From Obama’s Notre Dame speech:
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule – the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame – by the last count, upwards of 80 percent – have lived this law of love through the service you’ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities.
In fact the Christian “law of love” (the Commandment of Jesus to “love your neighbor”) is explicitly universal. Asked “who is my neighbor,” Jesus answered with the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The Koran, in contrast, is explicit that its call to treat others in a loving way is NOT universal:
Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. [Koran verse 48.29]
O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. [9.73]
The Koran is replete with instructions for carrying out this “law of hatred” as one might call it:
I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. [8.12]
Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame…. [9.14]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [9.29]
Obama knows the Koran
Obama is fully aware that the Islamic version of the golden rule applies only to other Muslims. Not only did he study the Koran as a boy, but he even studied “menjaji,” which is the Indonesian term for recitation of the Koran in Arabic. Menjaji is the gold-standard of fundamentalist Islamic education. This is how Obama was able to recite the Shahada for NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof “with a first rate [Arabic] accent.” He was drilled on it.
The Shahada is the Islamic profession of faith: “I witness that there is no god but Allah; I witness that Muhammad is his prophet.” According to Sharia law, a single sincere utterance of this profession of faith constitutes conversion to Islam. The Shahada comes at the beginning of the Islamic call to prayer, which Obama recited for Kristof. Judge for yourself whether his utterance was sincere:
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
Having drilled the Shahada as a boy, Obama certainly knew what it meant to recite these words to Kristof. Obama IS a Muslim.
If he were a moral Muslim, he would speak about the need for Islamic reform, instead of covering up the unpleasant truths of orthodox Islam. By hiding his own Islam, Obama is following another unpleasant truth about orthodox Islam: that it is a religion of deceit.
Tabari’s History recounts the story of Nuaym, a recent convert to Islam, who set Muhammad’s enemies against eachother at the Battle of the Trench:
‘I ‘ve become a Muslim, but my tribe does not know of my Islam; so command me whatever you will.’ Muhammad said, ‘Make them abandon each other if you can so that they will leave us; for war is deception.’ [Tabari volume 8, p. 23. This incident is also recorded in Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad, p. 458.]
Like Nuaym, Obama’s tribe does not know of his Islam either. (Well, his African tribe does, but his American tribe does not.) That is the price we pay for America’s Ignorance about Islam. With just a little knowledge about Islam, we can even tell what kind of Muslim Obama is. His deceptions about Islam demonstrate that he is orthodox. He tells the same “religion of peace” lies that CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood organizations tell.
When ignorant multi-culturalists call Islam a religion of peace, they are just following their own injunction to respect every culture but western liberty (which they call oppressive). But Obama is not an ignorant multi-culturalist. He knows his Islam. When he calls Islam a religion of peace, the meaning is very clear: “war is deceit.”
Alex, I don’t disagree with you that Obama can rattle off the Shahada, but I’d also bet that he can rattle off the Apostle’s Creed based on his early years in Catholic School. Furthermore, if he really IS a Muslim at his core (as many believe), his radical anti-life agenda doesn’t fly, since “true” Islam has more respect for the unborn than most “so called Christian Americans.”
Perhaps a little remembered fact is the alignment of the Vatican and Islam at the 1994 UN Cairo Population Control summit. It was American Al Gore who was at odds, not Islam!
So, let’s be honest and admit that if we are going to preach “Love thy neighbor”, it can only be real love if we give equal dignity to all human life: young, old, sick, black, white, rich, poor, smart, dumb, and of course, inside or outside the womb (it’s “human life at the first cell).
When the dust finally settles, it will have been “Civilized America”, albeit not the first to legalize abortion, who will have had the most worldly influence (and consequences), in the killing of the unborn.
All said, and like many Americans who call themselves Christians; this (in relation to Obama’s Notre Dame Speech) isn’t about “religion.” Obama is a highly skilled sophist /politician who will and does say anything to anybody (ever hear one of his speeches to Planned Parenthood) to fit his agenda. Likewise, many ‘Christian and Catholics’ (albeit far less Muslim Americans) will sell the unborn for their own conveniences.
