A young man from Vanderbilt University asked me what I thought of this ludicrous New York Times op-ed by Nicholas Kristof, in which he compares the popular Left Behind series to the murderous statements and actions of jihadists.
If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss them into everlasting fire:"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."
These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.
If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes....
As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam.
This matters in the real world, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic tracts in Saudi Arabia do. Each form of fundamentalism creates a stark moral division between decent, pious types like oneself — and infidels headed for hell.
No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will ram planes into buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and abroad after 9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's harder to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and expect Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now.
I am not a fundamentalist and do not believe in the theology that the "Left Behind" series expresses, but Kristof has (as usual) missed a fundamental distinction: a depiction of Jesus killing people at the Last Judgment, no matter how glorious a reader may find it, is not even remotely equivalent to an explicit and repeated call for believers to wage war against unbelievers. Calls like that go out from mosques worldwide with numbing regularity. One would be hard pressed to find a church making the same kind of call on the other side. No one who reads "Left Behind" is going to kill you because of it. He might be waiting for Jesus to do it, but that is not a call to action.
Traditional Christianity and traditional Islam both believe in Judgment and Hell. Kristof's analysis suggests that if you believe that those things exist, you must want to kill people. He completely ignores the fact that the two religions actually have quite developed teachings about how to behave in this world that don't depend at all on their eschatologies. Kristof has, I am sure, no clue of the fact that Christianity actually doesn't have and never has had a doctrine mandating warfare against non-Christians; Islam, on the other hand, has now and has always had a doctrine mandating warfare against non-Muslims. (Taqiyya artists and dhimmis please see, just to name a few, Qur'an 9:29 and hundreds of other verses, Sahih Muslim 4294, Umdat al-Salik o.9.8, plus the writings of all the major Islamic jurists. I have quoted them many times and you can find it all in Onward Muslim Soldiers.)
I am not saying that Christians have never behaved in a beastly manner. I am saying that they didn't do it because of their ideas of what was going to happen at the end of the world. Whatever you want to tell me about the Crusades and the Inquisition, you will never find a New Testament verse commanding that Christians go out and kill people. But jihadists who kill today are doing so because of teachings of Islam to which I referred above, and others. Muslims who do not kill don't have different teachings; they just ignore these.
This is, of course, the one thing that people like Nicholas Kristof can never and will never admit, because it would explode the foggy multiculturalism and relativism that passes for a world view in their minds. But it is simply a fact. Prove me wrong.
For Kristof to term this set of novels "militant Christianity," which is somehow equivalent or becoming equivalent to militant Islam, shows that he has not the remotest idea of what the jihadists are really saying, why they are saying it, and how it differs from what Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are saying. This kind of theological equivalence is the idiot stepchild of the moral equivalence that the learned pundits used to preach regarding the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And just as moral equivalence played into the bloody hands of the Communists, so theological equivalence plays into the hands of the jihadists, attempting as it does to blunt the force of the moral argument against them. Yeah, sure, they preach murder, but hey, look at these novels!
For those of you in the U.K., here is your opportunity to learn the truth about Islam and to meet many Islamic reverts (those who have rejected their false beliefs and embraced Islam). If any of you care to try, you will have the opportunity publically to refute Islam.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar
Kristof apparently has swallowed the Muslim line. He obviously has not done any research. He disparages Christianity because it's the fashionable thing to do. It's amazing that he compares the content of a series of novels to that of the Koran, the official holy text. Hmmm. I wonder what Muslims will think of that! Ha.
Sorry, Reza, anyone with half a brain that knows how to read can determine for themselves the value of Islam and what it's about. You are a piece of Work!
Reza:
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Not likely, since there will probably be no living followers of your ancient death cult left walking the earth by the time I have any grandchildren.
And no,before you start whining, that's not a threat. It's a statement of fact.
If you and your friends don't drop your insane jihad against us, we will be forced to eliminate you from this planet.
And you'll have no one to blame but yourselves (not that a Muslim has ever accepted blame for anything, of course).
What I worry about it this: The last 60 years have been the story of immense history created by religious or quasi-religious fanatics. In the 1940's we* allied ourslelves with the quasi-religous fanatics called COMMUNISTS to defeat the quasi-religious fanatics called NAZIS. In the 1980's we allied ourselves with the relgious fanatics called ISLAMISTS to defeat the Communists. Will we end up allying ourselves with yet another group of religious fanatics in our conflict with the Islamists?
*We: People without a definite agenda concerning how mankind should live. We believe in freedom, which implies freedom to express one's inherent imperfections. This group includes the great Scottish philosopers Hume and Adam Smith, on whose ideas our founding fathers established the United States; Abraham Lincoln; and many others.
That should have read: immense SUFFERING
I also meant to add that it may be a small step from "Jesus will kill you at the end of days" to "Convert, we want to save your soul so that Jesus won't have to kill you at the end of days, otherwise we may have to get pro-active and kill you now."
here's a question.
