|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Make sure to read Robert Spencer’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
The question came up again during my recent appearance on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast: if God commands killing of entire people, including babies, in the Bible (I Samuel 15:3), how can Christians condemn Allah’s commands to kill unbelievers in the Qur’an (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 47:4)? Islamic apologists contend that to be consistent, Christians who say that the Qur’an commands evil acts must either acknowledge that God commands the same evil acts in the Bible, and thus cut the ground out from under themselves, or condemn the evil acts, and thereby condemn the word of God and God Himself by saying that He commanded evil. This is, however, a false dilemma.
There has been a great deal of fury and frenzy about this since the Bet-David show. Such shows are not a good setting to explain issues of this complexity, while one is being shouted down and the host is trying to keep things moving. Thus a fuller explanation is in order.
The key to the answer here is that the Islamic apologists who see this as a problem are reading the Bible the way Muslims read the Qur’an: they’re taking everything asserted in it as positive commands that apply to believers today, without regard for the historical context, literary form, and more. This is ironic, since Muslims frequently accuse non-Muslims of taking Qur’an passages out of context, although the Qur’an is actually remarkably devoid of context and is often entirely unclear without the aid of the Hadith.
But the heart of the matter is: if the God of the Bible at any point and under any circumstances commands people to be killed, can a Christian say that killing people in the name of God is wrong without condemning God Himself of wrongdoing? Although it may appear to be paradoxical and can get lost in the middle of a heated give-and-take, the answer is actually yes.
The commands to kill in the Bible, unlike those in the Qur’an, are directed at specific groups in particular times and circumstances. A call to kill Amalekites, who don’t exist in today’s world, is quite different from a call to kill non-Muslims, who do. These passages are, in contrast to the Qur’an passages, not open-ended commands that any Jew or Christian should regard as marching orders for believers today. What’s more, because Christianity believes that the Old Testament law is fulfilled in Christ, there is no more question of the continuing applicability of passages calling for killing anyone, any more than there is continued applicability of the Mosaic food laws after the declaration that no foods are unclean (Acts 10:10-16).
The same false dilemma can be constructed, in fact, around the food laws: God commanded His people not to eat certain foods. Did He change His mind? Is He inconsistent? When Christians say that all foods are clean, are they saying He was wrong when He said some were unclean? No. The food laws were given for a particular time and circumstance, and are then fulfilled, with the rest of the law, in Christ. Acts 15 depicts the apostles discussing and deciding, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what parts of the Mosaic law were binding upon Gentile Christians.
The Christian view is that Christ came to reconcile humanity with God, as all human beings were subject to His justice because of their sins, from which no one is free. The Mosaic law delineates what one must do in order to be acceptable in the eyes of God; it is, in other words, a revelation of the divine justice. It is impossible for any human being to keep perfectly at all times, and that’s the idea: it brings home to any individual who tries to keep it that he cannot of himself attain the righteousness of God, and thus faces the divine judgment. Then mercy comes in the person of Christ, who takes on the sin of mankind and by His resurrection, conquers death and opens the way to heaven for human beings. But the mercy of God, and mankind’s need for it, would not be comprehensible were it not clear how much human beings had fallen short, that is, without an understanding of what justice actually is.
But what place does ordering the killing of Amalekites have in all this? God is showing that sin leads to death, as Paul says, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). He ordered the Israelites to be the executors of His judgment, but only in that time and place. That does not establish a general moral principle that one may kill those perceived to be “enemies of Allah,” for only those whom God has established as executors of His judgment have that right.
The Qur’an claims that Allah appointed Muslims to be executors of His wrath (9:14-15). That claim stands or falls on whether or not Islam is true, which is established or disproven on other grounds. But the claim itself can and does lead to indiscriminate violence; it is part of the reason why there have been over 40,000 jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11. On the other side, Jews and Christians do not believe any group is authorized in an ongoing manner to execute God’s wrath, and wrestle with the reason why God would command such a thing under any circumstances. Some suggest the relevant passages are analogical, meant to say that the believer should strive to eradicate sin entirely; here is one site where several explanations, including that one, are posited and explored.
This is not a new phenomenon. The fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions explains this passage analogically, saying that its lesson is about the necessity for sternness in administration: “Failure to dispense punishment, which is a sacred charge of the magisterial office, has a contaminating effect on those governed.”
