The appalling Kristof just can't keep himself from equating Christian fundamentalists with Islamic jihadists. I have taken him to task for this once before, and just completed a long post about this that was obliterated by technical difficulties. Nick is practicing what in Islam Unveiled I call "theological equivalence": the tendency to equate Christianity and Islam, just as during the Cold War his ideological older brothers practiced "moral equivalence," which opined that the USA and the USSR were just two sides of the same coin. The net result is the same: to make defense efforts seem unnecessary. After all, we're all the same, aren't we?
Here is Nick from today's Times, with thanks to Steve:
If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Nick, you really ought to acquaint yourself with what they're really saying in Saudi Arabia. Do a search or two at this site.
Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.
Nick, I won't buy your argument until the troops crash into Jerry Falwell's beheading parlor.
Indeed!
I have read Muslims sneering at the Christian verse, "Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."
Ultimately that idea became the basis of Christian toleration. One might think that Catholics are going to hell, but one is not required to send them there personally. Instead one does this ...thing... ummmmm, what is it called again?..."attacking?"...no, that's Steven Schwartz's word...Oh yes, I remember: "arguing." One tries to change the unbeliever's mind rather than simply removing the offending head itself.
Christianity developed for hundreds of years without government approval, and even in defiance of governments. It can exist without legal or military force. The same is not true of Islam which is a religious-politcal entity. Traditional Islam disapproves of the separation of Caesar and God.
Hey, Kristof! Look that up in your Funk and Wagnall's!
The difference between Christians and Muslims, IMO, is this. The reason Muslims maim, murder, and torture, is because they can. Christians no longer maim, murder, and torture because they can't. Remember the Inquisition, Oliver Cromwell, and the Holocaust just to name the most obvious?
That being said, we have to realize this is a religious/idiological war and one I fear that will be fought to the death.
eneri prophesies:
"...and one I fear that will be fought to the death."
As long as you and yours are on the right side, you should have no fear at all.
eneri states:
"Christians no longer maim, murder, and torture because they can't."
So the eneri's idea is, if Christians "could", they would maim, murder, and torture. And Christians are responsible for the Holocaust, not Hitler and his racist Nazi maniacs.
OK - besides the far-left fanatics in the Presbyterian Church USA "Peacemakers" - who throw up swastikas to show how Palestinians should be defended over Israel - where does eneri get the idea that Hitler's Holocaust is a "Christian" Act? Did Hitler proclaim that he was a "religious Christian"? Did Hitler represent "fundamentalist Christianity"? The ideas are patently ridiculous. Except for some cowed Catholics in Germany and Europe, the Christian world fought against and DIED fighting Hitler.
Then, eneri can find no analogy of Christianity to Islamist terror - so he goes back 6 centuries for a desperate argument. (I imagine if one goes back to cave man days, you could make an argument too.)
But he misses a major point, the Spanish Inquisition itself was fought by Christians known as the Protestants. Protestant Christians in Spain turned on the Spanish Catholic extremists who tried to solidify Spain through violence. Spain has a long history of fascism, as Germany, Italy, etc. Spanish fascism would appear again later, without any pretensions to religion.
So eneri's entire argument is since there were nations that had fascism and where Christianity was practiced - this is PROOF that Christian fundamentalists would kill, maim, murder, if they had a chance and would be just like Islamist Extremists.
Ridiculous argument on the face of it, and clearly shows no understanding of EITHER Islam or Christianity.