How come thousands of Islamic jihadists volunteer to blow themselves up and kill infidels and yet Christianity would never find even one volunteer to commit similar barbarity if it trawled its entire worlwide congregations
Nice of you to worry, Carl, but maybe you're overreacting just a smidgen. Odd, how I can see our society getting less and less "religous" in the past 60 years, especially in comparison to the times of Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers. I can, for instance, give you many examples in this century about secularists removing christianity from the public eye, but the only example I can find going in the opposite direction is perhaps "prohibition". Hardly, a pogrom against non-christians.
In fact, I see our country's judeo-christian beliefs as liberating rather than oppressing since I sincerly believe that if one believe's that one is "endowed by their Creator" to the unalienable right to life, then man has no right to take it away.
Let's see about your comparison:
Communists - An economic philosphy based on "Atheism" is in fact a religon in your eyes
Nazism - A political philosphy based on "Mysticism" is another religion
Islamism - you correctly peg as a religon
Following this logic, Democracy and Capitalism could both be considered "quasi-religous". Using the term "quasi" doesn't make you sound smart, incidentally, just pretentious.
Now you claim we are going to ally ourselves with another religion (fundamentalist christianity) to destroy Islamism. What you fail to realize, is the current American society, even with the incredible audacity to try and ban homosexual marriage and keep "Under God" in the pledge, is the least fundamental christian American society in the last 250 years (statiscally looking at the percentage of those who believe in God in our society). I think we can probably manage to fight off the vast fundamentalist hordes a bit longer.
Finally, even though you think:
"I also meant to add that it may be a small step from "Jesus will kill you at the end of days" to "Convert, we want to save your soul so that Jesus won't have to kill you at the end of days, otherwise we may have to get pro-active and kill you now.",
it is, in fact, a huge step, especially if you look a bit closer at what Spencer wrote above.
Mr. Spencer, you are mostly on target. I myself wrote to Kristoff explaining to him that there's a difference between believing in Hell and believing you have a right to hasten people on their way there. Indeed, I'm of the mind that Jesus calls on us to love and pray for our enemies precisely because Hell is such a frightening moneument to the free will of man. And if my prayers get the "yes" answer and people turn around, the one compelling them is the Holy Spirit, with His subtle means; not me with a gun in my hand.
But in fairness to Nicholas Kristoff, he has on other occasions reminded his liberal readers than Evangelical Christians are part of America, too. He did so in a very patronizing manner, but I suspect he did not intend to be insulting.
I suspect that when Kristof and Kirkpatrick spoke about the shift from the "Mr. Rogers" Jesus to the enthroned judge of the eschaton, they reveal themselves to be typical modern Christian-origin Americans who, after about eight or nine years of age, don't mature in religious understanding. They have no clue that at present, Jesus by His Word and Spirit is calling sinners to repentence and faith before the judgment comes. Hence it is proper for Christians to speak about both a loving Savior and perfectly just judge.
The New York Times editorial staff has never forgiven Evangelicals for deserting the New Deal coalition in Jimmy Carter's hour of need. This is why they and other media people dubbed the Khomeini-ites and Ikhwan "fundamentalists"--it helped make us Evangelicals look un-American. They're still playing the same gane, demanding that we act like dhimmi before their secularist triumphalism.
BTW, I do not buy the pre-trib primillennial theology of _Left Behind_.
Carl, I suggest you read Alasdair MacIntyre's _Whose Justice? Which Rationality?_before you assume that the secular liberal has all "neutral" reason on his side.
It's also intersting how the liberal mind, when it sees its own sinister children such as Communism and Naziism, finds something in the Christian past to blame for their faults. It sounds rather intellectually and morally irresponsible to me.
While the Bible does foretell a judgement day in which non-believers are destroyed. The Bible also makes the point that it is up to Jehovah to decide who is a believer and who is a non-believer and that he will render judgement.In the Bible Jehovah says "vengence is mine I will repay".Christians are told to wait on Jehovah, not to take matters into their own hand.Christians are told not to kill and to turn the other cheek even when struck. Christians are to model their behavior after Jesus Christ who never engaged in violence. In contrast Muslims apparently are unwilling to wait on God and seem to think they can best decide who should live or die. They are also allowed to engage in lying, stealing and even murder as long as the acts are against infidels and done to further Islam.
Christianity and Islam are nothing alike.
I emailed this to him...
I hope that your article "Jesus and Jihad" (7-17-04) was meant to be satire. If not, then you are purposely hiding the truth. You have quoted a novel, not Christian scripture, no different than quoting a comic book. That is cheap journalism.
In reference to the novel “Glorious Appearing” you say…
“These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.”
And also you say…
“If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit.”
Let’s look at what Islam is saying.
“I ask US President (George W.) Bush to withdraw from Iraq or else Ramadi will become a graveyard for US soldiers,” declared Sheikh Akram Ubayed Furaih at weekly prayers in the city (Ramadi), 100 kilometers (60 miles) west of Baghdad. (July 16th, 2004)
Or how about this from Al-Zubair Alazdi‘s father?
In the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful Peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you it. God bless you a brother, your governor is a new plan.
One of one of New York skyscrapers Almaghdin climbs and sprays a stronger item from the anthrax. About what other carry out the explosion of a nuclear bag near the White House in Washington. About what another carries out the explosion of another bag the nuclear one of America establishments canteens in another city. And another carries out the explosion of a dirty bomb in Las Vegas. (July 15th, 2004)
Bottom line is this…
"Glorious Appearing" is a novel and does not reflect what is described in the New Testament in regards to the “second coming.”
The quotes above from Muslims do reflect what real living people want to do to us.
You say…
“That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands for.” You are right on that fact. But the bottom line is the death or enslavement of the West is precisely what Islam stands for. Wake up and read something other than the New York Times.
Walter L. Newton, Denver, Co.
I am afraid my Bible does say that God will cast the unrepentant into a lake of fire "where there will be weeping and nashing of teeth."
God does this because humans have fallen from grace, from the perfection we had before sin entered the world. If you doubt this fact, then you doubt Christianity. (The ENTIRE faith rests on the willing unselfish gift Jesus gave on the cross so we would not HAVE to go to hell, based on faith in Him.)
The BIGGEST DIFFERENCE is:
a) Although not all Christians are a good example of this, we are supposed to be motivated by love. We proselytize (try to convert) not for our own reward, but because we have been told that anyone who believes can go to Heaven with us.
b) Muslims, on the other hand, try to eliminate all others out of hatred and "superiority". Their ultimate quest is not to convert, but to kill and die that they might have 72 virgins.
(While the idea may sound interesting, I can only imagine 72 women asking me to take out the trash. hah!)
Here I thought it was just a tiny minority of Christian extremists who believed in fundamentalist tracts (the Bible). Good of Kristof to set the record straight.
And this:
Is essentially untrue. Such tracts are read out quite regularly over mosque loudspeakers, I understand. Cue the NYT having a fit... No? (As it shouldn't. A religion's end-times prophecy should be its own business, so to speak. As long as nobody gets hurt in the meanwhile.)
Oh, we know the truth of islam, Reza, and it says "the last day will not come till Muslims kill all the non- believers, then the sun will come a few feet above your head, and you will sweat buckets, and "allah" will judge you.
before that, according to pedophile Muhammad, Jesus comes and breaks the cross, and all that garbage, which is consistent with all other garbage the demon possessed psychopath Muhammad dreamed up in his so called Koran.
Getting back to the article, I have never read anything resembling kristofs version of Christianity. I wonder where he gets it from.
I guess his main agenda is to demonize the prince of Peace. I pity him. I guess he hasn't taken it upon himself to actually read revelations, and what Armageddon entails. the book of Daniel is difficult to read and put it's symbolism into perspective.
When the earth comes to it's end, there are no living people on earth. Man will have destroyed themselves.Revelations clearly spell it out that our destruction comes by our own hand, our return to paganism, and rejection of Christs laws. Our Lord comes to give final judgment, but scripture makes reference to our living souls, not our flesh. It is those that are cast to eternal death, or taken to his everlasting kingdom, depending if you accepted Christ's redemption and salvation.
You can be sure the Reza's of the world will suffer both the death of the body, and later, on that final day, the death of the soul.
It is after all, only your soul which is made in Gods image, not the flesh of the earthly body.
Sorry to burst your bubble Reza, but there are no virgins, rivers of wine and young virgin boys to bugger in Gods kingdom.
That's just Muhammad's fantasy, and those of his demented demon which possessed him that you believe in. He was a small minded idiot, who couldn't think outside of his own little flat world.
Only good thing I have to say about Stalin is that
he banned ALL religion in the Soviet Union. Really
everyone, this is 2004. How can we believe in the testimony of old books written by men hundreds of years after so called miraculous events occurred?
Religion started with people falling on their knees when thunder and lightening lit the sky, they had to do something to rationalise their terror of the unknown.It isn't MAN who is made in the image of so called GOD, it is GODS made in the image of MAN which is why they are so cruel,bloodthirsty and act in a most irrational way. All religions have in common that priest/rabbi/iman etc are always winners with control over the faithful and lots of perks denied
their followers. Have any of you seen a poor cleric of any denomination?? Call me cynical and a
blasphemer if you like but there have been so many
millions slaughtered and this continues all in the
name of Religion.Like John Lennon song...'If there
was no religion...'I respect other people's religious views as long as they're not trying to burn, stone etc someone[usually a woman] for being
a witch,adulterer,homosexual or whatever that doesn't fit someone's conservative norm or trying
to force their beliefs on me.
Morgane ranted "Have any of you seen a poor cleric of any denomination?? "
Yes.
Christianity and Islam are alike in their disdain for anyone who disagrees with there belief system.
Christianity went through the Enlightenment, Islam did not. Regardless, if Opeus Dei or a Pat Robertson, or even a Kahane (just to add to the mix) took power, innocent people would be murdered. That is what happened in Islam, the Wahabis (with the consent and help of the Saud family )got their hooks in the religion and changed it.
As for grandchildren being Mulims, honey don't hold your breath; aint gonna happen.
