Friday, September 15, 2006
Insolent Remarks
So the latest firestorm in the Muslim world involves some remarks by the new pope. The pope was giving an address at a university.
Hard to know what to make of his exact statement without more context, and it doesn't really matter. I just was once again struck by the absurdity of the response from the Muslim world. They compared Pope to Hitler and Mussolini in their desire to see others be more restrained in their comments. They threatened violence as the result of saying that Muslims are not tolerant.
That one is priceless. Acknowledge us as nice people or we'll burn down your embassy.
Now this one seems to me particularly telling. "Insolent" is a word used to describe behavior of an inferior to a superior, isn't it? A boy is insolent to his parents, a slave insolent to his master or a man insolent to God. Am I reading too much into it? It seems very much like the man is saying that the Pope is bound to recognize the superiority of Islam's claims and submit to those claims, and that his remarks, failing to bow to the truth of Islam, are insolent. Now of course we know this to be Islam's views. Which is fine- I view Christianity as the true religion, and believe that all those imams and mullahs and sheiks and the rest will one day bow the knee to Jesus Christ whether they like it or not. But it just puts the lie to this idea that everyone has to be tolerant of Islam and is never allowed to say it's not true, when the faith of Islam declares confidently that all other faiths are lies and will be judged as such one day. When people say Christianity is false and a lie, I don't get all outraged. They must believe this, else they would be Christians. I know the day will come when Christianity will be vindicated, and I don't need to burn anyone's embassy down to prove it.
This cry for tolerance that we hear every time we turn around is a pretence. The Muslims don't believe in it- they'll put us all to the sword if they get the chance unless we convert, and until then will use the pretence to sap our strength and will to fight. And the champions of tolerance and multiculturalism in the west will advocate it only so long as they're in power and can keep the intolerant from cutting their throats. 9/11 was viewed as an isolated event, and so it didn't change a lot of people's belief that we could all get along. And the only thing keeping "tolerance" alive is the ineptness of the terrorists and the skill of the men and women defending the west, largely unappreciated and behind the scenes. If a few more 9/11s happened, a lot more people would see things for what they are, a bloody struggle to the death between two ideologies that cannot coexist on the same planet, and we'd see a lot fewer fake outrages like this one.
Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.
"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"
Benedict did not explicitly agree with the statement nor repudiate it.
Hard to know what to make of his exact statement without more context, and it doesn't really matter. I just was once again struck by the absurdity of the response from the Muslim world. They compared Pope to Hitler and Mussolini in their desire to see others be more restrained in their comments. They threatened violence as the result of saying that Muslims are not tolerant.
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
That one is priceless. Acknowledge us as nice people or we'll burn down your embassy.
"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words."
Now this one seems to me particularly telling. "Insolent" is a word used to describe behavior of an inferior to a superior, isn't it? A boy is insolent to his parents, a slave insolent to his master or a man insolent to God. Am I reading too much into it? It seems very much like the man is saying that the Pope is bound to recognize the superiority of Islam's claims and submit to those claims, and that his remarks, failing to bow to the truth of Islam, are insolent. Now of course we know this to be Islam's views. Which is fine- I view Christianity as the true religion, and believe that all those imams and mullahs and sheiks and the rest will one day bow the knee to Jesus Christ whether they like it or not. But it just puts the lie to this idea that everyone has to be tolerant of Islam and is never allowed to say it's not true, when the faith of Islam declares confidently that all other faiths are lies and will be judged as such one day. When people say Christianity is false and a lie, I don't get all outraged. They must believe this, else they would be Christians. I know the day will come when Christianity will be vindicated, and I don't need to burn anyone's embassy down to prove it.
This cry for tolerance that we hear every time we turn around is a pretence. The Muslims don't believe in it- they'll put us all to the sword if they get the chance unless we convert, and until then will use the pretence to sap our strength and will to fight. And the champions of tolerance and multiculturalism in the west will advocate it only so long as they're in power and can keep the intolerant from cutting their throats. 9/11 was viewed as an isolated event, and so it didn't change a lot of people's belief that we could all get along. And the only thing keeping "tolerance" alive is the ineptness of the terrorists and the skill of the men and women defending the west, largely unappreciated and behind the scenes. If a few more 9/11s happened, a lot more people would see things for what they are, a bloody struggle to the death between two ideologies that cannot coexist on the same planet, and we'd see a lot fewer fake outrages like this one.
