Posted on 12/09/2015 10:22:15 PM PST by hoagy62
As one looks at the articles and comments found on Free Republic, you can see the complete and utter loathing, disgust, and outright hatred towards Muslims. It is viewed as a justified hatred, built on the actions Muslims have taken for decades against Americans and others. Notable attacks include the Beirut bombing of the Marine barracks, Beslan in Russia, the recent San Bernadino attack, and of course 9/11.
However, I was challenged by a few friends recently as to how a professing Christian can have a deep-seated hatred for Muslims. They reminded me of Jesus' command to love one another. They pointed out that He wasn't just talking about Christians loving other Christians (which can be difficult sometimes), but about Christians loving people in their communities...even those one may count as an enemy.
It's been pointed out to me that Christ's death on the cross wasn't just for me...it was also for the Muslim. He wants them to come to know Him as their Savior just as much as He wants us...or me...to. The problem they see is that someone won't want to come to know Christ if those who say they're His followers are in your face telling you that they hate you.
When I point out to them about the danger that Muslims have time and time again posed to society, they argue that Jesus didn't care if they were dangerous- He wanted His followers to love them, And, if that love had an element of risk associated with it, His followers were to love them anyway. A reminder of what that looks like can be seen in the story of the Christian men who ended up martyred by the Auca tribe in South America.
In any case, what they said is making me think. I want to know how one can reconcile a hatred for Muslims with Jesus' command to love people. It does seem that you can't do one and do the other as well. Yes...I am aware I may very well be opening up a huge can of worms, but this has been bugging me and I wanted to discuss it with my fellow FReepers.
You completely answered my question and thanks . --that what you were saying is not from the Bible and you got it from folks who say lot's of things they came up with and won't say who they are.
Cheers.
We can't be saying that Aramaic or Arab Christians are heathen and it doesn't make sense to imagine Jesus praying to "Dios" or "Dieu" or "Gott". We have to deal with the facts that most Arab-Americans are Christian and Muslims in the U.S. are over four times as likely to be black as Arab.
Does that help? :-)
I don’t think God is expecting us to sacrifice ourselves to a bunch of murdering heathens.
As perhaps has already been said, you are being like a typical liberal i assuming that opposing Islam, and raising the alarm about Muslim immigrants, and expressing disgust at what Islamic terrorists do, equate to hating them. But that measure the Lord hated the Scribes and Pharisees.
And yet as Scripture (using poetic language) states that God abhors the covetous (Ps. 10:3) and "hates" those that love violence, (Ps. 11:5) apparently in despising what they are, (cf. Ps. 73:20) yet choses to love them, showing mercy and grace for them to respond to by repentance, so we can abhor both ourselves as sinners and others, yet choose to love them despite what they are, as sinners needing grace.
Note that God does not love us as we are, but loves us despite what we are by nature, but are accepted in the Beloved on His account, (Eph. 1:6; cf. 1Pt. 2:24; 3:18; 2Co. 5:21) and therefore are commanded to live and love that out.
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Peter 2:24)
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)
And which "two swords" statement some (Rome most notably) wrested as meaning the church ruling over souls without, even if by requiring civil rulers to exterminate theological dissidents, as well as her own. We are still suffering the effects of those called Christians acting contrary to the charter of the church.
I don’t think about Christs love when I’m trying to save my family and by extension my part of western civilization
I don’t know what sort of Chrustianity you cotton to where you can’t bear ill will towards folks who butcher women and children and man burn
There’s even despicable film out there where they decapitate toddlers
Another where they are gang raping a very pale and beautiful buck naked Christian girl and slice her throat open and bleed her out into a bucket while the last gang banger cretin is still inside her
These are sick puppies bringing the Devils doing to us yet again
I feel it’s perfectly normal to hate those effing animals with every fiber of my being
They are evil em effers subhuman Satan lovers that need killing
The fact that you are namby pamby about hating them spells doom for all of us if too many others think that way
We already have a President who supports them more than us
You need to get your mind right
And go buy a gun Mr I don’t own a gun
Good lord
Where are you from?
Good thing Martel and Sobieski had a different outlook on Christendom than yer pickle exemplifies
They knew what they faced
Butchers
Islam is a Raider’s Religion
It ain’t complicated son
All the crazies have to be killed and the rest brought to heel
We are not the first to face this but even though we’re the strongest materially we are by far the weakest of heart and mind
“He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
‘He’ in the above quote from Luke being Jesus. Why do you think he told the apostles to carry swords? To kill snakes?
I just LOVE leading questions!
Yeah; we hear what Muslims 'say' all the time.
But what does their precious BOOK say?
Is it so vague that one Muslim thinks it's ok to kill the Jews and yet another doesn't?
