"Although I did not appreciate the self-defense talk (I feel that adolescent male fantasies of a heroic charge at a deranged gunman have nothing to do with the worship of God.)"

I am curious as to the writer's lack of appreciation.
Hey anyone reading....any speculation as to why??

Jim:

No need to speculate. I made myself clear in the parenthetical statement you quoted.

I'm curious as to your lack of comprehension. What is it you don't understand?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Often the sermon is different in Arabic then in English. One reporter who spoke the language discovered that in Arabic the sermon was all about jihad, but in English it was about how Islam is not violent. I am amazed they let a guy discuss guns during the talk, while claiming they are non-violent. Also they essentially justified terrorism by claiming that it is America that is doing the killing. Forgot 911 already? Muslims have been killing Christians for a very long time. Ask any Coptic Christian in Egypt. Muslims need to face up to what the Pope said in Regensburg. Islam has a problem with violence and terrorism. It is time for them to stop blaming others, justifying it, and pretending that Islam has nothing to do with it. We do them no favors by not confronting them on these issues.

[Christians] need to face up to [the fact that it] has a problem with violence and terrorism. It is time for [Christians] to stop blaming others, justifying it, and pretending that [Christianity] has nothing to do with it. We do them no favors by not confronting [Christians] on these issues.

Fixed.

Fr. Jim:

Remember, this is an Adventist blog, and if nothing else, we've been taught about Christianity's capacity for violence. So let's at least try to acknowledge the log in our own eyes before we try to fix the Muslims. I started with our very own David Koresh. Is there a dark side to Catholicism that you'd be willing to own up to?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David, I appreciate your sensitive reporting. I am dismayed by the spirit of "us vs. them" and anger and hatred toward "the other" that abounds in our society and religion today. I believe that when we try to find the good in those outside "our" group, rather than reacting in fear, we will begin to find a reciprocity of respect.

The Bible says "Perfect love casts out fear," and that is where we ought to be heading.

Glenn, when you see a bunch of Methodists flying planes into buildings, doing suicide bombings, and stoning people to death let me know.

David, Christians confront their past all the time. They repent. Muslims say they don't need to repent of anything and bury their heads in the sand. Most of our religious violence is centuries in the past. It is time for them to face up to the facts and start to deal with it. Otherwise we are just enabling them.

"Community involvement and statements denouncing Hasan are PR band-aids that ignore the real issue of Islam's dark side, extremism."

Anyone who understands Christanity knows full well that it is an "extreme" religion. any religion that any dynamic is "extreme".

No religious group is more extreme than the Catholic church. If they are moderate, it is only because they are sedated by circumstances beyond their control.

Yes, SDA's are an extreme group who, if loyal to scripture, are "radical" in the eyes of the world. Sad to say, we have played politics for so long, we have for the most part, as a church, lost our identity.

Islam is evil. So is Catholicism. And anything contrary to the bible is an enemy of God. This is an historic Protestant confession of faith. God will, in the end, tolerate no religion except His own.

True religion is built on bible doctrine. Loyalty to the bible transcends being "nice to your neighbor". Being nice to your neighbor becomes a religion all its own. And when it is advocated against sound and clear bible doctrines, it becomes "doctrines of devils".

This is modern Adventism in a nut shell. We dare not offend anyone by defending bible doctrines. We must patronize everyone and "be nice to your neighbor" and find some "good" in his religion.

Islam would never accept this false idea, and neither would a loyal Roman Catholic. Much of modern Christanity is becoming a wimpy, sissy religion with effeminate leanings and Adventism is embracing this false spirituality daily.

Fear of man has taken the place of fear of God. Other religions are more dynamic, and even if they are wrong, and they are, at least the god they worship is reverenced and feared.

Someday, God's people will eventually stand up in defense of truth without compromise and duplicity. The false "gospel" advocated today in the SDA church has no affinity to the true biblical norm with a dynamic defense for God and His law of justice and righteousness.

The bible speaks for itself. The Holy Spirit creates the true Christian community by way of the bible.

Bill Sorensen

"It seems to me that the Muslim community in North America needs find a way of expressing a constructive critique of the West that doesn't degenerate into extremism."

Absolutely impossible, and remain loyal to their convictions. How long will people keep their head in the sand on this issue?

Bill Sorensen

Is every Muslim family really encouraged to slaughter its own goat? That is going to get messy, especially if they live in an apartment.

But seriously, it sounds like the Festival of Eid would be a good entry point for Christian evangelism. God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son of the promise clearly prefigures and points foward to Christ, God's only begotten Son, being sacrificed on Calvary. What a great illustration of Christianity in a nutshell, based upon something already familiar to the practicing Muslim. You will have to overcome the Qur'anic teaching (sura 4:156-8) that Jesus did not really die on the cross, that it just appeared that way, but it is still a good starting place.

Fr. Jim:

How long did it take the Catholic Church to disavow certain actions? It seems to me that a few centuries elapsed between the Spanish Inquisition and Dignitatis Humanae.

You use the curious expression "enabling them." One does not enable the 'other.' One can only enable ones own. Until you are willing to identify with Muslims you neither enable them positively or negatively. You could start by acknowledging your own religion's "dark side."

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Do you know if any SDA pastor has any plan to deal with a scenario where a weapon carrying psycho comes into the sanctuary ready to eliminate as many worshippers as possible?

Are the church members supposed to keep singing, get shot and say "I forgive you" as they fall down dead?
Do they say to the shooter..."Happy sabbath, so glad you came"?
Do they say, "I hope you can stay for potluck today"?

Do they say, "Is that your clue for us to sing the hymn, 'Onward Christian Soldiers'"?

Do they say, "Our church recommends non military service and being a conscientious objector"?

Does the pastor say to prepare his congregation...'pray ' when this happens that their weapons will jam"?

Are all the church members supposed to keep screaming so loud that the person who calls 911 can't be heard by the operator?

ETC

Actually, David, the Spanish Inquisition did not formally end until 1834, so there were not "a few centuries" between it and Dignitatis Humanae, only about 130 years.

Thank you , David, for writing of your experience. I would like the opportunity to visit a mosque as well. I do enjoy your postings.

Bill,

Thanks for you recent comments!! Recent vilification laws and laws against hate sppech in many jurisdictions are really barking up the wrong tree because there is really no right as the right not to be offended. It was Robert Forsyth, the evangelical Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, Australia, who reminded me of this principle of religious liberty when he delivered a the annual Acton Lecture in 2001.

Modern society seeks to wrap itself in cotton wool and to defend itself against any distasteful statement.

The Bible however recommends that we speak the truth in love. Many times that will involve offending some people by things we say (because the Bible has said these things before).

Thank you, Carmen!

Bill:

I have no problem identifying which religion is the correct one (Adventism), and I am by no means advocating syncretism. But where in the Bible do you see where we should every other religion is "evil"?

I see from scripture that both God and the Devil are at work in every religion. God is preparing a remnant in every religion, and the Devil's work in every religion, what I call the "dark side," is even more obvious. So if God has his people in every religion, there's no way we should write the whole thing off as evil.

Categorical statements like "absolutely impossible" are what signify to me that someone has their head in the sand. You, an Adventist, presume to speak for true Muslim convictions? I think, on this point, you've missed the difference between "extreme" and "extremist." Every religion promotes certain extreme practices. But extremism, especially in the context of Islam, is an ideology that uses religion to promote violent actions.

Jim:

Even if that planning were necessary (In the context of North American Adventism it is not.), it should not take place in the worship service and be more grounded in reality. Why not assign certain men to guard strategic points and inform the congregation of the plan through a newsletter? The kind of planning I heard at that Mosque only promotes an attitude of fear.

David:

Good points. I guess for the purposes of my argument we'll go from the start of the process in 1478. ;)

Peter:

Check out the recent advocacy of Muslim nations at the UN for religious defamation declarations.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Unfortunately violence committed by Christians is not exactly centuries old. How quickly we forget Ireland (who says Christians aren't terrorists), the Bosnian conflict (ask the Muslims living in Srebrenica but you'll have to ask the women because the men are dead - massacred by Christians), Rwanda, Christian/Muslim violence in Nigeria, Lord's Resistance Army (which draws heavily on Christianity but not purely), and so on.

As long as we point to religion as the primary issue, we aren't going to understand the problem. Any group of people who feel threatened, whether legitimately or not, and who don't see a way of dealing with it beyond violence are going to use violence. Religion does not prevent this and Christianity is no exception though we like to think we are. Trying to understand why some Muslims are violent by pointing fingers at the religion makes as much sense as trying to understand Serbian violence by pointing fingers at Christianity. Or trying to understand Rwanda by clucking over how violent those Christians are.

And as long as we continue to believe that we are different because of our religion and not because of a myriad of other factors, we are going to keep on repeating the same patterns. Look at the US now and see who was and is pushing the most for torture and aggressive foreign policy.

That isn't to say, of course, that religion has nothing to do with it. It is the banner under which many other purposes are pursued. But to focus on the religion is missing way too much I think.

Beth, the fact that all religions have sometimes had violent adherents doesn't mean that we should not examine whether religion played a role in promoting some violent act under discussion. That's a non-sequitur. Sometimes religion plays a role in promoting violence, sometimes it doesn't, and there's nothing illegitimate about trying to determine when it has and when it hasn't.

The Koran clearly teaches violence against non-Muslims. Those so-called "Muslim extremists" are actually devout Muslims. Their forceful evangelism, utilizing guns, swords, suicide missions, and terrorism, has resulted in a Muslim membership that exceeds Christianity worldwide.

Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have focused primarily upon Catholics as the bad guys. Obviously, Ellen White never imagined an Islamic invasion or threat to our society. Apparently, she was too busy agreeing with the anti-Catholic crowd of her day.

Dennis Fischer
Lincoln, Nebraska

The historical concept of Adventism is not the idea that God is creating the "remnant church" in every denomination.

That God has honest people who endeavor to know, understand and serve Him in every Christian denomination is a valid observation. But this is a far cry from the affirmation that the "remnant" are in other churches and will remain there until Jesus comes.

The call, "Come out of her my people" has been understood historically by bible believing SDA's as calling all these honest individuals in other denominations to abandon "Babylon" and join the "remnant" who "keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."

The church in heaven and the church on earth are one and the same church. In a very practical application, we should be more concerned as to whether we are in harmony with the church in heaven than if we are in harmony with the church on earth. And this includes being a member of the SDA church.

If and when the SDA church abandons the bible in any particular, it is embracing "Babylon". And losing its identity as the "remnant church". The "Babylon confusion" in the SDA church today is so obvious to any objective observer that the words of Jesus are highly appropriate, "Ye worship, ye know not what."

Those who hold positions of influence and authority will never admit this reality. But all you have to do is go to any SDA book store and you can find 30 or more different books with as many different view of salvation and each one is supposed to be a viable explanation of salvation and the SDA message.

Hardly a concensus of what is truth and what is not. We have about 3 basic things that hold us together. The Sabbath, state of the dead and some unified ideas about the second coming. And even these things are losing their dynamic in the minds of many members.

Since doctrine and the law are being undermined as "non-salvational" how long do you think it will take for members to figure out Sabbath keeping is "non-salvational" and therefore not essential to be ready for Jesus to come?

If you present any part of the moral law as not being salvational then you are claiming no part of the law is salvational and you destroy your basic reason to exist as a church. Unless you claim the sole purpose of the law is to point to Jesus as our sinbearer and His death has done away with the law.

Not a few SDA's embrace this incomplete, immature, and incorrect view of the law. And to cover your immaturity, you may state, "We keep the law because we are saved, but not to be saved." This is equally false when no qualifying statement is made to define what it means. For James clearly states we are justified by obedience to the law.

The final point is this, SDA's are as much "Babylon" today as those they accuse of fulfilling the description. And the words of Jesus, "Ye worship ye know not what" has a clear application to modern Adventism.

Bill Sorensen

What is the time zone for posting? China?

It is only 9:30 PM Nov. 18 where I live.

Bill Sorensen

Dennis:

I assume you're not a Muslim. If so, why should your two sentence explanation of what the Qu'ran teaches or who a real Muslim is be at all persuasive to us? The fact that there are about 500,000,000 more Christians in the world than Muslims further damages your credibility.

That someone can be both devout and an extremist is the dark side of religions that I have been talking about. But that does not mean the extremists get to define the religion. What I heard from the Muslims in my corner of America is that violence against non-Muslims is only justified if the Muslims employing it are directly under attack. The burden of proof falls on non-Muslims if they want to show that is not the case.

BTW, Adventists have always been clear that Catholics are not the bad guys. It is the religio-political system of the papacy that we protest, not individual Catholics. I believe this means that even the pope should not be the subject of crass, conspiratorial speculation.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I never said "the 'remnant' are in other churches and will remain there until Jesus comes." I'm talking about the time right now, before Jesus comes, before the final crisis precipitated by the mark of the beast; where is God's final remnant now? Answer: They are in every denomination and every religion being prepared by God to join with the rest of his remnant by the end. If that is the case, we cannot relate to other religions as if they are totally evil.

Yes, our job is to call them out. But we must do so humbly and not disrespect the work God is doing with them right now, even through the portions of truth present in a 'false' religion. This is the method used by Paul in the only example we have of his evangelism among those who did not believe in the God of the Jews. (And I hasten to add that Muslims claim to believe in that God.)

The rest of your note is well off topic.

I think if you get an account with the website, you can set the time zone to your local time.

p.s. Thank you, Carrol!

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I am not sure whether to shut the door when I leave or just leave it open.

Leave it open.

I have a pet theory about Islam: God used Islam to chastise apostate Christianity during the period of papal supremacy (actually, not a "pet theory" but widely held), and is using it again today to punish Western decadence (totally a pet theory and my own invention).

