News: Falwell calls Mohammed a "terrorist"

kingnothing, if you read the life story of Mohamed (written by Arab writers, and transliterated to other laguages), you will see the difference between the people you've mentioned. Obviously there is no comparison.

 

Does anyone other than Sheagle even listen to Falwell?

 

Oh yes, we do listen to Falwell. When he sticks to the Bible, he is ok.

 

I listen to him. Sometimes he is full of hot air, other times he is right on the money.

This time he spoke what many believe but few have the guts to say, especially on national TV. I disagree with those here who think that something should be left unsaid just because it "offends" people. That is not biblical. Someone said "is that WWJD?". Pick up your Bible and read the words of the Master Himself. Then ask yourself, "is that WWJD?".

 

If he has the guts to say it on 60 minutes, why would did he tell the AP that he wouldn't say the same thing from his own pulpit? Surely its not the IRS thing.

True guts are consistent. When Jerry is consistent, he shows guts. Not points for guts on this one yet.

But perhaps a few million $ in video sales.

 

OK.

 

This is simply poor Great Commission logic wrapped up in a desire to defend the loose comments of one of our Baptist statesmen. If an Islam, pointing to Jesus' actions in clearing out the temple, called Him a terrorist...or referred to Christianity, as a whole, as an evil and terroristic relgion because of the Crusades...there would be an unending source of outrage here.</font>[/QUOTE]Hello Jonathan,

I have been away from the PC for a few days so I am delayed in responding to you post. You've said that I have used "poor Great Commission logic..." Would you mind pointing out the weakness in my logic.

I was responding to a post in which someone asked for an example as to how Mohammad could be considered to be a terrorist. I gave a simplified example of the way that he advanced Islam at the point of the sword. It is historical fact. When he fled Mecca he went to Madina built up a following and returned to Mecca with an army. Once there he took the city by force and demanded that the residents give up idol worship, accept Islam, or die. This set the precedent for how he advanced his new religion. Terrorism is a system of government by terror, or intimidation. Therefore, Mohammad was a terrorist. The post-modern pluralist American society needs to be made aware of these historical facts.

I understand that by making such truthful statements, in our age of instant communication, it makes the work of our missionaries more difficult. However, we cannot shy away from the truth especially when addressing the U.S. population. I've got friends on the mission field right now in the Middle East and I would not hesitate to publicly confront someone here in the U.S. who was attempting to argue that Islam, like Christianity, is just another way to God. In doing so I would use all the historical facts at my disposal to discredit Mohammad and prove Islam to be a false representation of the One True God (the Triune God of Christinity). Now, would I use these same bold arguments if I were in a Muslim country addressing its people? No way, I would focus on the things that we share in common and build a relationship that would allow me to present the truth of the Gospel in love.

It all depends on the audience. Will Jerry Falwell ever be able to enter an Islamic country and be successful in winning Muslims to Christ? I don't think so. However, he can and does combat pluralism and false teaching here at home.

Well, it has only been since the mid-1960s that we gave legal protection to the murder of unborn babies, and made it illegal to pray in our public schools. Likewise, only recently have some states begun to recognize same sex unions as being equal to heterosexual marriage. The same goes for assisted suicide. I am not saying that it is the amount or level of sin that is just now causing God to judge us; rather, it is the fact that we as a nation have begun to condone and even legislate such sin as being the norm and acceptable. If we do not see the events of 9-11 as a wake up call for this nation to repent and return to God then it really is too late for us.

Simply because you are unaware of whether or not other Conservative Christian leaders have taken Dr. Falwell aside and given him a "thrashing" does not mean that it has not happened. In fact, I know that it has. Dr. Patterson told Dr. Falwell, in a SEBTS Chapel service, that he (Falwell) had said the wrong thing when he (Falwell) visited here last spring. However, I agree with the way that Dr. Patterson followed up when addressing the issue by stating that the idea behind Dr. Falwell's words was correct, he simply made a poor choice of words when attempting to get his point across.

This is sheer conjecture on your part and is an unfair accusation against Dr. Falwell and his personal and pastoral integrity.

[ October 08, 2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Yes, He was a sick man. Any man that has sex with children and beats his wives is sick and I agree that he was a terrorist. The difference was God told Joshua and the other old testament saints to do this in order so it would not bring sin into the camp. He did it in cold blooded murder because they would not follow him.

It also sounds to me that we have some liberals on this topic that stands for false religion. If you do, I really believe that you better check your own salvations because,we are suppose to recongize that which is false if we have the spirit of God in us.

I do not agree with Jerry Falwell on things, but if he has the guts to say these things for people to wake up then so be it. I haven't heard much from the other spiritual leaders on this in our country. HINT HINT

[ October 08, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Mrs, KJV ]

 

This is simply poor Great Commission logic wrapped up in a desire to defend the loose comments of one of our Baptist statesmen. If an Islam, pointing to Jesus' actions in clearing out the temple, called Him a terrorist...or referred to Christianity, as a whole, as an evil and terroristic relgion because of the Crusades...there would be an unending source of outrage here.</font>[/QUOTE]Hello Jonathan,

I have been away from the PC for a few days so I am delayed in responding to you post. You've said that I have used "poor Great Commission logic..." Would you mind pointing out the weakness in my logic.</font>[/QUOTE]If Jerry is committed to evangelism, there are ways to discuss the evils of Islam without being so bombastic as to make mission work among muslims more difficult than it already is. Compare Falwell on 60 minutes with Paul at Mars Hill.

