Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

World|Fri, Jun. 05 2009 04:23 PM EDT

Obama Speech Gets Mixed Reaction from Christians, Muslims

By Michelle A. Vu|Christian Post Reporter

Although President Obama’s speech was generally hailed as successful in placing the U.S. and the Muslim world on better terms, some Christians and Muslims found fault with what he chose not to say.

  • Obama
    (Photo: AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
    U.S. President Barack Obama receives a standing ovation before speaking at Cairo University in Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009.

For some Christian leaders, the speech was “brilliant” in terms making America more presentable to the Muslim world, but it failed to address the important issue of unequal treatment of religious minorities in Islamic countries compared to Western nations.

These critics took issue with Obama’s seeming to gloss over problems in Muslim countries, with some even saying the president seems more “pro-Islam” than “pro-Christian.”

“Obama’s speech seemed over and over again to say that we must give Muslims a better chance to be known in the West instead of allowing Christianity to be known in the Muslim countries,” complained Dr. William Wagner, professor or missions and evangelism at Olivet Theological College & Seminary in San Francisco.

Wagner pointed out that Obama noted the many mosques in America, but did not mention that it is forbidden to build Christian churches in Muslim countries. Obama also said it is important for Western nations not to restrict how Muslim citizens practice their faith, but did not note that the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries has resulted in near extinction of the community in some Muslim countries.

“What bothers me the most is not what he said but what he did not say,” said Wagner, the author of the book How Islam Plans to Change the World.

Similarly, Open Doors USA President Dr. Carl Moeller wished Obama had spoken more about the plight of Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries. Moeller said in countries where Islam is the official religion and sharia law is enforced, it is virtually impossible for Christians to practice their faith without persecution.

He also disagreed with Obama praising Saudi King Abdullah for his interfaith efforts, noting Saudi Arabia has the worst religious freedom in the world behind North Korea.

“Saudi Arabia calling on international religious tolerance is a little bit like the wolf calling for a sheep convention,” Moeller wrote in his column for The Christian Post.

Yet despite their criticisms, both Moeller and Wagner applauded Obama for striving to improve relations between the United States and the Muslim world.

Other Christian leaders and groups also praised the U.S. president for his historic speech.

The National Council of Churches and a large group of American Christian leaders, including Pastor Joel C. Hunter of Northland Church in Florida and the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, commended Obama for addressing the people of the Middle East and challenging all sides to work towards peace in the Holy Land.

Among Muslims, many welcomed the U.S. president’s display of respect for Islam in his speech and his commitment to a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), however, had a different take on the speech. Instead of focusing on the president’s praise of Islamic culture, he said he was glad to hear Obama defend the United States against the “stereotype of a self-interested empire.” Continue »

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    You go a long way in an attempt to defend your arguement against the use of violence.

    Using scripture I have provided you with all of the evidence that Christians are not excluded from war.

    Nothing I have provided you is contrary or taken out of context.

    It is your personal choice to refrain from any form of violence for any reason. But remember that there are many who use God falsely to justify being violent, and there are many who use God falsely to justify not being violent.

    For Him who has ears to hear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the church.

    I trust that when the time comes you will hear and obey the voice of God.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver, by the way I note that despite a second request you are unable to produce any references for the word studies you claim support your position. Furthermore you have still been unable to produce any scripture which provides authorization for a Christian to do violence to another human being.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    Let us now examine Romans 2. Once again you quote a part of one verse out of the context of its passage. Here is the verse in context in the translation you chose.

    5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each one according to his deeds 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
    and here is the passage again in young's literal translation.
    5but, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou dost treasure up to thyself wrath, in a day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God,6who shall render to each according to his works 7to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility life age during 8and to those contentious, and disobedient, indeed, to the truth, and obeying the unrighteousness indignation and wrath, 9tribulation and distress, upon every soul of man that is working the evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek 10and glory, and honour, and peace, to every one who is working the good, both to Jew first, and to Greek.
    You are correct that this passage in NKJV warns against self seeking which is equivalent to selfishness. This self seeking does not stand as a defining characteristic but rather is an exemplar of those who have turned from the gospel along with hardness of heart, impenitence, disobedience to truth, obedience to unrighteousness, indignation, and wrath. All of these are treated equally as signs of those who have turned from the narrow way.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    Let us first deal with John 5:30. You take the passage out of context and misinterpret it for your own purpose.
    Here is the full passage.

