A few final thoughts...
I'm going to have to bow out of this and a few other threads, I'll try to explain why elsewhere.
Samiam asked: Which is it, Seagoon? Did Bush make a colosal mistake that served to undermine Christianity, or is an Islamic Iraq more likely to be peacefull and supportive of the US than a secular dictator?The objective of the Bush administration is not to create Christian states in the middle-east, it is attempting to create
Democracies in the Islamic world. They are doing this out of the belief that totalitarian states in the Middle East with WMDs or the ability and willingness to sponsor and train Jihadis are too dangerous to the existence of the Western Democracies to be allowed to continue. The theory is that they will establish Democracy in a few in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and the natural desire for freedoms they have never had and envy of these states will do the rest of the work. A recent Freedom House report indicated that this theory might be working:
Freedom House 2006 Global Survey Data Available: Middle East Progress Amid Global Gains in Freedom But obviously Democracy will take a long time to take root over there, and be fiercely resisted. Does this undermine Christianity? Well in the short term, my missionary buddies tell me that it is now harder to get into some states because the State Department is particularly paranoid. But in the long run if the states become truly democratic, who knows? Turkey is Democratic, but evangelizing over there is still a nightmare. The middle-east will for the foreseeable future always be the toughest place for Christianity regardless of what happens in the political arena.
As for supporting the US? Samiam, the world isn't going to support the US unless they get with the program and depending on what your objective is: become Muslims/become Socialists/Allow them unrestricted immigration, etc. Besides, Sam even Jihadis would have a tall order hating the USA more than Saddam did from 1991 onwards.
Regarding the concept that Christians and Muslims worship the same GodA theologian by the name of Geerhardus Vos made the following salient observation:
From the definition of Theology as the science concerning God follows the necessity of its being based on revelation. In scientifically dealing with impersonal objects we ourselves take the first step; they are passive, we are active; we handle them, examine them, experiment with them. But in regard to a spiritual, personal being this is different. Only in so far as such a being chooses to open up itself can we come to know it. All spiritual life is by its very nature a hidden life, a life shut up in itself. Such a life we can know only through revelation. If this be true as between man and man, how much more must it be so as between God and man. The principle involved has been strikingly formulated by Paul: “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.” [1 Cor. 2:11]. The inward hidden content of God’s mind can become the possession of man only through a voluntary disclosure on God’s part. God must come to us before we can go to Him.
In other words, in order to know anything about him, God has to tell us. Now in the Bible, which describes itself as given by the inspiration of God, literally "God breathed" God describes Himself, His Attributes, and His Commands in certain specific ways that do not contradict themselves. In this Bible for instance, Jesus is described as "His only begotten Son" and that in order to know the Father, we must know Him through faith in His Son.
A little under 600 years after this self-revelation of God was completed, a man by the name of Muhammed began to dictate the Quran, which also purported to be a revelation of god. In this revelation, god contradicted much if not most of what is written in the Bible about him. For instance, this god, named Allah, does not have an only begotten son named Jesus, in fact it calls the very idea Blasphemy. The Quran says that the earlier revelation (not the new stuff from Muhammad) was largely a fabrication. So while Allah, in the Quran, claims to be the God of Abraham and of Issa (Jesus) he is radically different. Now both of these Revelations can be bogus (as many of you no doubt think) but they cannot both contradict one another and both be true. God cannot have AND not have a son, we cannot go to him only through Jesus AND be condemned for blasphemy by believing we must. Either way you look at it, Allah and the God of the Bible cannot be the same being.
Now you may continue to say, "As non-believers, we won't allow you to make that distinction. We insist that you realize you are worshipping the same God as the Muslims despite the myriad of contradictions" but Muslims are not obliged to believe in the God of the Bible anymore than I am obliged to believe in Allah. If you want to test this theory, go find an Orthodox Jew and a devout Muslim and tell them
"Christians believe Jesus is God. I insist that Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all worshipping the same God, therefore you worship Jesus!" and tell me about their reaction.
Finally, Ack-Ack made the comment he likes God and Jesus but dislikes his messengers, and DeSelys is offended that I preached on the declaration of Christ "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23, also Matt. 12:30)Well, actually as the case has always been, people really aren't offended so much with his messengers as the message of the Gospel. It is and always has been an offense. When Christ himself first preached that He was the Messiah in the synagogue at his home town, the congregation tried to throw Him over a cliff. Throughout His time on earth, Christ emphasized the need to believe in Him for salvation. His message was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17) And after commissioning His messengers to go and preach salvation to the cities by believing in Him he warned them:
"And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!" He described Himself as the only way to God and the path of salvation not as broad, but Narrow and told His messengers to do likewise.
Now if Man isn't fallen, if Jesus isn't God, and if all paths either lead to heaven or heaven doesn't even exist, this is all either madness or intolerable arrogance. It has always been about truth claims. I believe the truth claims Christ made, and therefore I seek to preach only what he and his apostles preached.
Ack-Ack and DeSelys, I readily understand that none of this Islam and Christianity stuff makes sense because you dismiss the truth claims of both Jesus and Muhammad. Its all so many fairy tales, and what fool preaches, believes, or dies for fairy tales? But you see, although I once did not, I believe the Gospel, I have seen the good fruit and the visible change it produces and have "tasted and seen" that it is good. Had I not done so, I have no doubt I would have continued on in my former ways, and that if I was still alive today I'd be divorced, a hopeless father, a detriment to society, a danger to women and no real good to anyone, lest of all God.
You see me as dangerous, but that is after all only if the truth claims of Christ are really all bunk. Irregardless, by God's grace, I have lived a far better life to date than I would have otherwise. I know that you won't believe this, but the only thing I'm really a danger to are people's comfort zones.
