ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Top Evangelicals Condemn Colleagues Over Anti-Islam Rmks

5/8/2003 6:27 PM
CraddleToGrave	Top Evangelicals Condemn Colleagues Over Anti-Islam Rmks At least some Christians are following the teachings of Jesus: http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Religion_News In my opinion, you can't claim to be a Christian if you go around condeming others. And don't flame me for making this post. If you don't like it, complain to Jesus. It's his rules.

5/8/2003 8:15 PM
Skreddy	Good read for Christians: Here are the guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue from the Institute on Religion and Democracy... http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=631&c=4 BTW, as one who has spoken out harshly against Islam, let me say this: I agree that Christian leaders who make public inflamatory statements about Islam and Muhammad are not doing going to change things for the better. But I also think there's a time and place for discussing the profound problems I see with Islam, provided I am presenting my views to someone who is interested in what I think and actually wants to talk about the subject. Throwing out an unsolicited, unqualified attack against Islam or Muhammad into the public arena is inevitably doomed to backfire. First of all, the general public doesn't know enough to even realize that your inflamatory comments may actually have their basis in fact. Secondly, Muslims will OBVIOUSLY perceive this as a flagrant face-slapping. Calls to Jihad and religious death warrants are commonplace in such instances (and I can probably dig up news stories of such responses to the recent Christian leaders' statements; I know I remember reading a few at the time). ON THE OTHER HAND... there comes a time when one's enemy can no longer be passified with politeness and avoidance. If they want to bring the fight to us, then I say 'bring it on.' It's one thing to bluff 'Death to America'. It's another thing to start a war and kill thousands of innocent New Yorkers and attack the very military headquarters of our nation. If my telling the truth makes someone want to kill me, then I say THEY are the one with the problem. I won't be intimidated. I don't treat religions with special consideration or respect by virtue of the fact that they are religions. If they are based on falsehood and designed to control, rather than on truth leading to freedom, then they are worthy of my contempt; plain and simple.

5/8/2003 8:15 PM

Skreddy

Good read for Christians: Here are the guidelines for Christian-Muslim dialogue from the Institute on Religion and Democracy...
http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=631&c=4

BTW, as one who has spoken out harshly against Islam, let me say this: I agree that Christian leaders who make public inflamatory statements about Islam and Muhammad are not doing going to change things for the better. But I also think there's a time and place for discussing the profound problems I see with Islam, provided I am presenting my views to someone who is interested in what I think and actually wants to talk about the subject.

Throwing out an *unsolicited*, unqualified attack against Islam or Muhammad into the public arena is inevitably doomed to backfire. First of all, the general public doesn't know enough to even realize that your inflamatory comments may actually have their basis in fact. Secondly, Muslims will OBVIOUSLY perceive this as a flagrant face-slapping. Calls to Jihad and religious death warrants are commonplace in such instances (and I can probably dig up news stories of such responses to the recent Christian leaders' statements; I know I remember reading a few at the time).

ON THE OTHER HAND... there comes a time when one's enemy can no longer be passified with politeness and avoidance. If they want to bring the fight to us, then I say 'bring it on.' It's one thing to bluff 'Death to America'. It's another thing to start a war and kill thousands of innocent New Yorkers and attack the very military headquarters of our nation. If my telling the truth makes someone want to kill me, then I say THEY are the one with the problem. I won't be intimidated. I don't treat religions with special consideration or respect by virtue of the fact that they are religions. If they are based on falsehood and designed to control, rather than on truth leading to freedom, then they are worthy of my contempt; plain and simple.

5/8/2003 8:23 PM
Mark Hammer	Whether Christian or not, it's a tough road to walk to be proud of what you are without having to make others ashamed of what they are in order to do it. Some folks are good at that particular skill, some not so good. Evangelicals, while not implicitly on the bad side of that line, are immediately at a bit of a disadvantage simply because being evangelical (and this is not the same as being devoutly anything, though it doesn't preclude it) involves bringing one's religion to others. It could be done as an alternative-but-equal choice, which most have no quarrel with, but often is presented as a better choice. Graham may say that he doesn't have to believe in Allah, and while that's true and perfectly fine (the same way Muslims don't have to believe in Jesus or Vishnu), it tends not to end there. I'm pleased to see that his colleagues have tried to heighten his perspective in these matters, but you will also note in the news item that one of their concerns is that it would endanger their missionaries (that's missionaries, not "field workers") abroad. Not quite as bad as it could be, but the line between "bringing good news to other nations" and "civilizing the heathens" can sometimes be a blurry one. Graham's colleagues still have some thinking to do themselves.....as do the radical Imams.

5/8/2003 8:23 PM

Mark Hammer

Whether Christian or not, it's a tough road to walk to be proud of what you are without having to make others ashamed of what they are in order to do it. Some folks are good at that particular skill, some not so good.

Evangelicals, while not implicitly on the bad side of that line, are immediately at a bit of a disadvantage simply because being evangelical (and this is not the same as being devoutly anything, though it doesn't preclude it) involves bringing one's religion to others. It could be done as an alternative-but-equal choice, which most have no quarrel with, but often is presented as a better choice. Graham may say that he doesn't have to believe in Allah, and while that's true and perfectly fine (the same way Muslims don't have to believe in Jesus or Vishnu), it tends not to end there. I'm pleased to see that his colleagues have tried to heighten his perspective in these matters, but you will also note in the news item that one of their concerns is that it would endanger their missionaries (that's missionaries, not "field workers") abroad. Not quite as bad as it could be, but the line between "bringing good news to other nations" and "civilizing the heathens" can sometimes be a blurry one. Graham's colleagues still have some thinking to do themselves.....as do the radical Imams.

