Let me tell you what upsets me most about this abomination of an article.

It's not the self-righteousness, it's not the 'us against them' dualism, it's not the rampant biblical illiteracy, it's not its historical fallacies, it's not it's ethical double-standards, it's not even its dumb assumptions that all Arabs are Muslims or the misspelling of 'Islamophobia'.

What upsets me most is it's wholehearted rejection of the Great Commission.

Jesus did not say, "Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, except Muslims - kill them." If you believe in the Jesus of the Gospels, then you have been commissioned to love and reach out to ALL the world, because Jesus died for us all. Every tribe and tongue. No exceptions.

Speaking as the husband of an Arabic Christian, and the friend of many missionaries and indigenous believers across the Muslim World, this article is an unChristlike abomination, disgusting in every way.

2 Timothy 1:6-8

New King James Version (NKJV)

6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Not Ashamed of the Gospel

8 Therefore
do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner,
but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the
power of God,

And they said, Amen.

Amen!

Çünkü Tanrı bize korkakluk ruhu değil, güç, sevgü, ve özdenetim ruhu vermiştir.

And what language is that and what is the translation?

Hey Charisma Magazine, are you gonna come clean about this article of yours? I see you took it down, probably because you didn't like being called out on being supporters of genocide ... but can you be man enough to offer a proper retraction?

Get your scabrous hides out here, you cowards, and take your lumps like the good martyrs you always dreamed you would be if push came to shove! Except of course the martyrs were on the right side of history, and you and yours are, at best, 21st century Pharisees.

One of the great Christian philosophers of our time, Ravi Zacharias, wrote a book titled, " The Prince and the prophet: Jesus talks to Mohammed."

A synopsis of the book can be described as, "an imaginary conversation between Jesus and Mohammed, each claiming some fairly radical things. Whose life was more in keeping with the character and call of God?"

Try to purchase the book. You cannot buy the book now. Do you know why? It will not be released until Mr. Zacharias' death because if it were released before that, his death might be hastened.

But Christians have absolutely no reason to be Islamophobic.

Lastly, I wonder how many of those criticizing the author of this article have actually read the Quran. How was the Muslim conquest stopped in the beginning of the last millennium? Was it stopped by Christians "loving their enemy and praying for them?" How did we end our oppression from the British? Did we love and pray for the British? All you who criticize this author and celebrate Independence Day are HYPOCRITES!

Christians are not called to be pacifists. If you disagree, please read this article and copy and paste exactly which part you disagree with and why:
http://www.godward.org/comm...

Knowles argument is so full of errors that I laughed my way through it. The kind of facile argument that Knowles set forth is such nonsense that it should not be dignified with a reply. His first mistake, a fatal methodological thread running throughout the rest of his argument, was to interpret the NT in light of the OT rather than the other way around. THE NEW TESTAMENT COMPLETES THE OLD TESTAMENT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. MOSES IS NOT GREATER THAN JESUS. On the Mount of Transfiguration, with Elijah and Moses present, God made it perfectly clear to the frighten disciples who has preeminence. HEAR HIM!!!

The essence of biblical pacifism is that God has already acted through the cross of Christ. Horrendous evil does not take Him by surprise. As Yoder explained, we are not called to be effective, not called to win. We are called to be obedient to Christ even if it means being thrown into the fiery furnace. As biblical pacifists, our job is to demonstrate to the world that there is a fourth man in the fire, a lamb who conquered the world by giving up his right and power to destroy it. By adopting pacifism, we participate in the victory of the lamb.

So when a knife wielding maniac (enemy) breaks into a home to rape and murder everyone inside, you are saying the proper course of action of the Christian father/protector of that home should NOT be to grab the nearest weapon to protect his family.

After all, "horrendous evil does not take [God] by surprise. That father is not called to be effective, not called to win against the killer. That father is called to be obedient to Christ even if it means being thrown into the fiery furnace [or having his family tortured and killed in front of him]. By adopting pacifism, that father participates in the victory of the lamb. This is your view taken to its logical conclusion. Can you see how ridiculous it sounds?

Apparently whatever god you serve is a figment created by your fear and imagination and is certainly not the God of the NT. Are you foolish enough to believe that God is absent in a crisis, that He is not in charge of the crisis, that our only option is flight or fight? Have you never been in a situation where you saw no way out and God provided you with a solution you could not possible have seen without Him? I have been walking with God longer perhaps than you’ve been walking the earth, and He has proven himself faithful in a crisis, a mighty fortress.