I have not seen Left Behind because, despite being a Christian who awaits the reappearance of Christ, I don't subscribe to the whole Hal Lindsey eschatological framework.
That said, I don't know how accurate Kristoff is in his description of a Christ who returns to kill all non-Christians. But that is clearly askew of what the NT teaches.
When Christ returns, two things will be targeted for eternal destruction:
1. those who sin
2. things that cause sin
On that point, it's good for everyone, Christians incuded, to remember these words: there are those who are first who will be last, and those who are last who will be first.
As for what I have learned and watched, the countdown to the end started in 1948 when Israel became a nation. Islam will not be the winner reza. Christ will not be coming to kill all the non-believers, judgement will be poured out upon the earth over a period of 3 1/2 years, there won't be a rapture, it's called judgement. Satan, the true father of Islam knows his time is short, that's why he's has gotten them all fired up for their own destruction. The Almighty will judge them in the valley of Jehosephat, face to face, all the nations will gather around Israel to destroy her and he will destroy them all. The Almighty stated the following concerning Israel, "I will Bless those that bless you and I will curse those that curse you," looks like the middle east and some of europe are in deep trouble.
I think it is unfair for the NYT to equate Christianity with Islam. To be sure all religions do have propensity for violence. But so do nationality, race, language and culture. Religion like, nationality, race and language are badges of identity. Any badge of identity gives rise to rivalry (witness the soccer hooligans in Europe), clashes of self interests, pride for fellow group members and lack of empathy for non-members. These human emotions, when taken to extreme, can result in violence. But this is due to human nature itself and not the religious teachings per se. It is also absurd to say that any two religions have an equal propensity for violence. That is because no two religions are completely alike in its teachings.
Islam definitely has a greater propensity for violence than Christianty or far that matter any other major religion for the following reasons:
1)It has a violent founder. Prophet Mohammed led raids to rob caravans, killed people in the process, taken a women as wife right after killing her husband etc. The founder of Christianity is of course Jesus who is a saintly figure. He killed no one and had no army. The founder of course act as a role model for all time.
2)Islam has doctrine for jihad which is absent in Christianity. Martyrs in Islam go to a heaven filled with Virgins for their eternal pleasure. Robert Spencer has already written at length on all the verses in the Koran and Hadith proving this so I won't repeat. Instead I will dispose of the common rejoinder from critics that Christianity too had its Holy Wars - ie the Crusades. It should be noted that there was no Holy War in Christiandem for about 1,000 years.
In fact, many early Christian martyrs died because they refuse to fight. Christian converts in the Roman army was executed for obeying Jesus' words, "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." These martyrs were later declared as saints, the names of which I now forget. But you can look it up for yourself.
The concept of Holy War came to Christians nearly four centuries after Mohammed when about two-thirds of Christiandem was conquered by Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor Alexuis Comenenus, whose lands were directly threatened appealed to the Pope for help and thus we have the first Crusade, about 1000 years after the Ressuraction of Christ. In Islam, Holy War started at day one by Prophet Mohammed. I think the Popes borrowed the concept of Holy War from the Muslims so as to save Christiandem and to recover the Holy Land.
The theological justification came from an extension of the concept of remission of sins by performing penance. In earlier times, a sinner was asked to compensate for his sins by a good deed or undergoing some punishment or undergoing on a pilgrimage or spending time in a monastery. Pope Gregory VII expanded this concept to include fighting for Christ. Thus for Christians, going on holy war was really going on a limb to find theological justification at a time when their survival was at stake. For Islam, Jihad is right at its root. Thus to equate Christianity with Islam is grossly unfair.
As a parting note, I think the world owes a debt of gratititude to the much maligned Popes for launching the Crusades. It may have well saved the world from Islamic domination where the Politically Correct Brigade will have no place. If not for the Crusades, Europe might well have been conqured by the jihad forces of Islam. The result would be the Muslim discovery of America which would have fallen to the banners of the Cresent Moon. With the gold and manpower from America, it would be a matter of time before China and India fell too. The whole worle could have become Muslim. The Crusades is a success because I regard the most important piece of real estate to be Spain and not the Holy Land. It was from Spain that Columbus set sailed for America.
By the way, I am not a Catholic.
Even though you can't access it anymore, I'll still point out that Reza identifies herself in her email address as "rezareza666". Puts her comments in perspective, doesn't it?
There have been so many
millions slaughtered and this continues all in the
name of Religion.Like John Lennon song...'If there
was no religion...'I respect other people's religious views as long as they're not trying to burn, stone etc someone[usually a woman] for being
a witch,adulterer,homosexual or whatever that doesn't fit someone's conservative norm or trying
to force their beliefs on me.
Posted by: Morgane at July 18, 2004 06:31 AM
There have been many millions more killed by non- religious fanatics.
If you like john lennon, try interpret it this way. (although I don't take drugged up musicians, or anything they write as "phylosophy" . They are for the most part, uneducated dropouts.
"If there was no religion", All the desposts like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the likes who would be running the world. So called Atheists have killed much more people than religion, (except for Islam) ever did. Name all these religious wars you mention? Were the crusades religious wars?
