« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Prophet, Lunatic, or Liar

By: mailloux (Diary)  |  June 15th, 2010 at 01:13 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

There’s a great elephant roaming the living room of western civilization. All the western family is gathered in that living room and cocktails are being served, but the elephant, although perfectly obvious, is being perfectly ignored. That elephant is Islam.

Incidences like the Fort Hood massacre happen, yet official reports omit explanative terms relating to motive, like “Islamicist” or “Jihadist”. Riots occur with frightening regularity in Muslim neighborhoods in European cities, and all we hear about are “disgruntled youth” or “unemployed youth”. Despite rioters’ cries of “Allahu Akbar” (translation: God is the Greatest), the media is loathed to mention Islam.

Then, there’s a long historical record of anti-Semitism in Islamic cultures, yet all we hear by way of explanation from the media (and higher education, and governments, and the entertainment industry, and etc.) is that the “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding in 1948 caused all the Muslim animosity toward the Jews. Helen Thomas, that washed up old crackpot, was still lucid enough to express a commonly held misperception in western circles . . . that only if the Jews left Israel and went back to Germany and Poland, everything would be hunky dory. Never-ever should one propose the hypothesis that Islam is anti-Semitic. Such a hypothesis should never-ever be subject to inquiry. Its mere mention . . . well, it’s . . . it’s . . . it’s downright RACIST! Some things . . . like Islam for instance . . . are exempt from inquiry.

Hogwash! We were given by God an intellect for a reason. Our intellect is part of what make us created in the image and likeness of God. We can and should use it to seek truth . . . to investigate . . . to reason . . . to search for evidence scientific, historical, and philosophical . . . to build cases . . . to yearn to discern what God knows and what he equipped us to find out. Faith and reason were never meant to be at odds.

And, by no means am I suggesting that Islam be targeted and mercilessly ridiculed. Honest inquiry and ridicule are two very different things that have become confounded in our politically correct, western world. If the subject at hand (Islam, for example) is afforded any sort of victim status, then the pc world, in an Orwellian maneuver, equates inquiry with ridicule . . . hence, the racist meme.

So what’s the antidote for the pc juggernaut? It’s a combination of good, old fashioned resolve and a thick skin. Simply put, the pc version of reality must be jettisoned, and the accusations of racist must be summarily dismissed . . . one must develop an immunity to this cringe inducing blackjack of the progressives. It’s OK to honestly inquire. It’s OK to use your God-given faculties to discern truth.

And, I try to practice what I preach. I teach catechism to 9th and 10th graders in my parish. When I greet a new class each year, I challenge them right away: “Why are you here?” “Is there a God?” “Is Jesus Christ the Son of God or was he just a nice moral guy who had charisma and a way with words?” “Was Jesus a prophet who predicted the coming of Mohammed?” “Is reincarnation true?” Most of these questions are not at all novel among the 9th and 10th grade students. Most have thought these very thoughts or ones quite similar. After all, they have an intellect and they are naturally inclined to use it.

So then, the catechism class proceeds to inquire. Honest inquiry and debate are welcome. They aren’t portrayed as blasphemous. I build a case that God exists and we discuss the pros and cons of the arguments. Eventually, we approach Josh McDowell’s Trilemma, asking the following question concerning the person of Jesus Christ: “Was Christ Lord, lunatic, or liar?” McDowell’s Trilemma is a later version of C.S. Lewis’ character argument concerning Jesus Christ, simply put as, “Jesus Christ was either God or bad man.” We then make the case as if we were in a court of law. All evidence is used, biblical, historical, archeological, scientific. We are inquirers with inquiring minds who are on an honest search for truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

This same approach, however, does not seem to be a welcome idea among many Muslims. Proposing a Trilemma about Mohammad (i.e. “Was he prophet, lunatic, or liar?”) may be considered un-Islamic. Even drawing a nice picture of Mohammed is considered anathema among many Muslims. How much more so would a Trilemma sort of inquiry be considered an unforgivable affront? In fact, in many Muslim countries in the world, conversion from Islam is punishable by death . . . that sends a clear message that honest inquiry, which is integral to a conversion experience, is not welcome.

Here in western civilization we are expected to mill about our collective living room, sipping our cocktails whilst an elephant wanders about ignored largely out of fear. The elephant tramples some of the fine furniture and might even crush a guest or two, but no one dares mention its burgeoning presence. Islam is a growing religion in the west. Mosques are going up faster than Walmarts. Colleges are abandoning their dedication to the “separation of church and state” and are building foot baths in public bathrooms to accommodate Muslim students. Cutting edge Comedy Central cows to jihadist threats and censors South Park. Innocent men, women, and children lose their lives in terrorist acts, and the last human utterance they hear before death is “God is the Greatest” (Allahu Akbar). Jews in several Muslim nations are regularly referred to as pigs and dogs; even their children’s TV shows include such references. Israel as a Jewish nation is regularly threatened with annihilation, not so much on political grounds as on religious ones.

The elephant in the room is here. He’s big and he means business. Islam is the elephant in the living room of western civilization. The religion was founded by Mohammad. Either he was what he said he was, The Prophet, or he was a lunatic or a liar or some combination of lunatic and liar. If that Trilemma argument can be fairly applied to Jesus Christ, then it can be fairly applied to Mohammad. This is exactly the debate that needs doing. It isn’t blasphemy. It’s the just application of our God-given intellect.

By no means do I have all the answers to all the questions. But, I am slowly and surely inquiring. I want the truth because in the truth we will find real progress and genuine freedom. To ignore that elephant in the living room of western civilization is the first fatal step in cultural suicide. As you sip your Manhattan and fret about American hegemony, an elephant saunters your way. Better take notice of it right away, and second, inquire about it.

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    There were times when questioning or especially disagreeing with the teachings of the Church could mean death.

    I’m not disagreeing with your premise that we should all be able to question any religion, but you can’t paint one religion this way without at least acknowledging the past.

    • mailloux

      Acknowledging the past is very good advice . . . not often followed, but good advice nonetheless. People acting in the name of Christianity have indeed committed their share of sins. History shows that, but even that must be examined with a critical eye. Commonly held understandings of past events often do not quite match the historical facts; some events have been propagandized as weapons against Christianity in particular and religion in general. With that said, however, I can at least say that the Catholic Church (especially during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II) has gone to great lengths to acknowledge past errors and crimes, leading to formal apologies to entire populations such as the Jewish people.

      During Pope Benedict?s recent visit to Cyprus, he made a heartfelt plea for religious freedom for minority populations on that island, which include both the Muslim minority and the Catholic minority. Interestingly, the majority on the island (the Orthodox) who hold the most territory have gone to great lengths to protect and preserve Muslim holy sites such as mosques. In contrast, in Muslim controlled areas, the churches are now former churches and have been converted to other uses. In Cyprus, as in many places in the world, respect is not a two way street.

      My post is a call to engage in real, genuine religious freedom. Muslims call their evangelization Da?wa and they practice it in many ways and most effectively. For example, Europe is fast becoming Eurabia as well explained by Mark Steyn. The Europeans have acted quite stupidly in response to what they are now facing. They tried multiculturalism and the nanny state. It failed. And now, they are off to more draconian policies such as banning minarets or banning the wearing of the veil; these draconian policies are the equivalent of shutting the barn door long after the horse is gone.

      Islam, from my understanding, is a religion whose very nature includes taking over the body politic and the law of the land (Sharia), but it is at its core a religion. Hence, it must be engaged in those terms. Currently, however, that?s all but impossible. It?s a case of religious freedom for thee but not for me, courtesy of multiculturalism (which automatically assumes western Christian civilization is evil). The playing field is not an even one (i.e. free) when, for example, a mere cartoon depiction of Mohammad elicits fatwas calling for death. The resulting fear must be palpable when Comedy Central, the great critics of organized religion (at least of the Christian variety), buckle to self censorship only when it comes to Mohammad.

      Islam has made great inroads into western culture, but along the way, it seems to have sent the loud and clear message (i.e. ?Death to all those who insult the Prophet) that it will not tolerate a fair and critical exchange of ideas. It seems to expect the west to enter the fray of ideas with two hands tied behinds its back and its legs hobbled. It has come to expect a self-imposed dhimmitude resulting from the cultural cancer of multiculturalism and plain old fear of angry bearded men screaming threats.

      Personally, I reject that and I don?t scare easily. When Islam engages in Da?wa, I will engage in evangelism. I will do so not by the sword, but on the playing field of ideas. I stand on the shoulders of giants (Augustine, Aquinas, John Paul II, C.S. Lewis, etc.). Further, I will not enter the playing field of ideas handicapped by multiculturalism. ?Prophet, Lunatic, or Liar? is as valid a question as ?Lord, Lunatic, or Liar.? My post is a call to engage anyone (Muslim and fellow Christian) in a thorough and critical exploration of an increasingly prominent force in western culture, Islam. I do not hide my own dirty laundry nor do I shrink against critique. In the spirit of true religious freedom, I expect the same from Islam. Bullying to achieve silence and submission is NOT acceptable.

      NightTwister, thank you for taking the time to read my post and for your thoughtful comment. I hope my reply sheds some light on my thoughts and intentions when writing this post.

      Take Care, mailloux

      • penguin2

        I’m out of town taking care of my dgt. who had surgery, and have looked in a little bit, but haven’t been able to quite be myself with analysis and comment….

        I wanted to tell you I understood your diary and this follow-up comment is an excellent statement on the state of affairs regarding the inequality of Islam’s perception of other faiths, and their expectation of what our view of theirs should be.

        Intolerance vs Tolerance, to me, that is the difference.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    and more specifically, who you are calling to apply the Lewisian logic? Assuming 3 non-overlapping sets of people:
    SIC – self-identified Christians
    SIM – self-identiried Muslims and
    SIB – somewhere-in-betweens,
    please help me know which applications, numbered below, are what you are calling the RedState community to apologetically engage in?

    Concerning the Question: Is Jesus Christ Liar, Lunatic or Lord?
    1) SIC individually asking themselves
    2) SIC asking other SIC
    3) SIC asking SIB
    4) SIC asking SIM
    5) SIB individually asking themselves
    6) SIB asking other SIB
    7) SIB asking SIC
    8) SIB asking SIM
    9) SIM individually asking themselves
    10) SIM asking other SIM
    11) SIM asking SIC
    12) SIM asking SIB
    Concerning the Question: Is Mohammad Liar, Lunatic or Prophet?
    13) SIC individually asking themselves
    14) SIC asking other SIC
    15) SIC asking SIB
    16) SIC asking SIM
    17) SIB individually asking themselves
    18) SIB asking other SIB
    19) SIB asking SIC
    20) SIB asking SIM
    21) SIM individually asking themselves
    22) SIM asking other SIM
    23) SIM asking SIC
    24) SIM asking SIB

    This may seem pedantic, but I really want to you understand what you are proposing, and I cannot make it out from your article.

    • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

      shoulda used a list …

    • mailloux

      it actually is full-on pedantic!

      As to the audience the post is addressing, please see my answer to NightTwister above.

      Thanks for reading and commenting!

      Take Care, mailloux

      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        but my point was not to merely set up a combinations chart but rather to make it easier to get a better take on what you see as the root of the problem, because I do hope to address some concerns I have with what you have laid out. My response will need a bit more time, but in the meantime I think yours to NightTwister does give me a better sense of what you’re asking for, so there is no need for you to dive into my combinations.

      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        If your figure with western civilization as the “family in the living room” implies, as is usually the case with the expression, that Islam is either the sole, or significantly the largest, elephant, then I reject your premise. Latter-day Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Pietism, theological Liberalism, and their Kantian spawn, the zeitgeist Moralistic Therapeutic Deism* have completely trampled the room and nearly all of the family. You clearly want Muslims to evaluate the person of Mohammad en route to rejecting his qualifications as prophet. My first question is simply, approximately what percentage of persons now alive in the West would you say has applied the Lewisian test** and found Jesus of Nazareth–in a notitia to assensus to fiducia sense–Lord–such that they could joyfully and wholeheartedly confess:

        It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus his only begotten Son, according to a covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things and Judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

        The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance: So that two whole perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one Person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which Person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

        The Lord Jesus by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

        God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
        .
        The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and glory, with everlasting reward in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

        Second, what is the apostolic/scriptural foundation for, and how do you plan on enforcing, “In the spirit of true religious freedom, I expect the same from Islam. Bullying to achieve silence and submission is NOT acceptable”?

        Third, given that you posted this challenge on an ostensibly political site, are you recommending that the Liar/Lunatic/Prophet logic test*** become part of political discourse–as in, let’s say, getting Martin’s thoughts out in the open about that?

        * Christian Smith’s term
        ** I know McDowell coined the term Trilemma, but nearly the entire argument, if 35-year memory serves, remains Lewis’
        *** I do hope you’ve considered that the Lewisian test assumes both the accuracy of Christ’s claim (thus eliminating the option of misrepresentation) and its extremity (the equality of a man with God) and also lumps spiritual activity with lunacy; whereas if a test of Mohammad rested analogously on the truth of the Qur’anic manuscripts, there would be no need for further analysis, the claims of prophet are not analogous to those of divinity, and the spiritual branch should certainly be explored as well. In other words, you can’t just slap the one test neatly atop a radically different situation.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          There’s no reason to attack mailloux just because he hasn’t parroted your precise theological formulae.

          How about commending his standing for the Faith and saving your attacks for those who pervert the Gospel and pollute His House.

          We all need everyone we can get to build seawalls. Are you on the building team – or do you want to expend your energy fussing over building materials contractors? Let’s get real here.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            and I am curious to know in exactly what way I “attack[ed] mailloux” by asking three non-rhetoricals.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            What I see is that you spend most of your energy here at RedState debating with Christians over the fine points of Calvinism, which in this exigency serves to weaken and distract us from our common goal to reverse the new paganism/triumphalist Islam that threatens to extinguish our Western civilization and cleanse the world of Christians (and Jews).

            If you would spend more of your time playing Christian apologist with the non-Christians, you would be of service here.

            Now I have seen that some of your debates at RedState have expanded the minds of people here who don’t have any understanding of the Reformed tenets. But again, your priorities and passion seem skewed toward debating other Christians rather than engaging the world – and you really should look at redirecting your energies.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Rather, I asked him to clarify his intended audience, and when he had done so via his response to NightTwister, I conditionally rejected his major premise, proposed a more comprehensive alternate premise, asked three direct questions* for clarification, and in my final footnote made a minor and constructive critique of his weapon of choice. Your charge is further undercut by mailloux’s own repeated invitations**:

            We were given by God an intellect for a reason. Our intellect is part of what make us created in the image and likeness of God. We can and should use it to seek truth . . . to investigate . . . to reason . . . to search for evidence scientific, historical, and philosophical . . . to build cases . . . to yearn to discern what God knows and what he equipped us to find out. Faith and reason were never meant to be at odds.
            :
            It?s OK to honestly inquire. It?s OK to use your God-given faculties to discern truth.
            :
            And, I try to practice what I preach.
            :
            Honest inquiry and debate are welcome. They aren?t portrayed as blasphemous. I build a case … We then make the case as if we were in a court of law. All evidence is used, biblical, historical, archeological, scientific. We are inquirers with inquiring minds who are on an honest search for truth. Let the chips fall where they may.
            :
            By no means do I have all the answers to all the questions. But, I am slowly and surely inquiring. I want the truth because in the truth we will find real progress and genuine freedom.
            :
            My post is a call to engage in real, genuine religious freedom.
            :
            … I don?t scare easily. … I will engage in evangelism. I will do so not by the sword, but on the playing field of ideas. I stand on the shoulders of giants … I do not hide my own dirty laundry nor do I shrink against critique.