    19 So Jesus explained, I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing. In fact, the Father will show him how to do even greater works than healing this man. Then you will truly be astonished. 21 For just as the Father gives life to those he raises from the dead, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants. 22 In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge, 23 so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him. 24 I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life. 25 And I assure you that the time is coming, indeed itâ

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    Two examples which caution against selfishness....

    Joh 5:30 I can do nothing of My own self. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who has sent Me.

    Rom 2:8 But to those who indeed disobeying the truth out of self-seeking, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath,

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wrhalver,
    you post
    Viking

    Just to clearify, selfish interests are our own interests which have no concern for God's interests.

    If our own interests are God's interests, then they are not selfish.

    Let us assume for a moment this is correct (though you provide no scripture to support it). Then how do we discern between our selfish interests and God's interests. Well I would contend that if you indeed accept Christ then what better way than to study and follow Christs teachings which direct us against violence towards any other human being.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    you state,
    Please look specifcally at Matthew 25:40 and 25:45

    I have.
    You ask

    Who is Me?
    Is this not describing the Lord?

    My answer of course yes.
    You then state.

    When we are persecuted, it is not personal but it is against our Father in Heaven.

    The verses do not state this that is your extrapolation unsupported by the scriptural text. Christ told them when they did good to others it was counted to their credit in heaven. But he did not say to the goats when you persecuted, imprisoned, etc. to the least of these you did it to me. You are making connections that are completely unsupported by the text.
    But let us say for a moment that you were correct in this extrapolation. Then any violence done against others would be violence done against Christ. Surely this would be prohibited and your argument that Christians are in any way authorized to commit violence against other human beings once again fails.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    well if you did note the negative then your question is nonsensical but let us pass over that.

    I agree with your statement.

    The real question is whether you will know God's voice when you hear it so that you are obediant.

    My question to you then is how will you know that you are moved by the holy spirit (God's voice) and not by a false spirit?

    I have an answer but I would like to know yours and please provide scriptural support for this means of discernment.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    I did not miss that part when I was reading your comments, I just felt it was more important to address the faith part.

    As Christians, Christ is the head of all things. Our witness is always for Christ.

    We cannot say in what way God will have us to react in any given circumstance. But being that the Holy Spirit is within you, you will know.

    The real question is whether you will know God's voice when you hear it so that you are obediant.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver in your 2:21 post you quote the pertinent section from my earlier post but you apparently did not read it closely. I will post the quote again below highlighting the critical word in all caps.

    Of course this does not speak at all to the situation where someone attacks us NOT for christ's sake or in any way related to our faith

    I then post some examples of attacks not made for his sake (Christ's). This should resolve your confusion.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    Just to clearify, selfish interests are our own interests which have no concern for God's interests.

    If our own interests are God's interests, then they are not selfish.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    Please look specifcally at Matthew 25:40 and 25:45

    Who is Me?
    Is this not describing the Lord?

    When we are persecuted, it is not personal but it is against our Father in Heaven.

    In the same sense, when we do good, this is not for our sake but for our Father in Heaven.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    The actions of Cain were selfish because it was done for his own self interests.

    God's interests were seeing the two brothers prove righteous hearts. Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable
    to God.

    None of my comments have suggested anything contrary to this.

    This was a selfish act for Cain and therefore a violation of God's commandment.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking
    You have said...
    "Of course this does not speak at all to the situation where someone attacks us not for christ's sake or in any way related to our faith."

    11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

    For who's sake? Is this not talking about Christ? Persecution for the sake of your faith in Christ?