Or were they merely a papal decree to retake the holy lands from the Muhammadan crusaders?
They were defensive in nature, but fought by kings and their peoples, not by priests. They often went against the papal decree, as kings and rulers had different ideas. The only "religion" causing wars, or continue today as you say, is Islam. Jews don't fight wars in the name of God, nor do Christians. That would be blastphemy.
The only ones killing in the name of their god (which is a rock) are muslims.
Religion prevented more wars than it ever started. If it wasn't for Christianity, Europe would never have stopped warring. It was the glue that held western Europe together.
Your idea of religion is somewhat lacking, those crazy men who wrote those books have been amazingly accurate. You should read them sometime and find out what they mean before you condemn them.
Psst! Posted by: Jewish Girl at July 18, 2004 10:26 AM
(Christ has already came) If you read Daniel, it speaks of Christ and our times now, not the destruction of Israel then. I realize Jews reject the Book of Daniel, largely because they can't make sense of it, and it contradicts their belief. So does alot of Isaiah. even Isaiah has said that Jews, Hebrews will call themselves Christians in honor of their Lord.
"My servants are to be given a new name." (Is.65:15). That new name is 'Christian'. No longer called Hebrew or Jew, the holy people now invoke the messianic title of God's divine Son.
While it doesn't really matter what you believe at this point, (basically Jews have the ending wrong)The eyes of the Jews well be opened when the time comes, according to scripture.
"See, the days are coming - it is God who speaks- when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel (and the House of Judah), but not a covenant like the one I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt."
"They broke that covenant of mine, so I had to show them who was master. "No, this is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel when those days arrive: Deep within them I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people." (Jer.31:31-33).
That time has come and gone. Many Jews became Christians, and the scattered house of David has for the most part as well thoughout the world.
The covenant of Moses came into being as an interim law because of the compromise at Sinai, and it was destined to be broken by the sins of the people and replaced by an everlasting covenant formed in the Son of David.
All these truths were described in great detail in the Old Testament -- a fact which shows that the Old Testament was pointing to Christian liturgy from the very beginning.
"They will look on the one whom they have pierced; they will mourn for him as for an only son, and weep for him as people weep for a first-born child." (Zech.12:10-11).
Everything is all part of Gods plan, And the Jews play a important role in the end times, as they have during all of Christs millennium rule.
There will be no new jerusalem on this earth however, it's somewhere else, described in genesis. :o)
Here's what Jesus said according to his disciple, John:
"For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again. And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so I, the Son of Man, must be lifted up on a pole, so that everyone who believes in me will have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. There is no judgment awaiting those who trust him. But those who do not trust him have already been judged for not believing in the only Son of God. Their judgment is based on this fact: The light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. They hate the light because they want to sin in the darkness. They stay away from the light for fear their sins will be exposed and they will be punished. But those who do what is right come to the light gladly, so everyone can see that they are doing what God wants."
"When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive all the nations in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, and mobilize them for war".
"His armies will be as many as the sands of the sea; they will come swarming over the entire country and besiege the camp of the saints..." (Rv.20:7-9).
"I mean to sweep away everything off the face of the earth. I mean to sweep away men and beasts, the birds of the air and the fish of the sea, I mean to send the wicked staggering, and wipe man off the face of the earth." (Zeph.1:2-3).
"The world with all it craves for is coming to an end..." (1 Jn.2:17).
"I looked to the earth, to see a formless waste; to the heavens, and their light had gone." (Jer.4:23-24). The destruction Jesus warned us about is far more grave than any event that has ever occurred in the past.
"The heavens will vanish. You will roll them up like a cloak" (Heb.1:11-12). "The heavens are rolled up like a scroll and their armies all drop like leaves -- like falling fig leaves...for my sword has drunk deep into the heavens..." (Is.34:4-5).
"To be -- for this he created all. Death was not God's doing, he takes no pleasure in the extinction of the living. It was the devil's envy that brought death into the world." (Ws.1:12-15, 2:24).
That is why Jesus sent his Spirit into this world, to offer Salvation.
"By the word of God the heavens were made, their whole array by the breath of his mouth...He spoke and it was created; he commanded, and there it stood." (Ps.33:6-9).
"...when he shouts, the world disintegrates." (Ps.46:6).
"The harvest is over, summer at an end, and we have not been saved!" (Jer.8:20)
"The sheep that belong to me listen to my voice; I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life." (Jn.10:27-28).
For this reason, we only have two choices; To follow Jesus or to end up in the burning lake. "This burning lake is the second death; and anybody whose name could not be found written in the book of life was thrown into the burning lake." (Rv.20:15).
When we were lifted up to life on this earth we found ourselves born on a battlefield. There is a huge war going on here and we are caught right in the middle of it. On one side are the armies of God and on the other, the forces of Satan.
This extraordinary war is being fought inside our own bodies. It is a war for our souls.
