Posted on 04/08/2004 7:42:13 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Surprisingly, theaters in Doha, Qatar, and Amman, Jordan, are showing The Passion of the Christ. A Qatari English-language newspaper, The Peninsula, headlines, “Passion runs full house.” On March 21 three theaters in Doha were sold-out and pre-booked for days ahead. An official of the Qatar Cinema and Film Distribution Board boasts that Qatar is so open that no film was refused permission for showing there last year and that the distributor was amazed when Qatar requested The Passion. Censors okayed it without any cuts, and the official expects the film to run for at least two months.
And some mullahs are encouraging their Muslim followers to see the film. Why such an unexpected endorsement? The false rumors that the film is anti-Semitic have reached the mullahs, and as one missionary explains, “since they hate the Jews, they want to see it.” Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet, and although they believe Muhammad superseded Him, they still revere and respect Christ. So when they hear of a film which is alleged to show Jews crucifying Christ, some Muslims welcome the opportunity to revel in a depiction of the wickedness of their long-time enemies.
But many Muslims are responding to the film in ways their mullahs hadn’t intended. One viewer recognized, “When they show a story of the Romans . . . in ancient times, it doesn’t mean the present-day Italians are responsible.” By analogy, he reasoned that, even if he construed the film as depicting first-century Jews as instigators of Christ’s crucifixion, that would not be an indictment of modern Israelis.
An even more important consequence shows up in an e-mail from a missionary, who marvels, “In two short hours more Qataris heard the Gospel than I have been able to reach in nearly five years living here. At the 7:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. showings, the film was running in all three theaters.” He estimated that more than 50 percent of the people in the theater were local Muslims—including completely veiled women.
After viewing the film with a former student, he told him in Arabic, “You think that this film is here because of ‘freedom of speech’ or the new openness of your government, but actually God Himself has sent this film to correct your total misunderstanding about who Jesus is and why He came to earth.” For two hours, the missionary and the student discussed the differences between Islam and Christianity, and the cross—the heart of our message.
The missionary adds, “How interesting that God is using this film to communicate the Gospel [in] the very opposite spirit that might be motivating [Muslims] to see it. The message to love your enemies, and Jesus’ praying for them to be forgiven while on the cross, would hit the Muslim moviegoer in a powerful way.”
With theaters in Jordan and Qatar scheduled to show the film for at least two months, and with videos and DVDs selling briskly, the potential is staggering.
Isn’t God amazing? He is using charges of anti-Semitism to stimulate Muslim mullahs to encourage their followers to see a Christian film during Holy Week—in essence, to make fiery darts backfire.
You point seems to be that we make a "distiction without a difference". That is, that we use two names for the same god.
The difference is more than the name. To confuse the two does not reveal your enlightenment, or tolerance, but you lack of knowledge on the subject.
A little research will show that "Yahweh" and "Allah" describe two different mindsets, lawgivers, and beings. If they describe the same being, he's suffering from multiple personality disorder.
In other words, you are obviously correct in pointing out that God is not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist ... nor is He American or Arab. But while there is only one true God, but there are many imposters.
Not sure if that is an attempt at sarcasm, or an admission of ignorance on the subject. I suspect that the former resulted in the latter. Nevertheless:
Christians do believe in the Trinity. The belief stems from the fact that the Bible states the there is one God(s), but also tells us that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
The three are one, in a way that no one claims to fully understand. For the sake of this discussion, though, there is one aspect of this "oneness" that is especially significant.
They agree. There is no arguing or debate within the Trinity. But this Trinity and the god called Allah are very much in disagreement on such things as heaven, hell, sin, salvation, treatment of enemies, the identity of Jesus, the nature of God, etc. - and therefore cannot be "one" as you have stated.
This is why I spoke of "multiple personalities" - not because there are multiple names, but because the two stand in stark disagreement on a number of important issues.
(pre-emptive apology if you're a "ma'am" and i just implied that you have different plumbing!)
Shi'ite happens.
:o)
We can be certain that Mohammad Atta was sincere in hids beliefs.
We can be certain that the god he sincerely believed in and gwave his life for is unlike the God I worship in nearly every respect.
A few weeks ago on the protest line I had a young man scream in my face that he hates me, and when I told him i'd pray for him he said something quite blasphemous about any God that would have me. I did pray for him, right there and several times since. I cannot conceive of a God who would view as equal the prayer of Atta for success in killing the infidel and my prayer for a man who hates me, just because we are both sincere in our prayer.
I know where you’re coming from. You might try (why do I suddenly feel like the spoon-bending kid from The Matrix?) a different approach, and look at it in a fresh way. Don’t think of it as a world-shaking event (easily explicable or otherwise) that you must accept on faith, but as a puzzle or mystery to be solved, or an argument or court case you are supposed to decide. Something happened in Jerusalem 1,967 years ago this weekend. See where the facts lead, and decide what that something was.
Let me give you an example: A friend of mine was accused of murder. I knew he had been having some problems, but murder? It was beyond comprehension to me. And, like your experience with the Resurrection, it was a first, an inconceivable first, not because no one has ever killed before, but because he was someone you’d never suspect. How could this man, who sat next to me at church, whose children played with mine, have followed an elderly woman home from her restaurant shift and strangled her? You might say that my faith in the police, and even his wife (who came around earlier than me) just wouldn’t stretch that far. But the facts were the facts. I won’t bore you with detail, but he left blood in her apartment and she left blood on him that went home with him. Once I stepped back and looked at it as a fact matrix, I could wrap my mind around it and accept the truth.
So, instead of trying to accept that a man rose from the dead, look at it as a fact matrix. What do the Christians bring into court as their evidence? What do those who don’t accept the resurrection have to counter it? I recommend “More Than A Carpenter” by Josh McDowell. Also, you might want to take a look at the skeptic books, like “The Passover Plot.” And there must be a ton of websites on each side. Fair warning though: If you take a fresh look, I think you’ll find that Arthur Conan Doyle was right--Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, what is left, no matter how improbable, must be true.
First, if you wish, please consolidate your reply to my posts today into one post.
Second, here's Colson's take on the historicity of the resurrection. A good place to start.
Yep. Give it a few weeks and there'll be islamonuts claiming that their peckers shrank after seeing the movie.
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.