I disagree. And you will have to follow me to get to my final point and some will say I am splitting hairs.

 

I don't believe anyone has truly taken Christianity, the true Christianity represented in Scripture and did those things that Rosie has charged. Sure they have taken their warped sense of it, but you know what we were told that was going to happen. We were told to be leery of false preachers.

 

We are told to be leery of Satan who is like a lion on the hunt looking to prey on the weak, weary and the ones who have separated themselves from the pack.

 

In essence, via the warnings of false preachers, we were told that there would be people who would take the Christian message and warp it to fit their purposes. Does that mean that it is the Christian message? Absolutely, not.

 

The KKK's message IS NOT the Christian message. Jim Jones message IS NOT the Christian message. And so on and so on.

 

So to say that Christianity is a result of these actions would be no different than to say that the desire of this country to help people live in freedom have resulted in terrorists actions by us in Vietname, Korea, Iraq, etc.

 

You can warp or twist the message around to whatever you want but it does NOT mean that is the message.

 

I assume you use the word "you" as a collective term? I most certainly do not try to twist the words of the Bible.

I assume you use the word "you" as a collective term? I most certainly do not try to twist the words of the Bible.

I did mean collective and would never want to even suggest that of you.

I did mean collective and would never want to even suggest that of you.

:thumb:

I disagree. And you will have to follow me to get to my final point and some will say I am splitting hairs.

 

I don't believe anyone has truly taken Christianity, the true Christianity represented in Scripture and did those things that Rosie has charged. Sure they have taken their warped sense of it, but you know what we were told that was going to happen. We were told to be leery of false preachers.

 

We are told to be leery of Satan who is like a lion on the hunt looking to prey on the weak, weary and the ones who have separated themselves from the pack.

 

In essence, via the warnings of false preachers, we were told that there would be people who would take the Christian message and warp it to fit their purposes. Does that mean that it is the Christian message? Absolutely, not.

 

The KKK's message IS NOT the Christian message. Jim Jones message IS NOT the Christian message. And so on and so on.

 

So to say that Christianity is a result of these actions would be no different than to say that the desire of this country to help people live in freedom have resulted in terrorists actions by us in Vietname, Korea, Iraq, etc.

 

You can warp or twist the message around to whatever you want but it does NOT mean that is the message.

 

I agree, but you will find MANY muslims saying the same thing about the fanatics who they claim are using their religion wrong. I do think that because of the numbers of fanatics involved, rosie is all screwed up in equating the danger.

I agree, but you will find MANY muslims saying the same thing about the fanatics who they claim are using their religion wrong. I do think that because of the numbers of fanatics involved, rosie is all screwed up in equating the danger.

And this might be where I am misled but it seems the ones they are claiming as fanatics ARE THEiR religious leaders. PLUS, you don't see Christians marching in the streets burning effigys of Rosie (won't make comment about the large fire that would create...won't make comment about the large fire that would create...won't make comment.... ) and asking for her death as was done with the Pope.

Socrates, Jesus Christ, Galileo, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglas, and Martin Luther King were all radicals in their day. So were Henry VIII, Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, Adolph Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden. Strictly speaking, being a radical means you advocate drastic change and says nothing about whether that drastic change is for good or evil.

 

Shooter - I should have said the connotative meaning.

I try not to think about Rosie's biscuit. Up until now, I was successful. Thanks FB :irked: Now I must go and cut off my mouse finger.

 

You know darn good and well had I typed the above that there would be mods PMing other mods.

Interestingly enough, Mel Gibson makes derogatory comments concerning people of the Jewish faith when he is drunk out of his mind and he is crucified (pardon the expression) by the media and pressured into an apology.

 

Rosie O makes derogatory comments concerning people of the Christian faith when she is presumably sober, and we see very tepid media coverage. And the only pressure put on her is when she tries to fit into a size 22 dress.

Probably the most radical “Christian” group the world has ever encountered was when the Russian Empire was still expanding prior to the overthrow of the Czar in 1917. Their main reason, other than defense, for expansion was based upon the belief that “the Russian Ideal” was the only true form of Christianity(Orthodox) left in the world and it was the Russian’s job to save the rest of mankind. This was not the teachings of Marx because he stated that religion was the “opium for the masses.” So clearly he was not a religious person. With the Empire believing they were the saviors of all humanity, the ends always justified the means and the results speak for themselves.

This is a good discussion, and I certainly don’t wish to squelch it. If anything, we are being reminded just how badly we humans can screw things up.

 

Since history is replete with examples of good intentions gone bad—rather than seeking out the lowest common denominators as points of comparison—perhaps it is more meaningful to evaluate the two faiths based upon their foundational documentation… the actual written instructions adherents of each have been given by the founders. Or more simply, what did Jesus and Muhammad instruct their followers to do?