Also, Mark 6:11—
1”And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.”
We can pray for their salvation, but that doesn't mean we have to allow them to murder us or other innocents, and set up their caliphate in as many places as won't fight back, or allow them to rape and groom young girls for prostitutes, or overthrow democratic governments either outright or by using democratic institutions against ourselves. That's not the kind of “love” referred to by Jesus, who was known to use some choice insults against the Pharisees and Sadduceees, and to use a whip against those profaning His Father's temple.
Yes, good point. Or “fear” (ie “homophobia”) with natural disgust and repellent feelings.
Jesus’ execution made men’s salvation possible, my death wouldn’t save one person’s soul, because I’m not the holy perfect Son Of God.
Well, here goes.
I don’t hate Muslims, but as a Christian, I hate the false doctrines and teachings of Islam.
As for the Muslims themselves, I have no problem whatsoever believing that there are many decent, trustworthy Muslims. Unfortunately, I can never know with certainty who they are. I’m unable to base my conclusion on their words or outward behavior. While it’s nice to see someone like the Muslim-American attorney on Fox News this morning condemning terrorist acts such as the one in San Bernardino (though I noticed that he, Obama-like, dodged the term “Islamic radicalism), I can’t really take comfort in that or believe him when he says that most Muslims feel the way he does. I can’t really trust him, because his own prophet and sacred text don’t permit me to do so.
You see, no matter how “moderate” or even casual a Muslim may be in the exercise of his or her faith, the fact remains that their prophet and sacred text still teach the notion of taqiyya, wherein deception is encouraged in order to promote Islam. It teaches not to make friends of unbelievers except to deceive them.
Regardless of how assimilated any Muslim may appear to be, it doesn’t erase the fact that his/her prophet still married a six-year-old (consummating the marriage when she was nine). He still slaughtered and subjugated anyone who opposed him. The Koran still promotes wife beating and the killing of unbelievers, especially Jews. Consequently, whether a specific Muslim engages in these practices himself/herself, is irrelevant to whether they believe them to be acceptable. If they accept the Koran as divinely given, the on what basis do they condemn such things?
While it’s true, as is repeated ad nauseum by Islamic apologists such as Obama, all religions have their extremists who will commit horrific acts under the banner of their beliefs, there is nothing in the actions or words of Christ - or, indeed, the New Testament - that sanctions any such horrific acts. Even the killings in the Old Testament that offend some people were directed against very specific targets, not generically against anyone who wasn’t a believer.
On the other hand, in Islam you have a prophet who displayed every behavior that now comes under condemnation by such mild-mannered Muslims as the one mentioned above, which makes it laughable to hear anyone say that they are “not Islamic” or have a perverted view of Islam.
Excellent!
My dear Bro SR, I beg to differ with you on your approach regarding the sense of this passage Luke 22:34-38, and that is a matter of interpretation, the hermeneutic. Referring to Wittman :
"Scripture has but one meaning. There is only one primary interpretation to which all context lends itself. It applies directly to those addressed at some specific time indicated, and must have a specific meaning for them. In light of this it can be applied to us under similar conditions which exist relative to those conditions prevailing in the context. There may be several secondary applications, but there is only one primary interpretation -- one specific, intended meaning" (See Ex. 15:26) (Wittman, F., "Here's How! The Bible Can Make Sense To You Today!," Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE (2000) P. 27; see also Wittman, F., "How To Mature In Christ -- First Stage: Babes," Morris Publishing, Kearney, NE (1997) p. 11).
It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that in these verses Jesus' language is literal, but because of the immediacy of the situation in which purchasing more swords is not possible, therefore His command (the verbs here are aorist tense, active voice, imperative mode) is to apply to the future of the Disciples beyond His cross-death.
This is not to wholly negate the general thrust of that which you've written, but to insist that Jesus was not speaking figuratively to them in this matter; nor should secondary applications to Christian disciples of today be taken as metaphorical, but straight-forwardly plain literal commands, interpreted literally.
And so concur major commentaries, as follows:
Luke 22:36
---------------
Adam Clarke
He that hath no sword - Bishop Pearce supposes that the word μαχαιραν, sword, has been inserted here from what is said in Lk. 22:38, as it is evident our Lord never intended to make any resistance, or to suffer a sword to be used on the occasion; see Mt. 26:52.
