R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians 'Respect' Other Religions?

pilgrimmum »

Fri May 29, 2009 9:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

This is a well written article on a complex subject. When dealing with the pope of Rome all is not as simple as it seems. We are dealing with a master of deception.If one follows the statements made by the present pope one realizes this article has summed it up very well.

believer »

Fri May 29, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jar, I know as a former catholic what worked for me was when the two men who shared God's Plan of Salvation with me, they totally stayed away from doctrinal issues or the false teachings of the catholic church, had they done that I'm not sure I really would have listened and in fact I probably would have argued with them, but rather they totally focused on relationship, God desiring to have a personal relationship with me through His Son, Jesus Christ. I believe if we stay focused on that when we witness, our witness would be far more effective regardless of the religious background of the person we're sharing with.

jar1961 »

Fri May 29, 2009 11:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Ahhh yes... how do we reach the muslim world? Paul taught.. we are to be all things to all people. Muslims come to Christ through one important biblical principle.. Christ taught..."they will know us by our love"... We must be prepared shod in the word of God and be ready to answer by knowing our Scriptures and speaking in wisdom.... Almost every muslim convert I know has shared that it is the love they see in the Christian church that moves them to thought.... and as Christ did so should we.... first our works and deeds must demonstrate a difference...w hcih will then open a door to dialogue. But we must know what a muslim believes and how to address it... such as the nature of One God in 3 persons.....how do we share this mystery....? Where did Cain get a wife? so many questions that muslims have....

wrhalver »

Thu May 28, 2009 8:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 10

ep1433
You have commented...
"I hope the respect I extend to my Muslim friends (or friends of any faith for that matter) could be expected to include a sincerely friendly demeanor, a genuine desire to see them equally enjoy the blessings of liberty, and a general hope for their welfare. This would seem like appropriate Christian behaviour."

The kind of Christian behaviour you are describing can come from believers as well as non-believers. This is also discussed in scripture.

The real issue is not behaviour, but belief. If Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as the Son of God, and Saviour, then the belief is false.

And since we will have this difference in belief until the end of this world, there will never be complete peace in this world.

Daniel Paul »

Wed May 27, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Suggestion for you. Take off your rose colored glasses and take a close look at the negative influence the West has had in the ME for the last 90 to 100 years, especially after the fall of the Ottoman's and the Western land grab of the ME. " Every nation of note on earth has had a negative influence on other nations. I remember when the ME nations had a negative influence on the USA during the early 70's. The ME is responsible for its own actions. The USA is responsible for its own actions. China is responsible for its own actions. North Korea is responsible for its own actions (no matter what they think). Nations are responsible for what they do. Still, these terrorists are not part of one nation or another. They are actually a minority within the Muslim world. Quite frankly, if everyone would love their neighbor as themselves we wouldn't have these issues. I guess the Bible is smarter than people give it credit for. After all, the ME problems are about people being treated (real or perceived) unfairly that is at the root of the problems in the ME. There is a solid rule in journalism (which most don't follow). There are 3 sides to every story. One issues side, the opposing side and then truth..... hide

ep1433 »

Wed May 27, 2009 3:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This is so blindingly simple but this article manages to make it far too complex. Our Muslims friends and neighbors should be able to count on us as Christians to offer them respect. What is meant by respect? Obviously it doesn't extend in such a way that we are required to appreciate, enjoy, support or encourage all Muslim beliefs. That is what Muslims are expected to do. Is it possible there are Muslim beliefs that we might appreciate? Sure. I can think of many, especially those that find a duplicate in Christianity. But to see something worthy of respect in every Muslim tenet is TO BE MUSLIM. So in much the same way, I do not expect Muslims to respect all my beliefs as a Christian.

I hope the respect I extend to my Muslim friends (or friends of any faith for that matter) could be expected to include a sincerely friendly demeanor, a genuine desire to see them equally enjoy the blessings of liberty, and a general hope for their welfare. This would seem like appropriate Christian behaviour.

It might equally include an admiration for cultural aspects (as describned in the article).

I don't think anyone using their common sense saw the term "respect" as having any greater meaning that what I've outlined here. And I think the author is creating a bit of a strawman to imply that the Pope sees this any differently. The Pope described "respect" for a culture. A very different thing than respect for a faith that is different that Christianity.

johnzon »

Tue May 26, 2009 11:57 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP, Please read oldstudents comments regarding Iran. He is but a minority in America that understands the negative influence the West has had on Iranian history. Unfortunatly most Americans are completely ignorant of this history. This ignorance is what drives the drumbeat of war, just like that of Vietnam and Iraq. hide

johnzon »

Tue May 26, 2009 11:56 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP <<I doubt it. Their brand of Islam and democracy are an oxymoron as a rule. It's about power and control.>> That can be said of any religion that gains too much control. If Christians in America were allowed to gain the kind of power Iranain Clerics have, they would do much the same thing. A Christian theocracy would be no different, by definition theocracies are autocratic. All religions seek power and control, Christians showed that in Europe a few cnturies ago. <<True Christianity is about taking care of our neighbors and living in peace.>> Muslims say the same of their religion. <<Still, why did we go in 1953? Could it be that Iran was trying to STEAL the oil rights it had given to BP?>> I can see that you can cut and paste from Wiki, very good. You are now a ME scholar, very nice. 1. The original deal went back to the early 1900's in which Shah Qajar who was in poor health and an ineffectual leader made the deal with D'Arcy. The deal is comparable to the white man in the Americas made with the native population- not very good. At most, the Irainian people were only getting about 15 % of the profits. The British were very inflexible to make significant concessions to the Iranians. There was growing popular opposition to the deal as the years went on. The American people would never tolerate such a deal (keep in mind what the Christian white man did to native Americans). So, Irainian leadership, specifically prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, did what any leader of a country woud do in response to the demands of its people, take back control of their own national resources. 2. Why was the US involved in the overthrow if it, as you say, was BP's property? 3. Why did the US install and protect, through acts of terrorism perpetrated on the Iranian people, the Shah. ANSWER to 2 and 3 - OIL & a paying customer for US weapons. The Shah sold the US oil, we supplied the Shah with weapons. There is a similar arrangement between the US and the Saudis today- the US sells the Sauds weapons and protects the royal family, they sell us oil. The US doesn't seem to learn much from history. <<If they had kept their word THEN Iran may have been a democracy by now.>> But, but didn't you say you "doubt it". Suggestion for you. Take off your rose colored glasses and take a close look at the negative influence the West has had in the ME for the last 90 to 100 years, especially after the fall of the Ottoman's and the Western land grab of the ME. hide

johnzon »

Tue May 26, 2009 11:43 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Prophet <<The only respect from the muslims I want is for them to stop killing us for expressing our views.>> Who will stop killing first? Recall we invaded Iraq and created a civil war that has lead to the death, wounding, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq's and destruction of their country . The Iraq invasion, like Vietnam, was immoral. I find it interesting that so many Chrisitians were and are ra ra over it. I was against both wars from the get go, having knowledge of the history of both, and I'm just a godless heathen.....Must be those darn humanist genes I carry. hide

johnzon »

Tue May 26, 2009 11:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Hey Believer

<<you're totally right I missed that sentence when I read your post the first time, but I do disagree that there aren't Christians who were and are concerned about the issues you addressed,>>

Its easy to miss stuff on these posts. I did not mean to imply there aren't Christians that are concerned about the aforementioned issues. I'm sorry for the confusion and over generalizations.....

johnzon »

Tue May 26, 2009 11:22 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show wrhalver Thanks for your comments <<Now consider this. The United States is the last remaining defense in this world for Democracy.>> I agree the US has an important role to promote democracy. However, many times the US has fallen short. We have a rather bad track record in the ME, South America and Central America. Take a look at the dictators we have supported in those regions to protect US interests. Hopefully we will do better in the future. The US cannot be the world policeman alone, we are going broke. We are now a multi trillion dollar debtor nation. The Iraq and Afghan war costs, considering direct costs only, are 1 trillion dollars and growing. Factor in indirect costs and an ongoing commitment to those countries and that number will at least double, probably more. Our level of military spending is not sustainable, there is far too much waste there. I think one of the great failures of the Bush Administration was alienating the US from our Western allies as a result of an arrogant and misguided foreign policies. I hope Obama will do a better job on this, we have to. We have no choice. hide

Prophet »

Tue May 26, 2009 4:21 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 6

"But we want them to respect OUR religion. What is your cunning plan for that? Other than bombing them into submission I mean?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only respect from the muslims I want is for them to stop killing us for expressing our views.

emeryannharris »

Tue May 26, 2009 4:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves."

