When the disciples were not welcome in a place they shook the dust from their boots and went on. Have we been welcomed by the Muslims anywhere? Only when they want our technology or use our forces for their end. At the same time we defend Saudi Arabia they resptrict the practice of our own people faith (that were there. Sure we should take every chance to lead any individual to Christ, but we are not "called" to defend them or their faith.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
News: Colin Powell Condemns America's Christian Right!
- Thread starter LadyEagle
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
Thinking on this further, 1)what could be worse than the Holocaust?
2) Unless one accepts Pat Robertson as representing all conservative Christians(I do not), I don't see where Secretary of State Powell was condemning all conservative Christians. I think he was referring to the specific comment by Pat Robertson which would have been better left unsaid by Mr. Robertson, in my opinion.
Ken
[ November 15, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]
I'll tell you how....everytime a conservative pro-American, pro-Evangelical Christian thread is posted having anything to do with current events, anti-abortion, pro-traditional family values, or anything representing a conservative point of view, those on the left seek to disparage the information posted, and try to divert the thread to a discussion of their own personal agenda, bringing up side issues to thwart the thread. This is not a new tactic, frequently used by those who have no Scriptural basis for their beliefs and who usually can't even provide secular links relative to the discussion. This is nothing new around here.Originally posted by mark:
How did this go from calling attention to our government of the people, by the people and for people, denying what the people already know to an historical blast of Christianity? Islam has declared and is carrying out Jihad against the West and against America. We can pretend it is a few nuts, but we all know it is not. Somedays I can't believe the reactions of members of this board.
Then there are those who refuse to look at facts concerning Islam in the world around them, whether out of some other agenda, fear, delusion, denial, or just plain out stubbornness. That is why I will keep posting the threads about Muslim intolerance, murder, torture, massacre, teachings towards Christians and Jews which is happening as we speak throughout the world by the thousands.
http://www.persecution.org
Some people think it can't or won't happen here. And others, instead of facing the truth that Islam is anti-Christ and Muslims need to be saved, continue to defend a religion that is going to ultimately send them to eternal hell, whether they are jihad warriors or moderate Muslims. That's the biggest tragedy of all.
Like I said before, bottom line it is Spiritual warfare manifested by physical warfare....
...which will one day come to our streets whether we try to be politically correct and have policies of appeasement or not.
Which is one reason why I disagree with the President's weakness in this regard. Plus the fact that he is a born-again Christian, according to his testimony. And plus the fact that had it not been for the Conservative Christian vote, he would not be in office!
Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. According to the Magna Carta, our colony was established as a mission field. And none of it had anything to do with Islam or making America an Islamic nation under Allah!
The last time I looked at the news, Christians in Ireland were slaughtering each other just because of their religious affiliation. Why can we separate "us" from "them" but not separate some Muslims from others?
Oh, I forgot. Because it's biblically in our nature to have a sinful nature. So let's admit our sinful nature and stop stereotyping people.
Oh, I forgot. Because it's biblically in our nature to have a sinful nature. So let's admit our sinful nature and stop stereotyping people.
Wait a minute folks. Slow down here.
The Muslim Scriptures command killing to spread their religion. That is vastly different from the Christian Scriptures.
Now, if the Muslim RELIGION is condemned for what its Scriptures promote, that is fair. This does not mean all, or even most, Muslims agree with or follow all of their Scriptures. But in the case of Islam, those who are doing the killing (whether or not we call them extremists) seem to be following their own Scriptures more faithfully than others.
With Christians it is exactly the opposite. Those who follow the Scriptures the most closely are the most humble and quiet and servant-like, as our Lord was. This doesn't mean all, or even the majority, are like this, but that is where the Scriptures direct us.
Scriptural Islam is a killer religion.
Scriptural Christianity is a healing religion.
A world of difference.
Lots of organizations use the name Christian but are not: Catholics, Mormons, JW's, Unity, etc. etc. But yes, the world probably will lump us all together because of that.
