I'd say there are billions of Anti-Christs walking the Earth, then.

 

And, you would possibly be correct.

The problem between the two religions is simple.

 

Allah promised Muslims 99 Virgins, and God didn't do the same with Christians. Everyone knows one woman will drive you crazy and the promise of 99 will inspire anyone to enage in jihad.:DJ/K

1. 1 John 2:22 says "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son."

 

The Bible clearly states you cannot know the Father without knowing the Son. If you deny the divinity of Jesus, you don't know Him. Their acceptance of Jesus as a prophet is irrelevant because they deny the most important truth about Him. There is no way to reconcile that difference.

 

2. Again, they may classify the Bible as sacred scripture, but their view of it is that it was corrupted, therefore they only accept the parts of it that falls in line with their beliefs. They explain the rest away by saying it was "corrupted". Again, as a Christian who believes the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God, there is no way to reconcile this difference. Similarly to point one, classifying the Bible as a "sacred scripture" is irrelevant to me because they pick and choose the parts they want to use and explain the rest away as corrupted text.

 

3. Again, what good is that when we disagree on all the major points that form the foundations of our beliefs.

 

 

.

 

The truth shall set you free. I am in total agreement with all the above. Spoken like a person with a strong belief in the true and only SAVIOR....JESUS CHRIST!:thumb:

It depends on what your goal is.

 

If you're witnessing to individual (or perhaps small groups of) Muslims in attempt to convert them to Christianity, then I think the approach you're talking about would be an excellent one to you use (possibly the most effective).

 

However, if we're looking at this from a political/diplomatic perspective, in which we're attempting to improve relations with Muslim nations, then I think it's a mistake. In that case, I think we'd be better advised to steer clear of the foundations of the religions because there is obviously a big difference in doctrine. A more effective way to bring religion into the picture would be to stress the teachings in each religion that call for humanity and kindness without broaching the subject of deeper theological foundations.

 

The latter situation is the one I had in mind. I was looking at it more from McCain's perspective as future president and trying to improve relations with Muslim leaders and nations...not from an evangelical perspective of trying to lead Muslims to Christ. Whether that was a logical point-of-view to have with regards to the thread and the direction it took with previous posts, that is where I was coming from. Perhaps that will shed a little light on what I meant.

 

:thumb:

 

If that is McCain objective, then he need to back away from Rod Parsley who I believe teaches hate...

The problem between the two religions is simple.

 

Allah promised Muslims 99 Virgins, and God didn't do the same with Christians. Everyone knows one woman will drive you crazy and the promise of 99 will inspire anyone to enage in jihad.:DJ/K

How many of those are wise and how many of them are foolish?

While I can't rebut your "In this country" phrase, worldwide history shows we too have had our moments.

 

Ever heard of the Huougenots? What about the Ana-Baptists? The wars in Europe between Catholics and Protestants? Ireland?

 

There is a big difference but more similarities than some might realize.

 

Quite a reach historically here.

 

We weren't founded on Christianity, we were founded by a group, the majority of which were Christians in name and/or practice.

 

So, American Christians are held responsible for the actions of people in other countries and other times of history?

 

I thought the going mindset was that we should let other countries do what they want over there.

 

So, we are not to enforce our mindsets on other countries but I am responsible for the actions of others in other parts of the world and IN HISTORY.

 

Christians today are responsible for the actions of those Christians during the crusades but reparations do not need to be made in this country to today's African Americans because of slavery because we did not participate in it.

I'd say there are billions of Anti-Christs walking the Earth, then.

 

The road is a narrow one my friend.

So, American Christians are held responsible for the actions of people in other countries and other times of history?

 

I thought the going mindset was that we should let other countries do what they want over there.

 

So, we are not to enforce our mindsets on other countries but I am responsible for the actions of others in other parts of the world and IN HISTORY.

 

Christians today are responsible for the actions of those Christians during the crusades but reparations do not need to be made in this country to today's African Americans because of slavery because we did not participate in it.

 

Why don't we limit it further? You are only responsible for Christians' activities in KY, in your region in KY, within sight of your church. I'll do the same in VA.

 

If you want American illustrations let's go with the way Fundamentalists in the SBC treated Moderate leaders during their takeover of the denomination in the 80's.

 

As to American History, every studied the slaughter of the Pequots in New England? Those were good Christian Puritans who used what they felt was a holy edict.

 

What about the attitudes of the church towards non-Anglos in our history?

 

Why does it have to be about American Christianity? I thought our God had no respect of persons let alone geographic boundaries. In fact Paul said we are now all one in Christ. So why should we be so flipant to disregard what all who claim Christ do and say?

 

Sometimes there is an irrational feeling that we should ignore history. It sets the table for our chance to show where others erred in interpreting God's will and calling. It also allows for the opportunity to understand where jaded opinions of Christians come from and how we can move beyond that history.

Why don't we limit it further? You are only responsible for Christians' activities in KY, in your region in KY, within sight of your church. I'll do the same in VA.

 

If you want American illustrations let's go with the way Fundamentalists in the SBC treated Moderate leaders during their takeover of the denomination in the 80's.

 

As to American History, every studied the slaughter of the Pequots in New England? Those were good Christian Puritans who used what they felt was a holy edict.

 

What about the attitudes of the church towards non-Anglos in our history?

 

Why does it have to be about American Christianity? I thought our God had no respect of persons let alone geographic boundaries. In fact Paul said we are now all one in Christ. So why should we be so flipant to disregard what all who claim Christ do and say?

 

Sometimes there is an irrational feeling that we should ignore history. It sets the table for our chance to show where others erred in interpreting God's will and calling. It also allows for the opportunity to understand where jaded opinions of Christians come from and how we can move beyond that history.

 

 

It's hard not to ignore history when there are so many distorted views of it. Until someone invents a time machine, I think we will always be arguing.