Monday, July 13, 2009

What is the "Coexist" Message Really About? [Add-on]

Have you seen the new "Coexist" bumper stickers? Over the past few months I have seen several. I wondered where they came from and what type of message that it's really all about. Of course, I instinctively knew that it was just another covert attempt to downplay the fact that Jesus Christ is the truth. Jesus told us, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

A "Coexist" message made up with differing religious symbols that attempts to combine religious beliefs (which, in some cases are polar opposites of each other) cannot portray an honest type of message.

A Little Leaven has a brief explanation of where this new phenomenon was started. Figures. I should have known that George Barna would some day go over the deep end in heretical thinking.

Lots of really good comments at the "Leaven" site.

The Christian Post title: "Researcher: America's Faith Tribes Can Restore Nation" is a perfect example of how the writers at that publication have abandoned the true, genuine Christian gospel and have elected to run in the direction of the murky Gospel-light, Jesus-plus-something-else mentality that creates a counterfeit type of Christianity. Scripture repeatedly warns us against getting fooled by such heresies.

At the Christian Post article site, a commentator named "Prophet" reveals the truth:

Prophet » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:17 pm

What kind of new age garbage is this guy peddling?

That's exactly what it is. New Age garbage.

Commentator "Paul" over at the "Leaven" site explains:

If you add up the percentages of all those groups mentioned it totals 99.5%. These groups aren't going to save the culture--these groups ARE the culture!

Barna's analysis is what happens when Christians think their job is to save the culture, rather than proclaim God's truth.

Poor Paul the Apostle. He preached "Jesus Christ and him crucified" instead of trying to find common ground with pagans to save the culture of the Roman Empire.

Posted by: Paul L. April 28, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Eric adds:

I see bumper stickers on people's cars at my university all the time. I go to a public college and stuff like this is taught in almost every class I'm in. It is just a ply for tolerance. But I'm afraid it appears they're tolerant of every religion except true Christianity

Posted by: Eric April 28, 2009 at 07:19 PM



Sothenes has just posted the following over at my Talk Wisdom message board:

Pray for Bono

Relevant Magazine

About five songs into their set, Bono stopped the show and strapped on a headband with writing on it. I stared up at the JumboTron to see that the handwritten lettering said: COEXIST.

Coexisting sounds like a great idea. I fully support the peaceful philanthropy that Bono has encouraged, and this seemed like another way that he was trying to spread the message.

Except, it started to feel like more than a political message. The “C” in “coexist” was the Islamic crescent moon, the “X” was the Star of David, and the “T” was the cross of Christ. Bono pointed at the symbols on his headband—first to the cross, then to the star, then to the crescent moon—and he began to repeat:

“Jesus, Jew, Mohammed—all true. Jesus, Jew, Mohammed—all true.”

He repeated the words like a mantra, and some people even began to repeat it with him. I suddenly wanted to crawl out of my skin. Was Bono, my supposed brother in Christ, preaching some kind of universalism? In just a few seconds, I went from agreeing with him about Christ-like “coexistence” to being creeped out by the ungodly, untrue thing he was saying. What’s going on here? What if he believes that all ways are the same, and he just thinks of Christianity as his particular way? Aren’t universalism and true Christianity mutually exclusive?

Hat tip:

A Little Leaven

Christian Post

Sothenes' post at Talk Wisdom message board

Another great read related to this subject:

Albert Mohler: Two Rival Religions?


"The chief modern rival of Christianity is 'liberalism,'" Machen asserted. "Modern liberalism, then, has lost sight of the two great presuppositions of the Christian message--the living God and the fact of sin," he argued. "The liberal doctrine of God and the liberal doctrine of man are both diametrically opposite to the Christian view. But the divergence concerns not only the presuppositions of the message, but also the message itself."

Kainz offers a crucial insight here, suggesting that one of the most important factors in the nation's cultural divide is that persons on both sides are deeply committed to their own creeds and worldviews--even if on one side those creeds are secular.

"This explains why talking about abortion or same-sex 'marriage,' for example, with certain liberals is usually futile. It is like trying to persuade a committed Muslim to accept Christ. Because his religion forbids it, he can only do so by converting from Islam to Christianity; he cannot accept Christ as long as he remains firmly committed to Islam. So it is with firmly committed liberals: Their 'religion' forbids any concessions to the 'conservative' agenda, and as long as they remain committed to their secular ideology, it is futile to hope for such concessions from them."

No wonder liberals hate true Christian believers so much! It competes with their secular IDOLATRY; and as Mohler states, "it is futile to hope for such concessions from them." Kind of destroys the idea of that "Coexist" propaganda...doesn't it?

The next segment explains the ObamaFRAUD mess and why he and his cohorts push their radical ideology upon an unwilling populace:

Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems for millions of individuals. Looking specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas, canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology. Marxism's dogmas were its core teachings, including economic determinism and the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Its canonical scriptures included the writings of Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung. Its priests were those guardians of Marxist purity who functioned as the ideological theorists of the movement. Its ritualistic observances included actions ranging from workers' strikes to mass rallies. The eschatology of Marxism was to be realized in the appearance of "Communist man" and the new age of Marxist utopia.

Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own dogmas. Among these are the beliefs "that mankind must overcome religious superstition by means of Reason; that empirical science can and will eventually answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will achieve perfectibility."

Sorry ObamaFRAUD and cohorts - what you clueless people up there in Washington D.C. are doing is RUINING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!!

God help us to get a judge to hear the Kerchner et al vs. Obama et al lawsuit case!!! It will only take ONE HEARING to get the evidence out there. Then the usurper can be removed.


4simpsons said...

That is super-creepy that Bono said that. I thought that with all his flaws he was quasi-orthodox in stating that Jesus was the way.

Religious pluralism of that kind is intellectually bankrupt.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Neil,

Yes. I was shocked also. It just goes to show that people can be so easily fooled and misled due to the new kind of "tolerance" which unfortunately leads to religious pluralism.

The "new tolerance" means total acceptance of things you don't agree with. That is not what tolerance means. It simply means recognizing the fact that there will always be those with different views and allowing them to hold such views, but still disagreeing with there particular view.

I think that the "new tolerance" does not allow for evangelism. Apparently, helping someone to find Jesus Christ in their life and inviting him into the heart as Lord and Savior is "intolerant." Thus, they label it as something negative like "proselytizing."

Those who have fought for tolerance are usually the most intolerant towards Christian views. They realize that their view and the Christian view can't both be correct because they are polar opposites. Therefore, their only recourse is to bash our view. No logical discussion. No understanding. No openess. Just disparagement against us.

What a sad state of affairs such a mentality truly is!