"We're not the whole issue:"

I agree.

"an internal battle within Islam is the deeper issue."

I disagree. It is A deeper issue, but an issue closer to the heart of the matter is that Islam is a false religion. The bible teaches that the practice of false religion leads to death.

Of course, that includes false versions of Christianity as well. But this problem cannot resolve itself through any appeal to God because the religion worships a false God.

The desire to force others to submit in not borne of any supernatural power, but rather man's desire to impose his will. To the extent that Islam is a means to achieve that end, this becomes a Muslim problem.

The best we can hope for, within an Islamic context, is for the people of Pakistan to come to a friendly agreement, or to achieve some sort of stalemate that keeps the various factions in check. This is attainable, I think.

But if we wait to allow Islam to "solve" it's problem, we'll be waiting forever (and in vain). The problem with false religion is irreconcilable The only faith tradition is one that is Christ-centered. The deepEST issue is that the Pakistani people who do not have Christ need him.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 2, 2008 12:24 PM

"But, surely, a realistic perspective suggests that (1) Islam is here to stay, until the old Earth passes away; (2) an Islam that comes to peaceful terms among its factions--a kind of Islamic Treaty of Westphalia if you will--is to be preferred to the present situation."

I agree completely, and as I mention above, I think it is entirely possible.

But McClaren seems to be hoping for a faith-based reconciliation. The implication, obviously, would be that the United States should sit back and let this happen. I think your "realistic" proposition requires United States involvement, or do you disagree?

"You mention that Islam worships "a false god." Would you say the same thing about Judaism."

Yes. Jesus says he is the way, the truth, and the life. If you do not embrace Jesus, you are not embracing the truth, and are therefore embracing what is false. A God who did not send his son to die for his sins does not exist.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 2, 2008 12:47 PM

The vicious assassination of Benazir Bhutto means that the old world is still the old world. In places where the rule of law is disrespected there can be no lasting peace. Rule of law makes it possible for rivals to employ competitive measures that don't involve violence to achieve their ends. When the law is open to influence by politics, the law is ruled. Then violence is the likely end.

Democracy won't fix anything unless the law is made invulnerable to influence by politicians. This requires a common law system.

In the meantime the best way to help the innocent in lands full of turmoil is to invite them to live with us. Make it possible to innocents to immigrate more easily. Raise the quota by two orders of magnitude and let the poor and tired and hungry in. Meanwhile shut down welfare. If the least of these are to be cared for they are the full and exclusive responsibility of Christians.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 2, 2008 12:51 PM

I think your article would be more helpful if you'd studied Islam more. It seems like you've been swayed by Islamic propaganda here in America.

Most Islamicists (those who study Islam) would say that Islam is an inherently fundamentalist religion. There is no conflict between Muslims and fundamentalist Muslims because that is an oxymoron. Islam is inherently a relgion calling people back to the rules of the beginning, back to the origins, to be like it was, with minimal change. Sure, there are Sufis, but contrary to the image in the West, they are very often seen as heretics by the mainstream of Islam.

Secondly, there has never been such a thing as a Muslim Pacifist- in the sense of someone following the precepts of Islam, and that calling him or her into pacifism. There hasn't been really a famous historical pacifist who was Muslim, of any sort. It just doesn't work. We have the example of Jesus to lead us towards that, despite repeated and common sins of violence in Christian history. The example for Muslims is Mohammed (pbuh), who was decidedly violent, and even regularly engaged in raids (rizzia) of neutral caravans during the traditional month of peace. (God told him it was okay.) Sure, many Muslims would desire peace, and the vast majority would be against terrorism. But there simply isn't the historical mode of thought that war is wrong in every case, that one should turn the cheek. Indeed, most Muslims I have talked with personally (and theologians I've read) think such an idea is laughable at best, and one of the most damaging ideas of Christianity at worst.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | January 2, 2008 3:27 PM

"But Kevin, the God of Judaism IS the God who sent his son to die for us."

But adherents to the Jewish faith do not believe that he did. They disbelieve the very essence of God. You could argue, in utilitarian terms, that they technically believe in the same God, but it makes no difference to him, and no difference as far as this discussion is concerned.

"And just for the record, my experience with those who confidently declare Islam to be a false religion are using that alleged fact"

Alleged fact? Do you think Islam is a false religion or not? Is it a religion based in truth? Was Mohammed really a prophet? Do you think he might be?

At any rate, I am seeking to validate any prejudices. My assessment of Islam is not based on my upbringing, or any previously held assumptions. No matter how much I study about Islam, my assertion cannot change unless I choose to disbelieve the Bible.

"No religion is completely false, because the Scriptures tell us that God has not left any humans completely without some understanding of himself, or else I totally misinterpret Romans 1."

Romans 1 states that men are without excuse to reject God because God has revealed himself on this Earth. You are confusing different definitions of "false". I use false to mean lacking true wisdom. Religions can have accurate information while still being false. To reject the nature of God is false.

My argument is that the strife between Islamic sects is no different from territorial disputes or tribal disagreements. We can not hope for reconciliation that is based in knowledge of God.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 2, 2008 5:15 PM

“Do you think Islam is a false religion or not? Is it a religion based in truth?”

“The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." CCC 843

“Romans 1 states that men are without excuse to reject God because God has revealed himself on this Earth.”

“This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” CCC 847

However:

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." CCC 848

Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 2, 2008 5:36 PM

Hey Kevin,

I know we've had this discussion before. More than anything else, I posted those paragraphs from the Catechism as a pre-emptive strike against some of the posters who are less even-tempered than you.

Aside from that, my post was in response to your question whether or not Islam is a false religion. Apparently, the Catholic Church does not consider it to be - although I’m sure you can find Catholics who disagree with my interpretation of the Catechism. Nonetheless, I do not believe that Islam is a false religion.

“Are you saying that you can worship our God without being saved?”

The Church teaches that salvation comes from God alone. I don’t consider myself to be well-versed in soteriology. It sounds to me as if you answered your own question with regards to Jews who worship our God.

As you know, I have a respect for Islam that comes from my time spent in Muslim countries. My experiences and feelings about Muslims diverge considerably from the conventional wisdom/zeitgeist regarding Islam in this country.

Salaam alaikum

Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 2, 2008 7:44 PM

Great piece Bryan and yes the world is mourning Bhutto. She was amazing.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 2, 2008 8:45 PM

Alleged fact? Do you think Islam is a false religion or not? Is it a religion based in truth?

Islam is rooted in the belief that there is only one God. To that extent at least, Islam is certainly based in truth--a very important truth.

Was Mohammed really a prophet? Do you think he might be?

Muhammad's teachings do not lead readers or hearers to Christ as Christians believe and understand him. As a Christian, I find that problematic. On the other hand, some of his revelations speak clearly and quite eloquently of a coming judgment and of the need for humans to acknowledge and worship the one true God. Read Sells' book that I mentioned earlier and get a feel for some of these early revelations. They just might surprise you.

I just don't see how the division between black and white, true and false, is as clear and as obvious as you seem to make it to be, or as you seem to want it to be. I just can't confidently label all of Islam false. Calling Islam (or any other belief system) a false religion to me just seems to be a convenient way to dismiss it. And yes, labeling it false will keep us from examining and reevaluating our own prejudices.

D

Posted by: Don | January 2, 2008 10:52 PM

Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 2, 2008 7:44 PM

The Church teaches that salvation comes from God alone.

Not totally up on what the Catholic Church teaches but in talking with most of my Catholic friends. Yes - Salvation is from God but it also has to include Christ and His sacrifice on the cross and resurection from the dead.

'...if you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and confess with your mouth that God raised Him from the dead...

Jews are still looking for the 'Christ' - Islam is not. I too have several non-christian friends and respect them. Some Hindu, some Muslim. I personally believe that these are 'false' religions. Now - do I tell my friends this to their face - no. I gain no ground with them by trashing their religion. I am better off showing them the love that Christ showed to me. I was pressured once by an Islamic student I attended University with about my thought(s) on his faith. I really believe that he was trying to trap me or at least have a good argument which would have been stimulating. But I asked him how his faith viewed me and my religion. I was promptly told that I was an infidel and not worthy. I then asked him if his religion viewed me as such why did it matter what my religion/faith said. Discussion ended in a few sentences.

