Author Topic: Born-again evangelical view VS Ivy League liberal - not much has changed  (Read 163 times)

PeteWaldo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3822
    • View Profile
    • False Prophet Muhammad
I gues not much has changed in regard to the views of born-again evangelicals VS clueless Ivy League liberal theologians:

"Toward Islam itself the Founding generation held differing views. An evangelical Baptist spokesman denounced "Mahomet" as a "hateful" figure who, unlike the meek and gentle Jesus, spread his religion at the point of a sword. A Presbyterian preacher in rural South Carolina dusted off Grotius' 17th century reproach that the "religion of Mahomet originated in arms, breathes nothing but arms, is propagated by arms." Other, more influential observers had a different view of Muslims. In 1783, the president of Yale College, Ezra Stiles, cited a study showing that "Mohammadan" morals were "far superior to the Christian." Another New Englander believed that the "moral principles that were inculcated by their teachers had a happy tendency to render them good members of society." The reference here, as other commentators made clear, was to Islam's belief, which it shared with Christianity, in a "future state of rewards and punishments," a system of celestial carrots and sticks which the Founding generation considered necessary to guarantee good social conduct."
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

The part the liberals obviously seem to have missed is that fighting and slaying with the sword through imperialistic conquest, which is binding on the followers of Muhammad, is part of the "doing good" that Mohametans believe will help get them into paradise.

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#muslim_hypocrites

Lest the misleading title of the article be construed as an endorsement of the religion of Islam by our forefathers, some were also as "tolerant" of paganism as they were Islam:
"Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan."

Perhaps not realizing that Islam is not so much a religion as an anti-religion.