What do you think of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush?

[ZiSunka]

Mr George Bush, President of the United States of America...

...Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH) [praise be upon his name], the great Messenger of God, feel obliged to respect human rights, present liberalism as a civilization model, announce one's opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], make war and terror his slogan, and finally, work towards the establishment of a unified international community - a community which Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern, but at the same time have countries attacked; the lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on the slight chance of the ... of a ... criminals in a village or city, or convoy, or for example the entire village, city or convoy, set ablaze.

Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around 100,000 people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed, close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens broken, and the country pushed back perhaps 50 years. At what price? Hundreds of billions of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of thousands of young men and women - as occupation troops - put in harm's way, taken away from family and loved ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much psychological pressure that every day some commit suicide and those returning home suffer depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of ailments; while some are killed and their bodies handed to their families...



Full Text:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HE11Ak01.html

[cobweb]

I actually agree with the first part of his letter (for the most part). I thought he had some good points.

He lost me about 1/4 of the way down.

[arunma]

I find it very hypocritical for a Muslim to appeal to the President's faith in Christ. Muslims preach an entirely different gospel, and Jesus as portrayed in the Quran bears little resemblance to Jesus in the Gospel. For a Muslim to misportray his Quranic belief in Jesus as similar to Christianity is very deceptive.

Probably not the response you were looking for, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear a Muslim attempt to talk to Christians about "Jesus Christ (pbuh)."

[cobweb]

Likewise the Jesus that our President speaks about so often bears little resemblance to the Jesus that I worship. :scratch:

[meh]

Likewise the Jesus that our President speaks about so often bears little resemblance to the Jesus that I worship. :scratch:

I have to agree with that.


I don't trust Iran, but I do wish we could have used this letter as a chance to open a dialogue with them.

[meh]

oops. double post.

[HumbleMan]

I think the Iranian president is trying to do two things, one, buy some time to get his reactors on line, and two, try to de-escalate the situation without losing face. This is the first official communication between our countrues in over two decades, and even though it wasn't conciliatory, the letter was nonetheless written.

[TwinCrier]

Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Bush his hundred of thousands!!!

[ZiSunka]

Probably not the response you were looking for, but this is the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear a Muslim attempt to talk to Christians about "Jesus Christ (pbuh)."

I actually wasn't looking for any particular answer, I just wanted to open a discussion about the letter.:)

[ZiSunka]

Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Bush his hundred of thousands!!!

I'm very sorry if this comes off as being unfriendly or judgmental, but I don't find it the least bit funny. Sorry.:(

[arunma]

Likewise the Jesus that our President speaks about so often bears little resemblance to the Jesus that I worship. :scratch:

Well, I certainly disagree with Bush's theology, but I think that we often give him too much personal criticism. I am convinced that President Bush is a good Christian.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I disagree with Bush's politicial policies. I didn't vote for him last time. Even if I could vote for him again, I still wouldn't. And I think that Republical political policy is bad for America. But this doesn't have any impact on whether or not George Bush is in Christ.

[MrJim]

Anabaptist POV:

Watching the world of politics is an interesting diversion-usually more interesting than whatever else is on TV. So while I've never seen "American Idol" or an episode of "Friends" I do keep up a bit with political things.

And in the end I sort of view it the same as others view their favorite TV show, know that in the end it's not really real.

What? War in Iraq not real? Sabre rattlin' between world powers not real? It's not real in the sense of the eternal-that all in this world is so temporal compared to the life the Christ has called us to and the people we are to be and the future that is ahead. Those are the things that are real.

Do I lose sleep over Iraq, Iran, bird flu, inflation, President Bush, gas price, cost of bagels? I could, but I don't because I work at trying to see through the veil of this world that clouds our judgement and blinds our perceptions.

[ZiSunka]

Well, I certainly disagree with Bush's theology, but I think that we often give him too much personal criticism. I am convinced that President Bush is a good Christian.

Now, do not misunderstand me. I disagree with Bush's politicial policies. I didn't vote for him last time. Even if I could vote for him again, I still wouldn't. And I think that Republical political policy is bad for America. But this doesn't have any impact on whether or not George Bush is in Christ.