But we want them to respect OUR religion. What is your cunning plan for that? Other than bombing them into submission I mean?

emeryannharris »

Tue May 26, 2009 4:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Of all the silliness.

"Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam?"

Did anyone ASK if the Muslims WANT to be saved? Especially if salvation comes with the bonus gift of having their country/village/farm/house bombed into rubble first?

oldstudent »

Tue May 26, 2009 3:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oddly enough, I have to give much crdit to Honson on the last 70 years of Iranian history. The Iranians had a democratically elected man in 1953 and the British and US ran an operation to depose him and impose a dictatorship upon the Iranians. Shah Reza was a brutal form of his father and drove the people into the arms of those who promised a more pure and hopeful time (the radical clerics).

Our installation, support and backing of a brutal, murderous dictator has a HUGE part in the since 1979 Iranian militancy. Things most likely would be very different if we hadn't been supporters and responsible for the repression of the Iranian people.

Would there be peace with them now if we hadn't done that? That answer is not knowable by us mere humans but we know that it would be quite different if we stood for freedom and self determination (esp. since Mossaddeq was not anti-west nor were his supporters) when the British asked for our help in the matter.

Grace and Peace,
Jim

danpat1_2000 »

Tue May 26, 2009 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"BP had bought rights to the oil and the leadership of Iran in the early 50's tried to steal 40 years of investment and work. If they had kept their word THEN Iran may have been a democracy by now.

Yah, but a "yah but" still a yah but

Daniel Paul »

Mon May 25, 2009 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

"If not for US meddling in Iran, it might today be a democratic republic."

I doubt it. Their brand of Islam and democracy are an oxymoron as a rule. It's about power and control.

True Christianity is about taking care of our neighbors and living in peace. Still, why did we go in 1953? Could it be that Iran was trying to STEAL the oil rights it had given to BP?

"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000, an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." -Wiki

BP had bought rights to the oil and the leadership of Iran in the early 50's tried to steal 40 years of investment and work. If they had kept their word THEN Iran may have been a democracy by now.

believer »

Mon May 25, 2009 2:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

johnzon, my bad, you're totally right I missed that sentence when I read your post the first time, but I do disagree that there aren't Christians who were and are concerned about the issues you addressed, but I think many of us hold to the concern of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. My concern from the beginning having lived through and being a Viet-Nam Era Vet was what would happen when we went from the conventional warfare to non-conventional warfare mode. Our vision as a nation with regards to Iraq was too near-sighted.

wrhalver »

Mon May 25, 2009 2:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Johnzon

Nice review of history.

Now consider this. The United States is the last remaining defence in this world for Democracy.

Sometimes Democracy does not come just by the simple will of the people. Sometimes various forms of diplomacy are used and possibly force. The U.S. itself is a good example.

Ask any citizen (non-military) anywhere and they will tell you that they prefer freedom to dictatorship. There is no cost too high to pay.

This is what the United States has been able to defend for these many decades. There will come a day when God will close this door. Until then may God shine His face upon us and grant us the Grace and Mercy we only deserve through Jesus Christ our Saviour.

johnzon »

Mon May 25, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show believer, You didn't read my post closely enough, I included non-believers too. I think one of my points is Christians claim to take the moral high ground ("godless" non-believers would not be expected to act morally), but seem to support immoral wars such as Iraq and Vietnam. hide

believer »

Mon May 25, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

johnzon, nice end around, but if in reality our nation is not a Christian nation why are you holding Christians responsible for all the "blunders" our nation has made? And if we are not a Christian nation then in truth it is the secularists who are partly if not mainly responsible for all these "blunders" you claim our nation has made.

johnzon »

