News-Record.com

Casting stones has never been a wise move for those in glass houses. Obviously, when this fellow expresses a high degree of intolerance for Islam, he's mirroring the very attitude he decries.

Beyond that, building new Christian churches in a country torn by religious strife is going to do little but throw new fuel on the fire. My guess is it'll be a long time before this guy wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

Thanks for telling the truth, Franklin. Hukmanists forget that if this were a true Islamic republic, they would be at the bottom of the ladder socially and economically - they were still alive as infidels. THey tend to hate athesits and gays more even than Jews or Christains, who are at least "people of the Book." They didn;t bomb St. Patrick's Cathedral, they bombed the temple of Western humanistic capitalism. Humanists who coddle up to and excuse Islam only do so to further assault and insult Christianity. What folly!!

If it were just these nuts in the Sudan, it might be debatable; but since its all over and in the Islamic world, it does VERY LOUDLY beg the question regarding intolerance.

I am surprised, Nikos, you are misusing the phrase for the logical error to "beg the question".

If anything is going begging, it's the logic of Mr. Graham, who has clearly staked out a position over the years that anyone other than his narrow brand of Protestant theology (Catholics, for example), though they profess belief in Jesus as divine, are barely Christians in his book. The "toleration" he seems to employ is of a rather odious patronizing sort.

Seems pretty clear to me. The ubiquitous violence against Jews and Christians from the Islamic terrorist armies does indeed beg the question as to the intrinsic violence as an approach to interfaith debate and confrontation.

F. Graham's views on Islam are odious to YOU because you oppose Christianity and have a palpable bias against its truth claims. OK, I can tolerate your view, even though I vehemently disagree with it. I will not attempt to force you to change your mind; I will not do any violence against your person, and I will support a free public forum where philosophical and metaphysical ideas can be debated.

Holding positions regarding the theological viability of Islam is NOT intolerance; otherwise, we would ALL be intolerant if we have strong opinions against a religious system. You could be considered intolerant of Christainity. But because you (I assume) will not do any of the things I mentioned above to me, I will accept yoou as tolerant.

This is the tactic of the all-ideas-are-the-same mentality of the humanist consortium in this country. It is all designed to preserve the right of humanists to oppose and even eliminate Christianity, while at the same time preserving their right to hold whatever strong opinions they like. Saying somebody's strongly-held religious views are "odious" is quite intolerant.

In the end, it all comes down to whether there is absolute Truth and a system that conveys and preserves it. Jesus: "Thy word is truth." and "I am . . .the truth . . ." You are FREE in the good ole USA to believe this or not; but not in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, etc.

"This is the tactic of the all-ideas-are-the-same mentality of the humanist consortium in this country."

In a country where there is freedom to practice religion, aren't they in fact supposed to be considered the same for legal purposes? I think that's the only sense secular humanists use for their views of religions. That and the facts that all religions have ideas in their scriptures that range from wise to harmful, and that all have good and bad followers.

And indeed, if Christians in this country were not given legal preferences to their hegemony, I would not be intolerant. Graham's rhetoric against Isalm is certainly legal, so I am not opposed to him speaking it, however much I see it as rabble-rousing. Doesn't it strike you as odd, though, that someone purporting to be tolerant then decries those he says aren't? Of course, there are plenty of intolerant, ignorant and unfortunately violent Islamists. There have been and probably still are violent Christians (some in the ranks of our military). Does this condemn the whole of either religion?

Describing something as "odious" is hardly being "intolerant". It is a word I chose to precisely convey my personal dislike of Franklin Graham's rhetoric. I also find brussels spouts odious to my taste buds. But I would defend the reverend's right to say odious things, just as I am glad the poor misguided few who enjoy brussels sprouts can find them.

And yet, you Freddy, are doing the same thing as Graham. You are disliking him and decrying him as intolerant, yet being intolerant yourself by decrying him. Your description of disliking odious brussels sprouts is also the same thing as Graham saying he dislikes the Islamic belief system. It seems that Christians are the only one’s who are reprehensible for disliking something. Seems a bit biased; but that’s par for the course today.

I understand and agree that simply expressing your opinion of something is NOT being intolerant. He doesn’t hate Muslims, he simply has some major issues with their systemic holy war MO. I do too. And I’d be surprised if you didn’t as well.

Ultimately God is the most intolerant being in all time and space. He cannot, and will not, tolerate sin and rebellion in His imago dei’s. Not because He’s just being a mean old God; but because it is inimical to His very nature, and, by extension, His created universe. His intolerance is expressed through His divine justice, which promises that sin will always, everywhere produce death – and sometimes by His direct intervention.

Therefore, Christians who oppose abortion, gay marriage and false religion are quite correct and righteous in being intolerant of such things. Sinful and humanistic man is always trying to cook up some way around God and absolute standards of righteousness and holiness (moral truth). It can and will never work; because no matter how hard you hate the law of gravity, you will always fall to your death by jumping off a cliff with no apparatus to save you. This is equally true in the moral realm; expressed by the passage: “The wages of sin is death.” Intolerance, in this sense, is what nailed Yeshua to the cross, and what will always cause Christians to be the brunt of rejection and bias. Like St. Paul, Christians must always declare: “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” It is the spiritual categorical imperative. Or with Luther: “God help me, I can do no other.”

I think disliking a person's rhetoric for declaring an entire religion as bent upon world domination is qualitatively of another order than being the person who is doing the declaring. As a pastor, I assume Graham would like to convince and persuade his followers and as many other Christians of his opinion, else why does he make these statements? If so, I consider such statements irresponsible, for they pit his followers, and in his mind, all "true" Christians against the faith of a quarter of the world's population.

This is the kind of intemperance that can lead to both subtle and dangerous stereotyping as well as become the "casue" cited for outright revenge.

"cause"