Does she look serious?
\\
Posted on 06/16/2016 9:32:42 AM PDT by Belteshazzar
Yes. Those Christians who iniate violence against the innocent are disobedient to Christ’s teachings.
Those Muslims who initiate violence against the innocent are obeying Mohamed’s teachings.
Christians resort to violence only in defense of self or others.
Muslims commit violence as Jihad.
Bingo, and Selah.
If you read the passages in question, you'll see that the violence is not that of conquest and subjugation, but rather violence in defense; even if it does seem pre-emptive at times. In all cases, God said go wage war on these people, because if you do not, they will come to enslave or kill you (paraphrasing, of course). Any time the Jews didn't do as God commanded, they were attacked, killed and enslaved. The Lord is a man of war, and Jesus Christ is not the long haired peace at all costs hippie the social gospel makes Him out to be.
At least that's what I learned about the matter.
“I see frequent reference to the New Testament in the replies here, but how do we reconcile the Old Testament, which clearly condones violence against non-believers.”
Ah, where to begin. First, it would be helpful if you yourself carefully read the Old Testament. There is clear condemnation of violence against (all) others in the Old Testament. “Thou shalt not kill,” is the place to begin. The meaning, simply, is this, no individual has the right to take the life of another - period. The only exception being self-defense or the defense of another beset by those who would kill.
Next, the violence often attributed to the Old Testament is chiefly to be found in the earlier books beginning with Exodus and running through, say, 1 Samuel. Here, yes, as in all the books of the Old Testament, the dirty laundry of God’s people is hung out for all to see. Such sins as they commit are common to man. But there is another layer that is not appreciated. It is this: The children of Israel, Jacob, went to Egypt as an extended family. They came out as a nation. They were given in Exodus through Deuteronomy the laws by which they were to govern themselves, as 1) individuals, as 2) a nation (i.e. civil laws, both internal and external), and as 3) church. And when it comes to the church, the laws given to Israel through Moses show clearly one thing: That if absolute justice were truly carried out, such that the unholy were eradicated, who would be left? Answer: No one. Thus the need for One to take upon Himself the guilt and penalty of all that both justice would be served (the law) and mercy would be upheld (the gospel). For God is both just and merciful. None of this can be grasped apart from Christ.
One must carefully distinguish between the three types of law given. Whereas it is not permissible for an individual to take another’s life, it may be permissible for a nation/state to do so. Israel, as a nation, had to do this, even as we today as a nation may have to do this. Or do you categorically deny the right of self-defense against “all enemies domestic and foreign”? So, please, do not accuse in general terms when you say “clearly condones violence,” until you have cited specifically what incident or incidents you are talking about. Otherwise you lack credibility.
“Do we say Christians have evolved and only abide by the New Testament?”
No, we do not say “we have evolved.” But we do abide by the New Testament, and do interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New. If Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior of the world, and the promised successor to David’s throne, then He alone has the authority to declare the meaning of the Old Testament. This was at the heart of His differences with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who of course interpreted the OT differently. Also, Christians are not of only one nation, as were the people of Jesus’ day (even though they rightly honored the king and kingdom under whose authority they lived from the Babylonian Captivity onward, beginning with the kings of Babylon, then Persia, then of the various Hellenistic empires/kingdoms, then of Rome). Christian leave civil governance to the civil government, even though they may or may not be part of it. The New Testament concerns the primary content of the Old Testament, that is: “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
“Is there a level of hypocrisy going on here?”
No. Just levels of understanding or misunderstanding.
Read. Consider.
It’s amazing how every time a Muzzy commits terror, liberals think it’s a great time to spew hate towards Christians.
Does she look serious?
\\
This is the mindset we’re up against.
Right from the pit of hell.
Christianity “outgrew” violence long ago, except in a few pockets in Africa.
It persisted in Ireland until the end of last century, but that’s over.
It’s odd that God did things Jesus would never do, isn’t it?
Like the Flood, for instance, and how many innocents were drowned.
So correct. They are a coalition of the evil, the stupid, the crazy, and the ignorant. Hopefully the ignorant can still be persuaded of the error of their ways.
The number one most violent religion responsible for most and all major wars and genocides is godless atheism. Islam is number two, all other religions are not even close to these two.
Remember Satan is the god of all people other than faithful Christians and Jews.
Thank you for clearing that up.
The violence is not that of conquest and subjugation, but rather violence in defense; even if it does seem pre-emptive at times.
While that appears to be true, even when looking at Moses and Joshua and their conquest of what was to become Israel, you can understand how someone on the outside looking in would be confused.
The violence often attributed to the Old Testament
"Often attributed"? And you say it would be helpful if I carefully read the Old Testament? I have, several times. And the violence is there, and not just attributed. While some of it is telling the story of evil men, some of it is God commanding his people to destroy others.
[violence] is chiefly to be found in the earlier books beginning with Exodus and running through, say, 1 Samuel.
But isn't that the point. Just because the worst is in the front, we can't ignore that it exists. I know Christians tend to say only the New Testament matters, which I agree with (after all, the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of Christ and the Gospel, and therefore was "fulfilled" in Christ). But couldn't a Muslim make the same kind of claims? Ignore "these parts" of the Koran?
It’s odd that God did things Jesus would never do, isn’t it?
Well, it is even odder when you are told the God of the Old Testament is the Christ of the New. Clearly there is something there that we don't completely understand.
Do not accuse in general terms when you say “clearly condones violence,” until you have cited specifically what incident or incidents you are talking about.
Sure. Deuteronomy 17 talks about stoning anyone who has served or worshipped other gods, as long as there are two or three witnesses.
Likewise, Deuteronomy 20 has a whole section on how to take over the land. Verse 17 talks about several groups of people that are to be utterly destroyed - with the statement that God is commanding it.
To Turbo Pig's remarks, verse 18 says why - so that they don't teach the Israelites about their abominations, etc. But to the bigger point, someone looking at the Bible can find the God of the Bible telling His people to destroy non-believers.
And, Belteshazzar, I am sure you have read the whole Bible too, and should be able to acknowledge that there is plenty in the Old Testament where there is condoned-by-God violence (and not just the reporting of violence). I picked the two examples above because they closely resemble what is reported about being in the Koran. I'm sure you know they are not the only examples.
Thanks again for the return comments. It is a fine line to generally accuse others while ignoring our similar faults. We have to acknowledge the existence before we can grow into something better. I think that is the real point - that Bible Christianity has records of violence, but have tried to follow Christ's word and become better people - "love you neighbor" and all that. But Muslims have records of violence, and many still believe that that type of violence is still condoned by their god.
Say what?
Check out this website: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Quotations_on_Islam_from_Notable_Non-Muslims
As indicated, notable non-Muslims comment on Islam.
Worth spending some time there; for example:
“William Ewart Gladstone
“William Ewart Gladstone (1809 – 1898) was a British Liberal statesman. He served as Prime Minister four separate times (1868–1874, 1880–1885, February–July 1886 and 1892–1894), more than any other person.
“Qur’an… an accursed book… So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.”
Bump, our fore fathers were vastly wisely in the ways of the World than our current leaders.
The only thing Jesus directed was if the gospel was rejected was to brush off the dust from the town and move on.
April 627 Mohamed directed the massacre of the Jewish tribes in Medina who would not covert to Islam. The women and children were taken as slaves. Mohammad took one Jewish woman as his sex slave.
Please provide even a example where Jesus Christ directed his followers to murder non believers.
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.