For any who might not get the “Catholic connection” and why this is such a POLITICAL BIG DEAL, know this: the biggest swing vote in America has just been “bought.”
Forget all the gasbag pundits, the big get was and always has been the division of American Catholics. Weigel nails it!
If Obama is “equating” anything Alec, it’s human selfishness with Christian America.
Amen!
The bible instructs us to kill non-believers as well. I’d say it’s pretty common for most religious texts to be harsh on non-believers. Of course, I prefer “Love thy neighbor” to this kind of stuff, too.
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; … neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. — Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. — 2 Corinthians 6:14-17
Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11
Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19
Yes but can Obama name the 57 states …
@cce:
Your citation of Deuteronony is of no authority to Christians. The Old Law has been fulfilled, and has no authority. The only authority is Christ’s commandment to Love One Another. I don’t believe you will find many Jews who hold Deuteronomy 13:6-10 to be Law, either.
I don’t believe you can find a commandment in the New Testament to make war on unbelievers. We are to bring them the Good News. If they wrap fish with it, that’s their concern. Not associating with non-believers, is a vast step from killing them.
The islamic commandment to convert the Infidel by the sword if he cannot be persuaded, is unique to islam. It is the One big obstacle to their living as Civilized peoples.
@cce:
I love the way people who know nothing about the Bible dash in and leave their droppings laying about while smearing, twisting, and besmirching what the Bible teaches.
Of course, quoting snippets of the Bible, out of context absent an understanding of the circumstances is always fun for those who seek to mislead because they themselves have been mislead.
Anyone who knows anything about the Bible, obviously not cce, knows that the laws set forth by Moses were satisfied by the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I see the moral equivalence brigade is out in force once again.
Hmmm… How many Christians are videotaped beheading infidels these days?????
NONE!
But don’t let the truth get in the way of your Muzzie appeasement fantasy.
Well it would help to quote real scripture. It also helps to know little things like historical context and possibly a little theology before scripture is used as a case-in-point to support an outlandish claim that Christians too, are supposed to hate, even kill non-believers. Wow.. For example 1,2,3 John is written to the Church (people) in Asia minor to watch out for gnosticism and anti-Christs. Antichrist (for those that don’t know) does not mean satan incarnate. It means anti-against-not for Christ (Jesus). So anyone that claims his name, but teaches something perverse to His original teachings is thus, an Antichrist.
Second john for example (as cce quoted it) said:
“Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them”
What version says “Don’t associate with non-Christians”? I did /not/ find it in a real bible, however a ton of Anti-Christian sites preached this, such as http://www.evilbible.com/BiblicalIntolerance.htm – Also, every other passage he mentioned was in this list. Again, easy internet research void of any real work.
It really says
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him”
The whole text says:
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.
Thus, people like cce. Teaching scripture, but lacks any real knowledge.
Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22
Where does it say hate them? Kill them? What context is this in? Is it to the person on the street or teachers that were preaching the word of God, but one that Jesus did not Himself teach? Again, the whole historical context thing is nice to have… but google is easier I guess.
Anyway, yes, the bible teaches us to kill and hate non-believers. Minus all the parts where it says the opposite. You know, pray for those that hate and persecute you. Love those that are unlovable. Give your cheek or your coat to those that slap you once or simply want your shirt. If only we weren’t knuckle dragging Neanderthals incapable of rational or intelligent thought. I’m glad the world and MTV are here to help us out of our caves.
Before this ends up in the inevitable banal ,futile, worthless ‘mud slinging’ debate of sacred scripture, isn’t it best to admit that this has absolutely nothing to do with “religion?” If Obama IS a Muslim, he is just as much an apostate to “his religion of Islam” as Christians who support abortion are of their Christianity.
Fact: No Islamic country legally supports abortion
Is Obama’s pro-abortion stance evidence that he is NOT an orthodox Muslim? (He says he wants to reduce abortions, but is trying to get federal funding for abortions in DC.)
Remember the subject of the post: that Islam explicitly calls for very different treatment of believers and unbelievers. In America, it is infidel babies who are getting aborted. All of the instruction in the Koran and the hadiths not to abort babies (and there are many) are instructions to Muslims to go ahead and swell the ranks. Nothing is said about whether Muslims should be against infidels aborting their babies. There is just the general command that infidels must convert or die, for which purposes infidel abortions are advantageous. Abortion is rapidly handing Europe to the Muslims, and in Islam EVERYTHING is subordinate to the goal of conquest.
