Well yes as Christians, folks have meant different things by inspiration, by salvation, etc.

Only with Liberal Christians the definitions aren’t a little different, they are opposites . You cannot take the Bible seriously and come away with a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pluralistic view of the world, and that’s just for starters.

If Darwin was so against religion, why did he hesitate for 20 years before publishing his work? Other scientists were coming to the same conclusion all over the world. He was just the first, and most scientists today admire him for his meticulous methods and dedication to science more so than for his conclusion.

Why does atheism require belief in the theory of evolution? Several of the ID “scienticians” from the Discovery Institute who seem supply many of your arguments against evolution, would strongly disagree with you, at least publicly.

Darwin’s work stands up no matter what he believed about God. It’s not like we haven’t checked his work.

“While Darwinism doesn’t require atheism, atheism does require Darwinism.”

Is so true!!

What I am saying is that their beliefs are not as monolithic as you state and never has been. When you read their religious writings, even just those of one sect, you will find a diversity of thought and opinion. There is no one set of Islamic thought held in common by all Muslims. And this has been true throughout their history, it is not a recent phenomena.

I believe that you are letting the radical Muslims claims and actions influence your beliefs in this regard. It is as if a rigidly fundamentalist Christian claimed that there is and never has been any other way to interpret the Bible and that all the other interpretations are not Christian. Or at least not good Christians.

In regards to sources, good for you for not using secondary sources. May I point out though that your sources are limited.

First: What sort of picture do you think a Christian who converted to Islam would give of Christianity?

Second: You are surrounded by Muslims who believe similarly. I would suggest there is more variety than you think. My mother (age 82) still believes that racial discrimination was not as bad as has been made out in this country because she had black acquaintences and the worse she saw was that they had to come in the back door. Her view was limited so she formed a false impression despite first hand knowledge.

Third: You acknowledge that there is no central authority yet you do not seem to carry this through to the logical conclusion. No central authority allows diversity and does not promote uniformity.

In regards to Christianity being violent, I provided several quick mentions of this. I will expand on them a bit here.

1) Pogroms against Jews. From the 11th up to the 15th century there were numerous pogroms against the Jews. If they did not convert they were burned or otherwise killed.

During a series of pogroms from 1348 to 1351 over 60 major and 150 minor Jewish communities were wiped out. A favorite method was to build a house and force all the Jews in the community to enter it and then burn it down.

I will also mention that a yellow marker on clothing to identify Jews was not a Hitler invention. From the 13th century until the 18th century Jews were required to wear a yellow badge on their outer clothing.

This does not include the more recent pogroms in the 18th – 20th centuries against Jews in Tsarist Russia.

The Biblical justification, from http://www.levitt.com/essays/bloodlibel.html

When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands and said, “I am innocent of the blood of this Just person. You see to it.” And all the people answered and said, “His blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:24–25)

Matthew 27:25 arguably stands out as one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted passages in all of Holy Scripture. Of the proposed interpretations for Matthew 27:25, the anti-Jewish interpretation is the oldest and most frequently cited in the history of the Church. This view says the Jewish people are permanently guilty and condemned in the eyes of God for their murder of Jesus Christ. As such, the cry of “His blood be upon us” means that the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem admitted full guilt for killing the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby invoked God’s curse upon themselves and their descendants until the end of time. This interpretation first surfaced in the writings of the early church fathers in the second century AD. It became universally accepted by the Middle Ages.

2) The suppression of Heresies: During its first 300 years Christians were not in charge of the government. Pagan Rome was. Consequently the worse that they could do with heretics – the “false teachers” warned about in the Bible was to expel them from their midst and attach labels to them such as “fools”, “wild dogs”, and “Servants of Satan”. That changed though as Christians took over the government.

The first person to be executed for heresy was Priscillian of Avila in 385, 60 years after the First Council of Nicaea. I will say that this was at the orders of Emperor Magnus Maximus and over the objections of some Bishops. However Bishops objections did not last.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) was the first major proponent of persecution for heresy. At first he was for peaceful methods of persuasion but by 400 he began to endorse coercion. He used Matthew 13:24–30 and
Luke 14:21–23 as Biblical justification. Later Protestants would use the same Biblical verses to justify their persecutions.