Mon May 25, 2009 1:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP The US and the West have imposed themselves in the ME for decades going all the way back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire to secure and protect oil interests. Big problems were created in Iran by the US and Britain when they overthrew the Iranian prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 and installed the West's' puppet dictator- the Shah, he would then become a loyal US business partner- OIL & WEAPONS as opposed to Mosadddeq who wanted nationalize the Iranian oil industry as he had every right to do as a representative of the Iranian people. The Shah's brutal reign finally ended with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the unfortunate rise to power of the Mullah's. If not for US meddling in Iran, it might today be a democratic republic. There is a similar circumstance today in Saudi Arabia, it is ruled by a corrupt and autocratic royal family. Like the Shah, they are important business partners of the US- the US sells them weapons and the US military machine protects the royal family, they in turn sell us oil. The SA royal family is also friends and business partners to the Bush family. So much for US defenders of democracy in the ME. <<Still, we really should start drilling a bit more in the US. >> I didn't see anything about conservation in your commnets, conservation seems to be a difficult proposition for Americans. hide

Daniel Paul »

Mon May 25, 2009 12:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

"No, not all, religious conflict among the three Abrahamic religions is part of the problem."

The Abrahamic religions refer to three sister monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that claim the prophet Abraham " -Wiki


"The other problem is the thirst by the West for ME oil and the problems that has caused."

Even in the Iraq war, America insured control of the oil was held by the Iraqi people. We didn't take it. Any problem in the ME over oil is an internal issue within OPEC.

Still, we really should start drilling a bit more in the US. WE will not drill in areas of the Gulf of Mexico over "green" issues but allow China and other companies with much more hazardous methods to drill in the same area. Not only are we not really protecting the environment but we are endangering it by allowing these substandard methods to be used by other countries off our coast.

johnzon »

Mon May 25, 2009 12:00 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show wrhalver <<I'm glad you're having fun bashing Christians in their own backyard. And we need to be more tolerant? >> Whats the problem, dont want to hear different view points? I'm not bashing, just showing other view points exist thats all, but thanks for not censoring me. hide

johnzon »

Mon May 25, 2009 11:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP <<Actually, all the problems in the middle east can be traced back to the son's of Abraham.>> No, not all, religious conflict among the three Abrahamic religions is part of the problem. The other problem is the thirst by the West for ME oil and the problems that has caused. hide

johnzon »

Mon May 25, 2009 11:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show believer Many Christians claim the US to be a Christian nation and those very same people that claim a higher a moral standard seem to support wars such as Vietnam and Iraq. In all fairness, non-believers generally supported those wars too, but then they would be expected to because they are "godless". Some wars are justified, but Iraq II and Vietnam Wars, I dont believe were especially when one considers the history of the two. Experts on the ME tried to tell the Bush administration their plan was flawed and predicted the outcome- basically civil war and destruction. This observation is anecdotal, but of the people I know, agnostics were generally opposed to Iraq II and the Christians generally supported it. Why is that? Even after all the death and destruction done to Iraq, the Christian community insists that the war was justified. Why no outraged that the only real protection the military provided was to the oil ministry. Schools, hospitals, water, power, seweage plants, museums- all looted. Why no outrage that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's were killed, wounded and displaced from their homes as a result of the invasion? Why no outrage that billions of dollars were wasted and stolen by private US contractors that could have otherwise gone to help the people to whose lives were destroyed from the invasion. Yet the Christian community gets all worked up and protests gay unions. What would Jesus do? hide

Daniel Paul »

Mon May 25, 2009 11:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Rhi Bran--

To you and to all, on this Memorial Day, let's take a moment out from our discussion to remember all those who sacrified themselves for freedom.

...and to those who have served our country, I thank you.

Daniel Paul »

Mon May 25, 2009 10:59 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"Although indigenous peole fought with us against the Japanese, we betrayed our principle of self-determination and returned the area to the French. "

We had no legal jurisdiction to do otherwise. In a world of law one cannot always to what is right.


"Lets not forget the US bears much of the responsibility for problems in the Middle East...."

Actually, all the problems in the middle east can be traced back to the son's of Abraham. It has been a family feud for thousands of years. The influence of other nations has come and gone but the family feud is at the heart of the problems in the middle east. Abraham sent the mother of the Arabs out into the desert. They have never taken kindly to that. It has not required any outside source to fuel their feud.


