New Vent: Michelle interviews Robert Spencer about Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t

posted at 8:50 am on August 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

Robert Spencer’s 7th book, Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t, is released today. Michelle talks with Robert about why he wrote the book and more.

Jihad Watch
Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t

Download the mp3 of today’s show


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

aunursa on August 13, 2007 at 4:48 PM

I think you may be right. Alas, there are a bunch of reasons why I find Hagee and others disagreeable. But the bottom line for me is that I think there are good rational arguments driven by ideas of political justice, which are also grounded in (but not only in) history, and which make standing up for Israel and Jews less susceptible to the accusation of being conspiratorial, which is what so many from the left and so many within Islam accuse the defense of Israel as being.

Drum on August 13, 2007 at 5:11 PM

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Why do you bother with him? It’s a huge waste of time. He’s infatuated with how much more intelligent and moral he thinks he is than everyone else here.

PRCalDude on August 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM

He’s infatuated with how much more intelligent and moral he thinks he is than everyone else here.

PRCalDude on August 13, 2007 at 5:16 PM

It’s like you’ve known me my whole life.

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Drum on August 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Me: Because, I guess, good solid Christian teaching is just too scary to contemplate or report.

Drum: I’ll take your word for it, though I’m not sure what’s so scary about the teaching that man has escaped the wrath of God only because of the completed work of Christ. News like this kind of helps put politics in its place and might actually lead to some sane policy in the ME.

Me: The scary part is not so much in understanding the concept, but considering that it might actually be true. It’s the possibility of the truth of this that is scary to those who currently do not believe.

Drum: I guess it’s much more exciting to talk about “final battles,” the anti-Christ, and driving and being lifted out one’s car at 75 mph at the rapture. Funny, to me, that’s a hell of a lot scarier than the Gospel.

Me: I am an amillenialist. I believe the rapture happened when Christ rose from the grave and that we are now in the millennium. I read the millennium reference in Revelations as figurative in context of this final age between Christ’s resurrection and his final return.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Islam, the Religion of Piece(s)! After the bomb goes off, that’s all that’s left.

TruthToBeTold on August 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Ahh. You gotta love it when people try to justify the Crusades.
Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Nonfactor, maybe you simply don’t get why you may believe what you believe about the Crusades. For centuries, western secularists like myself have lied to you about what the Crusades were. We did it to make Christianity look bad. (And fairness to my intellectual ancestors, the Christain lied in turn: simply contrast what the words “epicurean” and “cynic” mean to what Epicureanism and Cynicism were to glimpse the magnitude of Christian lies.) In fact, the Crusades were a belated defense after millions of co-religionist were enslaved, tortured, and killed by the muslims. The shame of Christianity is that it didn’t fight back sooner.

I suggest rejecting the simplistic bumperstickers about the Crusades and other events of the era from 700 to 1200. Instead, read the actual read the history of era. You may come to understand the history of the world in a very different way. For instance, you will learn that Genghis Khan was far from mindless war monger, but was instead the great benefactor of both Christianity and the Western World. You will also learn that Pope Urban II is admirable figure.

I find the history of the period from 700 to 1200 among the more fascinating periods in human history. If we ignore it, our culture–this fabulous creation of two and a half millenium–will die. And whatever you think is decent will die with it.

thuja on August 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Of course a scholar couldn’t be motivated by his religion!

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Come on Nonfactor… we are all motivated by our religion… or lack thereof. Nothing wrong with that, its call your “Worldview” in secular terms.

Maxx on August 13, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Then perhaps you should hang out at a less scary site, one dedicated to peace, love, and kumbaya?

Such as: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

infidel4life on August 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Liberals think because they have no integrity, nobody has any. It’s sad…

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 6:05 PM

Here’s a downloadable audio mp3 of today’s show, for anyone who’s interested.

Bryan on August 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM

All that link does is open a new page/tab in Firefox and is audio only. I think what people (and I) are looking for is an actual downloadable (i.e. iTunes-playable VIDEO) version.

Possible?

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM

All that link does is open a new page/tab in Firefox and is audio only. I think what people (and I) are looking for is an actual downloadable (i.e. iTunes-playable VIDEO) version.

Possible?

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Right-click on the link and select Save Link As. That’ll download the file.

Bryan on August 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Right-click on the link and select Save Link As. That’ll download the file.