The difference lies in the different understandings of divine revelation. In the Qur’anic schema, the Qur’an is the perfect book, valid for all time and in all circumstances. In the Bible, by contrast, contains the record of the people of God coming to an ever-fuller understanding of the nature of God and the world He created; not every aspect of that understanding is equally valid for all time.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in terms that are shared not just among Roman Catholics, but among Christians of other traditions as well:
The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it….According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God. The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.…It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven. (1962-1964)
Many people have been equating this idea with modern-day secular liberalism that substitutes today’s societal and cultural fashions for the eternal teachings of revealed scripture. That is a false equation. Contemporary leftist Jews and Christians simply ignore the content of divine revelation and put their whims and proclivities in its place. That is quite different from God Himself leading His people, through new revelations, to a deeper understanding.
Thus the answer to the Islamic apologists’ false dilemma is this: Yes, God commanded the killings in the Old Testament, and no, such killings cannot be considered morally right now, because God is not commanding anyone to carry out such killings today. Did God command evil? No, and no Jews or Christians would say that He did. Nor would they assert that such passages constitute universal commandments. For the believers, God carries out the judgment of every human being one way or another. But it would be evil today for some human being to arrogate to himself the right to administer God’s punishment on a perceived wrongdoer. The difference is the Bible does not authorize believers in general to be the executors of His judgment, and the people of God know, through divine revelation, that for them to claim the authorization to administer God’s judgment is not acceptable.
“ for them to claim the authorization to administer God’s judgment is not acceptable.”
Wisdom indeed Mr Spencer, thank you.
It is hard for me to believe that one of the Judeo=Christian GOD’s Archangels – Gabriel – met mohammy in a cave and told mohammy to kill Jews, Christians and all other infidels and kaffirs.
An Archangel of GOD speaking out in violation of GOD’s commandments.
Truly, islam is a “dirt age” religion of lies.
There was and is no evolving supernatural revelations from God. God is a notion in primitive man’s head, the revelations primitive man heard were his own voice inside his own head.
There came a time when primitive man discovered that what he thought were revelations from some magical dimension was actually his own voice inside his own skull. He discovered that he was actually talking to himself inside his own head. He discovered self-awareness. It’s called “the discovery of the mind”.
Find yourself a primitive tribe in the Amazon jungle and you will discover that primitive men have not discovered self-awareness. Their thoughts to them are voices coming from spirits outside them. To primitive man even trees, bushes, and rocks have spirits with voices emanating from them (Moses talking to a burning bush). They have not discovered the idea of mind and self.
The actual truth is religion is a primitive form of philosophy, a precursor to philosophy, as Ayn Rand accurately states,
“But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.”
Yours is a very old viewpoint. In fact, I believe it was the astrononmer Hoyle who sneered this opinion at those who continues to claim there was a beginning and a beginner. He demanded they produce the evidence of a ‘Big Bang’. For decades the challenge went unanswered as the view of physicists was the the universe was eternal, uniform and forever. However, as per Penzius and Wilson’s discovery of the background radiation to Big Bang proved; indeed there was a beginning. No… that is not proof of a beginner, nor of a G-o who performed this. However, the Torah was the first book that indeed stated ‘In the beginning, something outside the universe, created the Universe (ie G-d).
The issues are quite complex actually, and of course you think, as did the scientists who said there was no beginning, and that the ‘bible’ creation stories were simply primitive minds creations to keep children from being frightened. Now, with the discovery of the ‘reality’ of the ‘Big Bang’, the entirely of the astrophysical notions of the Univers were in disarray and notions had to be explained.as more than mere simpletons imaginations.
I admire R Spencers’ work at Jihadwatch, and find his actions in this work of his as more than exemplary. I also disagree with his theologic interpretation of the OT as it is referred too. But his support of Israel and human rights and the rights of nations is exemplary, and as such the article stands for these critically important concepts. Of coure you are utterly free to believe as you do, without fear of any repercussions as per Shariah Islamic thought.
Are you sure that you have discovered your own self awareness or are you simply regurgitating the ramblings of a very angry long passed woman.
It could very well be that you are the one with primitive notions. It is clear that you pretty much don’t know what you are talking about because you weren’t there 10,000, 5,000 or 1000 years ago. These are simply your silly conclusions that you have formed based on the notions of other puffed up types who also weren’t there 10,000, 5,000 or 1000 years ago. It is quite possible that Ayn Rand was hearing voices in her head, and very possibly, so are you. We call that schizophrenia. See a psychiatrist. You need one.
Go find yourself a primitive tribe in the Amazon jungle and you will discover that primitive men have not discovered self-awareness……if you live long enough. It’s also possible that primitives aren’t as primitive as you smugly think they are. Can you start a fire without matches? Can you build a shelter without tools?
Your exaltation of philosophy over religion is misplaced. Philosophy can be good or bad. Its goodness or badness is seen only in the right ordering of thought in accordance with the true and beautiful.
Your slavish devotion to objectivism is the very example of a deluded and unworkable faith without evidence, Your religion would bring nothing but death and chaos, just like the French revolution which attempted to enshrine “reason” on the throne of Truth.