Why is it that you hear (a lot) about people who convert to Islam and then go to war against Jews and Christians so much of the time. But if you hear stories about people converting let say from Islam to Christianity - they are jumping to the nearest para-military group to be trained to kill Muslims? I am sure that there might be some out there that have - but not like we have wittnessed with the radical Islamists in this decade.

Blessings-
.

Posted by: moderatelad | January 3, 2008 12:11 AM

I just don't see how the division between black and white, true and false, is as clear and as obvious as you seem to make it to be, or as you seem to want it to be. I just can't confidently label all of Islam false. Calling Islam (or any other belief system) a false religion to me just seems to be a convenient way to dismiss it. And yes, labeling it false will keep us from examining and reevaluating our own prejudices. Don

Great insight, Don! You will always find opposition from those who prefer to see the bad in others without examining what they themselves are doing.

Posted by: JamesMartin | January 3, 2008 5:59 AM

This is one of those issues where the old Anglican solution -- fudge -- actually makes a fair amount of sense.

Islam gets one thing right, and it's an important one: there is only one God. Islam also misses a lot of other things. I'm not sure that any faith, even my own, gets everything right. (Though I'm quite confident that Christianity is much closer to the truth than Islam.)

Is Islam "close enough"? God only really knows. My guess is that the answer is a resounding No for the radicals, but I'll give a fudgy "maybe" for more moderate Muslims.

What concerns me more is that I see little evidence of a moderate Islam that is clearly distinct from radical Islam. McLaren's post to the contrary, I'm not convinced that there is much conflict between moderates and radicals within Islam. Whether that's because the moderates have yet to find their voice, or because real moderates just aren't that much of a force, that remains to be seen. Either way, the West is not obligated to wait for moderate Islam to assert itself.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | January 3, 2008 8:55 AM

If I tell you that 2 + 2 = 5, do you accept this as partially true because I have informed you that 2 and 2 can only make one number?

The logic of this totally escapes me, but, well, never mind.

Mohammed was a scoundrel, and God's truth was not in him...

But even scoundrels do get some things right, at least occasionally. And actually, this notion--that Muhammad was immoral--has been around a long time, at least since St. Thomas Acquinas, who wrote about Islam in his Summa Contra Gentiles. His critique of Islam has been the standard among Christians for 800 years. Most modern Christians writers simply repeat his criticisms without examining them afresh and reevaluaing them.

And you have the authority to determine and declare the nature of God's truth and its relation to Muhammad with such absolute certainty??? Gee, I don't even know my own heart very well, let alone be able to see inside the heart of someone who's been dead for almost fourteen centuries. I'm so glad you have been given the mind of God.

You need to read Reza Aslan's book. That's all I will say.

Islam gets one thing right, and it's an important one: there is only one God. Islam also misses a lot of other things. I'm not sure that any faith, even my own, gets everything right.

How true. Thanks, Wolverine. (BTW, my son was happy to see Lloyd Carr go out with a win!)

Great insight, Don! You will always find opposition from those who prefer to see the bad in others without examining what they themselves are doing.

I've been reading Kathleen Norris' Dakota. An essay in there called "Ghosts" discusses the problem of sin. Her insight about the desert fathers, who were more concerned in dealing with sin in their own lives than in pointing it out in others' lives, was very insightful and actually quite refreshing. Well worth reading.

Peace!

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 10:58 AM

"Islam gets one thing right, and it's an important one: there is only one God."

But this information is compeltely useless in trying to find a solution in (for example) pakistan. God is not a generic deity, and I don't think "fudging" it helps anyone.

"The logic of this totally escapes me, but, well, never mind."

See above. In the world of basic mathematics, it is not at all useful to determine that there is only one solution to a problem. Similarly, it is not useful to simply determine that there is one God.

Islam has some correct information, but that is not the sort of truth I am talking about.

"Most modern Christians writers simply repeat his criticisms without examining them afresh and reevaluaing them."

Aquinas was not the source of my critique. The holy books depict Mohammed as gravely immoral by any Christian standard.

"And you have the authority to determine and declare the nature of God's truth and its relation to Muhammad with such absolute certainty???"

Any Christian has this authority, no matter how many question marks you use. To believe otherwise is to suggest Christians must intellectually assent to relativism and embrace all Gods.