Now, about the Church of England -- originally it was simply a split between the Pope and King Henry VIII. There was no basic split in doctrine. His daughter, Mary, took the throne as a staunch Catholic and proceeded to massacre anyone not resubmitting to the Catholic faith. Verification is in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which centers on this period. Elizabeth, after Mary, responded to the violence with a lesser degree of violence, but violence nevertheless. It was at this time that the split with Roman Catholicism grew more distinct. The issues mentioned by InHim have arisen since then. But at the time of the Reformation in England, the issues that were prominent had to do with the position of the clergy and the availability of the Bible in the vernacular. The next issue was, I believe Mary, but I would have to look that up.
The Reformation in England was fueled, however, also by the previous fiery writings of Wyclif who was condemned in 1377 by the Pope over issues such as transubstantiation and the mediating priesthood as well as the sacrificial mass. Wyclif thus preceded Luther on some very major issues, but they were pretty much confined to an elite group who argued them in private.
The year following Wyclif's condemnation by the Pope, the Papal Schism followed and Wyclif's arguments were pretty much lost in that confusion.
Hus, however, followed him and was the spark that started the "Bohemian Rebellion". He was burned at the stake by the Catholic church as a heretic for proclaiming salvation by grace in 1415.
So while this was all an undercurrent of rebellion against the Catholic church, the split via Henry was not over doctrine per se but over his right to remarry. He thus declared himself head of the church in England and there were no doctrinal challenges. They had come before him and would come after, but at its inception the Church of England had no basic doctrinal differences from the Catholic Church.
It would not be for a century that the Puritans would rebel against the Church of England and be persecuted and leave the country because of that.
This is why I said that the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, was basically Catholic -- it was.
The Muslim Scriptures command killing to spread their religion. That is vastly different from the Christian Scriptures.
Now, if the Muslim RELIGION is condemned for what its Scriptures promote, that is fair. This does not mean all, or even most, Muslims agree with or follow all of their Scriptures. But in the case of Islam, those who are doing the killing (whether or not we call them extremists) seem to be following their own Scriptures more faithfully than others.
With Christians it is exactly the opposite. Those who follow the Scriptures the most closely are the most humble and quiet and servant-like, as our Lord was. This doesn't mean all, or even the majority, are like this, but that is where the Scriptures direct us.
Scriptural Islam is a killer religion.
Scriptural Christianity is a healing religion.
A world of difference.
Lots of organizations use the name Christian but are not: Catholics, Mormons, JW's, Unity, etc. etc. But yes, the world probably will lump us all together because of that.
Now, about the Church of England -- originally it was simply a split between the Pope and King Henry VIII. There was no basic split in doctrine. His daughter, Mary, took the throne as a staunch Catholic and proceeded to massacre anyone not resubmitting to the Catholic faith. Verification is in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, which centers on this period. Elizabeth, after Mary, responded to the violence with a lesser degree of violence, but violence nevertheless. It was at this time that the split with Roman Catholicism grew more distinct. The issues mentioned by InHim have arisen since then. But at the time of the Reformation in England, the issues that were prominent had to do with the position of the clergy and the availability of the Bible in the vernacular. The next issue was, I believe Mary, but I would have to look that up.
The Reformation in England was fueled, however, also by the previous fiery writings of Wyclif who was condemned in 1377 by the Pope over issues such as transubstantiation and the mediating priesthood as well as the sacrificial mass. Wyclif thus preceded Luther on some very major issues, but they were pretty much confined to an elite group who argued them in private.
The year following Wyclif's condemnation by the Pope, the Papal Schism followed and Wyclif's arguments were pretty much lost in that confusion.
Hus, however, followed him and was the spark that started the "Bohemian Rebellion". He was burned at the stake by the Catholic church as a heretic for proclaiming salvation by grace in 1415.
So while this was all an undercurrent of rebellion against the Catholic church, the split via Henry was not over doctrine per se but over his right to remarry. He thus declared himself head of the church in England and there were no doctrinal challenges. They had come before him and would come after, but at its inception the Church of England had no basic doctrinal differences from the Catholic Church.
