Religion is dangerous but atheism isn't?

[bluesman]

Matthew 25

33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand,'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.

36 I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?

38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?

39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

40 "The King will answer them,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand,'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;

42 for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;

43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'

44 "Then they will also answer, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'

45 "Then he will answer them, saying,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.'

46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

However, I won't argue against

Romans 3
20 Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

or

3:24 {9} Being justified {u} freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ:

(9) Therefore this righteousness which we gain is altogether freely given, for its foundation is upon those things which we have not done ourselves, but rather those things which Christ has suffered for our sakes, to deliver us from sin.

(u) By his free gift, and liberality.

However the Chapter concludes with this

31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! No, we establish the law.

Yet What was the original question of this thread ?

From my understanding Hitler claimed to be a Christian. So does he have
eternal life by Grace? I think not. I think we can tell from his works that
his claims were false. That was my point.

I agree works without faith won't set you right in God's eyes.
Accept God and claim to be of faith and then keep on be just as sinful and see what happens. God either going to say depart from me liar or he going to punish you as one of his children.

Michael
Thomas
Bluesman

[Canuckster1127]

Matthew 25

33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand,'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in.

36 I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.'

37 "Then the righteous will answer him, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?

38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?

39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'

40 "The King will answer them,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

41 Then he will say also to those on the left hand,'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;

42 for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;

43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'

44 "Then they will also answer, saying,'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'

45 "Then he will answer them, saying,'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.'

46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

However, I won't argue against

Romans 3
20 Because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

or

3:24 {9} Being justified {u} freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ:

(9) Therefore this righteousness which we gain is altogether freely given, for its foundation is upon those things which we have not done ourselves, but rather those things which Christ has suffered for our sakes, to deliver us from sin.

(u) By his free gift, and liberality.

However the Chapter concludes with this

31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! No, we establish the law.

Yet What was the original question of this thread ?

From my understanding Hitler claimed to be a Christian. So does he have
eternal life by Grace? I think not. I think we can tell from his works that
his claims were false. That was my point.

I agree works without faith won't set you right in God's eyes.
Accept God and claim to be of faith and then keep on be just as sinful and see what happens. God either going to say depart from me liar or he going to punish you as one of his children.

Michael
Thomas
Bluesman

Good as far as it goes.

The only clarification I would add is that judgment of a person's salvation is God's alone to do and He doesn't need to see our deeds or anyone else's to make that determination.

What we see and deem from a person's actions may be relevent in many different areas, including admonishing one another with regard to the legitimacy of our salvation, but as God is the judge and He has no need to see deeds to make that determination, we need to be be wary of projecting our limitations onto God.

We are no longer under law. Christ is the fulfillment of the law and when we are spiritually regenerated God no longer sees our sin, rather He sees the righteousness of Christ.

Obviously the extreme of this is antinomianism or lawlessness and neither one of us is advocating that. The opposite extreme of legalism entering into a works based salvation is equally repulsive and contrary to God's plan for us.

There is room for some mystery in the midst of this as to the tie between that salvation and the fruits of righteousness that come forth from a life so affected. Of this I am sure however, legalistically claiming the need for works as a foundation in anyway for salvation is clearly unscriptural.

That said, a claim of salvation with no evidence of an inward change by outward attitudes and actions is clearly a serious matter. It is God who will make that determination however. Not us.

Good exchange.

[bluesman]

I agree with what your saying Canuckster, but I don't see any relationship
to the original question of the thread, from what you posted.

If your saying a "Real" Christian can do some violent behavior and be justified in faith, I would say okay if he repents.

As in George Bush is a Christian, but his action via Iraq would be said by some to be horrible. Without a crystal ball its hard to know how the future generation will look back on the Iraq War.
At the time the Crusades looked like the right thing to do too.
Yet I believe that George Bush's faith is good and his salvation is good.
How Man judges his works all depends on that man's view point.
In the end God will judge.


Michael

[Canuckster1127]

I agree with what your saying Canuckster, but I don't see any relationship
to the original question of the thread, from what you posted.

If your saying a "Real" Christian can do some violent behavior and be justified in faith, I would say okay if he repents.

As in George Bush is a Christian, but his action via Iraq would be said by some to be horrible. Without a crystal ball its hard to know how the future generation will look back on the Iraq War.
At the time the Crusades looked like the right thing to do too.
Yet I believe that George Bush's faith is good and his salvation is good.
How Man judges his works all depends on that man's view point.
In the end God will judge.