"line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government"

If you truely support that then students at their graduation have the right to say whatever they want without the the civil authority saying anything. Therefore, you either disagree with TJ or you disagree with the recent actions keeping students who EARNED the right to speak at their graduation from speaking because they MIGHT say something religious. Which is it?

How about the house church in CA who was recently told by the government that they would need a permit, a parking study and all sorts of other things (costing about $10,000) to have their friends over for fellowship every week. I take it you consider the actions of the CA government to be anti-American.

What say you?

Rhi Bran »

Mon May 25, 2009 3:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Daniel
My wife's cousin was postumasly awarded the Medal of Honor, her brother died and her father was wounded in Vietnam and you would be incorrect if you suppose that I have anything but contempt for the politicians who tell lies to begin wars. However, you would do well to research the history of Indochina. Although indigenous peole fought with us against the Japanese, we betrayed our principle of self-determination and returned the area to the French. The "Christian" minority of local people that worked for the French were corrupt. We could have destroyed Vietnam at any time(we nearly did) but we could not have defeated them except by employing the totalitarian tools of occupation that we had as a nation rejected.

wrhalver »

Sun May 24, 2009 10:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

believer

Thanks. Appreciate the information.

believer »

Sun May 24, 2009 10:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

wrhalver, a lot of those thumbs-down are courtesy of our friend, mickeyc who has a desperate need to give himself thumbs-up while giving anyone who opposes his views not one but multiple thumbs-down regardless of what one's post has to say, he's given me thumbs-down for saying hello to another poster.

believer »

Sun May 24, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

johnzon, first you say America is not a Christian nation, by the way which I agree with you 100%, but then you blame Christians and Christianity for the problems in the Middle East, the Vietnam War, and the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. For that to be true America would have to be a Christian nation!!

wrhalver »

Sun May 24, 2009 9:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Johnzon
you have said....
"Too much religion is a dangerous thing."

As DP mentioned, that's one of the smartest things you could have said. Any true Christian would agree with you.

There has to be some "order", but as Israel found out (the hard way) there can be too much "order".

You learn to follow your faith according to man's "order" and move away from being guided by the Holy Spirit which is in your heart. That is dangerous.

Prophet »

Sun May 24, 2009 9:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

johnzon,

"Christians too have had a history of terrorism- Christian wars in Europe, enslavement of Africans, geneocide of native americans, carpet bombing of Vietnam..."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't forget the hundreds of millions who died at the hands of atheists, that make Christian "terrorism" look more like disorderly conduct.

wrhalver »

Sun May 24, 2009 8:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Appearently we have someone who likes to give the thumbs down to pro-Christian comments on a Christian blog.

I'm glad you're having fun bashing Christians in their own backyard. And we need to be more tolerant?

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 8:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP, FYI Jefferson and the principal author of the US Constitution, James Madison, both write numerous times what the First Amendment means in regard to religion, here are two examples: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - TJ, 1802. "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). - JM hide

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 7:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"Theocracy by definition is oppresive and autocratic, thats why founding fathers drafted constitution to minimize influence of religion in government. "

Actually, many of them followed the principles of theocracy. It is each elected politicians right to bring their religious beleifs to bear on their decisions. Anything else is unconstitutional.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson

Indeed a strange statement. Even TJ seemed to have theocracy....


"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
Thomas Jefferson

Just FYI, socialism is a very "enegetic" form of government.

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 7:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP, The US should not been in Vietnam, it was an immoral war. It was a war the US was not going to win unless we were prepared to kill a lot more people than we already had. Contrary to popular opinion, HoChiMinh was first and foremost a nationalist, he was forced into the communist camp because the West would not help him rid his country of the French Imperialists going all the way back to the days of the Wilson Administration. The US was viewed simply as another Imperial invader after the defeat of the French. No, I was not referring to the Crusades, I was referring to the various Christian wars in Europe from roughly 1560's to the mid 1600's. And lets not forget the various Inquisitions. <<They attacked us...we went after them. It's that simple.>> Lets not forget the US bears much of the responsibility for problems in the Middle East going back decades supporting despots to protect US oil interests, that tradition continues today as we protect the autocratic royal family in Saudi Arabia. The continues to be dependent on ME oil because we have no desire to stop our wasteful habits of energy over consumption. The US has killed and will continue to kill to protect it's oil interests. Not much morality there..... hide