Doesn't a person who is in Christ, do the things Christ would do? Who would Jesus declare war against? Who would Jesus spy on through telephone records? Who would Jesus imprison for five years without trial or even an official acknowledgement that they are in prison at all?

I understand what you are saying, but I question whether the President really has a saving faith, or if it is all just a load of rhetoric intended to get people to unquestioningly support his programs and agendas.

[JPPT1974]

Doesn't a person who is in Christ, do the things Christ would do? Who would Jesus declare war against? Who would Jesus spy on through telephone records? Who would Jesus imprison for five years without trial or even an official acknowledgement that they are in prison at all?

I understand what you are saying, but I question whether the President really has a saving faith, or if it is all just a load of rhetoric intended to get people to unquestioningly support his programs and agendas.

We do need to do what Jesus would do
But I don't think He would want to spy on people nor immprison them without a fair trial
Because that ain't Him at all
He is much higher than even the President of the United States!

[TwinCrier]

Doesn't a person who is in Christ, do the things Christ would do? Who would Jesus declare war against? Who would Jesus spy on through telephone records? Who would Jesus imprison for five years without trial or even an official acknowledgement that they are in prison at all?

I understand what you are saying, but I question whether the President really has a saving faith, or if it is all just a load of rhetoric intended to get people to unquestioningly support his programs and agendas.The problem with the "what would Jesus Do?" question is the answer invariably ends up being "What do I think Jesus should do." Jesus didn't need to "spy" since he knows all. Bush isn't omnipotent and he knows it. Jesus declared war on all of humanity and will unleash His wrath on all who do not surrender. You scoff at my other post because it shows that God does indeed approve of war. When God wants to end war, He'll come back and do so. Until then, I'm siding with the Children of Abraham over the Children of Ismael. I read the end of the book so I know who will win.

[ghs1994]

Just signs. Birth pains of the end nearing. Hearing of wars and rumors of wars.

[arunma]

The problem with the "what would Jesus Do?" question is the answer invariably ends up being "What do I think Jesus should do." Jesus didn't need to "spy" since he knows all. Bush isn't omnipotent and he knows it. Jesus declared war on all of humanity and will unleash His wrath on all who do not surrender. You scoff at my other post because it shows that God does indeed approve of war. When God wants to end war, He'll come back and do so. Until then, I'm siding with the Children of Abraham over the Children of Ismael. I read the end of the book so I know who will win.

Off topic, but it seems to me that the "children of Abraham" are Christians (Galatians 3:29), not Jews (Philippians 3:2-3). I'd encourage you to do a Bible study on the verses I cited and tell me your opinion on this, because I feel that many Christians today have forgotten the ancient doctrine that the church is the true Israel of God, and that apostate Judaism is not of God.

As for the children of Ishmael, I consider this to be one of many Old Testament types of the kingdom of God (the children of Abraham) against the kingdom of Satan (the children of Ishmael). After all, it says:
This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (Romans 9:8)
OK, I'm done with theology. Back to the Republican/Democrat onslaught.

[catlover]

Likewise the Jesus that our President speaks about so often bears little resemblance to the Jesus that I worship. :scratch:


You said it better than I ever could.

[ZiSunka]

You scoff at my other post because it shows that God does indeed approve of war.

No, I thought you were trying to make light of all the people who have died. Like you were celebrating because they were dead. :(

[ZiSunka]

Jesus declared war on all of humanity

Chapter and verse?

[MrJim]

The baptist/anabaptist difference rears its head again...

[ZiSunka]

The baptist/anabaptist difference rears its head again...

What do you mean menno?

[MrJim]

What do you mean menno?

The two different POVs regarding the use of violence.

The two different POVs regarding the relationship between the church and world/gov't.

Makes a big difference in way the church interacts with the world when it decides to wield the sword and kill to defend a way of life.

:sigh: :cry:

[ZiSunka]

The two different POVs regarding the use of violence.

The two different POVs regarding the relationship between the church and world/gov't.

Makes a big difference in way the church interacts with the world when it decides to wield the sword and kill to defend a way of life.

:sigh: :cry:

I've always wondered what it must be like to witness to someone who is dying from your bullet. What do you suppose you'd say, "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him"? The word "love" would certainly be confusing to the dying person at that point.

