S Korean Hostage Dead [Warning- Graphic Photos Included]

Fox NEws Channel ^ | 22 June 2004 | FNC

[shield]

bmp

[TigersEye]

Ooooooh.....! Now I'm cut to the quick.

I wasn't talking to you and quick isn't a word I'd use to describe you.

[Kerberos]

That would again be a study in contrasts - no?

No, a study in contrasts would cover items that are dissimilar; a study in similarities would be items, which are in common with each other. All objects have properties that are similar to other objects and all objects have properties, which are dissimilar with other objects. When doing an analysis to list just the dissimilar attributes and not list the similar ones are well, just presenting half the story

But let me see if I can help you get started with just a few of the similar or comparative attributes between Christianity and Islam.

1.) Both have an absolute belief that their deity is the only true deity and that all others are false (you even demonstrate that similarity in the last paragraph of your post).

“There is only one true and living God.”

2.) Both have a belief that all others must recognize their deity.

3.) Both believe that they have a mission to convert all others to their point of view and that all others must worship their deity.

4.) Failure by others to do such somehow affects the believer’s world, which cannot be right or complete without all others believing in their deity. Although factual evidence is never rendered as to why this is true.

5.) Both have a holy book that they believe is the obsolete authority on all matters and that the accuracy of it cannot be questioned or challenged.

6.) Both have a hierarchal structure of authorities who are sanctioned to interpret said holy book and tell us what it truly means which here again cannot be challenged.

7.) Both are based on principles that were applicable, and possibly appropriate, for the historical time frame for which they were created in, but are very rarely interpreted in the current time frame, aka a hermeneutical approach.

8.) Both have martyrs in their belief system, which is the apogee that one can achieve as a testament to their faith in both religions, although such behavior is extremely egocentric and destructive it is regarded in both systems as highly valued.

9.) Both believers of each religion see the other religion as evil and doing the work of Satan. As an example, here is a recent post on this site by a freeper:

“There is no peace with the fanatical Muslims. Only killing them will be beneficial. The word must go out to all Muslims, that any provovation vis a vis assymetrical warfare will result in their death, or capture as prisoners of war (and then death). IMO we should keep killing them until they stand down. If necessary, kill them all. It's no more than killing lice and rats anyway.”

And here is a post from another bulletin board by a Muslim:

“satan will do anything as your Mr. Bush and his gang
are doing right now because they're friends of Satan.”

So there are a few I can think of off the top of my head that may help you get started. If however, you still need further assistance don’t hesitate to contact me.

"The newsletter is not online."

I would still like to see a copy of your article if you can make it avaliable.

[PresbyRev]

Your post is a continuous argumentum ad nauseam. You simply assert, in sweeping generalizations, supposed points of connectional identity and similarities between Christianity and Islam without any evidence whatsoever.

It is my opinion that you are wrong throughout and are misjudging the threat of Islam to the West and falsely impugning the Christian faith.

My response to your points.
1.) Both have an absolute belief that their deity is the only true deity and that all others are false (you even demonstrate that similarity in the last paragraph of your post).

The attributes of the Biblical God versus the Qu'ranic representation of deity, however, are quite different. Apples and oranges.

2.) Both have a belief that all others must recognize their deity.

No, the Christian would wish, hope, desire and pray that all people might recognize, love and honor the Creator, but 'must' implies coercion and force. The Muslim would seem to believe that all people must and will be ultimately subjugated to Islam and the worship of Allah - whether of their own volition and choice or by force and threats.

3.) Both believe that they have a mission to convert all others to their point of view and that all others must worship their deity.

Here we have a petitio principii - In this comment you are simply asserting and assuming your own premise without proving it. "Must" again smacks of coercion and that is simply not a principle to be found in the New Testament. Islam and Christianity are both missionary religions - true. However, the nature of evangelism is again distinctive and different (rooted in the respective representations of Deity in the Bible versus the Qu'ran). Muslims, and it is a timeless decree in their sacred writings, are to press the claims of Islam by violence. Their religion is rooted in conversion by pressure tactics - heavy taxation on Jews and Christians in Muslim lands; jihad, etc.

Christians, if they are true to the example of Jesus, invite and offer. They seek to minister and serve. The legacy of the Christian West, for all its faults and failure to live by the ethic of Scripture and example of Jesus is seen in --- hospitals, science, universities, medicine, etc.

4.) Failure by others to do such somehow affects the believer’s world, which cannot be right or complete without all others believing in their deity. Although factual evidence is never rendered as to why this is true.

? ? ?

This is simply silly. I don't even know how to respond to this amorphous, vague accusation ("somehow affects the believer's world").What?

5.) Both have a holy book that they believe is the obsolete authority on all matters and that the accuracy of it cannot be questioned or challenged.

I assume obsolete was meant as 'absolute.' The Qu'ran is believed to be literal dictation by Allah to Mohammed. The Bible is a dynamic record of people's experiences with the God of Israel over a 1400 year period. It provides, such as the instance of the first Easter in its multiple but compatible accounts, evidence not of collusion - getting a story straight - but the multiple and unique perspectives of people witnessing a real event from differing vantage points. Question and challenge the Bible all you wish. I am a mainline Protestant and wholeheartedly affirm textual and higher criticism and study. I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in the God to which my experience with Scripture points.

The Christian view of Scripture is quite different from the Islamic view of the Qu'ran.

6.) Both have a hierarchal structure of authorities who are sanctioned to interpret said holy book and tell us what it truly means which here again cannot be challenged.

This statement doesn't reflect the complexities and realities of authority in either Islam or Christianity. It is a gross generalization and again the notion that authority in the Church can't be challenged is patently false. Whether it is the Biblical tradition of the prophets, or Christ, or the disputations at the Council in Acts, Servetus, Luther, etc. your assertion is false. Islam and religious authority is a complex issue - there are at least three or four 'streams' of authority and the multiplicity extends even further with competing fatwahs, etc. So too, Christianity is going to have a range of authority structures from Quaker meetings to Primitive Baptist churches to the Pope of Rome and Holy See.

7.) Both are based on principles that were applicable, and possibly appropriate, for the historical time frame for which they were created in, but are very rarely interpreted in the current time frame, aka a hermeneutical approach.

"but are very rarely interpreted in the current time fram, aka a hermeneutical approach." I can only suggest you study what hermeneutics is and means. I think I understand you as asserting that Christians and Muslims adhere to the authority of ancient texts appropriate for their ancient near east context, but unworkable in the modern world.
Again, offered up are generalities heaped on generalities muddled by a poor understanding of the differing views of Scripture in the Christian tradition. A Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, fundamentlist Baptist, mainline Presbyterian and conservative Wesleyan are all going to approach the notion of Scriptural authority, interpretation and application differently. There is no hulking monolith called Christendom that can't decide how to interpret ancient texts in the contemporary world. The way I handle the Scriptures, my hermeneutic, is vastly different than either a fundamentalist or Orthodox Christian.
I interpret and apply the ancient text in the contemporary world each Sunday and I have yet to teach that the earth is 6000 years old, call for a ban on eating shellfish, encourage the stoning of homosexuals or waging a herem on the Islam world. The Qu'ranic view of the world and truth does make it problematic for the Muslim to faithfully read and apply the teachings of Muhammed without explicitly practicing violence in word or deed against non-Muslims or sitting by in silent complicity.
8.) Both have martyrs in their belief system, which is the apogee that one can achieve as a testament to their faith in both religions, although such behavior is extremely egocentric and destructive it is regarded in both systems as highly valued.

Whoa friend! Here you are either being coy, devious or really are ignorant of Islam and Christianity. Christian martyrs are made by submitting passively to the injustice of tyrannical political regimes (the atheist establishments of this past century in Russia or currently in China, Laos and Vietnam are contemporary cases in point) or of individuals or groups, to the point of death and for the sake of their witness and testimony to the love of God in Christ.
Christian martyrs are egocentric and destructive because others took their lives? That's a little twisted. Christians are martyred when others take their lives. Christian martyrdom necessitates non-violence. Jesus didn't go down swinging a sword! Marytrdom is not something to be sought out. Enjoying life, loving others, searching out and applying all God's truth in all spheres of life - science, the arts, mathematics - that is the high calling, the apogee, of Christian faith.

Muslim martyrs seem to be ginned out by murdering others and dying in the process. The very parameters and definitions of martyrdom in the Qu'ran seem to offer a positive link between dying in the course of waging jihad and martyrdom with its presumed benefits.

Non-violent Christian (ex. the Christian students at Columbine murdered by atheists) martyrdom vs. Violent Islamic martyrdom (ex. suicide/homicide bombers). There's a contrast for you.

9.) Both believers of each religion see the other religion as evil and doing the work of Satan. As an example, here is a recent post on this site by a freeper:

“There is no peace with the fanatical Muslims. Only killing them will be beneficial. The word must go out to all Muslims, that any provovation vis a vis assymetrical warfare will result in their death, or capture as prisoners of war (and then death). IMO we should keep killing them until they stand down. If necessary, kill them all. It's no more than killing lice and rats anyway.”

You have just offered a straw man argument. One impassioned post on FR is neither authoritative nor representative of Christianity's view of Islam. Nor was that quote offering Biblical rationale for killing Muslims. Would someone have been wrong for calling for total war against Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? Apart from the need for our country to defend herself against Muslim holy war (if you are looking for more than cyber-bluster) you had best go to contemporary evidence. Look at the persecution and terrorism being waged by Muslims against Christians in Sudan; Nigeria; Egypt; Palestine; Lebanon; Indonesia. While some may call for a violent defense of innocent life against Muslim terrorism - you can hardly draw a comparison between the violent nature of Islam and the peaceable ethic of Christianity thereby.

Islam doesn't 'see' Christianity as the work of Satan, (from my reading of the Qu'ran. Individual Muslim clerics may or may not). The Qu'ran instead teaches that Judaism and Christianty are perversions of what was taught by the prophets, including Jesus. Though killing Christians doesn't seem to be precluded for Muslims, does it? Christianity historically viewed Islam as a Christian heresy. One would have to posit a literal Satan to view Islam as the 'work of Satan.' I don't. I do see what can only be called 'demonic' (or twisted, demented, sick) in the actions of Muslims who kill innocents for the sake of their religion and worldview.

I haven't even touched on the contrasts between the historical Jesus and Mohammed. Indeed, a study in contrasts.The work of the Church in areas of ameliorating suffering and injustice in this life, in this world dwarves all that Islam could muster. There have always been Christians as keen on getting some heaven into people as getting people into heaven. The accomplishments of the Christian Church for peace, compassion and service contrast sharply with the suicide bomber, the knife of the cutthroat and the call for war by Mohammed and his followers.

While your intro paragraph was cute, you seem to have very vague notions relative to the history of the Church; the possibilities of a rationale and humane use of Scripture; of common Christian experience, faith and practice; and of the expanse of Christian thought. More to the point, by reducing Islam and Christianity to moral equivalents, you betray a real misunderstanding of what both religious traditions teach and practice - both in history and in the contemporary world.