Further, your weakness is evident when you categorize people like me as “inconsistent Christians.” You insist on attacking a straw man Christianity that is not true. Deal with the Scriptures and criticize those. That is where our arguments stand or fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ad3rVRdgbI&t=5s I would recommend you view and enjoy this debate between Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist. It is not to change your mind that I suggest this youtube video, but rather to see some of the complexities of exploring the issues by two exceptional people, who show how such discussions take place. JMO.
Racking up the inevitable downvotes, huh?
“It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but is implicit in the definition of your own right.
Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.” – Ayn Rand
What a pile of idealistic hooey.
You know what? I think our freedom to be left alone without you badgering us is absolute.
Intrepid is right. You spout hooey.
I will kill anyone who crosses the threshold of my home with evil intent. There is a time to kill and a time to refrain from killing. Ecclesiastes 3:3
Ayn Rand in this context is speaking of murder not self-defense.
“The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may INITIATE the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force ONLY in retaliation and ONLY against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.” – Ayn Rand
It is astonishing how outside the real world you are and will always be…..in principle.
You have to hope you are never attacked because the crook would gain value by robbing you of what you have on your person. And you are such an easy mark.
The victim, by killing a hold up man, would indeed become richer by gaining an element of pride in that he protected himself and his loved ones by also protecting them.
But hey, you keep wagging that book of principles by Ayn Rand in the face of some criminal who is attacking you. My feeling he is not exactly going to wilt in the face of some words on a page. And since you live in uber liberal NYC he will not be prosecuted either, with Alvin Bragg in charge.
You will end up face down on the ground in the gutter, probably with some bruises and broken bones, if you live through it, a few $$$s lighter….but……your lofty principles should sustain you on the way to the hospital or the morgue.
I sincerely doubt whether the bad guys or the totalitarian governments are curled up on the couch with a copy of Ayn Rand’s basic political principles of Objectivist ethics.
Just what we need, government by the Eloi.
A near perfect explanation of the word dispensationalism. Also Daniel 12:4 KJV says ‘At the end of time knowledge will increase.’ This also explains why we cannot fairly judge a Medieval Crusader. The Medieval Crusader, most likely, couldn’t read the few copies of the Bible there were. Dispensationalism also explains why we don’t pray in the manner of an Imprecatory Psalms.
Israel is the only nation on the planet explicitly given to His people, the Jews. It was occupied by other nations, together simply identified as “Canaanites.” The justification for their annihilation is set out in Leviticus 18. Their iniquity had become “full” and their presence was a pollution of the land and a threat to God’s people.
Just read Leviticus 18. All the Canaanite nations were engaging in those awful acts. Those sins are here now in ever increasing numbers. Muslims allows these atrocities in their communities. So much “holiness.”
Their god and reliybis no better than voodoo
I just Googled “reliybis” no result the I realized it is religious bias. A word of advice. Someone calling themselves a Proud Pagan shouldn’t talk bad about voodoo are any other goofy religion. I have more respect for the agnostics and atheist.
Yeshua loves his people, but many times they worshipped Baal and other idols, and the Lord brought their enemies against them ,( Nebudchadnezzar) as an example) to bring them back to Him and to recognize that the way of sin and idol worship is a dead end.
Think about all those innocents killed in the name of Allah by the so called Religion of Peace
Remind me again how many innocent people where murdered by ” The Religion of Peace ” ( Islam )
I think the the numbers are in the MILLIONS.
9-11 World Trade Center United Airlines Flight 97
The answer is “No.” This is because the God of the Bible is not really Allah the god of Islam. To explain, through the passing of time it has become widely accepted that the word “Allah” is just the Arabic word for God. This started when truth compromising Bible “translators” substituted the word Allah where the word God should have had been uses in the Arabic translation of the Bible. Furthermore, in the glossary in the book ASSASSINS! By Dr. Haha Lung it defines Allah as the “Pre-Islamic Lunar god : the god of Islam. “
Likewise, in the book entitled INSIDE ISLAM by a former Muslim who is now a Christian, Reza F. Safa on pages 22, 23 it reads “In pre-Islamic times both Allah –worship and Baal-worship involved the worship of the sun, the moon and the stars which h defines them as astral religions. [Which are condemned in the Bible, Second Kings 23:5] The crescent moon, which was the symbol of moon worship, is also the symbol of Islam.”
In conclusion the Islamic god, Allah, is not the God of the Bible.
The words in brackets are my own. In addition other some other books that expose this little known truths are WHO IS THIS ALLAH ? by G..J.O.. Moshay also UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner and THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey . There is also PHILISTINE by Ramon Bennett and ANSWERING JIHAD by Mabeel Qureshi
Many people think that the God of the Bible and the god of Islam are one the same. Is the majority always right? That’s not always the case.