Everyone has heard of the Spanish Inquisitions, but that was actually only one of many. Linked to the beginnings of the Medieval Inquisition was the Albigensian Crusade of 1220 to 1229 which was a military campaign initiated by the Catholic Church to stamp out the Cathar Heresy in Languedoc.

Reportedly the last person to be burned for heresy by the Catholic church was Giordano Bruno, executed in 1600.

3) Do I really need to mention the wars between Catholics and Protestants? The executions of Catholics by Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics?

4) The killing of witches. Biblical justifications used were Exodus 22:17 and Deut. 18:10-12,

5) The persecution and executions of Baptists, Quakers and other minority groups in the 17th and 18th centuries. This occurred both in Europe and America. This persecution is one of the reasons why the Pilgrims left Europe for America. And then they started the same with other religious groups once they had established themselves here.

To summarize you say that Islam is of necessity a religion that endorses lying and violence to further its aims.

I disagree and have pointed out why. It can be interpreted in such a way but such an interpretation is far from universal among Muslims and always has been. Further I can point to the first 1700 years of Christianity and how it has used violence to further its aims and force conformity.

It was not until the enlightenment with its separation of Church and State that we see this starting to die out and new interpretations (which had been in existence from the beginning but were not generally accepted by the majority of Christians – very similar to Islam today) were accepted.

Just because most of today’s Christians eschew violence, in contrast to the views of the majority of Christians throughout most of its history, does not mean that today’s Christians are any less a Christian. Just as those Muslims that do not interpret the Qur’an in the same violent manner as the radical Muslims do are less a Muslim.

But Christians have creatively engaged the idea of evolution and God’s work within it for as you note, as long as the Origin of Species came out. And that still happens today from Francis Collins to Robert Miller. In any case, I think if as Christians we value the best of what we know and presume it informs us of God, such a task is an important one to carry out.

So yes, as you note in your last paragraph, of course my belief that God is at work in other religious contexts does not suggest relativism, or an utter relativism that refuses to make claims, what less do evangelism. Though in this case I’m not so much as trying to change your position as provide some opening for the possibility that others can disagree.

I have noted how many people are “saved and confused” and belong in church. I am not mocking those people. I want them to know the truth of God’s word.

My main beef is with frauds like Chuck and Dwight who are constantly either equivocating or teaching outright falsehoods.

For example, he says the Bible is “inspired” while obviously not meaning that in a traditional or meaningful sense, and most importantly, not in the sense that the Bible makes that claim. It reminds me of Dan Trabue, who would basically say “THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED! (except when it’s not).”

More equivocation: Dwight acts like we both mean the same thing by saying we need to be “saved,” but his salvation is the wordly “save us from ourselves” bit rather than the “saved from the wrath of God” truth taught in scripture — you know, the scripture he claims is “inspired.”

You can try to fool others, but you aren’t fooling me.

It isn’t about what’s going on inside my head (note his sneaky ad hom that it is my mental instability and not his rebellion to the word of God that is the issue). It is about the word of God and how they mock it and teach the opposite of it.

And of course Dwight brings up the political angle. Jesus came for everyone. It just happens that with respect to the positions of pro-life, real marriage and a few others that Conservatives agree with God and Democrats do not. But if the Democratic party quit supporting the culture of death then they’d be on the correct side of that issue, as some of their members already are (most Dems used to be pro-life, so on that issue they used to be Biblically correct).

The fakes love to act like they have the open doors and that we are the bad guys closing them. The truth is that God set up the metaphorical doors. He says who is in and out. The fakes deny scripture to make their points.

They are the most ironic of fakes as well: In their pluralism they say you shouldn’t try to change the religious views of others. But guess whose religious views they try to change? Those of orthodox Christians! In their world of hypocrisy, every religion except orthodox Christianity has a “right” view of God that can be reconciled with Liberal Christianity.

At some point this is not about my views, Chuck’s views, etc. but it’s something about what is going on in his head and there’s nothing that can be done about that. But since we operate in probably different worlds, outside of a blog response there’s little chance of interaction in any case.

But when Neil has gone after 94% of all Christians in his definition of true Christianity ™ then my concern is about his interactions that cut so many people out of the church, rhetorically if not otherwise. In his own church or in his work. I don’t think most Christians ought to be mocked. And I don’t think the doors of the church are closed off just for those on the american political right.

