And taken over in Africa and other places. On behalf of Christians everywhere I would like to say “you’re welcome.”
I’m kidding, but just barely. Christianity is spreading rapidly among Muslims. Don’t believe me? How about a Muslim scholar interviewed by al-Jezeera?
In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed.
Of course as Christians we can take no real credit for God’s revealing Himself to Muslims. We can, however, be thankful for missionaries following the call to these areas. Just recently, I spoke with a man who is in seminary preparing to go to a Muslim area of Africa as a missionary.
People need faith. It’s something for which our psyche’s long. I know this is explained (away) in several ways, but it is obvious that culture’s need belief systems regardless of what the new atheists may teach.
Now that Europe has become post-Christian, they are increasingly becoming (if they are not already) pre-Islamic. While Christianity is spreading everywhere but the West – South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
I know it is tempting to lump all the religious people together as Hitchens and others do, but those who seek to live peacefully can and should unite. The spread of Christianity should be good news even to atheists.
As Scott Adams humorously said:
Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately
I would hope it would be the same for an atheist living next door to a Christian who may or may not invite you to a Bible study and bake you some brownies. That doesn’t seem quite so bad does it?
Related Posts:
If xians would quit persecuting gays I would be fine with them, even sympathetic. However, their determined opposition to any and all forms of gay equality puts them in the enemy camp. I would prefer it if my neighbors kept their religious beliefs to themselves.
btw: It may be that humans are put together in such a way as to need a higher purpose and a "spiritual" life (however you define it), but that doesn't necessarily mean that xianity is the only, or even the best, system to scratch that itch. In fact, it is often inimicable to the spiritual aspirations of humanity. You have stated that I "long" for an "Other." No, I respond to the Mystery, am ravished by the transcendent which is also imminent. I just don't find it in the xian version of things. In fact, I find xianity to be a definite hinderence.
However, their determined opposition to any and all forms of gay equality puts them in the enemy camp.
this is not really true. Most evangelicos are not opposed to ALL forms of equality for gays – we support equal rights in housing and employment, and we condemn violence and hatred against gays.
However, what we do oppose is allowing the 4% of the population to spoil the institution of marriage and endanger our children by trying to force legal and medical acceptance of their relationships as something healthy.
I would prefer it if my neighbors kept their religious beliefs to themselves.
I would prefer it if we agreed on public ethics and morals that included accepting that there may be scientific and logical approaches to ethics and morality that may oppose homosexuality.
My stance may be motivated by my faith, but it is informed by reason, science, history, and tradition, and my public arguments are based on those, not 'the bible says so.' That is entirely permissible, imo.
History and science may be with you (in the sense that they were with the persecution of the Jews), but reason and science certainly are not.
btw: How can you cite reason and science when, as a religionist, those are anathema to you? Your motivations are purely religious in origin, and are merely airbrushed with the appearance of reasonableness. I seriously doubt that, without your christianist views, you would have any trouble with gay equality.
btw2: Your christianist views are largely behind the historical violence and discrimination against gays, and it echoes to this day. You may condemn such violence, but your very rhetoric and actions encourage and maintain it. J'accuse!
My apologies, "History and science may be with you…" should read,
"History and tradition may be with you…"
1. How can you cite reason and science when, as a religionist, those are anathema to you?
2. Your motivations are purely religious in origin, and are merely airbrushed with the appearance of reasonableness.
First, I have written extensively on the interaction of faith and reason, and I reject neither, but claim that they are complimentary.
Second, despite your assumptions about my motives, it really doesn't MATTER what my motives are with regards to whether I am right or not. It may call into question my objectivity, but not whether or not my claims are true. Those stand or fall based on their own merit.
Just like I might believe that you are unwilling to conclude that homosexuality is a dysfunction because of your own SSA, while I could doubt your objectivity, and accuse you of brushing over your personal position, arrived at probably mostly by your own experience, with facts, I would still have to address your claims with facts, not attacks on your lack of objectivity.