[MrJim]

I've always wondered what it must be like to witness to someone who is dying from your bullet. What do you suppose you'd say, "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son so that whoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life. God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him"? The word "love" would certainly be confusing to the dying person at that point.

Good point...

[arunma]

The problem with the "what would Jesus Do?" question is the answer invariably ends up being "What do I think Jesus should do." Jesus didn't need to "spy" since he knows all. Bush isn't omnipotent and he knows it. Jesus declared war on all of humanity and will unleash His wrath on all who do not surrender. You scoff at my other post because it shows that God does indeed approve of war. When God wants to end war, He'll come back and do so. Until then, I'm siding with the Children of Abraham over the Children of Ismael. I read the end of the book so I know who will win.

Well, I think the problem here is that God approves of a lot of strange things that we wouldn't expect. For example, at one point God commands the Israelites to surrender to their enemies:
Because you have said, 'The LORD has raised up prophets for us in Babylon,' thus says the LORD concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, and concerning all the people who dwell in this city, your kinsmen who did not go out with you into exile: 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten. I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them, because they did not pay attention to my words, declares the LORD, that I persistently sent to you by my servants the prophets, but you would not listen, declares the LORD.' (Jeremiah 29:15-19)
One cannot take the words of God out of context. Here we clearly see that God has commanded surrender rather than war. This is because the agression against Israel was God's judgment for Israel's idolatry and their compliance with the evils of King Jeconiah and his mother. Now, many conservatives today see America's war in Iraq as a "war on terror." Speaking in that context, I think the question is: is terrorism an enemy of God to be vanquished, or is it the judgment of God on America?

Do not be so quick to answer! The answer may seem obvious, "the terrorists are Muslims, so they are clearly God's enemies." The "terrorist" of Jeremiah's day was King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, a pagan king who did not fear God. Yet the Scripture says to him,:
Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the LORD, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8-9)
Indeed the Scripture also says to pagan Rome,
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)
Therefore, it is entirely possible that terrorists, communists, and any other "bad guys" are actually the servants of God against America.

So again: are America's enemies the enemies of God, or his servants? Ultimately, we don't know, because we have no current prophetic revelation. So if we are going to apply the Bible to America's wars, we must do so consistently. God commands both war and peace at different times, and I have yet to see a Biblical justification for any modern wars.

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to arunma again.


:amen:

[Prophetable]

Whilst I don't agree with all of his opinions, I think the Iranian President made some very good points.

What disturbs me is the arrogant manner in which the American Administration has dismissed his letter.

[ZiSunka]

Whilst I don't agree with all of his opinions, I think the Iranian President made some very good points.

What disturbs me is the arrogant manner in which the American Administration has dismissed his letter.

At this point, there probably isn't a face-saving way for Bush to respond to the letter.

[MrJim]

Well, I think the problem here is that God approves of a lot of strange things that we wouldn't expect. For example, at one point God commands the Israelites to surrender to their enemies:Because you have said, 'The LORD has raised up prophets for us in Babylon,' thus says the LORD concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, and concerning all the people who dwell in this city, your kinsmen who did not go out with you into exile: 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten. I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them, because they did not pay attention to my words, declares the LORD, that I persistently sent to you by my servants the prophets, but you would not listen, declares the LORD.' (Jeremiah 29:15-19)

One cannot take the words of God out of context. Here we clearly see that God has commanded surrender rather than war. This is because the agression against Israel was God's judgment for Israel's idolatry and their compliance with the evils of King Jeconiah and his mother. Now, many conservatives today see America's war in Iraq as a "war on terror." Speaking in that context, I think the question is: is terrorism an enemy of God to be vanquished, or is it the judgment of God on America?


Do not be so quick to answer! The answer may seem obvious, "the terrorists are Muslims, so they are clearly God's enemies." The "terrorist" of Jeremiah's day was King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, a pagan king who did not fear God. Yet the Scripture says to him,:Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the LORD, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8-9)

Indeed the Scripture also says to pagan Rome,For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

Therefore, it is entirely possible that terrorists, communists, and any other "bad guys" are actually the servants of God against America.

