You can make whatever arguments you want to justify it in the name of God but if it was morally acceptable at one time in the Bible then the Muslim can make A SIMILAR (not exactly the same) case for the Koran.

barry norris,

You are too far out on the limb of logic with this.

One is to restore my right as a parent to teach my children what the Bible says is not permissible is not to be done.

When was this right taken away from you? I would bet you are part of the hyper-paranoid “oh Im so persecuted” Christian majority…

In a way I see the reason for not allowing any corruption to become mainstreamed. I just signed two petitions here in California. One is to restore my right as a parent to teach my children what the Bible says is not permissible is not to be done. I believe the Bible is the uncorrupted and irrefutable word of God. Sheila Kueul (sp) got a law passed which Arnold signed that makes it so that the homosexual transgender lesbian bisexual way of life can be taught to my children as perfectly normal and acceptable. I don’t believe that becaue it goes against what God says in the Bible. The other is an amendment to the Constitution that declares once and for all that in CA marriage is between a man and a woman. We overwhelmingly passed a proposition that sates this but the CA activist judges are on the verge of subverting the will of the people again and striking this down.

A relatively small group of legislators, who got in because we weren’t really paying attention, are making drastic changes to our values and beliefs and rights as parents here in CA. This is why we have to be diligent in non-violently removing corruption from our midst. I don’t hate any of these people and I do pray for those whom I believe to be lost according to Scripture but, I will fight them when they try to impose their beliefs on me and try to take away my rights to worship and believe as I feel is right and to raise my children according to Scripture.

Please tell that to the homicide bombers! Perhaps they might stop! The are strapping C4 to themselves to win big points with those 72 virgins in heaven,

Notice that very few rich American Muslim Doctors are doing it, most of the time it is some poor schmuck from asscrack Egypt. It is far less about religion than social and cultural choices. Religion is just a crutch.

Jihad has become the sixth pillar and these mullah’s are not doing a damn thing to stop it; in fact many the world over are encouraging it.

So you are saying that because the establishment was pushing for wholesale slaughter of Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians during the Crusades that Christians are bloodthirsty thugs.

BTW Redneck, here are some links to stories about muslims speaking out against imams.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/689
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131580,00.html

I would personally suggest courses in logic and basic communications theory.doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I suggest you take your own advice since you’ve obviously not taken those courses.

It would also be wise of you to engage in a modest perusal of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics, not to mention at the very least have some working knowledge of the text you are attempting to posture yourself as having an educated opinion regarding.

doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I’ve never heard a pastor say,”Read the Bible and know about hermeneutics”. But then again, why can’t the same thing be said of the Koran? I invite any objective reader to go over 1 Samuel 15 and come to his own conclusion of whether or not that passage is morally comparable to the Koran.

Being a college graduate with a B.F.A the quality of my education is contrary to your assertions not even remotely in question. Furthermore, You did quote the text sufficiently to make my repeating it redundant as this quote of yours proves…Since at no point did I dispute that this was the substance of the text such redundancy would have and superflours.

doriangrey, I’ve already rebutted these points so your cries of redundancy are themselves redundant. And I suggest you get a refund on that BFA… “superflours” indeed…

The question isn’t one of whether killing of innocent infants is wrong,

It IS the very question here. You can make whatever arguments you want to justify it in the name of God but if it was morally acceptable at one time in the Bible then the Muslim can make A SIMILAR (not exactly the same) case for the Koran.

This is diametrically contrasted to Islams multiple commandments to kill for the express purpose of vengeance or subjection of infidels to Islam.

A practicing Muslim would be best to address this issue since he would be better informed on such a text’s context.

I would personally suggest courses in logic and basic communications theory.

I suggest you take your own advice since you’ve obviously not taken those courses.