Jerry knows better.

What you have described is not a terrorist but a man of war. To gather an army and engage in a frontal attack is not the action of a terrorist.

Paul set the model for apologetics at Mars Hill. He didn't need to offend his opponents by ridiculing their faith. He set out a clear intellectual challenge and was effective in arguing the merits of Christianity. Jerry could have followed Paul's example. He didn't.

Are you suggesting that we didn't really set ourselves up for God's wrath until we began condoning only certain sins? This one doesn't wash. As a nation, we have been condoning sin since our inception. To suggest that 9/11 is judgement because we have only recently become too sinful is an insult to a Holy God who is outraged at all sin.

This is sheer conjecture on your part and is an unfair accusation against Dr. Falwell and his personal and pastoral integrity. [/QUOTE]

Come on. Have you looked the different videos and merchandise that Jerry has put out in the past? I have some close friends who have worked very close with Jerry and most of them know Jerry to be a huckster. A good guy and a fine pastor but a huckster all the same.

 

Guess people on this Board have never heard of this verse:

1Chr.16
[22] ...Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

 

Does this apply to all pastors who use the media, or only Baptist pastors?

 

Hello Jonathan,

I'll attampt to follow up below.

I think we are arguing past one another here. It seems that you are focusing on the fact that Dr. Falwell's interview was hurtful to the work of our missionaries among Muslims. In that respect I believe that you are correct. However, due to the nature of Islam and the way that it invades every aspect of its followers lives, no matter what or how one speaks against Islam it will offend some and close the door on evangelism in some cases. The good news of the Gospel of Christ is an offense to the unbeliever. There is no getting around that fact.

I, on the other hand, am saying that Dr. Falwell spoke truthfully when he correctly defined Mohammad as a terrorist, and that his (Falwell's) stance is useful in confronting post-modern American pluralists who would attempt to make all world religions equally valid ways of reaching God and heaven.

Nope. Mohammad was more than simply "a man of war." George Washington, Winston Churchhill, and even FDR, these were "men of war." They waged war based on what they believed to be right (like Mohammad); yet, when it was time to put aside their arms they did so. They did not rule by intimidation and use their armed forces to subdue innocent people and force them to accept their religious beliefs (as Mohammad did). Webster's Dictionary defines terrorism as "A system of government by terror; intimidation." Likewise, a terrorist is defined as "One who rules by intimidation." Mohammad and his known historical actions fit these definitions completely. He was more than simply a warrior, he was a religious dictator, i.e. a terrorist, who used the sword to force everyone he encountered to accept his religion. Before anyone gets all excited let me say that I know full well that Islamic law allowed for "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, and Zorasters) to pay a tax and continue to practice their particular religious beliefs. However, they were merely tolerated and if they attempted to share their particular faith with a Muslim they were subject to being killed.

Now, today nearly 1,400 years after Mohammad some of his followers are still seeking to enforce their political and religious beliefs upon the rest of the world by means of this same kind of intimidation. We call them terrorists. If it were possible for us to interview the 19 terrorists from 9/11, or any of the numerous suicide bombers from Israel, I would be willing to bet that they would say that they viewed themselves as soldiers in an unified "Army of Allah" and that they died waging a "frontal assualt" against the enemies of Islam.

Again, see my first response above. I don't think Dr. Falwell was attempting to evangelize Muslims through that interview. Rather, he was addressing the American public and trying to educate them so that they understand that the post-modern pluralist ideas that equate Christianity and Islam are wrong. Do his comments have repercussions that effect the evangelism of Muslims? Yes. Was his statement that Mohammed was a terrorist false or wrong? No.

I am not suggesting anything of the sort. My answer does wash. Look at the O.T. history of the nation of Israel. Holy God constantly judges sin and because He is holy He must separate Himself from that which is sinful. However, even when Israel was engaged neck deep in and condoning sin He continued to send His Prophets to say, "Thus says the Lord" thereby warning them to repent. Now, just as He spoke through the Prophets of old, I am saying that God has spoken to us by means of the events of 9/11 and that He is thereby calling our nation to repent while we still can. God has used other events in our nations history to do the same thing (e.g. the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, etc.). Each of these events has been preceded or followed by large scale revival in our nation (some larger than others and some more localized).

I know that Dr. Falwell is very good at raising finances to support and grow Liberty University and the ministries of Thomas Road Baptist Church. However, I would be very careful in calling him a "huckster" (a seller of trinkets) and implying that his interview was designed to simply increase the sale of video tapes etc.

[ October 10, 2002, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Though I may agree with Falwell's statements. I do wish he would have tact! I know for me, everytime, he says one of his statements---this one, the post 911 one, ect. my dear friend whom i have been witnessing to, uses him as a reason not to accept Jesus. He turns off many non-believers by his lack of tact and gentleness. Jesus, in my opinion did say statements that were outright condemming--I am thinking of him at the temple overturning tables---but then he showed great love and compassion for the lost. Falwell needs to conteract his harshness with love. Until then, I find it hard to respect him...though I do agree with him. Its just another battle for me to explain to my friend I know this is common struggle amoung many, especially for us living near Lynchburg.

 

we need more tolerance in this world,and the words jerry falwell said does not help at all,it will only cause muslims to hate christians more and more.

 

Guess people on this Board have never heard of this verse:

1Chr.16
[22] ...Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

</font>[/QUOTE]Have I touched or done harm to Jerry?