So again: are America's enemies the enemies of God, or his servants? Ultimately, we don't know, because we have no current prophetic revelation. So if we are going to apply the Bible to America's wars, we must do so consistently. God commands both war and peace at different times, and I have yet to see a Biblical justification for any modern wars.

From John H Yoder:

"The idolatry of patriotism, believing that any one nation's or people's cause is so worthy that to it human lives-whether friend or foe-should be sacrificed, must be unveiled not first when it has actually led to open warfare, but already when the possibility of such slaughter has been accepted into government plans. Not taking of life, but the idolizing of one's own interest which leads finally to killing, is the deepest sin of militarism. Whether the sixth commandment forbids all killing is still debated; in any case the first forbids nationalism."

[ZiSunka]

From John H Yoder:

"The idolatry of patriotism, believing that any one nation's or people's cause is so worthy that to it human lives-whether friend or foe-should be sacrificed, must be unveiled not first when it has actually led to open warfare, but already when the possibility of such slaughter has been accepted into government plans. Not taking of life, but the idolizing of one's own interest which leads finally to killing, is the deepest sin of militarism. Whether the sixth commandment forbids all killing is still debated; in any case the first forbids nationalism."

Interesting. Nationalism is a form of idolatry. I hadn't ever thought of that before, but it does seem that for some at least, preserving the nation and serving the interests of its politicians IS considered an equal, if not higher, call as obeying Christ and preserving the lives of the saved and the unsaved, or at least not taking those lives for questionable interests. :(

[MrJim]

Interesting. Nationalism is a form of idolatry. I hadn't ever thought of that before, but it does seem that for some at least, preserving the nation and serving the interests of its politicians IS considered an equal, if not higher, call as obeying Christ and preserving the lives of the saved and the unsaved, or at least not taking those lives for questionable interests. :(

If you ponder on it long enough and mix in a little civil religion and it even appears idolatrous.

High Priest (president)
Priests (religious leaders)
Images (flags/historical figures/coinage & coinage inscription)
Music (anthem/hymns)
Rituals (holidays/various traditions)
Rites (inaugurations/pledge of allegiance/singing anthem/oaths of fealty)
Scripture (constitution/declaration of independence/historical writings)

Add a dash of devotion and a pinch of patriotism, and stir.

***
Apologies to my baptist brothers & sisters. We anabaptists follow, believe, and teach this doctrine of kingdom separation. This would be considered trolling if it weren't true teaching-unfortunately we are lumped together on this forum.

The MODS can at least get the anabaptists a subforum for now-then you'd be left in peace

Oh, and I don't think you Baptists are complete heretics for flag worshipping:P . I'm dealing with the exact same issue on a plain mennonite forum:doh:

[arunma]

Interesting. Nationalism is a form of idolatry. I hadn't ever thought of that before, but it does seem that for some at least, preserving the nation and serving the interests of its politicians IS considered an equal, if not higher, call as obeying Christ and preserving the lives of the saved and the unsaved, or at least not taking those lives for questionable interests. :(

Careful. The confession "Jesus is Lord" is often a very dangerous one to make in the presence of extremist conservatives and liberals. Often times, many people who profess Christ add to their confession by requiring us to say, "Jesus is Lord, and Bush/Kerry is his servant." It is unfortunate that many modern Christians use the Gospel to promote political agendas.

[MrJim]

Careful. The confession "Jesus is Lord" is often a very dangerous one to make in the presence of extremist conservatives and liberals. Often times, many people who profess Christ add to their confession by requiring us to say, "Jesus is Lord, and Bush/Kerry is his servant." It is unfortunate that many modern Christians use the Gospel to promote political agendas.

:scratch: Usually calvinist types are uber-political. Better be careful, you may end up in a black hat;) ^_^

[arunma]

:scratch: Usually calvinist types are uber-political. Better be careful, you may end up in a black hat;) ^_^

My church is weird that way. I'd say a majority of the people vote Republican. But no one really cares what anyone else does in the polling booth, and we don't promote any political agendas. The closest thing my pastor ever gave to a political sermon was a message on why the Bible does not teach us to support the state of Israel.

In fact, I'm reminded of a time a few weeks ago in my Bible study, when we covered Ephesians 3. We actually spent some time discussing why Christians of different political persuasion should tolerate each other. So I guess that mine must be one of those "weird" Calvinist churches. Of course I'm not the best authority on the behavior of Calvinists, since I haven't met many Calvinists outside of my own church.