At least that's what scripture says, jesus didn't come to save the world, he came to save our souls
Mullah Abu Bin Boobie
I have read the Bible.What I am trying to point out is both Jews and Palestinians are Semitic People.What divides them - RELIGION. What divided
Catholics and Protestants in the past -RELIGION.
Now we all face most fanatical religion ever -Islam. Certainly Communists killed a lot of people
as did Hitler but if you added up the corpses over history, those done to death in the name of
religion far outweigh 20th Century Killing Fields.
What everyone seems to fail to understand is Mohammed is by his words and actions Judged and gone to hell.
The Christian emphasis on the identity of the Messiah, that is "The Son of God" is central to the issue of salvation, the Jews rejected Jesus in his day; that left them with the option of "The Rich young Ruler" , that is to keep the commandments which are a guarantee of salvation as Jesus testified.
Muslims have no such defense as they have added to the Word of God disclaimers which allow them to operate outside of the Commandments therefore they reside spiritually in the realm of Judgement, and under the Law, - Mohammed too!
Just because they believe that Jesus is a great prophet does not negate that they have ignored the word he gave, in fact they have offended the Holy Spirit in that they have tried to change the word and meaning of both the Jews and the Christians scriptures, which had been endorsed by Jesus as being incontestable "Scripture say's".
The Judgement will be a shock to them all, as this is the case, God has come in Human form as he has foretold he would ("I will be a shepherd to my flock")
The Holy Spirit, that is the The Spirit of Truth, (the Comforter) who works in all men to bring them to the Truth, has been rejected by them, God's Son who is the Truth Incarnate has been allowed to die in their presence, and his mercy was rejected, they have not washed themselves in the "blood of the lamb" nor regarded the suffering of their neghbours.
At the end of this life they will not see the supposedly friendly face of Muhammed as The Comforter (a title stolen from the NT) they will be judged in the presence of The Spirit of Truth, he will appear to them as a Glittering Great Two Edged Sword, their will be NO PLATITUDES they will have to answer for distractions from the LAW of MOSES. The Sword will terrify them as it spins and as he discovers errors he will denounce them, he will reel their lives from day to day like a video tape, and he will be zealous to uncover all the hidden secrets which they have justified by hadiths (Mans intellect) he will prove to them that "justice" is not what he asked them to learn but "mercy" and to those who have become convinced that that violence and murder are a means to an end he will prove to them that "The Kingdom of heaven is not overcome by for force" even if the whole world became Islamic, he say's "Even though the whole world stood against me - it would fall before me! ".
The prayers of those who hate is cursing in the sight of God
...but if you added up the corpses over history, those done to death in the name of
religion far outweigh 20th Century Killing Fields.
Posted by: Morgane at July 18, 2004 05:35 PM
That's not a correct statement. Not at least, regarding Judism, Christianity, Hindu's Budistists.
Only Islam has that claim to fame. Islam is the only religion that has waged war because of other people of other nations beliefs, and they continue to do so today. You can't toss blame on others for fighting back in the name of country.
Islam has killed 100 million Indians alone in their 1400 year war for the subcontinent.
Sure, the dark ages has religious involvement, but it wasn't because of anything in the gospels, it was because of misguided, power hungry people.
There were thousands of wars though history that had nothing to do with religion. Don't just count the 20th century. The majority of killing was not over religion. Religion at least Christianity, prevented many more.
The bible is a good account of human history. It's not just all about what God said. It's about man, our ancestors, the 12 tribes, and what they did, wrong and right, plus their interaction with God. It's accounting is very accurate, in fact despite many who set out to prove it wrong, haven't. Archeology proves the accuracy of the reported history in the bible.
The Bible also shows mans struggle with morality, and what happens when we stray from Gods version of Morality.
So, even if you choose not to believe in the higher power, it's still a good history book.
The prophecies are amazing as well. There hasn't been one that hasn't come to pass yet.
Is there another explanation for this? Possibly, but I haven't heard it yet.
At any rate, Christianity isn't harmful to anyone, so why people try demonize it is beyond rational excuse. Christians, At least those who are true believers aren't a threat to anyone, it's the other way around.
Also, for curiosity sake, revelations, Armageddon are interesting, especially in these times.
Can the end of the world be stopped from happening? Nope. But it can be delayed, if the will is there.
The Bible and gospels say it's because this will isn't there that it ends.
What does that mean, and when? Who knows for sure.
Maybe it means if Bush doesn't win, and Kerry tries coddle the islamic cult, it's the beginning of the end.
Maybe it's meant for another time, except it's hard to ignore the prophecy of the comet that hit Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, and the wars that followed, as prophecy predicted.
I think Kristoff is on to something. As a "secular", it "feels" to me like the American Religious right and the Islamic Jihadists are squaring off for an actual religious war. The fun/scary part of this is they both hate people like me and blame "us" for most of their own problems, i.e., "not living in the Kingdom of God/Allah".
If the war the Islamists have declared on Western civilization is an effort to bring Allah's Caliphate back to sovereignty of the earth in opposition to Western decadence, how long do you suppose our own Christian fundamentalists will tolerate legal abortions, Gay marriage, sex in the media, women making their own decisions and no religious training in public schools before they also take up arms to bring "God's law" to the USA.
