Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Churches Read Quran from Pulpits across America
GodFatherPolitics.com ^ | 10/31/2011 | GodFatherPolitics.com

Posted on 10/31/2011 3:31:48 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2

How would you feel if your pastor stood in the pulpit this past Sunday opened what you believed to be his Bible and then started to read passages completely unfamiliar to you. Then in the midst of the reading you hear him say Allah instead of God and you realize he is reading not from his Bible, but from the Quran.

How would you feel and what would you do?

If this didn’t happen to you yesterday, count yourself fortunate because it did happen to a number people sitting in Christian churches across America.

Social activists involved with Faith Shared, a program of Interfaith Alliance and Human Rights First were trying to promote tolerance and respect of Islam and counter opposition to the Muslim faith. So starting with the National Cathedral in Washington DC, at least fifty other churches in 32 states joined in the effort to host readings from the Quran.

The effort is meant to counter what they refer to as ‘anti-Muslim bigotry and negative stereotypes’ that have been growing in the

US. By getting prominent national and local churches to read from the Quran and teach their congregations about Islam, the Alliance believes it will help make Christians more knowledgeable and tolerant of Islam.

Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of Interfaith Alliance said:

“The anti-Muslim rhetoric that has pervaded our national conversation recently has shocked and saddened me. Appreciation for pluralism and respect for religious freedom and other human rights are at the core of our democracy. We believe that demonstrating our commitment to those core American values will help counteract the intensified level of negative stereotypes and anti-Muslim bigotry in our recent public discourse.”

Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First said:

“With Faith Shared, congregations will send a clear message to the world that Americans respect religious differences and reject bigotry and the demonization of Islam or any other religion. This message about the fundamental importance of religious freedom around the world is especially timely as President Obama prepares to reaffirm the United States’ support for democracy in the Middle East starting with a speech later this week.”

Dean Sam Lloyd of the National Cathedral said:

“Few things are more important for the future of our world than to respect, to honor, and to commit ourselves to the well-being of every person—to embrace a sense of humility before the vast mystery of God. As Americans and as people of faith, we must use our great traditions to come together for mutual enrichment and understanding.”

Islam has no tolerance for other religions and if you think it does and want to argue the point, look at the Islamic nations in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. They not only preach intolerance for other religions, especially Judaism and Christianity, but they preach the eradication of them. These Muslim nations have laws against the religious practices of other religions. In Egypt, the state police have been harassing Christians and arresting them and beating them.

Yep, that’s tolerance, isn’t it?

Jesus never taught tolerance for other religions, but he also didn’t teach his followers to use violence against them. Instead, Jesus taught his followers to share their faith with those who believe in other religions and to pray for them.

I don’t know about you, but if my pastor had read from the Quran this past Sunday, I would have gotten up in the middle of the service and left. I would also have serious doubts about returning to worship the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ at a church that reads from the Quran and teaches respect for a false religion.

I would make an appointment to meet with the pastor ask him to justify his actions and then I would read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 to him, which says:

“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

‘”I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.”’

I would also ask my pastor if he believed Jesus in John 14:6 when He said:

“Jesus said to him, ”I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

And Matthew 7:15-16 when Jesus said:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.”

And Matthew 24:10-12 when Jesus said speaking of the last days:

“And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.”

In view of these passages of Scripture, I would ask my pastor to explain why he would dare use the pulpit on the Lord’s Day to teach or promote the religion of a false prophet. My further attendance at his church would depend upon his answers to these questions.

I advise any of you who may have sat in one of these churches to follow the same course of action with your pastor and then make your own judgment on whether or not you want to consider attending that church in the future.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 last
To: Rome2000
Thank you. That took character.
121 posted on 11/02/2011 4:04:08 PM PDT by MeganC (Are you better off than you were four years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
My dictionary defines a heretic as a dissenter from established religious dogma, a baptized member of the Roman Catholic church who disavows a revealed truth, one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine, a nonconformist.....pretty much describes old Martin doesn't it???.....what issue was he correct on that the infallible church was wrong on???

I'd get another dictionary, and then study the etymology of the word.

It is first used in Titus 3:10, long before the RCC came into existance, so any definition attaching itself to the RCC is proven wrong.

Here is Webster's definition, which is more accurate:

The word “heretic” is now commonly applied to one who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, “a person who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy.” Webster. The Greek word here used αἱρετικὸς hairetikos occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.

The only issue left to decide, is whether or not the RCC is fundamental or otherwise orthodox. That has already been decided. Blessings.

122 posted on 11/02/2011 7:47:25 PM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
HEADLINE: "Christian" Churches Read Quran from Pulpits across America

There. I fixed it.

These aren't Christian churches. They are apostate shadows of what used to be Christian churches.

Jesus would not share his Bride with the Devil. It is wicked men who have crept in to do it.

123 posted on 11/02/2011 7:55:21 PM PDT by Gritty (Mainline churches are as wedded to the platitudes du jour as the laziest politician-Mk Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida
I'd get another dictionary

Merriam Websters 11th edition, C/R 2004 and your statement that the RCC is fundamental or otherwise orthodox has been decided......by whom?????and what were their credentials??? I'm sorry, but when you are a member of an organization that God Himself promised would never be in error...you are on pretty good ground against those who would challenge your opinions. I'm there, you're not.

124 posted on 11/02/2011 8:56:34 PM PDT by terycarl (lurking, but well informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Yeah. Websters is a lexicon. What of it?

You really have no idea that orthodox Christianity has long decided that the RCC is outside of fundamental doctrine? Really? That surprises you?

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

Do you actually study the Bible and history, or do you keep repeating what others have told you?

I’m still looking for the verse that states God promised the church would never be in error.

I bring to your rememberance that I actually studied the etymology of the word “heretick”. You bring nothing to the argument but your pride.


125 posted on 11/03/2011 5:32:13 AM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Salvavida
I’m still looking for the verse that states God promised the church would never be in error.

among others, how about the statement to the effect that whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. That would indicate to me that the church is protected from error (wouldn't want errors made on Earth to be carried over into Heaven) Orthodox Christianity had decided that RCC is outside of fundamental doctrine??????yes, that surprises me. After all is was the Catholic church that compiled, edited, organized, protected, copied, and saved the bible for humanity. Without the Catholic church, we would not have the bible as we know it today. Someone might have come along somewhere in time and attempted to organize Christianity and write what they thought the bible would represent, but by protecting and copying the bible, by hand, throught the years, we pretty much have the real thing. How anyone could possibly put RCC outside of what someone else considers fundamental doctrine is beyond me. Catholicism is by far the most accurately biblical church on Earth.

126 posted on 11/03/2011 12:05:38 PM PDT by terycarl (lurking, but well informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Friend,

You dodge the facts I state, then you parrot a history that has been taught to you without consulting other sources. I became a Christian not because someone pounded dogma into me. I did the research, looked at the two possibilities, and chose the logical, most supported hypothesis.

Then you take a verse which doesn’t state that the church and its pastors are prone to error. We have the benefit of looking at church history and seeing many errors, both on the part of Protestants and Catholics. To say otherwise is to be in total denial.

Not to go into the binding and loosing passage; but it is one of the most misunderstood passages in the NT. I suggest you do more study: because what you are stating cannot be true simply by using the Law of Non-contridiction (logic).

Finally, the RCC didn’t produce the Bible. Jesus did, through the power of the Holy Spirit working in the people. In 367 A.D. Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of 27 New Testament books which were accepted in his time, and these are the same twenty-seven which are recognized today. The Bible had grown in relative proportion to its divine revelation - gradually - and its books likewise had gradually assumed the roles which their inherent authority demanded.

It is important to note that no council or organized body decreed the Canon. The 27 books and letters were named because they were in use by the people, fulfilling a prophecy by Jesus Himself: “My people hear my voice, and they follow it.”

Those are the facts. They are a part of history. They are indisputable.


127 posted on 11/03/2011 8:19:10 PM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

What exactly was the context to which it was read?

If they want to compare and contrast scripture as a learning experience so what?

If they want to read as if it’s christian belief, then yes that’s going against the church.

But you make no mention on the context to which it was used. Leaving it as “quran read in church” is almost cruel, as you are putting half the fact up in a statement which people would be thinking the worst.

So do you know what was read? in what manner was it conveyed?


128 posted on 03/15/2012 9:52:20 AM PDT by beomagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-128 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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