            I’ll let others judge the warrant of your indictment of my absence of service here and your exhortations to “get real here” and “redirect [my] energies”, but it may restore communication or at least enlighten other readers if I state my alternative more directly.

            I reject the premise of Islam being the greatest imminent threat to the west, not because it is not a threat at all, but primarily because its danger is correlative to the decay that has so engulfed–one could say willingly–the church in the west over the last ~200 years. In the same way that contagion is far more deadly to the unhealthy than the healthy, Islam has typically advanced most rapidly into new territories when the church was at markedly low levels of doctrinal purity and holy life. While it is fitting that some seek antidotes, put up netting and lay on the DDT, those doing so would be unwise to discount overwhelming evidence that their own people were nearly all afflicted with kwashiorkor and rebuke those intent on supplying proper nutrition, instructing in hygiene, and moving villages from riverbank to higher ground.

            Returning to your analogy about beach toys, civil_truth, there are waves that the best seawall will not stop, and even the most prudent builder must urge his crew and their families to move off the beach and onto the highest rock that can be found. Unless I misunderstand your analogy, you used “fighting over sand toys/fussing over building materials contractors” as a repudiation of employing “precise theological formulae”, presumably in favor of getting real and being of service by attacking the heathen at the door; the sad irony being that in the most famous of all the tidal wave, sand and higher ground stories–and the only one that really counts–the only safe place turns out to be described … in a precise theological formula.

            * One of which he answered and one of which he clearly, and vastly, misunderstood–a detail I hope to address below with him soon.
            ** Yes, I am fully aware that mailloux’s quotes were nearly all made in the context of his addressing either teenage catechumens or Muslim debaters, but even so, if those are his normal–or even intended–audiences, what cause could he possibly have to take offense from a creaky old pedantic Congregationalist?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            So let’s get down to brass tacks. In making a somewhat cryptic allusion to Matt 7:26-27, you wrote:

            the sad irony being that in the most famous of all the tidal wave, sand and higher ground stories-and the only one that really counts-the only safe place turns out to be described … in a precise theological formula

            In your prior paragraph to that statement, you do correctly point out the serious decline of the church, particularly in the West, which does include rejection of historical doctrines and practice in favor of what Paul called “philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ…” [Col 2:8]

            However, it fallacious to argue from this major premise that the remedy – and safety – lie in a precise theological formula. Indeed, not only fallacious, but plain wrong, illusory, even idolatrous.

            Indeed, in the Matthew passage, Christ says that the safety is in doing his sayings, not in precise theological formulation. Or, lest I be misunderstood, I’m not disparaging theological activity, but rather putting one’s trust, one’s hope of safety in those theological formulations. And such searching for safety in a perfect theology, under the tutelage of Calvinistic leaders, certainly made a shipwreck of much of my life.

            Moreover, your evident belief – as you have demonstrated here in your RedState comments – that convincing Christians to adhere to Reformed/Calvinistic teachings is the path to the Church’s “safety” against the storms of the world is equally flawed. Indeed, ironically it is such single-minded focus on theological purity and uniformity within an all-encompassing systematic theology that in practice aggravates divisions within the church and saps the energies of Christians to defend and repel the invasions of pagan and anti-Christian teachings and practice that are preparing our civilizational house for a great fall.

            The stated purpose of RedState is to advance conservative and Republican interests in the political sphere. The theological discussions that arise because God and faith underlie the conservative convictions of many of the RedState community members, are for that purpose of strengthening and advancing conservative and Republican political objectives.

            Your primary goal too often seems rather to convince all the other Christians at RedState to adhere to Calvinism – and that is inimical to what RedState is about, and causes division at a time that common action is desperately needed. Which division and tearing down is something I’ve personally observed in lives of multiple individuals and churches as the bitter fruit of Calvinistic teachings.

            Thus I urge you to redirect your energies – or to take your missionary zeal to a theology site.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            less so, your non-withdrawal of the earlier unwarranted charge of “attacking mailloux”, and now the new implication that I have employed a “fallacious … plain wrong, illusory, even idolatrous” argument. Not that I am in any way above such criticism, but because you are misinterpreting what I have clearly stated.

            Hitting rewind for a second, the “precise theological formulae” phrase entered the thread with your charge that I had “attack[ed] mailloux for not parroting my precise theological formulae”; I then echoed your phrase in my allusion to the Matthew 7 passage:

            the only safe place turns out to be described ? in a precise theological formula

            However, your implication that I had argued

            that the remedy – and safety – lie in a precise theological formula

            completely overlooks my use of “described” in the allusion. That is, the remedy and safety are indeed to be found in Jesus Christ, and in Jesus Christ alone, but the factual details of that safety was put into propositional form–ie, a precise theological formula–by Jesus Christ himself.

            The problem, civil_truth, is that no truth claim can be made without the employment of words; in particular, any claims about God will necessarily employ words, and whether they are “precise” or not*, all such claims are, by definition, “theological formulae”. This is explicitly highlighted in the Matthew passage, where Jesus’ promise of safety to everyone who “does them” is tied to “who hears these words of mine”, that is, his words–theological formulae–about himself and his mission. And it is those words which have become nearly eclipsed in many parts of the church.

            Given the venue it would be imprudent for me to comment on your own personal history. Some might consider your repeated exhortations to me in the same light; let’s just say that if you think my motivation for posting when theological issues are breached is in any way analogous to ideological-purity-motivated, self-destructive voting behavior, you are greatly mistaken.

            * don’t worrry, I will not charge you with advocating imprecise theological formulae! But it does bring to mind the old rejoinder to the agnostic who hated “organized religion”, “so you prefer disorganized religion?”

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            …too many competing demands on my time. So briefly:

            1) I felt your taking issue with mailoux rather than giving him a “high five” for engaging the youth he was teaching was tearing down rather than being an encourager. What to you may have been intellectual exercise thus came across to me as an unedifying “attack”. I really don’t want to belabor this or to further parse what is an “attack” – but rather would ask you going forward to consider the larger picture.

            2) I have no substantive dispute with your further explication about what you meant by “precise theological formulation”, in terms of your basic affirmations that a) our trust is in Jesus Christ, b) our most reliable knowledge about God comes to us in words, especially from the One who spake to our ancestors as the eternal Logos made flesh.

            “There is a time to keep silence and a time to speak”

            So if you want the last word, that’s up to you, but I’ll have to defer further discussion to a more propitious time.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Well said. It matters greatly to me that you and I got this far without more weapons being drawn. And while I’m open to discussing nuts and bolts, I’m fully aware that this can’t be the venue–especially in primary season when all hands are needed on deck.