"So was Paul"

And were he not redeemed by Christ, history would remember him as such. Mohammed was not redeemed by Christ, and we know him by his fruits.

Incidentally, pointing to violent eras in Christian history is not the same as examining one's own sin. Either way you are looking at the sin of others. This has nothing to do with my own sin, or calling out others for their sin.

Rather, it is setting expectations for how we can help forge peace (or not, as the case may be) in a region that has lacked it. Belief in God is meaningless without understanding God's grace (and, therefore, our need for it).

Posted by: kevin s. | January 3, 2008 1:45 PM

"Child brides (thomas Jefferson had those) "

Thomas Jefferson is not a prophet.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 3, 2008 2:09 PM

Posted by: payshun | January 3, 2008 2:23 PM

'...Christian standards he would have lost his office as a prophetic king...'

Not sure that the Christian Church labels David as a 'prophetic king' - just a 'king'. That Muhammed label himself as a 'prophetic king' - well that is not the only thing he got wrong.

Islamic people have the right to worship their God in their manner. They do not believe that the God of my faith is a true and living God, so why do I have to believe that theirs is?

David repented, mourned, begged for Gods forgiveness and was 'a man after God's own heart'.

Now I will leave it alone.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | January 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Don-

You're right, there are certainly are plenty of conflicts within Islam, and far more than Muslims would like us in the West to realize, as they try to portray Islam as monolithic and Christianity as constantly divided.

But, in the sense that Martin Luther, and much more so, the Anabaptists, were attempting to return to original Christianity, the Wahhabi are doing the same with Islam. Yes, there is a Reformation- and the Wahhabi are at the forefront of it. That's the key difference. There has been a strain of Modernism in Islam over the past couple centuries, in dealing with the Angst of What Went Wrong when the West rose and Dar al Islam fell, and that has lead to many adopting Western patterns. Some, like the Wahhabi, want to go back to the original of what Mohammed (pbuh) preached. They don't always get it right, but they are closer to true Islam than the less militant face of Islam we often get in the West.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | January 3, 2008 3:23 PM

Payshun,
“God meant for all people to look out for the poor…”
Did he mean for the state to coercively force people to care for the poor, or was it to be done on a voluntary basis? Forced virtue is no virtue at all.
Kevin,
We are to judge various claims to truth against the standard of God Himself. We are not to judge the unbelievers. We are to judge the church. We will judge the angels.
Payshun,
“(The Israelites) served as a mercenary force for the ancient Egyptians.” Now that’s an interesting claim! I’m honestly interested in learning where you got this from. ndsnow@gmail.com
The discussion over prophets is interesting, too. David, Moses, Saul, Joshua, and Abraham all killed at one time or another in the name of God.
I suppose the only thing separating them from Muhammed is the he’s our guy = good vs he’s your guy = bad which is a mere tautology.
I believe Muhammed was a shrew businessman working to use religion to justify a personal monopoly over idol worship and pilgrimages to make himself rich. It worked.
David, Saul, Joshua, and Abraham were not in it for personal gain, indeed the spoils of conquest were most often destroyed. This clue offers insight into what might separate the Jewish and Christian claims from the Islamic claims.

Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 3, 2008 4:16 PM

Jedidiah:

I don't think I agree that Wahhahbism is the "Reformed" version of Islam. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems that Wahhabism is reactionary not only against modernism, but also against more moderate strains of Islam that existed for centuries before the West rose and Dar al Islam fell (Wahhabism, as you probably know, only dates back about 250 years or so).

A good book to read on the topic is Hamid Algar's Wahhabism: A Critical Essay (available from the publisher at http://www.islampub.com/book_Detail.asp?Bid=1729&catId=22). Algar is admittedly and obviously biased, but he lays out the history of Wahhabism. He also demonstrates that it is intellectually impoverished, something that certainly cannot be said of the Christian Reformation.

The Islamic Reformation will come from some other source than the teachings of al Wahhab, I think. Reza Aslan certainly thinks so as well, if I read him correctly.

Salaam alaikum,

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 6:30 PM

The holy books depict Mohammed as gravely immoral by any Christian standard.

You need to read Reza Aslan's book.

As a Christian minister reponsible for a parish... Posted by: Tony Dickinson

Thanks, Tony, for again reminding us of the wonderful story of Francis and Sultan Kamil. It's an inspiring story for all Christians and Muslims, because it reveals the best and most positive features of both faiths.

Blessings,

D

Posted by: Don | January 3, 2008 7:00 PM

"That's a tacky thing to say."

Cheap grace is a tacky thing to believe.

"I don't think you know what "slander" means."

Actually Kevin I do. You slandered Mohammed when you said: Mohammed was a scoundrel, and God's truth was not in him...

Slander:
words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"

Kevin, definition two fits what you said about him so the question is do you know what it means?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 3, 2008 7:21 PM

Focusing attention on Christ vs. Islam is a really easy way to avoid taking responsibility for America's involvement in Benazir Bhutto's returning to Pakistan. She returned to Pakistan when she did because President Bush persuaded her to do so. Presumably he did so because he knew that President Musharraf would not retain power without an ally in government--and America desperately wants Musharraf to stay in power. If not for this manipulation, would she have been in Pakistan at this time? The short answer is no: she wasn't welcome to return.

Consider the possibility that the assassination was due not to Islam but to Pakistanis becoming really sick of the west telling them what to do.

Posted by: bren | January 3, 2008 7:38 PM

"Is it just to force some people to pay for other people's children's education? Even if we agree that education is a good thing? I'm against public school, and most other things that begin with "public...". There's no biblical justification for them. The only exception may be courts."

Again that's not true there are plenty of justification for God using governments to provide for public goods. God wants that regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it. There are too many places in the biblical record (mythic like Jonah, Joseph's public feeding of the all of Egypt...) That's what makes Bhutto's death so tragic. God was going to use her to help her people, the region and the world.

As for the Habiru issues w/ Moses and ancient Israel then check this out.

http://www.imninalu.net/Habiru.htm

From the mighty wiki:
When the Tell el-Amarna archives were translated, some scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with the Biblical Hebrews (`BRY in the consonant-only Hebrew script). Besides the similarity of their spellings, the description of the Apiru attacking cities in Canaan seemed to fit, loosely, the Biblical account of the conquest of that land by Hebrews under Joshua or even by names with David's Hebrew rally against Saul. However, other scholars assert that the Hebrews were actually spelt as IBRI in Egyptian, however the fact that the Egyption script was a consonant-only script makes this conjecture unlikely. Scholarly opinion remains divided on this issue. Some scholars still think that the Hapiru were a component of the later peoples who inhabited the kingdoms ruled by Saul, David, Solomon and their successors in Judah and Israel.

There have also been theories relating the Habiru to the Biblical personages of Eber and Abraham. While some scholars agree[citation needed] that the genealogies traced from Abraham are based on cultural beliefs and are without historical foundation, there are some who feel[citation needed] that perhaps Eber represents an etymological link to the Habiru.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 12:23 AM

"Actually Kevin I do."

Then you use the term incorrectly. In response to my pointing out that Mohammed was immoral, you responded that David et al.. were the same way, and that we should slander them all.

It is not slander to say that David killed a man in order to have sex with his wife, because it is true. If you are using the term correctly, then you are suggesting that I am slandering Mohammed by telling lies, and that I should also tell lies David, on the basis that he was immoral.

But that doesn't make any sense. At minimum, you are introducing two contradictory arguments. If Mohammed was gravely immoral, just as you have not slandered him, and you have not slandered David.

"Cheap grace is a tacky thing to believe."

For posterity, I'll note that you are using the term "tacky" incorrectly as well.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 4, 2008 2:32 AM

Focusing attention on Christ vs. Islam is a really easy way to avoid taking responsibility for America's involvement in Benazir Bhutto's returning to Pakistan.

Bren is right. If our State department hadn't pushed Bhutto to return to Pakistan, she would have stayed comfortably in exile. Once again, our interference in another nation's affairs has produced bad fruit.

When will we learn?

Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 8:49 AM

Kevin,

Now you are not being consistent. You state your point about Mohammed being immoral but you ignore a simple fact. You called the man a "scoundrel." That's an insult and not true. You did not know him and therefore are in no place to judge him. He showed compassion to Jews and Christians in a time where Christians were not as a charatable.