On homosexuality, Obama shows no sign of accommodating the homosexual agenda. Here the Islamic condemnations are universal. Homosexuality per se, whether amongst Muslims or infidels, is condemned.
On whether other religions also call for animosity towards unbelievers, note that Judaism (which unlike Christianity is does not see the Old Testament as superseded) is explicitly NOT a fundamentalist religion. Confronted with the immorality of some of the old laws, Judaism rejected fundamentalism.
Recall that it was Rabbi Hillel, a generation before Jesus, who articulated the fundamental Christian principle: that the essence of the old laws is the law of love. Christianity made this authoritative. We are now to follow the spirt of the law–the law of love–instead of the letter of the law, wherever we can see that the letter does not fully capture the spirit.
The Old Testament is a bunch of rules-of-thumb that try to roughly capture the spirit of the law for people who were too primitive to follow the spirit of the law. Then through the grace of Jesus we get the New Covenant, guided directly by the spirit of the law.
Judaism already did that, by rejecting fundamentalism. ORTHODOX Judaism is non-fundamentalist. Unlike orthodox Islam, it does not stone adulterers, etcetera.
Judaism achieved moral rectification by rejecting fundamentalism. Christianity did it by accepting a new covenant that is fully moral, so that Christians CAN be fundamentalist and still be moral.
Islam has not achieved moral rectification. Islamic texts contain far more immorality than the Old Testament, yet unlike the Judaism, orthodox Islam is 100% committed to literalism, or fundamentalism.
So let’s please not hear any more about all religions being equally bad. Christianity is morally perfected (because the law of love which makes the guide of all is the CORRECT moral principle), and Judaism achieves this same perfection despite the handicap of more primitive religious texts.
Orthodox Islam, in contrast, is a murder cult. It is as evil as anything this world has ever seen.
Interestingly, there is a way for FUNDAMENTALIST Islam to be reasonably moral. In other words, the existing orthodoxy is actually very much at odds with the Koran, which repeats many times that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever. First and foremost that means the 10 Commandments, but orthodox Islam is NOT fundamentalist in this way. It systematically violates the commandments not to murder, steal, commit adultery, and bear true witness. All of these things are actually commanded against infidels by orthodox Islam.
The answer is to interpret all of the Koran’s instructions to kill and loot as conditional on circumstances of defensive war, which is the only way to satisfy the Koran’s own claim that it contains no inconsistencies. Otherwise its supposed upholding of the 10 Commandments is violated.
If Muslims adopted this fundamentalism, they would find themselves in the same situation as the Jews. To be FULLY moral, they would still have to reject some fundamentalisms, but even if they failed to take this step to full morality, the immorality of their fundamentalism would be mild, in contrast to the gargantuan evil of Islamic orthodoxy today.
It’s all pretty simple. Obama is a communist.
Communists succeed by destroying Christianity. Christianity is easily destroyed by attacks on the family: abortion, feminism (as in NOT the Sarah Palin kind), same sex marriage, and all that “divides.”
Obama, as I often write, is simply one of it not the final “closers.” America has been slowly being ‘taken down from the inside out’ for years, now clear to just about everyone with at least a half of brain that either watches or reads the MSM or attended college.
Sadly, probably sooner rather than later, many of us who were/are being used will finally come to the sad realization, that not only were we used, but that we are finally “used up.” The biggest “divider” has and always will be abortion. This past weekend at Notre Dame, let’s just say, the commies won!
No surpise the first county to have legalized abortion was Russia; a great evil fueled by great darkness.