            So just 2 last words. It clearly bothered you that my taking issue with mailloux’s premise re Islam was aggravated by my not praising his mention of his catechetical work. Whether either “civil” propriety or the tenor of the site require admonition for failing to preface logical challenges with words of personal approval is an open question*, but the simple fact is that “truth” precludes my doing so for the particular work mailloux mentioned, and to speak falsehood about such an issue would invite the charge of flattery, so silence was in order there. Let me flip the tables–I am not at all hurt by anyone here–including mailloux or yourself–not “high fiving” the very similar work I do, because we all know that part of our core teaching includes very explicit statements denying the others’ core teachings**! That is, although one of the earliest dogmas of “American Civil Religion” is “any religious activity/teaching is better than none, and is therefore to be publicly commended”, scriptural Christianity is a little more … particular.

            Secondly, back to “the larger picture” and the point of the OP, l must reiterate–there is indeed a greater threat of Islamic incursion than in our lifetimes. My difference with mailloux is one of priority; my history instructs me that cultures most susceptible to under-the-radar Islamic–or communist, or fascist–influence, for some strange reason happened to be the ones in which the greatest departure had occured–within the church–from “the faith once delivered to the saints”, and consequently, a reversal of the dehumanizing inroads cannot really be expected to stand without those in the church doing more of what the church, rather than the magistrate, is supposed to do.

            * let’s just say it has not seemed the norm here, any more than third-party defense against explicit, slanderous personal attacks–not that such have ever been made against me!–is the norm.
            ** and for any readers who are offended by that, I at least have found a motivation which allows me to reject another’s fundamental presumptions about reality–and their propagation of the same–while simultaneously accepting them as a fully coequal bearer of both remnants of the imago Dei and original sin with whom one can work side-by-side in matters temporal and attempt to persuade in those eternal.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Would you agree that because the plain words of the text of the Koran admonishing muslims today to kill the infidel etc, it would be much more difficult for Islam to have anything like the equivalent of the Protestant Reformation.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Cinco to Cuatro? No comprendo.

            If you mean the volume, hey, this is N’Yawk chico, and this is how we tawks in this coop! I grew up among people in my native New England who you could not get to talk about matters of faith in a lifetime; here, 3 minutes on the sidewalk with a total stranger is enough for both of you to know without a doubt where the other stands. It could end in a “you’re nuts” or “I’m OK” or an embrace–or best yet, a “tell me more”, but there’s something refreshing about a “civil” exchange which gets quickly to the “truth” without a lot of flattery–which I seem to recall we’re warned against.

            If you mean Solas … no go. Those or all or nothing.

            And CT was still nose-above-water and kicking last time I saw him. No fear there.

            To your q. One of the advantages of the reformed emphasis on the God’s absolute sovereignty in matters soteriological* is that it gives one ground for answering with confidence that the grace which was too irresistible for Peter and Paul and Augustine and Martin and John* is no less so for a host of Alis and Mohammeds and Youssefs.

            And to the immediate retort that –some– will want to hurl “but that means you just want us to sit around and not do anything and God will do it all!”, the answer, as always, is that God is pleased to accomplishes even his supernaturally monergistic work of calling dead, rotting old sinners to life in Christ through means–the means of preaching the Gospel via the ministry of word and sacrament. Which means that there is plenty for us to do until he gathers the harvest!

            Our church–as many others have–has prayed for and supported men who have spent lifetimes, sometimes in danger and distress, finding ways to take the gospel of Christ into the 10-40 window. We are now pleased to hear of nationals who are doing even more with their advantages. Picture this–a musically-inclined pastor begins setting the psalter to his culture’s ragas. He establishes orphanges which teach children music along with the faith. He gets government permission to host an annual psalms festival open to Muslim and Christian alike, at which the opportunities for persuasion are immediate–”who was David prefiguring in Psalm 22?”. Now the same man is reciprocally helping our multi-year outreach to a Yemeni family here; our pastor’s wife and 2 of my children have been tutoring their learning-challenged teen son, and some of those tutoring sessions lead to frank discussion with family members about the difference between grace and law.

            The reason for criticism of much the “movement formerly calling itself American Christianity”–and that was at the heart of my challenge of the OP–is that too much of it has moved from grace–found Solus Christus–to law; that is, what was once a faith in the saving work of the Christ who is alone able to justify ungodly men before the judgment seat of God, has been softened to a pattern of comfortable moralism which thrives on finding ways to feel better about oneself***. The former offers real hope to all who embrace it–good old American and Muslim alike–the latter does not.

            * I know –you– at least eat appreciate precise terminology, Mike!
            ** take your pick–Baptist, Apostle, Wyclif, Hus, Calvin, Owen, Eliot, Bunyan, Edwards, Piper …
            *** in many ways, to be sure, ranging from “having one’s best life now” (yes, I know who said it) and “God wants you to be rich too!” and “God is sad that nobody loves po’ li’l you as much you deserve!” to “which side of the new lobby food court should be put the KFC and the McD’s on?” to “No Smoking/Dancing/Card-Playing Allowed, but you’re welcome to come and hear all the latest gossip about those that we’re pretty sure are” to “13 new steps to help you be a better husband/wife/parent/skeet shooter”. What they all have in common is an externalization of sin from condition to behavior and a consequent rejection of the need for a covenantal, gracious, sovereignly-planned, -accomplished, -initiated, -applied and -perfected salvation. Which places the adherents of the same in a very, very similar place to … the followers of a self-described prophet who also denied original sin and divine monergism in salvation.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to argue this point and maybe that’s all my brain can handle! Plus, CT was tired. I can tell.

            Shouldn’t be surprised Mets fan?, as I have written several columns about Calvin’s role in the eventual establishment of self government on Earth in America.

            more later and I agree with 80% of all you said and am having theologians I trust dumb down the rest! smile

            Braves tied with Mets in loss column for first as Gamecocks play in College World Series. Life is good. The Apostle Paul liked sports Cinco, so you are predestined to follow suit and given the dearth of major college football in NY and the NE; and further given the protestant embrace of same as a sect of Christianity beginning in Alabama, we would welcome you as an honorary Gamecock, also a good male role model.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Lifelong.American.Leaguer. My town was smack in the forsaken zone along VT’s western lowlands where every town had 2 invisible gerrymanders, and everyone knew which side they were on of each: Catholic/Protestant and Yankees/Red Sox. (Even an ethnicially and politically homogeneous culture has to self-divide along some lines!) You could befriend, ecunemize, even intermarry among the former–but never the latter. I have been Bucky Arnold to my VT family since 1978 when, new to the Big Apple, I converted from my long-suffering childhood faith, and I have long lived 2,2 miles from the left-field fence of the (New and Better–apologies to Kenny!) Stadium.

            Mets? “Bronx cheer!” No offense.

            Thanks for the kind words and honors, but my heavily-spectacled head has never been able to comprehend the behavior of more than 1 or 2 moving people in the proximity of a moving sphere at any point in time. That has always ruled out basketball–national game of el barrio–and football–of either kind.

            Sorry to disappoint, GC. But if either of your NL gaggles makes it back to the Bronx in the fall with you in tow, I’d seriously love to have you over for hashing out our shared story. I just couldn’t guarantee your protection if you were sporting any distinguishing marks.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            was formed in large part to clean up the game the thugs in the NL had wrought.

            Babe Ruth was the greatest player ever. The Braves are the oldest team remaining.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • wannabeanncoulter

            Actually, the phrase in the Bible does not include “shining.” Ronald Reagan added the adjective in his speeches: shining city on the hill.

          • wannabeanncoulter

            The phrase “as a city upon a hill” is from John Winthrop’s sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity.”

