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

[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.

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

It's true dude. It actually happened.

My point wasn't that picture so much of that virtually anything will offend "some people."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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?

Does this person believe in Jesus Christ and that he was the Son of God and in the Trinity? If yes they're a Christian, if not then no.

[Хahar 🤔]

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. 

You seem to be offended by an awful lot of things that normal people don't find offensive.

[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.  

You seem to be offended by an awful lot of things that normal people don't find offensive.

Sorry I don't fit your definition of "normal."  That doesn't make me wrong.  

[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.

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?

I'm not Christian--it's not my place to decide who's a Christian and who isn't.

[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.

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?

No, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are not a Christian.  You aren't a Christian by not doing certain things, but, only by affirmatively being born again as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to be a non-born again Christian.

[Mopsus]

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

If the Taliban were Christians... their activity would be heavily circumscribed by the Islamist government.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean, it will offend some people.

Just about everything offends some people though.

[SInNYC]

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

You mean like the lord's resistance army?

[Kingpoleon]

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. 

You probably don’t know this, but the reason most belief systems exist is because they were adopted by a nation which used to have another belief.

[John Dule]

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. 

You probably don’t know this, but the reason most belief systems exist is because they were adopted by a nation which used to have another belief.

Deriving an ought from an is? Clearly you need to read Hume!!!!!1!

[Kingpoleon]

No, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are not a Christian.  You aren't a Christian by not doing certain things, but, only by affirmatively being born again as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to be a non-born again Christian.

For two millennia Christian faith was bound by night
Then came Billy with Sinner’s Prayer and all was light!

[Former President tack50]

No, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are not a Christian.  You aren't a Christian by not doing certain things, but, only by affirmatively being born again as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to be a non-born again Christian.

Wouldn't the ultimate consecuence of a policy like this be to consider infant baptism illegitimate or invalid in some way?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

No, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are not a Christian.  You aren't a Christian by not doing certain things, but, only by affirmatively being born again as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to be a non-born again Christian.

Wouldn't the ultimate consecuence of a policy like this be to consider infant baptism illegitimate or invalid in some way?

I do consider infant baptism to just be "a baby getting wet", as one pastor at my church likes to say.  With that said, I don't believe that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, just an outward expression of what God has already done in us internally.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wouldn't the ultimate consecuence of a policy like this be to consider infant baptism illegitimate or invalid in some way?

I mean seeing as how that is a standard view of Baptists I'm not sure why it'd be all that shocking that he'd hold that.

[Kingpoleon]

No, if someone does not accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, they are not a Christian.  You aren't a Christian by not doing certain things, but, only by affirmatively being born again as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Likewise, I don't think it's possible to be a non-born again Christian.

I think this graph would be even funnier if to went all the way back to 36.

[fhtagn]

It's not offensive because it's true.