Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jesus Christ: The Future belongs ONLY to those who slander the Prophet of Islam
The Holy Bible ^ | 1/09/2015 | Jan_Sobieski

Posted on 01/09/2015 1:05:38 PM PST by Jan_Sobieski

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last
To: Bidimus1
Given the subject no SLANDER is needed to show poor character.

Exactly. The truth is damning enough where Moe Hammerhead is concerned.

21 posted on 01/09/2015 1:53:59 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

If the correct phrasing is ‘Prophet Mohammad’ then wouldn’t ‘The Savior Jesus Christ’ be correct ?


22 posted on 01/09/2015 2:00:41 PM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Jan_Sobieski
He exposed the false teachers, false prophets, and money changers using whips and strong words.

Now this raises an interesting question, for which I think I know the answer, but could be persuaded otherwise.

Jesus never speaks harshly to sinners, to those who are outside the religious realm. He only speaks harshly to hypocrites and heretics within the religious realm: to the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, to the Pharisees concerning their hypocrisy, to the moneychangers concerning their misuse of religion for personal gain.

This teaches me how to relate to others within a presumably Christian society. If I am talking to someone outside the church, I present the gospel without condemnation; if I am talking to someone inside the church, particularly those in authority, I speak truth to power. When I talk with the co-worker who laughs at Christianity, I simply present the gospel in word and deed. When I talk to those within the church who desecrate the gospel by, among other things, promoting abortion, or homosexuality, or money-grubbing, or socialism, who deny the deity of Christ or His saving power, then I do not mince words, any more than Christ minced words in Matthew 23, or Paul when he said that the circumcisers should go all the way and emasculate themselves.

So when Christians deal with Islam, which is it? Do we present the gospel without condemnation, or do we refuse to mince words? I think the answer is this. As individual Christians, we present the gospel with kindness to individual Muslims--not the jihadists with guns drawn, mind you, the individual Muslim co-worker or neighbor, just as one would with any other individual co-worker or neighbor. As the church, however, we should brand Islam for what it is, a hypocritical heresy that proclaims peace but makes war, proclaims equality but establishes dhimmitude, that proclaims respect for the peoples of the Book but aims for annihilation of all Jews and believing Christians, and most importantly proclaims Jesus as a "prophet" but refuses to worship Him as God the Son. Every Christian, from Pope Francis and the Metropolitans and the Protestant denominational leaders to the most minor layperson everywhere, should excoriate Islam and those who lead it, not primarily for jihad--though jihad deserves to be excoriated in the strongest of terms and strongest of actions as well--but even if there were never to be a jihadist attack again, because of heresy--because all who proclaim Jesus as anything less than God the Son have denigrated Him, and put something else in His place, as did the Pharisees who worshipped the Law instead of the God who gave the Law, as the moneychangers who worshipped mammon instead of the God who gave the mammon.

Let's stop trying to play games. The disease of Islam isn't jihad; the disease of Islam is Islam, and jihad is simply a symptom that wracks the world in pain and suffering. Speak the truth--for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Him.

24 posted on 01/09/2015 2:02:40 PM PST by chajin ("There is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Jan_Sobieski

Not slandering anyone. Slander is a sin. Christ did not sin.
Christ pointed the only way to heaven, thru Him and him alone. There is nothing slanderous about that at all.


26 posted on 01/09/2015 2:09:44 PM PST by vpintheak (Keep calm and Rain Steel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chajin

+1
Bump.


27 posted on 01/09/2015 2:11:18 PM PST by moose07 (The Camels have reached the parking lot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigerClaws

“Cartoon Wars Part II” is the fourth episode of the tenth season of the American animated television series South Park, and the 143rd episode of the series overall. It first aired on Comedy Central in the United States on April 12, 2006. The episode is rated TV-MA L. It is the second part of a two-episode story, which focuses on Cartman’s efforts to get the TV series Family Guy cancelled, by exploiting fears of retaliation by Muslims to an impending, fictitious Family Guy episode in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad will appear, in violation of some interpretations of Muslim law. Kyle instead urges the president of the network airing Family Guy, Fox, to air the episode in an exercise of free speech, arguing, “Either it’s all okay, or none of it is.”

The episodes were inspired by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, which began in response to a Danish newspaper’s printing of cartoons depicting Muhammed in early 2006, leading to worldwide protests and occasionally violent demonstrations and riots. It also comes from South Park creators Parker and Matt Stone’s general dislike of Family Guy, which they viewed as overly reliant on “gag” humor and less on story. During production, the duo ran into reluctance from Comedy Central and parent company Viacom, who felt their insistence to depict Muhammad disregarded concerns for public safety. Parker and Stone argued that the network were giving into hypothetical violence, labeling them hypocrites due to their satirizing of other religions in the past. The network interference was written into the episode’s plotline.

Comedy Central eventually aired the episode with a black title card during the Muhammad sequence, censoring the depiction. While the episode’s censorship did attract headlines, it received more attention for its lampooning of Family Guy. The episode received positive reviews from television critics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Wars_Part_II

Some sources had speculated that Comedy Central’s parent company Viacom, which is headquartered at 1515 Broadway, near where the car was parked, was the target, because of a recent South Park episode offensive to fundamentalist Muslims. Kelly said investigators so far “couldn’t rule out” that theory.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Bomb-Threat-in-Times-Square-92603649.html


28 posted on 01/09/2015 2:30:21 PM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheelbarrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

Boy you really are trying to get some pc heads exploding today!!!


29 posted on 01/09/2015 2:59:50 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Here is more context to the "the future must not belong..." speech in September 2012 to the UN.

PRESIDENT OBAMA addresses the U.N. General Assembly: The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”

The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied.

30 posted on 01/09/2015 3:10:14 PM PST by tenger (It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for. -Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

Obama’s statement on Muhammed designates him as a false prophet.


31 posted on 01/09/2015 3:13:30 PM PST by righttackle44 (Take scalps. Leave the bodies as a warning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Genoa
Gosh, Jan, I think most anybody would say that slander is false by definition.

Jan is not simply talking about slander. There is a special category in Scripture that condemns false prophets. THAT'S what she's talking about.
32 posted on 01/09/2015 3:15:59 PM PST by righttackle44 (Take scalps. Leave the bodies as a warning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chajin

Very well said. Thank you.


33 posted on 01/09/2015 3:27:28 PM PST by jag.drafting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity

“..he did have sex with little girls..”

Even Mohammed’s wife called him a pedophile!

To which he repled “That’s an awful big word for a nine-year old.”

(Hat tip to the Mohammed joke thread from a couple of days ago).


34 posted on 01/09/2015 3:31:37 PM PST by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts 2013 is 1933 REBORN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

While I appreciate the underlying sentiment, I agree with several other posters: It is not slander.
On January 7th, I posted the following on Twitter:

“The future must belong to those who tell the truth about the supposed prophet Mohammed!”

When I think of any comparison between Jesus and Mohammed - as though all so-called religions are either equally valid or equally invalid - I am angered. Jesus succored the weak and protected the young; Mohammed slaughtered the weak and exploited the young. Two men could not be more different (even if one ignores the Christian belief that Jesus is more than man).


35 posted on 01/09/2015 4:47:57 PM PST by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - JRRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-35 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson