The maker of this video forgets to show clearly that those false preachers are just some man who belong to certain Islamic groups which have nothing to do with real Islam, which should be a religion of peace.
Thanks for your comment Marcus. Are you referring to those men on the street who wanted to attack the camera man as false preachers. Did you look at the portion with Pamela Geller at minute 20? What do you think of her concern for freedom of speech?
Its strange, but yesterday I also got to see an article of a Christian who say we had to be full of hate, and that it was written in the Bible. Though after he replied to my question about it, he made himself more clear that he meant ‘hate against evil’. In the same way the Muslims should see the similar phrases in the Quran where is also indicated we should avoid evil and should take distance from those people who say the honour god but by their actions proof they do not. As such we can find Jews, Christians and Muslims who claim to be Jew, Christian or Muslim but do not live according to the Law of God and try to get us also to abandon certain ways of life we should keep. Many of them have not actually a real religion, faith, not even a conscience and no moral values, like Abdulla Jarbu says.
Jihad, be it the fight or battle Muslims but also Jews and Christians bring against the infidels and the haters of God does not to include such damaging ways that people are killed, and certainly not innocent, which all Holy Scriptures prohibit (Tanakh, Messicanic Scriptures and Quran preach the same salam or peace, hence the name Is-lam, bringer of peace).
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas. THeir actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citicens that they all have the right to look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something. As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or non-religious people savages. At the moment ther is a tendency to declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
the interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it. Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it. today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures, often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a higher position in society or have a special role in a community, should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller consider herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
That CNN stopped the interview was like the interviewer had to interrupt because the Anti-Jewish adds where not the matter of the issue of debate, but had to be opened in an other discussion, leaving it free to her to come for an other interview about that subject.
The man ending the video telling that we all go down together, does seem to forget the Scriptures, where is clearly written that religion will go against religion. That there are kafir or unbelieving ones, but that there are in all sorts of groups and communities also real believers who fear God more than man. It are those believers who should be able to see the signs of the time when we shall be coming closer to the end of times and the return of Jeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ).
As a believer in the promised Messiah, I also do know that there are Christians who prefer to hold on human doctrines and false teachings of a threeheaded god. In the knowledge that Jesus is the Way to God I may look at those kafir too, but know that Jesus showed the way to love all those around us. In Quran the Words of the Only One True God, Allah, The Elohim Hashem Jehovah, is also taken up for all to come to see what is right and wrong; Allah/God calls for those who love God to love their neighbours and show the difference between a real believer and some one who does not keep to the truth or does not wa
Sorry pushed the wrong button. I’ll continue.
or does not want to know about the Divine Creator. Believer or not in that One True God, as human beings everybody is created in the image of God and as such has the DNA or the seed of the truth. Each human being has an instinct and as such shall have the feeling of what is good and what is bad.
All people should allow others to have their way of living and thinking and nobody should push their own way on others. Everybody should be kept free to think and do as they like, as long as they do not harm others. For reasons not to bring others on wrong ideas, not to hurt them psychology or physically we all have to do water in our wine at moments and should limit ourselves at certain times.
In a society calling itself civilised, the members should show respect to all living in that society and should allow freedom of speech, which would mean that even things can be said in a way we do not like or that even things can be said which we would not agree with. That openness has to be protected in a democratic state.
Theologically we are not on the same page. But, the following only relates to these quotes.
Quotes: “Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.” “All people should allow others to have their way of living and thinking and nobody should push their own way on others. Everybody should be kept free to think and do as they like, as long as they do not harm others.”
Many do not believe those three statements. Hitler did not believe it for Germans nor for Jews. Muslims do not believe those three statements for kafer as you labeled them–non-muslims.
That is the big issue. Muslims believe in the dominance of Islam and Sharia law goes with that and the belief is that ultimately in all places Sharia law should be supreme and instituted and all made to conform to it.
Example: An artist on the island of Tahiti cannot draw an imitation of Muhammad even though no one but the artist sees the drawing. If in her mind she (and only she) believes that she drew a depiction of Muhammad, she should be put to death.
That sounds silly! Yes, it does but if Sharia is followed then that is the end of the artist.
I finally figured out why people draw Muhammad. It is to show that Muslims believe that Sharia should be implemented and even before is implemented, is applicable everywhere, even in the remotest place where no Muslims ever trod.
That is the issue. Muslims residing in Belgium don’t want to be under Belgian rule–they want to be under Sharia law. If this is not true, why is there not a campaign by all the moderate or liberal Muslims to convert the thinking of those with more radical thoughts about this issue. Why do moderate Muslims cheer when the Twin Towers come down? Why do moderate Muslims say, “serves them right” when terrorists attack Bataclan Theater.
I don’t know who was playing that night nor what was going on inside but there are rules of law in France that deal with civil and criminal activity and we believe courts handle any penalties for either type of activity.
The people in the Twin Towers were just going to work that day. There is nothing in the Quran against work.
You criticized America for her sins and I could too. I don’t like much of what I see here. Guess who’s the largest consumers of porn on Jewish servers in Israel: Muslim men in the Middle East. Even Sharia Law does not keep “holier than thou” Islamists from sin. I don’t like that either.
Marcus, we have a problem. I believe your statements as true! The Islamic world does not believe your statements.
Moderate Muslims, and even serious Muslims did not cheer when the Twin Towers came down, or when the event at the Bataclan as well as the Brussels Airport and Brussels metro shook many of the civilised world. Though I agree there where also some Muslims who celebrated on the streets in Brussels after the bombings, but do not forget a much bigger majority who condemned such atrocious acts.
In Europe there are also Muslim voices, respected imams who condemn any form of terrorism and unrespectfull treatment of other believers. I agrree that they should come out more and should show all people how the Quran disagrees with those fundamentalist Muslims. Like the Tanakh and the Bible, the Holy Scriptures as the Quran tells us to have God’s Laws above the human laws, but they also say all pepole should follow the laws of the country where they are living in, because it is God/Allah Who allowed the judges, kings, governors to rule. As long as their rules do not go against the Law of God we should follow those.
We must be very careful not to generalise about the “Islamic world”, not all Muslims are like the fundamentalist Muslims and in the Islam there are also many denomination, the same as we do have many denominations in Christendom and Christianity. As in those denominations, they are not all the same and not all agreeing with the same doctrines. also in Islam we should put away human doctrines and stick to the doctrines of the Most High Elohim.
Going back your original statement about talking to a Christian who “hates.” He is right, we are commanded to hate evil. I hate evil. That evil that may be committed by a Christian. It does not matter who commits the evil. Evil, all evil is sin–condemned by God. I don’t hate muslims as a group or as individuals.
The ideology of Hitler shows that it does not take a “religion” to create prejudice against a people. Prejudice is one sin, the desire to banish them is another, the evil acts of massive murder is another.
The content of the video is not a subject I would bring up to a Muslim as I engage one. I’d attempt to personally relate to a Muslim and a human being. I would not throw up to him the issue of terrorism and terrorists acts committed by those who claim to be muslims. No, I’d want to show him a better way. There is a better way–it is to love rather than hate. That is what I spend my time doing–pursuing others. That is what Jesus wants me to do because He loves them too. You know I believe that He is the Elohim of the OT–the one who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18.
However, the content of the video is something the world and specifically governments must confront and deal with in an expedient manner. Terror is not going away any time soon that I see. It will only get worse.
I am for freedom. I am not for suppression of speech. I don’t believe those Westboro Baptist people but they are Americans and they have rights of free expression. Suppression of speech is already occurring in America and I don’t want that to increase. I want to see it subside. I want us American’s to be even more free to express ourselves.
See my latest post here. Internet: Global Governance. We are in for more suppression of speech.
Marcus, the clear teaching of Jesus and the New Testament is that His blood paid the sins of many. It is only through His blood that we will ever see the Father and Jesus in His Glory.
He and His disciples made the call to all: non-believers, Jews, Muslims, other faiths: seek and return to the purity of faith of Abraham who believed and was credited with righteousness based on his faith alone.
America: The Good and Not So Good 
The maker of this video forgets to show clearly that those false preachers are just some man who belong to certain Islamic groups which have nothing to do with real Islam, which should be a religion of peace.
Thanks for your comment Marcus. Are you referring to those men on the street who wanted to attack the camera man as false preachers. Did you look at the portion with Pamela Geller at minute 20? What do you think of her concern for freedom of speech?
Its strange, but yesterday I also got to see an article of a Christian who say we had to be full of hate, and that it was written in the Bible. Though after he replied to my question about it, he made himself more clear that he meant ‘hate against evil’. In the same way the Muslims should see the similar phrases in the Quran where is also indicated we should avoid evil and should take distance from those people who say the honour god but by their actions proof they do not. As such we can find Jews, Christians and Muslims who claim to be Jew, Christian or Muslim but do not live according to the Law of God and try to get us also to abandon certain ways of life we should keep. Many of them have not actually a real religion, faith, not even a conscience and no moral values, like Abdulla Jarbu says.
Jihad, be it the fight or battle Muslims but also Jews and Christians bring against the infidels and the haters of God does not to include such damaging ways that people are killed, and certainly not innocent, which all Holy Scriptures prohibit (Tanakh, Messicanic Scriptures and Quran preach the same salam or peace, hence the name Is-lam, bringer of peace).
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas. THeir actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citicens that they all have the right to look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something. As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or non-religious people savages. At the moment ther is a tendency to declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
the interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it. Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it. today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures, often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a higher position in society or have a special role in a community, should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller consider herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
That CNN stopped the interview was like the interviewer had to interrupt because the Anti-Jewish adds where not the matter of the issue of debate, but had to be opened in an other discussion, leaving it free to her to come for an other interview about that subject.
The man ending the video telling that we all go down together, does seem to forget the Scriptures, where is clearly written that religion will go against religion. That there are kafir or unbelieving ones, but that there are in all sorts of groups and communities also real believers who fear God more than man. It are those believers who should be able to see the signs of the time when we shall be coming closer to the end of times and the return of Jeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ).
As a believer in the promised Messiah, I also do know that there are Christians who prefer to hold on human doctrines and false teachings of a threeheaded god. In the knowledge that Jesus is the Way to God I may look at those kafir too, but know that Jesus showed the way to love all those around us. In Quran the Words of the Only One True God, Allah, The Elohim Hashem Jehovah, is also taken up for all to come to see what is right and wrong; Allah/God calls for those who love God to love their neighbours and show the difference between a real believer and some one who does not keep to the truth or does not wa
Sorry pushed the wrong button. I’ll continue.
or does not want to know about the Divine Creator. Believer or not in that One True God, as human beings everybody is created in the image of God and as such has the DNA or the seed of the truth. Each human being has an instinct and as such shall have the feeling of what is good and what is bad.
All people should allow others to have their way of living and thinking and nobody should push their own way on others. Everybody should be kept free to think and do as they like, as long as they do not harm others. For reasons not to bring others on wrong ideas, not to hurt them psychology or physically we all have to do water in our wine at moments and should limit ourselves at certain times.
In a society calling itself civilised, the members should show respect to all living in that society and should allow freedom of speech, which would mean that even things can be said in a way we do not like or that even things can be said which we would not agree with. That openness has to be protected in a democratic state.
Theologically we are not on the same page. But, the following only relates to these quotes.
Quotes: “Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.” “All people should allow others to have their way of living and thinking and nobody should push their own way on others. Everybody should be kept free to think and do as they like, as long as they do not harm others.”
Many do not believe those three statements. Hitler did not believe it for Germans nor for Jews. Muslims do not believe those three statements for kafer as you labeled them–non-muslims.
That is the big issue. Muslims believe in the dominance of Islam and Sharia law goes with that and the belief is that ultimately in all places Sharia law should be supreme and instituted and all made to conform to it.
Example: An artist on the island of Tahiti cannot draw an imitation of Muhammad even though no one but the artist sees the drawing. If in her mind she (and only she) believes that she drew a depiction of Muhammad, she should be put to death.
That sounds silly! Yes, it does but if Sharia is followed then that is the end of the artist.
I finally figured out why people draw Muhammad. It is to show that Muslims believe that Sharia should be implemented and even before is implemented, is applicable everywhere, even in the remotest place where no Muslims ever trod.
That is the issue. Muslims residing in Belgium don’t want to be under Belgian rule–they want to be under Sharia law. If this is not true, why is there not a campaign by all the moderate or liberal Muslims to convert the thinking of those with more radical thoughts about this issue. Why do moderate Muslims cheer when the Twin Towers come down? Why do moderate Muslims say, “serves them right” when terrorists attack Bataclan Theater.
I don’t know who was playing that night nor what was going on inside but there are rules of law in France that deal with civil and criminal activity and we believe courts handle any penalties for either type of activity.
The people in the Twin Towers were just going to work that day. There is nothing in the Quran against work.
You criticized America for her sins and I could too. I don’t like much of what I see here. Guess who’s the largest consumers of porn on Jewish servers in Israel: Muslim men in the Middle East. Even Sharia Law does not keep “holier than thou” Islamists from sin. I don’t like that either.
Marcus, we have a problem. I believe your statements as true! The Islamic world does not believe your statements.
Moderate Muslims, and even serious Muslims did not cheer when the Twin Towers came down, or when the event at the Bataclan as well as the Brussels Airport and Brussels metro shook many of the civilised world. Though I agree there where also some Muslims who celebrated on the streets in Brussels after the bombings, but do not forget a much bigger majority who condemned such atrocious acts.
In Europe there are also Muslim voices, respected imams who condemn any form of terrorism and unrespectfull treatment of other believers. I agrree that they should come out more and should show all people how the Quran disagrees with those fundamentalist Muslims. Like the Tanakh and the Bible, the Holy Scriptures as the Quran tells us to have God’s Laws above the human laws, but they also say all pepole should follow the laws of the country where they are living in, because it is God/Allah Who allowed the judges, kings, governors to rule. As long as their rules do not go against the Law of God we should follow those.
We must be very careful not to generalise about the “Islamic world”, not all Muslims are like the fundamentalist Muslims and in the Islam there are also many denomination, the same as we do have many denominations in Christendom and Christianity. As in those denominations, they are not all the same and not all agreeing with the same doctrines. also in Islam we should put away human doctrines and stick to the doctrines of the Most High Elohim.
Going back your original statement about talking to a Christian who “hates.” He is right, we are commanded to hate evil. I hate evil. That evil that may be committed by a Christian. It does not matter who commits the evil. Evil, all evil is sin–condemned by God. I don’t hate muslims as a group or as individuals.
The ideology of Hitler shows that it does not take a “religion” to create prejudice against a people. Prejudice is one sin, the desire to banish them is another, the evil acts of massive murder is another.
The content of the video is not a subject I would bring up to a Muslim as I engage one. I’d attempt to personally relate to a Muslim and a human being. I would not throw up to him the issue of terrorism and terrorists acts committed by those who claim to be muslims. No, I’d want to show him a better way. There is a better way–it is to love rather than hate. That is what I spend my time doing–pursuing others. That is what Jesus wants me to do because He loves them too. You know I believe that He is the Elohim of the OT–the one who appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18.
However, the content of the video is something the world and specifically governments must confront and deal with in an expedient manner. Terror is not going away any time soon that I see. It will only get worse.
I am for freedom. I am not for suppression of speech. I don’t believe those Westboro Baptist people but they are Americans and they have rights of free expression. Suppression of speech is already occurring in America and I don’t want that to increase. I want to see it subside. I want us American’s to be even more free to express ourselves.
See my latest post here. Internet: Global Governance. We are in for more suppression of speech.
Marcus, the clear teaching of Jesus and the New Testament is that His blood paid the sins of many. It is only through His blood that we will ever see the Father and Jesus in His Glory.
He and His disciples made the call to all: non-believers, Jews, Muslims, other faiths: seek and return to the purity of faith of Abraham who believed and was credited with righteousness based on his faith alone.
Pingback: Recent Findings on Islam – America: The Good and the Bad