Consider first that Islam has been interpreted to fit the 5th and 6th trumpets and first and second woes of Revelation 9. The Fifth Trumpet and First Woe was the Arab phase of Islamic expansion, which gobbled up the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, and temporarily Spain (all of which had previously been Christian); the Sixth Trumpet and Second Woe, was the Turkish phase of expansion, which finished off asia minor, and temporarily overran Greece and much of Eastern Europe. They were to torment the apostate church, as a scorpion stings, but not to kill. (Rev. 9:3,5) This was a very widely accepted interpretation among many biblical exegetes and expositors in several different denominations during the 18th and 19th centuries, although SDAs are now almost alone in still holding to the historical school of prophetic interpretation.

Next, consider that Islam arose in the early 7th Century, just after the papacy consolidated its temporal power in the 6th Century (538 AD, according to traditional SDA prophetic interpretation). Consider also that Islam began rapidly losing power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as symbolized by the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, at which Napoleon destroyed the feared Mamluke army, which took place just five months after General Berthier stripped Pope Pius VI of his temporal authority. Since 1798, with a few exceptions (such as some temporary successes by the Ottomans under Kemal during WWI), Muslim armies have been unable to make much of an impression on a Western (Christian) army. Indeed, Britain and France kept the failing Ottoman Empire alive (the "sick man of Europe") throuout the 19th Century, until WWI, largely to serve as a buffer to Russian emperial expansion.

It is interesting that 19th Century Christians were genuinely scandalized by Islam's allowance of four wives and unlimited concubines, and its promise of sexual gratification in paradise. Speaking of Islam's sensual paradise, John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammed tied "all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy . . ." Winston Churchill wrote, "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

But the post-sexual revolution West's sex-drenched culture has put the shoe on the other foot. With little stigma, much less legal punishment, attached to pornography, pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexuality (even homosexual "marriage"), strip clubs, "swinging," massage parlours, etc., it is the West that seems to swim in a "degraded sensualism," to use Churchill's phrase.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the Sexual Revolution in the West (1967-1973) was followed immediately by the resurgence of Islam, as seen in the oil embargo of 1973-74 (and the almost unimaginably massive transfer of Western wealth to the dar-al-Islam, the "house of Islam," which has been ongoing ever since then), the Iranian Revolution 1979, the reverberations, of which are still being felt, perhaps more strongly than ever, the lebanon barracks bombing of 1983, the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 1990s culminating in 9/11, etc.

(It should be noted that some of the massive transfer of Western wealth to the Gulf states, has come back to the U.S. in the form of Saudi-funded mosques, schools, lobbying [CAIR] and corruption of higher education, and that the Saudi Islam--Wahabbism or Salafism, which is what is promoted in Saudi-funded mosques--is pure, unadulterated, violent, Jihad-loving Islam, the "old time religion.")

Perhaps the renewed scourge of Islam is intended to punish Western sexual decadence. But perhaps not. This is obviously just a very speculative theory that anyone is free to reject without rejecting even the most conservative biblical orthodoxy (not that that is a concern on Spectrum).

Of course there are some elements of "truth" in every religion. But you can't seperate what and who people are from what they believe.

Anyone who embraces Catholicism is part of this antichrist system. Even if it is by way of ignorance. So, to say, we don't attack the Catholic people, only what they believe is really absurd, isn't it? Because what you believe is who you are.

Now it is true, many Catholics don't really believe altogether what they formally confess. And so it is called "Babylon" for a number of reasons.

A true loyal Catholic never challenges the church nor do they think for themselves. They are told not to. Because if they do, they may conclude certain things not in harmony with "the church". And so the church considers this dangerous.

America has always been a "thorn in the flesh" to the Catholic religion and has been called the "Judas element to Catholicism" (Martin) because American Catholics have been taught to think for themselves. And where did they learn this? From Protestantism. Rome hates Protestantism and Rome hates America because of the principles of religious freedom.

Muslims hate America for the same reason. All false religions must necessarily control the conscience and dictate to the masses what they must believe and do.

Unconditional election becomes a little more subtle by way of the religious system rather than an individual certainty. This has been more useful to Satan in human history by way of the Jews, then the Christian community convoluted by Rome, and the seeds of it have infiltrated Adventism. And so Adventism can not discipline itself nor call for accountability within its leadership.

So we point out the errors of the Muslim religion, Catholicism, and apostate Protestantism while ignoring our own duplicity and abandonment of the bible for human speculation and spiritually. And no one dare suggest the church could commit the unpardonable sin as the Jews have done, Rome has done, and apostate Protestantism is doing.

Not us. We are "unconditionally elected" and "the church is going through" no matter what. So, rock and roll around the "golden calf", dress as you please, sing any music that pleases your carnal nature and ordain women to the role of bishops and elders. All in the name of "We are the church and can not fail."

So, How is Adventism not like Rome, the Muslims, and/or apostate Protestantism? Adventism is in the process of commiting the unpardonable sin.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

Not a few SDA's embrace this incomplete, immature, and incorrect view of the law. And to cover your immaturity, you may state, "We keep the law because we are saved, but not to be saved." This is equally false when no qualifying statement is made to define what it means.

I appreciate your insight and perception.

What you put in quotes is indicative of the influence of false doctrine from outside sources and poor teaching from inside sources.

Like I mention, on internet chat rooms and forums, to people from many denominations ...the words >> gospel, grace and salvation have been greatly corrupted. It was that way 2000 years ago too.
Ask the crowd in a SDA church or sabbath school class what these words mean and listen to the variety of wrong answers.

Bill:

The broad judgments you make about Catholics, Muslims, and Adventists seem to assume you have unadulterated truth? Do you believe it's possible you could be wrong about any of this? If not, why?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Bill:

The broad judgments you make about Catholics, Muslims, and Adventists seem to assume you have unadulterated truth? Do you believe it's possible you could be wrong about any of this? If not, why?

David Hamstra

Anyone can be wrong, David. Even me. So, show me where I am wrong? Only if you abandon the bible and EGW and create your own scenario can you "prove me wrong".

Most theology, even in Adventism, is superficial at best and blatantly wrong at worst. Many, if not most pastor in the church don't have a clue of our Protestant heritage and how law and grace was presented and interpreted by the reformers.

Let me ask you, David. Do you know the 3 uses of the law endorsed and explained by many if not all the historic Protestant confessions of faith?

If so, do you know that bible Adventism is a third use of the law system of theology? Ask any SDA pastor if they know the answer.

Yet we claim we are the children of the reformation. In what way? The bible as our only rule of faith and practice has been abandon for human speculation and a Roman Catholic spirituality. The church can not defend the ordination of women by the bible, so they avoid any discussion on the matter. And many members will say, "Oh, the church has decided" and so I'm satified. Same with jewelry, music, dress in general and a liberal interpretation of Sabbath observance that appeals to the masses.

A quick comment on women's ordination.

Paul forbids it. And then tells us why. "Because the woman was first in sin." Now if you can alter this historical fact, then you can ignore Paul's exhortation. The bible also uses the family system of government where the man is head of the family to parallel church government.

Now as SDA's, we are quick to point out the Sabbath is rooted in an historical event. Namely, the creation week. And we are aware that Satan must necessarily attack creation week to undermine the Sabbath. This historical event can not be altered without undermining the Sabbath.

But we abandon this principle for the sake of convenience and appeal to "culture" as the reason Paul gives the council he gives. So, where does Paul appeal to culture? Nowhere.

As a final note. You may not have noticed, but many theologians who oppose the bible Sabbath appeal to culture as the reason Jews were bound to keep it. And now "Christians" reject Jewish culture so we don't need to keep the Sabbath.
They reject the "day" in favor of some "spirit ethic" and caste aside the word of God in the name of "higher enlightenment".

And don't SDA's do the same? Caste aside the word of God for a "higher enlightenment" than Paul and ignore his exhortation claiming it was only "culture" that prompted his explanation.

And so now we have the "gay" movement and more than a few other deviations from the bible seeking acceptance in the SDA church. And why not? We don't follow the bible anyway. They have their own convoluted explanation of the bible just like SDA's do on the issue of women's ordination.

The devil and Rome sit by as they know soon the SDA church will evaporate into oblivion or, worse yet, try to claim the name SDA while abandoning every biblical principle in an effort to "keep up" with the rest of the religious world and "find favor in their sight".

Small wonder John says, "And the whole world wondered after the beast." And the SDA church in some ways is leading out in advancing the "spirit of the beast." The spirit of the beast always preceeds the mark of the beast. Just as the spirit of sin always preceeds the acts of sin.

Jesus said of the people of His day, "Ye worship, ye know not what......" And nothing fits Adventism more concisely than this evaluation of Jesus on the spiritual elements of His time.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, I can sure feel the hate. With views like that Catholics can expect persecution if the Adventists get their way. In fact in the US views like that made persecution a reality for us. I guess that's what you call your inquisition, a thorn in the flesh. You justify violence just like Muslims do. But do note that Catholic suicide bombers don't exist. Also consider how many Catholics have fought for this country. We need not prove our loyalty. I can see though that you can't think for yourself. You are trapped in a box of traditions of men i.e. EG White.

David, so you must go back 500 years. Muslims are doing these things right now today. I have never heard a Protestant apologize for burning down Catholic churches in Boston, Philadelphia, or any of the other atrocities committed against us since the reformation. I guess we are ahead of the curve. My point was that Muslims should not be allowed to pretend there is no problem. If you have cancer, but the doctor doesn't tell you because he doesn't want to hurt you does that make sense? It is not uncharitable to expect honesty. One of the problems by acknowledging our "dark side" with Muslims is that somehow they never get around to acknowledging THEIR dark side. I have never heard a Muslim apologize for anything, ever. Have you?

David, by the 19th century the inquisition was defunct. In fact the Spanish inquisition was never as bloody as the Protestant one against Catholics. Look up "black legend." The Pope did not lose his power in 1798, nice attempt at trying to make a date fit your eisegesis. Your pet idea comes from Luther, until he saw the Turks coming his way. Suddenly he sanctioned Lutherans and Catholics fighting together to defend Europe.

The violence done in the name of religion is done by followers who believe that God requires it. This is their way of doing God's work! It comes down to how we interpret our holy writings. Christians, I believe, should use the gospels as the lens through which to see and coordinate the other passages. So, women's ordination and the gay movement...I would pray to discern what Jesus would do...

David Hamstra deserves praise for his respectful exploration of others' beliefs. Part of the SDA tradition is religious liberty - for all, not just for us! And that fits with the fact that being made "in the image of God" includes having free will (i.e., choice), and that means we, like God, must respect others' choices - anything else is literally making people less than human. We have a duty to point out the truth, but that can be done with respect and courtesy, rather than vituperation and hatred.

I think there are 3 Davids. It must be a popular name. My first post was for David Hamstra. The second for David Read. I don't disagree with the third David Trim. I have no problem being respectful of Muslims. I just demand they accord the same respect to Christians, including Christians in Muslim countries.

And even still, Christians respecting other Christians in Muslim countries....

David Trim, religious liberty is indeed a great pillar of Adventism and Protestantism. It was unknown in Catholicism until Vatican II and the document Dignitatis Humanae, as David Hamstra has pointed out. Previous popes roundly denounced the idea of freedom of conscience, as do the LeFebvrists (SSPX), who reject the Vatican II reforms.

Islam recognizes no separation between mosque and state, and hence no real freedom of conscience. The Ummah, the Muslim nation, is both church and state. "People of the Book", that is, Christians and Jews, are tolerated if they accept the dhimma, or treaty, which relegates them to second class citizenship, and pay a special tax called the Jizya. If they (we) do not consent to dhimmitude, they (we) are to be killed. In theory, there is no dhimmi status for other than people of the book, and those, e.g., hindus, idolators, etc, are to be given the choice between death and conversion to Islam.

The system of dhimmitude is nowhere formally in force today because Western powers prevailed upon the Muslim nations to abandon it (just as the U.S. prevailed on Saudi Arabia to outlaw slavery in the 1960s). This was one of the concessions wrung from the Ottoman Empire as the price for keeping it alive during the 19th Century. But the system of dhimmitude is still part of sharia law, part of Islam.

Thank you, David Trim!

Becci: I assume you're talking about the infighting that happens at the tomb of the Holy Sepulcher or some such site.

Fr. Jim: My point is that we need to give Muslims time and space if they are to come to terms with their dark side. Telling them, You have a problem, produces a predictable defensive reaction. If you want to encourage repentance, you do it as a friend, not as the other.

Bill: It's hard to sort through your red herrings to address the issue of Muslims and interfaith relations. If you admit that you can be wrong, I suggest you start to cite some sources for your information about Catholics and Islam, since, as an Adventist, you don't speak for those religions.

But I wonder if you really believe it is possible for you to be wrong since you say "Only if you abandon the bible and EGW and create your own scenario can you 'prove me wrong'." Firstly, why did you enclose "'prove me wrong'" in double-quotes? That is not my intent and I never used those words. Secondly, if what you said is the case, doesn't that mean you have unadulterated truth on these issues? If so, why would should we consider you an open conversation partner?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David Hamstra,

The Muslim god (Allah) is the not the same God who Christians worship and follow. My God (Jesus Christ) died upon a Cross to save His people from their sins, and the Muslim god did not. A gigantic, salvific difference! BTW, log unto www.faithdefenders.com for the real facts about Islam. Dr. Robert Morey has a doctorate in Islamic Studies.

So you are saying that the Pontiff is not "666" as SDA evangelists still loudly proclaim? If so, I heartily agree with you. Moreoever, are you sure that the office of the papacy has absolutely nothing to do with the person holding that office? Due to their extreme anti-Catholicism, early Adventism accepted the Arian view in place of the Trinity. Official Adventism teaches tritheism instead of trinitarianism today (check out www.cultorchristian.com). The SDA pioneers didn't want anything in common with Catholicism--not even the true God in heaven.