    Otherwise please explain you interpretation of "for my sake".

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    I reviewed Matt 25 as you requested. There are two main sections the parable of the talents and the description of the seperation of the sheep from the goats. I found nothing to support your position. Perhaps you could be more specific. I did find verses that undermine your argument for violence. Nowhere is there mentioned approval for taking up violence against others. Quite the contrary In these verses the faithful are rewarded for kindness, charity and love towards others.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver
    You ask
    Were the actions of Cain against Abel selfish or of God?

    Well first of all you would need to define selfish. If you define it as anything not Of God then by definition your question answers itself. If on the other hand you allow that some actions that are not Of God (and by that do you mean commanded by God, or permitted by God, or do you mean Inspired by God three related but distinct things)may also not be selfish. For example would you say that an action of a pagan unbeliever who gave up his life to save a stranger was selfish. If there are possible unselfish acts not commanded by god then the dichotomy of your question collapses on itself. You are attempting to create a forced choice between two options when there are other possibilities.

    If I want to understand Cain I look to the Scriptures rather than trying to force my preconceived concept onto Cains motivation.
    So reffering to Genesis.

    And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. 4 Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6 So the LORD said to Cain, Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. Now Cain talked with Abel his brother and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
    Reading this I see that Cain was angry and his countenance had fallen. God warns him that Sin lies at the door and its desire is for him and directs him to rule over it. But instead Cain gives in to the Desire in REBELLION against God. It is clear this is the key issue rebellion against the commands of God. Clearly Cain's action was RATSACH unlawful killing not MUWTH lawful killing. Since it occurred prior to the issuance of the decalogue this act was not prohibited by the 6th talmudic commandment but rather by the warning of God directly to Cain.
    Once again the scripture you cite actually supports the contrary to your position.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 1:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    Thanks for the response. OK I went back and reread Matt 5:11. The passage is quite clear it states.
    11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    I understand this passage quite clearly along with the previous which states.
    10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

    So as stated when we are persecuted for Christ's sake we are to take that as a blessing.

    Of course this does not speak at all to the situation where someone attacks us not for christ's sake or in any way related to our faith. Let us say that I am approached by someone who disagrees with me on a political issue and in the heat of this discussion he slaps me in the face, or let us take the case of a thief who enters my home threatens me with violence and takes my possessions. These verses do not speak to this at all. Which is why your earlier statements that when Christ taught us to turn the other cheek and to give him your shirt also he was saying these acts were against the father is a false teaching.
    However even if they were not a false use of one teaching to distort another to a false meaning they would still not support your basic assertion that we are permited to carry out violence against others. Even in the passage cited when we are persecuted for Christ's sake or righteousness we are not instructed to resist but rather we are told to consider it a blessing. In fact we are told to
    Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven.

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    Were the actions of Cain against Abel selfish or of God?

    And if of God, why was Cain punished by God?

  • Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    I refer you to Matthew chapter 5 verse 11.

