Islam a Religion of Peace?

[yomotalking]

I have posted a few articles relating to Islam from a Christian perspective. The most recent threat posed by British islamist group to blow up to 10 British Airways trans-atlantic flights and some US airlines so as to kill in a massive scale is yet another example of radical Islam holding the non Muslim world to ransom.

The question is, are they really a fanatical group of muslims who subscribe to a brand of radical Islam or are they just being good Muslim following in the foot-step of Osama bin Laden and their Prophet Mohammed?

Go to:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/001/1.32.html

From my own perspective, Muslims are people who feel the genuine need to blast the guts out of other people who are not muslims.

The ones that don't, are still resentful and angry at all people who are not Muslims.....and they secretly hate Christians, and would like to see them dead.

Well, their Koran tells them to do it, doesn't it?

[secondeve]

This is an appalling double standard. You mention that the Crusades was obviously the result of a misinterpretation of the Bible, because you are familiar with Christianity and know what everything means - to you - in context. In the very next breath, however, you say that the Qu'ran is being interpreted incorrectly anbut that it's a violent book anyway.

No, I didn't say that. I believe the Koran is being interpretted correctly by terrorists, unfortunately.

You haven't responded to my idea of interpretation, but you're using it here. How can there be a "correct" interpretation? The whole point of the terminology is that one reads into it what one will. Yes, there is ample room and encouragement for violence, but this does not mean that such an interpretation is either the only one possible or, indeed, "correct," because such a term cannot be applied in this sense.

Which it is. But so is the Bible. You cannot take a casual browse through the Old Testament and tell me that killing the firstborn children of the Egyptians, or the rape and murder of the concubine, aren't acts of violence. The point being, the whole issue hinges on interpretation.

Rape? I don't think so.

The violence that occurred in the Old Testament happened during one period of history - that is when Moses was delivering the Israelites from slavery to the Promised Land. God knew what needed to be done to preserve the Jewish people who were also preserving his book. Obviously he did a good job because we still have the book and the people. The fact that there are still Jewish people around today is a miracle. And if you look at the travels of the Israelites, you'll see that God also ordered them to pass through many lands peacefully, paying the natives of the land in silver for whatever they used. So no one would ever be justified in killing based on these verses. Obviously God handed down the laws "Thou Shalt Not Murder" so we are clear that this is His will. Many Christians believe that war in every aspect is wrong. I don't beleive that myself but respect their opinion.

Then when Jesus came along, it should have been abundantly clear that Christianity is a peaceful religion. As stated, during the crusades, commoners weren't allowed to read the scriptures. It was a penalty resulting in death.

Rape - yes. Have a close and careful read of the story about the concubine and the Levite. He takes her into the city and is accosted by a gang of men who want to rape him. He gets frightened, pushes the concubine at them and essentially tells them to take her instead. Which they do. She crawls back to the Levite's door at sunup, having (presumably) been gang-raped for an evening, and the response of the Levite is to kill her, cut her up into pieces and send one piece to each of the leaders of the tribes of Israel, as some kind of lesson about morality. Now me, personally? I call that gruesome.

Now. Over to the New Testament replacing the Old. Name me the verse and book in which God or the writer states that all Old Testament laws are forthwith to be abandoned. It seems to me that the New Covenant is laid down only barely - by which I mean, in no detail - in a handful of verses. Clearly the history books and Genesis in the OT are still to be kept; after all, they're the foundations of history and creation. The Ten Commandments are in Exodus. The oft-sited incitement against homosexuality is in Leviticus - although, admittedly, this sentiment is echoed in NT books, too. But it is Paul and Timothy in the New Testament who seemingly confirm OT attitudes towards women; servility, silence, obedience, a disallowal of authority over men, and an injunction that, essentially, they should learn only what their husbands choose to tell them (Corinthians).

What am I driving at? While parts of the OT are still deemed relevant by command, repetition and necessity, a vague dismissal of OT ways is pronounced. Which leaves us with the question, 'Which parts of the OT are to be kept, and which are not?' It seems to me that God, being a perfect being, would have no need to lay down a moral law for only one group of people - which is to say, if the morality of God is universal and ultimate, why should OT verses on morality and personal conduct ever become void? This is a reasonable train of thought, which can lead to readings of the NT which support OT sentiments. Which is a matter of interpretation. Until you can produce a list of those parts of the OT which God has specifically said are no longer relevant, it is always going to be up to human beings to determine how the New Covenant was meant, practically speaking. And as this is a matter of interpretation, it seems quite plausible to me that this can lead to a violent form of Christianity - ergo, while your reading of Christianity is all about peace, someone else might disagree. From what I know, this remains a valid form of interpretation.

My friend who was studying philosophy was in a class discussion about how the crusades are STILL the major argument against Christianity, even though they took place during a short period of history, a LONG time ago, and were obviously contrary to the commands of Jesus Christ. People like you still enjoy doing this for some reason. Yes, there is a bloody history there. It was short lived and just plain wrong.

If the argument hinges upon interpretation, why should the age of the actions matter? The interpretation which led to them is still possible. You disagree with me on this point - which I made further up the post - but I'm yet to be convinced otherwise.

[artsylady]

Rape - yes. Have a close and careful read of the story about the concubine and the Levite. He takes her into the city and is accosted by a gang of men who want to rape him. He gets frightened, pushes the concubine at them and essentially tells them to take her instead. Which they do. She crawls back to the Levite's door at sunup, having (presumably) been gang-raped for an evening, and the response of the Levite is to kill her, cut her up into pieces and send one piece to each of the leaders of the tribes of Israel, as some kind of lesson about morality. Now me, personally? I call that gruesome.

I would like to have a close and careful read. Where is this found exactly? I'm sure God did not condone any of this anyway, but I'd like to read.

Now. Over to the New Testament replacing the Old. Name me the verse and book in which God or the writer states that all Old Testament laws are forthwith to be abandoned.

I don't think I ever said it should be abandoned. I said that the violence happened during a short period of history.

It seems to me that the New Covenant is laid down only barely - by which I mean, in no detail - in a handful of verses. Clearly the history books and Genesis in the OT are still to be kept; after all, they're the foundations of history and creation. The Ten Commandments are in Exodus. The oft-sited incitement against homosexuality is in Leviticus - although, admittedly, this sentiment is echoed in NT books, too. But it is Paul and Timothy in the New Testament who seemingly confirm OT attitudes towards women; servility, silence, obedience, a disallowal of authority over men, and an injunction that, essentially, they should learn only what their husbands choose to tell them (Corinthians).

It's wives, not women in general who are subservient, and only to their husbands, and only if their husbands are subservient to God. However, men will be judged more harshly, as spiritual leaders of the home. There's a heirarchy but men are commanded to love their wives. And outside of a marriage and the church, women are equal to men in every way. An old testament passage that is very enlightening on a 'virtuous wife' is Proverbs 31. This wife and mother is clearly respected and loved and more precious than rubies. She is a business woman who makes decisions and money. The Bible speaks many times very highly of certain women.

Jesus was friends with many women.

Mohammed just married a number of women, but there are no records of friendships.

Mohammed also said women are deficient in mind. He also said most hell dwellers are women and that men could beat their wives. I realize somehow we've gotten way off topic but the comparisons shed a lot of light on a few things.

What am I driving at? While parts of the OT are still deemed relevant by command, repetition and necessity, a vague dismissal of OT ways is pronounced. Which leaves us with the question, 'Which parts of the OT are to be kept, and which are not?'

'Convert or be killed' was NEVER something the God of the Bible commanded.

If you interpret anything in the Old or New testmanent this way, you're just interpretting it incorrectly.

Can you tell me why you would intepret something in the Bible as a 'convert or be killed' mentatlity?

[eric]

you go Artsy lady.

[secondeve]

I would like to have a close and careful read. Where is this found exactly? I'm sure God did not condone any of this anyway, but I'd like to read.

It is in the book of Judges - here is a good link to a synopsis of events: http://www.articles.adsoft.org/levite's_concubine.htm

The story itself begins in Judges 19:20.

Now. Over to the New Testament replacing the Old. Name me the verse and book in which God or the writer states that all Old Testament laws are forthwith to be abandoned.

I don't think I ever said it should be abandoned. I said that the violence happened during a short period of history.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by this; it seems like you've run two points together? I'll address them as separate points.

1. The violence all took place in a particular historical period, yes - but I don't see how this fact is important, as it is still a part of the Bible.

2. If the OT laws are not abandoned, then how is the New Covenant - with new moral laws - affected? If this isn't the case, then the injunctions to stone adulterors to death still apply, surely? But if this is no longer valid (while other things are), where does it say so specifically? How do we tell the still-applying laws from the discarded ones?

It's wives, not women in general who are subservient, and only to their husbands, and only if their husbands are subservient to God. However, men will be judged more harshly, as spiritual leaders of the home. There's a heirarchy but men are commanded to love their wives. And outside of a marriage and the church, women are equal to men in every way. An old testament passage that is very enlightening on a 'virtuous wife' is Proverbs 31. This wife and mother is clearly respected and loved and more precious than rubies. She is a business woman who makes decisions and money. The Bible speaks many times very highly of certain women.

Jesus was friends with many women.