PDILL
Obama might have attended a Catholic school in indonesia but it is illegal for the schol to try to convert muslims or to teach them anything about Christianity. So if he can recite the Apostle’s Creed, he didn’t learn it there. He was a very devout muslim at that time and could quote the Koran in Arabaic. His “christian” church was Black Liberation Theology. A reporter called the church and asked if muslims attended this church and the receptionist said there were many muslim members. So, he is a product of atheist and communist grandparents and mother and muslim and communist father. He attended a quasi christian church that preached hatred for whites. He attended Occidental College on a Fullbright scholarship that only gives scholarships to foreign students. He may still be a muslim. He may still be a communist. What he really is is a narcissist totally in love with himself and the sound of his voice and a Chicago gangster who has brought the mob to the national scene.
@Mike’s America: Mike, the implication is so bizzare I’m surprised even you would make it. Unless your point is that religious terrorism is okay as long as it’s not beheading, you’re off the mark here. Have you forgotten about the IRA? The Christian Phalangists, who killed thousands of refugees in Lebanon and whose leader admitted that “he had signed many orders for captives to be executed and how, when he felt pangs of conscience, he was unburdened of them by a priest who granted him absolution to kill hundreds more.”? Or the various Christian terrorist groups in India like the National Liberation Front of Tripura that kidnap non-Christians to make snuff films before killing them and are considered one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world? Just because you chose to ignore it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Religious exceptionalism on any side is the root of fundamentalism. Terrorism correlates with oppressive regimes much more-so than with any specific religion.
@ trizzlor
Dude, don’t even try it. If you want to start a “who started what and when,” it’s going to be a very, very long discussion.
Obama isn’t religious. Obama is anti-religious. pdill is right. Obama walks around humming “Imagine” by John Lennon.
@Aqua: And I’m not starting it (bets on how long before we reach the crusades?), but to pretend that there is absolutely not religious extremism done in the name of Jesus is counterproductive. Especially when such sects are quite common and active, just not in the countries we like to report about.
In regards to the old testament and new testament check out my ‘lazy’ use of the internet…
Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament.
New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions
http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm
It contains pertinent issues
This leads me to the questions…
1. If the Old Testament no longer relevant they why do Christians still print it, read it, quote it and follow it (at least some parts)?
2. Why didn’t Jesus come earlier – at the start – and save all mankind? Guess it’s hard luck for all those who came before. Why did God change the rules – should we condemn his bloodthristy actions in the OT?
3. Who decides what is ‘historical’ and can be ignored and what is still relevant? Do we ignored what Jesus said about adulterer should gouged their own eyes out or that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:27-32) BUT we shouldn’t ignore what Paul said about gay people not entering heaven? (Corinthians 6:9-10)
Funny how some Christians don’t like Bible verses thrown at them because they are out of context but they are happy to do the same with the Koran.
At the end of the day there are millions of peaceful muslims who get on with their lives as there are millions of peaceful Christians doing the same. I would say at this moment in history – Christianity has significantly less fundamentalist terrorists. I would put this down to lots of things including the Reformation and the fantastic secularisation of societies who were once more staunchly Christian than they are today. Either way both the Bible & the Koran has particularly unpleasant passages.
to GaffaUK: The Old Testament has been fulfilled for us by the propitiating sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as explained by several comments already.
As a casual reader of the Old Testament knows, there are a number of instances where the army of Israel wiped out entire tribes of indigenous Canaanites as commanded by Jehovah. The important thing to remember is that these were specific judgments of God on the Canaanites, who knew about God but refused to worship Him and chose various pagan forms instead, notably Baal and Ashteroth worship (which were truly savage and barbaric practices!). Again, these were specific judgments against specific peoples in specific times and places, as opposed to nonspecific general calls to ongoing violence in the Koran. The prophets also prophesied against Babylon, Egypt, and Assyria which are types of various sinful and worldly conditions.
The Old Testament has been fulfilled, but that does not make it irrelevant to modern Christians living in the Church Age. It is essential for us to recognize that the judgments specified in the Mosaic Law, and by the prophets, are judgments on us as well, for we are guilty of the same offenses — sinful human nature doesn’t change. Thus, it clarifies our status with a Holy and Perfectly Just God absent the grace and mercy manifested by that same God through the life and atoning death of Jesus. How could we begin to appreciate the Good News of the Gospel — the New Testament or New Covenant — without knowing how well and truly screwed we were in our natural, sinful, Old Testament condition?