            Reagan did add the shining, however.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            essentially founded this country. Many of the principles and values that informed the Constitution and the culture come from Calvinism, no matter the various monikers identifying the United States. Hence my point was to defend Cinco’s musings as relevant to Redstate’s mission.

          • Achance
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Achance

            I’m just a sucker for high cheek bones and narrow hips, and I know that isn’t even good evolutionary thinking. A smart man wants those “full-figured” hips because they’re better for child bearing. I never was all that smart; just liked the ones that looked good on my arm!

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            for a Marlboro and can be delivered, if not prepared in Connecticut. Has Sally Field done a Care package commercial yet for producing more of Ann! smile

            I have all her books and paid to meet her. She does look skinnier on TV amazingly, but the gal needs to protect her rib cage from exposure.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            In the first comment at the top of the thread NightTwister pointed out the need to acknowledge past errors in at least the application of one’s own faith. I not only admire much (not all!) of what the Puritans (large, English sense) wrote and said and did, I’m actually of New England Congregational stock, so I’m glad they decided to set sail. Even so, I am now one of a growing number of American reformed who are seeing the “city on a hill” concept as the dullest adze in the Massachusetts Purtians’ toolbox. I’m sure you would agree that things would have ended better if, let’s say, they had agreed to disagree with Roger Williams rather than pointing a blunderbuss to his backsides.

            I’ve developed it here before under a rubric of the 2-Kingdoms model, but theirs was a hermeneutical error which strangely but conveniently resurfaces whenever Christians find themselves either approaching majority status, or at the seat of government, in a culture. It first occurred with Constantine, then in the post-reformation nation-states (Protestant and Catholic alike), then in most colonies, including our own (Haile tried real hard too), even as recently as 1980-2001–mais ou sont les theonomists d’antan?

            The error consists in attempting to map details of the civil administration of divinely ordained, theocratic-monarchial Israel not only analogously, but literally, onto any contemporary nation/culture/community, under the assumption that one’s own nation/culture/community is under the same divine covenant as was Israel. The theological flaws are too many to even list, but at heart they do not acknowledge the very clear biblical teaching– rooted in Jesus’ repeated rebuke of his disciples’ wanting their kingdom here and now, and especially in Hebrews, which proclaims the particulars of Israel’s administration a necessary-but-now-obsolescent precursor to Christ–that God’s covental arrangement with Israel would not be repeated elsewhere once its purpose, the revelation of Christ in the flesh, had been once-for-all accomplished.

            All “city on a hill” culture/community/nation attempts are doomed to fail, not because the church and individual Christians are not to be “lights on stands” and “cities on a hill”, but precisely because no culture/community/nation is made up exclusively of Christians! To pretend that one is requires either a dishonest upward redefinition of that people’s history, or a Gospel-dishonoring downward redefinition of what a Christian is; it seems like both have been going on apace here in America.

            None of this is to deny that the presence of more true Christians tends to have a beneficial effect on a culture. It obviously does. But that positive effect is neither bound by a Sinai-spoken covenant of blessings and curses based on degrees of obedience and disobedience. It may be that the best thing for a particular generation of the church is to have its belt tightened a bit–higher taxes? restricted speech?–in order to hew it back toward a more God-glorifying doctrine and life, or it may be that the best thing for a particular nation is to let it linger along under the heaven-mounting accumulation of due wrath against unrepentant sin, in order that a handful more might be called into the ark before the door is shut … from the outside. Since we can’t know which, if either, is happening*, best to be found doing what we know full well what we’re supposed to be doing.

            * “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deuteronomy 29:29

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I was not using that quote to say anything about Puritans per se. I confusingly conflated Protestantism with Calvinism. But my main appoint applies to both and that is that protestant and Calvinistic thought, values and people did greatly inform the founders, which makes your contributions here quite relevant to a conservative website.

            I use city on a hill like I use US, America, etc

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            America with the church, not always explicitly, but still damagingly, and that really does go back to that error that did unwisely surface among the New England Congregationalists. Art has repeatedly noted its fatal theological defect of implying the ability of a culture, and therefore its people, to be perfected. This simply cannot be squared with the “T” in TULIP, original sin, and they were wrong to have slipped in that direction. The concern for many on the reformed side is to keep our fellow evangelicals from making a similar mistake as resulted in the liberal Protestant mainlines, all of which began when churches rooted in reformational soil wanted more action in the kingdoms of this world at the expense of the gospel of Christ.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • mailloux

          Atheists debate Christians all the time, just witness Dinesh D?Souza. No one in these debates is threatened with death and no one seems to be inclined to censor these debates from happening. There is freedom here.

          As Islam grows in the west, there is a deafening silence. Due to PC sensibilities coupled with plain old fashioned fear (from jihadists? threats and actions), there is not, in my opinion, a free exchange of ideas. And, there?s the difference between Islam and the host of other doctrines you mentioned.

          As for scriptural reference as to why I write what I write? Seek and ye shall find . . . seeking requires free debate and inquiry. Being shackled with fear tends to make the seeking part a little difficult. Secondly, we as Christians are called to evangelize the world.

          Finally dear sir, you are guilty of presumption. You hardly know my motivations, yet you accuse me of targeting a single individual in the RedState community (Martin). You are quite wrong. I love reading and contributing to RedState, but I do avidly read other blogs . . . for example, Atlas Shrugs among others that track jihadist efforts throughout the world. That . . . not that it?s really any of your business . . . is my motivation.

          Finally, if you despise my writings, then don?t read them. If you think I?m a wild eyed fringe lunatic, then complain to the management. It?s their site. I?m a guest here. If they tell me to cease and desist, then I?ll do exactly that.

          Take Care, mailloux

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            the heart of my rationale for challenging your largest-elephant premise.

            I would also ask you to revisit your charge:

            you are guilty of presumption. You hardly know my motivations, yet you accuse me of targeting a single individual in the RedState community (Martin). You are quite wrong.

            Where did I even come close to “accus[ing you] of targeting … Martin”? Here is the third of my three questions, on which your charge in based:

            Third, given that you posted this challenge on an ostensibly political site, are you recommending that the Liar/Lunatic/Prophet logic test become part of political discourse?as in, let?s say, getting Martin?s thoughts out in the open about that?

            I fail to understand how a hypothetical application in my simple question became an accusation against you, requiring a public rebuke for presumption? Please enlighten me.

            Of course if you meant presumption in the “hoping to obtain … glory without merit” sense, you would be quite right to find me guilty; I will gladly concur, but this isn’t the place to hammer out that case beyond each of us knowing where the other stands, anymore than it would be the place for the actualization of my hypothetical about Martin beyond the public challenge which your OP already accomplished. This is the wrong venue for anything beyond such public proclamation, not because the Christian truth claims need to be shielded from contact with the political or cultural world, but because their potentially life-shattering impact is meant to be evaluated and nurtured, not in an impersonal virtual vacuum but in the personal and immediate context of the local church.

            I’m not sure I see how your response

            Seek and ye shall find . . . seeking requires free debate and inquiry. Being shackled with fear tends to make the seeking part a little difficult. Secondly, we as Christians are called to evangelize the world.

            answers part of my second question

            how do you plan on enforcing … “Bullying to achieve silence and submission is NOT acceptable”?

            That is, beyond repeated references to the unacceptability of Islam’s restriction of free debate, I really can’t see what you have in mind to change the situation. That’s why I was so insistent on knowing who your audience is. Is there something you want RS’ers to do? Christians to do? Republicans to do? The government to do? Or are you intending this forum to reach your Muslim neighbors to ask them to listen? Or the American Muslim community? Or its leaders?