As an example the Christian pastor and scholar, Michael Youssef, who is also an Arab in his book entitled JESUS, JIHAD AND PEACE on page 69 informs the reader that “The name Allah comes from pre-Islamic times, and it corresponds to the Babylonian mane Bel or Baal. According to the Middle East scholar E.M. Wherry, pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped gods they called Allah. Both pre-Islamic Allah-worship and Baal –worship involved worship of the sun, the moon and the stars, which is why they are called astral religions. The crescent moon, the symbol of pagan moon worship, is also the symbol of Islam. It is printed on flags of many Islamic countries and placed atop minarets and mosques.”
Likewise, a former Muslim who is now a Christian, Dr. Daniel Shayesteh, who used to live in the Middle East but now he lives in America . In his book ISLAM AND THE SON OF GOD. On pages 7,8. Reads “Allah is the generic term for God in many Middle –Eastern cultures. Allah is identified as one of the 360 or so idols worshiped by the Arabian people for centuries before Muhammad was born. Many do not know that Allah was the good god of the Arabians. This explains the crescent moon found on minarets and mosques and the flags of Muslim nations. .. .Historic writings also identify Allah with Baal.” It’s also worth mentioning that the Bible condemns such astral religions. As in, for example, Second Kings 23:5.
The difference between the God of the Bible and the god of Islam should now be very clear.
The god of the Bible is a lower level tribal god, known to the gnostics as the demiurge — the god of the material world ( which is why the jews favored him)
Binladen is in that place of Fire and Brimstone
THE KORAN
BIBLE OF THE MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
Koran 2:191 “s lay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Koran 3:21 “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends”
Koran 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”
Koran 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran”
Koran 8:60 ” Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”
Koran 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them”
Koran 9:5 “When the opportunity arises, k ill the infidels wherever you find them”
Koran 9:123 “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood”
Koran 22:19 “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies”
Koran 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them”.
Robert Spencer’s ‘The Critical Qur’an’
A must-read, essential book.
Danusha V. Goska
[Robert Spencer’s new book, The Critical Qur’an, will be out May 3. Preorder now: HERE.]
If I were queen, I would reward every reader who completed Robert Spencer’s new book, The Critical Qur’an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. The Critical Qur’an is an essential book that every thinking person would benefit from reading. About one in four humans is a Muslim. Given child marriage, polygyny, and women’s low status, Muslims have high fertility rates and the percentage of the world’s population that is Muslim is predicted to increase till Islam is the world’s majority religion in 2075. While it is true that the Qur’an is often not read or understand by most Muslims, Muslims do revere the Qur’an. Muslims may have little idea what the book contains, but they are ready to kill over it. When, in 2005, Newsweek circulated false rumors that Americans were flushing Qur’ans down toilets – which is of course impossible – at least seventeen people were killed in ensuing violence and “a council of more than 300 mullahs …threatened to declare holy war.”
I think bthe gnostics provide va better explanation: the Jewish god is a demigod who thought of himself as the only god. It’s the god of the material world whereas vthe Christ alwas pointed out the real god is purely spiritual.
The Bible is historical and its legality is mediated by rabbinic works. The Qur’an is considered directly legal by Muslims with later chapters superseding earlier ones when in conflict.
God does not command evil acts in the Jewish Scriptures. The paradigm for directed killings, such as in 1 Samuel 15, is in God’s telling Abraham of His intent to destroy Sodom. Abraham protested by asking whether God would carry out the destruction if there are even 10 innocent people. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” God’s response was, “I will not destroy for the sake of the ten.” (Gen. 18:23ff) +
In the case of Samuel the directed killing was of the nation of Amalek which accosted and murdered the weak and sick stragglers when Israel departed from Egypt. King Saul was to wipe out Amalek completely without rewarding themselves with spoils.
In time, this whole planet will know the power of God and who he is. God alone was the designer, architect, and builder of everything that existed, does exist, and ever will exist.
Your delusion knows no bounds. I suppose you think that the world and the universe is only a matter of five or so thousand years old. Good luck reconciling the ancient world (including the dinosaurs) with your primordial beliefs.
Gordy! I refer you to Answers In Genesis.org. We are all made in the image of God. So, one race, shades of melanin. All of us can be traced back to the sons of Noah per Dr Nathaneal Jeanson’s research. Check your Y chromosome DNA.
God created us, gave hsi only son to die for us and our sins, gave us a way to be saved and redeemed from sin and death, he loves us as his people, can we say the same thing for man who has grown corrupt, and self-absorbed who plots every kind of evil to destroy God’s people?