There is No Peace When Religion Sponsors War.

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 12, 2011 at 16:05

After initially reading this previous post and the one its responds to, my first inclination was to let well enough alone; and maybe I should still. But there is confusion found and clarification begged for, especially as it pertains to the phrase "Christianity wants to take over the world." Without having the necessary scriptural basis for making such a claim as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I find it a little disconcerting that there ARE some people of Christian leanings that think that is supposed to be the mission commanded by Jesus Christ. I am not so inclined.

Matthew 28 tells of the obedience to witness and baptize, but nowhere is the command to conquer to be found, not even as the church was Romanized in ancient times and the premise for the crusades was fomented so that the faux church could capture Jerusalem. We all know how that turned out.

As mentioned, Christianity is supposed to demonstrate the grace bestowed upon believers and the sharing of the faith throughout the world. Believers are in the world, but are supposed to be a part of the world. Does anyone think that the Messiah is going to return to a world handed over to Him by a victorious army of the religion? Buzzer sounds here….wrong.

What the world is being prepared for is found in various Biblical places, enough for any student of the Bible to search out. Christianity is set for departure at a specified time so that the rest of the world can sort out who gets to rule, mystery Babylon or the armies of the anti-Christ.

But prior to that, we see the world embroiled in skirmishes of a preliminary sort, the first and second American-led interventions in Iraq, the first because of Saddam Hussein and the second for reasons as varied as they come, but the least believable from this perspective, (why did Bush go into Iraq) definitively NOT because his God told him to. After an interview that portrayed Bush's different worldview that a Biblically led one, Bush confessed that such was less of a religious decision and more of the need to get control of a situation that no one else would try.

To the point of the topic, it has been generally agreed that true Christianity did not factor in the Norwegian Breivik's actions, that allegation being made by anti-Christian sensibilities that look for every chance to level such allegations as a means to diminish the influence of the love of Jesus Christ. It will work for some, but then Christianity for those who do not want to believe needs little encouragement to press their intentions.

In an alternative vein, we have been told elsewhere that Islam is the religion of peace, that if given the chance to make that so, the world would be a different place. From where this reader is viewing, that chance is coming, and quite soon; but peaceful? I won't be holding my breath to find out.

By the way, Bush is not Catholic, nor is his dad.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".