It would also be wise of you to engage in a modest perusal of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics, not to mention at the very least have some working knowledge of the text you are attempting to posture yourself as having an educated opinion regarding.

doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I’ve never heard a pastor say,”Read the Bible and know about hermeneutics”. But then again, why can’t the same thing be said of the Koran? I invite any objective reader to go over 1 Samuel 15 and come to his own conclusion of whether or not that passage is morally comparable to the Koran.

You point out that a large part of the region wasn’t Muslim before. Then I suppose it’s only fair to point out, that Germany, Scandanavia and England were pagan until relatively recently (and many continue to practice to this day and due to the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire, many pagan practices have found their way into Christianity)Is it your assertion that those regions converted peacefully? I assure you they did not. Many Germans and Scandanavians today still hold many of those old beliefs. (I know, my mother and her side of the family are all born and raised in Germany)

Actually, the Vikings in their many raids on England and down the coast brought back slaves, Christian slaves (monks, priests, women etc.) It was these slaves that did the bulk of the conversions.

Christians pray for your souls, that you may accept Christ and thus not spend eternity in Hell. Christians follow the Great Commission.
Islamofascits try to send you to Hell and themselves to Heaven by blowing themselves up in the hopes that you’ll catch a piece of their shrapnel. Muslims refer to non muslims as “infidels”.

Night/Day Apples/Oranges Mars/Venus

Bubba Redneck on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 AM

A very appropriate name for a very ignorant post. Muslims only true way to heaven are to follow the 5 pillars: Charity, Fasting, Prayer, Pilgrimage, Proclomation of the oneness of G-d (sound like confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? does to me)

Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 8:

Please tell that to the homicide bombers! Perhaps they might stop! The are strapping C4 to themselves to win big points with those 72 virgins in heaven, and I don’t hear any “moderate muslims” saying that is the wrong way to Heaven. Jihad has become the sixth pillar and these mullah’s are not doing a damn thing to stop it; in fact many the world over are encouraging it. Those following Mr. Spencer’s trip through the Qur’an will note the many times Muslims are instructed to kill infidels.

For those interested I recommend; 1) “A Christian’s Guide to Islam” by Sookhdeo and; 2) “The Bible and The Qur’an: a Question of Integrity” by Masood.

Christians pray for your souls, that you may accept Christ and thus not spend eternity in Hell. Christians follow the Great Commission.
Islamofascits try to send you to Hell and themselves to Heaven by blowing themselves up in the hopes that you’ll catch a piece of their shrapnel. Muslims refer to non muslims as “infidels”.

Night/Day Apples/Oranges Mars/Venus

Bubba Redneck on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 AM

A very appropriate name for a very ignorant post. Muslims only true way to heaven are to follow the 5 pillars: Charity, Fasting, Prayer, Pilgrimage, Proclomation of the oneness of G-d (sound like confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? does to me)

We Jews would tend to disagree with this assertion. The Islamic world was the only place we could get a break back then.

They not only mention “The Crusades” but do so as if “The Crusades” were an unprovoked series of attacks against poor innocent peaceful Muslims. When the truth is that every single one of “The Crusades” were Christian European responses to Islams violent attempts at conquest against Christian peoples.

doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Except the first one which was an unmitigated and unprovoked attack based on a false tale of the Holy Sepulchre being desecrated. (which is turns out was still in tact and standing as per usual when the Crusaders acting on ‘the word of God’ swept in and killed Jew, Muslim AND Christians living there) Other than that ‘minor’ oversight, yes, they were reactions to Muslim attacks. Oh and you have to overlook the 3rd Crusade also which was a Christian offensive but after that…you have the Baltic Crusades carried out by Christians on people who weren’t even Muslim to make them ’submit to God or die’ (sound familiar?) but after that….ahhh forget it.

For those multiculturalists who like to point to the Crusades as some evidence of the violence of Christianity not only were they defensive or reactionary in nature the relativists need to be reminded that the entire western part of the umma from Syria to the Atlantic in North Africa prior to the rise of Islam was predominantly Christian for centuries. So who were the real aggressors? And Persia was Zoroastrian.

