Skip to main content

"Faith" Inspired Violence?

The claim comes as officials in different branches of law enforcement and the military squabble over who knew what when about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's leanings toward faith-inspired violence, ...


The above quote was taken from here.

It seems journalists need to either coin a new term or be more specific when they use the term "faith". For example, Hasan conducted this violence while living apart from true faith (i.e., it was NOT faith inspired violence, but "faith-less" violence) and thus to refer to it as "faith-inspired" violence is misleading in that it can suggest the horrible acts were carried out in the name of faith (as opposed to what society considers those "without faith"). Sure, some will suggest Hasan still this this based on his "faith", though it be in Allah rather than Yahweh. While the latter is true, it should also be noted that everyone exercises faith on some level (even atheists), so the term is not helpful unless the object of the person's faith is qualified. This point is all the more important in a day where "anti-religion" or "anti-faith" sentiments are expressed and distinguished in the media.

Comments

  1. This was simply a liberal journalists way of tying Islamic jihadism with Christianity by using a generic term. They report their narrative, which is politically correct anti-Christianity. He would have no problem with the term right wing Christian terror because that fits the template and is politically correct to say. It is not politically correct to even use the term Islamic Jihadist terrorism. You will not hear the liberal media string those three words together. It is disgusting and I have no respect for left-wingers in or out of government. Sword, I need your prayers due to my contempt for these people. We need to remove them from political office in the next election and pray for that result.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...

Eckhart Tolle Christianity (Understanding Eckhart Tolle - Comparison / Difference with Christianity)

I believe it important that both believers and unbelievers understand the difference between the teaching of Eckhart Tolle and Christianity. Here's a brief post to introduce you to a few of the significant differences. (Note, I've just been exposed to Tolle, but it doesn't seem to take long to discern the differences) Context (the problem)Taken from here .: Despite Oprah and Eckhart's reduction of Christianity to but one "way" amongst many other equally legitimate ways to God, and their calling Christ a "revolutionary" who has been misunderstood by the Church, and who simply came to manifest "Christ-consciousness", a quick search through the internet reveals that many Christians are following Oprah in attempting to fuse together the teachings of Eckhart, and the doctrines of the historical Christian church. Great website to gain quick summary of Eckhart's beliefs/teachings: Ripples on the Surface of Being Key Responses by Eckhart To...

The Divine Eternal Covenant: A Systematic Theology of Redemption, Judgment, and Glory

Preamble: On the Need for Theological Clarity The relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility has long stood as one of Christianity's most contentious and misunderstood doctrinal territories. For centuries, theological traditions have wrestled with seemingly irreconcilable tensions: How can God be sovereign over salvation while humans remain genuinely responsible? Why does a good God permit evil and suffering? How can divine election coexist with meaningful human choice? What is the ultimate purpose behind the drama of fall and redemption? These questions have generated countless volumes of systematic theology, yet the proposed solutions often either compromise divine sovereignty to preserve human responsibility or sacrifice human accountability to maintain God's absolute control. The result has been a theological landscape marked by entrenched positions, artificial distinctions, and frameworks that frequently raise more questions than they resolve. My moti...

Search This Blog