News-Record.com

These two examples (plus one I heard of some years back about the Earth being flat) just go to show how far astray a religious nut can go from reality when he starts with the notion that his holy book is the basis of all truth. Christians have a history of being every bit as nutty, though perhaps a little more rarely these days.

These people actually think this crap is normal??

Apparently, the leaders do. I think it's a good sign that the average guy in the street in Cairo is thinking there's something awfully wrong somewhere. I hope those who are worried will be able to keep their heads... literally. {;-)

Well, I trust this is the lunatic fringe even of Islam. Altho I do not think that Muhammad was a true prophet of God, and that the Koran is a purely human document with high sounding religious musings, I do respect their commitment to the idea of religion being for all of life. Modern Christianity (both liberals and gooshy evangelicals) has lapsed grievously in this regard.

These two fatwas do, however, give us a view inside the mind of legalistic religionism. The idea that doing something (breast feeding) with associated adult males makes them family is pure legalism. It's a sneaky way of getting around another law regarding male/female associations because of the need to enhance a money making business MO. Any quirky new law/regulation will do.

Eric, you always knee-jerk accuse Christianity of anything der Blogmeister digs up about Islam. Libs do this all the time in the media. There is a universe of difference between true biblical Christianity and Islamic legalism. Islam, at its best, lacks the grace of atonement; at its worst, it bears the oppressive, even violent, fruit of legalism.

In biblical Christianity the Law of God is still considered holy and regulative, but in the light of New Covenant grace and forgiveness. This is the Jesus-transition, from works-righteousness to salvation by grace through faith - and then righteous and holy living by the power of the Spirit, with I Corinthians 13 agape (godly love) as the highest ideal.

I do agree that there are plenty of historic examples of Christains having "fallen from grace," even as Paul noted in Galatians 5. But legalism can be seen in any number of cultural contexts. The dogmatic Soviet regime, for example, was legalistic within strict Marxist orthodoxy. It happens to the best of belief systems. So I won't hold all of Islam to these two extreme fatwas, but it IS instructive regarding its legalistic core.

"Eric, you always knee-jerk accuse Christianity of anything der Blogmeister digs up about Islam."

And yet I expect you are aware of the truth of what I say. You only defense appears to be the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. My only point in bringing this up is to show that Christianity is every bit as much a "religion" as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so forth. And that it is as apt to be a mixture of good, stable, society-enhancing beliefs as a form of mass insanity that can lead to some of history's most horrific atrocities. That's all.

Like atheistic Hitler's, Josef Stalin's and Chiarman Mao's atrocities!!!!!!! So much for atheistic, socialist paradise.

And biblical Christianity is NOT a "religion," as such, but a system of divine grace and a WAY of truth, righteousness and love. Religion is legalism, (Islam), psychic asceticsm (Buddhism) and animistic ritualism (portions of Hinduism) and other forms of human effort. Grace is only possible where full atonement has been made!

"Like atheistic Hitler's, Josef Stalin's and Chiarman Mao's atrocities!!!!!!! So much for atheistic, socialist paradise."

Uh huh. Why is it that when Christians want to point out atheists' "evils" they always start off with Hitler? Stalin and Mao, I understand, and have no problem discussing their history. They were as human and prone to doing rotten things as any other people who manage to obtain unlimited power.

But Hitler? The guy who said that he was doing God's will by ridding Europe of the killers of Christ? The guy who had the uniforms of his army adorned with buttons that read "Gott mit uns"? Get real, please.

And here's another thing that irks me about the Hitler issue. Even though it's repeatedly shown that Hitler was anything BUT an atheist, those who are shown this -- like Nikos -- never stop listing him at the top of their list of "evil atheists." With so many other people to choose from in history, why keep pulling this particular ghost out for your uses? It makes no sense at all.

And one more thing, Nikos. Not all atheists are "socialists." In the local freethought group, we have several who are very close to being as conservative as you are. Do try to keep that in mind, 'kay?

"But Hitler? The guy who said that he was doing God's will by ridding Europe of the killers of Christ? The guy who had the uniforms of his army adorned with buttons that read "Gott mit uns"? Get real, please."

No way, Hozay! Sorry Eric, it won't fly! Just because he used propagandist "god talk" and had accult connections, does not, in any way, even suggest he was a regenerate child of God. As Jseus said, "Even the demons believe and tremble." No knowledgable, sane thinker would honestly suggest that he was a committed biblical theist. All evidence shows that he hated God's people (booth Christian and Jew) and their beliefs.

But I realize that Hitler is not a good example of all atheists any more than he is of all theists - but you guys do the very same thing when you drag out the Crusades and Iquisition. It would serve us both better if we would stay away from the historical name-calling and stick to discussing the merits of the central tenets of the belief systems we hold and their major proponents.

Historical records can on accasion be somewhat illustrative and germane, but also come jam-packed with all kinds of tangential factors and causes, thus underming their value as hard illustrations of the tenets of a particular worldview.

"No way, Hozay! Sorry Eric, it won't fly! Just because he used propagandist "god talk" and had accult connections, does not, in any way, even suggest he was a regenerate child of God."

I wasn't trying to suggest that he was, sir. I merely was pointing out that not only was he a believer in God, but his actions toward the Jews was putting into action not only the medival (sp?) desires of the Catholic Church, but the writings of Martin Luther. Both of these influences were Christian in nature and origin, not "atheist."

I agree that hatred of the Jews and the desire to remove them from the face of the Earth goes radically against everything that Jesus said in the Gospels. But it certainly has a lot of support in other parts of the Bible, as I'm sure you're aware.

"...you guys do the very same thing when you drag out the Crusades and Iquisition."
Well, if you maintain that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with Christianity... {;-)

“I agree that hatred of the Jews and the desire to remove them from the face of the Earth goes radically against everything that Jesus said in the Gospels. But it certainly has a lot of support in other parts of the Bible, [where?!] as I'm sure you're aware.” Eric

The Jewish people, from day one out of Abraham’s loins were simply a type of the hopeless condition of fallen man. God’s provision for them of the typological animal sacrifices, the Law and ordinances, and prophetic guidance were all types and figures of the ultimate atonement of Messiah, His own mountain-top teachings, and the prophetic revelations of the Apostles – all completions and addenda to the OT revelation, not a repudiation or rejection of its authority and veracity.

As types of fallen, rebellious man the Jews sometimes came under tremendous disciplinary actions from God, as well as blessings for obedience. God himself said some pretty heavy things “against” them at times. Even worse were His pronouncements against the heathen Gentiles. Jesus himself inveighed against them for their hardness of heart. Paul continues that Messianic indictment, but adds some very hopeful and laudatory things as well (Romans 9-10). So it is not about “anti-semitism” at all; but about the sinful and rebellious behavior of God’s very own covenant children.

“Well, if you maintain that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with Christianity...” Eric

Of course the RCC had something to do with Christianity. By the time of the Crusades, however, the Church was already awash with doctrinal and operational error – corruption. It’s approximation to true NT doctrine and practice was sufficiently askew to produce any number of un-christian attitudes and actions. I have pointed out numerous times that God’s dealings with the Church are historical and progressive. The current RCC efforts to repair some of the historical damage is telling in this regard.

“ . . . not only was he [Hitler] a believer in God . . .”

I utterly reject your assertion that Hitler was any kind of biblical Christian. At best, he used the Church to accomplish his ends. There is a vast difference between a cultural or social “Christian” and a regenerate and studied child of God. I find your notion not only grossly uninformed, but entirely disgusting. I would have thought better of you.

Historically, numbers of people, from Palestinians, communists, cultural Christians, et al. have had “problems” with the Jews. The Jews have had problems with one another! What race or group hasn’t?! But having problems with attitudes and policies of Israel or “the Jews” is typically met today with knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism. It is a matter of historical record that they have had real problems with the Goy as well, having written and said all kinds of condescending, anti-goy things. So there is enough sinful blame and prejudice to go around.

The true NT attitude is displayed in Paul’s words in the Romans 9-11 passage. It is realistic, Messianic, compassionate and hopeful. Jews are just like everyone else – the old bell curve.