Your question is a silly one because it narrows the field of choices and presents a false alternative. It assumes that God is absent from that crisis situation, or that we need not consult Him but take matters into our own hand. Truth is, His presence gives us a third option – the only option – to the artificial choices your questions pose.

I have no fear for my family. I believe in self-defense, but not at the expense of obedience to Christ, and obedience to Christ must take priority over self-preservation; we live by a higher law than the law of the jungle. We are not called to do that which is logical, pragmatic and effective but to imitate Christ, and the wisdom of God, as Paul taught, is often foolishness to the world. Violence is often the pavlovian response of fools and cowards masquerading as Christians. You want to cut off their ear, but Jesus says put down your sword. You keep living in fear and trembling and thinking your guns-and-god theology will save you. Your house is built on sinking sand.

At the 46:00 mark here a caller asks the question, "Why aren't Christians pacifists today like the early believers?" The conversation is worth listening to. If this doesn't change your mind then I don't think anything I can say will change your opinion of what God wants. http://www.strcast2.org/pod...

I serve Jesus. You act as if serving Jesus and being "logical, pragmatic, and effective" are mutually exclusive. It's only when being "logical, pragmatic, and effective" serves your flesh/at the expense of others/contradicts God's moral will revealed in Scripture that it is considered ungodly. I don't know what Jesus you serve, but the Jesus I know and serve is the wisest, most logical and effective person who has ever lived.

You must not celebrate Independence day then do you? Were our Christian founders wrong to fight our British oppressors for independence? How about WWII? Were we wrong to use force and not just pray for our Nazi enemies? You have a very twisted theology my friend.

You also seem to not understand the distinction between appropriate "self-interest" (that is completely consistent with godliness) and "selfishness" (that is ungodliness). Perhaps this 2 minute video might help: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Here’s my reply to a fellow soldier and Christian who thinks like you do:

Friend, as one ex-soldier and Christian to another, I honor you. I’m sure you’ve seen greater action than this armchair RATT RIGG artillery corpsman.

Now permit me to be frank and say that your whole outlook on war needs to be brought into conformity with scripture. There is nothing wrong with Christians acknowledging the states Romans 13 role as restrainer of evil and participating in it in a way that doesn’t violate conscience. But if we do it in a combatant role, we dishonor Christ and lower His standard. No Christians can honor Christ while red in tooth and claw. We acknowledge the authority of government, but to be biblical we can only do it in a way that Yoder describe as “revolutionary subordination”. Revolutionary subordination acknowledges the government’s rightful authority but resist the government as the highest authority. It insists that Christ has the final word in all things, and it continually seeks to impose the way of Christ on its environment even while acknowledging the legitimate authority of government. There have been countless examples of noncombatant Christian servicemen and women practicing revolutionary subordination, such as Desmond Doss who received the Medal of Honor from Harry S. Truman.

The reason our world is swimming in violence is that there has been too few heroes and heroines like Doss. Violence, like cell mitosis, breeds more violence and ultimately creates more problems than it solves. Violence can never turn our world around. If we continue on the road of violence, America, if not destroyed, will be entangled in the Middle East mess for the next hundred years. The church once had the power to interject the Christian ideal into geopolitics but we have that influence no longer. And the reason for that is that we lowered the standard of Christ and settled for just-war lesser-of-two-evils thinking. To save America – if it can be saved -- we must get back to the Christian Ideal, to revolutionary subordination, even if it cost us our lives.

Amen! I looked up the book on Amazon and it was published in 2005?

It's not just "a guess". It's an inference to the best explanation given the facts.

Oh ok, thanks John :-)

Christian just war doctrine is about self defense and standing up for the oppressed. It is not hard to find those who are oppressed by Muslims following the dictates of their religion; they are everywhere! If one really wants to know about Islam's true nature they should listen to ex-muslims who are living under a death sentence. Of course you could also investigate the matter for yourself by actually reading the Quran and Hadith. You will quickly see the demonic influence of this death worshipping, destructive, and totalitarian religion! Thank goodness the crusades were fought. The world is a much better place today because Christians defended liberty and freedom. If they were not waged we would not have gotten the enlightenment, economic free enterprise, the technological revolution, etc...A new crusade is needed. It is the state's job to punish the evildoer! The government must protect western society from this ruthless and sadistic ideology! Specifically, our nation should tie all international aid, support, and strategic alliances to those countries who not only speak against terrorism but who can show actions against it. Not only this, but who openly condemn the violent and oppressive suras in the Quran and passages in the Hadith.