DerKrieger on March 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM

See above re: the Crusades. The only revisionists are the ones who belive the cock and bull story about the sacking of Jerusalem.

You people miss the larger point. The Muslim world at that time was almost exclusively moderate (by the standards of the time) and the Christian world was really quite extremist.
You point out that a large part of the region wasn’t Muslim before. Then I suppose it’s only fair to point out, that Germany, Scandanavia and England were pagan until relatively recently (and many continue to practice to this day and due to the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire, many pagan practices have found their way into Christianity)Is it your assertion that those regions converted peacefully? I assure you they did not. Many Germans and Scandanavians today still hold many of those old beliefs. (I know, my mother and her side of the family are all born and raised in Germany)
If you cracked open some prime texts once and a while you would see chilling similarities between the two using religion as an excuse for barbarism.
Jihadis today shout ‘god is great’ before slaughtering people to justify killing the innocent, Christian warriors/Crusaders shouted ‘god wills it!’ to justify their barbarism. That is but one small example of the similarity.
The Muslime world before Ghengis Kahn was actually quite sophisticated and moderate religously and socially. After the first Crusade and the sacking of the Khwarezmid Empire of Ghengis Khan the region has sprialled into poverty and despair and religous extremism over the course of the intervening millenium.

Europe was very poor when radical Christians were cutting a swath of terror across any lands they could find. The middle east (save for some oil barons) is very poor and a hot bed for extremism. Coincidence?
If you can’t see that it’s not the book in either case, Christian or Muslim, and in fact the socio-economic settings were fueling the extremism then I don’t know what to tell you. You will belive what you are going to believe blindly and not take a step back and look at anything rationally or logically.

Night/Day Apples/Oranges Mars/Venus

Love this story:
Public broadcaster KRO has dropped plans to make a Biblical variant of MP Geert Wilders’ short film on the Koran. “After exhaustive discussion, journalists on various editorial staff have decided not to make a film on the B…

If the makers of this potential documentary couldn’t find text in the Bible which is comparable to the Koran in regards to “jihad”, then either they weren’t looking hard enough or they’re illiterate. In 1 Samuel 15, God orders Samuel to instruct the Jews to slaughter the Amalekites, men, women, children, and infants. There is no difference in principle between the Old Testament and the Koran. But the difference is Islamofascists are acting on the violent orders of the Koran, Jews and Christians are not acting on the violent orderss of the Old Testament.

barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM

The Jews of the Old Testament were not just a religion: they were a nation. The command to kill the Amalekites was not given to all Israelites: it was given to the king. It was a very specific event, and reference was made to the cause: when the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, the Amalekites atttacked them without cause. God specifically said at that point that he would punish them for the attack, but that he would use the nation of Israel to do it, when they had reached their strength.

In short, it was the sort of warfare and justice that nations by their nature deal with. But no one can ever make a case of stating that it was part of the Jewish religion.

It is a fact, though, that the animosity continued for hundreds of years. In the time of Esther, an Amalekite named Haman tried to influence the king to wipe out all the Jews by royal command.

What this all illustrates is that there should be a clear separation between religion and government. When Jesus stood before Pilate being interrogated, and was asked if he was the “King of the Jews,” he said, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my followers fight: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”

So there you go. The kingdom of the Old Testament was of this world as well as the next, so Judaism was both government and religion. So it contained laws with penalties, including the death penalty, and as any government in the real world, it had to fight for its life on occasion.

Christianity is not a kingdom of this world. Christians may fight and war, but it is on behalf of their nation, never for their religion.

Finally, the Christian “equivalent” of jihad is evangelism. Evangelism or the “Great Commission” is the duty of each Christian, and the way that Christianity is spread. Let’s face it: trying to convert people of their own free will is not at all the same thing as “holy war.”