            Moving back to my first question, about your perception of what percentage of Americans would fully agree with the Lordship of Jesus Christ, I would still appreciate any response, because our perceptions of that issue are likely to be related to our perception of the number and size and destructive potential of in-house elephants.

            In light of your

            As Islam grows in the west, there is a deafening silence. … there is not, in my opinion, a free exchange of ideas.

            I would encourage you to watch the videos ofThe Bible and the Qur’an: A Muslim-Christian Dialogue, with Imam Shamsi Ali and Pastor James White, which goes a bit beyond even Josh McDowell. Since this seems precisely the sort of thing you are pleading for, I hope to hear your reaction.

            And finally, as I hinted to civil_truth, it strikes me as very curious for someone who calls for debate, inquiry and questions about what he believes, not shrinking from critique, to impugn a questioner with “despis[ing his] writings” and then encouraging said questioner to not read them!

          • mailloux

            “as in, let?s say, getting Martin?s thoughts out in the open about that?” Those were your words. They do indeed imply that my post was possibly designed to attack a particular front page poster. You can use all the wordy excuses you want to say that wasn?t your intention. I ain’t buying it. How’s that for simple? Trying to weasel out of your accusation makes me want to add the descriptor of liar along with pompous ass.

            As for my post, I think I’ve made myself pretty clear both in the post and in follow-up comments. I’m not going to spend even more time rephrasing for you pleasure. If you disagree with whatever the hell you think my premise is, then that’s your right.

            mailloux

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
          • mailloux

            “2478″ I imagine references the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but of course, in order to find that out, I had to play your little game. A typical tactic of yours.

            You’re not a straight shooter, Cinco, and I’ve tired of your little game. I’ve been quite patient with your tirades directed in particular at my diaries. In my opinion, I see a pattern. It’s not a rash judgment.

            mailloux

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Again I plead guilty to your charge of being cryptic. Although–on a site at which ellipsis and allusion are held by some to be a tacit acknowledgment of their audience’s shared knowledge, and following a disapproving charge of being “wordy”, and given the more personal turn of the thread, and given your proven ability (undoubted on my part due to your earlier description of your calling) to solve the riddle–I remain confused by the charge, I must be content to let it stand.

            What seems to have been lost, perhaps, is the application of the question in two particulars. For the first, although you have rejected my quite straightforward explanation, I am finding it very hard to recall just where, in the spirit of “but if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it,” I was asked how I understood the offending phrase. For the second, in the same spirit, although I have attempted to get an answer to my first question**, I do not recall any such answer. If I have missed any of this, I will welcome being pointed in the right direction.

            “Tirades directed in particular at [your] diaries” has even this presumptive, pompous, weaseling, possible liar*** wondering “When did I manage to find time for that?” Prior to your “Amerabia”, which I may visit soon, I see that I have engaged you on merely 3 (15%) of your last 20 diaries. Please enlighten me.

            If it’s any comfort, the reason for my occasional comments on your diaries is simply due to the fact that prior to the last election cycle, the share of RS content touching on any of theology/philosophy/culture was an order of magnitude higher than since, clearly due to life being lived more in the trenches than the barracks. Except for the occasional whimsical haiku over a departed moby or an awful pun intended to grease the skids of debate with a little “Jocularity! Jocularity!”, there are only a couple purely political topics I can comment on about once a year.

            My antennae rise, however, whenever anyone feels compelled to integrate politics and theology–because the latter especially, and the zone where the two intersect as well, are areas in which I find myself able to be of service. Since you are one of the few posters to now addresss those fields with some regularity, it should not really be surprising that I pop up from time to time.

            What remains surprising, however, is the speed with which you went from promoting your inability to get ruffled in theological debate, “letting the chips fall where they may”, even hoping to engage Muslims in honest inquiry, to–apparently, to date–refusing to answer two direct questions of mine so that you and I could indeed examine the issue without misunderstanding.

            Finally, mailloux, your refusal to accept my simple explanation of the hypothetical about Martin has me even more bewildered in the light of your second response back:

            Those were your words. They do indeed imply that my post was possibly designed to attack a particular front page poster.

            Given your proposal of an apologetical challenge to Muslims for the purposes of evangelism–which, although I critiqued a weak spot in it, I never rejected–even if I had suggested that you were “targeting” Martin (which I did not), how in the world would my saying that you were using a technique–with what we both agree are potentially positive benefits–equate to my charging you with “attacking” him? My brain hurts; please explain.

            I would still appreciate your reaction to the Ali/White dialogue as it relates to your decrial of the lack of Muslim/Christian theological debate. However, given your most recent thorough analysis of me, I will understand your reluctance to do so.

            * bane of blogging! the inability of private dispute settlement when appropriate
            ** in order to make the offer of an ostensibly “useful” suggestion while avoiding presumption about your analysis of the situation
            *** the line between what you wanted to charge me with and what you were actually charging me with being rather … cryptic

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            beneficial

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Know of any book club discussion group online?

  • ntrepid

    Your “…elephant is in our living room. He?s big and he means business” theme hits very close to my current frame of mind. See “Answer: Rarely more than One” (1) from a couple of weeks ago.

    It?s no accident that I’m currently focused that way, my eyes are wide open and I am afraid:

    “Islam is like fire. For a majority of Muslims who would reject, reform, or tacitly ignore its combustible elements, it is a force for good; a source of comfort, a guide to dignity and the life honorably lived. But for countless others – not a fringe, but tens of millions over whom the majority is bereft of influence – it is a conflagration waiting to happen. We are the realm it would engulf. And there is always a Blind Sheikh ready to light the fuse.”

    “We can open our eyes and see it. Or not.”

    (Closing paragraphs of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad by Andrew McCarthy.)

    Ntrepid
    Proud Redstate Member since April 2006??

    (1) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2010/05/29/answer-rarely-more-than-one/.

    • mailloux

      Thank you for taking the time to read, comment, and the reco too.

      “Intentional sightlessness” is a spot on way to describe what’s going on and I think I’ll pick up Andrew McCarthy’s book this summer.

      The 9-11 mosque near ground zero in NY is another example of intentional sightlessness. For goodness sake, they are even naming the intiative after Cordoba, which strikes me as very symbolic of Islam’s past inroads into Europe. If their intentions were to foster peace, brotherhood, and understanding, why not pick any other name than “Cordoba”?

      Take Care, mailloux

  • gekster

    http://www.redstate.com/redhead_infidel/2010/06/18/a-mosque-at-ground-zero-forsaking-israel-what%e2%80%99s-nexta-nuclear-iran/

    And yes, I have a bias.

  • OccamsRazor

    There’re analogies to American gangs (microcosim) extrapolated Globally to islam’ practice.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Islam is a lie and the only real reform would be that it go the way of other heresies to the ash heap of history. more immediately following

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      address convincingly argues to Europe’s Left to recognize that not all myths are created equal in the kind of culture that develops based upon same.

      The Pope discusses the Bible’s teachings consistency with reason and the major role played in creating a society of tolerance and non-violent settlement of disputes by non-violence.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/15/religion.uk

    • JSobieski

      All religious traditions have had murderers and other types of sinners and criminals. However, religious texts and teaching can either make what we in the western world have traditionally referred to as “bad behavior” either more or less likely.

      Attempts to muddy the waters with the bad acts of other religious believers totally misses the point that those folks were not acting in a manner consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

      There are only two major religious traditions that can be summarized as “what would X do”? Christians ask what Jesus would do, Muslims ask what Muhammed would do.

      Muhammed was a general, he waged war to take slaves and treasure. Jesus did none of those things, and no other faith can be so simply summarized as “what would X do?”