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 6:35 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

"carpet bombing of Vietnam... "

You must not be old enough to know what really went on in Nam. Just FYI, the year I spent in asia was '75-'76 when Nam fell. 7 missionaries were captured. 5 of them were ours. Our technology was not much more advanced then it was in Korea at the time. Tunnels were a big problem and caused many American deaths. Carpet bombing was most effective in dealing with the problem.

Now, with that said, it was politics that caused most of the death and distruction in Nam. We won that war a hundred times over...we just kept pulling back because we didn't want to look to aggressive. The war was started by Kennedy in 1962 and continued under Johnson. Almost 7 years of failure under the Democrats. By that time the vietcong had their war structure set and their tunnels dug. Many men gave their lives because Democrats started something they wouldn't (not couldn't) finish. (This included my neighbors son.)

I take it by European wars you are speaking of the crusades. At the time religion and not Christianity was in play for the most part. You cannot understand history if you cannot separate the two.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

I doubt the Holy Wars were His idea.

Now, with that said:

Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

Please note we don't have to sit by while terrorists destroy our country and kill our women and children nor our allies. We didn't start the war with Iraq. Iraq invaded one of our allies and they asked us to defend them. That's what allies do. In the second Iraq conflict we found the Al-Qaeda #2 man in a hospital in Iraq. Iraq has been funding terrorism for over 40 years around the world.

They attacked us...we went after them. It's that simple.

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 12:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show DP, Theocracy by definition is oppresive and autocratic, thats why founding fathers drafted constitution to minimize influence of religion in government. Christians too have had a history of terrorism- Christian wars in Europe, enslavement of Africans, geneocide of native americans, carpet bombing of Vietnam... hide

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 4

"Too much religion is a dangerous thing."

Any religion is a dangerous thing. That's why Jesus spoke so much against it and talked about a relationship with God through Him.

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

"The Taliban say something like that too.. "

They don't have contentment. That's why they are terrorists!

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 11:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DP

<<That's humanism by the way...it's a religion.>>

Yeah, OK...LOL

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 11:11 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

DP and Halver

Its too bad for you that America is not a theocratic autocracy, but good for the rest of us. Too much religion is a dangerous thing.

DP

<<freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be>>

The Taliban say something like that too..

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

"I guess God's sovereignty versus free will, will be a discussion that won't end till we get to heaven, but I personally won't allow it to be a point of fellowship between other believers and myself "

It has always been my position that people who have been plucked out of the icy waters and into the life boat really don't care how they got there!!!

Daniel Paul »

Sun May 24, 2009 10:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"No, not really, what I am saying is if a religion OR no religion works for you, then stick with it as long as it is not hurting others with their belief.... "

That's humanism by the way...it's a religion.

Also, freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be. Freedom and contentment are not the same thing. One can be free to do whatever they want and still not be content. I prefer to be content.

wrhalver »

Sun May 24, 2009 10:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Johnzon
You have said....
"Not bashing, just pointing out another view of the world thats all. Also, I like to keep track of religious folks that attempt to deny me my freedoms.."

The greatest freedom one can experience is being released from the bonds of sin. This is what Christ has done.

While all other worldly viewpoints are noted, none of them come close to so great an importance in our lives.

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 3:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show halver, <<It must be more exciting to bash Christians on a Christian website.>> Not bashing, just pointing out another view of the world thats all. Also, I like to keep track of religious folks that attempt to deny me my freedoms.. hide

johnzon »

Sun May 24, 2009 2:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show Prophet <<But in saying that, aren't you also saying that your way is right, and ours is wrong?>> No, not really, what I am saying is if a religion OR no religion works for you, then stick with it as long as it is not hurting others with their belief.... hide

mathetes »

Sun May 24, 2009 1:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

believer,

Let me echo that ssentiment: happy birthday in Christ + happy anniversary. God bless you both!