5/9/2003 4:01 PM

Mark Ingram

quote:
"It could be done as an alternative-but-equal choice, which most have no quarrel with, but often is presented as a better choice."

I think evangelicals would argue, from the New Testament, that theirs is the *only* way that ends in Heaven and not Hell. But I do agree with you that evangelicals could do *TONS* to be less obnoxious and more enticing in their presentation.

quote:
"but the line between "bringing good news to other nations" and "civilizing the heathens" can sometimes be a blurry one."

It an error of some evangelicals to equate western culture with the Gospel. As long as some aspect of the culture does not actually violate Scripture (such as cannibalism) the basic tenets of the Christian faith should apply across all cultural boundaries.

5/9/2003 4:40 PM
Mark Hammer	"...It an error of some evangelicals to equate western culture with the Gospel...." I think there, in a nutshell, is the issue. Evangelical Christianity has more Euro-centrism than is good for it. Mix that in with the sheer difficulty of being proud without having to put other down, and you have a problem when you cross cultural boundaries. There is also a sort of blindness in the west where so many denominations of Christianity, and so many sects and quasi-religions (e.g., Scientology) emerge out of the same general cultural "cradle", that we too often neglect the relevance of place and culture to belief. I mean if our denomination, and their denomination, and theirs and theirs can come out of the same place and culture, then religion is perfectly transportable across culture, right? Wrong. The world's great religions (and that's "great" as in large and established not "best", okay) are VERY tied to, and shaped by, the cultures and places from which they emerged, and the notion that one should be able to simply march in and make a foreign culture/religion palatable and perfectly suited is naive. We did it with North America's first nations, and we f**ked them up for generations and generations. That being said, the thread was about whether Graham had been a dumbass in his remarks, not about whether evangelism per se is morally acceptable, or logically plausible.

5/9/2003 4:40 PM

Mark Hammer

"...It an error of some evangelicals to equate western culture with the Gospel...."

I think there, in a nutshell, is the issue. Evangelical Christianity has more Euro-centrism than is good for it. Mix that in with the sheer difficulty of being proud without having to put other down, and you have a problem when you cross cultural boundaries.

There is also a sort of blindness in the west where so many denominations of Christianity, and so many sects and quasi-religions (e.g., Scientology) emerge out of the same general cultural "cradle", that we too often neglect the relevance of place and culture to belief. I mean if *our* denomination, and *their* denomination, and theirs and theirs can come out of the same place and culture, then religion is perfectly transportable across culture, right? Wrong. The world's great religions (and that's "great" as in large and established not "best", okay) are VERY tied to, and shaped by, the cultures and places from which they emerged, and the notion that one should be able to simply march in and make a foreign culture/religion palatable and perfectly suited is naive. We did it with North America's first nations, and we f**ked them up for generations and generations.

That being said, the thread was about whether Graham had been a dumbass in his remarks, not about whether evangelism per se is morally acceptable, or logically plausible.

5/9/2003 7:16 PM
LFOscalator	It appears that many of the Christian religious evangelists that have been allegedly condemning Islam are Republicans. Is that right? Or am I missing something here? In other words, is it safe to say that Republicans are having a harder time following the teachings of Jesus than Democrats? Kind of makes me think of something I read in the bible. It goes something like: It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven. Now, you have to admit, GW is a rich man. And Jesus' messsage clearly indicated that rich men will have an especially difficult time passing through the gates of heaven. Is this good enough reasoning to conclude that Bush and his rich Republican friends are all going to hell? LFO

5/9/2003 7:16 PM

LFOscalator

It appears that many of the Christian religious evangelists that have been allegedly condemning Islam are Republicans. Is that right? Or am I missing something here?

In other words, is it safe to say that Republicans are having a harder time following the teachings of Jesus than Democrats?

Kind of makes me think of something I read in the bible. It goes something like: It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass through the gates of heaven.

Now, you have to admit, GW is a rich man. And Jesus' messsage clearly indicated that rich men will have an especially difficult time passing through the gates of heaven. Is this good enough reasoning to conclude that Bush and his rich Republican friends are all going to hell?

LFO

5/9/2003 9:12 PM
Skreddy	Careful about taking to heart CraddleToGrave's claim that Jesus said it's not alright to condemn people. Jesus and the apostles did indeed condemn people for wrong religious teachings and hypocritical practices. Jesus pronouncing woes and condemning Pharisees Peter condemning false teachers As far as you and I publicly wondering if Bush and his buddies are going to Hell, I should think that would only be an issue if we were genuinely concerned for their souls. (I would occupy my thoughts with my own spiritual health before I worried too much about GWB's)

5/9/2003 9:12 PM

Skreddy

Careful about taking to heart CraddleToGrave's claim that Jesus said it's not alright to condemn people. Jesus and the apostles did indeed condemn people for wrong religious teachings and hypocritical practices.

Jesus pronouncing woes and condemning Pharisees

Peter condemning false teachers

As far as you and I publicly wondering if Bush and his buddies are going to Hell, I should think that would only be an issue if we were genuinely concerned for their souls. (I would occupy my thoughts with my own spiritual health before I worried too much about GWB's)

Page 1 of 2

Next>

Last Page>>