Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[BehindBlueI's]

You are not taking it out of context by simply quoting a portion of Deuteronomy 17, but I assume you are implying that this passage is somehow indefensible or negates the claims of Christianity.

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point wasn't to denigrate Christianity but to point out that taking a single verse and not giving it any context can be used to justify claims that are not supported if you were to further examine it. If you didn't know the rest of the story (insert Paul Harvey voice as appropriate) you could use that to "prove" Christians and Jews were commanded to kill those who worshipped idols. In the same way, people here have posted a passage that they said showed Muslims were commanded to maim Non-Mulsims, but when you know the rest of the story, the passage was actually God giving instructions to angels for a specific battle, it was not a command to men at all and was not a blanket commandment but an order for a specific battle.

 

[PaulKersey]

I may be mistaken, but I believe the point wasn't to denigrate Christianity but to point out that taking a single verse and not giving it any context can be used to justify claims that are not supported if you were to further examine it. If you didn't know the rest of the story (insert Paul Harvey voice as appropriate) you could use that to "prove" Christians and Jews were commanded to kill those who worshipped idols. In the same way, people here have posted a passage that they said showed Muslims were commanded to maim Non-Mulsims, but when you know the rest of the story, the passage was actually God giving instructions to angels for a specific battle, it was not a command to men at all and was not a blanket commandment but an order for a specific battle.

Point taken. I tend to make assumptions when certain Old Testament passages are brought up, because in the world of Christian apologetics, these verses are typically used in the manner I described.

 

[bmbutch]

You are not taking it out of context by simply quoting a portion of Deuteronomy 17, but I assume you are implying that this passage is somehow indefensible or negates the claims of Christianity. This could be a very long answer, but to just give the "Reader's Digest" version, consider the fact that ancient Israel was a theocracy. Those who approach the Bible as the revealed Word of God, as I do, see the consistency running through all 66 books of the Scripture. There is no question that there is extreme violence in the Old Testament. There is also no question that God clearly puts to death people in large numbers. Critics of the Bible who point this out as some sort of "chink in the armor" of Christianity forget that not only is God the embodiment and source of love, He is also perfectly holy. Thus, One who is holy cannot be in the presence of sin, nor can He condone sin. God judges sin and sometimes in a fatal manner. God wanted to keep His people free from the corruption of the pagan cultures that surrounded them. The Old Testament system, which was directed to the Jews of the Ancient Near East, was necessarily rigid and harsh for many reasons. I will only cover 2 of them. First, as I implied a moment ago, God wanted His chosen people to stand out from the heathen countries that surrounded them. He wanted not only their practices but also their personal behavior to stand out from the wickedness of the Assyrians and other ancient cultures mired in idolatry. They certainly failed on many occasions. Secondly, He made the demands of the Law to be this demanding so that men would ultimately recognize their own inability to keep the Law perfectly. This recognition by men of their own inadequacy set the stage for the intervention of a divine intermediary who can fully meet the demands of the Law and serve as our sin-bearer. This is the role that Jesus Christ fulfilled.

^^^Much better than I can say^^^! PS: ^^^This^^

 

[T.Lex]

Kenyan Muslims shield Christians in Mandera bus attack - BBC News

A group of Kenyan Muslims travelling on a bus ambushed by Islamist gunmen protected Christian passengers by refusing to be split into groups, according to eyewitnesses.
They told the militants "to kill them together or leave them alone", a local governor told Kenyan media.
...
The militants decided to leave after the passengers' show of unity, he added.

 

[Jludo]

You are not taking it out of context by simply quoting a portion of Deuteronomy 17, but I assume you are implying that this passage is somehow indefensible or negates the claims of Christianity. This could be a very long answer, but to just give the "Reader's Digest" version, consider the fact that ancient Israel was a theocracy. Those who approach the Bible as the revealed Word of God, as I do, see the consistency running through all 66 books of the Scripture. There is no question that there is extreme violence in the Old Testament. There is also no question that God clearly puts to death people in large numbers. Critics of the Bible who point this out as some sort of "chink in the armor" of Christianity forget that not only is God the embodiment and source of love, He is also perfectly holy. Thus, One who is holy cannot be in the presence of sin, nor can He condone sin. God judges sin and sometimes in a fatal manner. God wanted to keep His people free from the corruption of the pagan cultures that surrounded them. The Old Testament system, which was directed to the Jews of the Ancient Near East, was necessarily rigid and harsh for many reasons. I will only cover 2 of them. First, as I implied a moment ago, God wanted His chosen people to stand out from the heathen countries that surrounded them. He wanted not only their practices but also their personal behavior to stand out from the wickedness of the Assyrians and other ancient cultures mired in idolatry. They certainly failed on many occasions. Secondly, He made the demands of the Law to be this demanding so that men would ultimately recognize their own inability to keep the Law perfectly. This recognition by men of their own inadequacy set the stage for the intervention of a divine intermediary who can fully meet the demands of the Law and serve as our sin-bearer. This is the role that Jesus Christ fulfilled.

When the passages come up in christianity they can be explained and justified in a certain context is what you're saying?

 

[PaulKersey]

When the passages come up in christianity they can be explained and justified in a certain context is what you're saying?

Yes, that is what I am saying. The first thing that is taught in any good Bible interpretation/Hermeneutics course is the importance of context. As the old saying goes, "A text without context is a pretext."

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Kenyan Muslims shield Christians in Mandera bus attack - BBC News

In before someone asks why Obama was on the bus.

 

[T.Lex]

In before someone asks why Obama was on the bus.

I think the INGO consensus would be that, if Obama had been on the bus, the groups would've ended up divided.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, that is what I am saying. The first thing that is taught in any good Bible interpretation/Hermeneutics course is the importance of context. As the old saying goes, "A text without context is a pretext."

You might as well save yourself some trouble. It has only been a few days since we went over the same basic principle. He likes arguing well enough that he would stand in the yard yammering at a tree before he would allow the absence of arguing about something.

 

[LPMan59]

I'd like to point out that I did in fact purchase and read the book BBIs recommended. It was interesting but far from impartial imho. The complete absence of footnotes in a so called history book is unacceptable imo. Regardless it was interesting and I look forward to reading some more on the topic.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'd like to point out that I did in fact purchase and read the book BBIs recommended. It was interesting but far from impartial imho. The complete absence of footnotes in a so called history book is unacceptable imo. Regardless it was interesting and I look forward to reading some more on the topic.

Which one? Sorry, I recommended a few and don't recall which. Glad you got something out of it, regardless.

 

[Jludo]

You might as well save yourself some trouble. It has only been a few days since we went over the same basic principle. He likes arguing well enough that he would stand in the yard yammering at a tree before he would allow the absence of arguing about something.

My apologies I'll stop yammering at trees.

 

[T.Lex]

My apologies I'll stop yammering at trees.

No problem. We don't mind.

ETA:
Oh wait. Never mind. I thought you said "tees."

 

[printcraft]

Apparently Muslim Americans are 1 Donald Trump away from becoming jihadists.......

Muslim Panelist: Trump will cause more terror twitchy.com

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Apparently Muslim Americans are 1 Donald Trump away from becoming jihadists.......

Muslim Panelist: Trump will cause more terror twitchy.com

That's ONE panelist on ONE freaking show.... spouting a pretty lame argument.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Apparently Muslim Americans are 1 Donald Trump away from becoming jihadists.......

Muslim Panelist: Trump will cause more terror twitchy.com

I suppose Muslims have their FEMA camp water the tree of liberty types as well. Perhaps not to tinfoily when the argument that internment of Japanese citizens in WWII is simply good policy and not something we should be a bit embarrassed about today. Promote a siege mentality, and people will respond.

Help me remember, what was folks response here when they believed in UN gun confiscation via the Small Arms Treaty and/or FEMA camps? Were they just one Obama away from insurrection?

 

[Expat]

Were they just one Obama away from insurrection?

LOL... seriously. You really think that? From what I have seen, we are little more than a bunch of blowhards.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

LOL... seriously. You really think that? From what I have seen, we are little more than a bunch of blowhards.

No, I don't really think that. That's the point I was making. Even in this thread we see if "we" say something it's blowing off steam, if "they" say something it's a literal threat they intend to act upon.

Don't get me wrong, there are a few a-holes who will act. Remember the assassination of the cops and putting a Gadsden flag on the body out in Vegas?

I also don't really think we'll get to interment camps, but the fact it's even in public discourse is ridiculous. Of course there will be pushback, and some of that pushback will come from idiots, attention seekers, and whoever else talks into a camera for a living.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I don't really think that. That's the point I was making. Even in this thread we see if "we" say something it's blowing off steam, if "they" say something it's a literal threat they intend to act upon.

Are you telling us that there are fat Moslems who don't shower regularly, live in their mom's basements, and rarely get out from behind the glowing screen except to come up for food once in a while?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Are you telling us that there are fat Moslems who don't shower regularly, live in their mom's basements, and rarely get out from behind the glowing screen except to come up for food once in a while?

At least in the ME, not a lot of basements...but otherwise....