Finally, the Old Testament laws, holy days, and prophecies all point unfailingly to the man Jesus Christ. God reveals Himself as the “author and finisher of our faith” by demonstrating His omnipotent transcendence over human history.
cce
3Reply to this comment
The bible instructs us to kill non-believers as well.
**************************************************
That is a bald @ssed Lie.
I am an Old Testament guy. I don’t know what you are but you lied.
@michael
Thanks for your thoughtful answer – particularly referencing my first question. What’s your thoughts on my third question?
I’ll probably get flack for this, but since we are bringing the subject of Christianity: I thought I’d correct a common misconception that many Christians have: “Christ” is not the last name of Jesus’ , but what he was. It is from the word christus christo, Latin for messiah, anointed one. More definitively, the Latin “Christed” refers to a person who is a divinely chosen holy vessel or embodiment, with God existing within. Jesus the Christ is analogous with Jesus the Messiah. The Christ child therefore means that the baby Jesus was embodied with the holy presence of God. Thus the meaning of the word “Christianity” is that; they are a religious group who’s belief is that Jesus was Christed by God.
Gaffa, when you have knowledge of the Bible as a whole, then you know which parts were satisfied by the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ.
In your third question you’re engaging in the same sort of thing that cce did above. Quoting partial passages and not noting the context in which they were written, or to whom they were written, garbles the meaning.
Quoting entire passages, as written, in context, with a knowledge of both the writer and the audience of the teaching presents the original message.
Tell me what you know about the church at Corinth.
When you understand what was going on within that church then you will understand what Paul was getting at in his letters.
As to the teachings of Jesus regarding adultery, He’s the one who taught that, so it’s a safe bet to say that He knows what He was teaching.
As to someone quoting the Koran out of context, you’ll have to produce examples and show how the context changes the meaning.
To GaffaUK: in reference to your third question, “3. Who decides what is ‘historical’ and can be ignored and what is still relevant? Do we ignored what Jesus said about adulterer should gouged their own eyes out or that anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:27-32) BUT we shouldn’t ignore what Paul said about gay people not entering heaven? (Corinthians 6:9-10)”
My friend, it’s ALL relevant. It’s all the inspired Word of God. It’s true and meaningful on so many different levels, as allegory as well as history and in its most straightforward clear exposition. The complex richness and unity of the Bible is one of many clear proofs of its authority and divine Author.
I’m not sure how you are tying together adultery and gouging out one’s eyes. You are probably referring to Matthew 5:29, “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” which is echoed later in Matthew 18:9, “And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” In the same section (Matthew 5), Jesus said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Earlier in Matthew 5 — and here’s the important part — Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Now, this gets us back to how the Old Testament Law is completed and fulfilled in Jesus (the) Christ. Yes, I am guilty of adultery having married a divorced woman, and she is guilty also since I was divorced. And I caused my “first” wife to be guilty of it also by divorcing her. So, according to Old Testament Law, I’m done, I’m screwed. I have no recourse because my sin — my failure to worship God as He deserves, manifested in my disobedience to His perfect will — is so grievous that I can’t possibly make it up to Him by myself. Even if I could realistically try, my motives as a fallen, sinful human being are so impure and self-centered that it’s hopeless. I am eternally condemned by the Law. But thanks be to God, in His perfect plan for my salvation, He sent His Son Jesus, True God and True Man, to live a perfect life under the Law, in perfect obedience to God, so He could be the one perfect Paschal Lamb sacrificed once and for all.
As far as gay people, what’s different from any other sin? We are all fallen and sinful. None of us is in any position to judge anybody else, or to think that somehow the other guy is less worthy of God’s forgiveness of his sin. We are all called to acknowledge our sin before God and repent of our sin, and trust our Advocate before the Father, Jesus Christ to take care of the rest while God’s Holy Spirit works in us to make us more Christ-like — which starts with making us want to be more Christ-like.
Looking just past your reference in 1 Corinthians 6, v 11 says, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Thanks be to God.
@ trizzlor
Absolutely.
One of the major theological problems Islam has, compared to Judiasm and Christianity, is that The Koran specifically prohibits the kind of interpretation we can “get away with.” The Koran is black letter law, and must be obeyed as such, much the way orthodox Jews follow The Law assiduously. They don’t get the wiggle room.