 

According to Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim and Fatah terrorist, there are over 100 quotes by Muhammad referring to jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners, by forced conversion, by enslavement. To overlook these forceful instructions from the Prophet, and to focus solely upon the verses describing peace is to negate a significant portion of the fundamental teaching of the Koran. It may be reasonably argued that Muslims advocating peaceful relations with infidels are actually the “radicals” of Islam. If one reads the entire Koran in context, there is little room for moderation. Those who seek peace are actually the liberals of Islam.

 

There are precisely zero quotes from Jesus Christ calling for violence by his followers.

 

Instead, the Bible instructs us at least ten separate times to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus takes it an extra step, teaching us in three separate quotes to, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

 

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.”

 

“But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

 

In regard to waging war, the apostle Paul does call us to:

11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. Ephesians 6:11-18

 

It is interesting that the only offensive weapon Paul describes is, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.”

 

If we look solely at the actions of misguided people, I will concede that there is an argument to be made. If however, we look at the authentic teachings of both faiths, and the most shining examples of lives lived in adherence to those teachings, the difference is night and day.

 

Bottom line: Osama Bin Laden is acting in accordance with the teachings of the Koran. Anyone claiming to be a Christian while lashing out in anger and violence is clearly acting in a manner contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

But, therein likes the differences in this discussion.

 

Rosie's comment was not a remark upon Christianity, it was a remark upon Christian fanatics.

 

Like so many other instances, people have leapt to conclusions, and decided she's denigrating Christianity as a religion.

 

In this discussion, there's been no focus on Christian fanatics, and the legitimacy of Rosie's remarks. Instead, there seems to be a desire to answer her remarks with biblical passages, etc. But that's not (IMO) the discussion to be made.

 

To get right down to it, I too have questions about Christian fanatics that have nothing at all to do with what the Bible says, or doesn't say.

To get right down to it, I too have questions about Christian fanatics that have nothing at all to do with what the Bible says, or doesn't say.

I hear you, and I respect your questions. My point is that just because someone claims affiliation with a particular faith as justification for their actions, it does not mean that their actions are justified by their faith. The only way to truly determine justification is to examine the foundational teachings of that faith. In this regard, it has everything “to do with what the Bible says, or doesn't say.”

 

Jesus made this very clear when He stated, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' Matthew 7:21-29

 

To label someone a “Christian fanatic” or a “radical Christian” it would seem to me an important distinction to define what a true “Christian fanatic or radical” actually is in accordance with the written instructions Christians are to follow. It is very clear—at least to me—that those perpetrating acts contrary to the Bible and specifically contrary to the instructions set forth by Jesus Himself are not acting as Christians. Their actions may be fanatical or radical, but they most certainly are not Christian.

....Their actions may be fanatical or radical, but they most certainly are not Christian.

 

 

I agree with all of your post, but I do want to point out that you last statement is where the discussion lies.

 

It's the fact that these individuals CLAIM Christianity as their own, and misconstrue Biblical passages to support their actions that is damaging to the image of Christianity.

But, therein likes the differences in this discussion.

 

Rosie's comment was not a remark upon Christianity, it was a remark upon Christian fanatics.

 

Like so many other instances, people have leapt to conclusions, and decided she's denigrating Christianity as a religion.

 

In this discussion, there's been no focus on Christian fanatics, and the legitimacy of Rosie's remarks. Instead, there seems to be a desire to answer her remarks with biblical passages, etc. But that's not (IMO) the discussion to be made.

 

To get right down to it, I too have questions about Christian fanatics that have nothing at all to do with what the Bible says, or doesn't say.

To get right down to it, weeding through all the semantics and verbiage, Rosie O'doughnut (sorry, I couldn't resist) has bashed Christianity before. It obviously doesn't suit her lifestyle, perhaps she should follow Hubbard and her pal Tom Cruise and the like. She equated the 2 religions no matter how you slice it and whether you profess one or the other or not, it doesn't take a genius to see that she defended Islam by slamming Christianity. She was wrong IMO and for my well being, that is all that matters to me. She's headed for hell, plain and simple, unless she accepts Christ. I pray somehow she does, but will not be shocked if she's not present when the role is called up yonder!

It's the fact that these individuals CLAIM Christianity as their own, and misconstrue Biblical passages to support their actions that is damaging to the image of Christianity.

Agreed, but it seems patently obvious to me that just because someone claims to be Napoleon, or Abraham Lincoln does not make it so.

 

In Hosea 4:6, God laments, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."

 

This is true of those who claim to be Christians to justify their evil deeds, as well as those who simply accept that this is what Christians do, without investigating the truth.