Can we distinguish between Islam and Christianity

Recently, Franklin Graham, son and religious successor to the legendary Billy Graham, caused a furor when he said: "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

The politically correct and the multiculturalists became unhinged. They criticized him and everything he stands for, from every direction. Of course, relatively few people are qualified to make such comparisons, and I am not one of them. You need not be a divinity scholar, however, to see th at the actions, beliefs and proclamations of Muslims are in no way similar to the beliefs of Judeo-Christians, and particularly those of the United States.

Our nation was founded by WASPs, white, Anglo Saxon Protestants. They were initially from England, and were followed by Irish, Scots, French and others from western Europe. Their ideas were in conflict with the official religions of their country of birth, so they fled to North America where they believed they would be free to exercise their Judeo-Christian beliefs.

From the very beginning, political as well as religious leaders, spoke and wrote about the God they believed in. The United States was founded by these men, and there is abundant documentary evidence to support this

The Pilgrims were Protestants, who rejected the institutional Church of England. They believed that the worship of God must originate in the inner man, and that forms of worship prescribed by man interfered with a true relationship with God. The Separatists used the term "church" to refer to the people, the Body of Christ, not to a building or institution. As their Pastor John Robinson said, "(When two or three are) gathered in the name of Christ by a covenant made to walk in all the way of God known unto them as a church ."

"That all the People may with united Hearts on that Day express a just Sense of His unmerited Favors: --Particularly in that it hath pleased Him,by His over ruling Providence to support us in a just and necessary War for the Defense of our Rights and Liberties; ...by defeating the Councils and evil Designs of our Enemies, and giving us Victory over their Troops --and by the Continuance of that Union among these States, which by his Blessing, will be their future Strength & Glory." --Samuel Adams on behalf of the Continental Congress, November 3, 1778, calling for a day of Thanksgiving during our Revolutionary War

"The Pilgrims came to America not to accumulate riches but to worship God, and the greatest wealth they left unborn generations was their heroic example of sacrifice that their souls might be free." --Harry Moyle Tippett

The first national Thanksgiving Proclamation, issued by the revolutionary Continental Congress on November 1, 1777, expressed gratitude for the colonials' October victory over British General Burgoyne at Saratoga. It was authored by Samuel Adams, the man the other Founders turned to for reasoned statements of liberties as God's blessings, its one sentence of 360 words read in part: "Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received...together with penitent confession of their sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor; and their humble and earnest supplications that it may please God through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance...it is therefore recommended...to set apart Thursday the eighteenth day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise, that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feeling of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor... acknowledging with gratitude their obligations to Him for benefits received....To prosper the means of religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'inrighteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost'."

When independence from England was achieved, and a Constitution written and ratified, freedom of religion was included. It was clearly stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

At the time the Constitution was written, I doubt that there were any people in the United States who called themselves Muslims. In fact, very few if any even knew there were such people. There were still very few until WW II, when American military men were stationed, and fought all over the globe.

After that war the influx of Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, and a host of other people with other religions started to immigrate to the United States, in ever increasing numbers. The Constitution guaranteed their religious freedom, and slowly but surely, they started to impose.

Muslims come to the schools in the United States by tens of thousands a year. I would imagine that the number of Americans who go to an Arab country to study could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Simultaneously, they say and do things which clearly show that they, as Muslims, have an inherent hatred of America and Americans. What benefit do we derive from this exchange?

The Muslims who come to the United States as immigrants, and those who become citizens, have no intention of integrating into the existing society They demand special considerations and special privileges - and usually get what they want. Americans have been taught that to do otherwise might be considered racist, and there is nothing worse than that.

No person can live in the United States and not be constantly reminded that we were founded as a Christian nation, and we remain one. You need money to live, and the dollar bill is a constant reminder. Benjamin Franklin believed that no man could create a nation alone, but a group of men, with the help of God, could do anything. "IN GOD WE TRUST" is on our currency. The Latin above the pyramid on the dollar, ANNUIT COEPTIS, means, "God has favored our undertaking." The Latin below the pyramid, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, means, "a new order has begun."

I have not read the Koran, and I doubt that I will, but there are enough quotes easily available to provide an overview. I think that Franklin Graham said it very well: "The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

A certain Turk has written: "I know enough to tell you that Islam is a continuation of Christianity and Judaism. Just like the New Testament builds on top of the Old, the Koran builds on the Old and New Testaments. None of these Books are complete by themselves (if you're ignorant, then you'll take issue with this). The Old Testament lacks the lovingness of God. The New Testament lacks His harshness. The Koran lacks the endless narratives of the Bible stories, but brings perspective and simplification. 99.99% of Islam and Christianity are the same. There is a bigger difference between Muslims in general and Christians of the west, but there is that same difference between the Christians of the west and let's say some Balkan and African Christians." Reply: I have seldom read anything so laced with the very thing you dare to disdain: ignorance. 1) You don't know "enough" as you claim, and here are several reasons 2) Islam is not a continuation of Christianity and Judaism. They are mutually exclusive and mutually condemning of each other. Documentation for this is plentiful in both the Bible and Koran. 3) The Koran does not build on the Old and New Testaments. There is a big difference between borrowing and building. Mormons and Jehovah's Witness are 2 more false religions which both borrow from the Bible, as does Islam. But they do not build on Judaisim nor Christianity for they are antagonistic against them both, as also is Islam. 4) When you say, "None of these Books are complete by themselves (if you're ignorant, then you'll take issue with this)" you discredit yourself. Where did you get the mandate to set yourself up as judge of all that is ignorant and declare that all who take issue with you are automatically lacking in knowledge before a word has even come out of their mouths? We could possibly accept such a statement coming from Jesus Christ, the immortal Son of God. But for any mortal to make such a sweeping generalization based on self-authority is a bit presumptuous. Moreover, if what you so dogmatically assert is true (that none of the books in reference are complete in themselves), are you implying that this is still the case? Are the Old and New Testaments and the Koran still being supplimented today? Or are you concluding (on your own authority and richness of research) that these books now have somehow reached a completeness after all? Unless you propose that they still are in need of correction, you have a problem: irreconcilable systems of salvation which cannot be combined without serious compromise of each system's claims and presuppositions. It is impossible to blend them without creating an entirely different religion which none of the originals would recognize. On the contrary, each system declares itself to be complete. You may refuse to acknowledge each system's claim of completeness. But that is another issue. Belief of each system's completeness is what has kept them separate and irreconcilable. Only one of two conclusions is possible: (1) only one of the 3 religions addressed contains the correct prescription for salvation, or (2) None of the three contain it. It is untenable to suggest that a combination of these 3 (or of other mutually-exclusive systems for that matter) holds the key of salvation. (By salvation I speak in terms of a blissful life hereafter and the acquisition of an immortal body as promised to the righteous according to Judaism and Christianity.) 5) The Old Testament does not lack the "lovingness" of God, as you say. Other colleagues have aptly refuted you on this. But we have been presuming that you meant "lovingkindness." I suppose on technical merits you are correct. Neither Judaism, nor any other religion for that matter, has the "lovingness" of God since "lovingness" is not a word. 6) The New Testament does not lack God's harshness as you claim. Have you never read the last book in the Bible: John's Revelation? Have you not overlooked Christ's denunciation of His opponents and the cities who rejected Him? And what of Jude's condemnations of the ungodly? About this you are so very, very wrong. 7) You say "The Koran lacks the endless narratives of the Bible stories, but brings perspective and simplification." Pardon me, but in what way can it be said that the Bible's narrative stories are endless? Exaggeration is not a wise tool to use by someone claiming perfect accuracy as you imply of yourself. Bible narratives are not endless, period. Infinity is somewhat bigger than you have assessed. Moreover, you have not given any basis for concluding that the Koran brings either perspective nor simplification. What kind of perspective? Simplification of what? Generalizations without basis are just empty suppositions. Unfortunately for you, naturally intelligent, not to mention academically trained persons, are compelled to disregard them. 8) You say "99.99% of Islam and Christianity are the same." On what basis? Have you lined up the claims and teachings of each religion side by side in collumns and mathematically proven that not 50%, not 60%, not 70%, not 80%, not 90%, not 99%, not even 99.9%, but unequivolcally a full 99.99% happens to be identical? I suppose we should be thoroughly impressed with your research efforts. However, we would like to review your documentation for this. Please do not be insulted that we request this even though it betrays our obvious ignorance of what is so elemental to you. Far be it from us to doubt the authenticity of your claims. I am quite sure you would not have put in writing such forthright dogmas without all the necessary years of research and published statistical proof. Take your time. But don't waste ours, please. 9) Finally you say that "There is a bigger difference between Muslims in general and Christians of the west, but there is that same difference between the Christians of the west and let's say some Balkan and African Christians." Oh please... If similarity doesn't prove relationship, then how much less does differences. Men don't come from monkeys due to similarities and the Koran doesn't come from Christianity due to any superficial similarities that might be cited. The differences between them are philosophically insurmountable. Branches of true Christianity hold sacred several uncompromisable truths which make them kingdom-compatible regardless of cultural differences. The comparison is flawed and inconclusive at best. I have seldom seen such an unbroken string of empty opinionation in one place. The only thing I have heard that approximates it was, sadly, in a Sunday School class. One day a sincere-hearted guest remarked that the reason the Romans killed Jesus is because those Catholics hated the Jews. I was practically stunned speechless, but I managed to say, "Brother, have you ever thought about teaching a class on religious history?" He answered "No" I replied, "Well, if the thought ever crosses your mind, rebuke it!"

There are those Christians to whom the status of Jesus as God is more important than His deeds and words of wisdom. Those to me are superficial Christians, but that's just me.

The central message of Christianity is salvation from Hell through belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus' deeds and words of wisdom are inseparable from the fact that he is God. He would have had no authority to say and do the things he did unless he was God. His crucifixion could not pay the price for our sins if he was not God, and that is unmistakeably the central message of the entire New Testament. His words and deeds are of no real importance if he was not God and in fact he was a liar if he was not God. If you think this is "imagery of grandeur" that's your opinion, but it's what the Bible says.

There may be Christians who believe he was God but don't take his teachings to heart. That's irrelevant. The point is, Jesus being God is the entire basis of Christianity, and without that, there's no reason to be a Christian, and Islam does not recognize Jesus as God. Your claim that "99.99% of Islam and Christianity are the same" seems to result from you coming up with your own definition of Christianity in which Jesus as Son of God is somehow dispensable.

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
John 3:11-13

In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
You know the way to the place where I am going."
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:2-6

On what basis? Have you lined up the claims and teachings of each religion side by side in collumns and mathematically proven that not 50%, not 60%, not 70%, not 80%, not 90%, not 99%, not even 99.9%, but unequivolcally a full 99.99% happens to be identical?

Your writing suggests that you have done some scholarly studies yourself. If so, you probably know that "full 99.99%" was used by the writer as an expositional tool to indicate "almost all." This could not have possibly been misleading, since the context was neither data collection nor statistical analysis of data. This tool is permissible thus even if you demand the highest degree of scholarly duty on the part of the writer.

I suppose we should be thoroughly impressed with your research efforts. I personally did not conclude --- did not even, in fact, suspect --- that this was the writer's intent.

However, we would like to review your documentation for this. Please do not be insulted that we request this even though it betrays our obvious ignorance of what is so elemental to you. Quite a few of unsupported and irrelevant value judgments that, additionally, obscure your own thought.

Far be it from us to doubt the authenticity of your claims. There is no such thing as "authenticity of claims." Claims are evaluated for their validity. You seem to confuse claims, facts, and documents: it is the latter that may be evaluated on their authenticity.

I am quite sure you would not have put in writing such forthright dogmas without all the necessary years of research and published statistical proof. Again, unsupported (why should this take years?) and irrelevant (why is the duration of the project relevant to the value of its results?).

Further, an author cannot put forward --- whether forthrightly or not --- any dogmas. It is others who may subsequently hold his statements as dogmas.

Furthermore, the use of "published" sources is only one of the two modes of data collection (referred to as secondary). One need not be constrained by such in his research.

Finally, there is no such thing as "statistical proof." This point is typically emphasized into introductions into most texts on statistics.

As you can see, your post contains no new information but opinions that ill founded or outright counter-factual. You clearly lack qualifications to critic the writings of others and should stick to producing your own. Envy of your opponent's skill is a poor weapon in a debate, and the reliance on it only reveals your own shortcomings.

Are you sure that you even wanted to address the content of a_Turk's posts rather than attack ad hominem? Or, was your real agendum hidden? Are you fighting some war here under the guise of a purportedly scholarly critique?

Up until the last few decades, not such a good track record for Christianity, either. Crusades, Inquisition, pograms... Almost every European country expelled their Jews at one time or another, usually after killing a good number of them. I am not saying that Islam today is more tolerant than Christianity, but they've both had their share of massacres.You are absolutely correct. The same was done to pagans who refused to convert.

Almost every European country expelled the Roma people (Gypsies) --- even those who did convert to Christianity. In France, so proud of its good taste and high culture, the killing of Gypsies was authorized to be extra-judicial: upon discovery anywhere in France, a Gypsy was supposed to be caught and hanged on the spot. Whence not expelled, they were enslaved, exploited, and tortured. We talk a lot about the slavery that ended here in 1960s, whereas the Roma slavery ended in Romania in 1880 and no one knows about that at all. The socialist Nazis inherited the tradition, hunted them down, and killed with the same vigor as Jews. Nothing new here: in 1492, Isabella expelled both Gypsies and Jews from Spain. As all misguided hatred, hers did not stop at liberating Spain from the Moors: she proceeded to liberate Spain from Spaniards who happened to be of Jewish or Roma extraction.

The difference between us and what I call the present-day "Islamic church" is not that they are inherently more evil --- they are just behind us by a few centuries. In the past, we erred in the same way as they ere today, and we have learned from our mistakes.

At least I hope so, although many posts on this thread make me doubt that.

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.