Add to that the Sunnah and the Hadith, the traditions assigned to Muhammed , and you get such things as marrying of nine-year-old girls, and the rock calling out “There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.”
Yeah, we all have our Fundamentalists, they are required to be fundamentalists.
@Michael
This is what I don’t get. The Bible – old Testament and new – in various parts states what we should and shouldn’t do. But no matter what you do – you are sinful. If you are good – you still sinned. And if you are really bad – it doesn’t matter. Except you have to let Jesus into your life. So if Hitler confessed his sins and let Jesus into life before he killed himself then he goes to Heaven unlike someone like Gandi who didn’t believe in Jesus. I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense. As you indicate – you are a Christian but you chose purposefully to marry a divorced woman. I presume that wasn’t a spur of the moment decision. You purposefully sinned AND continue to sin.
If I injured someone and then confessed but then did it again, confessed, did it again etc – because Jesus took one for the team for ever then there are no morals or rules in the bible. So gay people can continue to purposefully as willingly sin in the same way you choose to continue your sin of being in a marriage with a divorce woman. Instead why don’t people say that there is nothing wrong at all with people choosing to marry divorce women (why is it worst for a woman?) and that it is clearly bonkers to say otherwise. Of course most people don’t mention this as marrying a divorced person isn’t considered a sin today by most but the strictest of Christians.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/divorceOK.html
To GaffeUK:
It’s a good thing for all of us that we are not the judge. Only God knows what’s in our heart, or was in Hitler’s heart, or Gandi’s heart. I think it’s important to not get too focused on trying to figure out what’s “acceptable” or what you can get away with or whatever. The fact is, God set a standard for Himself when Jesus explained this to his audience (in Matthew 18:21-22): “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times [this is significant, it would mean pretty much the same as “infinity times infinity” to us today].'” Think about this: if this is God’s expectation for us, do you think He will do anything less?
Yes, I certainly am sinful. Paul wrote in 1 Tim 15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”
It’s not a question of what you can get away with, or where you cross the line. It’s about this: if you really understand the magnitude of what God has done for you, specifically and intimately personally, why would you want to get away with anything other than loving Him and giving Him glory and praise?
Whoops, sorry, Gaffa, not Gaffe. My bad!
Gaffa I’m always reluctant to debate people like you who “cut and paste” scripture because I doubt it’s truth you are seeking. Most people in these debates never really want truth, only “confirmation” of their own rationalizations. Furthermore, if memory serves me, a while back you and I went head to head on my stem cell post over in vitro (IVF). If you can’t see God in those beautiful twins of yours, I doubt you will see or hear God in Scripture. You’re (at least you were) ignorant of your own great blessings.
But, for the sake of clarity, you hit on something very important and seldom discussed; sin! What you fail to realize is that it was FOR SINNERS, NOT THE RIGHTOUS, that Jesus came. The best parable to rebuke your argument is the one of the workers in the vineyard. The ones that came “just before closing got the same pay as the ones that were there all day working.”
It doesn’t matter if we accept Christ from childhood or on our deathbed at the last nanosecond of our life on earth. It only matters that we “did.” In the Catholic faith, we believe (from the witness of many of our saints), of the “ the bridge to the water”, great mercy of God, meaning that in our last hour, Jesus comes (spiritually) to ALL NON BELIEVERS FOR one last chance to accept him as Savior. It’s the single number one reason we Catholics pray (for grace) for the salvation of all souls, every day, every mass, every rosary, etc. It’s the reason we have monastics, who’s only job is to pray for those for whom no one ever prays, and for all the prayers needed for the world. Monastic prayer is very powerful.
Of course, every soul has free will, but I doubt on one’s deathbed, few reject the “last call” of Jesus except the most hardened hearts. It’s also the reason the CC has never confirmed any soul in hell, although always holding fast that hell does exists. Anyone who goes there goes there by THEIR choice. God is not a “gotcha game.”
So is it all fair? If Hitler confessed on his death bed is he saved as easily as Mother Theresa? Jesus gives us that answer in Scripture, that nothing “defiled” can enter heaven until purified through fire, in Catholic terms, purgatory . Protestants don’t believe in purgatory, but it simply has to be, based on the teachings of Christ. It’s God’s great mercy, because without it, I doubt many of us would enter heaven. It’s like the “washroom” of heaven where we “detach” from all of our sins. It’s also part of the reason God allows pain and suffering, so we can “expiate” in the “redemptive value” of suffering he won for us by his own suffering. Almost no one “gets” that, even Christians, but it’s true; pain (united to the cross of Christ) is power.
Last but not least, you brought up the obvious sins we all have or still do “rationalize.” I know this won’t be popular, but the reason we have almost 4000 protestant denominations is simply because one or more of Christ’s teachings was “too hard or too inconvenient.” The best example of course is the Church of England and Henry the VIII. Had the CC “allowed” divorce, England might still be Catholic.
I suspect most American Protestants don’t realize that until 1930, birth control was forbidden by ALL CHRISTIAN DEMONINATIONS. Consequently, Christ has been diluted all the way out to the new age and “Christ without a cross.”
Bottom line, the bible is only properly understood in its entirety; there are no “throw aways.” What is reveled in the New was concealed in the Old, it’s called typology, and it’s simply fascinating. The bible starts and ends with a “marriage”, Genesis to Revelation, with the Song of Songs, smack in the middle for good reason; it’s God seducing us.
All said, the most important lesson to learn from Scripture is obedience. ONLY in obedience, are we given the “gift” of discernment of the Word, which is why Jesus warned that many “Wise men would be made fools.” An obvious sign of such folishness is “the cut and paste” scripture debates.
In case anyone hasn’t notice, God’s wisdom (as promised), has been removed from our elected leaders. I keep telling ya, Alexander Solzhenitsyn was our modern day prophet. Sadly, most of America “in their lack of wisdom”, missed it.
My answer to Gaffa is a bit different than Moon’s and pdill’s. In my understanding, Hitler could NOT on his deathbed accept Jesus Christ and be saved. I agree with Dr. Gene Scott that the key is how one reads Romans 3:21 on the nature of the new covenant. If Scott is right that the criterion of salvation is not belief IN Jesus but belief in the faith OF Jesus (i.e. that we have the same faith that Jesus did), then it is going to matter how we lived our lives.
The question becomes, what did Jesus have faith in. Scott points to Jesus’ faith in resurrection, but I don’t think that is the import faith. Jesus’ faith was in love. This is how he lived his life, and it is how he commanded his followers to live their lives: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 15:12)
Love as the faith of Jesus is the only way to make sense of Romans chapter 2, which warns of the “righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
This judgment will be meted out to all, and salvation granted even to those who never heard of Jesus: “…For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts”
Yet still these will be judged BY the faith of Jesus: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
It is the faith OF Jesus that people have to follow in order to be saved, because that is what they are going to be judged by. A person like Hitler who always believed and acted contrary to the call of love is condemned by that judgment. Neither could he on his deathbed even comprehend what it would mean to have faith in love.
If he could, then the parable of the workers in the vineyard might apply, but the hurdle here is high. He actually has to have faith in love. He can’t just believe that Jesus was Christ. He has to understand what that means. Jesus is The Word made flesh (John 1:14), and the word is “love” (1 John 4:8). It takes a lifetime of seeing the world through eyes of love, of seeing what there is to love in the world and acting for it, to actually know faith in love.
All of the different references to salvation coming through Jesus or only through Jesus can be interpreted in this way. We are going to be judged BY Jesus. We are going to be judged by LOVE, and so the only path to salvation is through love. But it only needs to be written on your heart. You don’t have to have ever heard the name of Jesus.
Now apply this to the question of whether things like homosexuality, divorce, and marrying a divorced woman, are necessarily sins. We are now to live by the spirit of the law (love) not the letter of the law, and the two are not the same, as Jesus exemplified with his rejection even of one of the Ten Commandments–the commandment not to work on the Sabbath–when such an exception was called for by love.
