Radical fanaticism - extremists Islam vs Christian

[BobRyan]

It is easy to see that today Christians consider radical fanatic extremist groups such as the Jim Jones group, and the Vernon Howell group (aka David Koresh) to be good examples of radical fanatic extremist groups whose teachings do not represent those found in the Bible.

But compromised Christians that believe in atheist darwinism would ALSO charge that Bible Believing Christians who accept God's Word as true - are in fact "radical fanatics" even "extremists".

In fact many liberal Christians groups would tend to look at bible believing Christians in that same way.

In all religions it is common to see the set of believers divided between wild-eyed liberal, moderate and fundamentalist/conservative.

And then -- outside of that group you may find a small group of fanatical extremists whose teachings are simply perversions of the text.

----------------------------------------------------

Modern social liberals often take the view that ALL religion is "fanatical extremism" IF the adherents actually BELIEVE their text. But if the followers simply passively accept their text but not by taking it seriously - then those same social liberals will say that this is really a "good thing" and it does not matter if you are hindu, Islamic, Christian, Jew etc.

The reason is that they consider religion to be a crutch - simply a tool of society and culture when held at a distance. But when embraced as if "it was real" they will always regard it as dangerous.

----------------------------------------------------------

Certainly in the Dark Ages we see the RCC leading the way for fanatical extremism to the point of violence. Just as the fundamentalist Muslims do today!

The problem is that were you to go back to the Dark Ages you would find that the RCC version was in fact MAINLINE Christianity! And that WITHIN that setting you still have liberal, moderate, conservative -- but the vast majority would all agree that "Conservative" was what the RCC was teaching - as violent and superstitious as that was in the Dark Ages! So even thought today we know that the Bible does NOT support the RC crimes against humanity that they orchestrated in the dark ages - back then -- they were the most common variety of Christianity!

We have a two-fold problem with Islam today that is even bigger than the RCC problem of the dark ages.

#1. The Islamic conservative wing really IS practicing the real Islam known to their liberals and moderates. (It's just that their liberals and moderates consider it "right" to hold the wild teachings of the Koran and leading clerics "at arm's length" - by comparison so they stand out.)

#2. That is the most common form "the mainline form" of Islam in those countries that are completely sold out to Islam. So what the west calls fanatical or extremist Islam is in fact just "Not liberal and NOT moderate" - but it is popular and common in those Islamic countries!

----------------------------------------------

The significance of this is that what is being condemned as fanatical or radical Islam today is in fact ALSO what the moderates and Liberal Muslems believe the Koran to teach - they just know that it is not practical or "beneficial" to practice some of it!

Of course Islam is a false religion so it should not surprise us that it REALLY teaches stupid stuff and that the conservatives in that group REALLY have good Koran-based arguments for what they do!

So when we say this is NOT a fight against Islam - do we simply turn a blind eye to what IS ISLAM by arguing that "moderates and liberals EXIST"???

----------------------------------------

When social liberals attack Christians in the same way - saying that only the liberal and moderate Christians are "good" while anyone who is conservative, fundamentalist (Bible believing) is "bad" are they simply missing the point entirely! The truth is that even the Liberal Christians will often admit that "if you believe what the text actually literall says THEN the conservatives are right".

So when you see people dismissing the "radical Islamic groups" what you see is the use of the same logic that would call Conservative Christians "Radical fundamentalists".

So when you see statements claiming that it is not really ISLAM that we are opposing (because you can find some liberal or moderate Muslims in existence) -- are they not also deceiving themselves?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

I would contend that the problem is not that fundamentalist Christians are the only ones who don't compromise, etc, yada yada...

It's that they, of all Christians, should act like it.

If someone's pet sin is repugnant to you, you ignore them (speaking globally, of course). If someone is a different religion and is enduring injustice under despotic -- or democratic -- power, you ignore them. If the nation you are a resident of attacks another country and innocent people die, you say it's regrettable, but their own fault for being there.

"Liberal" or "mainstream" Christians understand that Christian faith cannot exist without Christian action, and much of that action is played out in the world, where we are resident aliens.

If someone is in need, we seek to fill that need. If an injustice exists, even if that injustice benefits us, we fight against it. When innocent people die because a country went too quickly to war, we protest.

 

[BobRyan]

Funny - you never hear those values held up among Conservative Christians as "bad things" or as "things we don't do"!

But back to the point of the thread --

The social liberals claim that to "take the Bible seriously" is to be "dangerous" just as they claim that taking any religious text (Koran for example) SERIOUSLY is "dangerous".

The problem with that is that it is totally unreasonable to EXPECT the adherents to any religious view to NOT take their own holy text seriously.

When they charge that all who do take it seriously are radical fanatics -- they take in much of REAL Christianity -- those who DO believe and accept the Bible. And they lump them in with those who really DO believe and practice the teachings of the Koran - equivocating between truth and error - freely.

 

[BobRyan]

Proof of this point -

Last night on Hannidy and Colmes they interviewed the makers of the new film "Obsession" - one of them is a moderate Muslim.

The Moderate was trying to show distance between that kind of Islam and the conservative/fundamentalist Islam that everyone despises because they are so dedicated to evil actions and death.

But by making that contrast - they show that this is not some fanatical little segment of Islam -- "Hijacking the religion" -- rather it is THE conservative wing of the group. In all groups the conservative group IS the real thing - the Moderates and Liberals are just those who hold their text at "various distances" in efforts to compromise with the outside.

The fact that in the case of Islam - "The real deal" - is in fact a corrupt false religion promting violence toward others - simply drives the conservative Muslims to "fully represent that fact" in their practics.

THEY are not the ones "hijacking Islam".

So given that we all prefer the Moderats and Liberals whose overriding goal is to present the view "Muslims are good people too" - we should not blind ourselves to the reason that so many millions upon millions belong to that group some say is "hijacking the religion of Islam". That IS the religion of Islam!!

 

[genesis12]

The problem is that were you to go back to the Dark Ages you would find that the RCC version was in fact MAINLINE Christianity! And that WITHIN that setting you still have liberal, moderate, conservative -- but the vast majority would all agree that "Conservative" was what the RCC was teaching - as violent and superstitious as that was in the Dark Ages! So even thought today we know that the Bible does NOT support the RC crimes against humanity that they orchestrated in the dark ages - back then -- they were the most common variety of Christianity!

The RCC was mainline do-do. Within that setting you had followers who followed the dictates of the local priest ~ they didn't have a clue about authentic Christianity. The most common variety of Christianity were those who did their best to function outside the straight jacket of the RCC. Christians were "out there" long before the RCC came to seek, kill, and destroy.

Islam assumes that all Christians are "crusaders" even though the crusades were carried out by Catholics, not Christians.

 

[Link]

comment on Islm

Dear BobRyan

I haven't read the whole Koran, but from what I have read, it can be interpreted dozens of different ways. Passages don't have a clear sensible context like the passages in the Bible do. At least in translation, there are a lot of vague phrases all throughout it.

I don't think the terrorists are the ones necessarily following their book the 'right way'-- that that their way is right. But some Mslims interpret the Koran so that pagans are 'infidels' (kafir) and Muslims and Jews are 'People of the Book.' Jews would be considered enemies if they were attacking Mslims, but would not otherwise.

If I am not mistaken, the Koran actually says that the people of Israel were led to the land that God had given them. So the OT, NT, and the Koran all tell us that the land of Israel belongs to Israel. The Koran also says that Jesus is the Word of God. It even mentions his resurrection according to one minister here I met. He says they translate or interpret that word for resurrection differently when they get to that verse.

What do you hope to accomplish by arguing that the fanatics are the ones really following the Koran? If Mslims read that, you might encourage them to go fanatic. I think it is counterproductive to make arguments like that.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the key --

In all religions - the mainstream is divided between conservatives, moderates and liberals.

This is true with Islam.

This is true with Judaism,

This is true with Christianity.

In adddition there are also small groups of fanatics, extremists -- off by themselves.

In Islam the MODERATES admit that it is the CONSERVATIVES (not some small group of extremists) that are promoting hatred toward the rest of the world and violence toward others.

In Islam there are NO CONSERATIVES getting up and saying "those stinking fanatics over there promoting violence are wrecking our reputation".

This fact just can not be ignored.

The Movie Obsession was done to point this out -- that the "Wing" of Islam promoting all this hate for others - is in fact extablished mainstream "albeit conservative" Islam. They own the key seminaries the religious holy places in the middle-east etc. Even the Arab government leaders fear them since they control the masses.

They are not the small fringe group everyone has been told to imagine.

 

[BobRyan]

Dear BobRyan
What do you hope to accomplish by arguing that the fanatics are the ones really following the Koran? If Mslims read that, you might encourage them to go fanatic. I think it is counterproductive to make arguments like that.

I don't think this is up for grabs as much as you think. Saladin's crusades against Christianity taking over much of Europe and extending all the way to Spain -- predates America and the Southern Baptists in America. In other words this is an "old religion" that is not about to change because I post something about it on this message board.

IF we were to see a few million CONSERVATIVE muslims get up and say "those stinking extremists don't represent us" (or even TWO of them say that) we would have our FIRST EVIDENCE that the dead-silence coming from conservative Muslims in the area of renouncing the violent extremists - is just a temporary problem.