Mohammed just married a number of women, but there are no records of friendships.

Mohammed also said women are deficient in mind. He also said most hell dwellers are women and that men could beat their wives. I realize somehow we've gotten way off topic but the comparisons shed a lot of light on a few things.

I'm not aiming to deny any of this. I am saying that there are other verses - such as in Genesis, Timothy, Leviticus and Corinthians, for example - which could be read, overall, as saying that women are lesser creatures, more flawed, more susceptible to sin, and more deserving of punishment for error. The Bible does not command men to milk cows, but this does not mean a farmer is being unChristian if he does so. That's a bit of a broad analogy - let's look at something like homosexuality, which is condemned. So is murder. Homosexuals should be punished for their sin. There is no direct Biblical injunction (to my knowledge) which says, 'Don't bash up gay men.' If a Christian does this, however, are they acting legitimately? Scripture can be found to say that this is a bad action and an unChristian one, but there is also scripture to suggest the opposite. This, to me, becomes a matter of interpretation. Who has the right idea? If neither interpretation is definitive, then how can one party claim, on any basis other than interpretation - i.e, definitively - that they are in the right? Doesn't this mean that, if the person still believes in Christ and the key principles of Christianity, a Christian has performed this action according to their understanding of the Bible?

Similarly, I believe, there will be Muslims who do or do not beat their wives. Both are interpreting the Qu'ran in their own way, but who can say whose is the "correct" interpretation?

'Convert or be killed' was NEVER something the God of the Bible commanded.

If you interpret anything in the Old or New testmanent this way, you're just interpretting it incorrectly.

Can you tell me why you would intepret something in the Bible as a 'convert or be killed' mentatlity?

How about all those passages in the OT about killing every man and boy in a town that you capture, taking the women for yourself and dividing up the spoils? There isn't even talk of converting in the OT - the Jews are a people who keep to a faith, whole and insular. Conversion is impossible. There's warnings about marrying outside of the tribes, and the reason all those other people were killed was, presumably, because they could never becomes Israelites. The Israelites never so much as tried to convert anyone. There's just death and punnishment for those who disobey. I would say that, even alongside what the New Testament says, enough people would have thought: "Some people can never be converted. If they could, they'd be like us (as per Galateans), but that is an impossibility. They're just too different."

Edited August 29, 2006 by secondeve

[Floatingaxe]

I'll keep it simple: God commands these killings---men didn't do it on their own. He commanded them THEN because He was building a people for Himself, and He doesn't suffer sin. He behaved exactly as God. NOW, however, He is abiding by His own "law" of holding His peace until His days of wrath to come...because of Jesus, Messiah. Now God bides His time, for the sake of those who will come to Christ.

If it wasn't for Messiah having come, we would still be suffering and be punished for our sins in the here and now.

[artsylady]

It is in the book of Judges - here is a good link to a synopsis of events: http://www.articles.adsoft.org/levite's_concubine.htm

The story itself begins in Judges 19:20.

There is no condoning of this rape. It was called a 'terrible act', which it was, and it started a war among the Israelites. Again, anyone interpretting rape as something that is okay would be just plain wrong.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by this; it seems like you've run two points together? I'll address them as separate points.

1. The violence all took place in a particular historical period, yes - but I don't see how this fact is important, as it is still a part of the Bible.

Because it wasn't a regular thing for believers to kill. It was when the Israelites were being released from 400 years of slavery and then travelling to their land. It was condoned only during this period.

2. If the OT laws are not abandoned, then how is the New Covenant - with new moral laws - affected? If this isn't the case, then the injunctions to stone adulterors to death still apply, surely? But if this is no longer valid (while other things are), where does it say so specifically? How do we tell the still-applying laws from the discarded ones?

When people tried to stone the woman, Jesus stepped in and stopped them.

I'm not aiming to deny any of this. I am saying that there are other verses - such as in Genesis, Timothy, Leviticus and Corinthians, for example - which could be read, overall, as saying that women are lesser creatures, more flawed, more susceptible to sin, and more deserving of punishment for error.

I'd have to look at specific verses and address them. While you may believe the Bible indicates that women are lesser, the Koran flat out says exactly those things. But I would like to take a look at the individual verses. I wouldn't personally say the Bible makes these claims because there were many women who were very heroic in the Bible, like Ruth, whom God chose to save Israelites from death in yet another attempted masacre. Yes, there were bad women as well, who used their influence to do evil, no different from many men mentioned in the scriptures.

The Bible does not command men to milk cows, but this does not mean a farmer is being unChristian if he does so. That's a bit of a broad analogy - let's look at something like homosexuality, which is condemned. So is murder. Homosexuals should be punished for their sin. There is no direct Biblical injunction (to my knowledge) which says, 'Don't bash up gay men.'

Again the verse about throwing the first stone would apply. Jesus taught that if people don't accept the message Christians are trying to send, we are to shake the dust off our feet and leave. That's peaceful. He also said that Christians would be killed and jailed and persecuted because of Him. We are taught not to worry about those who can do harm to the body, but beware of those who can damage our souls. Jesus also said that God would be our judge.

If a Christian does this, however, are they acting legitimately?

I can't think of a single scripture they could use to justify beating up a homosexual. Can you? If it's a matter of interpretation, I'd like to see what verse might be interpretted to justify such a thing.

Similarly, I believe, there will be Muslims who do or do not beat their wives. Both are interpreting the Qu'ran in their own way, but who can say whose is the "correct" interpretation?

I'm not worried about the ones who DON'T beat their wives. I'm more worried about the ones who do and who have full permission from "Allah" to do so.

'Convert or be killed' was NEVER something the God of the Bible commanded.

If you interpret anything in the Old or New testmanent this way, you're just interpretting it incorrectly.

Can you tell me why you would intepret something in the Bible as a 'convert or be killed' mentatlity?

How about all those passages in the OT about killing every man and boy in a town that you capture, taking the women for yourself and dividing up the spoils?

Again, this was condoned during one point in history, on the travels to the promised land. It was never okay for Jews to just go around killing etc.

One war was fought by marching around a city. God allowed these things a few times, but it wasn't something people were allowed to do whenever they wanted.

And it wasn't a "convert or be killed" thing. It was most likely a self-defence thing, where God knew what to do to preserve his people, which preserved his book and brought all of humanity a saviour.

There isn't even talk of converting in the OT - the Jews are a people who keep to a faith, whole and insular. Conversion is impossible.

Not true. My daughter did a paper on this for university. There are examples of converts. I think Ruth was one but I can find out more if you'd like.

People could convert back then just as they can today.

Deuteronomy 7:3):

[jgredline]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[John Lennon]

Ex 22:18 NIV 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'

Now what are the circumstances of this command? To whom was it given, and for what purpose?

Ex 20:22 NIV 'Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:'

So we see that the command is not given to Christians as such, but to the Israelites. Now it is very well known that Christians do not necessarily apply to themselves commands given to the Israelites, whose function as a political entity was to demonstrate the value of the laws of Yahweh to the other tribes and nations that surrounded ancient Israel. They do not necessarily apply to anyone today, and so one must be on one's guard against atheists and sceptics who maliciously and completely inappropriately adopt precepts given to Israelites in order to discredit Christianity.

I am not saying that the "correct" interpretation of Christianity is one in which this verse is or is not applicable in modern times, or to anyone bar the Israelites. I am saying that some Christians, both presently in the past, have embraced this interpretation.

Would you very much mind keeping to the subject? It was you, not some half-witted Americans or Roman Catholics, who claimed that 'the Qu'ran and the Bible both leave ample space in the reading for belligerent, first-strike, aggressive defence of the faith'.

Now prove it!!!! Do you know enough about the Bible to do that, or were you just making trouble? It's never been proven before, but you never know, maybe there is something new under the sun.

.

Ex 20:18 'Do not allow a sorceress to live' You don't think that line encourages aggressive , first strike defense of the faith?!!

[pointer]

Ex 22:18 NIV 'Do not allow a sorceress to live.'

Now what are the circumstances of this command? To whom was it given, and for what purpose?

Ex 20:22 NIV 'Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites this:'

So we see that the command is not given to Christians as such, but to the Israelites. Now it is very well known that Christians do not necessarily apply to themselves commands given to the Israelites, whose function as a political entity was to demonstrate the value of the laws of Yahweh to the other tribes and nations that surrounded ancient Israel. They do not necessarily apply to anyone today, and so one must be on one's guard against atheists and sceptics who maliciously and completely inappropriately adopt precepts given to Israelites in order to discredit Christianity.

I am not saying that the "correct" interpretation of Christianity is one in which this verse is or is not applicable in modern times, or to anyone bar the Israelites. I am saying that some Christians, both presently in the past, have embraced this interpretation.

Would you very much mind keeping to the subject? It was you, not some half-witted Americans or Roman Catholics, who claimed that 'the Qu'ran and the Bible both leave ample space in the reading for belligerent, first-strike, aggressive defence of the faith'.

Now prove it!!!! Do you know enough about the Bible to do that, or were you just making trouble? It's never been proven before, but you never know, maybe there is something new under the sun.

Ex 20:18 'Do not allow a sorceress to live' You don't think that line encourages aggressive , first strike defense of the faith?!!

How can defense be 'first strike'?