With Missionaries Spreading, Muslims' Anger Is Following (NYT sees missionaries deserving of death)

New York Times ^ | Dec. 31, 2002 | SUSAN SACHS

[gulfcoast6]

These dedicated Christians go to these dangerous contries to give trhem life and yet, the radicals give them death. Strange that these newspapers can not see the difference.

[Radical Poet]

Remember Jesus? It was the "religous authorities" of the day who were most oppossed to his messages. Nothing has changed on that count. satan doesn't care what package of lies people believe and put their faith in, AS LONG as it isn't the message of Christ and his gospel.

Our hearts are with the families of these fine people. They have given all they had to give to speed the return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign until ALL his enemies are "put under his feet", so people can bow to him now or later. For as it is written:

Philippians 2: 5-10

5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6) Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7) But made of himself no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

And that my friends, - says it all. And the NYT will bow as well, as will ALL the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ!

[livius]

What a disgusting article. A new low, even for the Times.

[crystalk]

And totally un-American. Every religion must have every right to conduct all activities it wishes, including attempting to attract persons not currently in the faith.

Whether the bigot laws are in Israel or in Muslim countries, it must not be up to the Baptist preacher to determine whether those hearing him are Muslim, nominal Christians, or totally unattached. If they listen to him, that is enough.

[Dataman]

"I see a martyr as someone willing to put their life on the line for something they believe in strongly," said Moorman,

The word martyr is from the Greek, marturion, which meant "witness." It was applied to the early Christians who, thanks to government persecution, often were killed because of their witness. Thus "witness" (marturion) came to mean "one killed because of his witness."

This means the islamic fruit salads who blow themselves up are not martyrs; they do not have their lives taken from them because they testify to the truth of islam. They are only murderers.

[driftless]

Therefore it would be alright for me to shoot the next Jehovah's Witness who knocks on my door. And Islam is a relatively new religion in America. Since they are trying to proselytyze in a country that has long been predominately Christian, we should feel free to kill them.

What The Slimes inadvertantly does is make the case that people in the Mideast, though supposedly living in a rich culture and practicing a "religion of peace", are basically brain-dead killers who can't control themselves. The Slimes is hopeless.

[FormerLib]

American Protestant missionaries in the 19th century, for example, built universities and hospitals and tried to convert Coptic Christians in Egypt and Greek Orthodox Christians in Lebanon.

Curious that they felt the need to convert Christians to Christianity (at least their particular version). This speaks volumes.

[FormerLib]

Sort of cut Matthew 28:18-20 out of your Bible, huh?

The reference was to the fact that the Copts and Orthodox under Moslem oppression know how to spread the Gospel without trumpeting their own horns.

Care to quote the part where we're told to go and convert other Christians?

[Destro]

Ask the Slavs if the Greek Orthodox proselytize or not. The answer is that the Orthodox do proselytize, which is after all a Greek word. They just don't do it actively among other Christians IT'S OK TO PROSELYTIZE, BUT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT'S KINDER TO REFRAIN.

The Orthodox are passive proselytizers, in other words you convert through good works and personal example or something like that. See the Greek conversion of the Pagan Slavs as an example.

[rmvh]

Re your #1 concerning the NYT:

The New York Times is owned and largely controlled by Non-Christians.

This should explain the hate and deceit spread by this apex of "yellow journalism>"

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The evil is the blasphemy laws that this weak religion hides behind.... why can the NYT see the evil of this violation of freedom of conscience?

The First Amendment was framed for an openly partisan press, such as the newspapers in which Jefferson and Hamilton waged their political battles. IOW, a press with no pretense to objectivity.

A press arrogant enough to believe itself to be objective is a press which sees the First Amendment as a loophole for non-objective nuisances such as Rush Limbaugh--or for that matter, Free Republic. A press which, odd as it may seem, is contemptuous of the First Amendment.

Politicians and journalists--and not the public at large--were the only real supporters of McCain-Feingold. And that is by no means an accident. The whole idea of "public relations" is that we-the-people are easily swayed by symbolism. The ones who are difficult to con are the ones with the strongest tendency to put things into perspective--the conservatives.

[Z.Hobbs]

Curious that Pro-life Republicans would try to persuade pro-abortion Republicans to adopt their view.

Curious that people who believe in rule of law would try to convince those who believe in pure unfettered democracy (mobocracy) to adopt their point of view.

Curious that Liberals would go into the newspaper/television news business.

This all speaks volumes!!!

We all believe that any idea, any truth that we believe will help others and/or make a better society is worth sharing. Some people just want to muzzle that which they don't want to hear, which testifies to the truth of the Christian message. Why would people so oppose a teaching that results in human rights, sacrificial service for others, a healthier society, economic prosperity and the propagation of ideas by moral persuasion rather than at the point of a gun? The teaching of Christianity is that there is an element of evil darkness in the world that rejects the light and exists in, and holds in bondage, every human being apart from the grace of God. The mission of Christianity is to tell everyone that through faith in Christ they can be free from that bondage to evil. If this message is true how can anyone expect a Christian to not share it with others, including within Christian cultures, where this is not fully understood?

Secular humanists and merit based religious systems like Islam reject Chritianity partly because the implication that there is an evil within ourselves that requires us to seek God's grace is highly offensive to those biased by that evil.

[Destro]

By the way, the many Protestant groups do proselytize in ways that are humble and not intrusive. Setting up schools and hospitals is a perfect example of positive Christian proselytizing which tries to convert via good works and examples. All Christians should avoid trying to proselytize among fellow Christians.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Of whom the world is not worthy - are those like these missionairies. God bless and use their witnesses unto death to bring to life the souls of those dead in their sins in Yemen and throughout the Moslem world....people who walk in darkness but whom God loves and to whom God sent his Son Jesus as Savior.

[Brookhaven]

Proselytizing sects like the Southern Baptist Convention, which owns the hospital in Jibla, Yemen, where the missionaries were killed, have said they do not actively seek to convert people if prohibited by government authorities.

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men. [Acts 5:27-29]

[twntaipan]

The article in question is specifically about Christians who were by power of kindness and selfless actions demonstrating the love of Christ to Muslims. In return, they were murdered. I knew one of those killed personally, and can assure you they were the last possible people to trumpet their own horns.

[aristeides]

From its first sentence on, the Slimes article is trying to spread the blame around, to other Christians and to Hindus, so that Moslems alone won't be seen as responsible for these sectarian murders. I'm not sure I would take too seriously parts of the article that advance this spin.

[twntaipan]

To a degree you are right, or at least I agree with you. But there are some who would call themselves Christian who, by the Bible's standards, bear no evidence of that fact. They are culturally Christian, but their value system is of the world. While those who have never ever heard should first be given opportunity to hear (of Christ), even those whose parents may have been church members (of whatever variety), but who never "chosen to follow" Christ need that same opportunity.

[exmarine]

The evil is the blasphemy laws that this weak religion hides behind.... why can the NYT see the evil of this violation of freedom of conscience? because they have not a conscience anymore??? hmmm???

Because the NYT is of the world. The world hates Christ and Christ's representatives here on earth. Their foolish hearts have been darkened and their condemnation is upon them.

[Congressman Billybob]

So to the New York Times the murder of Christians and Americans is a "negative reaction"? What bullsh*t. When the patient dies on the operating table, does the surgeon avoid responsibility by calling it a "negative patient outcome"?

We have Muslim "missionaries" operating in the United States, with their most fertile ground of operation being in prisons. Would we be justified in shooting such Muslims in the United States? Would the Times refer to such shootings here as a "negative reaction"?

Put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits. It doesn't. Therefore, the Times is slime, in its "reporting."

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column on UPI, "Incision Decision in the Senate" (Not yet on UPI wire, or FR.)

As the politician formerly known as Al Gore has said, Buy my book, "to Restore Trust in America"