Comments:
I am going to comment on your last two posts...
I disagree with the latter post, specifically, I do not think it is possible to say why a nation wanes. To say judgement against that government, or that people, or that race is to bind God. The reason for a nation wane may have different motivations of God than we can percive. Nations do rise and fall, however, it is not always because of sin. The difficulty with this line of reasoning is how does one explain an entire population continued to allow to exist while being sinful? Is there in fact any difference between the sin of a powerful nation and that of a base nation? I do not think, in the context of judgement, we can make that call. The rise and fall of nations is contingent on the will of God outside of the depravity or will of man.
The sin of nations in the Old Testament was always in context of the choseness of Israel. While in the New Testament the sin of man, and of Rome, was demonstrated up against the sovereign rule of Christ. Kings do not seem in scripture to be assumedly good, rather, scripture seems to treat the good kings as somthing to be celebrated and odd.
Nations rise and fall for the salvation of the elect. Rome killed the God-Man and lasted another 500 years (give or take depending if you count like Gibbon or Toynbee).
(Ex 22:28; Prov 8:15; Ecc 10:20; Dan 2:21)
Concerning the former blog, I think you are spot on...well almost. I would point to the danger of saying these two specific peoples cannot coexist. While I understand your point, in that light and darkness can not coexist and that the light will over come the darkness, it is very dangerous to say that this specific people are intolerable. When governments start saying things such as this, stakes, faggots, and matches seem to be close behind.
Personnaly, I think Islam is on the ropes. It is utterly depraved and corrupt from its innermost parts outward. It will die a slow death, but even if it did tomorrow, however, the Hindis are right behind them.
I disagree with the latter post, specifically, I do not think it is possible to say why a nation wanes. To say judgement against that government, or that people, or that race is to bind God. The reason for a nation wane may have different motivations of God than we can percive. Nations do rise and fall, however, it is not always because of sin. The difficulty with this line of reasoning is how does one explain an entire population continued to allow to exist while being sinful? Is there in fact any difference between the sin of a powerful nation and that of a base nation? I do not think, in the context of judgement, we can make that call. The rise and fall of nations is contingent on the will of God outside of the depravity or will of man.
The sin of nations in the Old Testament was always in context of the choseness of Israel. While in the New Testament the sin of man, and of Rome, was demonstrated up against the sovereign rule of Christ. Kings do not seem in scripture to be assumedly good, rather, scripture seems to treat the good kings as somthing to be celebrated and odd.
Nations rise and fall for the salvation of the elect. Rome killed the God-Man and lasted another 500 years (give or take depending if you count like Gibbon or Toynbee).
(Ex 22:28; Prov 8:15; Ecc 10:20; Dan 2:21)
Concerning the former blog, I think you are spot on...well almost. I would point to the danger of saying these two specific peoples cannot coexist. While I understand your point, in that light and darkness can not coexist and that the light will over come the darkness, it is very dangerous to say that this specific people are intolerable. When governments start saying things such as this, stakes, faggots, and matches seem to be close behind.
Personnaly, I think Islam is on the ropes. It is utterly depraved and corrupt from its innermost parts outward. It will die a slow death, but even if it did tomorrow, however, the Hindis are right behind them.
Augustine,
Thanks for your comments. I suppose a twofold response is in order.
