Winston Churchill on Politics, and Mohammedanism in 1899

I think we should all be very careful here. We should not be mocking any other religon unless we are willing to have others mock ours. I don't believe we have the right to tell people what to believe and I really don't think we should blame all people of a certain faith or another for the world's current problems. It just isn't fair.

 

TisHerself,

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

If so then don't you think it proper to tell others they are wrong and point out how their erroneous ways are destructive?

It all comes down to your worldview. Is it Christ centered or Man centered?

 

It is one thing to tell them and quite another to earn the right to be heard. BTW that can be done in a few minutes of putting them first as Jesus did to those he sahaed with.

I am around Muslims and Hindus almost every day. We earn the right to tell them about our faith when they see our faith in action.

What they have seen on TV makes them wonder how Christian people could be so stupid to follow those charlatans. These people are well educated and companies have brought them here because the US cannot fill the present need.

As we share with people we must do as Jesus did when he made connections with them. As one will notice when Jesus spoke with the Sadducees he only shared with them from the Torah. When Jesus spoke with the Pharisees he used the entire OT. So must we do the same when we share with others. We must start with whatever they consider credible. Some people are open right away and others it takes a lot of time. William Carey took 11 years for his first convert. Gosd gives wisdom. There are times when we must shake the dust off our feet and other times we will be able to engage people.

In the last few years as I have listened more to people I have led many more to Christ than when I went about as a salesman telling them but listening little.

 

It is one thing to tell them and quite another to earn the right to be heard. BTW that can be done in a few minutes of putting them first as Jesus did to those he sahaed with.

I am around Muslims and Hindus almost every day. We earn the right to tell them about our faith when they see our faith in action.

What they have seen on TV makes them wonder how Christian people could be so stupid to follow those charlatans. These people are well educated and companies have brought them here because the US cannot fill the present need.

As we share with people we must do as Jesus did when he made connections with them. As one will notice when Jesus spoke with the Sadducees he only shared with them from the Torah. When Jesus spoke with the Pharisees he used the entire OT. So must we do the same when we share with others. We must start with whatever they consider credible. Some people are open right away and others it takes a lot of time. William Carey took 11 years for his first convert. Gosd gives wisdom. There are times when we must shake the dust off our feet and other times we will be able to engage people.

In the last few years as I have listened more to people I have led many more to Christ than when I went about as a salesman telling them but listening little. </font>[/QUOTE]Nobody is talking about personal witnessing to individuals who are our neighbors, friends and coworkers. We're talking about a World Religion that is Wrong and a Worldview that is Tremendously Destructive when taken to the extreme as is often done in the Muslim World.

BTW, this is the Political Forum not the Evangelism Forum.

 

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?"

Depends upon what "way" means. I don't have to know the name of a road to drive on it.

 

This is the politics forum.

Churchill's statement is about the effects of Islam on the population or "votaries" as he called it.

He penned this over 100 years ago and he was dead right. It's amazing how right he still is. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Churchill was a bigot.

Would Jesus have kept all the people of Islam from the temple or would he have invited them in? Perhaps he should have turned them away! Dirty heathens!

Bah! This is 2005, not 1905.

 

Hmmm... a shade and a hair from blasphemy I'd say.

Of course Jesus is the only way! Are you saying you can be a good person, obey all God's laws, albeit unknowingly and still go to heaven?

 

TisHerself,

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven?

If so then don't you think it proper to tell others they are wrong and point out how their erroneous ways are destructive?

It all comes down to your worldview. Is it Christ centered or Man centered? </font>[/QUOTE]If you believe that there is only one way to heaven please stop calling George Bush a Christian because he doesn't believe that.

 

www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconflicts.html

 

This is the politics forum.

Churchill's statement is about the effects of Islam on the population or "votaries" as he called it.

He penned this over 100 years ago and he was dead right. It's amazing how right he still is. </font>[/QUOTE]I think Churchill was a bigot.

Would Jesus have kept all the people of Islam from the temple or would he have invited them in? Perhaps he should have turned them away! Dirty heathens!

Bah! This is 2005, not 1905. </font>[/QUOTE]So you believe people are getting better?

What a novel idea!

 

A hundred years ago perhaps most people were bigots. If you dig beneath the surface of all of us today I think you just might find, unfortunately, that all of us are bigoted in at least one area.

 

Agree with Churchill. Never heard him called a bigot though, just a great Statesman who loved his country.

President Thomas Jefferson was fighting with Muslims during his presidency. They were called the Barbary Pirates.

 

False religion is false religion. Much of the Bible is devoted to denouncing pagan religions and perversion of the true worship of God.

 

Actually Churchill is not showing some sort of profound insight in that quoted bit.
He is basically parroting what was the standard view of Islam at the time.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement;"
"
This is the bit that gives him away. Few modern pundits would describe Islam in such a fashion, but in the late 19th century (and many centuries prior to that) it was part of the image.
It doesn't mean he wasn't right, but let's not pretend this was some brilliant bit of analysing on his part.

 

Oh, I must not know much about Arab life because I thought that the degraded sensualism was on the money just by looking at the Saudi princes, etc., and some of the characters on MEMRI-tv (which you pointed me towards), Mioque.

 

CMG
When it comes to Saudi princes what comes to my mind is rampant alcoholism not so much sensualism.

Anyway my point was that Churchill wasn't expressing insights he discovered himself in the quoted bit, but was just repeating the standard opinions of that era.