Bryan on August 13, 2007 at 6:44 PM

It’s not the VIDEO version. I’ve already got the audio.

How can we get the video?

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:06 PM

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:06 PM

If you use firefox, add “download helper” and you can grab the flv file (you need an flv player to watch it though).

I can do it for you if you don’t have Firefox. I need an email addy..

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Correction it’s 65MB – not email-able. Sorry… load firefox and add the “download helper” add-on…

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 7:18 PM

The New Testament is accurate.

MarkB on August 13, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Ahh. You gotta love it when people try to justify the Crusades.

Are you aware that the crusades were an islamic invasion of the Christian world, a world much older than islam? But the leftists only think of them as Christian invasions of the middle east.

Arabs, under mohammad, invaded Palestine in the 7th century. After that, they never stopped gunning for Christian lands, until the Christians mounted a defence and fought back. And for fighting back, the Left labels them as “crusaders”.

In the 11th century, the Turks conquered Asia Minor, which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In response, the emperor in Constantinople pleaded with the Christians of western Europe to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which muslims had already captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Who was the crusader? At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The crusades were that defense.

Just as the Leftists will fault a man for shooting dead an intruder in his home, and label him a vigilante, so too will a leftist fault a Christian that fights back, as a “crusader”.

But what is so historically dishonest is how they refer to things that happened 700 years ago, most of which were muslim atrocities, to seek to morally balance the muslim atrocities today, just as if those 700 year-old atrocities were Christian.

jihadwatcher on August 13, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Using Firefox. Got Download Helper. Not working. Probably because I’m on a Mac. There is no flv player (that I’m aware of) for Mac. Probably out of luck. My addy: leepro forty-two (numeral) at comcast dot net. [Everybody else, please respect my privacy… thanks)

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM

BigOldDog

Last post was for you. (Saw your second message)

Using Firefox. Got Download Helper. Not working. Probably because I’m on a Mac. There is no flv player (that I’m aware of) for Mac. Probably out of luck. My addy: leepro forty-two (numeral) at comcast dot net. [Everybody else, please respect my privacy… thanks)

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 PM

Nonfactor-

Check out “Arab Historians of the Crusades” by Gabrieli.

Not for the weak of stomach.

profitsbeard on August 13, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Interesting video. He does make some good points. The comparison between the “white man’s burden” of yesterday and today’s lack of accountability in the 3rd world is somewhat valid. However he loses it when he says there are “no violent Christian groups” brutalizing opponents of their perspective. Tell that to the abortion doctors murdered in the U.S. One of them was murdered (Barnett Slepian) 20 minutes from my house while he was in his kitchen with his wife and kids. The murderer was associated with an extremist Christian group. Would that count as brutalizing an opponent of his perspective? Brutalizing is an understatement.

crr6 on August 13, 2007 at 8:06 PM

People like you scare me. You don’t want peace, you want a holy war.

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM

People like Nonfactor scare me. They are unable to distinguish between war and peace, mostly because they don’t want to admit that we are ALREADY IN a holy war.

My collie says:

How about we give’im a hint? Here’s one:
It’s the jihad, stupid.

CyberCipher on August 13, 2007 at 8:08 PM

Are you aware that the crusades were an islamic invasion of the Christian world, a world much older than islam? But the leftists only think of them as Christian invasions of the middle east.

jihadwatcher on August 13, 2007 at 7:47 PM

I agree with you jihadwatcher. However, as a rhetorical point, I wouldn’t bring up leftism in discussing the Crusades and Islam. It’s best to keep issue separate rather jumble them together. Your goal is simply to convince nonfactor about the Crusades and Islam and not to convert him to the one true and proper worldview. Nonfactor is much more likely to be persuaded on a single issue than experience a religious conversion.

And anyways, it’s best to keep issues separate just as a way of remembering that no “side” has a monopoly on the Truth.

thuja on August 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Begin to play the video on the page.

The Download helper button will flash.

Click on it.

There will be 2 files, you want the one with Spencer’s name in i. It will ten download to your computer.

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Very nice interview.

First, too many Americans simply do not want to hear about the reality of the Jihad threat because of the fear of being called insensitive, racist, and culturally unaware. An example is the Peoples’ PC Republic of New York.

We need more judges and legislatures to make certain that when we legitimately “see something and say something” we don’t wind up in court being sued.