It would not be for a century that the Puritans would rebel against the Church of England and be persecuted and leave the country because of that.
This is why I said that the Church of England, at the time of the Reformation, was basically Catholic -- it was.
Who is condemning? They are already condemned if they don't know Jesus.
Doesn't your Baptist church teach that?
This thread is not about generic christians, but about the Christian Right. The KKK is not considered part of that, and BTW, David Duke has teamed up with Muslim extremists...but maybe you haven't heard?
The goal of evangelical Christianity is to rid the world of everything that is either Jewish or Christian?
Umm, self-evidently, NO! Unless, Joshua, you meant that the goal of Evangelical Christianity is to rid the world of everything that is Islamic and Jewish. Is that what you meant? Still, the answer would be NO! The goal of Evangelical Christianity is to worship the living and true God, and to proclaim the Gospel to all peoples (including Muslims and Jews) so that many, many others will be added to our community of worship. Of course, Evangelical Christianity does not practice "forced" conversion ("do or die" - do convert, or you die). This makes us Evangelicals quite a bit different from our Muslim counterparts, wouldn't you say?Rev. G
You have a fairly good grasp on church history Helen, but you are off regarding the doctrinal differences. While the Anglican Church is very close to the Roman Catholic Church in its liturgy, Anglicans were truly Reformed in holding to such things as sola Scriptura (they do not count the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture), sola fide (justification by faith alone), sola gratia (including the doctrine of unconditional election), etc. You can read their official doctrinal statement (The Thirty-Nine Articles) at:
http://anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html
It would be fair to say, however, that many Anglicans have departed from their doctrinal moorings - especially within the Anglo-Catholic movement.
Rev. G
The Great Tribulation?
I agree, Pat Robertson is not the ideal spokesperson on some issues but it was part of the article. He may be on the right track, though.
BTW, Johnv, since you don't claim to be part of the Christian Right, guess we won't be counting on you to email Colin Powell. Rats!
Sure, how many web sites do you want me to list? Most of them are based in the US running from US servers using our Constitution 1st Amendment rights to broadcast their "kill the infidels, kill Jews, kill Americans, kill Christians," all around the globe for the jihad.
Religion of peace? My mamma always told me actions speak louder than words. I haven't seen ONE, not ONE, Muslim demonstration in America AGAINST what happened on 09/11. One would think if al-Qaeda and 09/11 are exceptions rather than the rule, Muslims from all over this nation by the thousands would have gathered in Washington DC to show solidarity with Americans and protest against this radical element of their religion.
Now, 14 months later, where's the American Muslim outrage for their religion being "hijacked?"
A few token appearances with prepared talking points on Hardball or whatever by the leader of CAIR doesn't cut it.
I know of some ocean property in Arizona, too.
According to the Koran, fighting is only to be a defense not an offense. In the case of war, the attack is only to be directed against those who are attack you and only to the extent of the initial aggression, not to exceed it. If the enemy kills your civilians even then you are not supposed to kill their civilians. Only those who attack you are to be attacked (something which Osama Bin Laden violated).
*****I see no need to quote the koran on this site******
[ November 15, 2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
*****I see no need to quote the koran on this site******
[ November 15, 2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]
Helen - Henry VIII split from the Catholic church was centred around doctrine - namely the right to divorce - do you dispute this?
further do you retract your earlier statement that the c of e and the catholic church are pretty much the same? if not there are a few Irishmen that would like to hear your explanation.
sheeagle
[ November 15, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: InHim2002 ]
further do you retract your earlier statement that the c of e and the catholic church are pretty much the same? if not there are a few Irishmen that would like to hear your explanation.
sheeagle
and they really do - I have never seen you advocate anything but hate toward Muslims - but that is something that the Lord will hold you to account for.
John 13:34
[ November 15, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: InHim2002 ]