1)
The Bible speaks constantly of nations being judged for their wickedness. I do not see an example nor a statement ever made about a nation simply waning as the natural course of things. As you say, good kings are simply not expected too often; therefore most of them are bad, and therefore the few good kings that any nation ever had serve merely to put off the judgment for a time, like Hezekiah or Josiah. In Ezekiel 25-32, for example, after proclaiming and executing judgment on Jerusalem, God shows the universal nature of His kingship by pronouncing judgment on the nations around Israel as well. A wicked nation never goes unjudged. And the fact that Rome's judgment was postponed for a while is no proof of anything. And actually, the blame for the death of Christ lies much more solidly on the Jews than it does on the Roman Empire; the Roman Empire, on the other had, viciously persecuted Christians throughout the second and third century, so the end of Rome is not near as long postponed as you say. And even if it was- God's timing is His own, and long delay does not mean judgment is not there.
The lesson of the Seven Trumpets in Revelation is to show the calamities of this earth, specifically those between Christ's first and second advents, as being God's judgment on the nations for their wickedness as a foreshadowing of that which is coming. Those very same events, understood from the perspective of the Seven Seals, are all part of God's plan to test and perfect and prove the faithfulness of His elect.
2)
I didn't say that these _people_ couldn't coexist with us. I said this _viewpoint_ can't coexist. The viewpoint that says that everyone has to become Islamic or die is not a viewpoint you can live alongside of. As long as they have that viewpoint, it will be war. That's my point. Lots of Muslims don't have that viewpoint, just like lots of Christians don't really believe all that much about Christianity, or lots of Hindus really don't care that much about lots of the tenets of Hinduism. It's the viewpoint of Islam that says everyone else must bow or die, and that this is to be accomplished in real time at the point of a gun, which cannot coexist, in my mind.
Thanks for your comments. I suppose a twofold response is in order.
1)
The Bible speaks constantly of nations being judged for their wickedness. I do not see an example nor a statement ever made about a nation simply waning as the natural course of things. As you say, good kings are simply not expected too often; therefore most of them are bad, and therefore the few good kings that any nation ever had serve merely to put off the judgment for a time, like Hezekiah or Josiah. In Ezekiel 25-32, for example, after proclaiming and executing judgment on Jerusalem, God shows the universal nature of His kingship by pronouncing judgment on the nations around Israel as well. A wicked nation never goes unjudged. And the fact that Rome's judgment was postponed for a while is no proof of anything. And actually, the blame for the death of Christ lies much more solidly on the Jews than it does on the Roman Empire; the Roman Empire, on the other had, viciously persecuted Christians throughout the second and third century, so the end of Rome is not near as long postponed as you say. And even if it was- God's timing is His own, and long delay does not mean judgment is not there.
The lesson of the Seven Trumpets in Revelation is to show the calamities of this earth, specifically those between Christ's first and second advents, as being God's judgment on the nations for their wickedness as a foreshadowing of that which is coming. Those very same events, understood from the perspective of the Seven Seals, are all part of God's plan to test and perfect and prove the faithfulness of His elect.
2)
I didn't say that these _people_ couldn't coexist with us. I said this _viewpoint_ can't coexist. The viewpoint that says that everyone has to become Islamic or die is not a viewpoint you can live alongside of. As long as they have that viewpoint, it will be war. That's my point. Lots of Muslims don't have that viewpoint, just like lots of Christians don't really believe all that much about Christianity, or lots of Hindus really don't care that much about lots of the tenets of Hinduism. It's the viewpoint of Islam that says everyone else must bow or die, and that this is to be accomplished in real time at the point of a gun, which cannot coexist, in my mind.
Jolly good. I agree with point two, but disagree with point one. I will reserve comment until we can speak. Cheers!
The tolerance reminds me of McCains and other people's view that you can not use "torture" to get info.They say if we do not afford these rights to captured terroists our POWS will be treated horribly. Well, they cut heads off now as it is. It would do us well for the Liberals to admit there are absolutes and declare like Reagan that the Islamo-facists are an Evil Empire.
# posted by 
: 6:53 PM
: 6:53 PM
...if there are absolutes Rick, then there are absolutes in the way we treat all people including captured terrorists. Having worked in this area for some time now I have come to understand that just as the terrorist can exhibit inhumane attributes so can I. We must approach all people as being the Imago Dei...and when they are convicted according to law we hang them with a long rope.
Post a Comment
