Pandering to Islam

October 14, 2007 at 1:22 pm | Posted in Christianity | 26 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lately, our country’s leaders seem to be sliding down a slippery slope. More and more in the news we hear about the president, congress, and others supporting Islam. From the president saying that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God, to Congress passing a resolution to recognize Ramadan, to the Department of Defense allowing an invitation to a Ramadan celebration(at the Pentagon) to be sent over government computers.

What’s wrong with this you ask? Well, first, it’s seems that our “Christian” leaders don’t seem to understand what the quran says about Christians. If they did, they wouldn’t be kowtowing to Islam.

9:29 [And] fight against those who – despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] Asad(9,40) -do not [truly] believe either in God or the Last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, Asad(9,41)  and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them] Asad(9,42) till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]. Asad(9,43)  

9:30 AND THE JEWS say, “Ezra is God’s son,” while the Christians say, “The Christ is God’s son.” Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! Asad(9,44)   [They deserve the imprecation:] “May God destroy them!” Asad(9,45)   How perverted are their minds!

9:31 They have taken their rabbis and their monks-as well as the Christ, son of Mary-for their lords beside God, Asad(9,47) although they had been bidden to worship none but the One God, save whom there is no deity: the One who is utterly remote, in His limitless glory, from anything to which they may ascribe a share in His divinity! Asad(9,46)  

Second, it’s just another example of how far from our Christian roots we’ve actually strayed. Third, the fact that the invitation that was sent out contained the 5 pillars of Islam (when sharing the gospel through email is considered “ethically unlawful”) is a clear case of “as long as it doesn’t tell us about sin and how we are in danger of judgment from God we’ll allow it”.

The president has said that the god of Islam and the God of Christianity are the same. I will deal with this in another blog, but suffice it to say that anyone who takes an honest look at both religions will see that this cannot even remotely be true.

Congress passing a resolution to recognize Ramadan I don’t agree with either. It has nothing to do with being “Islamaphobic” (which is a huge buzz word that is used against anyone that speaks out against Islam). It has everything to do with this being a Christian nation (or at least it’s supposed to be). As a Christian nation, our foundation should be Christ and His Word. It is the freedom found in Christ that allows believers of other religions to practice their beliefs here. But as far as recognizing them nationally, I don’t agree with that.

The fact that the DOD allowed the invitation to stand and did nothing about it shows a trend in the government that concerns me. The sender of the invitation should have at least been talked to, and they may have been, I don’t know, but I do know that if it would have been a Christian invitation with the gospel in it, it would have been a big to-do. Also, this celebration was at the Pentagon!! Not only that, two of the guest speakers both had ties to radical Islam. Should that be at the Pentagon? Should our government support that when we have man and women dying in Iraq to fight this very same ideal? I would take it as my own government thumbing their nose at me!

“We know that you’re over there sacrificing your lives for us over here so that 9/11 doesn’t happen again, but we are too spineless to stand up and say something. We would rather have the votes and try to please everyone than to do what’s right and support our country and the beliefs that founded it”.

It’s shameful, disrespectful, and downright wrong. You may disagree with me and that’s fine. It’s your right as a free American. But I respect the fact that people have died for me and for my opportunities here in this country, and I could never imagine doing something like this.

It is stuff like this that we should be remembering come election time next year…


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Actually, I think government should not be associated with ANY religion. That supports complete freedom of religion. History abundantly illustrates the great dangers inherent in mixing government and “state” religion. Christians suffered under that in Roman times, and then paradoxically proceeded to inflict it on other Christians and other religions, thus the religious wars and persecutions within Christianity from early to modern times.

  2. I understand your point, but as a Christian, I believe that our nation needs to return to it’s Christian roots. The people who founded this country had a very strong belief in God. They saw this country as a place to worship the God of the Bible freely. It is because of these beliefs that we have the type of government that we have today. They are the reason why our country has remained where we are. To remove the association between government and Christianity is to remove the foundation this country was built on and place us in the same category as many of the countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia. If Christianity is truly adhered to, then you have freedom of religion. You have the choice to be a Christian or not, but the country is founded on and run by those beliefs and it benefits all involved…

  3. Actually, the Puritans, for example, of Massachusetts Bay Colony, saw this country as a place where they could practice THEIR brand of “truly adhered to” Christianity, and could persecute all who disagreed with them. They felt free to jail, whip, and even hang visiting Quakers, for example. That alone should be warning to anyone advocating a state “establishment of religion.”

    Just as Christians would not want to be second-class citizens in another country controlled by another religion, they should not ask that those of other religions (or those of no religion) be second-class citizens in the United States. The best course is to keep religion and state entirely separate. There are a good many Christians who advocate precisely that course, because they so deeply value freedom of religion and know how dangerous state intervention in matters of religion has proved to be in the past.

  4. I think that you misunderstand. I’m not saying that the state/fed should mandate a religion as the national religion of US. But, I do believe that our country will only survive and grow by being built upon the Judeo-Christian beliefs that brought people here in the first place(whether those people acted according to those beliefs or not is not the fault of Christianity). I believe that our government and other social systems need to be based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

  5. A government and social system “based on Judeo-Christian beliefs” would be, quite simply, a system favoring Judeo-Christian beliefs, therefore “an establishment of religion,” which the First Amendment of the Constitution forbids.

    I think the root of the problem is the misperception many Christians seem to hold that ethics cannot exist outside a particular religion or religion in general. Once that misperception is recognized and corrected, there is no need to mix religion and government, which should not be done in any case.

  6. I disagree. I don’t see how you can completely separate religion and government. God didn’t do it in the Bible. Having a government based on the truth of the Bible is far from establishing religion. In many ways, that’s already the case. Many of the laws in our country are based on the ten commandments and other laws found in the Bible. Without a standard of morality, how can you really govern. If you lack a standard or your standard slides, then you are left with relativism and that is no way to govern. To truly govern a people while allowing them to live freely, you have to have an absolute standard of truth. The only place that’s found is in the Bible…And that still provides for the First Amendment…

  7. Suffice it to say that ethics do not depend on dogmatic religion. Even Confucius had his version of the “Golden Rule.” Do you still observe every point of Old Testament law? Or would you want to? I doubt it. Nor would most Christians today. That is “relativism.”

  8. Ethics may or may not depend on religion, but they do depend on absolute truth. Regardless of whether or not someone has a version of the golden rule doesn’t determine the truth. Whether or not you or I deny the truth isn’t what decides if it’s untrue.

    As for the OT law, the truth is that becasue of what Jesus did on the cross, I no longer have to keep the law. But, I still have to obey what God says. The fact that most Christians today wouldn’t want to keep the law is not relativism.

    Relativism is saying “what’s true for you is not true for me”. It’s saying there is no absolute truth. It’s what says that all religions lead to the same God and the same heaven. Those are lies.

    People can be good according to the world’s standards, but unless they also abide by God’s standards, it is meaningless….

  9. Of course it is relativism. If what was unethical once suddenly becomes ethical (whatever reason you may give for that), that is relativism.

    Ethics depending on presumed “absolute truth” would not change — unless, of course, truth changes — and of course if truth changes — such as from the OT Law to NT ethics, that is relativism.

  10. Not in this case. Romans 8 says that Jesus came to do what the law couldn’t.God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh because the law was weak to the flesh. Jesus fulfilled the law. It is no longer something that we need to follow if we accept Christ because He has completed the requirements for it. If, however, you don’t accept His sacrifice and redeeming work, then you would still be under the law. So, the truth didn’t change. The law still exists and is still relavent. It depends on whether or not someone will accept the sacrifice of the Lamb of God…

  11. So you are saying observance of the law is RELATIVE, depending on whether one has become a Christian or not — so the ethic is not absolute, but changes in relation to conditions. Again, that is simply relativism, and no escaping it.

  12. No…actually observance of the law exists in both cases. It is not relative. How it is observed is different. For the law to be fulfilled, there has to be a shedding of blood for the remission of sins. That can be done the OT way, by animal sacrifice, which is continual and must be done consistantly. Or, it can be done by accepting what Jesus did on the cross when He died for your sins in place of you. Either way, the law still exists and is still fulfilled. One way is a constant effort, the other is a one time thing that God has done Himself because man couldn’t.

  13. We shall have to agree to disagree. To me “blood sacrifice” whether animal or human is completely immoral.

  14. That is a completely acceptable set of terms hokku. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss and will be praying for you. That blood sacrifice is immoral to you should let you know just how much God truly loves you…I wish you all the best!


  15. Too bad your concept of deity does not love animals and forbid their pointless slaughter in religious rites.

  16. My “concept of deity” is of a God who created man differently than He did the animals. It is of a God who sees all of creation as His but looks at man as special because man was “made in His image and after His likeness” (Genesis 1:26). While God spoke the animals into existence, he formed man with His own hands and then breathed into him the breath of life. That is a significant difference.

  17. That theory does not change the fact of cruelty to animals advocated by your concept of deity. Science shows us (as does evolution) how very close we are in DNA to, for example, chimps and bonobos, something like 96.4% identity.

    If man is “made in the image of God,” then God must have form. It cannot just be a “spiritual” image as some would have it, because the same thing is said of Adam and his son Seth in Genesis 5:3 — Adam begot a son “in his likeness, in his image,” just as Adam was said to be created by God in his image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).

  18. The idea of cruelty to animals comes from a lack of understanding of the Bible. Nowhere does God say “go out and kill animals just for fun”. In fact, man didn’t eat meat until after the flood. And man is told to be the steward of the earth. But God is the one who instituted the first sacrifice when He killed animals to make the clothes that Adam and Eve covered themselves with. And just like today, if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, there wouldn’t have been a requirement for blood to cleanse us of sin.

    You say that you find the killing of animals to be immoral. Am I to understand by this that you are a strict vegetarian?

    The fact that science shows that chimps and man are 96.4% similar in DNA is questionable, but even if that figure is correct, it’s not as small a thing as those who depend on it think. Human beings have 3 billion base pairs of information in each cell. So for a difference of 3.6% like you say, there are 108,000,000 differences…If put into book form it would be over 40 books of close type on 500 pages per book. The figures often given are based on DNA hybridization which is known to be crude and can be affected by a number of outside factors.

    On top of that, even if they are 96.4% the same, that doesn’t prove common ancestry. It just as easily (even more so imho) proves a common designer. The prop plane and the jet are very similar but one didn’t evolve from the other even thought they share common functions…

    God doesn’t have to have a form for someone to be made in His image. The Hebrew used in both scriptures cited conveys resemblance. It doesn’t imply in any way that it’s necessary for God to have a form form man to resemble Him…

  19. How do you suppose man is in the image of God, and Seth is in the image of Adam, if form is not inherent in the concept? That is why we say someone is the “image of his father.”

  20. You haven’t shown how resembling someone automatically implies form…

  21. You wrote:
    “You haven’t shown how resembling someone automatically implies form…”

    I would think that would be obvious, since it involves the term “image and likeness.” If someone is the “spittin’ image” of a relative, we all know it means physical resemblance.

  22. Actually, you’re assuming that image and likeness implies form when there is no indication that that is so…physical form is not the only way to resemble someone…

  23. I think that is the only possible realistic understanding of the “image and likeness” resemblance of God and Adam, and of Adam and Seth.
    As for God having a body, we find that also in Exodus 24:10:
    “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy elders of Israel went up; and they saw the God of Israel; under his feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity. Yet he did not raise his hand against the leaders of the Israelites. They saw God, and they ate and drank.”

    “They saw God” — “under his feet” — “he did not raise his hand” — God is depicted in human form. That is the meaning of Genesis. Adam was supposedly created in the “image and likeness” of God, just as Seth was the “image and likeness” of Adam.

    Also Daniel 7:9 for a later view:
    “Thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his garment was like white snow, and the hair of his head like lamb’s wool.”

    Again, God is depicted in human form, a “big man” sitting on a throne.

    The God of Genesis is of the same form as humans, who are made in his image and likeness. In Genesis 3:8 Adam and Eve hear God walking in the garden. elsewhere we find that God has

    Eyes, Amos 9:4;
    Hands, Amos 9:2;
    Fingers, with which he writes the Law, Deut. 9:10;
    Arms, Jer. 27:5;
    Ears, Num. 11:18, 14:28, Ezek. 8:18;
    Feet, Nah. 1:3;
    A mouth, Jer. 9:12;
    Lips, Isa. 30:27;
    A head, Ps. 60:7;
    A face, Num. 6:25;
    A back, which Moses was permitted to see, Ex. 33:23.

    And, of course, he has human passions and emotions.

    All this is conclusive.

  24. IF you had all that scripture, then why ask the question? You have shown that it’s possible for Adam to resemble God….

  25. Why ask the question? Because you wrote:
    “God doesn’t have to have a form for someone to be made in His image. The Hebrew used in both scriptures cited conveys resemblance. It doesn’t imply in any way that it’s necessary for God to have a form form man to resemble Him…”

    Obviously your view was not the biblical view.

  26. Obviously?

    I never said that God didn’t have a form. I said that for something to resemble something else doesn’t necessarily imply form…

    You said that God should have a form if Adam was made in His image and then presented a list of scripture that answered your own question…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: