It is interesting that both D and R repudiated Jerry Falwell's comments following 9/11 (and that's my recollection of how it happened, as well).  But Falwell's thesis, that God uses outside forces to punish his own people for their sinfulness and apostasy, has a long Biblical pedigree.  The Old Testament tells of that cycle of apostasy, oppression by an outside power, repentence, and deliverance happening repeatedly to Israel.  Perhaps it was impolitic for Falwell to single out gays, but I don't think we Bible-believing Adventists should dismiss out of hand the broader punishment-for-apostasy scenario. 

Not only is this apostasy/oppression/repentence scenario true for Israel, I think you can make a good argument from Bible prophecy that Islam does have a prophetic role in chastising the apostate "Christian" church during the period of papal dominance.  Consider that Islam arose in the early 7th Century, just after the papacy consolidated its temporal power in the 6th Century.  Consider also that Islam began rapidly losing power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, as symbolized by the battle of the pyramids in 1798, at which Napoleon destroyed the feared Mamluke army, which took place just five months after General Berthier stripped Pope Pius VI of his temporal authority.  Since 1798, with a few exceptions (such as some temporary successes by the Ottomans under Kemal during WWI), Muslim armies have been unable to make much of an impression on a Western (Christian) army. 

So why are we so beset by Islam today?  Why has it become such a nuisance?  Is it inconceivable that God is again using Islam to punish the Christian world for Apostasy?

So now not only do we have to worry about the nut jobs of the world, the pure evil people and nations and such we have to worry about our own God who is using those people to kill people, Innocent civilians no less.

You would think the evil in the world would be enough punishment but NOOOOO God has to do some more punishing because He can't wait for the final judgment.

What a twisted view of God David. At least Falwell apologized and said he was wrong. 

 

 

Ron, that's the Biblical view of God.  You may think it is twisted, but there it is.  Without the Bible, or some other ancient text we consider holy, there isn't much any of us can say about God, if there is a God.  We're pretty much reduced to creating a god in our own image--but then, that's what we naturally want to do anyway.

No David that is not the biblical view of God. You equate Israel's history with the United States. A we a chosen nation of God? Where does the Bible make that claim. Let's see a few years ago Islamic terroists held a school in Russia hostage and ended killing over a hundred students. Does that mean that they are a chosen nation that God was punishing?

you are like most other fundamentalists who assume that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, the only possbile way of interpretation. Then you declare that what you say is what the Bible says.

The nonsense of your position is easily seen when we dig a little deeper and ask what was God punishing the US for with the terrorist attacks. Falwell at first said homosexuality. Where did he arrive at that reason? Where do you arrive at your reason?

 

The funny thing about all this is that you and I tend to agree on the political issues that the article was trying to ask for acceptance between political parties. We disagree about what you think is Biblical however. Just as the arguments used in the article were short on the reasons, so is your Biblical declaration. Reasons for beliefs are the most important aspect and that is where any progress will come. Reason is the enemy of emotionalism and fundamentalism. If the sides in the article argument dealt with the reasons rather then thier prejudices maybe something could be changed. 

 

Ron, just to make certain that we aren't having a good faith misunderstanding, I'm saying that the Bible supports the modality of apostasy/withdrawal of protection/repentence/restoration.  This happened to Israel repeatedly, and examples are found at Judges 3:7, 12; 4:1-2; 6:1; 10:6-7; 13:1; 1 Kings 11:31-39; 14:22-26; Ezekial 16, 20, 21 etc.  So it is clearly a biblical concept. 

I'm also saying that Islam has been interpreted to fit the 5th and 6th trumpet and first and second woes of Revelation 9.  This was a very widely accepted interpretation among several biblical exegetes and expositors in several different denominations during the 18th and 19th centuries, although SDAs are now almost alone in holding to the historical school of prophetic interpretation. 

Now please understand this part.  I'm not saying that this concept necessarily explains our current difficulties with Islam, I'm just suggesting it, running it up the flagpole, as something that you are free to reject without, obviously, rejecting the Bible.  If you reject this suggestion, I'm certainly not saying that you are rejecting the Bible.  Okay?

Obviously, it may be coincidental, but the rise of modern Islam as a renewed thorn in the Western side roughly coincides with the Western sexual revlution. 

It is interesting that 19th Century Christians were genuinely scandalized by Islam's allowance of four wives and unlimited concubines, and its promise of sexual gratification in paradise.  Speaking of Islam's sensual paradise, John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammed tied "all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy . . ."  Winston Churchill wrote, "A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men." 

But the post-sexual revolution West's sex-drenched culture has put the shoe on the other foot.  With little stigma, much less legal punishment, attached to pornography, pre-marital sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexuality (even homosexual "marriage"), strip clubs, "swinging," massage parlours, etc., it is the West that seems to swim in a "degraded sensualism", to use Churchill's phrase.  

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the sexual revolution in the West (1967-1973) was followed immediately by the resurgence of Islam, as seen in the oil embargo of 1973-74 (and the almost unimaginably massive transfer of Western wealth to the dar-al-Islam, the "house of Islam" ever since), the Iranian revolution 1979, the reverberations of which are still being felt, perhaps more strongly than ever, the lebanon barracks bombing of 1983, the rise of Islamic terrorism in the 1990s culminating in 9/11, etc.  Perhaps the renewed scourge of Islam is intended to punish Western sexual decadence.  But perhaps not.  As I said, this is just a speculative theory that anyone is free to reject, without rejecting even the most conservative biblical orthodoxy.

Erg...  David and I have gone beyond 12 rounds regarding his bizarre obsession with running Islam into the ground.  He's quoted JQAdams and Churchill before...  the whole "all Muslim eternal rewards are sexual" and "All Muslims mistreat their women" thing.  Now he's saying that Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists are God's wrath on a sexually deviant America.  I don't even know where to begin...

I guess I could begin by saying that once again, David has hijacked a thread to further espouse his anti-Islamic rhetoric.  Once again, I'll respond with the intention of establishing that not all Adventists are Muslim-haters, while understanding that Rob's article was not focused on Muslims, but rather on drawing a caricature of politically-charged religious ideologists.  David's existence proves that like all good caricature artists, Rob has humorously portrayed an individual that is impossibly more bizarre in reality than in the fictional, cartoonish sketch itself, like Kim Jong Il or Michael Jackson. 

David, through his JQAdams quote, is showing how silly the Muslims are for thinking that Heaven is a place where the saved can enjoy sex with a lot of wives.  Pshaw.  All good capitalist Christians know that Heaven isn't about sex - It's about MONEY!  Streets of Gold, a CROWN, and a mansion!  Besides, as David pointed out, in America, we've already got the sex thing down:  strip clubs and pornography are the new American apple pie.  In other words, as David sees it, America, with its readily available sex, is basically a Muslim heaven on earth, minus the virginal aspect.  On a brighter note, if David's Muslims are right about Heaven, AND David's Christians are right about Heaven, I'll be living an eternal rap video, flossing my gold and my diamonds, money flying in the air, and many women in various states of undress dancing around my mansion. 

Unfortunately, I think in the literal sense, they're both wrong.  Why have a 10,000 square foot home when you can't hire a filipino lady to clean it, or pave roads with a soft, malleable precious metal, or wearing a bedazzled crown, which is essentially a 10 pound Ed Hardy hat, for ever and ever?  And an eternity of deflowering virgins loses significance when you can purchase that very priviledge on Ebay. 

There is something disingenuous about calling the Islamic religion a "scourge", classifying them as the wrath of God visited upon the sexually promiscuous West, and then suggesting that your words are merely a non-toxic "suggestion" that you are just "running up a flag pole." You are essentially lumping Muslims in with AIDS, Chlamydia, Herpes, and Genital Warts.  That's quite a speculative flag you are choosing to fly, and you shouldn't be surprised at all when few, if any, choose to salute it. 

This is really most amusing! - To see the the commenters joining RA and DA in the bathtub, fighting over rubber duckies as if they were real.  Look, you know I love robust political debate.  I think there are issues worth fighting over as a Church.  But seldom do these debates or battles score points for God.  In theocratic times, Joshua said, "As for me and my house we will serve the Lord."  That was shortly followed by,  "Now gird yourselves for battle so that we can destroy God's enemies."  That happened nearly 3,500 years ago.  Has God revealed nothing to us since that time?  Was the Incarnation for naught?  How can we draw the world to Him if we are fighting God's battles in the bathtub, over rubber duckies?   

Statefarmsteve wrote:

--

There is something disingenuous about calling the Islamic religion a "scourge", classifying them as the wrath of God visited upon the sexually promiscuous West

--

The beauty of scourges of God is you can use them however you want. For instance, there was this little thing in the middle ages called the Crusades. Islam then was a scourge against Europe, but it would be hard to say that middle ages Europe was a hotbed of sexual promiscuity. No doubt there was some, it is hard to find any time or place that does not have some particular sin one may have in mind.  so Islam was a scourge against the Catholic church, then the French Revolution was a scourge against the Roman Catholic church. Maybe that make the Roman Catholic church the best church to join since God kept punishing her like Israel of old. Oh yea and then Henry the VIII rebellion against the Roman Catholic church. He was a bit of a sexual perv probably, and a gluton too, probably ideal for God to use to punish the Roman Catholic church with. If God was so inclined...Though I still see no reason for Him to be so inclined, I think we could make just as good a case for that as God punishing the US through 9-11 or hurricans or even Kanye West.

Mr. Read, it is inconceivable because the United States was not founded under a covenant with the Lord, as ancient Israel was.

Mr. Schilt, robust political debate is important, and I'm convinced that we all ought to take part in it. It should remain debate, however; in a free society the person with the best ideas should win. Thanks a lot for your comments.

Mr. York, thanks for responding to the substance of my hypothesis. 

Granted that the U.S. is not in a covenant relationship with God as Israel was, my understanding is that the promises and prophecies that pertained to Israel passed, after the 490 days/years expired, to Christianity.  In other words, the Christian church became the Israel of God in prophecy (to use the title of book on the subject by Hans K. LaRondelle), that is, spiritual Israel.  (Some people call this substitution theology, but it is clearly the Adventist position, and distinguishes us from most fundamentalists, who believe that these prophecies still refer to literal Israel--not spiritual Israel--as embodied in the modern Jewish state.)

It also is the case, as I noted above, that the trumpets/woes of Revelation 9 have been interpreted as referring to Islam.  And there is an implication that these woes are sent to punish an apostate Christianity, correct?  So why is it impossible that modern Islam is a scourge on apostate Christianity, not the U.S. per se, but worldwide apostate Christianity?