Dennis Fischer
Lincoln, Nebraska USA

If so, why would should we consider you an open conversation partner?

David Hamstra

David, SDA's are not an "open conversation partner" as you would define the phrase.

Some of us at least, know what we believe and have no interest in some patronzing condecending dilogue with unbelievers whereby we can affirm their religion and make them feel good about themselves so we can feel good about ourselves.

All a SDA needs to do is read the Great Controversy with its many quotes and references to know what Catholicism stands for. And their present duplicity to pretend they believe in religious freedom is simply a cover for their real intent.

And if you don't want to read the Great Controversy, simply look up a few historical records on Catholicism and/or read some contemporary books by present day authors. Such as "Keys of This Blood" by Martin.

I deal with Roman Catholics on a regular basis. Most really have no clue what their church believes in or teaches.

Like many religions, if a denomination can persuade an individual of some idea, this is good enough for them. So, many people are "converted" to Catholicism by a single argument. Namely, "We are the church". And on this single argument, people are content to abandon their souls to anything "the church" tells them to believe.

Nothing you can present from the bible or otherwise has any influence on them, or even challenge them to consider any other possibilities. And they are convinced they are "saved" by this sole confession of faith. And the Catholic church loves to have it so. Ignorance of the bible is obvious since they have no need to investigate its teachings.

Other denominations may be a little more comprehensive in persuasion and appeal to a more complete biblical overview. None the less, they still limit the challenge and moral accountability in the same way in the end. That is "We are the church" and nothing can move its members from some false idea of "unconditional election" for their church and they act accordingly.

As SDA's, we persuade people on 3 major biblical issues. The Sabbath, state of the dead, and second coming which are biblical. After that, As Brinsmead well said, "SDA's hardly know more than what day to go to church on." And from these biblical realities, people are now convinced they have joined "the church" and the false idea of "church" election sets in. "Our church is the true church" and any challenge otherwise according to biblical doctrine is dismissed is non-applicable or not important and insignificant.

From here, we sink into a spirituality that allows any and all manner of evil with no serious challenge or accountability. How is this different than Rome? None. But of course, we keep pointing to Rome as the antichrist with apostate Protestantism as her daughters.

Could Adventism become the antichrist? Such an idea is scandalous to both members and leaders. Impossible. We are the elect church. Surely you jest.

No, I am not interested in any eccumencial dialogue simply for the sake of unity. And your "open conversation partner" is not part of any dynamic Christian witness. It is a patronizing, condecending, compromising religion that has no affinity to true bible witnessing.

Our goal is to witness both by infiltration and confrontation. This was and is Jesus' method practiced in the new testament record. Compromise was no part of His testimony. And when the church returns to this method, we may actually see some dynamic results. But not until "the church" repents and returns to God's word will this materialize.

Spiritualism and Universalism are twin sisters and are the basis of the final deception of Satan to capture the world.

Spiritualism sets aside the law of God which in turn prepares for a Universal religion in which all will eventually be saved. An appealing idea that wins most to its delusion and undermines the clear biblical message.

And much of Adventism is embracing the spirit of this false revival.

No, I am not wrong. And neither is EGW. For it's how the bible presents the final deception.

Bill Sorensen

If you have any doubt, watch the LLBN channel where they have a program entitled "Islam Reconsidered".

And it is shown again and again. With the implication that Islam may well be a viable part of the world wide "church" and they worship the same God we do.

It is not entitled "Islam Exposed". No, No. It is Islam Reconsidered. That is, we have been uncharitible in demeaning this apostate religion and should now consider it a possible member of the real faith of the true God.

Such people calling themselves SDA Christians "worship, they know not what."

Bill Sorensen

To Bill Sorensen,

Hummm, as a newer Adventist, you have explained some things to me that have been confusing. Thank you. Good thoughts to keep in the brain file. The Adventist church is like taffy -- I have never experienced a church pulled so this way and that.

I try to make the acquaintance of new Adventist, like myself, that come from evangelical churches to answer their questions of the riptides encountered in church and on the internet.

Other comment from a person, me, who values conservative Adventism: Interesting article on Alex Carpenter's history and present "community organizing" activities. Now I understand why Spectrum is so wierd. I like Beck, and am looking for a herbal tea bag to take to the next party ;)

Jody ;)

In response to Bill: interreligious dialogue is not (or at any rate, it need not be) "some patronzing condecending dilogue with unbelievers whereby we can affirm their religion and make them feel good about themselves so we can feel good about ourselves". That's not what its purpose is; and generally that is not how it's conducted.
Yes, Roman Catholics (and Protestants) have been (in the distant past), and Muslims are (in the present), violently intolerant. We ought to highlight and protest the plight of Christians (and others) who are persecuted, imprisoned and killed in Muslim countries.
But we can only control how WE act and speak - and using angry intolerant language is not an example of religious toleration, and it does not honor our creator, who gave us all free choice and respects our choices in this life. God's judgment will be rendered eventually and for eternity - but we ought to follow the divine model, and honor and respect others' choices in this life too.
I wish some of the comments that have come earlier showed a bit more respect for others' faiths and beliefs. (Cf. Elijah's comments to Naaman.)

David Trim, I didn't get the point of the Elijah reference. Are you saying that you wish Elijah had been more diplomatic toward Naaman, or that Elijah's diplomacy toward Naaman is an example for us?

I find the problem with today's elites is that they are all too quick to respect others' faiths without having the slightest idea about the tenets of those faiths. Unfortunately, our governing elites have only the most superficial, vague idea of the tenets of Christianity, if even that; Islam might as well be a planet in outer space beyond the reach of telescopes.

Our top military brass--along with elites in media, government, academia, business--continues to be confounded by the Ft. Hood massacre. Why did he do it? Why did he snap? The fact that a true Muslim's loyalty is to the Ummah, not his nation-state, is a fact out there completely available for anyone to know, like knowing that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. It is not esoteric knowledge; it is not kabbalah. It is an undisputed, open fact, learnable by anyone capable of learning and knowing. The implications of this fact have been demonstrated over and over and over, as with Hasan Akbar f/k/a Mark Kools, John Allen Muhammad f/k/a John Allen Williams, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad f/k/a Carlos Bledsoe.

And yet our fatuous, wilfully ignorant elites refuse to know it, refuse to understand its implications. Their god "diversity" has decreed they filter out all facts that might interfere with their god's demands. And like Moloch of old, diversity demands human sacrifices, and the pile of dead grows ever higher.

David Read

What do you perceive the difference to be, if any, of the Hebrew Bible writer's claims of Yahweh demanding no treaties with the inhabitants of Canaan, to destroy every breathing thing of the territory, the demand that a husband be the first to throw a stone at the stoning death of even a spouse that began to believe in a "foreign" God, etc? There is no free will, or freedom of conscience, in the OT laws and claims, yet christians want to stand behind the Bible while condemning faithful followers of a related religion and their own sacred scripture. They have as much, if not more, basis for their belief in their traditions, customs, religion, and scripture.

The exact borders of the muslim land are not set in the Holy Koran as they are in the Holy Bible for Yahweh's land inheritance which was to be inhabited by 'His' chosen people (and which they never have controlled). From a sacred scripture position, devout Muslims have just as much duty to blow up the WTC as the Hebrews had to commit genocide in the ANE or as the jews still claim is their G-d given duty, still TODAY, to commit atrocities in the Middle East. Just this week some IDF guys mutinied over the orders to destroy an illegal settlement in the West Bank. After all, its the sacred land, inherited from El Elyon, of Yahweh. As Yahweh's people its their right to kill, forcibly relocate, destroy the homes of, and steal the land from the internationally recognized legal owners of the property. Citizens of the USA send much more money to the Israeli terrorists and Jewish international law criminals than any Muslims in the USA or in Saudi Arabia send to the Muslim international law criminals hiding in the back-country of Afghanistan.

As for the idea of Muslims not holding their allegiance to the "nation-state", I never heard that our allegiance, as SDA's, was to anything but God's Law FIRST, nation-state second.

Bill:

You said: "David, SDA's are not an 'open conversation partner' as you would define the phrase."

So now you know not only who is a true Muslim and Catholic according to what their religions really teach, but you also know how I define the phrase, "open conversation partner"? It looks to me like you are creating definitions of Muslims, Catholics, and myself that fit your worldview and imposing them on us in order to justify your views. For the record, when I said "open conversation partner," I meant a fellow Adventist (among other things, one who accepts the ultimate authority of the Bible) who is willing to converse in a way that is open to the conversation partner's views. Are you willing to have that kind of conversation or not?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I like Beck, and am looking for a herbal tea bag to take to the next party ;)

Jody ;)

Yes, Jody, I think Beck is the most interesting commentator on any news program.

Of course, you know he is a Mormon. But like many, we can doubt he has much of an understanding of either Christanity or Mormonism. All he knows is that he don't like Socialism as many in America don't.

Some balance between Socialism and Capitolism may be healthy in a civil society. But we fear Socialism is becoming so dominate in the minds of many Americans, that it can and will destroy America.

None the less, we can't be too ready to support some "conservative" agenda that will take us to the same place, only from a different direction.

As bible believing Christians, we are "between a rock and a hard place" when it comes to politics.

I would suspect in the near future we will see both sides come to some agreement on many major basic issues and the "one world government" will materialize to some degree.

The devil can unite both conservative and liberal elements in the end and create the agenda he has in mind.

That is, on a religious plane, we would call it uniting antinomians and legalists in a spiritual unity and this will happen as well in the near future.

After all, there is no real difference between the two groups both politically or spiritually. Bible Christanity does not support of embrace either in a non-biblical context.

Bible Christanity is a Theocracy and only God is qualified to rule His kingdom. This, true Christanity is created by the Holy Spirit by way of the bible, and the bible only.

Have a happy Sabbath and keep the faith,

Bill Sorensen

David H., I would go along with that if it worked. However, they show no signs of facing up to the issue. Someone has to hold their feet to the fire (no pun intended). With concerted pressure we can influence them. But we have to make it absolutely clear that we cannot tolerate persecution of Christians or terrorism. How much time does it take to come to the conclusion that converts to Christianity should not be executed? I don't think we disagree that Islam need to make some changes. I am just a little more impatient. When I was in Bethlehem the Christians made it clear to me that it was the Muslims who were driving them out. This has to stop.

Bill, I am a Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism. I know about both sides. Martin's book is not an authoritative source. Next you will be quoting Dan Brown. Why not try the Catechism? White was wrong on many things. She plagiarized others. Miller was wrong too. In fact do you remember 1843 and 1844? Nothing happened. That Bible you misquote was canonized by the Catholic Church. You're welcome. I may not agree with the Adventists on this site, but they are at least honest. They don't try to use bogus sources.

This has to stop.

Why would you try to restrain their religious freedom? What they do now is no different than what the hebrews allegedly did in their failed attempts to conquer the 'promised land'.

This call to stop the persecution of christians is a weak, veiled attempt to make muslim countries allow christian proselytizing in their countries. I believe it was in Jeremiah that the prophecy of the New Covenant (since hijacked by Paul and his followers) contained the promise that Yahweh's Law would be written in their hearts and NO MAN would need to tell another what Yahweh's Law was- they would all know it instinctively.

The injunction to go teach all nations is contrary to Biblical prophecy as is any Biblical support for tolerance of those with different beliefs (not that Jeremiah should be looked to as a prophet as he failed over and over).

Fr.Jim,

"That Bible you misquote was canonized by the Catholic Church."

I assume you mean "little c" and not RCC.

The "Canon" was recognized as the 27 over time. The Synods, I suggest history shows, did not "create the Canon" but recognized what was already the case.

The Canon and likewise Sunday observance by Christians existed by many before the Bishop of Rome's authority "made it so."

All that is best and Regards,
pat

David R:

What are the policy implications of what you have been saying? Should the government outlaw Islam, regulate it, infiltrate mosques with secret agents to monitor their activities? What are you proposing?

You also say: "The fact that a true Muslim's loyalty is to the Ummah, not his nation-state, is a fact out there completely available for anyone to know..."

Again, there is no way in which you, as a Christian, are allowed to define what "a true Muslim's loyalty" is or isn't. If the facts are that easily available, cite a source, so we can see if you are correct.

Fr. Jim:

I agree that we cannot tolerate persecution or terrorism, and that Islam needs to make some changes. But I don't think holding people's feet to the fire (metaphorically) has ever softened hearts. Though if you can show me where in the history of interfaith relations that has worked, I might change my mind. "But the fruit of the Spirit is...patience...."

Thank you, all!

David Hamstra
apokalupto

The Roman Catholic religion is a very cleverly convoluted form of Christanity.

John Henry Newman converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. His main reason was this, he could find no bridge from "justification by faith alone" to Christian ethics. In other words, "Why keep the law if you are saved by faith alone?"

He apparently failed, like many, to understand the basic issue of law and gospel as articulated by the Reformation. The reformation confessions of faith carefully outlined how law and gospel function by both parallel and contrast.

1. The law is paralleled by civil governments to restrain evil in society in general. This is not a Christian use or any religious use. It is a "civil righteousness" use that must not interfere with a religious use. The bible tells us that God approves of civil governments who restrain evil and that Christians must also be subject to civil law as citizens of a world government. But the civil government does not speak for God.

2. The second use of the law in the Protestant confessions of faith was as a "schoolmaster to lead us to Christ." We can not merit heaven. Even with God's help as the Catholic church would have us believe. This was the basic reason Protestantism came into existence. No created being has any merit in a relationship with God whereby we can make God beholden to us for any reason or cause. God owes us nothing by way of a legal covenant.

Jesus alone merited the favor of God and God gives us His blessing on a legal basis based on the merits of Jesus that cling to His divine person. The merits of Christ are never infused into a created being. The merits of Christ are legally imputed, reckoned, and accounted to those who accept Jesus, believe in His word and purpose in their hearts to keep His law.