"It is not slander to say that David killed a man in order to have sex with his wife, because it is true."

It's slander to condemn a man w/ the term "murderer" when God wiped his sins away. He is not fully defined by some of his most heinous acts even though they still have some bearing on his identity, historical. So calling him a murderer when God calls him forgiven is slander. I would argue that David's adultery w/ Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uraiah were not his most destructive crimes. But those crimes are not definitive of David's eternal identity just David's brokeness.

You are still giving him a pass on what he did by not labelling him a "scoundrel." You made a blanket statement about God's truth not being in him when all bear God's image (a truth you are ignoring,) all are beloved, and Jesus died for all. So you can say that God's truth was not in him but there is plenty of evidence to point there was some truth and therefore you bore false witness and slandered him. So again it's kind of obvious that you don't know what the word means.

Nate,
"This is because governments are pagan, and evil."

So is the church. In case you have not noticed we are not a bastion of Jewish-Christian thought. Most Christians would balk at how gentile our faith is even though we like to pretend we love the jews.

"God can use governments but we can't."

Actually that's not true. Jesus payed taxes, Paul used his status as a Roman citizen to seek justice (even though it ultimately got him killed,) Daniel used pagan governments to protect the poor, so did Joseph, and Jonah. I could keep going. We imitate God and if he uses governments that means our union w/ the Father allows us to do the same even though they are evil. You are pointing out the paradox that exists in God relationship w/ man. Even though we have the Holy Spirit, life, death and ressurection of Jesus we are a mix of good and evil, new creatures that are habitual sinners. It's a paradox and a mystery.

"God used Joseph and made less oppressive a pagan government. But the Jews were always outside that government."

Not w/ Joseph they weren't. They were honored guests in the country until they got too powerful and started making trouble. That's when Pharoah created hard labor camps and extensive building programs to keep them in line.

As for Jonah,

Jonah was sent to Nineveh. They were the Nazi's of their day. The king after hearing Jonah's half assed call to repentance forced the entire society to repent. That ignorant act of a central government saved an entire society for generations. It was not till over a century later that Nineveh fell even though they should have been destroyed. My point is that God used a Jewish holocaust survivor to go to a central government and initiate change on societal scale. That would be like a black man being sent to the south right after the the Nat Turner Insurrection. So again God uses governments to save lives and help people, where we can we should too. God is honored by such compassion and grace.

Your right God can't use Bhutto now at least not in the way he intended. God is indeed soverign but he likes to use his power sparingly. If God acted like God in every act he would be tyrant and unworthy of worship. He will be merciful but make no mistake Bhutto's death changes things. It's naive to think otherwise. That makes it tragic.

A lot of biblical military scholars would disagree w/ you. Judging from other sources the Habiru were a force the Egytians used as mercenaries. These same mercenaries eventually caused trouble by plundering some Egyptian land and these groups mixed w/ the Israelite nation. These groups eventually became Israel. That's my belief. Quite honestly it's neither here or there some scholars agree w/ that assesment others don't.

Oh and racism (the elephant in the room) is not the exclusive domain of the church. It never was. If the society is to love justice and obey the universal prinicples God placed in front of it then it must fight it's evils and overcome them. God expects every nation state to act justly and when they don't he crushes them.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 12:51 PM

Don,

Wa aleykum salaam.

I agree that the Wahhabi are new, and reactionary. But then, so were the Protestants of the Reformation. At the same time, both are/were trying to get back to the beginnings of their respective faiths. Just because one is reactionary, doesn't mean that one isn't also Primitivist- indeed, they often are synonymous movements. Wahhabism represents one attempt to truly return to the beginnings of Islam, just as Luther and the Anabaptists are two attempts to truly get to the beginnings of Christianity.

Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | January 4, 2008 1:33 PM

“I'm against public school, and most other things that begin with "public...". jurisnaturalist

As an MPH student I have to ask: what about public health?

Posted by: neuro_nurse | January 4, 2008 2:01 PM

Who did Mohammed murder kevin? Who did he rape? You do realize that a lot of muslims don't believe he had sex w/ his child bride till she was much older right?

"Morality is not defined by culture and time."