BTW-Today I received a refund for paying my Dhimmie tax ahead of schedule. It pays to file early!

Hummus O Ackbar!

The False Dervish on August 13, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Actually the button comes to life by spinning around not flashing. That’s how it lets you know there’s content it can grab.

TheBigOldDog on August 13, 2007 at 8:24 PM

I’m with all the Youtube people here. I think that this information needs to be heard – even if it is by a bunch of clueless junior high intellect level nerds.

I thought I would toss my two cents in about violence in the Christian history.

It is true that many horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity in the past – but like others have said – this clearly does not follow from the true teachings of the Bible. One of the central ideas of Christianity is that it is individually focused – as in – each of us, as Christians, are loved by God personally – given grace, mercy, judgment on an individual basis. God is interested in our own actions/motives – and we are responsible for our own choices. I am no expert – but I would imagine that Jewish theology holds a similar view.

I think it is a huge mistake to judge Christianity and it’s claims based on the actions of a group or church. As churches are made up of people – and people have flaws – you are bound to find nasty things in any camp. Rather – Christianity should be judged by it’s central claims lain down in the Bible, (e.g. the resurrected Christ).

If you do this, you will have a great deal of difficulty finding passages that justify atrocities such as the crusades. In fact – if you study specific events like the crusades you will find that often they were justified through other means than the Bible.

whatthecrap on August 13, 2007 at 9:35 PM

I do believe in the accuracy of written eye witness accounts of Jesus’ time on Earth….The Bible has not changed.

Again, that’s circular reasoning. You are assuming that the NT account is accurate.

It would be circular reasoning if one of these two points were true:

A) There is no external evidence (evidence other than the Bible) about the time when Jesus lived.

or

B) There is external evidence about that time period but it is ignored by those who believe the Bible to be true.

Neither of those two points are true. We do have external evidence about the time when Jesus lived and Christian beliefs just after his lifetime. Therefore, it is not circular reasoning.

We have writings by various historians such as Josephus (a Jew), Cornelius Tacitus (a Roman), Suetonis and others. Some of those writings include enemies of Christianity making fun of Christians for believing that Jesus was God, writings dated far too close to Jesus’ life for legend and myth to have developed.

We also have archeological evidence. For example, Pontius Pilate was thought to be a myth for centuries because there was no evidence outside of the Bible for his existence. That is, of course, until archeologists discovered that he really did exist. And that’s just scratching the surface of archeological evidence that supports both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

EWTHeckman on August 13, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Again, that’s circular reasoning. You are assuming that the NT account is accurate.

This was supposed to be a quote in my previous comment. Apparently you can’t nest blockquotes.

EWTHeckman on August 13, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Ahh. You gotta love it when people try to justify the Crusades.
Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM

If it wasn’t for the Crusades, most of us with European heritage would be speaking Arabic right now instead of English. Except that the Arabs would probably have slaughtered our ancestors and we would not even exist right now.

Thanks to a last stand by some French Kights, and follow on forces from Britain and various other non-Muslim peoples, most of Europe should have been Muslim for the last 1400 years.

‘course we’re not going to learn about this little factoid in our government schools. Whether then or now, we are now the agressors for fighting back in self-defense.

Lawrence on August 13, 2007 at 11:31 PM

BigOldDog

Had to leave for dinner. Back now and if you’re still here, your tip worked just fine. Catch up later if not here. Thanks!

leepro on August 13, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Yea a vent with MM about time.

Irenaeus on August 14, 2007 at 12:13 AM

In particular, the secularist mocked the Crusades as a senseless war of aggression, rather than the belated defensive war that they in fact were. The secularists won the battle for how we Westerners conceive of the Crusades. This victory and similar ones combined with a lack of moral imagination on the behalf of secularist humanists and liberal “Christians” that anyone could take religion seriously without being a fool or a devil is what has to lead to the high appeal of the moral equivalence card.
thuja

Well said. The secularists have come so close to winning so many battles of definition. Because they manipulate the semantics of our history texts, they have come close to redefining Chistianity, gun rights, civil liberties, deviate behaviour et al; I say close because as hypnotic as constant amplified repetition of a lie can be, in the fog most people still smell the rat.

I am one person who does not consider ‘Crusader’ to be a title of insult. I retain much awe for the many involved in the Crusades who truly went to liberate the holy land. Ransackers and looters, they were behaving more like Mohammedans. Europe had to spend lives and wealth to drive the Mohammedans from the continent. The Crusaders made a decision to get back their holy land, which was theirs since Constantine. They didn’t hold it. Too bad. Now to me, jihadist is a bad word.

Their (I’m thinking of of John Hagee, et al) encouragement of America’s ties to Israel is not for geopolitical, cultural, and civilizational, reasons, but because they seek the end times — the end of this world — and the return of Christ.

This is a spiritual disease and I think we ignore it our peril.

Drum on August 13, 2007 at 11:57 AM

You totally misrepresent John Hagee. He does not Seek the End Times, he anticipates it. He encourages Christians ties with Israel because he believes the Covenant between God and the Jews is ordained. If you watch Hagee at all, you would know that Hagee, a fundamentalist, believes the Bible when it says that those who stand with Israel will be blessed, and those who stand against Israel will be cursed.

Hagee does not have the disease you describe, you must be thinking of the leader of Iran, who does believe he can and should accelerate the end times.

It would be a sin for a Christian like Hagee to attempt to accelerate this prophecy – the sin of Pride, for he would then be attempting to usurp the role of God.

entagor on August 14, 2007 at 2:59 AM

It would be a sin for a Christian like Hagee to attempt to accelerate this prophecy – the sin of Pride, for he would then be attempting to usurp the role of God.

entagor on August 14, 2007 at 2:59 AM

Exactly.

It is a sin for anyone to usurp the role of God, and is in fact the root of all sin.

This is why we are all sinners in some fashion (regarless of our religion or lack of religion) because we all strive in various ways take God’s plan into our own hands. Starting with Eve doing something against God’s command and Adam condoning it.

Why must our freedom to choose always boil down to an issue of usurping the role of God? Every single world, political, or social conflict discussed on this blog can be boiled down to and argument of right vs. wrong in context of supporting or usurping God’s greater plan.

Lawrence on August 14, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Tell it to the Author:

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

TheBigOldDog

For those who consider ‘reading’ a chore, and prefer a visual approach – voila.

heroyalwhyness on August 14, 2007 at 11:31 AM

Checking in late, but great interview.

Again, speaking as an atheist, I consider myself damn lucky to live in this “Christian theocracy” of ours.

saint kansas on August 14, 2007 at 11:56 AM

Clearly see our favorite HA Troll is holding true to:
M.etro S.exual N.uclear B.lithering C.arnival

People like you scare me. You don’t want peace, you want a holy war.

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:46 PM

Ahh. You gotta love it when people try to justify the Crusades.

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Of course a scholar couldn’t be motivated by his religion! He’s an associate professor, everything he says must be true! I can see clearly now!

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 5:01 PM

It’s like you’ve known me my whole life.

Nonfactor on August 13, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Mcguyver on August 14, 2007 at 12:48 PM

Nonfactor is trying to win the blithering award, competing mainly with his “friend” Chris Matthews.

Who do you think is winning?

Mcguyver on August 14, 2007 at 12:52 PM

Lets make this really simple:
——————————
Quran; Surah 004: Ayah 089
Take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.
________________________________________________

Bible: Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5; The 6th Commandment:
You shall not murder.

**********************************

Any Questions?

LegendHasIt on August 14, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Robert Spencer, Michelle…. Thank you both.

I like the term “creeping” Sharia Law. Bad things have a way of creeping. Rarely do they bang at the door.

And thank you “someone” for the quote:

Christians are dangerous when they do not follow their religion, Muslims are dangerous when they do.

Ernest on August 14, 2007 at 3:19 PM

[Hagee] believes the Bible when it says that those who stand with Israel will be blessed, and those who stand against Israel will be cursed.

Indeed, but the Biblical “Israel” is not the state of Israel of today. Hagee is confusing covenental Christianity with modern politics. That’s all I’m saying. If we wants to stand up for the modern state of Israel (and I will be right there with him), and if he wants everyone whom he reaches in his ministry to do the same, that is his prerogative. I just think he’s confusing Israel today with the Israel of the Bible.

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Moreover (and this is what’s really f-ing sick about Hagee) is that he and his ilk believe they will be raptured before all hell breaks loose (the God-ordained hell that they so look forward to, or “anticipate” as entagor puts it) in Israel. Hagee and his Left Behind basket cases believe that any sort of peace in the Middle East will be the work of the Antichrist, and by implication therefore, anything smacking of work toward peace in the Middle East, between, say Israel and the Palestinians, is not to be trusted.

