I would ! Muhammed was a very violent man. No problem calling him what he was, is there? Shouldn't they all be at Mecca worshiping that piece of rock (Err metorite) that is under the curtains? DD
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is what keeps me from going to church. I was raised very religious but I can no longer take the hypocrisy of a religion that states, "we are all sinners" coupled with a church that points out others as being "worse sinnners". Yes, I know people love to point out that not all christians are of Falwells' caliber, but silent endorsement is endorsement just the same. A big FU to the religious right for turning Jesus into an excuse to be hateful and prejudiced.
I can certainly understand your position as I do Max's. You are right, it IS the congregation's donation. However, lets just compare and contrast: During the disaster that befell Florida after being hit by four hurricanes, do you think that the mostly Christian populace would be very happy if their aid came with a note about Allah and how to convert to Islam? Might there be a bit of an up-roar? Now, well-fed Americans living in the richest and most powerful society yet seen on this earth can shrug it off or stand on their "principles" and refuse the aid. Not sure that most of the poorest islanders in the Indian Ocean region will have that luxury. I just think we as Americans and many of us as Christians should be mindful of culture clash. These people might not be the least bit interested in hearing the message of Christ and they certainly aren't any less worthy for not converting after they have been given aid and the "good news". Do you want to convert souls? Fine, go back and not attach it to aid as if you can only have this aid for accepting Jesus. I guess we have to agree to disagree, aid and religous messages should be exclusive of one another IMHO.
come on..I wasn't talking about YOU. I was talking to the one mentioned above, who did exactly that. This has to be handled very carefully. Even a single pamphlet can have major ramifications. I think you need to attend to peoples basic needs before attempting any verbal/written evangelizing. People can tell when their vulnurabitly is being taken advantage of. They will resent it.
While I don't think it is WISE to call the founder of Islam a terrorist, certainly not for an American Christian to do so, Muhammed did convert the tribes of Arabia and the Sianai by the tip of a scimitar--thats just plain history. His original message? Either covert or have your head lopped-off...However, Islam has changed much in the last thousand years and IS a religion of peace and learning at it's core.
Do you have a copy of that sermon which points out the "worse sinners?" "No comment" is not an endorsement. If it is most of us are endorsing Falwell almost every hour of every day-- not to mention everyone else who has anything to say about anything. You can't critique everything that everybody says. What has the Religious Right taught us to hate and be prejudiced against? We all know "hate the sin but not the sinner..."
I agree....but it DOES work on more than one level. I think DD propsed bathing terrorists in pigs blood or something like that...maybe force-feed them some Bacon?? mmmm....Bacon...*arrrghhhrghh*
Not sure if I'd go that far, but I do suggest bringing bacon bits on any plane ride. Give any would be terrorist a sprinkle and watch them try and figure out how to get around the old 'don't die with pig on you' dilemma.
I'm sorry, but I never see you express the same disgust at other conquerors. I get the feeling because he founded the religion that terrorists like Al Queda follow, he's held to other standards by you. Unless I missed your thread on why Alexander the Great was evil.
I don't like Falwell at all, but I think the criticism for this particular effort of his is off-base. 1. I don't see any indication that donations were gathered without letting folks know that some would be used for evangelism. So, there's no misuse of funds that I can see. 2. There is no indication that one would need to accept Christ, or even accept a pamphlet to receive aid. That they are going to talk about Christ at the same time isn't very oppressive. 3. Those receiving aid may feel a social obligation to listen simply because the missionaries did them a favor by bringing aid. True. Just as I'd feel a social obligation to someone who brought me a gift. But less so since Christians are such push-overs. They can probably take food and housing and then give the missionaries a kick in the ass and the missionaries will still try their hardest to love them. 4. The missionaries are attending to people's needs, as they perceive them and as they will be accepted. The missionaries perceive a very strong need for salvation since, as the doctrine goes, hell isn't a very nice place for anyone. If you were to care for someone, you certainly would want to keep them out of hell. So, obviously, they'll offer that help to everyone -- but it is still up to each person whether or not they want to accept. 5. It is unlikely that evangelizing is self-serving. Christians have little to gain from conversions besides a "well done my good and faithful servant." The motivation most Christians feel is mostly one of altruism. Just as one would altrusitically want to feed someone who is starving, one would want to show salvation to one who is damned. There isn't much self-serving in that. And you may not realize it, but Falwell is not close to the only one doing this. My church told us about a group called Samaritan's Purse, which is doing the same thing. I'm sure there are many groups besides.
Actually he was evil, as was Hannibal, Hitler, etc..etc..etc.. Just that Mohammed is worshiped as some prophet of God when he was a murderous, ruthless dictator. Just the facts, but don't let those get in the way of having an opinion. DD
It was a previous life experience, and ...well....I just don't want to get into it....too emotional right now.