3. This is the third use of the law. Not to merit heaven, but as a moral guide and obligation to obey God and serve Him as His children who honor Him as their heavenly Father. This is not a legal obligation we can fulfill, even with Jesus' help, but a moral obligation we can fulfill to honor and glorify our Father which is in heaven. If we refuse to accept this "family obligation", we are not members of God's kingdom nor will God impute the merits of Christ to us.

John Henry Newman became a Catholic Cardinal and sad to say, abandon bible faith for human speculation and delusions.

Those who can not distinguish between the legal and moral aspects of redemption, are doomed to confusion.

If we see and understand the purpose of the cermonial law, we will see the legal aspects of the law and redemption by way of Substitution and Representation. No Christian or anyone else can fulfill what the ceremonial law typifies. It typifies the meritorious aspects of redemption fulfilled by Christ in behalf of all who believe and appropriate it to themselves by "faith alone". Thus, by way of the reformation definition of "faith alone" it is "Christ alone, His merits alone, imputed by faith to all who believe on the basis of grace alone."

This is no way releases a believer from a moral obligation to keep the law of God. Anymore than a child adopted into a family is free from the authority of His new parents.

Our attitude about the law changes and the motivation to obey it changes. But the obligation itself is not removed. Obedience to the law is, and always has been, the condition of eternal life. And Jesus never came and removed this obligation and condition.

The Roman Catholic church makes this a legal condition and thus claims merit is due to those keep the covenant. So the Catholic church is a subtle convoluted religion that confounds the legal and moral aspects of the law. Neither have they changed nor "repented" for their false doctrine and perverted view of the bible. It is still the antichrist system and contrary to the kingdom of God.

Bill Sorensen

Keafan, your comparison of Old Testament Judaism with Islam is an excellent, right on point, comparison. There was no freedom of religion in the nation God was trying to build; defiant Sabbath-breakers were to be stoned, and the shrines to other gods, the "high places" and "Asherah poles," were to be torn down. Yahweh alone was to be worshipped. This is true of Islam, as well. The difference is that Christians, and even modern Jews, do not believe that the OT rules that created a Hebrew theocracy are still binding upon us today. Modern Christians and Jews do NOT consider the OT to be commanding us to construct a theocracy in the here and now; rather, those rules were for there and then. In Islam, a sharia law theocratic state is for all times and all places.

Your last comment is also exactly on point. As an Adventist, my first loyalty is to God, and to the Church, and then to the state, so I'm no different than a Muslim in that regard. The difference is that my religion does not have a jurisprudential/political component, so I seldom find that my loyalty to God conflicts with my loyalty to my country. However, if my primary loyalty also commanded me to spurn, and deny the legitimacy of, "man made" legislation, and to believe that only sharia law is legitimate, then I would have a serious conflict with the constitutional government of the United States. And that is exactly the situation that a fervent, true-believer Muslim-American finds himself in.

For those interested in a not-uncritical yet fair assessment of Islamicate history, Marshall G.S. Hodgson's "The Venture of Islam" is still the best book out there. It was written not long before the Iranian revolution, so it's not forced to view all of Islamic history as focused on radical terrorism. A propos to this discussion might be Hodgson's discussion of India under the Timurid dynasty. Muslims and polytheistic Hindus (who were in theory to be exterminated) somehow managed to create a society in which both lived side-by-side with considerably less friction occurred between Protestants/Catholics or Christians/Jews in Europe. An examination of society in Spain under Muslim rule (as compared to Christian rule later on) might also be instructive.

As has been pointed out, there have been plenty of examples of Christians systematically killing others for explicitly religious reasons in the past century (Bosnia, Kosovo, Ireland), leaving aside the violence of earlier centuries. The dearth of Christian suicide bombers in no way diminishes moral culpability.

This is not to suggest that there was no inter-confessional tension in medieval India and Spain (there was); nor is it to suggest that relatively enlightened Muslim rule in the past excuses barbaric acts of terrorism today (it doesn't); nor is it to suggest that Islam is inherently morally superior to Christianity (it isn't). I just think it's important that the last 30 years not be allowed to stand in for the whole of history.

David H., you ask what are the policy of implications of what I have been saying. It seems like we should establish whether what I have been saying is true, and worry about the policy implications later. A troubling aspect of modern Leftism is its refusal to believe facts that work against its PC ideology. The attitude seems to be, "first tell me if this gets me where I want to go ideologically, and then I'll tell you whether I believe you or not." But facts are facts, regardless what damage they may do to our cherished worldviews.

Regarding a scholarly source for the fact that a Muslim's primary loyalty is to the Ummah, see John Esposito, "What everyone needs to know about Islam" p. 15-16:

"What do Muslims believe about a worldwide Muslim community (ummah)?

Muslims believe they are members of a worldwide Muslim community, known as the ummah, united by a religious bond that transcends tribal, ethnic, and national identities. This belief is based upon Quran 2:143, which declares that God created the Muslim ummah to serve as a witness to God's guidance to the nations. . . . Muslims have been commanded to protect each other and to consider their identity as Muslims to be more important than any other identities they may have."

Esposito is not only a well known name in Muslim studies, he is not hostile to Islam, but virtually an apologist for Islam.

Another very well known Islam scholar is Bernard Lewis, who writes in "Islam, the religion and the people" p. 4:

"An important and distinctive feature of the Muslim world is the extent to which religion is still seen as defining identity and therefore loyalty. . . . In Islam, the prophet who brought the holy book and founded the faith also founded and headed the first Muslim state, and both promulaged and enforced the one all-embracing holy law. There is therefore an interpenetration of religion and politics, affecting government and law, identity and loyalty, to a degree without parallel in Judeo-Christian history." (emphasis mine)

You have to understand that Islam--in theory, that is, as far as mere Islam is concerned--is both church and state. Let me relate something that, when I learned it, was a big "aha!" moment. Did you ever wonder why the universally agreed upon penalty for leaving Islam, i.e., apostasy, is death? In the West, there are no civil consequences for leaving your religion. But until fairly recently, the penalty for treason in every Western nation was death. Leaving Islam is not just leaving your religion, i.e., changing your private beliefs about unknowable spiritual things, it is treason against the ummah, the polity. It isn't "apostasy," it is treason. So it makes perfect sense that the penalty would be death; again, until fairly recently every Western nation enforced the death penalty for treason. Why would the Muslim nation, the ummah, be any different??

When you understand that Islam is primarily a political/jurisprudential project with a religion attached to it, everything begins to make sense.

... Christians, and even modern Jews, do not believe that the OT rules that created a Hebrew theocracy are still binding upon us today.

David Read

I would agree with you if you had used a qualifier such as the "majority" of modern jews.

There is a sizable minority of jews that believe the Land Grant to their deity Yahweh, and Yahweh's subsequent selection of their tribe(s) as the chosen people to live on that land, is still the Rule of the day. We saw it last decade with the assassination of their PM because the right wing in Israel believed he was going to bargain away some of Yahweh's land. We are still seeing it today with the denial of the rights of the non-jews in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Israeli's wish is to build so many illegal settlements that it will be easier just to give the land to them rather than expel them from it. The state of Israel claims that ALL of Jerusalem is their capitol. That is contrary to the rule of international law.

As we write Obama is demanding that they stop the building of additional homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank but the Israeli's have just approved 900 new homes in defiance of international law. Israel refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so we complain about Iran and North Korea while Israel has built 150 nuclear missiles with the help of the Brits and ourselves.

A couple of years ago the Israelis had the nerve to ask us for a couple billion $ to compensate the illegal settlers in Gaza when they were removed. And we gave it to them. This is supported by the evangelicals, in kahootz with the Neo-Cons like Wolfowitz (that W allowed to run his Middle East Policy thinking for years).

I feel that you are somewhat blind about the day to day occurrences of Biblical based atrocities while focusing on what some other group is doing. Britain, right now, is having a difficult time keeping sharia law from being used in the muslim community. Why? Because Britain has allowed Rabbinical Courts to rule on matters which do not conflict with British Law. Now, muslims just want the same treatment. What to do? Revoke the Rabbinical Courts, or allow Sharia?

There is one thing I agree on with the Prez of Iran- the State of Israel should have been carved out of Germany, not Palestine.

Bill,

“All false religions must necessarily control the conscience and dictate to the masses what they must believe and do.” If we accept your statement to be true, then logic leads us to conclude from your statement that if a religion does NOT control the conscience and dictate to the masses what they must believe and do, it must NOT be a false religion, i.e., it must be a true religion (assuming all religions must be either true or false). (Can there be more than one true religion according to your definition?) In a later post you oppose Universalism (which you see as set-up by Spiritualism). But following the logical conclusion from your statement, wouldn’t the UUAC be a (“the”?) true religion? Quoting Wikipedia, “Unitarian Universalism (UUism) is a theologically liberal religion characterized by its support for a ‘free and responsible search for truth and meaning.’ Unitarian Universalists do not share a creed; rather, they are unified by their shared search for spiritual growth. Unitarian Universalists draw on many different theological sources and have a wide range of beliefs and practices.” Hardly sounds like controlling the conscience or dictating what the masses must believe and do, so UUism must be a (the?) true religion! Why aren’t you a member? (Don’t worry; it doesn’t matter! LOL).

David Read,

You said, “I have a pet theory about Islam: God used Islam to chastise apostate Christianity during the period of papal supremacy (actually, not a ‘pet theory’ but widely held), and is using it again today to punish Western decadence (totally a pet theory and my own invention).” Actually, it isn’t your own invention. Many ideologues have invented it before you. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are two examples that come immediately to mind (though I’ve seen street preachers with posters strapped on their back proclaiming the same message in city parks), in their response to 9-11, in which they claimed that God allowed Islamic terrorists to attack America because of gays, abortionists, etc. In addition to your list of Western decadent practices/people, they included the ACLU. http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2001/09/You-Helped-This-Hap...

David Read,

In your response to Keafan you wrote, “your comparison of Old Testament Judaism with Islam is an excellent, right on point, comparison. There was no freedom of religion in the nation God was trying to build; defiant Sabbath-breakers were to be stoned, and the shrines to other gods, the "high places" and "Asherah poles," were to be torn down. Yahweh alone was to be worshipped. This is true of Islam, as well. The difference is that Christians, and even modern Jews, do not believe that the OT rules that created a Hebrew theocracy are still binding upon us today. Modern Christians and Jews do NOT consider the OT to be commanding us to construct a theocracy in the here and now; rather, those rules were for there and then. In Islam, a sharia law theocratic state is for all times and all places.”

I think you are missing the key point (I’m assuming you include yourself among those who believe the OT theocracy is not binding upon us today). Widespread revulsion towards Islamic violence is not because we think God does or doesn’t ordain it; it is because we think such violence is immoral. So unless you are willing to alter your view of OT inspiration (as I have but I’m confident you have not), then you are faced with the inspired words that such violence and more was COMMANDED by God Himself (not just His prophets). I’d argue that this was the perspective of polemecist writers/editors writing centuries after the alleged events and living in a land weakened by enemy oppressors, feeling helpless in the face of world powers greater than their own. I’d prefer to see both Islamic AND OT writings in this light, rather than interpret EITHER as accurate verbally inspired records of what God actually said and thought. (It also is congruent with David Hamstra’s argument that pushing people into an isolated and weakened position is not the way to discourage violence). A God who not only condones but encourages such immoral violence—even if thousands of years ago—is hardly worthy of our trust and loyalty, if we are moral and loving people. I don’t see how you can so quickly write off the OT God’s actions just because Christians no longer see those commands as binding today whereas Islam’s are for all time. That is too facile an argument even for a bright attorney to make! ;-)

Furthermore, if YOU or ANYONE actually BELIEVES that God has taken this position in the past, then I think such a person is predisposed to believe that God may take this position again in the present or future. Sadly, many people have “heard” this voice of “God” and acted on it. In this sense, I guess I am arguing that fundamentalism (interpreting ancient scriptures written in a primitive, violent era as the very words of God) is dangerous and sets the stage for violence today.

David Read,

In your response to David Hamstra, you side-stepped the same question I wanted to ask you but he did for me. You refused to tell us what we should do in response, arguing that we should first establish if the facts are as you say before we consider the policy implications. That is the same slippery argument that your Creationist brethren use; they like to challenge scientific theories of evolution, but when asked to present and defend a theory of their own, they demur. Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Maybe we can hijack that statement and apply it here: Let us see where your line of argument leads, and if the fruits don’t look good, maybe we should let that inform our opinion about the source. Would you propose a new Republic of Liberia and ship all US Muslims to it? Put them in concentration camps like the Japanese-Americans of WWII? Nuke major Islamic capitals and take over the Middle East oil fields? Just what do you have in mind? I think it is fair to ask.

Finally, regarding your apostasy/treason argument: Western nations do punish treason, but leaving one’s nation is not treason. It is emigration, and has been practiced openly and tolerantly for hundreds of years (with exceptions in places like the Soviet bloc countries). Interesting argument, though, and maybe Islamic people HAVE viewed changing one’s faith as national treason.

RT1, whether or not God is a pacifist, and has been misrepresented in Scripture is not really the "the" point or even a point of this discussion about Islam. If we toss out all the militant passages from the Bible, the Muslims won't do the same with the Quran, so it is irrelevant.

Keafan, I'm a Christian and I think eveyone should be a Christian, and that Christianity is vastly superior to whatever religion is in second place. Given my choice of Semites, however, I have no hesitation in siding with the Jews over the Arabs. The Israelis have their rough edges, but they basically represent Western Civilization, with its values of democracy, education, literacy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equality for women, etc. This is almost in total contrast to the Muslim world. Israel, bad as it is, is basically "us" and the Arab world is most definitely "them." (Which explains why I, as a conservative, identify with Israel, and you, a liberal, identify with the Arabs. Because modern liberalism is basically hatred of one's own, regardless how worthy, and love of the other, regardless how unworthy.)