So basically, when Hagee asks his minions to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” he’s really asking that they pray for all bloody hell to break loose over there.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Every single world, political, or social conflict discussed on this blog can be boiled down to an argument of right vs. wrong in context of supporting or usurping God’s greater plan.

Boy, this is positively Muslim!

So, in other words, there’s no general realm of grace? I can’t just vote for the candidate I think will be best for the job, but must first check to make sure he is on “the right side of God’s greater plan”?

Well , that pretty much sucks.

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM

So, in other words, there’s no general realm of grace? I can’t just vote for the candidate I think will be best for the job, but must first check to make sure he is on “the right side of God’s greater plan”?

Well , that pretty much sucks.

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM

In context of you taking my comments out of context, yeah, it sucks.

It’s partly about whether the politician is out of sync with God, but it is also about whether you are personally. God’s greater plan isn’t going to change no matter how hard we try to usurp it. Yet we still strive to do so.

Lawrence on August 14, 2007 at 5:33 PM

woooo! Woohoo! WOOOHOOOHOOHOOOHOO! Michelle and Robert together. WOOOOOOOOHOOO! Best. Vent. Ever. Please allow me to say, just one more time, WWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!

Michelle, if you could work it out to have Robert and that evil CAIR bastage (don’t know his name, but he’s an icehole) on O’Reilly the next time you host, I will do my part to make sure that the ENTIRE town watches you. That’s almost 30 tv sets tuning in.

Again, woo blanking hoo. I can’t even begin to tell you how happy I am to see my two favorite pundits sitting eye to eye discussing this subject. I hope the various ‘woohoos’ peppered throughout this comment give you an inkling.

Apologies for watching Johnny Dangerously before posting.

But, WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! This has become quite a good day.

Kevin M on August 14, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Excellent Interview, Thanks

Proudandugly on August 14, 2007 at 6:00 PM

It’s partly about whether the politician is out of sync with God

Amazing. So how does one find if a politician is “in sync” with God? Martin Luther said he’d rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a stupid Christian. Was he wrong? I mean, surely a wise Muslim is out of sync with God. Can I listen to a great musician and enjoy him if he’s out of sync with God, or will I be cursed?

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Amazing. So how does one find if a politician is “in sync” with God? Martin Luther said he’d rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a stupid Christian. Was he wrong? I mean, surely a wise Muslim is out of sync with God. Can I listen to a great musician and enjoy him if he’s out of sync with God, or will I be cursed?

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 6:07 PM

You’re just playing word games with context now. If you can’t tell when someone else is out of sync, then you’re probably not in sync yourself.

If we continue down our current path with our foolish reactions to Muslim agression with respect to false arguments about Christianity, we’re very well going to find out if Martin Luther was right about being ruled by Muslims.

Lawrence on August 14, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Moreover (and this is what’s really f-ing sick about Hagee) is that he and his ilk believe they will be raptured before all hell breaks loose (the God-ordained hell that they so look forward to, or “anticipate” as entagor puts it) in Israel. Hagee and his Left Behind basket cases believe that any sort of peace in the Middle East will be the work of the Antichrist, and by implication therefore, anything smacking of work toward peace in the Middle East, between, say Israel and the Palestinians, is not to be trusted.

So basically, when Hagee asks his minions to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” he’s really asking that they pray for all bloody hell to break loose over there.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Drum on August 14, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Drum: I am puzzled, why do you care what we believe about the rapture? When we pray for the peace of Jerusalem, that is EXACTLY what we mean. Quite honestly we pray that “The Rapture” will be held back, so that more can come to know Jesus the way we do. You cannot find any quotes by John Hagee to back up your own hateful words. They are not there! We do not think that way at all. I am trying to figure out why you would say things that are never said, or even thought by most Christians. It seems your own hate blinds you. It seems you want to impute those vile and hateful things to those of us who really don’t hate even our enemies. The hate seems to be coming from you. Why do you care why we support Israel? Our Lord was a Jew and he loved his people, and we love them to. Trying to figure out what the Bible says about the end times does not equate with wishing them on any one. I am not sure about what I believe about the “End Times.” I am sure that what I do or any other Christian does will not speed them up or slow them down. God has his plan and he will stick to it. It is interesting to us (Christians) to try to figure it all out. But it isn’t a deal breaker either way.

