Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Pure, unadulterated, horseswill. Islam calls Jesus "A" prophet of God, but Muhammad "The" prophet of God.

There can be no peace between the children of God and the children of Belial. Comity is certainly possible, but not on the grounds that both believe in "God"... for the devils ALSO believe, yet are they still damned.

The ONLY reason comity is possible at all is the very express command to love our enemies as our selves... to pray for them... especially when the persecute us.
 

ELAshley, this statement alone makes you unworthy to call yourself a Christian:
"There can be no peace between the children of God and the children of Belial."
To even claim to believe that Muslims are devil worshippers is horrific. You are entitled to your beliefs. Please do not call yourself a Christian, however. I will deny it to the throne itself.
 

The god of Islam (little "g") and the God of the Bible are not the same. That you cannot recognize the truth of this is puzzling since you appear to be a fairly bright individual.

Deny it all wish. But Islam denies Christ... Denies His deity. Denies His atonement. You are doctrinally illiterate, if you believe otherwise. The only remedy for that is to open God's word and actually study it, then compare it to what the Koran has to say. They do not both point to the God of the Bible.

I call myself a Christian, and will continue to do so, because that is what I am... Irrespective of your opinion, or what you believe to the contrary. I call myself a Christian because of the shed blood of Jesus... nothing more, nothing less.
 

I'm not gonna get in the middle of this.

But the first thought I had was: Well, the God of the Old Testament doesn't seem to have much at all in common with the God of the New Testament, either.
 

ELAshely - what does Christ atonement mean? What does his divinity mean? You say Muslims deny it; I have no idea what those words mean for you or me, or their possible relevance to the issue of Christian Muslim relations. Before your head explodes, I am not "denying" those things; I am just saying that those words have no meaning for me. I do believe it is possible to be a Christian and shrug one's shoulders about things like "atonement" and "Jesus' divinity", both of which are late additions to the body of dogma anyway (by late, I mean second to third century).

You are a Christian because of the blood of Jesus? So, body fluid makes you a Christian? Not love, not self-denial and sacrifice? Not the hunger for justice? Not the hope that love is stronger than death? That's just weird, dude. Sorry.
 

"those words have no meaning for me"

Which is patently obvious.

You seem more concerned with the outward expression of the Christian faith, rather than the mechanics.... in effect, if one acts as a Christian should he'll do fine when he stands before God's throne. But Acting like a Christian does not make one a Christian, to which ER will attest. The Word does say, 'not everyone who calls me Lord, will enter in' (paraphrased).

In regard to Islam. Without an agreement on the Mechanics of faith... in effect, how it works, why it works, etc., there can be no honest fellowship (in terms of acceptance of their faith or lack thereof) with unbelievers. I agree that the believer in Christ doesn't need a complete understanding of this-- In truth, a "complete" understanding is impossible, but lack of understanding doesn't negate the veracity of deeper truths... of the Mechanics of faith and salvation. But when it comes to fellowship, Christians are admonished to have no fellowship with unbelievers (in terms of acceptance of their faith or lack thereof)... that includes Muslims. And why this means Muslims is because they reject the Mechanics of salvation as outlined in the Bible, which is the only TRUE source of Godly wisdom.

As a Christian my only focus toward a Muslim, aside from what I must be FOR the Muslim... Loving, and honest in dealings... is to bring him to Christ, that he might be spared the judgment that is coming to us all. His soul is more important that my desire to be liked by him. His soul is more important than my physical life.

Now, understanding the Mechanics won't save anyone, but part and parcel with the Mechanics is the very fact that God took on mortal flesh to die a substitutionary death that man might find grace in the shed blood of God! (Acts 20:28)... namely, Jesus. Islam rejects this, claiming that God has not son.

A short excerpt for Light of Life

The Sonship of Christ is another subject that outrages Muslims. They cannot contemplate a second divine person existing beside Allah. This would mean the possibility of conflict within the Godhead. The Son could rebel against his Father at any moment. Only Allah is the powerful one. In the Qur'an he is also called the arrogant and the most crafty of the cunning (Sura al-Hashr 59:23 and Al Imran 3:54). Christ's meekness and gentleness, as well as his self-denial, are regarded as weakness in Islam. It is taken as proof that he is not God when he says, "I am gentle and humble in heart," or "The Son can do nothing of himself," or "The Father is greater than I."

For a Muslim, the mystery of the Holy Trinity remains concealed. The Son continually glorified that Father during his life on earth, just as the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son today. The Father honoured the Son and seated him at the right hand, while the Son left to the Holy Spirit the task of building the Church that he purchased with his blood. Christ's statement, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," sounds like blasphemy in the ear of a Muslim. If this were true, Allah would have no more power in his hands. The spirit of Islam is full of pride. So a Muslim cannot understand the meekness and gentleness of Christ's character.