      All ideas are not equal. All faiths do not lead believers in the same direction. The sooner people come to grips with that, the better off they will be.

      • aesthete

        Yes, Jesus’ life is an excellent model for how the New Man should live, and we would do well as Christians to study it. However, I would point out that simply following the external acts of Jesus (i.e, asking, “What would Jesus do?”) is not in any way an approximation of the central tenets of Christianity, unless in asking, you realize that man in his fallen condition cannot begin to approach Jesus’ perfection and deeds, and should not even attempt it before having been reborn (which you cannot arrive at simply by asking, “What would Jesus do?”). I’m sure you didn’t intend to express it in that manner, but casting Jesus as a good man or a moral teacher is (unintentionally, in your case) woefully incomplete, and thus, dangerously inaccurate.

        But as to the rest of your point, I’m also not sure whether or not Islam can be “reformed”, persay, because of its founding documents and personages, and IMO, the best outcome that can be had would be to foster a secular populace, such as the one to be found in Iraq and Iran (don’t let the psychotic clerics fool you!). I’d love to have Martin prove me wrong, though.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Although the principles of turning the other cheek, non-coercion conversion, the presiousness of all human life etc are part of the matter and also part and parcel of an informed WWJD.

          But even before the New Testament,the Hebrews were civilizing beyond paganism and established many of the ideas that lead to private property rights, self government, etc

          The founders were Christians that revered the teachings of the Jews.

          Quite simply, the Jews and Christians civilized the western world and set the stage for its unparralleled success.

          • JSobieski

            The fact is that Christ himself is the best medicine for immoral Christians. The basis for Christian reform was the life of Jesus and the Gospels.

            Islam does not offer the same possibilities.

          • JSobieski

            You can criticize Moses or David to a Jew, and they would likely agree with you. Likewise, Confucious, Buddha, and others are not deemed “perfect” by believers in the applicable faiths.

            However, a Christian will never agree that Jesus “made a mistake” and a Muslim will never agree that Muhammed “acted cruelly.”

            The difference is, that one is far more likely to end in violence then the other, and the Hadiths describe a Muhammed who did behave cruelly in Judeo-Christian standards.

            The bottom line is that religions, just as ideas and ideologies, should not be relegated to a politically correct calculation of “all essentially the same.” There is a reason why the Age of the Enlightenment occurred in countries with a Judeo-Christian ethics, even if those ethics were honored as much in breach as in obedience.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            I’m guessing that for some you would in fact get an argument, especially within groups with charismatic leaders. You would also get a huge level of acknowledgement that Jesus was either a really good man or even perhaps divinely perfect–we get this all the time from both Hindu and Buddhist neighbors, as well as it being the classical Islamic approach. But the ones holding that view inevitably–short of receiving grace–simply use it as evidence to corroborate their anti-scriptual premise that all men are on a continuum of perfection, and that Jesus’ making it to the top is evidence that they themselves can move sufficiently upward along the same scale by their own free will and perhaps a little outside help, and that all that matters to God is seeing movement in the right direction.

            What you’ve missed to date is the actual dividing line, the one which in fact separates scriptural Christianity from Islam and everything else:

            Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you? unless you believed in vain.

            For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, ESV)

            This Jesus validated not only his words and actions–including the purpose of his death on the cross–but the entire testimony of the Bible itself as being about him, by walking out of a guarded tomb.

            Until and unless Mohammed does that, or Buddha, or Moon, or Schneerson, or Kant, or Marx, or Lenin, or Lennon–there is only one authority on these matters, and he has indeed said that he is alone the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but through him.

          • JSobieski

            and once again, you are totally missing the point which in many respects, proves my point.

            There are only two religions in which believers will not accept the attribution of error associated with “their guy.” Although Muslims do not claim that Muhammed was divine, no Islamic scholar or immam that I am aware of is willing to tolerate (much less embrace) any criticism of his behavior.

            The inability to even tolerate such criticizism about Muhammed prevents a Muslim reform movement. Heck, look at what happened as a result of the cartoons, which were far more about the followers of Muhammed than Muhammed.

            Once again, I am not trying to pontificate here about Christian theology, the nature of “The Word”, etc. I am attempting to step out (for the purposes of this discussion) my Christian skin to point out some important differences between Christianity and Islam for the purpose of highlighting why reformation is unlikely to occur.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            My last suggestion here, however, concerns just the usage of “reform/ation” in the context of Islam (and Mike, if you’re back in here, I should have thought of this when you asked a direct about reformation above).

            Religious reform bears nearly contradictory meanings in Judaism and Christianity. In Judaism, reform involved a general movement away from the ancient and scripturally authoritative to allow a greater degree of affinity with the modern, whereas in Christianity, reform involved a general movement away from novelty and a return to supreme scriptural authority to allow greater fidelity to the ancient faith.

            I’m certain that your use of the term in re Islam assumes the Jewish model and would entail de-horning Islam of aspects incompatible with modern civilization. My concern is that probably more people think of the Protestant model when they hear the term, and without qualification, that would entail, for Islam, a call for an even more radical return to the authority of Qur’an.

            Just a call for clarity–no disagreement otherwise.

          • JSobieski

            but you do raise an excellent point.

      • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

        because it transforms the gospel of Christ from an announcement of earth-shattering news about something that God actually did into just another ethical system; even worse, one impossible to actualize. Would Jesus pass on the right? or on the left? or stay behind and flash high beams to spell “John 3:16″ in Morse code? Paraphrasing an argument of one of my elders, it nullifies by trivialization the fact that, according to the Scriptures, not only Jesus’ every word and deed, and every fulfillment of every law which had been his own words to Moses, and every inclination of every thought of his heart, but every lifelong glance of his eyes, every tone of his voice, every motion of every facial muscle in delight, or compassion, or anger, or exhaustion, or dread, was uniquely and perfectly and righteously that of the only-begotten, eternal Son of God, now willingly enfleshed for our redemption, whose sole passion was to please and glorify his Father in heaven–and the merits of whose righteousness, thus manifested, he imputes graciously, freely, fully and gladly to the eternal credit of all repentant sinners whose faith rests solely in his person and work.

        This helps explain WWJD’s origins as a movement away from scriptural Christianity:

        …it’s not surprising that the world would think that “all we need is love,” and we can do without the doctrine, since the world thinks it can do without Christ. Doctrine is where the religions most obviously part ways. Doctrine is where things get interesting-and dangerous. As the playwright Dorothy Sayers said, doctrine isn’t the dull part of Christianity, rather, “The doctrine is the drama.” Jesus was not revolutionary because he said we should love God and each other. Moses said that first. So did Buddha, Confucius, and countless other religious leaders we’ve never heard of. Madonna, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the Dalai Lama, and probably a lot of Christian leaders will tell us that the point of religion is to get us to love each other. “God loves you” doesn’t stir the world’s opposition. However, start talking about God’s absolute authority, holiness, wrath, and righteousness, original sin, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, justification apart from works, the necessity of new birth, repentance, baptism, Communion, and the future judgment, and the mood in the room changes considerably.
        :
        Historians often point out that for all of their differences, pietism and rationalism converged to create the Enlightenment. The heirs of modernity looked inward, to autonomous reason or experience, rather than outward, in faith and repentance toward a God who judges and saves. … So while Christianity may represent the purest and fullest realization of this principle, other religions are in their own ways attempts to put this universal religious and moral experience into words. We just say things differently, but we are experiencing the same reality. Where Kant located the essence of religion in practical reason (moral duty), Schleiermacher located it in religious experience, but either way the self is made the measure of truth and redemption is something that we find within ourselves, even if it is “Christ in my heart.” Revivalism, which is the mother of both Protestant liberalism and Evangelicalism, pressed the “deeds over creeds” and “experience over doctrine” thesis to its limits.