    Also, please read the text in Matthew chapter 25.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver continued
    You further state
    The words MUWTH and RATSACH are among the words I refer to. But I am not seeing any firm explanations to suggest that these words are being used to describe lawful or unlaw acts.
    The only reasonable conclusion is that you simply have not read the scriptures which I referred you to in an earlier post. This distinction is clear and unambiguous. Every use of MUWTH refers to a lawful killing and RATSACH is used always to describe unlawful killing. Nothing could be plainer. You stated in an earlier post that there were word studies that supported your view and I asked you to reference them. You failed to do so and make a circular argument instead. I can only conclude that these studies that you referred to may not actually exist. If I am wrong please show me my error by citing the specific studies so that I may learn from them. At the close of your post you respond to your own rhetorical question by stating
    If we say God's law, then it is clear that "Thou shalt Not Kill/Murder" refers to selfish motivations such as with Cain. To interpret this any other way is to say that God contradicts his own commandment by sending israel into war and taking lives.
    Of course this is a false statement. In the OT killing as punishment or in wars ordered by god was lawful or MUWTH and therefore does not break the commandment against RATSACH. The scriptures repeatedly make this clear. What is completely absent from the scriptures is your concept of killing for Selfish Reasons. As shown above this is not a viable criteria and more importantly it is not scriptural. There is no contradiction if you simply read the scriptures as they are written instead of making stuff up to support your position. You have wandered far from scripture in your creative theology.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    You have so many statements that are contrary to scripture it is hard to know where to begin. For example in response to the reference to Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
    You state. What Christ is trying to teach us that we are not to take persecution personally. We must remember that every slap on the face is being given to our Father, not us
    Where do you get this interpretation from? There is nothing in scripture that supports this. Christ was teaching to the multitudes giving them instruction on how to live. Nowhere in this verse or in the whole chapter is there any suggestion of what you state. You seem to have simply made this up in your head. In the discussion of the commandment against killing you place great weight on your concept of killing for selfish reasons. You claim that only killing for selfish reasons is prohibited by the commandment. But you provide no scriptural basis for this Selfish Reasons criteria. Nowhere is the commandment against RATSACH qualified by such a criteria. For example at Exodus 20:13 the scripture does not state Thou shall not kill for selfish reasons. Again it seems something you simply made up. In fact it is easily shown that this is incorrect. If I unselfishly murder a person to take his wealth and give it to the poor under your argument this is permitted by the commandment. Of course this and your made up criteria which would support it are equally contrary to scripture.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    The words MUWTH and RATSACH are among the words I refer to.

    But I am not seeing any firm explanations to suggest that these words are being used to describe lawful or unlaw acts.

    But if that were the case, what law do they refer to? Man or God's.

    If we say God's law, then it is clear that "Thou shalt Not Kill/Murder" refers to selfish motivations such as with Cain.

    To interpret this any other way is to say that God contradicts his own commandment by sending israel into war and taking lives.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer

    What Christ is trying to teach us that we are not to take persecution personally.

    We must remember that every slap on the face is being given to our Father, not us.

    Be quick to listen and slow to speak.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, but He also told them to turn the other cheek and if a person asks them for anything to not only give them what they asked for, but to give them even more than they asked for and He also told them to expect persecution if they indeed take a stand for the Lord, but your right there is no absolute rule in God's Word that says a Christian cannot use violence to defend their faith, but it does seem to be heavily implied.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer
    you have said...
    "Christ clearly teaches that we should not defend our faith through violence,...."

    Please point out the scriptural basis for this. In the example Viking gave, Christ was not teaching his disciples not to use violence at all.

    He was preventing them from using violence because it was in God's plan for Christ to be taken in to suffer before going to the cross. Christ was not supposed to resist in that situation and the disciples did not fully understand this.

    This is not a blanket statement that says we are not to use violence.

    I don't know if that is what your are referring to.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, didn't say that it was, but I should have expanded on what I meant, Christ clearly teaches that we should not defend our faith through violence, so for me to sense I should I would have to get a clear and distinct word from God through His Holy Spirit telling me to do just that. My apology for not being clearer on my earlier post.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking
    You have said....
    "If so then you are proposing that the commandment Thou shalt not Kill is universal applying to all the above. This would make the Old Testament self contradictory prohibiting an act in one verse and commanding it in others. This does not pass any test of reason or interpretation."

    You have answered your own question, but let me use this example.

    In the case of Cain and Abel, it is clear the Cain's actions would have violated God's commandment. But when God sent Israel into war against neighboring heathen nations, and clearly instructs them as to who they are to spare and not spare, this cannot violate God's commandment.

    The action taken against a human being is the same in both cases. The results are the same in both cases. But the intention is not.

    One is for selfish reasons, the other is in obediance to God.

    Animal sacrifice was given as a means to obey and worship God. This also cannot violate God's commandment.

    But, we do acknowledge that Christ is now the sacrifice in place of animals. There is no longer the need for animal sacrfice, but there is still the need to acknowledge the sacrifice of Christ.

  • Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer

    It has never been suggested that you should obey any other voice but God.

    And learning to hear from the Holy Spirit is the same as hearing from God.

  • Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, it would certainly have to be God's voice I heard and on one elses to include someone saying that they heard from God with regards to physically defending our faith.

  • Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wrhalver,
    thank you for your response. Perhaps you could direct me to the studies you refer to. Will the studies explain why MUWTH is always used to refer to lawful killing and RATSACH is always used to refer to unlawful killing. Also are you actually saying that there is no distinction in scripture between murder, killing a human being in war, executing a human being under the law, killing animals for food, killing animals for sacrifice, etc. This is what your post implies. If so then you are proposing that the commandment Thou shalt not Kill is universal applying to all the above. This would make the Old Testament self contradictory prohibiting an act in one verse and commanding it in others. This does not pass any test of reason or interpretation. So I don't see how your contention that the terms are interchangeable and that there is no distinction has any validity. Also you state.
    You were asking for NT scripture which supports Christians being engaged in violence in defence of their faith. Such scripture is found in Revelations 13.
    I post the applicable verses below.
    7He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. 9He who has an ear, let him hear. 10If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
    This verse is quite plain as prophet has pointed out the verse states that the beast will make war against the saints and conquer them. It does not state that the saints will make war against the beast. But if this were unclear the later verse clarifies
    if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.
    You will note that no where does it state any saint is to take up the sword or to resist captivity or being killed. Quite the opposite the Saints are called to patient endurance and faithfulness. Clearly we are to endure this tribulation and be faithful to the commands of Christ. Contrary to your statement that Christians will be called into war against the Beast these verses state just the opposite that we are to endure the tribulation. Ours is a spiritual fight to endure without departing from Christ's teaching.

  • Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking...

    Based on word studies done going back to the original Hebrew and Greek languages, there is no difference in meaning between the use of the words kill and murder.

    The two words share the same meaning, they are interchangeable.

    I completely agree that any spirit which speaks contrary to God's word is false. This is why we are to test the spirits. But we must first learn what we are to be listening to.

    I never suggested that there was any contradictions between Revelations and the Gospels. Quite the contrary.

    You were asking for NT scripture which supports Christians being engaged in violence in defence of their faith. Such scripture is found in Revelations 13.

    This may not be a call to you specifically to serve in such a way, but Christians will be called into war against the beast.

  • Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer

    Simply put, if God so desires for you to raise a hand to strike another in defense of your faith, then you would obey.

    This is based on the fact that you have indeed heard God's voice.

  • Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    WRhalver,
    I am wondering if you are now able to discern the distinction between killing and murder in scripture?

    Also are you able to recognize that any spirit which counsels you to act contrary to Christ's teachings is by definition not the Holy spirit but rather a false spirit?

    Also are you able to discern that there is no conflict between Revelation and the Gospels? The duty of Christians to obey the commandments of Christ do not change in any way under revelations.

  • Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, no argument there, but what does that have to do with Christians using violence for the sole purpose of defending their faith?

  • Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    believer

    A separation needs to be identified between God's voice and every other voice.

    This is about being a faithful steward regardless of where and how God calls us to serve.

    Obediance is greater than sacrifice.

  • Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, I was referring to the example you used of a person defending their country, that would fall under render unto to Caesar what is Caesar's as opposed to rendering unto God what is God's and while it may be true that as one defends their country they defend their faith as well, it's not an issue that one could use to say it is okay for one to use violence in the defending of one's faith.

  • Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:32 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet

    I'm sorry. I thought you could assume that the answer is yes. Again, according to the will of God.

    We are not listening to random spirits. We are listening to the voice of God.


    Believer
    Please explain how you are separating "render unto God what is God's" from defence of our faith.

  • Tue Jun 16, 2009 2:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is that a yes, or a no?

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet
    You have asked....
    "So, the Holy Spirit would tell you whether or not to save him?"

    The Holy Spirit will guide as God wants us to be guided.

    The Holy Spirit will remind us of Gods word as God wants us to be reminded.

    The Holy Spirit will comfort us as God wants us to be comforted.

    And the Holy Spirit may speak through us in prayer and thanksgiving to God.

    This is the fire spoken of at Pentecost.

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "The Holy Spirit.
    We have to be able to hear God's still small voice.

    We have to have the ears to hear."


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

    So, the Holy Spirit would tell you whether or not to save him?

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, I pretty much agree, but that being the case we are now talking about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's as opposed to defending our faith.

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer

    In your comments related to trhe combat field...

    It is more normal to assume we will be in combat for the purposes of defending a nation as opposed to defending a faith.

    The fact is that a national leader who targets a religious group does so in fear of the God represented by this group. This is a war of faith, not a war of nationalism.

    The Bible says that the Beast will be given the authority to say things against God and against entities in Heaven. I don't hear much of that from our national leaders.

    This war will be different. and there are special rewards in Heaven for those who hold true to their faith in the midst of this.

    If we don't know the the voice of God, then we will not be prepared to defend our faith under any circumstances.

  • Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I think you are all missing my point, and perhaps this brings to the surface the real reason why the church seems to be in such confusion.

    Christ himself said that it was necessary for him to leave so that a comforter, the Holy Spirit, could be sent to us to confirm and guide us in the word of God.

    For some reason this seems to be a strange, unexercised gift that has been given to us. When we accept Christ, a Baptism in water and then in the Spirit usually follows.

    It is this same Spirit which Christ talks about sending to us.

    We must learn to develop the "ears" to listen to this voice from God. This is mentioned several times in the Book of Revelations. Otherwise a walk with God is blind and misunderstood.

    I do not say this in the sense that I understand it and you don't. I say it in the sense that as Christians we first learn how to listen to God's voice as we read his word. This then carries on when we are out in the world.

    When you accept Christ, it is the Spirit which confirms to you that you are in fact a child of God. Others can question this including your own fellow brothers and sisters. But you have the confidence provided beause of the Holy Spirit.

    We cannot be afraid to listen to this voice. Otherwise we cannot expect to understand God.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wr, being in a combat situation does not relate to one being threatened or persecuted for their faith, plus although I have never been in combat I know many who have and what they share is that their instincts and training take over there isn't anytime for thinking.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    In regards your answer to prophet I again say to you if you ever feel that a spirit is directing you to some act of this kind I beg you for your sake to consult the scriptures in particular the teachings of Christ and to turn away from any false spirit that directs you to act contrary to the commands of Christ and teachings of the Gospels.
    Again I urge you to discuss this idea with your pastor.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wrhalver,
    I am glad that you are going to prayerfully consider what has been discussed. I encourage you while doing that to read the Gospels with particular attention to the teachings of Christ.

    In regards your closing let me ask you?
    Help me understand how you would know what was in the mind of God and that in your scenario he had not decided that my death was not exactly when and how I was to die in his plan.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet
    You asked....
    "And how do you know?"

    The Holy Spirit.
    We have to be able to hear God's still small voice.

    We have to have the ears to hear.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Not because it is in any interest of mine, but because it was not yet in God's plan to take you home."

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

    And how do you know?

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    For now we will agree to disagree, and prayerfully consider what has been discussed.

    But allow me to say this much....
    If you and I were on the battle field and someone was about to strike you down, if God so directed me to take the life of the person that would strike you down, I would not hesitate to obey.

    Not because it is in any interest of mine, but because it was not yet in God's plan to take you home.

  • Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    wrhalver,
    I urge you to speak to your pastor on this issue. I will continue to pray for you.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Listen to Sermons by  
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Church
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Baker Publishing Group

This full-text Bible is perfect for children who have outgrown Bible storybooks, but who would struggle to read the small type of most Bibles. The large, easy-to-read 12.5 point ty

Featured Advertiser Links