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Mat 26:52 AV)
The word stands rather oddly in the passage: the verse, translated in the order in which it stands, is as follows: And he who hath none, let him sell his garment and buy - a sword. Now it is plain that the verb πωληστω, let him buy, may be referred to πηραν a scrip, in the former part of the verse: therefore if, according to the bishop's opinion, the word sword be omitted, the passage may be understood thus: "When I sent you out before, Lk. 10:1, etc., I intended you to continue itinerants only for a few days, and to preach the Gospel only to your country-men; therefore you had but little need of a staff, purse, or scrip, as your journey was neither long, nor expensive; but now I am about to send you into all the world, to preach the Gospel to every creature; and, as ye shall be generally hated and persecuted for my sake, ye shall have need to make every prudent provision for your journey; and so necessary will it be for you to provide yourselves victuals, etc., for your passage through your inhospitable country, that, if any of you have no scrip or wallet, he should sell even his upper garment to provide one." Others, who are for retaining the word sword, think that it was a proverbial expression, intimating a time of great difficulty and danger, and that now the disciples had need to look to themselves, for his murderers were at hand. The reader will observe that these words were spoken to the disciples just before he went to the garden of Gethsemane, and that the danger was now so very near that there could be no time for any of them to go and sell his garment in order to purchase a sword to defend himself and his Master from the attack of the Jewish mob.
Judea was at this time, as we have already noticed, much infested by robbers: while our Lord was with his disciples, they were perfectly safe, being shielded by his miraculous power. Shortly they must go into every part of the land, and will need weapons to defend themselves against wild beasts, and to intimidate wicked men, who, if they found them totally defenceless, would not hesitate to make them their prey, or take away their life. However the matter may be understood, we may rest satisfied that these swords were neither to be considered as offensive weapons, nor instruments to propagate the truth. The genius and spirit of the Christian religion is equally against both. Perhaps, in this counsel of our Lord, he refers to the contention about supremacy: as if he had said, Instead of contending among yourselves about who shall be the greatest, ye have more need to unite yourselves against the common enemy, who are now at hand: this counsel was calculated to show them the necessity of union among themselves, as their enemies were both numerous and powerful.
---------------
Albert Barnes:
And he that hath no sword - There has been much difficulty in understanding why Jesus directed his disciples to arm themselves, as if it was his purpose to make a defense. It is certain that the spirit of his religion is against the use of the sword, and that it was not his purpose to defend himself against Judas. But it should be remembered that these directions about the purse, the scrip, and the sword were not made with reference to his "being taken" in the garden, but with reference "to their future life." The time of the trial in Gethsemane was just at hand; nor was there "time" then, if no other reason existed, to go and make the purchase. It altogether refers to their future life. They were going into the midst of dangers. The country was infested with robbers and wild beasts. It was customary to go armed. He tells them of those dangers - of the necessity of being prepared in the usual way to meet them. This, then, is not to be considered as a specific, positive "command" to procure a sword, but an intimation that great dangers were before them; that their manner of life would be changed, and that they would need the provisions "appropriate to that kind of life." The "common" preparation for that manner of life consisted in money, provisions, and arms; and he foretells them of that manner of life by giving them directions commonly understood to be appropriate to it. It amounts, then, to a "prediction" that they would soon leave the places which they had been accustomed to, and go into scenes of poverty, want, and danger, where they would feel the necessity of money, provisions, and the means of defense. All, therefore, that the passage justifies is:
. . . 1. That it is proper for people to provide beforehand for their wants, and for ministers and missionaries as well as any others.
. . . 2. That self-defense is lawful.
Men encompassed with danger may lawfully "defend" their lives. It does not prove that it is lawful to make "offensive" war on a nation or an individual.
---------------
Marvin Vincent's Word Studies
He that hath no sword, etc - But sword is not governed by hath. It is too far off in the sentence. The meaning is, he that hath not purse or scrip (and is therefore penniless), let him sell his garment and buy a sword.
---------------
Robertson's Word Pictures:
Buy a sword (agorasatō machairan). This is for defence clearly. The reference is to the special mission in Galilee (Lk. 9:1-6; Mk. 6:6-13; Matthew 9:35-11:1). They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (Jn. 15:18-21). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions bring changed needs. This language can be misunderstood as it was then.
---------------
Jamieson, Faussett, & Brown:
But now -- that you are going forth not as before on a temporary mission, provided for without purse or scrip, but into scenes of continued and severe trial, your methods must be different; for purse and scrip will now be needed for support, and the usual means of defense.