Jeffrey Imm
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com
such arguments like hitler was a Christian are fraught with misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about. Jesus says in Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits." it's hardly good fruits to engineer aggressive imperial war, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, and holocaust against jews. one can be a registered Republican, but if they are in contradiction to the platform planks all the way down the line, how can they possibly be held up as an example of what a Republican really is? by this same reasoning, the claim that hitler was a Christian or that he represents Christian values is preposterous
kristof hardly needs to be addressed due to his anemic understanding of theology and its acquainted epistemology. he mocks the well intentioned millerites who misinterpreted Daniel 12:11 -- not in its importance as a prophecy, mind you, only in its realm. these same people delved further into the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and became what is now one of the most intellectual, respected, and fastest-growing protestant faiths (the Seventh-day Adventists)
while lahaye and the rapture/dispensationalist crowd should certainly be taken to task for their reckless hermeneutics, denigrating the book of Revelation (which quite plainly states in chapter 1 verse 1: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John") does not qualify as appropriate argumentation. perhaps kristof should take his $500 to fight the antichrist and invest it in some Bible commentaries and concordances so that he does not himself fall prey to the antichristian spouting that he heaves on his readership
It is now almost common knowledge that Saudi Arabia finances the worldwide free distribution of textbooks that speak of Allah turning Jews and Christians into apes and pigs, and of a judgement day when the trees and rocks will call upon Muslims to kill the Jews that are hiding behind them.
If Kristof is unaware of this, what universe does he inhabit?
Either the editors of the New York Times are incredibly stupid or apallingly irresponsible in their failure to point this out to Mr. Kristof.
Rublev says,
"Either the editors of the New York Times are incredibly stupid or apallingly irresponsible in their failure to point this out to Mr. Kristof."
Probably both, but mainly irresponsible. They have been around for such a long time, have a wide readership and enjoy a reputation of pristine journalism that they have become beyond the pale of reasonableness.
I used to read the online version quite often until it was discovered that this "cutting edge" journalistic rag employed novelists to report the news.
I have never bought an acutal NY Times paper because I do care about the environment.
I think Mr. Spencer is shooting a little wide of the mark here. I didn't read the sentiment that "defense efforts seem unnecessary" into Mr. Kristoff's editorial. I do agree this article implies a moral equivalence. Both flavors of fundamentalist/literalist/extreme believers of Christianity and Islam have the same goal; to create God's kingdom on earth. They just don't agree on how to manage the kingdom or who should do the interpreting of God's words. Or which set of God's words we should follow for that matter.
Mr. Spencer and his colleagues are doing us all a great service by shining a bright light on the activities of the Jihadists who's approach to the takeover of the world is through bloody violence, deceit and intimidation. However, there is a large body of evidence documenting the stealth campaign (in the USA) of our religious conservatives to take over our political system. These efforts deserve just as much attention as do the Jihadists. Islamofascist or Christofascist, they smell the same to me! Take the time to google the word Dominionism when you run out of new material about the Jihadists.
It still looks like a three way competition to rule the world, secular vs. Christian vs. Muslim. I strongly agree with Mr. Spencer that our mainstream press needs to take a much stronger role in reporting the activities of Jihadists. I would also assert that our mainstream press needs to get more active in the investigation and reporting of Christian fundamentalists in the USA. They pose the same threats to our civil society and personal freedoms.
JAI
Apart from relishing the Christian-bashing that is so en vogue, Mr. Kristof is nothing but lazy.
Mr. Kristof, if you're going to bash Jesus, quote from the New Testament, already! And stop relying on a fictionalized opinion of what two writers think Christ will or will not do.
And by the way, JAI, not only can Christians do nothing to bring out Christ's kingdom on earth (even if they try to take over the American political system "through stealth"), Christians aren't suppose to figure out "how to manage [God's] kingdom." That's Christ's job.
As usual, moral equivilance and intellectual laziness are the order of the day. This so-called analysis is based on secular (liberal) bias rather than actual research. I guess that wasn't possible because of deadlines and such. How one can equate Islamic jihad with Christian fundamentalism without bothering to read either the Bible or Koran is baffling, but not altogether unsurprising. In any religious debate, three questions must be asked. First, who is this person Jesus of whom is called the Christ, what does the Bible (Genesis to Revelation) say about Him, and how does this knowledge apply to my growth and maturity as a member of the human race? Take the Bible challenge today! You might be pleasantly surprised! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
MIS-ter SPEN-cer! How DARE you doubt the wisdom of the NEW YAWK TIMES op-ed page! What kind of evil, un-American subversive are you?