While it is true that some Israelis still believe they have a divine right to the land from the Jordan River to the sea, they are in the minority. The majority would gladly trade land for peace, if only they could. They are sadly learning that they can't, and that Muslims believe they can and will have it all, if only they will be patient.

You should be aware, moreover, that Hamas and most other religious Muslims believe that the entire land of Palestine, not just the West Bank and Gaza, is a sacred Muslim trust, or Waqf, so their claims to the land are just as religious and dogmatic in nature.

Your last comment arises out the narrative that Israel was created as a sort of compensation for the holocaust, but this narrative ignores the fact that Jews have always lived on that land from the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not to mention Caleb and Joshua. Moreover, modern Zionism began in the 1880s, and was well advanced before WW II and the Holocaust.

RT1, regarding my pet theory, you are right, of course, that it isn't just mine. I'd like to think I phrased it and explained it in a unique way. Robertson and Falwell were pressured into backing away from their statements, made right after 9/11, but there's no question that they were thinking in a biblical modality. We see this cycle all the way through the Old Testament, with multiple instances in the book of Judges alone: Israel went after other gods, they were oppressed by foreign powers, then they repented and the oppression was lifted, then the cycle started over again.

It might be argued that America, unlike ancient Israel, is not God's chosen nation, hence there is no need of, nor point in, divine correction for our misdeeds. And I guess that is a valid point. But really, my theory can be expressed in non-religious, naturalistic terms: Decadence causes weakness, which invites predation. So I guess there's no need to bring God into it at all.

David,

As a fierce & articulate conservative, I don't want you to have a stroke in discovering that yours truly, an equally fierce liberal, agrees with you 100% in youe historical analaysis where Jewish vs. muslim politics is concerned.

Incidentally, I'm sure there are ainw liberals who side with Muslims in viewing Israel as a terroist state, but the liberals I know agree with you. Just for the record: I've never met a liberal who hated America or her people. They're often crabby because they expect too much too quickly out of a huge, complex culture, but that's not hatred.

Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan

According to bible prophecy, as understood by historical SDA's, the "false religion" will persecute true believers as has always been in the past. That is, Cain always kills Abel.

This test alone will be the final and ultimate evidence of who embraces the true faith and who does not.

Sabbath vs. Sunday may be the vehicle this test rides if Adventism is correct. But the priciple is binding and will not be broken, no matter what the test may be.

But if some choose to "wait and see", they will likely be too late and will find justification in a church state union that will prove this point. No doubt, some will see this happening and chose to follow the bible and keep the Sabbath according to God's word.

What if some don't think the Sabbath "day" is really binding on the Christian community according to the bible?

If EGW is correct, she states in the Great Controvery, that all will see their choice is the bible or human speculation and a non-biblical spirituality. She compares it to Rome's rejection of the bible as the final authority when confronted by the Reformers.

A very clear cut decision with no ambiguity as to whether a person will acknowledge and follow the bible, or choose to do other wise. She sees the world rejecting bible Adventism and opting for a "spirit ethic" over the word, with a clear and full knowledge that this is the choice.

If so, then all the "bickering" can stop as all of us can and will make our decision. Are we "bible only" Protestants, or not? If we are, she sees the only viable and consistent decision is to keep the seventh day Sabbath. And those who don't, admit they are abandoning the bible.

Bill Sorensen

David R:

From the sources you cited it seems that the concept of ummah may play a role in driving violence in the Muslim community. On the other hand, the authors you cite are not Muslims. I have written the imam of the Mosque I visited asking for clarification on how his community relates to the United States vis a vis this concept.

My initial reaction is to note that even if the version of ummah you are proposing is widely held by Muslims, it is not central to Islam. I can't see how giving up or redefining such a concept would undermine the 5 pillars or any fundamental Muslim religious practices. In other words, it doesn't seem to me that ummah means the Muslim faith is fundamentally violent. For concrete evidence, I would point to Malaysia, where, it is reported to me by my father who did business in that country, Islam peacefully coexists with other religions.

But regardless, let's assume for the sake of argument that your hypothesis about ummah is correct. What would be the policy implications of that fact?

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Thank you, David, for your account of the visit to the mosque. As Seventh-day Adventists it I wonder if we might be more righteous if more of us attended mosques on a regular basis as well synagogues and churches and loved humanity where they are. After all that's what the Messiah we believe in basically did for us when he came to the earth. He saw the people and stood up before them as an an imam, in front, the messenger, and told stories. He met them where they were in the synagogue, mosque, church, of this world--and he roamed the neighborhoods where people had their inconsistencies and wrong-headed notions--and he loved them.

"Religion", the more of it I see revealed by opinionators and acrimonious disputants about the virtues of this that or the other and the categorical claims to understanding of truth, becomes a bit repugnant. In fact, religious systems and systematized doctrines seem to become gods of of many. And, my ideas here could even become so to myself, so I'll write but take it all with a grain of "salt" and try not to create "repugnancies" in my brothers and sisters on this blog. If I do, I'm trying to do it in Grace.

So, why not throw out religion: Christianity, Islam, Judaism--particularly? Each, are after all, "isms" that seem to obscure God and spirituality. Each has both its own fanatic fringe and beloved peaceful people engaged in a quiet, though search. Each also seems to have travelers with have a hatred of the different, yet aim to love their version of 'God". Maybe in between are simply normal people who see that all religions have truth--and don't. God is both revealed and secretive on this planet. Then we'll see him face to face.

Of course, there are very historic reasons each of these Paths is different. Alleged Christianity has been every bit, it seems to be, as involved in hate-mongering over the centuries as has Islam and yes, Judaism--Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, but maybe not Baha'ism. And, it seems as if the Adventist-ism movement is sometimes putting out its own Evil Ones--ones with bad attitudes, false teachings, and potentials of horrible actions to humanity.

Where are we to go? Might it not be best to simply search our souls, search the scriptures, pray to God and reach out to humans, not to argue and beat them over with our "systems" and "doctrines" but to love and break break together, acknowledging that the Search is where the Remnant is.

With this attitude our ultimate loyalties are not to the nation state, but to the ummah of all God's people seeking Peace.

The struggle, the Jihad--is to in the kindliest way possible make God's character known to the world and to not play "God".

As a Seventh-day Adventists might we not learn to see the Beast is really us when we do the same things as others...worship our dogmas and close our minds to Allah/Yahweh, the Spirit, or the Messiah of reaching out in a spirit of love, grace, rooted in Torah? Is not unity and Peace is the theme of the Islamic message. Submission is paramount. Putting ourselves in a posture godward is the essence.

As a child of the Seventh-day Adventist movement my own life has been blessed by the study of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian thought---and wonderful Seventh-day Adventist teachers from grade school through university. I am thankful that there are some big thinkers in the Advent movement who truly wish to break bread with all the children of Abraham---and then some. This is our calling and our mission, I believe. The life-giving waters of Allah and the Bread are to be shared and broken, I believe. When we pound against this or that religion--or buddy or sister on a blog--might we be losing our own spiritual compass?

And, in this in many ways has been the mission of all the Remnant in the history of the church, the synagogue, and the mosque. Why can't we recognize this?

Have a great week!

James:

Thank you for your thoughts. I think your perspective is healthy to the extent that you don't loose focus on the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus Christ as expressed in the Bible. But with that firmly in place we are able to appreciate what truth God has given to other religions, since He is the source of all that is true. So I seek to encourage the good and true in people of other faiths wherever it find it, knowing that these things ultimately lead back to their source. They also help enrich our own experience by helping us see another angle on God. Your references to the positive aspects of Muslims concepts is a wonderful example of how this can take place.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David H., I am curious how you think John Esposito and Bernard Lewis became experts about Islam, over the course of long careers studying it. Don't you think it might have included asking Muslims what they believe, along with studying Islamic texts? And if it didn't work for them, why do you think it will work for you?

The principle that only Muslims can learn the tenets of Islam renders this whole discussion utterly futile and bizarre. Unless it is true that non-Muslims can understand Islam, it doesn't matter what the imam at your local mosque tells you, and it was pointless of you to ask, because you're still not a Muslim. You would have to convert to have any trustworthy knowledge.

I'm certainly not going to engage in a policy discussion with someone who is mired in epistemological futility and nihilism with regard to relatively low-level, easily learnable facts.

David R:

How we went from this: "On the other hand, the authors you cite are not Muslims. I have written the imam of the Mosque I visited asking for clarification on how his community relates to the United States vis a vis this concept."

...to this: "The principle that only Muslims can learn the tenets of Islam renders this whole discussion utterly futile and bizarre."

...and this: "I'm certainly not going to engage in a policy discussion with someone who is mired in epistemological futility and nihilism with regard to relatively low-level, easily learnable facts."

...is beyond me.

Giving priority to trained adherents over expert non-adherents of a religion is not tantamount to disregarding the views of experts nor does it imply that one cannot in a real sense learn anything about another religion. Furthermore, I did not dispute the facticity of ummah, but rather remained open to the possibility that it could be driving violence among Muslims.

If you're looking for a way out of this conversation, why don't we just agree to end it amicably. However my offer to continue based on the assumption that your view of ummah is correct still stands.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David H., it isn't that I want out of this "conversation," I just wonder whether there is any point in continuing it.

You won't take my word for anything that Muslims believe. You wrote, "there is no way in which you, as a Christian, are allowed to define what 'a true Muslim's loyalty' is or isn't." But of course I wasn't trying to define anything, but telling you what Islam holds about loyalty to the ummah transcending all other loyalties.

You then wrote, "If the facts are that easily available, cite a source, so we can see if you are correct." So I cited two noted scholars of Islam, Esposito and Lewis, and you said, "the authors you cite are not Muslims." In addition to moving the goalposts without warning, that's like asking for a source on Soviet communism, and I cite Robert Conquest, and you say, "But Robert Conquest is not a Soviet communist."

The analogy is apt, because Islam is a totalitarian system very similar to communism and Nazism. And that is one reason I reject, utterly and totally, your principle of "giving priority to trained adherents over expert non-adherents," i.e., for the same reason I would reject giving a communist historian priority over an expert non-communist historian writing on the history of the Soviet Union, or a Nazi over a non-Nazi in writing the history of the Third Reich.

If you'd like to read a collection of Muslim statements on Islam as a "total," i.e., totalitarian system, see here:

http://myislamwatch.com/2009/01/24/islam-is-a-totalitarian-system-as-mus.... All of the links, except for the very last one, are still functional.

I have no trouble crediting what Muslims write for each other, and not for kuffars (infidels). But there is a potential problem with what Muslims say to and for the benefit of kuffars, namely, taqiyya. Taqiyya is religious license to lie to avoid persecution or to advance the interests of Islam. It began among the Shia to avoid persecution by the Sunni, but it is a general Muslim tactic today. Here is a recent article touching on taqiyya: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1120/p09s03-coop.html.

It is also discussed in the context of Maj. Hasan's massacre here: http://www.meforum.org/2512/nidal-hasan-fort-hood-muslim-doctrine.

Taqiyya is sanctioned any time a Muslim is the power of non-Muslims. And since the roughly 2 million Muslims in the U.S. make up less than 1 percent of the population, they must feel themselves very much in the power of the infidels, and licensed to resort to taqiyya at any time.

There is also the fact that, by writing the imam asking him to clarify the principle that a Muslim's highest loyalty is to the ummah, you are exerting subtle pressure on him to come up with an answer that will not offend Western sensibilities. So your imam is likely to come up with a soothing explanation that I will not believe.

We will have thus come to a sort of epistemological impasse, or a crisis of authority, in which you rely on your imam, and I rely on what non-Muslim experts, ex-Muslims, and Muslims writing for each other but not for the kuffar, have said. We will neither of us credit the other's authority, and hence we will have reached the end or our "conversation."

Given my choice of Semites, however, I have no hesitation in siding with the Jews over the Arabs.

So you would side with the Puritans and their successor's massacring of the Native Americans because the Indians were more "different" than the Christian communist Puritans?

Israel, bad as it is, is basically "us" and the Arab world is most definitely "them."

So, you support atrocities against civilization if the perpetrators are more like "us". What about justice? Israel thumbs their nose at the world, we support them, and they get away with it.

(Which explains why I, as a conservative, identify with Israel, and you, a liberal, identify with the Arabs. Because modern liberalism is basically hatred of one's own, regardless how worthy, and love of the other, regardless how unworthy.)

What are you a conservative on other than religious things? I am certain that on economics I am much closer to Libertarian Republican like Greenspan/Rand than you are. Yes, some things I am sure I am "liberal", but the Israeli question is not about liberal/conservative, its about right and wrong. What has happened/is happening is wrong.

The majority would gladly trade land for peace, if only they could. They are sadly learning that they can't, and that Muslims believe they can and will have it all, if only they will be patient.

They would have it all tomorrow if we quit giving Israel $3,000,000,000 in aid every year. Lets have the UN decide that the US is going to atone for the atrocities against the Native Americans by giving Washington DC to the Natives. Then, let Russia provide the Indians with nuclear weapons and $3 Billion of military aid per year. The indians could be literate, equal rights, democratic, whatever but it WOULD NEVER WORK. It will never work in the Middle East.

You should be aware, moreover, that Hamas and most other religious Muslims believe that the entire land of Palestine, not just the West Bank and Gaza, is a sacred Muslim trust, or Waqf, so their claims to the land are just as religious and dogmatic in nature.

Seeing that there is no evidence that there were any such thing as a "Jew" before the attempted takeover of the area by the vassal heads of the vassal government sent by Cyrus to collect taxes from the people of the land in that area I would believe that the Palestinians are completely correct.

Your last comment arises out the narrative that Israel was created as a sort of compensation for the holocaust, but this narrative ignores the fact that Jews have always lived on that land from the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not to mention Caleb and Joshua. Moreover, modern Zionism began in the 1880s, and was well advanced before WW II and the Holocaust.