Yes it is. That's why God could tell Israel to protect their wives and immigrants in one passage and when Nehiamiah rebuilds the wall those same descendants could later divorce those wives to worship God and become holy. Ofcourse morality is defined by culture, that's why I don't have to obey the Mosiac law. I am not a Jew. Are you?

"I'll leave that question to the Bible, but it isn't relevant. So you are saying that not only is it possible for one who has murdered not to be a murderer, but also that it is slander to call one who has murdered a murderer. Suffice to say, this definition of slander would not hold up in court."

David was the worst father in biblical history, not to mention personally responsible for the census plague.

" I am not giving him any sort of pass. He was a flawed man, but a man who is in heaven because he was after God's own heart. "

Being a man after God's heart is not what got him into heaven. It's loving God. Being a man after God's own heart stopped him from being killed but it did not save his soul. Only his faith in God's redemption could do that.

"I am not ignoring truth. I am simply not adhering to a religion you seem to be making up as you go along. Being created in God's image does not mean we have God's truth within us. That directly contradicts scripture (not least of which 1 John 2:4). The Bible teaches exactly the opposite of what you just said."

Look Mohammed never claimed to have a personal relationship w/ Jesus so how could he claim to follow Christ's commands as a Christian? You are putting your Christian attitudes of judgement and placing him as condemned when you are in no place to judge it. Mohammed committed no genocide unlike say Moses or Joshua. Neither repented for killing all those people as a matter of fact they are generally thought to be righteous acts.

So again my point stands. I am not making this up as I go along you are just trying to Christianize Mohammed. I am sorry but you can't do that. You might want to read your bible more closely. The world is the world and it won't live by the same standards you are trying to place on Mohammed. That whole chapter is about learning to love your brother, not about how non-Christians lack Jesus.

We are defining truth differently. What is your definition of truth as it relates to Jesus?

p

Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 3:59 PM

"Which did not happen in the case of Mohammed, but your assertion is incorrect regardless. Paul was a murderer. He readily admitted as much."

Technically it did. Jesus died for the whole world so from Jesus' end the cross was that powerful. Mohammed may have rejected it but it doesn't negate the cross or our mandate as Christians to not condemn people to hell which is exactly what you are getting at. Was he a false prophet?

Yah he probably was. Was he a scoundrel? I don't know because if i label him one then that means I have to do the same thing to Moses, Joshua and many other people. I am sorry but I can't do that.

Jed,

Thanks for that I did not know about all the assasinations and other acts accorded to Mohammed.

Kevin,

You were right, Mohammed was a murderer. He had people killed, the jury is out regarding being a rapist.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 4, 2008 4:17 PM

"You do realize that a lot of muslims don't believe he had sex w/ his child bride till she was much older right?"

I bet she couldn't wait. There is no real evidence for this position anyway. You are aware of what Mohammed's men did to women after killing their families, right? Does it really matter whether Mohammed himself partook (not that there is any reason at all to think he didn't).

"That's why God could tell Israel to protect their wives and immigrants in one passage and when Nehiamiah rebuilds the wall those same descendants could later divorce those wives to worship God and become holy. "

No, God could do this because he is God. What he forbids is forbidden, irrespective of what culture permits.

"Being a man after God's heart is not what got him into heaven. It's loving God. "

I guess I see one as part and parcel of the other.

"You are putting your Christian attitudes of judgement and placing him as condemned when you are in no place to judge it. "

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this sentence. I think we can agree that Mohammed did not repent before Christ. Given that, I can say that he was neither a real prophet, and that he is assuredly condemned. That is not the same as condemning someone.

Unless you disagree with the concept of limited atonement. But that is a disagreement about a scriptural issue, not evidence that I am slandering someone.

I am offering his acts, which were not blessed by God, as evidence of the Godless fruit he bore.

"Neither repented for killing all those people as a matter of fact they are generally thought to be righteous acts."

They had no need to repent. They were not in sin. You don't repent of what God has blessed.

"I am not making this up as I go along you are just trying to Christianize Mohammed. "

I am doing exactly the opposite.

"The world is the world and it won't live by the same standards you are trying to place on Mohammed."

Right. And Mohammed was of the world. That was the entire point I was making. Islam is a religion of the world, and so to expect Islam to reconcile itself with guidance from God is unrealistic.