But then, I'm the resident heretic no matter where I go. I am, after all, the wannabe Catholic who hates all Catholic theology.

[JPPT1974]

:scratch: Usually calvinist types are uber-political. Better be careful, you may end up in a black hat;) ^_^

Be careful in what you say as well as
How you say it
Or it might come back to bite you in the rear!:sick:

[daveleau]

What do you think of Ahmadinejad's letter to Bush?


I think this highlights the press's and liberal America's bias. There was no outcry about his lunacy in this letter, nor his religious fanaticism. They are truly blind to the severe problem that is Iran. I think the letter proves that this man is someone that must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. If he is not, then he will deliver on his promise to give nuclear weapons or nuclear material to all Muslims. This would be catastrophic. And, when I say catastrophic- I mean the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.

[arunma]

I think this highlights the press's and liberal America's bias. There was no outcry about his lunacy in this letter, nor his religious fanaticism. They are truly blind to the severe problem that is Iran. I think the letter proves that this man is someone that must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. If he is not, then he will deliver on his promise to give nuclear weapons or nuclear material to all Muslims. This would be catastrophic. And, when I say catastrophic- I mean the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.

I agree. I strongly opposed the Iraq war, but I would probably support military action against Iran. I hate to make such broad-sweeping generalizations as this, but he's a Muslim, and Islam is synonymous with terrorism. I would not trust any Islamic-majority state with nuclear weapons, to say nothing of Islamic theocracies.

[ZiSunka]

I agree. I strongly opposed the Iraq war, but I would probably support military action against Iran. I hate to make such broad-sweeping generalizations as this, but he's a Muslim, and Islam is synonymous with terrorism. I would not trust any Islamic-majority state with nuclear weapons, to say nothing of Islamic theocracies.

That's a little inaccurate. I know many Muslims who oppose terrorism and the escalation toward war in Iran.

In the Muslim community in Cleveland, some people have been trying to descalate the situation through their preaching, interviews with the media and letters and calls to President Bush.

Many Muslims, just like many Christians, object to war and violence as a way of life because of their religious convictions, but you don't see them on the news for the same reason you don't see pacifist Christians on the news--because peace doesn't make news.

Don't judge all Muslims by the few you see on TV, just like they shouldn't judge Christians by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or President Bush, the Christians that are seen on TV.:(

[cobweb]

That's a little inaccurate. I know many Muslims who oppose terrorism and the escalation toward war in Iran.

In the Muslim community in Cleveland, some people have been trying to descalate the situation through their preaching, interviews with the media and letters and calls to President Bush.

Many Muslims, just like many Christians, object to war and violence as a way of life because of their religious convictions, but you don't see them on the news for the same reason you don't see pacifist Christians on the news--because peace doesn't make news.

Don't judge all Muslims by the few you see on TV, just like they shouldn't judge Christians by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or President Bush, the Christians that are seen on TV.:(

What lambslove said :amen:

[arunma]

That's a little inaccurate. I know many Muslims who oppose terrorism and the escalation toward war in Iran.

In the Muslim community in Cleveland, some people have been trying to descalate the situation through their preaching, interviews with the media and letters and calls to President Bush.

Many Muslims, just like many Christians, object to war and violence as a way of life because of their religious convictions, but you don't see them on the news for the same reason you don't see pacifist Christians on the news--because peace doesn't make news.

Don't judge all Muslims by the few you see on TV, just like they shouldn't judge Christians by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or President Bush, the Christians that are seen on TV.:(

I used to think that, until I started talking to some Muslims. Even Muslims on my university campus support extremist policies. But if you want a good sampling, I'd recommend speaking to the ones on the non-Christian religions forum. So now, I'm fairly convinced that almost all Muslims are either terrorists are sympathizers with terrorism (usually the latter).

[MrJim]

I used to think that, until I started talking to some Muslims. Even Muslims on my university campus support extremist policies. But if you want a good sampling, I'd recommend speaking to the ones on the non-Christian religions forum. So now, I'm fairly convinced that almost all Muslims are either terrorists are sympathizers with terrorism (usually the latter).

Really? That statement coming from about anyone else I'd dismiss but now you have my attention.

Still doesn't change my view-we as Christians are to love our enemies, and if Muslims are my "enemies" I will love them too.

But I am interested in the subject...there aren't any around here that I know of-there are some Hindu folks-you know how they are;)

[eldermike]

I used to think that, until I started talking to some Muslims. Even Muslims on my university campus support extremist policies. But if you want a good sampling, I'd recommend speaking to the ones on the non-Christian religions forum. So now, I'm fairly convinced that almost all Muslims are either terrorists are sympathizers with terrorism (usually the latter).

It's easy for us as Christians of many denominations to find what we all have in common. From outside we seem to be in different worlds in our views, not so from inside. Same is true for Muslims, once we learn what they all share in common we will wake up and understand the very dangerous world in which we live.

[ZiSunka]

I used to think that, until I started talking to some Muslims. Even Muslims on my university campus support extremist policies. But if you want a good sampling, I'd recommend speaking to the ones on the non-Christian religions forum. So now, I'm fairly convinced that almost all Muslims are either terrorists are sympathizers with terrorism (usually the latter).

I have numerous Muslim friends in real life, not just in cyber life, and we have discussed the issue of terrorism and they have told me that the average American Muslim is very hurt and ashamed that Islam is associated almost exclusively with terrorism because that interpretation of the Quran is very narrow and not in keeping with what the average Muslim believes. They have begged me not to confuse terrorism with Islam, just as we would have them not confuse Christianity with the Catholic/Protestant fighting in Ireland.

It's not fair to judge all people by the evil works of the minority.

[arunma]

Really? That statement coming from about anyone else I'd dismiss but now you have my attention.

Still doesn't change my view-we as Christians are to love our enemies, and if Muslims are my "enemies" I will love them too.

Most certainly! By no means do I advocate that we hate Muslims, or that we even have ill feelings towards them. I know that it is quite wrong to disobey Christ's command to love our enemies. But I still believe that Islam is a violent and terroristic religion.

But I am interested in the subject...there aren't any around here that I know of-there are some Hindu folks-you know how they are;)

Hindus are highly intolerant of Christians (as you know, I try very hard to fight the popular misconception that Hinduism is a peaceful and tolerant religion), but I wouldn't generally charge them with violence as I do Muslims.

[arunma]

I have numerous Muslim friends in real life, not just in cyber life, and we have discussed the issue of terrorism and they have told me that the average American Muslim is very hurt and ashamed that Islam is associated almost exclusively with terrorism because that interpretation of the Quran is very narrow and not in keeping with what the average Muslim believes. They have begged me not to confuse terrorism with Islam, just as we would have them not confuse Christianity with the Catholic/Protestant fighting in Ireland.

It's not fair to judge all people by the evil works of the minority.

I do understand this. The problem is, I find it very difficult to find Muslims who don't support terrorism. They generally offer a condemnation of terrorism, succeeded by the statement, "...but, Muslims are angry at the following acts by the Christian West." And this is part of the problem: they view the West as the Christian equivalent of Muslim theocracies.

There are other reasons why I find it difficult to respect the Islamic religion (remember though that this disrespect ought to never translate into disrespect for the Muslims themselves). Muslims believe in many conspiracy theories. Already, conspiracies about corruption in the Bible are part of their religion. Thus, they are prone to believe that the "Christian West" is out to get them. Furthermore, by their own admission Islam is a political religion. The goal in Islam is to subjugate non-Islamic states under Muslim sharia. I find this highly disturbing, since I think I speak for all of us when I say that we don't want to live as people do in Islamic states.

[ZiSunka]

I do understand this. The problem is, I find it very difficult to find Muslims who don't support terrorism. They generally offer a condemnation of terrorism, succeeded by the statement, "...but, Muslims are angry at the following acts by the Christian West." And this is part of the problem: they view the West as the Christian equivalent of Muslim theocracies.

But the Muslims I know do not make excuses for the acts of the extremists, they say that the terrorists are ruining Islam, making it so the name Islam is always associated with terrorism, just like it is for you. They say that the terrorism and the people who support it are doing so not out of piety or determination or devotion to allah or Mohammad, but because they are being stirred up by political entities and people. They are angry that terrorism is being used to defame Islam and they make no excuses or allowances for the terrorists.