JAI
To clarify once, for all, and eternally - it isn't religion that causes conflict. It's difference.
If we can live with our differences amongst each other, then differences are fine. I don't have any inherent problem with islam as long as they're not trying to harm me or control my actions in some way contrary to my wishes - which unfortunately most (including the so-called "moderates") would seem to like to do. For example, I like Sufis. They're introspective, deliberative and don't seem to have ever harmed anyone. (Which, conversely, is probably why most other muslim branches don't like them, but I digress.) They seem to have a gnostic outlook to life. That's fine.
All religion isn't necessarily bad. And frankly if it came down to the US religious right against the mad prophet Mohammed, I know which side I'd be on. One side may not like the unbeliever, and can even be a bit whiny. The other? Sura 9.
No comparison.
Geoff
I affirm that there is no Allah and Mohammed was the messenger of no one.
I think Kristoff is on to something. As a "secular", it "feels" to me like the American Religious right and the Islamic Jihadists are squaring off for an actual religious war. The fun/scary part of this is they both hate people like me and blame "us" for most of their own problems, i.e., "not living in the Kingdom of God/Allah".
Posted by: Just Another Infidel at July 18, 2004 10:07 PM
Huh?
I think you really misunderstand what a Christian is, I have no idea what this "Religious right" concept is either. Maybe some tin foil hat drug induced conspiracy theory.
Christians will not fight and kill in the name of God, you just don't get it, do you. Christians, while sad that your morality is slipping slipped or non-existant, and you've reverted to pagan ways, devil worship or whatever, aren't going to twist your arm and force you into a church. Developing an understanding and wanting a relationship with God is something you must do for yourself, willingly.
Islam is after YOU, the sinfull horrible pagan, athiest, agnostic, or whatever you want to call yourself.
It's not up to the Christians to take up arms and fight a religious war, it's up to YOU.
The muslims are the only ones fighting a religious war, they believe their god wants them to convert you, or kill you. And they believe they must convert the whole world or conquer it in the name of their rock god Allah.
But you are a fool to think Christians are going to partake in a "religious war" fighting in the name of God. You will be waiting a long time for that to happen.
A Christian may fight for country, but that has nothing to do with religion.
And since there are less and less Christians in the Western world these days, You better start thinking about defending yourself against these Islamic Jihadist Fundamentalist nutjobs.
I know I sure as hell won't defend you, I'll be busy defending myself, and my familly.
Islamic nutters are after the whole western way of life, that is what they want to eliminate, not just a few Jews or Christians.
wake up.
I see the posts under this subject turned into quite a religious hodge-pod.
Let me offer a place web URL where one can get his theology a little straighter than what I have seen in the posts above:
www.lampbroadcast.org This is Arlen's web site and some good reading.
Breadwinner - let's take a quick look at what you wrote:"The Son of God" is central to the issue of salvation, the Jews rejected Jesus in his day; that left them with the option of "The Rich young Ruler" , that is to keep the commandments which are a guarantee of salvation as Jesus testified.
I'll go back and re-read what you wrote - but on the surface it seemed you put forth 'works' over and opposed to 'Grace'.
But Arlen has a 'tract-?' on the Rich Young Ruler
that will help both of us
kleo2x, Anderson, Ca.
>>
I think those who do not like Christians or Christianity are very quick to equate Christianity with Islam. It is natural for someone who dislike something or someone to immediately think the worse of him or it.
But you got to be objective and not let your emotions affect your judgement. There is no comparison between Islam and Christianity. Firstly, Islam has a violent founder who robbed, raped and killed for money, power and girls. Christianity does not. Islam has the concept of jihad and martyrdom. Martyrs go to heaven full of Virgins for their pleasure. This concept is wholly absent in Christianity or for that matter any other major religion.
In actual terms, you can see the effect. In Sudan, Christians are the victims of a genocide. Do you see a major Christian leader such as the Pope or Billy Graham calling for a holy war? NO!. But you see Sheikh Tantawi (the closest there is to a Sunni Muslim Pope) of the prestigious Al-Azhar University calling for suicide bombings against Israel. On the other hand is in confict in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechenya, Philippines etc - anywhere it has a border with a non-Muslim population.
After 1945, the Germans lost their lands in East Prussia and many people lost their homes. But they found jobs and homes. No church calls for holy war. In 1948, Palestinians lost land and were chased out. But up till now, they are calling for blood. Imams and Mullahs call for jihad.
Your statment, "..... how long do you suppose our own Christian fundamentalists will tolerate legal abortions, Gay marriage, sex in the media, women making their own decisions and no religious training in public schools before they also take up arms to bring "God's law" to the USA.", betrays your unfair bias.
What is the basis in your belief that Christians will take up arms and resort to violence to bring forth God's laws to the USA, when they have not done so for the past 250 years of US history? What proof do you have? Did any major Christian leader such as Pat Robertsen called for that? Christians are happy to work within the democratic framework, lobbying politicians which is their right.
The fact that you are quick to assume the worst is evidence of your bias. I know many secular people dislike Christianity because its teachings seek to restrict some aspects of human nature. You want abortions on demand, homosexual marriages and sex in the media (ie pornography) which Christian groups seek to stop. Their dislike for being preached to and looked upon as immoral by Christians for wanting such things creates embarrasment, anger and resentment. To hit back, secular people (I am not refering to you) like to think that Christianity is no different from Islam - which is not true. But its their way of hitting back.
Does it not say in the Koran that Christians and Muslims are supposed to cooperate? Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I learned in my World Religion class.
This argument sickens me. As a Christian, and if I were Muslim, I would be sickened by the disply of ignorance and lack of coherent, unbiased thought in this thread of comments. "Your grandchildren will be Muslim". No, your mom. It's like I'm back in 6th grade.
Who cares what religion you follow? Why can't we just live in peace? Is it so hard for us to accept people and appreciate them for their qualities? Isn't that what Christianity is all about? Turning the other cheek?
I do not agree with the attacks on America, and I think that the people responsible should be caught. However, the entire Islamic following is NOT responsible. The extremists that caused the attack are no different than Christian extremists, and they give their religions a bad name, like David Koresh. If we are going to get territorial over followers, remember the guy who claimed to be Jesus? I know, he didn't blow up a set of towers, but he did lead a multitude of people away from Christianity, and if we stick to what the bible says, EVERY person converted is important. By the way, the original Koresh cultists still exist and believe that Koresh will return.
In response to the article, the books in mention don't make any Christian want to wage a Holy War any more than violent video games affect the development of teenage kids. I play violent games all the time, and I am a pascifist. If he wanted something to talk about, why doesn't he focus on the fact that Bush, in only 9 months in office, cut so many environmental programs and stopped resolutions that our environmental plan has reversed back to at least a decade ago. I think this, by far, is a much more important issue, Kristof.
asukiwi:
Perhaps the Koran calls upon Muslims to cooperate with Christians. But the Bible does not call upon Christians to cooperate with Muslims. In fact, within Christendom there are what we refer to as cults that are also beyond the zone of cooperation for an evangelical Christian. Mormon and Jehovah's Witness followers are in this category. There are many fine, admirable Mormons and JWs in the world, but their doctrine is contrary to the Gospel of Christ.
Just so, there are many good, upstanding and peaceful Muslims. But a peaceful Muslim is no protection for me, my family, and my country, and I don't rely on them for protection against Muslims who are terrorists. There were many peaceful Germans, Italians, and Japanese during WWII...probably even a majority in all 3 countries. But they were no protection against the militarism of the leaders of those countries.
Yes, Christians are to "turn the other cheek." That falls into the category of personal ethics, not national security. Lest we forget, there is not one single verse in the New Testament that calls upon the church to exercise political or military power. So the part of each Christian's life that is involved with political and military power is outside the bounds of NT doctrine, except that a Christian must dicharge his or her prerogatives in good conscience and without offending the word of God (a generalization I realize), the same as with any vocation.
et al:
As with Paul, all Christians should look for the consolation of Israel. That consolation is and will always be Christ, and the salvation of every Jew will always be through the blood of Rabbi Yeshua. The very gospel we believe is "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" and was the hope of the patriarchs and the prophets.
Again, with Paul, we believe and have confidence that "all Israel will be saved."
Exactly how this unfolds and what role the Gentile church plays is not clear.* But that is our hope, and for that reason (but not ONLY for that reason) true Christians must stand firm in support of a secure Israel with its Jewish character intact.
*Personally I lean to an understanding that evolves from interpreting the Genesis story of Joseph and his brothers as a type of Christ and lost Israel. The parallels are, in my view, undeniable and beyond coincidence.
Kleo
>>>Breadwinner -
let's take a quick look at what you wrote:"The Son of God" is central to the issue of salvation, the Jews rejected Jesus in his day; that left them with the option of "The Rich young Ruler" , that is to keep the commandments which are a guarantee of salvation as Jesus testified.
I'll go back and re-read what you wrote - but on the surface it seemed you put forth 'works' over and opposed to 'Grace'. 20 You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.'" 21 And he said, "All these I have kept from my youth." 22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." 23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.
Well it seems that Jesus is commending the Rich Young Ruler as having over and above his needs of salvation, he was a habitually righteous Jew. :)
As far as Grace v Works were concerned in this parable there was a rift in the people who followed Jesus at this time as his sayings were too hard for many of those who were in attendance
28 Peter said to him, "We have left all we had to follow you!"
29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."
KLEO
http://forums.christianity.com/gforum.cgi?post=1064536#1064536
This life is packed full of the Grace of God, rejection of Grace leads to Judgement, one may please God in a heartbeat; even after a dissolute life - that person need not face judgement, but he has not washed in the 'blood of the lamb'.
John 10:9-10
9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
The end of this life has different destinations for everyone, I shall be a witness of the resurrection of Kings and Queens, before my own resurrection occurs.
I did not sign up for death but LIFE!!!