Michael

George Bush is the President of the United States, the commander in chief and he wields legitimate power and is commissioned by the constuitution of the United States to wield that power on behalf of the people of the United States.

The US congress empowered him and endorsed his leadership in this action.

It is certainly open to second guessing as to whether that was the right decision or not. That's why we have elections periodically.

The standards of the use of violence scripturally make a differentiation between those acting individually and those acting on behalf of legitimate government power.

Romans 13:1-7

[bluesman]

I was using Bush as an example only. An example of someone who claims to be Christian, but through use of his powers has committed a horrible act.
Now that act could be justified or not, yet having to kill thousands is still
horrible. Now compare that to Hitler, who also was an authority figure.
Hitler, also claimed to be a Christian.

The Pope during the Crusades was also a authority figure and fighting the "evil" muslims seemed right at the time. Today we have a different view of those times.

How will future generations look back on George Bush? Please remember I use him because its the best know example. Remember the question that started the thread.

A person can claim to be Christian, but there has to be some outward sign that they have repented and trying to behave like Jesus taught.

Michael Thomas

[Felgar]

K, regarding Bush and his actions. Bush cannot be compared to Hitler in any form; despite what he claimed, Hitler was the embodiment of evil and just because one evil man claims to be Christian, doesn't mean that all men who claim to be Christian are evil. Bush's actions do not hold up to be paralleled with Hitler and here are some reasons why:

Hitler was willing to commit atrocities and genocide in particular, whereas Bush is not. Yes civilians have been killed but the US has taken great lengths to keep that from happenning as much as possible (more than any war before it). If Bush was willing to kill everyone he could do it very easily, and very cheaply. In fact most of the death toll from the war (esspecially civilian) has come from Iraq itself and not from the US. The same claim cannot be made of Poland and Czechoslovakia where Hitler delibrately conducted genocide.

Bush could be said to have been acting to protect his people, and Hitler cannot say the same. Germany was in no danger when Hitler took power. We know this because Germany could have been easily walked all over in the early 1930's and no one attacked them, or even thought of attacking them. The reason the Allies went so far with appeasement is that they wanted peace more than anything. Like Japan after WWII, Germany would have remained in peace if they didn't precipitate a war. Bush on the other hand, acted to preemptively destroy a publicly declared enemy of his State. Whether Saddam had weapons or not, and whether Bush thought he did or not, is VERY clear than if Saddam ever had the capability, he would have used whatever means possible to inflict harm to the American people. Bush had (and still has) a responsibility to do everything possible to keep that from hapenning. The bottom line is that it can be argued that Bush acted in self-defence. It is a new kind of self-defense to be sure (preemptive) but in a world where a single bomb can kill millions, perhaps it is necessary. Also I think it should be noted how easily Bush could have lied to the world about finding WMD in Iraq; yet he didn't. If Bush is so immoral and cares only of power and perception, why wouldn't he just lie?

In the final analysis it still may very well be that Bush is considered a failure as President. But he is not the warmonger that Hollywood and the overtly Liberal media make him out to be.

Last, I think it's worth noting what Bush has done domestically as it also speaks to his beliefs and morality. He has been a huge push in fostering faith-based initiatives, which has enabled church groups throughout the nation help their local communities. The recognition of faith as a positive driving force in American culture is a reversal from the trend as he was taking office, and I believe that America is better for it.

[Canuckster1127]

I was using Bush as an example only. An example of someone who claims to be Christian, but through use of his powers has committed a horrible act.
Now that act could be justified or not, yet having to kill thousands is still
horrible. Now compare that to Hitler, who also was an authority figure.
Hitler, also claimed to be a Christian.

The Pope during the Crusades was also a authority figure and fighting the "evil" muslims seemed right at the time. Today we have a different view of those times.

How will future generations look back on George Bush? Please remember I use him because its the best know example. Remember the question that started the thread.

A person can claim to be Christian, but there has to be some outward sign that they have repented and trying to behave like Jesus taught.

Michael Thomas

Michael,

You're way out in left field on this one as far as I am concerned.

You've already made judgments in your mind so I won't attempt to dissuade you of them other than to point out:

1. Regardless of your political affiliation or philophy you are making presumptions here that simply go beyond the facts. Bush made a decision based upon the best facts that he had at the time. Several other nations, based upon the same intelligence came to similar conclusions as to the seriousness of the situation. Sure there were differences of opinion on how to act based on those facts. Hindsight has served to draw those decisions into question; something that hindsight is very good at doing. Nevertheless, at the time Bush worked within the constraints of the political and legal system of this nation and acted upon bipartisan authorization.

2. Violent behavior is not inherently wrong. Governments exist in part to direct violent behavior and Scripture indicates that it is their responsibility to do so. Can that power be misused to where the individuals involved can be held accountible for that by God and/or others? Of course. Do each of us have a responsibility to account to God in the end for what we have done in our lives as Christians? Of course. I don't know George Bush's heart although what I see leads me to believe he is sincere in his affirmation of faith. You obviously have preemptively reached another conclusion, which is severe as evidenced by your parallel to Hitler (which is ridiculous in my opinion.) Thankfully, neither one of us need to make that call. God will make it. You and I both should be more concerned with how we will answer to God for what we have done with that which God has entrusted to us.

Regardless of your agreement or disagreement with Bush, I'd encourage you to go back to history and educate yourself a little better with regard to the actions of Hitler, his raise to power, his motives, his abuse of the political system, his embracing of socialism as a means of consolidating power through consolidation of control over the mechanisms of production, his suspension of democratic accountibility, his use of power to commit genocide, his personal ambition to consolidate Europe under his personal control etc.

Regardless of the independent value of your concerns related to Bush, which you're free to hold to as you wish, when you begin calling upon ridiculous parallels to one of the greatest monsters of history to try and make your point, you only demonstrate the weakness of your case with the need to create such a stretch.

Bush acted within the constraints of his office and position and did not act unilaterally. Further, since that time there has been an election where that issue was front and center and yet he was reelected. Personal popularity and polls come and go. An evaluation in history down the road, should Christ tarry in His return, will return its own verdict and likely in the context of events yet to happen or information, good or bad, not yet known.

I'm content to leave it there.

[Byblos]

I was using Bush as an example only. An example of someone who claims to be Christian, but through use of his powers has committed a horrible act.
Now that act could be justified or not, yet having to kill thousands is still
horrible. Now compare that to Hitler, who also was an authority figure.
Hitler, also claimed to be a Christian.

The Pope during the Crusades was also a authority figure and fighting the "evil" muslims seemed right at the time. Today we have a different view of those times.

How will future generations look back on George Bush? Please remember I use him because its the best know example. Remember the question that started the thread.

A person can claim to be Christian, but there has to be some outward sign that they have repented and trying to behave like Jesus taught.

Michael Thomas

Michael,

You're way out in left field on this one as far as I am concerned.

You've already made judgments in your mind so I won't attempt to dissuade you of them other than to point out:

1. Regardless of your political affiliation or philophy you are making presumptions here that simply go beyond the facts. Bush made a decision based upon the best facts that he had at the time. Several other nations, based upon the same intelligence came to similar conclusions as to the seriousness of the situation. Sure there were differences of opinion on how to act based on those facts. Hindsight has served to draw those decisions into question; something that hindsight is very good at doing. Nevertheless, at the time Bush worked within the constraints of the political and legal system of this nation and acted upon bipartisan authorization.

2. Violent behavior is not inherently wrong. Governments exist in part to direct violent behavior and Scripture indicates that it is their responsibility to do so. Can that power be misused to where the individuals involved can be held accountible for that by God and/or others? Of course. Do each of us have a responsibility to account to God in the end for what we have done in our lives as Christians? Of course. I don't know George Bush's heart although what I see leads me to believe he is sincere in his affirmation of faith. You obviously have preemptively reached another conclusion, which is severe as evidenced by your parallel to Hitler (which is ridiculous in my opinion.) Thankfully, neither one of us need to make that call. God will make it. You and I both should be more concerned with how we will answer to God for what we have done with that which God has entrusted to us.

Regardless of your agreement or disagreement with Bush, I'd encourage you to go back to history and educate yourself a little better with regard to the actions of Hitler, his raise to power, his motives, his abuse of the political system, his embracing of socialism as a means of consolidating power through consolidation of control over the mechanisms of production, his suspension of democratic accountibility, his use of power to commit genocide, his personal ambition to consolidate Europe under his personal control etc.

Regardless of the independent value of your concerns related to Bush, which you're free to hold to as you wish, when you begin calling upon ridiculous parallels to one of the greatest monsters of history to try and make your point, you only demonstrate the weakness of your case with the need to create such a stretch.

Bush acted within the constraints of his office and position and did not act unilaterally. Further, since that time there has been an election where that issue was front and center and yet he was reelected. Personal popularity and polls come and go. An evaluation in history down the road, should Christ tarry in His return, will return its own verdict and likely in the context of events yet to happen or information, good or bad, not yet known.

I'm content to leave it there.

I was going to respond to bluseman out of anger but cooler heads prevailed, thank God.

Michael, please accept my apology for the thoughts I was about to convey. You are certainly entitled to your opinion as are we all.

Bart , thanks for actually conveying my thought in a more civilized manner.

God Bless,

John.

[bluesman]

You all are misunderstanding what I am writing. I am not sure how you jump to the conclusion that I was anti-bush or anti-american . My wife is an american! I feel like I have been pre-judged. Yet, It could be my poor writing skills.

I am in no way saying that Bush and Hitler are alike.
I used them only as examples and also because the contrast or the difference
between the two is extreme.

I believe the Bush is a real Christian where I believe Hitler made false claims
and was an "anti-christ".

Now for a moment put your self in the shoes of someone from the middle-east and here is a man who claims to be a Christian.
The bombs from his country result in the suffering death of your children.
From this view point what will you think of Christians?
At this point you don't know the greater good he was trying to do ,only that your kids are dead.

Let look at a different scene where you have a prisoner who may or may not know information that if know could save lives. Maybe the lives of children. Being a Christian who is suppose to have higher standards of behavior, how far do you go to get that information?
I am NOT refer to the Iraq prisoners although I realize that would be an example that comes to mind.

It could be someone involved in child slavery ring and this knowledge could save kids. So would you torture this person to get the information and still call yourself Christian? What if they had your kid?
Then a third party who knows your claim of being a Christian hears of the treatment of this prisoner. What would his view of Christians be?

Michael
Thomas

[Byblos]

You all are misunderstanding what I am writing. I am not sure how you jump to the conclusion that I was anti-bush or anti-american . My wife is an american! I feel like I have been pre-judged. Yet, It could be my poor writing skills.

If I pre-judged you in any way then I apologize. I'm just reacting to what you're writing.

I am in no way saying that Bush and Hitler are alike.
I used them only as examples and also because the contrast or the difference
between the two is extreme.

I believe the Bush is a real Christian where I believe Hitler made false claims
and was an "anti-christ".

Ok, but I just don't see the need for calling Bush a Christian (albeit a good one) and relating that to the war as if it is some kind of religious war; it is not.

Now for a moment put your self in the shoes of someone from the middle-east

That's very easy to do; although I've lived the better part of my life in the States, I was born and raised in the Middle East.

and here is a man who claims to be a Christian.
The bombs from his country result in the suffering death of your children.
From this view point what will you think of Christians?
At this point you don't know the greater good he was trying to do ,only that your kids are dead.

First, what does his christianity have to do with the war? It is simply wrong to associate Bush's christianity with the war when in fact the 9/11 attacks have everything to do with it. The people who attacked us want this to be a religious war and you are playing into their hands.

Second, go ask the Iraqis who voted what they think of the war. Ask the kurds whose families were gased by the thousands what they think of the war. Ask the Iraqi expatriates who live in the States and other countries who also got the chance to vote what they think of the war. Ask the Lebanese Christians and Moslems what they think of George Bush after the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon after a 30 year occupation. Ask the Syrian or the Egyptian opposition movements, or the Kuwaiti women who are voting and being voted into office for the first time what they think of George Bush.

Let look at a different scene where you have a prisoner who may or may not know information that if know could save lives. Maybe the lives of children. Being a Christian who is suppose to have higher standards of behavior, how far do you go to get that information?
I am NOT refer to the Iraq prisoners although I realize that would be an example that comes to mind.

Again I ask you what does his christianity have to do with any of this? This is war and in war there will be casualties and prisoners of war. Yes, we should take the high road and not torture prisoners as per the Geneva convention but how can you fight a war effectively when your enemies do not have the same moral values you do? Please explain this to me.

It could be someone involved in child slavery ring and this knowledge could save kids. So would you torture this person to get the information and still call yourself Christian? What if they had your kid?
Then a third party who knows your claim of being a Christian hears of the treatment of this prisoner. What would his view of Christians be?

Again, those are moral/ethical questions that transcend religion. Again, yes, as Christians we should know better and we always strive to do so. When mistakes happen or rogue persons do the wrong things we try to correct as best we can. Do you think the other side would do the same?

God Bless,

John.

[bluesman]

What I am saying is this is NOT about George Bush and the Iraq war!
It bigger then that . It is a modern day example of something that has been going on forever. Its how other can see acts of Christians or people who claim to be Christian.

The people who attacked us want this to be a religious war and you are playing into their hands.

NO! I am stating that they are using this. Some do it, know its wrong, but
they gain from it. Others are reacting out of pain, emotion, and are blinded to the big picture. However, you at least get my point that they are
doing this.

How could people of God attack an kill all the Canaanites!
How can the warrior and murderer Moses become one of
most important persons of the Bible.

We could talk of the Crusades, or the witch trials. These are historical events.

This is the original question

could use some help with an arguement I've seen quite often. The atheist puts forth that the view that religion is dangerous. Religion has slaughtered untold numberss innocent people, etc.

The atheist then put forths the view that no one has killed in "the name of atheism".

Anyone have input on the view?

I am addressing this question. Its not how me or you looks at what happened and is happening. Its about how others judge it !
Mr X , claims to be christian , Mr X does something not so nice.
They Jump to the conclusion that Christianity is evil.
Therefore atheism is good.

Do you finally get what I have been talking about?

Michael
Thomas

[Byblos]

What I am saying is this is NOT about George Bush and the Iraq war!
It bigger then that . It is a modern day example of something that has been going on forever. Its how other can see acts of Christians or people who claim to be Christian.

The people who attacked us want this to be a religious war and you are playing into their hands.

NO! I am stating that they are using this. Some do it, know its wrong, but
they gain from it. Others are reacting out of pain, emotion, and are blinded to the big picture. However, you at least get my point that they are
doing this.

How could people of God attack an kill all the Canaanites!
How can the warrior and murderer Moses become one of
most important persons of the Bible.

We could talk of the Crusades, or the witch trials. These are historical events.

This is the original question

could use some help with an arguement I've seen quite often. The atheist puts forth that the view that religion is dangerous. Religion has slaughtered untold numberss innocent people, etc.

The atheist then put forths the view that no one has killed in "the name of atheism".

Anyone have input on the view?

I am addressing this question. Its not how me or you looks at what happened and is happening. Its about how others judge it !
Mr X , claims to be christian , Mr X does something not so nice.
They Jump to the conclusion that Christianity is evil.
Therefore atheism is good.

Do you finally get what I have been talking about?

Michael
Thomas

Michael,

I may have misjudged what you wrote and for that I am deeply sorry. I am a staunch republican and Bush supporter and sometimes I let that cloud my judgment. I pride myself in always trying to see the other side of the coin (which is what you were attempting to do I guess) and on being logical but I'm just human. A swift kick in the behind is at times in order to set me back straight and you did that. Thank you.

I see what you're trying to say (finally). No matter how much we try to put ourselves on the other side, however, we'd be projecting an opposite opinion onto others that may or may not be totally accurate as is clearly the case above. In most cases, and particularly when it comes to the Middle East, people do not see things objectively. They are greatly influenced by religion, national origin, politics, etc. Not that we're not the same (people who live in the West that is), but I think we have an advantage in so much as we can express individual opinions a lot more freely than they can. That's why I think trying to imagine what other people see in our leaders' actions just because they're Christian is useless. All we can do is stay true to ourselves and our beliefs and, as long as we know deep down in our hearts that what we're doing is not only right but also just (and I do truly believe that about Bush and the war), then it doesn't matter what others think of us. There will always be opposers and naysayers. We can't please everyone. We can only stay true to ourselves and our allies.

God Bless,

John.

[Canuckster1127]

Michael,

I can only interact with what is written and draw conclusions based on what is written.

I do understand however that it is easy to misunderstand in this mode of communication.

In terms of your clarification, yes. There is always a danger that the actions of a nation will be understood by individuals affected by that decision as representative of many things, including the Christianity that our president professes.

That understood, what would you propose? That a Christian cannot be a national leader and profess personal beliefs and standards and yet still act in a manner consistent with the trust placed upon him (or her) by the constitution and also the Biblical standard of wielding the sword?

That really begins to enter the realm of pacifism.

I personally believe that Christians can and should respond to the call and need for leadership at all levels and further that they cannot and should not compartmentalize their standards and values at any level.

As stated before however, violence in the service of the greater need for all where legitimate in response to a direct threat or provocation can be a proper decision. Turning the other cheek is right for an individual within the context of Christs teaching, particularly in the face of prosecution for one's decision to follow Christ. Nations and governments are recognized to have the right and duty to impose punishment internally and externally.

I believe you are confusing these issues and that that is at least a partial source of your frustration and perhaps as well your difficulty communicating it.

That's just my opinion however, so of course, you are free to take it or leave it as you see fit.

[bluesman]

I believe you are confusing these issues and that that is at least a partial source of your frustration and perhaps as well your difficulty communicating it.

No I am not confusing these issues your are forgetting the original question that started the thread.
I am not getting frustrated I knew before hand I would get this reaction and misunderstanding. Emotions and feeling about the Iraq USA conflict still run high.
I was not even taking a side, or position on what is right or wrong with respects to Bush, the Iraq war, etc etc. Just trying to make a point how others may see it. I know I have one atheist friend who points out Bush all the time as being "a bad fruit" that Christianity produces and therefore Christianity is false.

Its the matter of when an atheist says look at this bad stuff Christians
have done. They might use some historical stuff like the church abusing the natives. However, they might just pick on Bush or Pat Roberts etc etc.

Now contrast that with Ghandi, who wasn't Christian, who taught peaceful protest. You would be hard pressed to say he wasn't a great man to be admired.

I personally believe that Christians can and should respond to the call and need for leadership at all levels and further that they cannot and should not compartmentalize their standards and values at any level.

I agree too. However, not all think this. Some would say we are not suppose to be a part of this world and therefore not part of politics.

Byblos, I realize that how people over there see our actions will vary as widely as people are different and unique. I would defer to you on this because you are from the Middle East and know first hand. Do not some see the western world also as the Christian world and being an example of Christian behavior?

That's why I think trying to imagine what other people see in our leaders' actions just because they're Christian is useless. All we can do is stay true to ourselves and our beliefs............then it doesn't matter what others think of us.

I don't think we have to imagine because they express it on tv and now in blogs etc etc. Yes we do need to stay true to ourselves and our beliefs, but doing so can have negative impacts on our lives.
It does matter what others think of us. Osma bin Laden doesn't think much of us and he proved it matters.
You need to realize that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will result in more
terrorism not less. You can kill some of them, but the hatred we fueled lets them recruit more to their cause. I think we are see that in Afghanistan, where we thought the war was almost done, but is far from over.
To dispute this I think goes against what the Bible teaches about the End Times.

Now to the original question, it matters what the atheist or agnostic thinks of us if we wish to convert him to accept Jesus.

I will end with a quote of a Devotional thought my wife has pinned up.

"We Have No Right to Ask the World to Believe our Message unless there is Something about Us that is Unexplainable and Supernatural.
There Must Be a Divine Dimension to Our Lives"

Michael
Thomas

[Byblos]

Byblos, I realize that how people over there see our actions will vary as widely as people are different and unique. I would defer to you on this because you are from the Middle East and know first hand. Do not some see the western world also as the Christian world and being an example of Christian behavior?

Some (probably even most) certainly do see the west as the bedrock of christianity but we all tend to forget sometimes that all 3 major monotheistic religions were founded in the Middle East. Perhaps it is also our obligation to do a better job in educating them as to the freedom of religion in the west, particularly in the U.S. My point is that no matter how much we try to re-shape them, for the most part, opinions in the Middle East are not shaped by individuals but rather by religious or political (i.e. nationalistic) boundaries (or both).

That's why I think trying to imagine what other people see in our leaders' actions just because they're Christian is useless. All we can do is stay true to ourselves and our beliefs............then it doesn't matter what others think of us.

I don't think we have to imagine because they express it on tv and now in blogs etc etc. Yes we do need to stay true to ourselves and our beliefs, but doing so can have negative impacts on our lives.
It does matter what others think of us. Osma bin Laden doesn't think much of us and he proved it matters.

Well, you know what they say about reading in the newspapers (or listening to the media). They tend to exaggerate or if not that, they do not tend to be balanced and unbiased.

You need to realize that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will result in more
terrorism not less. You can kill some of them, but the hatred we fueled lets them recruit more to their cause. I think we are see that in Afghanistan, where we thought the war was almost done, but is far from over.
To dispute this I think goes against what the Bible teaches about the End Times.

I am in total disagreement with this. If anyone expected things will be settled in a matter of months, even a few years, they are sadly and evidently mistaken. As to the future of Afghanistan and Iraq, I have no doubt that they are already better off and will be a thousand times better off than they were before. Democracy takes time and people essentially want to live in democracy (however they personally define it) and will strive to do so, but it will not happen over night.

Now to the original question, it matters what the atheist or agnostic thinks of us if we wish to convert him to accept Jesus.

And you think that's what George Bush is doing? Trying to convert nations?