The rule-of-thumb rationale for the old law against divorce still has to be understood, so that one can be sure that exceptions really are exceptions, but exceptions are to be tolerated, and they are NOT SINFUL, so long as they really are exceptions. Here I think Mr. Moon needs to be a bit easier on himself. He is thinking that his divorce and remarriage to a divorced woman is necessarily sinful. Well, it MIGHT be sinful, if they got divorced for bad reasons, and married for bad reasons. But if they acted for love as best as they could, then their actions are not sinful.
Of course there is going to be an admixture of sin in everything human. We never can act perfectly for love. We are all sinners, needing our sins to be redeemed by Jesus Christ if we are to be saved, but that is no reason to overstate one’s sins. Moon’s remarriage to a divorced woman is not necessarily sinful in itself, any more than any other marriage that is not purely based on love is sinful.
The same for homosexual acts. If the reason why this behavior is condemned as a rule-of-thumb are properly accounted, love might still call for some homosexual relationships and activities to go forward. On the other hand, a lot of promiscuous homosexual behavior has nothing to do with love, and is clearly destructive to what there is to love. The key points are: 1) violation of the old laws is not necessarily sinful, and 2) if you are not trying to live in support of what there is to love in the world, you are not going to be forgiven, or saved, at least according to my reading of Christianity.
Alec I respect your post and my intention is not to debate theology except in it’s simplist form. My other reasons is that the worst thing we can do as Christians is to deny others, especially great sinners, of hope.
I don’t know who Dr. Gene Scott is, by when it comes to being saved, why does Gene Scott trumph Christ on the cross? We know from the “good thief”, (St. Desmis in Catholicism), that the mercy of Jesus is available up to the last second, even for a crucified thief. You can also bet wisely that Mother Mary at the foot of the cross was praying for BOTH thieves. By free will and a repentant heart, only Dismis ask for forgivness and rec’d it; consequently, God promised him “To be with him in paradise on this day.” (which had to be purgatory since Jesus promised to be with him but didn’t go to heaven until 40 days later, but he did go to Sheol)
The proof is also again in the Vineyard, when the workers who were there all day complained that it was “unfair” to be paid the same as those who had just started working.
The greatest hope of Christianity is that until our last dying breath, it is NEVER to late, even for Adolf Hitler. It’s a lot easier to understand when one accepts purgatory. As Pope Benedict recently joked, “If purgatory didn’t exist, I would have to invent it.”
Recognizing salvation as coming through the faith of Jesus does not in any way deny that Jesus on the cross redeemed our sins and made salvation possible. Even the person who does their best their entire adult life to live by the law of love will fail pretty much constantly to fully achieve that goal and hence still be a sinner needing to be redeemed by Jesus in order to be saved.
Neither does recognition of judgment for deeds keep Christianity from offering hope of salvation to sinners. If a person comes late to the path of love, he still has come to the path of love, which is the criterion for salvation, but I don’t see how Hitler can in any meaningful way come to the path of love on his deathbed. The case of the thief on the cross is very different. There is no indication that he was a murderer. Just the opposite, his words indicate that he was a man of conscience: “we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.” (Luke 23:41)
It is commonly interpreted that the reason Jesus said that this thief would see him in heaven is because the thief recognized Jesus as lord: “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” But it could have been his demonstration of conscience, that this thief did see the world with eyes of love, that enabled his salvation. For all we know, his act of theft was one that might even have been sanctioned by the law of love, one of those exceptions to the old laws that the spirit of the law allows.
If a person can on their deathbed switch from being not on the path of love to being on the path of love, then according to my reading of Christianity, they are saved, but they are still judged. So they get eternal life, but they still have to live that life knowing how their earthly life is judged by Jesus. Romans is perfectly clear that deeds will be judged.
Those who can genuinely get onto the path of love can be forgiven, but it seems that there is no forgiveness just for believing that Jesus is lord. This just means that there is a SUBSTANCE to accepting Jesus as lord. If a person has not grasped what it means to be on the path of love, and accepted that path with their heart and soul, they are not forgiven or saved.
In other words (if I wasn’t clear) I don’t see much difference between pdill’s position and mine, if we can both accept that there is a substance to embracing Jesus as lord. It isn’t enough to just believe that Jesus was God made man. One has to understand and embrace the path of love that Jesus taught.