My comment doesn't arise out of any superficial propaganda narrative as you assert. The holocaust was most definitely the catalyst for the creation of Israel. The jews should have been allowed to continue buying up property in private transactions as they had been doing for decades. The terrorist zionists that assassinated the British Ambassador (among other terrorist acts) should not have been rewarded. Personally, when the oil runs out those groups over there can go back to camel riding and blowing each other up and the USA will not care a whit.

As far as Abraham, Isaac etc- you must be kidding me! David wasn't even a jew or hebrew. Haven't you ever read about David? Can you give me any Mosaic Laws he followed? I can tell you several that he broke without nary a mention of something being wrong- especially with his sacrificing. There was no Mosaic Law at his time. How could Moses write to start the new year in the seventh month of the persian calendar? The persian calendar did not come into use till after Cyrus' conquering of Babylon, 400 years after the alleged David. Also, did Moses write the Torah in Hebrew? Of course not. There was no such thing as hebrew back when he supposedly "wrote". If there were a Moses, he wouldn't have written anything. He would have drawn it like the egyptians where he allegedly went to school.

David R:

With you introduction of taqiyya I see more clearly the divide between us. You basically assume that a liar paradox is present when dialoging with Muslims. I assume that people are telling me the truth until they prove otherwise.

Here's a site where Muslims writing for other Muslims talk about taqiyya. While arguing against Sunni Muslims, they basically say that it's only allowed under life threatening situations.

I'm attempting to understand the beliefs of Muslims in my community. For that purpose an imam in my community has more relevance than an expert who speaks about Islam on a more global scale. The Muslims I have developed relationships with personally have not been the dissembling totalitarians the websites you have linked to describe. Could this be the reason for our impasse. I wonder if the author (you?) of the Islam Watch website you linked to has gone down to the local mosque and gotten to know some Muslims.

I think the totalitarian argument is your best so far. This is the main problem that Islam has to overcome, but it is not Islam's problem alone. Until the enlightenment, every major religion was united with state power. Turkey is, of course, an example of a secular islamic state, but that was accomplished by imposing very strict laws limiting the expression of the public aspect of Islam. But when I visited Turkey the religious aspect of Islam was very much alive. Every little village had mosque, and I often saw people pouring out of them after prayers. So I think the evidence shows that Islam can coexist with a political system where church and state are separated.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Forgot to mention: The reason I uphold the priority of adherents in describing their religion is because of the way Seventh-day Adventism has been misrepresented by so many websites, videos, and even experts.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

Keafan, I gather that you believe that the Old Testament is a post-exile collection of documents. That the OT was not reduced to writing until the 5th or 4th Century BC is a common view, but it doesn't mean that the Hebrew nation did not exist before that time. I mean, who went into exile in Babylon? But even assuming that there were no "Jews" before the 5th Century BC, that's still well over a thousand years before the Islamic conquest of Palestine.

As to the $3Bn in annual aid to Israel, I agree with you that it is time to end that subsidy. My understanding is that it was begun as part of Carter's Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, as an inducement to coax Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. By law, Israel is required to spend all of it in the U.S. (mostly buying U.S.-produced weapon systems) and that Egypt receives over $1.3 Bn annually for similar purposes. But we're now over 30 years down the road, and it is time to end these payments; Radio talk show host Michael Medved, who is Jewish and has a brother living in Israel, has said this many times.

As to the conquest of North America, I recently commented on this in the context of distinguishing a tragedy from a crime (many insist on wrongly labeling a crime a tragedy): "What happened to the Native Americans was a tragedy. It would have been nice for them if they could have continued their simple, nomadic lifestyle unmolested, but Europeans had the idea of bringing civilization, with cities, towns, houses, private property, fences, roads, highways, factories, hospitals, universities, and golf courses, etc., to North America, and that, too, was a good thing. And these two goods were in conflict, and only one could be realized, and it turned out to be bringing European-style civilization to North America. The Native Americans, TRAGICALLY, lost out. That's a tragedy."

The same applies to the Arabs in Israel (or at least to those who left Israel in 1948 or subsequently). There were two competing goods, and the creation of a Jewish homeland won out. This was somewhat tragic for the Arab Muslims who didn't want it that way, but there are about 21 Arab countries, all with a similar language, culture, and most importantly religion, and there is only one Jewish homeland, so in my opinion the greater good was served.

It would have been nice for them if they could have continued their simple, nomadic lifestyle unmolested, but Europeans had the idea of bringing civilization, with cities, towns, houses, private property, fences, roads, highways, factories, hospitals, universities, and golf courses, etc., to North America, and that, too, was a good thing.

That is false. Blatant propaganda. The Catholic Church issued Papal Bulls and multitudes of documents beginning in the mid 1400's declaring the various rights and duties of Spain & Portugal in their new-found seafaring capabilities. Any "discovered" lands that were not Christian were to be taken over and the inhabitants enslaved. Basically, if christians weren't there already and you found it, it was yours.

This is from the Papal Bull known as Romanus Pontifex (1455):

since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith.

And from Inter caetera (1493):

Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. ...we (the Papacy) command you (Spain) ... to instruct the aforesaid inhabitants and residents and dwellers therein in the Catholic faith, and train them in good morals.

In US law, this has become known as The Discovery Doctrine. The 1823 Supreme Court case of Johnson v. M'Intosh used language from the Papal Bulls of the 1400's.

What you call a tragedy was a crime against humanity. A Christian crime against humanity and decency.

Keafan, I guess I was thinking of North America, but as an apologetic for the Spanish and Portuguese conquests of Central and South America, you'll not do better than Mel Gibson's Apocalypto. When you look at the Aztecs, for example, and the number of people they were slaughtering every year as human sacrifices, even a papal dominated-Spanish empire was an improvement.

This has no connection with Islam, except that medieval Papal-dominated Christendom and Islam were mirror images of each other. They both represent combinations of church and state, politics and religion, and that combination is conducive to the worst sort of evil and persecution imaginable.

It would be interesting if we could compare the number of humans sacrificed by the Aztecs with those that were killed in the flood and the first born of Egypt and many others as described in the Bible--which were ordered by God. Would it be a fair comparison? Were both sacrificed in the name of religion, or lack thereof?

And, of course, we shouldn't forget the many "infidels" slaughtered in the Crusades and with the Spanish Inquisition and the settling of the New World.

David

Your sarcasm is numbing in its ignorance. California and its string of catholic missions is not in North America? Henry the Seventh followed the pope's methods and gave charters with the same result. I was only giving the early attempts at what has evolved into now, constitutionally and currently the Law of the USA, the Doctrine of Discovery. It was a religious based law. It IS a religious based law. If the discovered land was not christian, it was yours. How is this different than the muslims? Or the OT? Its a religious thing. Israel has no legitimate reason to be a state in the Middle East other than to be a source of anger and misery for the people.

Here's a sample of Henry the Seventh:

Henry, by the grace of God, king of England and France, and lord of Ireland, to all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting.

Be it knowen that we haue giuen and granted, and by these presents do giue and grant for vs and our heiress to our welbeloued Iohn Cabot citizen of Venice, to Lewis, Sebastian, and Santius, sonnes of the sayd Iohn, and to the heires of them, and euery of them, and their deputies, full and free authority, leaue, and power to saile to all parts, countreys, and seas of the East, of the West, and of the North, vnder our banners and ensignes, with fine ships of what burthen or quantity soeuer they be, and as many mariners or men as they will haue with them in the sayd ships, vpon their owne proper costs and charges, to seeke out, discouer, and finde whatsoever isles, countreys, regions or prouinces of the heathen and infidels whatsoeuer they be, and in what part of the world soeuer they be, which before this time haue bene vnknowen to all Christians: we haue granted to them, and also to euery of them, the heires of them, and euery of them, and their deputies, and haue giuen them licence to set vp our banners and ensignes in euery village, towns, castle, isle, or maine land of them newly found. And'that the aforesayd Iohn and his sonnes, or their heires and assignee may subdue, occupy and possesse all such townes, cities, castles and isles of them found, which they can subdue, occupy and possesse, as our vassals, and lieutenants, getting vnto vs the rule, title, and jurisdiction of the same villages, townes, castles, & firme land so found. Yet so that the aforesayd Iohn, and his sonnes and heires, and their deputies, be holden and bounder of all the fruits, profits, gaines, and commodities growing of such navigation, for euery their voyage, as often as they shall arrine at our port of Bristoll (at the which port they shall be bound and holden onely to arrine) all maner of necessary costs and charges by them made, being deducted, to pay vnto vs in wares or money the lift part of the capital! gaine so gotten. We gluing and granting vnto them and to their heires and deputies, that they shall be free from all paying of customer of all and singular such merchandise as they shall be free from all paying of customes of all and singular they shall bring with them from those places so newlie found.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/15th_century/cabot01.asp

As far as the Aztecs and your weak apologetics... I believe the death rate of the native populations within 10 years of "discovery" was over 90% according to modern demographic studies. If the Aztecs were sacrificing >90% of their population every ten years? Well, that is just stupid to even contemplate as being a reasonable possibility.

If there was no oil over there we would not care. Instead we have the kids of fundamentalists such as Palin sending their kids off to fight the infide... sorry, the terrorists (or the WMD guys or the inhabitants of the land with the ruler that threatened W's Daddy).

You say you believe in religious freedom? Well, letting the muslim fundamentalists have the freedom of religion is getting the results that would reasonably expected. This is a fight of NATIONALISM, culturalism, political systems. Having a deity that rewards the bombers with 72 virgins or our dead a resurrection is no different in the end that is achieved politically.

The world would be a much more peaceful place without the believers of ancient texts on superstitions.

Alas, so few of us want to discuss Islam, but I can't imagine a more urgent and topical subject for discussion.

David Hamstra, thanks for the link. One of the interesting quotes was this one: "I say that the meaning of Taqiyyah is to be cautious of revealing that which is in one's mind regarding ones beliefs and practices, in front of others." Fath al-Bari, Volume 12 page 314. Fath al-Bari is an 18 volume Sunni commentary on Bukhari's collection of hadiths (the traditions about the life, sayings and teachings of Muhammad that are so crucial to Islamic thought) written by the medieval Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (1372-1448).

So a doctrine that started out as a way for Shia to avoid Sunni persecution had, by the late middle ages, evolved into a general Muslim doctrine of being cautious about revealing the true nature of one's religion. In view of this fact, you might want to rethink your practice of assuming that people are telling the truth until they prove otherwise.

Another helpful thing about the site is that it explores the Qur'anic support for the doctrine of taqiyya. One of those is Sura 3:28-29 "Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allah is the final return. Say, O Muhammad, "Whether you hide what is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knows it, and He knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allah is Able to do all things."

In other words, "don't take infidels as allies unless you are in danger from them. And don't worry about telling the truth about what is in your heart, because Allah knows the truth." There's more, but you wouldn't really need more Qur'anic support for taqiyya beyond these two verses.

Alas, so few of us want to discuss Islam, but I can't imagine a more urgent and topical subject for discussion.

Using examples of Christianity's use of techniques you are criticizing IS discussing Islam. In your most recent post you are criticizing taqiyyah yet Ellen encouraged exactly the same practice of disguising your true intentions until you had gained their confidence. The Mosaic Law explicitly commands the hebrews to not make covenants with those that follow other gods. To kill even your wife if they start disbelieving in Yahweh. Paul said he used the tricks of the con man to further his version of Jesus (act like you are one of whomever you are with).

You criticize the doctrine of expropriating the possessions of non-christian indigenous people and the treatment of them as animals to be exterminated if need be. This is the CURRENT LAW of the US.

You claim to be an attorney. If you want to be employed you practice the art of taqiyyah, right? As I am almost completely certain of who you supported in the last Federal election you supported a woman that would be a poster child for the practice of taqiyahh. Yet, when somebody that is not "us" uses the tactic, you cry foul.

Personally I have been humored to see the reaction of "believers" in our country to the actions of the "believers" of a different religion. I find it hard to discover many differences between christian fundamentalists and muslim fundamentalists. The main one I have seen is the level of knowledge that the muslim males have about their texts versus that of the christians. Muslim fundamentalists know FAR more about their religion that christian fundamentalists do.

You do make a good point about trust although I find it just as hard to trust a christian's word as I do a muslim's or a jew's. An atheist Jew is very trustworthy. I am friends with a few of them. I am confident that an atheist Arab's word would be more trustworthy than either a Christian Arab's or Muslim Arab's. Cliff G's word would be on the bottom of my list of "Likely to be trustworthy".

Oh, after I hit 'submit' I remembered that we have an atheist jew living in our house. He's 19 and a friend of one of our children. His FOXNews-addicted jewish dad kicked him out of the house over some trivial tribal custom. We took him in to keep him from living on the street. I trust him more than I trust my retired-SDA-minister father-in-law.

keafan, you might consider that Islam is the religion that has spread by the sword. If you want real persecution today look at the enslavement of Christians in Sudan or their persecution in any Muslim nation. The only ones who are more inclined to persecute Christians are the atheist regimes like North Korea or China.

keafan, you might consider that Islam is the religion that has spread by the sword.

Dinesh D'Souza, currently one of the top (and probably the best) current Catholic Apologists, begins his introductory statement at debates (at least the one I attended and the others I have seen via the web) with the story about his ancestors in India learning of the benefit of Christianity at the tip of swords (the benefit of believing was that you were allowed to live). He gets a laugh, but its not a joke. Since christianity is now advanced at the tip of long range missiles, smart bombs, and drones under the guise of "freedom" the analogy should be updated.

If you want real persecution today look at the enslavement of Christians in Sudan or their persecution in any Muslim nation.