But it is relevant if one cares about the truth of whether he came to his work with anti-God presuppositions. The evidence — in his own words — indicates that he was being dishonest about his religious beliefs.

Being pro-abortion is bad enough.

Advocating that the gov’t take the money of pro-lifers by force to pay for abortions is worse.

Being fake Christians is far worse.

Being all three of those begs for scorn.

God is in control of who converts and is saved, but I’ve found it more likely for Muslims or atheists to convert than these fake Christians. They have the most seared consciences and hardened hearts I’ve seen. They can’t acknowledge the simplest error they make and continue to teach the opposite of Jesus on almost every important topic. It is vital to shine a light on their errors and ensure that under no circumstances are we perceived as being on the same team as them.

Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general’s office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that’s correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the “express authorization of the attorney general” for media subpoenas — and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.

Sounds like a case of “cover our butts”. This kind of thing goes on all the time. Don’t tell me Holder didn’t know about this. Besides, whether they saw it or not, several of IndyMedia’s servers were yanked from their ISP and turned over to the FBI. They have not been told why. This has the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it even if they’ve gone to lengths to make sure no links back to them could be traced. At a minimum it shows a severe lack of organizational control.

I agree that a billion Muslims are in no way a monolith. That notion is ridiculous.

You are wrong that various countries interpret the Quran differently…they really just don’t care that much about it as others do. Turkey has been officially secular since Autaturk, Iraq is actually one of the most interesting Islamic countries because although they’re virtually all Muslims, their culture and history is really how the people identify themselves. Islam takes a back seat in the private lives of millions of Iraqis. Indonesia has so much of their old religions interspersing with Islam it’s difficult to figure where Sunni ends and pantheism starts.

But there is a fundamental difference between the ideology of Islam and the people who follow it. I think that this is where you and I part ways. Islam is essentially a cultural expression of desert life on the Arabian peninsula from the 700’s and as such is rooted in the past. Muslims are people like any other. They ascribe (through birth) a certain set of beliefs and they struggle to fit those beliefs into the modern world. I do not envy that.

Further, you are flatly wrong to claim that interpretation/analysis of the Quran is permissible within true Mohammed-inspired Islam. These are the words of Allah, and as such cannot be interpreted or molded in any way by humans.

How was early Christianity violent? Was it when the early Christians were being fed to lions, or set on fire to light the streets of the Emperor’s palace?

In regards to lying and deceit, the Quran does encourage hudna’s. I’ll leave that one for you to figure out with your English translations.

I agree that Islam is not a monolithic faith that is shared equally by the billion or so adherents of it. I know literally dozens of Muslims who question their faith and the contradictions and logical fallacies contained therein on a daily basis. However they do not talk about this inner struggle with their fellow Muslims, as critical thinking about Islam is. not. allowed. within. Islam. You may read books that tell you it is. Fine. The reality on the ground is not what is published in Western books. You will probably never realise that until you see the reality on the ground for yourself.

I’m not sure how else to communicate that. There are individual Muslims who, after they are comfortable with you and trust you, will open up and talk about all the questions they have about their belief system. These people live in Baghdad, they live in Tripoli, they live in Muscat, they live in Tunis. However, in their daily, public lives, not a word is breathed to their family/friends, because thinking in such a way about Islam is doubting, and doubting is apostasy.

HE WHO DOES NOT HATE THE FALSE DOES NOT LOVE THE TRUE; and he to whom it is all the same, whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like your fathers, you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. The apostle spake by inspiration when he said, “If we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

According to modern effeminacy he ought to have said, “Let him be kindly spoken with in private, but pray make no stir. No doubt the good brother has his own original modes of thought and we must not question his liberty. Doubtless he believes the same as we do, only there is some little difference as to terms.” This is treason to Christ and treachery to truth and cruelty to souls. IF WE LOVE OUR LORD, WE SHALL KEEP HIS WORDS AND STAND FAST IN THE FAITH, coming out from among the false teachers. Nor is this inconsistent with charity; for the truest love to those who err is not to fraternize with them in their error, but to be faithful to Jesus Christ in all things.”

~CS