        This means, of course, that Christ is not the unique God-Man, but the most divinized human being. The gospel is not what Christ did for me, outside of me, in history, but the impression that he makes on me, the nobility that he stirs up within me, to experience the same God-consciousness and love. Sin is not a condition from which I need to be saved, but actions that I can keep from doing with sufficient motivation and instruction. Christ’s death is not an atoning sacrifice that satisfies God’s just wrath, but an example of God’s love that moves us to repentance. Hence, “What would Jesus do?” is the main question, not “What has Jesus done?”

        Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ’s Way, Michael S. Horton (in Modern Reformation magazine, May/June 2007)

        So the actual question at the heart of the historic, sola Scriptura Christian faith is “who is this Jesus, and what has he done?”

        Back to the OP, I would note two consequences of the prevalence of WWDJ-think.

        First, a warning to any of my evangelical brothers here who may think that certain aspects of the kingdom of God can be better actualized via political activity than via the normal means of the ministry of reconciliation, take heed, you who think you stand, lest you fall–the spiritual ancestors of the liberals, whom some of you despise into non-humanity, thought exactly the same way.

        Second, regarding Islam in particular, WWDJ-think’s reduction of the Christian faith to an ethical system simply cannot stand against the ethics of Islam. Ask any excons who became Muslim or even NOI while inside–they run a lot tighter ship, one promising much more immediate results of self-discipline, self-esteem and societal order, than that chunky guy in the polo shirt who came to chapel and kept saying how much God loves me. Christians are a pretty sloppy lot in comparison, offering absolutely nothing like the gratification that comes with knowing that one can demonstrate, by proper submission, one’s inherent righteousness to oneself, to one’s family and neighbors, and to one’s maker.

        • JSobieski

          I am not interested in who runs a “tighter ship”. Rather, I am interested in the impact of religious tenants on what your or I would consider basic morality of ethics.

          Ask any ex-Muslims who fear for their lives and they may not find the “tight ship” to be so desirable. Heck, we helped a few converts in Afghanistan get out to avoid life imprisonment or death. Conversely, are you aware of a single Christian who is physically afraid of retribution for leaving the faith? How about the practices of honor killings?

          “Tight ships” are not ships I want to be on. Honor killings occur on “tight ships” as do death sentences for apostosy. Although I am both religious and conservative, I have no desire to live in a theocratic society.

          Giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s is not something you will find in Islamic religious tenants or in the Muslim world. They run a “tight ship” because their view of morality includes physically enforcing it on others, whether Muslim, dhimmis, or pagan.

          There is a reason why the OIC nations adopted a different version of the Human Rights Convention that the rest of world adopted. You might want to read it sometime, and maybe catch some middle eastern TV of MEMRI.ORG.

          The fact that many Muslims are great people isn’t contrary to the point. Many Germans in WWII were great people as well, but it doesn’t mean that they had much impact on the people who weren’t so nice.

          You are correct that God can in fact turn any heart. I however am more concerned about the fist or the hand holding a knife.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            I was quoting the typical in-prison convert to Islam, not defending it!

            As for missing the point of the diary, let me ask you a variant of one of the questions I asked mailloux to see if you can help me understand.

            What, specifically, are you recommending be done about the incursion of Islam, and to whom are you recommending such action?

          • JSobieski

            Citizens of the West

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            While I appreciate brevity, yours makes me unable to tell which of 2 answers you have in mind:
            1) Citizens of the West need to receive Education about Islam, or
            2) Citizens of the West need to produce Education about Islam.

            In both cases I’m in general agreement. Above you mentioned that you are arguing “out of your Christian skin”; I understand and agree with your intent, analogous to the Christian’s use of natural law arguments in civil matters. I would only ask you to consider that since the OP made explicit reference to Christian apologetics, my own challenges and counter-recommendations were framed in that light, and could be seen as a subset of your general proposal.

          • JSobieski

            outside of the Christian experience. Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, agnostics, athiests, et al all need to unify on this issue. I would include in that group secular Muslims and Muslims seeking to reform Islam (without denying or sugar coating the challenge of doing so).

            This is a matter of individual liberty, not theological correctness or a desire to spread “The Word” (as worth of an ambition that is). The deeper one gets into the theological weeds, the more likely people are to conclude that this is just an academic theological discussion.

            My burning issue is to get people to wake up and challenge certain PC assumptions. Islam is more than a religion, it is holistic belief system with a system of ethics that are significantly different than judeo-christian ethics. Concepts such as separation of church and state are not found in Islam. Getting hung up on a short-hand summary of Christianity for non-Christian consumption pretty much defeated the purpose and precluded the effectiveness of even addressing the topic. Had you purposely wanted to thwart my intentions, you could not have been more effective.

            Anyway, I know it wasn’t intentional, and frankly, I will try to learn from it in more ways than one.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            (sorry, it’s late and I’m hearing GC-like titles in my head ever since we went in the “tight ship” direction)

            Just a few thoughts in wrapping up my side.

            In my defense re “thwarting your intentions” about keeping Christian theology out of the solution set, the thread did open with mailloux making multiple explicit references to … Christian theology, and continued in that vein with his response to NightTwister, in which mailloux included positive references to “evangelism”, “religious freedom”, and a list of notables from the history of Christendom.

            As far as your education program, it’s fine as far as it goes, and I have no desire thwart such. Your suggestion that I was employing a “short-hand summary of Christianity for non-Christian consumption” is simply untrue; my doctrinal references were intended solely for those who, in this thread, were already employing Christian distinctives, and it would be more profitable to interpret them in that light.

            Each must employ his gifts appropriately. My part here remains to warn Christians, especially fellow evangelicals who tend not to be as well-equipped as they should, that doctrinal laxity is typically a precursor to incursion. As one example, back when our mutual friend birdmojo was repeatedly posing his “lobster rebuttal” of Christianity here, I don’t recall any of his evangelical opponents here even able to find the right category in which to answer him. Those categories, however–end of both the ceremonial law and the theocracy in Christ, end of theological exceptionalism with the fall of Jerusalem–about which so much ignorance of church history and hermeneutical silliness have formed, as a vast fog, in the branches of evangelicalism that have drifted from their confessional roots, just happen to be–surprise, surprise–necessary to answer Islam’s own variants of a reinstuted Mosaic ceremonial law and theocracy. Similarly, as I argued above, Christians who are more inclined to think of the faith primarily in ethical/moral/behavioral/WWJD terms–rather than the sturdier, and unique, sovereign grace, covenantal, law/gospel categories of the reformation–are sitting ducks when confronted by a system whose raison d’etre is explicitly ethical/moral/behavioral.

          • JSobieski

            Christian theology and you called me on it, sucking all the air from the entire point of the exercise. Our most recent exchange of comments did the very same thing . . . AGAIN.

            Very frustrating.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx
          • JSobieski

            So this has been a very helpful exchange.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Point taken. The medium does not permit the immediate and incremental clarification of face-to-face discussion, frequently resulting in truckloads getting dumped into flowerpots.

          • JSobieski

            She has always complained that I go off on intellectual tangents rather than address the core point she is trying to make.

            You just saved me big bucks for marriage counseling.

            Seriously though, it is only natural that people move topics of conversation to topics that interest them. You clearly have interests that you are looking to share.

            Are you a subscriber to First Things? If not, you should be.

          • JSobieski

            nt