The existence of a Son of God would also mean an encroachment upon Allah's sovereignty. Allah forgives whom he wants, when he wants and where he wants. He does not need a lamb, a mediator or a cross. Islamic reasoning declares the crucified Christ unnecessary, because Allah does everything alone.

Muhammad's denial of the sonship of Christ includes the rejection of the historical fact of the crucifixion. He simply said without hesitation, "they crucified him not" (Sura al-Nisa' 4:157). If Allah would have allowed the crucifixion of Christ, then Muhammad could also have expected a shameful death during the time of his persecution in Mecca. Instead he clung to a powerful Allah, who in sovereign majesty protects his prophets. In Islam the cross of Christ would signify a denial of the omnipotence of Allah.

The contrast between the holiness of God that demands the death of all who are guilty, and his love that longs to save all sinners, is concealed from Islam. Allah does not love sinners (a principle that is recorded 24 times in the Qur'an, Sura al-Baqara 2:190ff), but only those who fear him (Sura Al Imran 3:76). For this reason, no Muslim can ever be certain whether Allah has prepared a place for him in paradise or if the gates of hell will stand wide open to receive him.

Islam does not recognise a crucified Son of God. They have no concept of the Lamb of God who was the vicarious sacrifice for mankind. Therefore, no Muslims can perceive redemption; they remain without grace and abide in their sins. The entire second article of our faith is eliminated by a Muslim. The concept and fact of "being saved through Christ" is non-existent in Islam. The true Saviour is hidden from their eyes.
-----

I hold no rancor toward Muslims. If anything, I pity them. As I have neither the calling, or the means, I leave the evangelizing of Muslims to those whom God HAS called. But there is NO peace compromise possible between Islam and Christianity. God has said this. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Him.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Where exactly has God said there can be no peace between Christians and Muslims? I want chapter and verse with specific reference to both faiths.

"The outward expression" - what a wonderful straw argument you make, the same sad, tired nonsense I hear and read all the time from people who think that getting the words "I believe" right, and who jabber on and on about having a personal relationship with Jesus is all there is to it.

That means nothing. The prophets demanded not sacrifice, but righteous living - love in action toward the widow, orphan, oppressed, and stranger. The Psalms lament the formality of worship without any understanding. Jesus poked fun at people who thought that getting all the "i"'s dotted and "t"'s crossed was all there was to it.

St. Paul said it best - "If I speak with the tongue of men and angels, and have not love, I am as a clanging gong and tinkling cymbal." I detect no love - no love for those of other faiths, no love for those who disagree with you, no sense of cohumanity, of the shared fate of all of us who are God's beloved creatures. All you see are true and false Christians, worshipers of you God and worshipers of the devil. All I have ever read from your writings on the internet are fear, division, the smug superiority of the sanctified truth merchants.

I am weary of having to listen to the garbage spewed by those like you who trample the promise of Jesus under the the yoke of grammatical correctness and the demands of totalitarian morality. You display no sense of freedom, no trust in the Holy Spirit to allow for true difference and diversity to be a hallmark of God's grace. Fundamentalism enslaves to a demand not for love, mercy, and freedom in service, but obedience, judgment, and fear.

As for your little "excerpt" - it is nothing more than anti-Muslim nonsense that means no more to me than any other hatred clothed in the garb of Christianity. I have neither the need nor the desire to read any more hatred for anyone - not women, not blacks, not Hispanics, not Muslims, not gays and lesbians, not even Christians who believe differently - that is baptized by those who believe that they alone are chosen by God to be the deliverers of Truth.

Bandying words about is never a winning game. Even engaging in such "arguments" is pointless because, by so doing, one is implicitly accepting the legitimacy of one's interlocutor. I, on the other hand, deny that very thing. You may call yourself a Christian. You may actually believe that you are one, that the one who preached mercy, forgiveness, and who lives a life of love, dying with love and forgiveness on his lips somehow endorses bigotry, small-minded ignorance, and a lack of compassion for others. I, however, do not.

I apologize to ER for using up his space with this rant. I would have much preferred not to outwear my welcome in so doing, and I will understand if he is upset with me. This display of self-righteousness on my part is unattractive to me, and I am not the least bit comfortable doing it. Yet, as I say today on my own web log, I can remain silent no more.
 

This is the very Crux, if you will, of what it means to be a Christian!

Is it defined by what one believes, or it it defined by how one loves?

I believe it is defined by how one loves.