---------------
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
How unbecoming is the worldly ambition of being the greatest, to the character of a follower of Jesus, who took upon him the form of a servant, and humbled himself to the death of the cross! In the way to eternal happiness, we must expect to be assaulted and sifted by Satan. If he cannot destroy, he will try to disgrace or distress us. Nothing more certainly forebodes a fall, in a professed follower of Christ, than self-confidence, with disregard to warnings, and contempt of danger. Unless we watch and pray always, we may be drawn in the course of the day into those sins which we were in the morning most resolved against. If believers were left to themselves, they would fall; but they are kept by the power of God, and the prayer of Christ. Our Lord gave notice of a very great change of circumstances now approaching. The disciples must not expect that their friends would be kind to them as they had been. Therefore, he that has a purse, let him take it, for he may need it. They must now expect that their enemies would be more fierce than they had been, and they would need weapons. At the time the apostles understood Christ to mean real weapons, but he spake only of the weapons of the spiritual warfare. The sword of the Spirit is the sword with which the disciples of Christ must furnish themselves.
(My Note: Here, MH errs greatly, converting what the disciples clearly and without controversy amongst them or with Jesus understood throughout this after-supper discourse, that He was speaking in plain literal language, and not figurative-literal language, attaining a primary literal interpretation and meaning, for both then and for now as applying to all His genuine followers.)
*********
Contrary to your conception stated above, there is no "or" in the plain sense of Luke 22:36; it can not be at all metaphorical or figurative in intent or in its delivery as a command.
Summing this up, do not forget that the common accepted mode of the disciples was--at one's personal--pleasure, to carry a side-arm of sufficient caliber to be considered a deadly weapon. The absence of any remonstrance for the disciples' possession of such side-arms, even during the most holy initiation of the Eucharist, should be marked by us as being not remarkable. We may also note that a few moments later, Jesus did not scold Peter for having and carrying a sidearm, but only corrected Peter in the use of it. He did not order Peter to get rid of his side-arm, but only to put it back in its place; that is, to merely re-holster it. Whomever of the other disciples bearing the second one was a little more sensitive to the situation, and did not offend by displaying it to the law officers come to arrest and bind the Messiah.
From this, we should also take away the thought that, as an application of Christ's command regarding open or concealed deadly weapons, under control of a Christian owner customarily bearing one, that each ought to have one and be trained in it, and that the presence of them in a church meeting is by law no different than bearing one's sidearm in a Rotary lunch meeting, or to a restaurant, or to a movie theater, or any other such venue not otherwise prohibited by state/local ordinances or signage at the entrance to the proprietor's premises.
However, it is not at all clear that the sending of warriors in the Crusades to win back the Holy Lands seized by the Muslims was a truly Christian project. Nor can it be seen that the employment of destruction and killing by military means in a preemptive strike against Moslem-governed lands absent demonstrable enmity, or to prevent terroristic Islamic attacks against our nation, is ethically or morally acceptable today.
Respectfully --- "I'm a redeemed one" = imardmd1
Simple hoagy .... Park that hate .
.. I lived in the middle east on and off for a quarter of my 22 year career in the military. Qatar, Saudi, Oman, Kuwait, Turkey, UAE. Lived among this confused uneducated form of population control that those kings and dictators did not themselves follow. Islam for thee but not for me was mandatory and quiet evident. News in those regions was about whippings, mutilations, amputations, beheadings and plain old torture baesd on HATE .
.....versus my local church news of helping, caring, christian based events to promote LIFE.
The five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources dont portray Muhammad as a great and godly man. They confirm that he was a thief, liar, assassin, mass murderer, terrorist, warmonger, and an unrestrained sexual pervert engaged in pedophilia, incest, and rape. He authorized deception, assassinations, torture, slavery, and genocide. He was a pirate, not a prophet. According to the Hadith and the Quran, Muhammad and his henchmen plundered their way to power and prosperity.
Awareness is the key. I’m aware from multiple points of view and events over time , with an open mind, first hand observations etc .. that Islam is a cult of death and despair for its followers but not its leaders or promoters. Blackmail, fear, pain and death is Islam.
I do not HATE THEM....
I LOVE OURS..... and will include the use of deadly force to protect OUR’s !
Hate is a word I don’t like to use and when I do its a weakness on my part usually due a loss of temper . I reserve the right to dislike and distance myself anyone and any place or thing. Yet I’m home now from my worldwide travels and adventures and after respecting each countries traditions and cultures as encountered... I am HOME now. The home I defended from afar then and still do now in the defense industry to this day here in the United States of America.
I will defend myself, my friends, family, community and nation from the evil I observed first hand. You can call it HATE .......I call it LIFE.
I like to think of myself as a sheepdog instead of sheep that you seem to be per your own words. I will if events require such protect you with my life against all criminals including those created by Islam .....
LIFE !
My opinion based on first hand experience .....
Stay Safe !
.
Thank you!
. . . common accepted mode of the disciples was--at one's personal--pleasure, to carry a side-arm . . .
>> ln the above, please eliminate the hyphens, ok? <<
. . . common accepted mode of the disciples was, at one's personal pleasure, to carry a side-arm . . .
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.