Those that support freedom of religion should applaud the muslims for their treatment of christians because forced conversion and death to apostates IS based on their religion! We don't practice Freedom of Religion here in the USA. In the USA there is not any "True" religious freedom. If your religion's beliefs are in agreement with what the majority christians approve of THEN you are free to practice the tenets of your religion. Those beliefs that are not socially acceptable are banned. For instance, how are Mormon men going to get to heaven if they cannot have multiple wives and sire dozens of children? That is their religious belief. In order for Utah to be admitted to the Union they were forced to suddenly receive new "Light" from God telling them to have only one wife. Fundamentalist Mormons, correctly, refuse to submit to this denial of their religious beliefs. Many are awaiting trial in Texas right now. Are we going to allow Muslims to practice their religion and have 4 wives? Of course not. Instead, they have one wife legally and the rest of their wives get to scam the government for food stamps and welfare benefits just as the mormons have been doing for decades. Polygamy is fundamental to the muslim and mormon culture and religion (more important to Mormons). So-called 'Christian' countries don't allow it while screaming about the lack of religious freedom in other countries.

The only ones who are more inclined to persecute Christians are the atheist regimes like North Korea or China.

How is North Korean policy different than your church's policy for 1,000 years?

North Korea and China persecute enemies of the State without discrimination (the church set Jesus as the head, then persecuted "enemies of Jesus"). They persecute their own journalists if they say the wrong thing. They censor the internet, attempting to control what their citizens are able to see/learn (as do SDA schools). They have the death penalty for corruption, drug trafficking, etc. Christians are able to have churches in China if approved by the government. The Pope doesn't like it because the church is able to be more autonomous there- the government has the final say. I was living in Hong Kong when the Tiananmen Square event was occurring. It was a protest against actions of the state. It was not a religious protest- it was a freedom protest. The actions of the Chinese Government were mild compared to how it would have been handled by the Catholic Church and its Princes of Christianity. Christianity has been a propaganda arm and Banker of Last Resort for most western governments since Constantine's Bright Idea. Your crying about christianity being persecuted is laughable. Some of your own medicine?

David R:

Being cautious about revealing ones faith is not the same thing as not telling the truth. You are cautious about reveling your policy position on this issue, but that does not mean you are lying to me about your views on Islam.

At any rate the website's interpretation of Taqiyya allows lying only when life, property, and honor are threatened. I see not mention there of using it to advance the broader goals of Islam.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

keafan, is that why Indian today is a majority Christian nation after centuries of Christian rule? Is that why Christians are currently persecuted in India? So you support polygamy? I guess women's rights are not of interest to you. The USA has the greatest amount of religious liberty of any nation. To argue otherwise is not only disingenuous, but just plain nuts. I will grant we don't let Aztecs sacrifice people, but are you saying we should? I do note that you support the persecution of Christians in China, North Korea, and elsewhere. That is telling. I strongly suspect you would be first in line to send us off to the camps. Your sense of joy at the torture and murder of innocent Christians is a chilling testimony to your hypocrisy and hate. A hatred shared by so many atheists and secularists like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. You stand on the shoulders of giants...very bloody giants. But I suspect that reason and logic are beyond your capabilities. Bigots like you will believe as they wish regardless of the evidence.

keafan, is that why Indian today is a majority Christian nation after centuries of Christian rule?

We have the Hindus and Arabs to thank for the inability of Portugal to spread their form of papal endorsed barbarianism across the subcontinent. Muslim control of the trade routes to the Far East was the reason the Europeans were looking for a different route around them, discovering the americas and navigating around the Horn of Africa in the process. The actions of the Catholics in the Americas and the Indian Ocean and Indian Coast were Barbaric. The business-focused Brits were a welcome relief to deal with compared to the Portuguese. The monarchs of England were in it for the money, not the religion. Since they had made themselves the Pope of their own church they didn't have to listen to the depraved rulings of Rome.

Is that why Christians are currently persecuted in India?

"Christians" as a whole are not persecuted in India any more than Jews or Muslims are "persecuted" in Alabama or Georgia. Christians are < 3% of the population and are harassed just like any small but vocal part of any population is. Christians just like to cry and complain about it. If they didn't go around trying to proselytize I'm sure there would be less "persecution".

So you support polygamy?

I support religious freedom as any patriot of this country should. Polygamy is a religious belief in some religions, therefore, at least in THIS country, it should be allowed for adherents to THAT religion.

What I AM against is hypocrisy; claiming to be for religious freedom while railing against the religious rights of those of religions different than yourself who are committing what your own religion has long been the leaders of committing.

I guess women's rights are not of interest to you.

The people that are against women's rights tend to be religious, holding onto antiquated rules from the Iron Age and Dark Ages.

The USA has the greatest amount of religious liberty of any nation. To argue otherwise is not only disingenuous, but just plain nuts.

I never argued that the USA has less religious liberty than other nations. You are writing absurdities and claiming they came from me. Why don't you ask Fundamentalist Mormons how free thay are to practice their religion?

I will grant we don't let Aztecs sacrifice people, but are you saying we should?

If the person being sacrificed was an adult, YES. I believe in Free Thought. I believe in FREEDOM. It would be their free choice. I have a problem with people such as yourself that claim you believe in religious freedom, then complain when somebody from a different religion does something for religious reasons which you disagree with. You do not support the religious freedom of Mormons. Fine. Just say so instead of BS'ing around the bush.

I do note that you support the persecution of Christians in China, North Korea, and elsewhere.

I support freedom of religion as a patriot of this country. However, Christians think they have a duty to go tell every single inhabitant of this planet about their hero sky deity. If they want to go into a muslim country or communist country and intentionally break the laws of THAT country then I support whatever they have coming to them under that system of law that they broke. I don't support the death penalty for drug trafficking. However, if a person wants to go to China or Malaysia and break their laws then they should presume they will not be given special treatment. They will get the death penalty. I don't agree with it, but support it.

I strongly suspect you would be first in line to send us off to the camps.

What you suspect is meaningless.

Your sense of joy at the torture and murder of innocent Christians is a chilling testimony to your hypocrisy and hate.

Your being a Padre in an organization with a history of centuries of torturing and murdering innocent indigenous peoples and non-christians is a chilling testimony to your irrationality in this discussion of muslims.

A hatred shared by so many atheists and secularists like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.

At least you didn't pull a Godwin and put the Catholic Hitler in your list like most christians do. BTW, has the Vatican ever excommunicated Hitler? Has the Eastern Orthodox ever excommunicated Stalin?

But I suspect that reason and logic are beyond your capabilities.

Again, what you 'suspect' is meaningless.

So you support human sacrifice and the execution of Christians, especially Catholics, in atheist and Muslim countries. Btw, Hitler was indeed an atheist, see the latest article in the Daily Telegraph on the attempts to destroy Christmas. He agreed with you. You don't oppose butchering people, just so long as they are people like me. In fact you don't deny that you would be happy to heard us into camps equipped with the latest shower facilities. But despite these facts you say that you are in favor of liberty? LOL. You are a bigoted loon. Lay off the kool aid.

So you support human sacrifice ....

Typical christian lying. I said I support an adult's decision to have themselves sacrificed. What's so difficult for you to understand. You obviously support it as a Padre. Jesus chose to have himself sacrificed. Duh. Now, you believe you eat his body. Cannibalism. I even support your right to freely choose to believe you are actually eating flesh.

So you support ... the execution of Christians, especially Catholics, in atheist and Muslim countries.

Certainly not. I don't give any special thought about whether they are catholic or not. I DO support soveriegn nations to determine their internal laws. If there is a problem, then let the UN handle it. I also believe Muslim countries have every right to follow muslim laws. Muslim law is similar in many respects to Mosaic laws from the OT. The hebrews were allegedly commanded to kill their own family members if they started following a different religion. God commanded the hebrews to commit what we now call genocide. Similar edicts and sayings are in the Muslim religion. How can you expect to have me believe that you believe in religious freedom if you do not respect their right to persecute and kill non muslims. They are just following their sacred scriptures. Christians have no basis to complain. They should be happy to be martyrs for their faith.

Btw, Hitler was indeed an atheist, see the latest article in the Daily Telegraph on the attempts to destroy Christmas.

I asked if he had been excommunicated by your church, not whether he was a christian. BTW, somebody attempting to destroy a pagan holiday has no bearing on whether they are a believer in sky deities or not.

He agreed with you.

About what exactly. That the pope dresses like a queer?

You don't oppose butchering people, just so long as they are people like me.

Please back up your slander with evidence.

In fact you don't deny that you would be happy to heard us into camps equipped with the latest shower facilities.

I am not required to deny every single point of stupidity you type.

But despite these facts....

I haven't seen any facts in your response yet. Please point them out to us.

Lay off the kool aid.

Why do religious men in dresses have such a long history of trying to continuously tell other people what to do?

Is it the dress you wear, or the brainwashing?

"How can you expect to have me believe that you believe in religious freedom if you do not respect their right to persecute and kill non muslims."

keafan, "religious freedom" does not include a "right to persecute" as a religious practice it because that would deny the persecuted the freedom to practice their religion unmolested. This kind of moral relativism doesn't do your credibility any good.

Also, this whole exercise of trying to prove which religion is worse is totally pointless. Every religion has a dark side; the question is when and how they will deal with it. I suggest you and Fr. Jim try to find some common ground because your current form of argument seems to only be polarizing you both and it isn't pretty to watch.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

I live in a 98% muslim country with my wife and three children. The majority of my employees are practicing muslims who pray five times a day and attend mosque. I have never felt threatened and find most people to be kind and generous. In fact today is an important muslim holiday here, Tabaski, and if previous years are any indication I expect to receive gifts from my neighbors who are well aware of my Christian faith. I realize this is just an anecdotal contribution to a conversation that I didn't have the stomach to read all of, but it may be a persepctive that few could recount. This is the third majority muslim country that I have lived in.

"religious freedom" does not include a "right to persecute" as a religious practice it because that would deny the persecuted the freedom to practice their religion unmolested.

That's why I have been bringing up polygamy in the Mormon community. We persecute and prosecute them for practicing a religious belief that does not affect the religious freedom of anybody else in this country. I have searched for any hint that that the Religious Liberty Dept has ever supported the Mormon's and have not been able to find any evidence that the church ever has. I would hope that I am wrong.

So, in a supposedly tolerant country such as the USA I agree. Its constitutional. The Constitution Bush & Co helped develop for Iraq included this (not certain that section 2 was in the adopted constitution):

Article (2):

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

If sharia is the law of the land, enshrined in the constitution of even a supposedly 'democratic' muslim country, we should expect that the religious conservatives will legally persecute the minority christians. If the christians send missionaries I would expect that some of them would be killed. That is their constitutional right and religious obligation, IMO. Jews, then christians, have a long history of being a part of the Arab countries. Its the American style proselytizing missionaries that are stirring up the hornets nest. It doesn't help that there are reports about even our military proselytizing. If the situation was reversed there wouldn't be a muslim in this country that would be able to feel safe.

This kind of moral relativism doesn't do your credibility any good.

I am willing to risk credibility to some in order to draw out and expose the dangerous. People with views similar to the Padre are a danger to freedom, IMO.

Every religion has a dark side; the question is when and how they will deal with it.

I agree. For the Padre to complain about the dark side of a competing religion is absurd. As a freethinker I am in a position to point out the hypocrisy of his opinions and assertions.

I have never felt threatened and find most people to be kind and generous.

JB

Thanks for your firsthand report. I believe your experience is the norm, not the exception. Something you may have skipped was this:

Father Jim: "Is that why Christians are currently persecuted in India?"

Keafan: "Christians" as a whole are not persecuted in India any more than Jews or Muslims are "persecuted" in Alabama or Georgia. Christians are < 3% of the population and are harassed just like any small but vocal part of any population is. Christians just like to cry and complain about it. If they didn't go around trying to proselytize I'm sure there would be less "persecution".

************************

I believe christians here dramatically over emphasize the occasional instance in order to further their own religious goals.

David, I believe that Keafan's responses are more then adequate to show he is unhinged. Even most atheists won't advocate human sacrifice. He supports governments enforcing laws that violate human rights. I suppose he would have supported the German Nuremberg Laws against Jews. After all they were a sovereign nation, so he would see no problem. He is a fine example of the new atheism that is just as intolerant, bigoted, vicious, and violent as the old. You are right, it is not pretty. Watching him rage though is instructive. He will make no converts.

Even most atheists won't advocate human sacrifice.

Your church is based on a human sacrifice. If Jesus ever existed I respect his right to sacrifice himself. You seem to be arguing against his right to sacrifice himself while signing off as a "Father".

He supports governments enforcing laws that violate human rights.

"Human rights". What do you mean by that term? I support the right of sovereign countries to enforce their laws. Do you support the "sanctuary" given to illegal immigrants in churches, including catholic churches? Immigration has so far refused to break the doors down and arrest illegals in churches. I think they should arrest the illegals and RAZE the church building as an example. Now your church wants to kick out Catholic legislators that cast votes on behalf of their constituents in ways that the church doesn't like.

I suppose he would have supported the German Nuremberg Laws against Jews. After all they were a sovereign nation, so he would see no problem.

I respect your right to religious belief. I do not respect your religious beliefs. Likewise, I respect the right of sovereign nations to make laws and enforce those laws. I do not necessarily respect those laws, just as I don't necessarily respect your beliefs.

Germany had every right to make any law they wanted. They did not have the right to invade their neighbors and enforce those laws in the occupied countries.

Today, Sunday, November 29, 2009, the Swiss are voting to add a line to their constitution outlawing the construction of minarets on muslim mosques. I believe Switzerland has that right. I don't agree with the possible change to their constitution nor does nearly 50% of the Swiss population. Switzerland allows steeples and claims religious freedom and tolerance.

Are you going to stick up for the muslims in Switzerland? I doubt it.

So keafan believes that since Germany legislated the mass execution of Jews they had the right to do it. Nothing wrong with the holocaust in his opinion. Yet we are supposed to be the bad guys? I rest my case. He is convicted by his own words. Game, set, match.

"I suppose he would have supported the German Nuremberg Laws against Jews. After all they were a sovereign nation, so he would see no problem."

Please refresh my memory. I had never realized that prior to the Holocaust that the Jews of Poland, Germany, and other European countries were at that time a "soverign nation."

Padre

Looks like the anti-muslim referendum has just passed in Switzerland. I support the RIGHT of the Swiss to pass this referendum. I don't have to agree with the persecution of muslims to agree with the right of the Swiss to persecute. Maybe you should run over to Switzerland and take up arms with the muslims in support of their rights.

The Papal Bulls took away the rights of all indigenous people which led to a genocide that makes the holocaust look insignificant. Why don't you disavow those papal bulls before complaining about the right of germans to pass laws concerning the rights of non-germans.

Elaine, Germany was a sovereign nation. They passed laws and legalized executing Jews. keafan says that is no problem and they had every right to do it. Just like he would probably enjoy doing to us.

Padre

They executed gays, mental patients, jews, etc. I don't believe that any "law" was ever passed for the Final Solution. At the time the League of Nations, of which Germany was a member, tried to claim that a jew was a "human" and had rights. Germany reminded the League of Nations about German Sovereignty and withdrew from the League. Nobody in the world raised much of a stink, including your church.

Your church has a long history of executing people that disagreed with them. They do not consider non-christians to be fully human nor have rights. You have failed to respond to questions about the Papal Bulls which treated indigenous peoples no differently than the Nazis treated the jews. By being a Padre, and considering the failure of your church (despite requests from Native Americans) to disavow those Papal Bulls you in fact support them. IMO, you are worse than the nazis.

Freethinkers are the last people you need to worry about.

Fr Jim: Can you find anything good to say about Muslims?

keafan: Can you find anything good to say about Catholics?

If so, it's about time you said it. If not, you must be blinded by some kind of prejudice, which is a problem you're obviously not going to solve here.

Blessings to you both.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David, I have met some nice Muslims. Most of them didn't practice Islam. I think Muslims do have problems that they need to face up too. That I believe was my main point. Keafan is the atheist version of the Taliban and he has less excuse then they do. But you are right. He has taken us far from the subject of the post and this needs to stop. Therefore I won't post on this thread again. I am sure he will as he obviously is out of his mind. Cheers.

keafan: Can you find anything good to say about Catholics?

Catholics? Certainly.

Catholic Church? Certainly.

Catholic Church representative in a dialog concerning the actions of muslims? Certainly not.

A catholic priest complaining about muslim intolerance is begging for somebody- anybody- to point out their complete lack of moral authority on that topic. An SDA minister, with its reliance on the OT, is in the same position.

Our son is dating a girl that was raised catholic. She even went out-of-state to attend a catholic university. So what. The majority of people, whether catholic, protestant, muslim, SDA, Hindu, or raised in philosophical systems such as buddhism or the sayings of Confucius, are just trying to live their lives happily and peacefully. Its the minority in any group that take things to extreme and retaliate, oppress, or otherwise act out ancient tribal instincts. Typically, the fanatics are from the lower classes, not the elites (David Koresh).

I believe the control that religious organizations are able to wield over their adherents can be extremely useful to those in political and financial power in monarchies, capitalist democracies, and (obviously) theocracies. Religion is not necessary in a socialist democracy or centralized communist system. A dictator can use religion or not.

The West's problem currently is not Islam per se, but energy. Its all about the oil and petrodollars. Every time we fill up our cars or buy plastic or fertilize our lawn with chemicals we are paying a tax to the arabs living in their deserts. If we were not dependent on oil there would be no Iraq War, no bin Laden, no Shah to be overthrown by the ayatollahs, etc. The muslims would not have the money to have 4 wives, 20 kids, and still be able to send the kids (at least the males) to western universities to learn how to make nuclear bombs. Instead, they would still be riding camels, trying to figure out how to make something profitable besides glass out of the sand dunes they live on.

There are many, many atrocities happening every day in Africa. We don't care unless its Nigeria or some other oil producing place. Its all about the money, not the religion or lack thereof. We won't care very much about Israel when the oil dries up. We will be paying the price for our oil dependence for a long time to come though because of the wealth that has been transferred to them and their propensity to have large families. With enough breeding and money you can change the complexion of the human race (pun intended).

Fight Islam with Green Technology and babies, not Military Technology and soldiers.

David H. writes, "Turkey is, of course, an example of a secular islamic state, but that was accomplished by imposing very strict laws limiting the expression of the public aspect of Islam. But when I visited Turkey the religious aspect of Islam was very much alive. Every little village had mosque, and I often saw people pouring out of them after prayers. So I think the evidence shows that Islam can coexist with a political system where church and state are separated."

It is interesting how you use the exception to disprove the rule. Turkey is exceptional in the extent to which, in modern times, a conscious decision to de-Islamize it was taken and followed through with by a very strong ruler. Kemal is hated by real Muslims, some of whom think he was actually a Jew. http://myislamwatch.com/2008/09/18/kemal-ataturk-and-the-founding-of-sec....

Whether secularism can survive in Turkey, in the face of the worldwide Muslim revival, is a question that is far from being answered, but the latest news is not encouraging. The current Prime Minister, Erdogan, is an Islamist. http://myislamwatch.com/2009/03/15/geert-wilders-and-jeff-jacoby----isla....

So secularism in Turkey appears to be coming undone. But the sad part is that we didn't even try to reproduce the Turkish experiment in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Iraq, we replaced a thoroughly secular Baathist regime with a Muslim regime in which Sharia law is nominally the supreme law of the land. In Afghanistan, we replaced a hyper-Islamist Taliban with a less Islamist regime, but again Sharia law is nominally supreme, and we saw that they are threatening to apply the death penalty to apostates from Islam. To say that this was a missed opportunity is a gross understatement. http://myislamwatch.com/2008/02/20/examples-from-wwii-and-kemalist-turke....

RT1, you are right of course that leaving a country, or even changing one's citizenship, is not the same as treason. Hence is hard to see why leaving Islam, even with the understanding that the Muslim ummah is a religio-political nation, should be punishable by death. The ultimate basis for this rule is simply what Muhammad taught his followers:

"If anyone (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." Bukhari, Vol. 4, book 52, No. 260.

David Read

You seem to be promoting the idea that a law found in the Bible is "Just", yet the same law is inhumane, repugnant, and "Unjust" when it is from Islam. The command from Yahweh to execute anybody (including your wife) teaching a different religion is found in Deuteronomy 13. The command from Yahweh to execute anybody practicing a different religion is found in Deuteronomy 17.

Or were God's laws for the Israelites also Unjust?

Keafan, I haven't made a value judgment about the justice or injustice of putting apostates to death. I'm just trying to drive home basic facts, very basic facts, about Islam to an uncomprehending world, a world that simply refuses to understand that Islam is signicantly different from Methodism.

Jeris Bragan, it used to be the case that democrats were more friendly to Israel and Republicans were cool toward it. The first president to recognize the state of Israel was Harry S. Truman, a Democrat. I think liberals sympathized with Israel as an underdog surrounded by enemies that wanted to destroy it. But over the course of the last 30 years, that situation has reversed; conservatives and Republicans are relatively friendly towards Israel and liberals and Democrats are relatively hostile.

There are mulitple reasons for this sea change--one of which is that, after winning the 1967 and 1973 wars, Israel no longer seems like an underdog--but I don't think it can honestly be denied. Obviously, it is just a trend or tendency, and does not apply to all liberal Democrats, many of whom continue to be friendly to Israel, including you and some of your liberal acquaintances.

By the way, I have read both of your books, "Scandalous Grace" and "Beyond Prison Walls." I hope you will reciprocate and read my book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View." Thanks.

David R: I've also referred to Malaysia as an example of an Islamic country where Muslims live in peace with other religions.

Followers of this thread would do well to educate themselves on the no true Scotsman fallacy.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David H., it is interesting that you would raise the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because the issue is related to something that bothers me alot about liberal Adventists who post on Spectrum and Atoday.

I believe that Seventh-day Adventism, as a belief system, has a real existence. There is a body of doctrine carefully developed over a century and half, supported by Scripture and the statements of Ellen White. There is an Adventist view on the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the heavenly sanctuary, etc. Now I realize that not everyone raised in an Adventist home and educated in Adventist schools personally subscribes to every Adventist doctrine, but that doesn't challenge the existence of the body of doctrine, faith and practice known as Adventism. Before reading the liberal Adventist web sites, I would never have dreamed that this could in any way be controversial. But I consistently run into people on this site who, when challenged about their un-Adventist beliefs, such as Darwinism, say something like, "But it's not un-Adentist; I'm an Adventist and I'm also a Darwinist, so there's nothing inconsistent with being both an Adventist and a Darwinist." To me, this borders on insanity. Anyone who says that Darwinism is just as authentically or truly Adventist as belief in creation in six literal days thousands, not millions, of years ago is a fool or a liar.

The same thing applies to Islam. There really is an Islam, with doctrines and teachings based upon the Qur'an, the collections of ahadith considered reliable, the Sira or biography of Muhammad, and the body of jurisprudence, or fiqh, developed by the four Sunni schools of fiqh (Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Maliki) and the Shia school (Ja'fari).

There really is an Islam, and it is completely and perfectly reasonable to discuss, explore, learn about, debate and critique Islam, regardless whether Muhammad Jones from down the lane personally subscribes to this or that facet of Muslim doctrine. Again, I find it almost surreal that anyone would dispute this.

As to Malaysia, Islam there is actually quite similar to Islam eveywhere else. The latest news is not good: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/Islam%E2%80%99s-grow....

"In the current political climate, it is no longer possible to distinguish Islamic radicals from Islamic moderates. Despite official boasts about [Malaysia's] diverse population and commitment to pluralism, Islam and the government have essentially merged."

"Just a week earlier, a young mother by the name of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno was sentenced by the Syariah Court to six lashes of the cane and fined after she was caught drinking beer at a hotel. Although the caning sentence is still in limbo, Hishammuddin publicised his acceptance of the punishment by inviting the floggers to his office to demonstrate how an Islamic caning would be carried out. They used a chair as a mock target, and left him satisfied that Islamic caning can be appropriately used as a punishment for women. . . . The caning of Kartika . . . was roundly supported by modernist Muslim intellectuals, who insisted that it was justly applied and cannot be questioned because it had divine sanction. These are not politicians but former idealists who are happy that their goal of Islamicising the state is being realised."

Even in peaceful Malaysia there is always the possibility the Muslims will be guided by the precepts of Islam.

David R:

The question is not whether there is such a thing as Islamic faith but how narrowly it is defined. As a fellow Seventh-day Adventist, you get to participate in the debate over how narrowly or broadly Adventist faith is to be defined, but our Adventism necessarily excludes us from the debate over how narrowly Islamic faith is to be defined.

Islam is broadly defined by five pillars. As non-Muslims we must accept that one who accepts these practices is a Muslim. To narrow the definition any more would be as absurd as a Muslim claiming all true Adventists are vegetarians. He doesn't get to say what true Adventists are and I don't get to say what true Muslims are.

Now I do not deny that that there is a powerful strain in Islam that seeks and in many places has achieved a union of mosque and state, so to speak. But to jump from that to the conclusion that, for example, real Muslims must want to impost Sharia on the rest of us, totally ignores the fact that one can accept all the five pillars without having duty of faith to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. It is fallacious, "no true Muslim," reasoning.

Of course, secularism in Turkey and pluralism in Malaysia are under threat; just as religious liberty in Switzerland is under threat. Religious liberty is a right that must be maintained. And one of the dark sides of Islam is that, as you point out, most states with a majority Muslim population restrict religious liberty. This we must oppose. But the fact that this practice is widespread is not sufficient reason to conclude that restricting religious liberty is an essential part of Islamic faith.

David Hamstra
apokalupto

David H., if I said or implied that "all true Muslims" do this or believe that, it was obviously silly. I'm not sure where I might have said that. It is certainly true that, with over a billion Muslims, you can find some who will say or believe almost anything.

(By the way, many Muslims would say that in order to be considered a true Muslim, one has only to sincerely recite the Shahada, "There is no God but God and Muhammad is His messenger," to be considered a Muslim. Others would say, that you need the Shahada plus prayers and zakat (charity). So you don't necessarily need all seven pillars. But then there are the "takfiris" who put lots of extra conditions in, and believe they are licensed to kill any purported Muslims who don't live up to their standards. The history of Takfirism goes all the way back to the 7th Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri. )

So the question is not, "can I find some Muslims who don't believe in Sharia law?" but, "Is a Sharia state the Muslim ideal, according to the great weight of Muslim authority and comment across the ages?" The answer to both questions is a resounding yes, but the implications of the answer to the second question is far more important and fraught with consequences than the answer to the first question.

Here's a website of Muslims against Sharia:
http://www.reformislam.org/.

Here's another:
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/.

I wish them the best of luck, but it would be very foolish to believe that anti-Sharia Muslims stand in the mainstream of Islamic thought across the centuries, or that Western-based Muslims have much chance of convincing their brethren in the Islamic world of the validity of their opinions.

The dominant, the overwhelmingly dominant, strain of Islamic thought is that Islam is a total system that incompasses the religious and the governmental (just as the young earth creationist view is dominant within Seventh-day Adventism). Creating a new Islam that separates mosque and state seems like a worthwhile project, but you'd better realize that that is exactly what you're doing: creating a new Islam.

Experts have talked about this before. How many times have you read about the importance of ‘adding value’ for your audience? How many times have you read about ‘building trust’ with your readers/prospects?
Many, many times. You know it well. Every marketing guru has spoken about this topic. I’m sick of hearing it. But it STILL bears repeating.

LATEST TREND