There are other reasons why I find it difficult to respect the Islamic religion (remember though that this disrespect ought to never translate into disrespect for the Muslims themselves). Muslims believe in many conspiracy theories. Already, conspiracies about corruption in the Bible are part of their religion. Thus, they are prone to believe that the "Christian West" is out to get them. Furthermore, by their own admission Islam is a political religion. The goal in Islam is to subjugate non-Islamic states under Muslim sharia. I find this highly disturbing, since I think I speak for all of us when I say that we don't want to live as people do in Islamic states.

So you don't believe God, our God, will keep the spread of sharia to only those places that He wills sharia to be in? You think God is not able to do his will even in these countries under those conditions?

Would you feel the same if the majority of the people in those places WANT to live under sharia?

[MrJim]

[quote=arunma]Most certainly! By no means do I advocate that we hate Muslims, or that we even have ill feelings towards them. I know that it is quite wrong to disobey Christ's command to love our enemies. But I still believe that Islam is a violent and terroristic religion.
[quote]

So one the one hand you said earlier you would probably support military action agains Iran but then don't disobey love our enemies:scratch:

[Project 86]

God makes it clear that he gives the goverment right to bear the sword. I support just war and also the death penalty. I believe Bush is probably a born again Christian. I also believe the Jesus of Islam is totally different compared to the Jesus of Christianity. I also know Muslims that support the war we had in Iraq. What's going on now is the war against terrorists that are mostly coming from outside countries.

[MrJim]

God makes it clear that he gives the goverment right to bear the sword. I support just war and also the death penalty. I believe Bush is probably a born again Christian. I also believe the Jesus of Islam is totally different compared to the Jesus of Christianity. I also know Muslims that support the war we had in Iraq. What's going on now is the war against terrorists that are mostly coming from outside countries.

As an anabaptist (and since this is an anabaptist-also forum) we do not follow the gov't in their action of carry the sword. I do not deny the gov'ts action in their wars or executions-I do say it is not the Christian's role to do what God called the gov't to do.

[ZiSunka]

As an anabaptist (and since this is an anabaptist-also forum) we do not follow the gov't in their action of carry the sword. I do not deny the gov'ts action in their wars or executions-I do say it is not the Christian's role to do what God called the gov't to do.

Amen. And I'd like to add that I think Christ's commandment to love your enemies overrules St Paul's commandment to obey your government, especially if that government is killing people for questionable reasons.

There is no way to love someone by killing him/her or destroying his/her school, home, hospital or drinking water system, but war inevitably does all of these things.

I can't imagine the internal conflict a Christian soldier must feel in wanting to obey Christ and his commanding officer at the same time. When one says to love the enemy and the other says to kill the enemy, what turmoil that must cause in the soldier's heart! :cry:

[arunma]

Amen. And I'd like to add that I think Christ's commandment to love your enemies overrules St Paul's commandment to obey your government, especially if that government is killing people for questionable reasons.

Well really, both commands come from Christ, since Paul wrote what the Spirit of God told him to write. So I think the proper question to ask here is which one of Christ's commands overrules the other. But in the end, I think we'd come to the same conclusion, of course.

[MrJim]

Well really, both commands come from Christ, since Paul wrote what the Spirit of God told him to write. So I think the proper question to ask here is which one of Christ's commands overrules the other. But in the end, I think we'd come to the same conclusion, of course.


AAAAAHHHHHH:doh: You submit. Submission does not equal obedience! Submission does not equal obedience! Examine your words-there is a HUGE difference between submission and obedience.

[cobweb]

I do agree that we need to submit to the government and obey our earthly masters... unless of course what they want us to do is contrary to the Word of God.

I believe this stance is supported by the actions of the Church Fathers who stood for their beliefs even through torture and execution.

[arunma]

AAAAAHHHHHH:doh: You submit. Submission does not equal obedience! Submission does not equal obedience! Examine your words-there is a HUGE difference between submission and obedience.

Yes, you're right. :sorry:

[JPPT1974]

Yes, you're right. :sorry:

Hey no harm nor foul
You didn't offend me at all my friend!