Abortion clinic bombers (all what, three, of them) think they are actually protecting innocent life by removing what they view as murderers. (It somehow escapes them that they are committing murder as well.) Though their actions are inexcusable, their motives are certainly different from the suicide bomber whose objective is indiscriminate death of as many evil infidels as possible. In addition, while suicide bombers are lionized by their people, abortion bombers are loudly denounced by all but the most fringe Christian groups for not following the teachings of Christ. Clinic bombing is not a natural outgrowth of being a Christian.

The violence of the OT was consistent with cultural and ethical standards of the time and has been left to history. The violence of the Koran is still being visited on us today in all its original barbarity. That, to my mind, is the major difference.

So.. not only does the OT not give out commands to future people to do violence.. it didn’t even give out commands to people at the time to do violence.

VinceP1974 on March 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM

Good point Vince…

The violence contained in the Old Testament was committed long before the Old Testament was even written.

Up above there’s a debate centered on 1 Samuel. All the things going on in 1 Sam were done BEFORE THERE WAS a 1 Samuel.

So even if the OT is “violent”, it wasn’t the reason for the violence it described. The historical incidents were recorded later. It wasn’t as if Samuel said to his people at the time “Oh, let me check for the Bible to see what happens next”.

So.. not only does the OT not give out commands to future people to do violence.. it didn’t even give out commands to people at the time to do violence.

To stop professed Christians from killing non believers you must instruct them in the faith

To stop professed muslims from killing infidels you must dis-instruct them of the faith

entagor on March 1, 2008 at 12:17 PM

You make a good case for why Muslim conversions should not be allowed to take place in prisons.

Neither did I give the exact verse nor quote the biblical text. If you had, it would have made your biblical quotes look irrelevant since it’s wrong to order the killing of innocent infants regardless of whether it was done on a specific people at a specific time etc.,. If you can’t grasp that, then I suggest you get a better education.

barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Being a college graduate with a B.F.A the quality of my education is contrary to your assertions not even remotely in question. Furthermore, You did quote the text sufficiently to make my repeating it redundant as this quote of yours proves…Since at no point did I dispute that this was the substance of the text such redundancy would have and superflours.

In 1 Samuel 15, God orders Samuel to instruct the Jews to slaughter the Amalekites, men, women, children, and infants. There is no difference in principle between the Old Testament and the Koran.

barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM

The question isn’t one of whether killing of innocent infants is wrong, but of whether there is any moral equivalence between 1 Samuel’s reference to extract retribution on a specific people for specific crimes committed by that people and Islams open ended commandments to kill.

The OT makes closed ended statements regarding such acts. Closed ended in that they were always against specific peoples for specific actions taken by those people with no exceptions or caveats for continued executions of said acts of violence.

This is diametrically contrasted to Islams multiple commandments to kill for the express purpose of vengeance or subjection of infidels to Islam.

If you cant see this you have no business discussing anyones educational needs, rather you need attend to your own education. I would personally suggest courses in logic and basic communications theory.

It would also be wise of you to engage in a modest perusal of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics, not to mention at the very least have some working knowledge of the text you are attempting to posture yourself as having an educated opinion regarding.

There is no difference in principle between the Old Testament and the Koran. But the difference is Islamofascists are acting on the violent orders of the Koran, Jews and Christians are not acting on the violent orderss of the Old Testament.

barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Ed already addressed this in his original post – which you apparently have overlooked and/or misunderstood:

It means that context is everything. While no one doubts that the Bible contains plenty of violence, it comes in the context of history, not commands.

Barry, you cannot quote a historical account and then interpret it as a religious command for modern-day Jews and Christians.

There are no dispensational divisions in the Koran. As many of you already know, there are the earlier and later commands of Mohammed…the later ones having been written after Jews and Christians rejected him as a prophet. That’s what p*ssed him off, and that’s when he starting killing people and instructing his followers to do likewise.

And if you’ve been in the military, you know the principle: follow your last orders first. Hence “extremist” [actually, "consistent and obedient"] Muslims.

If anyone can find ANY command ordering or EVEN SUGGESTING violence against others in the New Testament, I’d like to know of it.