Is it offensive to say "The Taliban need Jesus Christ"?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've seen some people in progressive Christian circles say that and talk about how if they followed Jesus they wouldn't commit their atrocities.

[VBM]

Yes

[Хahar 🤔]

This is obviously not offensive, but it's not an interesting thing to say in most contexts because anyone who would assert that the Taliban needs Jesus Christ would also assert that everyone needs Jesus Christ. There is nothing particular about the Taliban here.

[John Dule]

No more offensive than saying "Christians need Ayn Rand," although I'm not enough of a pigheaded egomaniac to go around saying something like that.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I would find offensive persistent and vexatious proselytising to people who clearly have their own held convictions. I don't think an offhand phrase counts.

[Kingpoleon]

No more offensive than saying "Christians need Ayn Rand," although I'm not enough of a pigheaded egomaniac to go around saying something like that.

You have to choose between admiring Objectivism and despising egomaniacs, pal.

[John Dule]

No more offensive than saying "Christians need Ayn Rand," although I'm not enough of a pigheaded egomaniac to go around saying something like that.

You’re to have to choose between admiring Objectivism and despising egomaniacs, pal.

And "you're to have to choose" between making quippy one-liners and not proofreading your posts before you publish them.

[THG]

If the Taliban were Christians, Afghanistan would currently be a global tourism center.

[afleitch]

It's as edgy as saying they need to 'become atheist' which no doubt you'd be making a post about how cringe that was.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's no real reason to think of it as potentially offensive in an objective sense, just a little odd and a little embarrassing. Except under certainly highly specific circumstances at which point it would instead best be described as 'suicidally brave'.

[Kingpoleon]

It's as edgy as saying they need to 'become atheist' which no doubt you'd be making a post about how cringe that was.

I’d push back a bit here and agree with someone like John Gray that evangelizing the “Good News” of atheism is rather like sleeping vigorously: it’s intrinsically nonsensical.

[Samof94]

The KKK are Christians and they kill people.

[VBM]

If the Taliban were Christians, Afghanistan would currently be a global tourism center.

LOL

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Of course not.  The same would apply to every person walking the face of the Earth.

Also, I don't see why it would be unique to progressive Christianity to say that people need Christ; if anything, that reads like a traditionally conservative evangelical view.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, implying that they need to convert to Christianity in order to stop being violent is offensive.

[Alcibiades]

I don’t know if it’s offensive so much as profoundly stupid to the point of meaninglessness.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

BRTD and the Progressive Christians he interacts with take the Bible way more seriously than the ones I interact with.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

If they had Jesus Christ, they would get the wrong one, similar to the one that Ugandans that kill gay people have.

[LBJer]

I voted yes.  To me, it sounds like a person who says it is effectively implying that the Taliban are members of an "incorrect" religion--Islam--and need to abandon it for the correct one--Christianity.  And I find that offensive. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, it will offend some people.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I voted yes.  To me, it sounds like a person who says it is effectively implying that the Taliban are members of an "incorrect" religion--Islam--and need to abandon it for the correct one--Christianity.  And I find that offensive. 

By definition, there can only be one correct religion.  Along those lines, it would seem illogical to follow one that you do not believe to be the only true religion.  And, that makes every other religion an incorrect one.

[LBJer]

I voted yes.  To me, it sounds like a person who says it is effectively implying that the Taliban are members of an "incorrect" religion--Islam--and need to abandon it for the correct one--Christianity.  And I find that offensive. 

By definition, there can only be one correct religion.  Along those lines, it would seem illogical to follow one that you do not believe to be the only true religion.  And, that makes every other religion an incorrect one.

But to me the offensive part isn't simply believing that Christianity is the correct religion.  It's the implication that members of another religion--in this case, the Taliban--need to adopt that point of view. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I mean, it will offend some people.

Just about everything offends some people though. A lot of people on Twitter were triggered and believed that something deeply racist and offensive was posted in regards to....this.

[Diabolical Materialism]

I mean, it will offend some people.

Just about everything offends some people though. A lot of people on Twitter were triggered and believed that something deeply racist and offensive was posted in regards to....this.

Shut the f##k up, please just shut the f##k up

[John Dule]

I voted yes.  To me, it sounds like a person who says it is effectively implying that the Taliban are members of an "incorrect" religion--Islam--and need to abandon it for the correct one--Christianity.  And I find that offensive. 

By definition, there can only be one correct religion.  Along those lines, it would seem illogical to follow one that you do not believe to be the only true religion.  And, that makes every other religion an incorrect one.

So if a person were to say that they agree with the morals of Christianity, but they "don't give a f**k" about scripture and are fine with it if people arrive at those morals through other faiths, would you consider that person a Christian?