Linda in California on August 15, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Spencer is an angel…truly an angel. How he is alive and fighting the jihadists with his spreading of knowledge, I’ll never know..but he is watched over for sure.

I have nothing but admiration for the guy and his mission. Bless him and other blogs that try to get this message out about our true enemy.

Highrise on August 15, 2007 at 1:40 AM

Linda,

I’m sure you’re a sweet and loving Christian who only wants what’s best for the world. I’m not sure the same can be said about John Hagee. Dispensational sensationalists like John Hagee typically make false prophecies by simultaneously opening the Bible and the New York Times to see what God has in store for the world today. They get rich off of it because it makes for great, yet sinister, entertainment.

Israel can use all the allies it can get, but it doesn’t help when Senator Lieberman or David Horowitz fete this man and call him “Moses” and things like that. It only encourages him and does nothing for the Body of Christ, which should be your first concern as a Christian.

If you haven’t noticed troubling (not to mention heretical) things in Hagee’s writings, then I think you haven’t read carefully enough.

Drum on August 15, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Quran: Surah 004: Ayah 089
Take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. Seize them and slay them wherever ye find them.
________________________________________________

Bible: Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5; The 6th Commandment:
You shall not murder.

Any Questions?
LegendHasIt on August 14, 2007 at 2:04 PM

I hate to break it to you, LegendHasIt, but President Bush told me that Islam is a religion of peace. So your quotes MUST be wrong. He wouldn’t lie to me, would he?

Kevin M on August 15, 2007 at 2:16 PM

{{{{{{{{HUGS}}}}}}}} Robert!

seejanemom on August 16, 2007 at 9:42 AM

Drum:
I have not read much about or by John Hagee. I have heard him speak a few times and did not find anything heretical in his teachings. People whom I respect, respect him, as I said “End Times Prophecy” is not a deal breaker for me.

I can not figure out why I would care how anyone “gets rich.” How does it hurt you that others find him worthy of their financial support? He does not hold a gun to anyone’s head like the IRS, or State tax guys do. I am forced to support people who by their behavior get all kinds of diseases, and do many, many, things I do not think is wise. I don’t hate them I don’t rail against them; I simply try to show them where they are wrong. If they don’t accept that, I go on my way and try to show kindness and love.

I repeat: it is a favorite pastime of Christians to see how things fit into Bible prophecies. Many of us, “have a newspaper in one hand and the Bible in another.” I really cannot see how that hurts you. If you find it heretical, then show us the error of our ways, we will usually listen, then agree or disagree. Not a problem.

Linda in California on August 16, 2007 at 10:04 AM

>He does not hold a gun to anyone’s head like the IRS, or State tax guys do.

No, it’s worse than that: he holds over people’s heads (by appealing to their relationship to God) his fantasies into what God plans on doing to the world based upon our behavior today, particularly with regard to geopolitical decisions Israel must make and where “America” stands accordingly. And he does in the name of Christ and under the authority of a major Christian denomination. That is, according to Hagee, God forbid Israel (and by implication, the US) make a wrong move that might contradict his and others’ “Biblical” prophetic interpretations.

This is not the Gospel — and yet the Gospel is what he, as a commissioned Christian pastor is called to preach — and it puts a giant burden on people whose ideas of God often go no deeper than the faux theology of Hagee, Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, and the rest of lot of them. They are Christian scam artists (wittingly or not) who place financial burdens (asking someone to give to the Lord’s work is not simply a matter of appealing to his or her free will idea of charity) on their followers, backed by the pressure of cosmic judgement: “we” must do this or else.

I repeat: it is a favorite pastime of Christians to see how things fit into Bible prophecies.

Isn’t that precious. Some play Monopoly, others collect antiques, but John Hagee makes stupid and possibly deadly “Biblical” predictions about Israel and the Jews.

There are alternatives to dispensationalism. You might do a google search on “amillenialism,” for instance, to get an idea of one alternative (though I’m not necessarily advocating it, except to say that it is far more historical and orthodox than the bizarre teachings of pastor Hagee).

Drum on August 16, 2007 at 11:50 AM

I enjoy Mr Spencer’s Blogging the Qu’ran series. If his intent in that project is to show that Islam is not a religion of peace, he has so far met that objective. Just reading the Qu’ran shows Islam for what it is, and I appreciate Mr Spencer’s fair treatment of it, his ongoing commentary, and links to further commentaries and helps.

However, I simply cannot agree with Mr Spencer’s premise regarding Christianity here. By conversely proclaiming Christianity to be a religion of peace draws a line in the sand – that this war is not The United States vs Islamic Terrorism, rather it is a war of Christianity vs Islam. It is true that the vast majority of Christians are peaceful and loving human beings. However, as I am often told by Christians themselves, we are not to judge Christianity by Christian behavior, but by the doctrines presented in the Bible. I maintain that any religion, belief or creed that includes a salvation premise, an elect few who will attain that salvation, and a majority who will be damned, cannot in any way be called a ‘Religion of Peace’.

History is rife with lessons. Religious people who have power will go to no ends to ensure their place into Eternal Paradise and avoid Eternal Damnation. Schemes for mass conversion, intimidation, war and terror are the inevitable outcome. Christianity had their turn for cruelty when Papal and Protestant authorities had political power. Catholics burned Protestants and Episcopaleans. Protestants burned Catholics. etc etc. Thankfully, those days are over. But now we are seeing the same thing from Islam.

What is at stake? I believe the common theme, the core central thread in Religious violence, is Eternal salvation and Eternal damnation. Belief in the cruel and barbaric concepts of Eternal Heaven and Hell can ultimately never produce peace.

Matt 10:34. Jesus was absolutely correct here.

HeIsSailing on August 16, 2007 at 1:55 PM

HelsSailing,

You make good points, but also miss the point. The point isn’t salvation versus damnation, but the civilized and humane versus a**holes.

Christians have no corner on the peace market. And besides, the peace of Christianity has nothing to do with world peace, but rather who has accepted the free gift of salvation, and even then, unfortunately there is room for continuing to be an a**hole and still a Christian (though maybe not for long).

Peaceful ideas and premises can be found in religion and in no religion. As C. S. Lewis points out at the end of The Abolition of Man, there is a “tao” (a golden rule) found in all the major religions … yes, even Islam. It’s the golden rule that Spencer needs to put up against the Muslims he has in mind and Christians as well.

So, yeah, it is pretty pointless put Christianity up against Islam for the world peace award, especially in light of the manner in which Christian conquered North America. If that’s an example of Christian peace, I’m not sure I want it.

Christ’s teachings were for his own (“those with ears to hear …”) every bit as much as Mohammed’s were for his own. The question is: whose are the truth? Obviously Christ’s, and here is where Spencer’s argument ought begin, not only on behalf of Christianity, but on behalf of the Western Civilization he wishes to preserve.

Drum on August 16, 2007 at 6:12 PM

New Vent: Michelle interviews Robert Spencer about Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t

Robert Spencer’s 7th book, Religion of Peace: Why Christianity is and Islam Isn’t, is released today. Michelle talks with Robert about why he wrote the book and more.

I don’t know if anyone has pointed this out but the title of Robert’s book has a question mark after the word “Peace”

A minor point but it should be corrected.

MrC_5150 on August 17, 2007 at 12:00 PM

I fear for Mr. Spencer’s life. He is a brave patriot. Remember when the radicals butchered Theo Van Gogh? I did not see the Hollywood elitists running to the microphones defending artistic integrity. No, those elitists were grilling Mel Gibson for his artistic choices. Robert Spencer, my prayers are with you. You are speaking truth.

leavenedbread on August 17, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Regarding Michelles question to Robert on sharia creep. Has anyone taken the time to investigate if foot washing fixtures exist in Muslim countries. To my knowlege most Muslim nations are of third world status when it comes to sanitary public facilities. I don’t think they even have running water in most places. The people who demanded these foot baths should not have been accomodated purley on religious grounds. To me these foot baths represent religious worship and like Christmas trees and nativity scenes and need to be removed from the public square. By accepting students on federal grants colleges become public domain.

sonnyspats1 on August 18, 2007 at 2:38 AM

accommodated (sp)

sonnyspats1 on August 18, 2007 at 2:40 AM

purely (sp) sheeshe

sonnyspats1 on August 18, 2007 at 2:41 AM

sheesh (sp) lol

sonnyspats1 on August 18, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2