RE, "But Acting like a Christian does not make one a Christian, to which ER will attest."

True. However, being a Christian causes one to act like Christ! To the extremity -- to be willing to not only die, but see all "Truth" as one feebly understands it FALL! At the foot of the Cross, and at the feet of one's supposed enemy!

Let "Christianity" DIE, if that is what is required for the legacy of Jesus Christ to LIVE!

No apologies necessary, from either of you.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Discuss and cuss. Make yer case. Gripe. Whine. Carry on. Whatever.

But don't ANYBODY come around here thinking he or she is here to "instruct" anyone else.

And good luck to anyone who presents his or her "truth" mainly to "convince."
 

Sincerest apologies to all here for losing my temper. It was better that I delete my last two statements as they only threw gas on the fire.


We obviously disagree, and I'm content to pretty much leave it at that-- though knowing how I am I'll probably be rather verbose about it. With respect to Geoffrey, I derive no pleasure in arguing with you or anyone here.

As for chapter and verse... since no Muslims existed until some 500 years after the last book was written, you won't find one. What you will find are plenty of statements by Jesus himself that 'some will not believe.' And those who don't are consigned to hell... not because HE desires it, but because that is where all such go. The reality of hell is a pretty good reason to wish to see all men saved from the penalty of their sin. Jesus said He came not to bring peace... but a sword. He did not come to condemn but that the world might be saved. And even at the end, in the garden before His arrest, specifically in John 17...

I pray for them [His disciples]; I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me... verse 9

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word... [you and me and ER and every other born again believer...] verse 20

Jesus repeats throughout this chapter that God has given Him.... disciples, followers throughout the centuries. The idea of predestination is pregnantly thick in this chapter, but it would be wrong to suggest some people are born to go to hell... this is so far from true.

It is clear from a careful reading of scripture that EVERYONE can accept Christ and be saved; god has not predestined anyone to go to hell. But the reality is, as Jesus knew, that not everyone will accept Him; the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. In point of fact, He knew that FEW would accept Him and His FREE gift of salvation.

Islam is not the faith that Jesus died for. I do not hate Muslims, gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, whomever. I understand that the Gospel is desirous of universal inclusiveness, but I also understand that to some the Gospel can sound cold and heartless...

The site I referenced by the way is run by Muslims who have converted to Christianity. Not hate-speech at all, but rather "love" speech.

I apologize to you, Geoffrey. I lost my temper. Your use of language comes off of arrogance at times. This is not your fault-- you have superlative skill --but rather with the medium... the internet. While English can be very precise, oftentimes, without a sense of 'vocal' tone, highs and lows in speech pattern, it can be difficult to discern intent. Then again, some are merely clumsy with the language, but again, it's hard to tell here who uses it well, and who wields it like a club. Perhaps we have both misread the other, and in our anger, lashed out at each other.

For my part, I apologize. Let's agree to disagree.

But allow me to reiterate... I do not hate Muslims. I would that every one received Christ than end up in hell.
 

I've seen this "message" recently and aside from the religious differences that exist between the two, true tolerance of each other is not a question of what Christians do as much as it is a question of what these 138 clerics do. They are, indeed, preaching to the choir. Like the far left that feels they are courageous in denouncing the US, as if they have true need to fear this country, these clerics are talking to the wrong people. It is their own brethren to whom their wish of peace should touch. We are more than willing to live in peace with anyone, whether they believe in Christ or some false religion like Islam. It is their own who seek to perpetuate ill will between us. Talk to them.
 

I'm not even sure what Marshall Art is talking about. That's not unusual.

ER, I thank you for your toleration of my intolerance. Please accept, again, my apologies.

To ELAshley - your apology is accepted. I, on the other hand, retract nothing, repudiate nothing, and am actually quite proud of what I have written. I tire of having to apologize for being honest in the name of civility. The differences between our positions is such that I believe "agreeing to disagree" cannot adequately capture the chasm that exists between us. It would be nice if I thought it possible, but I do not think it is so.

If it were just you, or just this one instance of a fundamentalist denying communion to those who disagree with them even as they preach hatred and ignorance, I might be able to do so. My recent experience, however, is that this is endemic. You applaud nihilists like Ann Coulter for her anti-Semitism. I have been called a "false teacher", incoherent, and non-Christian far too much for my own equanimity. When I read one more Christian saying that Islam is a false religion, that all Muslims everywhere want us all dead or converted, that the only possible response, even Christian response, is a war to the death - I can only stand up and shout loudly, "Enough!" Silence is no longer an option.
 

Honest attempts at civility are obviously lost on you.

For the record:

1. Islam IS a false religion, but
2. Not all Muslims want to see Americans dead
3. There are plenty of responses other than death-to-last-man war
4. I don't suggest not inviting Muslims to dinner and enjoying an evening of good food and good conversation. If that is what you mean by Communion then I'm fine with it. But if you mean the 'other' I must object.

Without Christ they are doomed [Acts 4:12]. As is everyone else. Nor am I being unloving toward them by saying as much.

Perhaps I need to listen to your wife's sermons to get a better idea of where you're coming from.
 

Civility is the first thing to go when one's most basic tenets are stressed. Lack of civility not being the same as "unChristian," Geoffrey was legitimately expressing frustration and anger.

The chair rules: No harm, no foul.

(But, EL: I DO note your civility. As one who can cast it aside too quickly and too often.)
 

Hey, here are 2 questions. EL, Do you dismiss American Indian concepts of God, pre-European encounter, out of hand? Do you dismiss all attempt to comprehend the One God, by whatever name, as evil, or doomed to fail by definition if they do not consciously involve the work of Christ? I do not. Nor do I think such is a tenet of the faith. I believe God's Grace extends past our comprehension even to -- especially to -- our "enemies." Otherwise, it all, again, bould down to what you've heard, and what you believe, which leaves it all in the very weak hands of ourselves.
 

Weak hands?

The Bible is the repository of Godly wisdom. Weak hands hold it open, weak hearts comb over its contents for some glimpse of truth, but out of weak hands and weak hearts God builds strong testimonies for His glory.

I'll answer your question with one of my own.

Idolatry being any form of worship directed anywhere but toward God, does Shintoism glorify God? Buddhism? Jehovah's Witnesses?

All I know is that God has provided a way for man to be restored in fellowship with his creator. That way is Jesus... He is the ONLY way... not because I say it, but because the Bible says it.

For those who lived and died never hearing the name of Jesus, I can't say how God will deal with them. It SEEMS unjust to damn whole generations of peoples who never even heard the name of Jesus, but then I reason from a human perspective... I am not God. I only know what the Bible says... that there is no other name given under heaven by which men must be saved. I only know what Jesus said: No man cometh unto the Father but by me... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.

Why would God go through all the trouble of taking on human flesh, dying at the hands of evil men, and declare that no one gets in without the blood of Jesus covering his sin, only to toss it all away because these people have no yet heard the name of Jesus? I readily admit I don't have an answer. I only know that God will deal justly with each and every one.
 

OK.

Re, "The Bible is the repository of Godly wisdom."

I would say it is a repository of many things, including mere pathetic human glimpses of God's wisdom. A Very Important repository for Christians (and for Jews, the first part). But not THE. My mind and heart, and yours, EL, also are respositories.

Re, "Weak hands hold it open, weak hearts comb over its contents for some glimpse of truth, but out of weak hands and weak hearts God builds strong testimonies for His glory."

That is poetic. Very nice. I mean that.

Re, "All I know is that God has provided a way for man to be restored in fellowship with his creator. That way is Jesus ... He is the ONLY way ..."

I think I agree. But you insist that humankind, or more specifically, individual humans, be conscious of that holy restoration. I say that a general faith that God has provided it is enough, whether or not one knows anything at all about Jesus of Nazareth.

Re, "... not because I say it, but because the Bible says it."

Not all Christians limit their beliefs to what the Bible appears to say -- and some, actually, think that if one's only encounters with Christ are limited to the words in the Book, then one has only barely BEGUN to explore Grace and God's love, and the adventure that is the Walk of Faith for a Jesus follower.

Re, "For those who lived and died never hearing the name of Jesus, I can't say how God will deal with them."

See Abraham. See David. See every other man of faith. Their faith in God saved them, not the blood of bullocks and rams and such.

Re, "It SEEMS unjust to damn whole generations of peoples who never even heard the name of Jesus, but then I reason from a human perspective."

It IS unjust, and I would stand with Geoffrey and say it here or at the Throne -- but we won't have to" ... because ... while "I am not God" I will not insult the Creator by limiting my concept of His Mercy to those who are LIKE ME ... because while you may "know only know what the Bible says" I know better than to limit God's Godness by anything.

Re, "I only know what Jesus said: No man cometh unto the Father but by me ... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."

This says nothing about whether a person of faith must ever have even heard the name of Jesus.

Nor does this: "Why would God go through all the trouble of taking on human flesh, dying at the hands of evil men, and declare that no one gets in without the blood of Jesus covering his sin, only to toss it all away because these people have not yet heard the name of Jesus?"

Setting aside the face that that is a bundle of historically orthodox yet debatable interpretation, there is no tossing of anything away other than the insistence that one must have heard the name of Jesus to trust God for God's reconcilation with humankind. We preach Jesus to lead people to a fullness of faith, which, itself is a gift of God.

Re, "I readily admit I don't have an answer. I only know that God will deal justly with each and every one.

Yes. God will deal justly -- and thank God that God's MERCY, not merely God's RIGHTEOUSNESS, defines his justice. Because without Mercy, God's righteousness dooms us all, would annihilate us all if we got even remotely close to it.

Or so it seems to me.
 

Coming in late, but....
Love God and Love thy neighbor as yourself....is basic to the all the golden rules of most the major religons...Hinduism, Taoism, Confusianism, Islam, Judahism, Chrisitianity etc.....
Love, and Equity, and Justice will not be enough. Grace may be, and Grace is unique to Christianity. Well, not all of "Christianity" I guess. As for what happens to those who die without knowing the name of Christ/Jesus/etc.(which are no more His name than Jehovah is God's), the early Roman Orthodox Church supressed and denigrated that book of the "Bible", the Book of Enoch.
But it survived in the Coptic Bible.

See the book of Enoch.
http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

The secret of Enoch: all will receive God's Grace in God's sequence of events.
 

Whoa. Thanks, Drlobojo. I'll check that out.
 

As ELAshley has simply repeated his ignorant, bigoted remarks, I do not think any response is necessary. To be able to look at other human beings as expendable by-products of Divine wrath, without hope or recourse even within their own faith traditions to the grace of God, or however they may define living according to the tenets of their religion, is anathema to me. I would forswear my own religious beliefs if I thought for one instant that they demanded the sacrifice of one human life on the altar of the phony truth preached here.

Thankfully, I believe otherwise. My God, and my Jesus, are both far more loving and gracious and open than ELAshley. As my faith also teaches that we must love and work for peace and justice without first asking who or what, if anything or anyone, they might venerate, I do believe that pronouncing any kind of judgment upon the belief system of others - a belief system that you neither understand, nor really wish to - is against the teachings of love and justice that God has given us in Jesus.

For the record, I, too, recognize, ELAshley's civility. Why deny it? This isn't about civility, however. It's about promoting hatred, ignorance, and preferring war and death over peace, justice, and life.
 

The secret of Enoch: all will receive God's Grace in God's sequence of events.> from drlobo's post.

If one believes that, it sounds like no one will go to hell and that pretty much renders the rest of the Bible to total irrelevance. That seems like a dangerous position to take in mho.
 

Mom2 has a valid point.
Maybe that is why it was left out of the final western roman orthodox bible.
But wouldn't God Grace fulfill all that came before. If Grace can't erase all debts then what does salvation mean. Only certain debtors are forgiven? Which are they?
 

A gift that is offered must be accepted. Not everyone that was invited to the banquet came and I believe there will be those who refuse the gift of grace.
 

I must say here:

I was raised a fundamentalist, more or less. I never, EVER thought myself ignorant or bigoted. For what it's worth, EL is mainstream fundamentalist in a lot of his views, and like it or not, that is the majority of Christians in the South and Southwest -- and most of them are NOT bigots, or ignorant. They just see a difference peice of the elephant than some others do.
 

Re, "those who refuse the gift of Grace."

I think that, at any given moment, the only way to gauge whether any one of us is accepting or refusing the gift of Grace is by noting whether or not WE are extend God's gift of Grace to others, no questions asked!
 

Ya know, there is some kind of unholy irony in the fact that a post about the possibilities of comity between Christians and Muslims has aroused such ire between Christians.
 

Indeed I believe that Christ is the way, the truth. But we mortals are in no position to figure out all the ways that Jesus is the way.

When we do, we start to do God's job -- culling out those that don't fit our spiritual definitions - which is the the sin that has beset mankind forever.

We are very clearly told in the Gospels that we will be judged by the same standard we judge others. That being the case, I want to do everything in my power to not judge others too harshly.

That is the way of Christ.

In other words, I will give witness to Christ in every way that I can.

But I must be respectful of others and loving and tolerant. I cannot condemn them to hell, because I am not equipped for that role. I'm a sinner, and we're all in the same boat together. And the tolerance, compassion and love to others that I show -- even to the "tax collectors" or the "Samaritans," or the Muslims, what have you -- is, in itself, a witness to Christ, isn't it?

I will venture that the Christian groups that have gone to Muslim countries after the Tsunami and provided aid, without proselytizing, have done more to uphold the name of Christ than any number of chest-thumping preachers could have.
 

This thread continued, if anyone is interested, in the new post headlined: "God shows no partiality."