Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
He has heard this argument amny times, on many threads, but he continues to bring it up, and not respond, or respond with double-talk and nonsense.
I will be careful.
It's not and he knows it. He has been using this drivel for weeks to try and get certain posters angry and possibly banned. He has many troll-like qualities and is dangerous.
Do a search and read some of his posting comments, judge for yourself.
"Your basic mistake in logic stems from comparing the morals and ethics of thousands of years ago with the morals and ethics of the 21st Century.'
So Mohamed was not so bad after all as it was his times, eh?
"No, it is not, because there is no moral equivalency between the two."
Why? Because you say so? Or your preacher says so?
Either it is immoral to execute women and children in the name of obeying God or it is not and time doesnt change that.
"The Biblical occurrences were thousands of years ago, and are NO more. The Islamist occurrences of punishment under Sharia law are TODAY, and that, the cruel and unusual punishments as described above, is NOT acceptable in civilized society."
Ah, so it is OK to take practices condemned by 98% of Muslims around the world as typical of them while ignoring Biblical passages from our own faith that call for the execution of entire nations?
Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it?
Not precisely true. The death-penalty was for idol worship within the land of Israel. If a Hebrew wanted to go up to Tyre and worship Baal and stay there, so be it, but God didn't want them bringing it back with them to pollute His people.
In the Church, since it is (supposed to be) a spiritual rather than political body, the equivalent is being shown the door (i.e. excommunication). The fact that too many used a church-state alliance to kill "heretics" is an example of the trajedy of leaving behind Jesus' teachings, not an example of following them.
In contrast, if you convert from Islam, they see it as a sacred duty to kill you no matter where you go. Big difference.
Ever heard of the New Testament? Take your gargade elsewhere. We're not interested.
You spend a lot of time with weird claims.
Muhammed was a bandit is the truth.
>> Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it? <<
Why don't you learn about islam. Here's a nice link for you, if you're really interested in the truth.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/Saudi%20Report/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf
Your first statement is correct. Christ perfectly fulfilled the law of the OT in our stead and was the perfect sacrifice in our stead, so Christians do NOT have to follow the law of the OT except as Jesus said: the Commandments and to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is still in the Christian Bible largely because it fortells the birth, life, and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Hope this helps clear up your confusion.
I have close relatives who are Muslim. They are really nice people in many ways, but they do NOT condemn evil acts by other Muslims. They get mad if such acts are ever brought up to them at all. I simply do not believe that 98 percent of Muslims around the world condemn evil acts by Muslims. I have seen no evidence of that in my own family members or on the world scene. I have come to feel that they either secretly agree with them or they are afraid to speak out. I actually do not know which motive is operating in my relatives. It makes me quite uneasy, to tell the truth.
I have close relatives who are Muslim. They are really nice people in many ways, but they do NOT condemn evil acts by other Muslims. They get mad if such acts are ever brought up to them at all. I simply do not believe that 98 percent of Muslims around the world condemn evil acts by Muslims. I have seen no evidence of that in my own family members or on the world scene. I have come to feel that they either secretly agree with them or they are afraid to speak out. I actually do not know which motive is operating in my relatives. It makes me quite uneasy, to tell the truth.
Complicit or silent. At this point, what's the difference? There is something about that which makes me very wary also. I do hate to be too judgemental, but sometimes a generalization is close to the mark (especially when it gets frequently repeated).
And I have had friends that are muslim and they dont get mad and say that such things are done by ignorant people who use Islam as a pretext for tribal customs.
But dont mind me, hate all the Muslims you want, rich and poor, male and female, adult and child, good and bad.
And one day when you stand before the Prince of Peace asking 'Lord when did I ever hate you?' try and remember.
I don't think this is about hate for most people. It is about safety and risk taking.
In my area, most of the street violence is committed by young black men. I don't hate young black men. To not be aware that an enounter with young black men has a higher probability of violence and not be aware of that, is just plain stupid and not very street smart.
I wish the world were different, but it is not.
They are bound by the New Testament. That is why is called New Covenant in other words.
Then why is it even in the Bible?
Because the Old Testament is a preparation for the New. New Testament is the fulfilment of the Old.
God revealed Himself to the mankind in time and in stages, The New Testament is His last word, but the Old Testament is still inspired, holy and necessary for the understanding of the New.
The Divine revelation raised people from the savagery and darkness through the stages. Bible is a library (Biblia = books) written over the several centuries.
At first the rule "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" represented a great and difficult moral progress - the revenge should not be greater than the original wrong and justice should be formalized. Same was with the stoning and other harsh things.
In the end, God told men to love their enemies and to turn the second cheek. It could not be told at the beginning when people were not ready. This is not a contradition - this is a proper order of instruction.
Is it a "tribal custom" to beat disobedient wives, as called for in the Koran? Is it a "tribal custom" to kill Jews wherever they are found, as called for in the Hadiths, with the help of cooperative rocks and trees?
If you claim that these are mansukh, bear in mind that such a claim is easily verified.
I hold no animosity towards Muslims such as your friends who ignore key parts of their religious text and live in peace and tolerance with their neighbors, nor does anyone else here I expect. It's the orthodox Muslims who concern me, particularly as a Jew.
It is mine experience too. I knew one nice Muslim guy whom I asked a troubling question (in a polite friendly way, wanting to clarify something). He answered me "if you ask me such question again, I will punch you". So I did not.
Did you see my reply to you in post 54? The verse you cited does not say that apostates are worthy of death, it says that close, soul-mate friends and your immediate family are worthy of the death penalty if they take advantage of your love for them and secretly try to lure you away from worship of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who brought us forth from bondage in Egypt with a mighty hand and outstretched arm.
Slightly different than "stoning for all apostates" as you seem to have interpreted the verse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.