>>> "The world is a much better place today because Christains defended liberty and freedom."
Christians slaughtered and enslaved 80 million indigenous Amerindians while "settling" in the Americas.
That doesn't account for approx. 1500 years of savagery committed by Christians in Europe and the Middle East before setting sail across the Atlantic Ocean towards the western hemisphere in 1492.

There is so much leftist propaganda in that bit it makes me squeamish. First off, indigenous Americans died of because of disease largely. And if you condemn Christians for slavery you essentially condemn every consortium of people before abolition, which was done by Christans. Christians made slavery the most humane and then abolished it. I doubt you would lay claims like this to other groups of people, probably revealing your anti-christian leftist, but I repeat myself, bias.

Falling out of my chair by the sheer force of your revisionist history.

The word is "sheer." "Shears" are scissors.

Thank you my grammatical concerned brethren

Just one account of many
Bartolome de las Casas
16th Century historian, Dominican friar, sailed with Colombus on his second trip to the "new world". One of the first European settlers in the Americas. First Bishop of Chiapas. His two most well known accounts
"Historia de las Indies"
"A short account of the destruction of the Indies"(English translation)
Official records from the British Commonwealth of Virgina 1690 Racial Indentity Act. The Commonwealth of Virginia 1708-1850 Racial Identity Act(s)
Pretty grisly reading, if you dare to educate yourself as to Christian activity in the Americas

Where did you get this nonsense about Europeans "enslaving" American Indians?

Also, were you aware that many Indians owned slaves themselves?

Plenty of data on the Indians' cannibalism, slave-holding, brutality toward women, etc. You must have this liberal delusion that all people except Christians are angels.

Here's just one of numerous sources/accounts
Bartolome de las Casas (B. 1484-D.1566)...16th century historian. Dominican friar, travelled with Colombus on his second voyage to the "new world", Bishop of Chiapas. His two most famous accounts
"A Short Account of The Destruction of the Indies"
"Historia de las Indies"
Bartolome de las Casas was one of the first European settlers in the "new world". He participated in, and came to oppose the atrocities committed by Europeans on the indigenous population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Other accounts are to be found in the official records of the British Commonwealth of Virginia dating back to 1690; Racial Indentity Act; Indian Indentity Act
It appears you have some reading/research to do. You are woefully uninformed.

Another Christian-bashing troll, just what we needed...

History offends thee ?

A poster posted.

"Here is a perfect example of the anti-Christ:

Islam (Koran) calls the Son of God an abomination - and all of His eye-witnesses (apostles) liars:

Koran:

009.030

037.151

037.152

019.088

019.089

And what does the New Testament say?

1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Carnal commands of the Koran:

047.004 - Beheadings

033.052 - Gang Rape of female 'infidels'

005.033 - Crucifixions

008.067 - Treason

033.061 - Genocide "without mercy"

A poster posted

"Everyone should remember that the Grand Mufti of Egypt went to Germany before and during World War Two to have the German Nazis teach the Islamists their way of governance. Then he came back to Egypt and started the Muslim Brotherhood. Which was also the basis of Saddam Hussein"

UH...HISTORY DESCRIBES EUROPEANS ENSLAVING INDIANS. YOU MUST HAVE BEEN HOMESCHOOLED NOT TO KNOW THIS.

oops sorry for caps. Not intended.

And what's wrong with homeschooling miss "devout Christian?".

You have Indians confused with blacks. They are different groups.

Indians were indeed sold into slavery
British Commonwealth of Virginia Racial Indentity Act 1690; Indian Identification. Indians were adjudged to be, and counted as "B/Black" or "M/Mulatto" and were enslaved along with Blacks brought to the colonies.
Racial Integrity Act was in force until 1964...Indians were no longer slaves, but forbidden by law to marry and/or have relationships with whites.

Liberals are kinda dense, you have to overlook them.

So that's your fantastical rebuttal..... and you're calling someone else dense? Sheesh.

"Thank goodness the crusades were fought."

In a sentence you went from Islamaphobic to simply ignoring the political, religious, and social complexities of such a sad series of events.

You can't be surprised if you lose credibility fast when you applaud the annihilation of perhaps millions and find a sacred book to justify it. It's amusing actually, if it weren't so tragic

And the Muslims were the innocent victims of invading Christians? Just stood there harmless while the Christians mowed them down?

