likely answer is that liberals are glad to accommodate extremists who are non-white, or non-Christian, and it really helps if the extremists hate Israel.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/shut_up_or_die_the_muslim_protesters_explained.html



tob