How can you be so ignorant of the secret tunnel that links Qom, Iran and Lynchburg Virginia (with an airhole under some Gush Emunim settlement on the West Bank)? i mean, they're all fundies aren't they? They're all out to turn all women barefoot, illiterate, and pregnant, aren't they? I mean, Julia Streicher Attwood's _Handmaid's Tale_ says it all, doesn't it?
And, of course, watch out all you liberated lesbians! They're going to capture a brace of you, take you down to that tunnel to boil you alive for the Falwells and Kahatmis Thanksgiving dinner, with the shade of Meir Kahane intoning the B'rokhes!
Speaking seriously, Kristof's moral equivalences have convinced me that the NYTimes, like the aptly named Foggy Bottom, is too often utterly clueless about anything dealing with anyone's traditional religion.
Mr. Imm, Ted, Michelle, others: Nicky Kristof says what he does because it's his party's line.
Kristof is exhibit A in the Left's self-willed blindness to its own responsibility for many of the world's ills. Hitler, who declared Christianity a "Jewish poison" (indeed, it really is the closest thing to an ancient, international Jewish conspiracy to put the whoel world under a Jewish king) and belonged to the occultist Thule Society, thus gets blamed on Luther and anti-Christian prejudice among Christians real or otherwise. Never mind what post-French revolutionary nationalism may have said, or Marx's belief that "hucksterism" was the real religion of the Jews. If the Marxists can't unleash their promised productive forces, blame it on those stupid Slavic Uentermenschen in Russia and the primitive Asiatics in China--and be sure to call those who criticize you "racist".
At the same time, theses same folks crow about how 19th century science routed "religious obscurantism"--and never do get around to explaining how an eagerly unchurched Europe suddenly became pious again in order to start the Shoah. At my most charitable, I guess they think that any European or American who isn't a Jew or Muslim has to be a "Christian"--even if he's Voltaire, George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, or Iosip Stalin.
Sorry, Ted. This fundie buys neither the Dispensationalist nor the SDA interpretations of Daniel and Revelation. SDA follows the medieval Joachimite line which seems to deny that the Holy Spirit wasn't really in the church until some new prophet and his sect arises (my King James Bible says the Holy Spirit's been with Christ's church ever since Pentecost in 29 or 30 AD--it's why I'm neither a Mormon, Quaker, nor similar thing, either). As for Dispensationalism, it seems to forget that the church, whether called from Jews or other, is the chosen people of God (or so Paul seems to teach me in his letters); and that since Christ paid the full penalty for our sins on the cross when he suffered under Pontius Pilate (Oh, no! I forgot to accOOOOOOZ the JOOOOOOOZ! Nicky Kristof will excommunicate me from my church! What'll I do?), there is absolutely no need for a rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. Sure, I'll scream hallelujah as loud as the dickens if the Jews and Muslims both confess Messiah, and the former build a church beside the Wailing Wall while the latter remodel the Mosque of Omar--but I don't expect to see sheep and cattle sacrificed there by an Aaronic priesthood.
When Christ promised his church tribulation, he meant what he said. Some of our brothers in the Middle East and China are going through it now, as has anyone else whom unbelievers have falsely imputed wrong (as Kristof does), etc. etc. As for the "rapture", Christ's taking his saints into the air (in the Thessalonian letters of the NT) is just what happens to those who are alive when the dead are raised. The first resurrection of Rev. 20 refers to the new birth, which Paul speaks of as being converted from spiritual death to a new, spiritual life as a believer. God grant that it happen to all of you who read, if it hasn't already.
to kepha1: i always find your posts very interesting and quite informative. however, i'm a little confused on your SDA/Holy Spirit idea. the following paragraph is taken from SDAfundamental belief no. 5 (there are 27 total):
"The Holy Spirit:
"God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)"
link: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html