Wow, that is turbo-stupidity. Millions of innocent dead Muslims, all pacifists. Too funny. Christians bad - Muslims good.
Are you a 9/11 truther?

"And the Muslims were the innocent victims of invading Christians?"

I didn't write that, I would suggest you are letting your anger take the best of your arguments.

Let me paste again what I wrote: "...when you applaud the annihilation of perhaps millions and find a sacred book to justify it."

Annihilation of millions. Period. Both Christian and Muslim. As in every cosmic war, both sides commit atrocities, and the crusades were no exception. In the end they became a foolish attempt by two religious groups whose sacred books somehow make real estate claims over the same strip of land in the Middle East.

The poster was celebrating the crusades, one of the saddest chapters of history , by saying "Thank goodness the crusades were fought", while painting Christians defending liberty and freedom. That is so inaccurate that it's actually funny

The Crusades were fought to reconquer Christian lands that had been conquered by Muslims, so yeah, they were fought for liberty and freedom, since the majority of people in those lands were Christians and Jews, living as second-class citizens ruled by a Muslim elite. What's not to celebrate? Courage is a good thing, European Christians trying to release Middle Eastern Christians from Muslim domination is a good thing, unless you think it was OK for Muslims to invade an area, kill most of the men, make eunuchs of the remaining men, make slaves and concubines of the women and children, turn churches and synagogues into mosques or burn the churches down. As the article stated, had Christians not fought valiantly, all of Europe would have become Muslim territory. The Muslims had no more business in those territories than Hitler's armies had any business being in Poland or Russia or France. Funny how in the PC version of history, "freedom fighters" are praised - unless they happened to be Christian.

The Crusades were one of the bloodiest episodes in the history of Jerusalem. The Crusaders killed all the way until they captured Jerusalem and here are some of the accounts of that taking of the holy city.

Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, and the Temple Mount area generally. According to the Gesta Francorum, speaking only of the Temple Mount area, "...[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." According to Raymond of Aguilers, also writing solely of the Temple Mount area, " in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." However, this imagery should not be taken literally; it was taken directly from biblical passage Revelation 14:20.[12] Writing about the Temple Mount area alone Fulcher of Chartres, who was not an eyewitness to the Jerusalem siege because he had stayed with Baldwin in Edessa at the time, says: "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared".[13]

Later the same source writes, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone

Jews had fought side-by-side with Muslim soldiers to defend the city, and as the Crusaders breached the outer walls, the Jews of the city retreated to their synagogue to "prepare for death".[21] According to the Muslim chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi, "The Jews assembled in their synagogue, and the Franks burned it over their heads."
For those interested in history you can easily look up the Crusades and see why it is seen as one of the darkest hours for Christianity, and how it left a scar in the minds of Muslims and Jews still today.
The Muslims could be just as ruthless when Christian troops were defeated ,but in the Crusades, the knights were far from being the good guys.

this is because they were Satan's and not Christians..
the sixth seal should open your mind ....
there you should see that the lamb , Jesus is agin both sides ...
it is the sharp two edged sword that shall come out of his mouth that men shall fear the most ..

"The Crusades were fought to reconquer Christian lands that had been conquered by Muslims, so yeah, they were fought for liberty and freedom"

Again, in one stroke you are erasing the massive evidence of 200 hundred years of a highly complex political, social, and economic situation. Which involved yes Muslim military overreach, but also papal-sanctioned military campaigns to restore Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem, hundreds of aristocrats and noblemen vying for personal fame, wealth, and glory, petty intra-faith (as usual) fighting that actually resulted in some Christians siding with Muslims in the last couple of crusades, only to provoke the defeat of rival Christian nobles from other countries. And many many more.

All in all, a pretty sad chapter of history. To ignore all these elements and call them a demonstration of Christian righteousness is either extremely naive or disingenuous. To celebrate them is extremely irrational.

Excellent point! As a Christian, it pains me to admit the Muslims often behaved themselves nobler than the Christians. Saladin was no saint, but he was Gandhi compared to Richard the Lionhearted and the brutal French Generals.

And the Christians lost in the end, so God wasn't on their side.

The christians lost, so god must have been on the side of the muslims.

The Indians lost, so God must have been on the side of the Christians.

Gosh, you're smart!

Being a lesbian must raise the intelligence.

Most of the people were Muslims. And the Byzantines lost the land the same way the American Indians did, especiallly the South American indians.