America should act accordingly, and McLaren seems to be suggesting otherwise, as though the mere fact that these Muslims possess any faith will somehow unite them. Knowing what I know, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to occur.

"We are defining truth differently. What is your definition of truth as it relates to Jesus?"

That Jesus is the truth, and to reject Jesus is to reject truth. Do you disagree with that statement?

Posted by: kevin s. | January 4, 2008 6:12 PM

All of these posts have been vey interesting to read. Brian, that was a very nice peice and I agree with you, we all should pray for peace, no matter what religion we practice.

Every religion over the years has broken the most important commandment. More people have died in the name of God than for anything else. The Holy wars were the bloodist of all the wars in the world.

We should all pray for peace and we should all pray for the people of Pakistan. we all need to work to restore humanity to the world.
Angela

Posted by: Angela | January 4, 2008 8:55 PM

As far as ignoring racism… it is only the Christian’s responsibility to protect justice. If the church failed, then there is no hope for justice. At all. None. Any appeal to other sources of justice simultaneously appeal to shifting and changing conceptions of what justice is. Then justice becomes merely what is expedient.

Thank God He is bigger than the church ... because, in the South 40 to 50 years ago, the church did fail -- in fact, it proved part of the problem. God used the civil-rights movement to reform the church, the fruits of which we are seeing only now

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 11:27 AM

The Civil Rights movement did a great deal of good through the church in destroying unjust privileges. Unfortunately, some people took the movement too far, and used the same movement to institute other new privileges.

They were necessary, however, unless you intended to take everyone's money, contacts etc. and send everything back to page one -- and that wasn't going to happen. In fact, you suggest actually moving toward a Marxist-style "classless" society, which not even the Scriptures advocate.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 5:16 PM

Rick,
What new privileges were necessary? Which specific classes does Scripture teach are necessary? Not offices, but classes? Not everything Marx said was wrong. He made his mistake by following Adam Smith too closely in employing a labor theory of value.
Nathanael Snow

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 5, 2008 7:00 PM

"Affirmative action"
Again, how's that working out for you?
NS

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 5, 2008 9:29 PM

And you would not have made it except for affirmative action? You are obviously intelligent enough to do well on your own. If admissions are fair, no privileges, then the best students always get in. Walter Williams has shown how affirmative action often admits minority students into schools they are doomed to do poorly at because their admission credentials are relaxed. Your 3.83 and likely your extracurriculars spoke for you. Of course, with grade inflation today, the GPA would be discounted...
NS

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | January 6, 2008 8:42 AM

"Plus, I didn't graduate from a super-prep school or a top suburban high school known for numerous National Merit scholars. If you think that doesn't make a difference -- well, I don't know what to tell you."

Rick is right about this. I experienced the bias against no-name schools when I applied to college. However, the simply answer would be to eliminate this particular bias (or bias in favor of kids who obviously didn't have the same opportunity), rather impose race-based admissions.

When I was at Pomona, I learned that admissions accords the equivalent of 200 SAT points to certain ethnicities (e.g. anyone not white or Asian) while not being from a certain collection of schools counts as a de-merit.

And the product of these schools are the ones tsk-tsking me for my politics? At least when Rick lectures me about what a cold-hearted bastard I am, he's being authentic.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 12:02 AM

Not just Joshua's army, but also Mose's too.

Deutoronomy 21:10-13
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

p

Posted by: payshun | January 7, 2008 4:46 AM

"Well, your politics more resemble those who went to the top suburban schools."

Not in my experience.

"But Kevin the same mass rapes happened w/ Joshua's army. Are you saying that they are better than Mohammed's men? Read numbers 31 and pay special attention to verse 18."

This was God's response to worshipping a false God. I don't see how this could possibly be rendered as a vindication for the acts of Mohammed, unless you believe that God himself is false.

Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 10:20 PM

There is no vindication for mass murders or genocide. That's what they did during that time so I leave it alone and let God sort it out. My point is that I am in no place to judge their hearts even though I find both acts (Mohammed's murders and relationship w/ Aliya, and Moses' call to kill entire city states) repugnant and disgusting. They were wrong regardless if God sanctioned either one.

p

Posted by: payshun | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM