Okay... so in your gross misrepresentation of those of us who study history you claim that we:

 

 

 

I'm sorry but where in the freaking world do you come up with that crap? Let me just sit here as Evidence A to disprove your little theory here.

 

I have a degree in History and Secondary Education. Thus, PepRock was a history major at one point in time. Have I, at any point in time, ever seemed particularly intent on ticking off Christians? Being Catholic myself I think it is pretty obvious where I stand on that. I don't look at anyone as clean in history, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc.. I treat history as amorally as possible. I put no right or wrong on it. And you will find that there are many like me in that regard. You just have that view because there are some that like to get their names out there by being contrary to long standing and accepted beliefs.

 

I do believe in a full account of history with as many details on any and every side showing their greatness, triumphs, flaws and horrible mistakes. Christianity has had them, Judaism has had them and Islam has had them. I try my utmost to operate in a moral vacuum when studying history in order to avoid bias as best I can. I fully recognize however that being Catholic and having been raised in a society that is largely based on Judeo-Christian precepts that my view is likely to be skewed in that direction and in favor of those values.

 

I hate the demonization and deification that we tend towards in history though. Treating the founding fathers almost as though they are demi-gods bothers me. They were brilliant men and pioneering men; but lord knows they were far from perfect. On the other side of the coin Hitler was a terrible beast of a human being, but he was great with dogs.

 

So basically, a good Bachelors in History educates that people of all races make mistakes. Imagine that.

So basically, a good Bachelors in History educates that people of all races make mistakes. Imagine that.

 

 

A far cry from the revisionist preconception that you seemed to put out. However you are conveniently ignoring your earlier generalization and misconception of those of us who have studied history.

Any religion is going to be given to the interpretation of its followers. In this regard, I don’t consider Christianity or Islam to be terribly disparate.

 

The distinct divergence, however, is that Christianity is a religion that is practiced in a developed, more refined world while Islam is practiced in an uncultivated world. Our culture shapes our religious beliefs more than it is credited for. The same is true of the Muslim world. Does Islam impose a culture of violence in the Middle East, or does a culture of violence impose on Islam?

 

It is also worthy of note that most practitioners of Islam in the Middle East are illiterate and thus rely on the teachings, and obvious biases in the interpretations, of their clerics. This doubly amplifies the effect of religious interpretations. If a radical cleric wants to preach that the Quran calls for violence, who is an illiterate follower to challenge that having heard no other opinions? Education is more a factor in violence than the religion itself.

Any religion is going to be given to the interpretation of its followers. In this regard, I don’t consider Christianity or Islam to be terribly disparate.

 

The distinct divergence, however, is that Christianity is a religion that is practiced in a developed, more refined world while Islam is practiced in an uncultivated world. Our culture shapes our religious beliefs more than it is credited for. The same is true of the Muslim world. Does Islam impose a culture of violence in the Middle East, or does a culture of violence impose on Islam?

 

It is also worthy of note that most practitioners of Islam in the Middle East are illiterate and thus rely on the teachings, and obvious biases in the interpretations, of their clerics. This doubly amplifies the effect of religious interpretations. If a radical cleric wants to preach that the Quran calls for violence, who is an illiterate follower to challenge that having heard no other opinions? Education is more a factor in violence than the religion itself.

 

Interesting.

 

I do think the Koran lends itself to interpretations of violence moreso than the Bible. Obviously, there are verses in the Old Testament that people like to point out where God commands violence. I would offer several differences from my view that are pretty important...

 

1. First, from a Christian perspective, the New Testament is the final authority on all matters and it's teaching for it's followers non-violent. So, any attempt by a professing Christian to use Old Testament verses to teach violence is a gross mis-representation of Christian doctrine.

 

2. Many of the verses often cited from the Old Testament are commands from God about dealing with the Jewish people, not commands to kill unbelievers who refuse to convert.

 

3. Some other instances where God commands or condones violence are often in execution of His divine judgement on sinful people.

 

Obviously, I'm biased, but to me there is a distinct difference in the numerous commands in the Koran for it's followers to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam and some of the violence frequently cited from the Old Testament. Obviously, people have proven throughout the ages that they can twist the words of the Bible to achieve their cause. But, I feel strongly that it requires some serious and willful deceit to reach that point. I'm not convinced that's the case with the Koran...from what I've read of it, it doesn't seem like you'd have to make a huge leap or stretch to reach the conclusion that killing anyone who refuses to convert to Islam is not only acceptable, but commanded by Allah. It seems like a very logical conclusion...either that, or the Koran itself is very contradictory of itself, which would lead one to question how reliable it is (but that's a whole other topic).

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but merely offering a viewpoint that I haven't seen expressed on here by anyone else. If anyone reads it and disagrees with it, that's fine. You can decide for yourself and reach your own conclusion.

Interesting.

 

I do think the Koran lends itself to interpretations of violence moreso than the Bible. Obviously, there are verses in the Old Testament that people like to point out where God commands violence. I would offer several differences from my view that are pretty important...

 

1. First, from a Christian perspective, the New Testament is the final authority on all matters and it's teaching for it's followers non-violent. So, any attempt by a professing Christian to use Old Testament verses to teach violence is a gross mis-representation of Christian doctrine.

 

2. Many of the verses often cited from the Old Testament are commands from God about dealing with the Jewish people, not commands to kill unbelievers who refuse to convert.

 

3. Some other instances where God commands or condones violence are often in execution of His divine judgement on sinful people.

 

Obviously, I'm biased, but to me there is a distinct difference in the numerous commands in the Koran for it's followers to kill those who refuse to convert to Islam and some of the violence frequently cited from the Old Testament. Obviously, people have proven throughout the ages that they can twist the words of the Bible to achieve their cause. But, I feel strongly that it requires some serious and willful deceit to reach that point. I'm not convinced that's the case with the Koran...from what I've read of it, it doesn't seem like you'd have to make a huge leap or stretch to reach the conclusion that killing anyone who refuses to convert to Islam is not only acceptable, but commanded by Allah. It seems like a very logical conclusion...either that, or the Koran itself is very contradictory of itself, which would lead one to question how reliable it is (but that's a whole other topic).

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but merely offering a viewpoint that I haven't seen expressed on here by anyone else. If anyone reads it and disagrees with it, that's fine. You can decide for yourself and reach your own conclusion.

 

1. I agree totally. But does that mean we ignore the testimony of the Old Testament and if we don't, which parts do we take with us and which do we leave behind?

 

2. Actually the passages I thought of deal with the conquest of the Promised land and the wars of Saul for examples. Those are directed at non Hebrews. These weren't given a chance to convert.

 

3. I see that as part of OT theology.

 

 

One thing worth looking at is that Islam came about around 600 years after Christianity started. So if you count back to the 1400's in our history you find the church practicing the end of the Inquisition, enslavement of others in the name of spreading the gospel, and inter faith conflicts. Maybe Islam just hasn't had time to work their way up to the point and place where Christianity is right now in terms of allowing the "grace and forgiveness" emphasis of doctrine to emerge.

1. I agree totally. But does that mean we ignore the testimony of the Old Testament and if we don't, which parts do we take with us and which do we leave behind?

 

2. Actually the passages I thought of deal with the conquest of the Promised land and the wars of Saul for examples. Those are directed at non Hebrews. These weren't given a chance to convert.

 

3. I see that as part of OT theology.

 

 

One thing worth looking at is that Islam came about around 600 years after Christianity started. So if you count back to the 1400's in our history you find the church practicing the end of the Inquisition, enslavement of others in the name of spreading the gospel, and inter faith conflicts. Maybe Islam just hasn't had time to work their way up to the point and place where Christianity is right now in terms of allowing the "grace and forgiveness" emphasis of doctrine to emerge.

 

The Christian actions you speak of couldn't be supported biblically. That they happened isn't relevant to my point. Muslim violence against non-believers can be supported with the Koran...Christian violence cannot be supported with the New Testament.

 

I can't claim to understand all of God's purposes or actions...none of us can, nor do we. I'm certainly aware that every instance of violence doesn't fall under the categories I listed, but there are many that do. Like I said, I just see a fundamental difference in the two and I offered my view on it. That's certainly not to say it's 100% correct...anyone who reads it can take the information and form their own opinion. I just don't see the command in the Bible from God to His people to take a "convert or die" stance.

 

I'll try to give an opinion on the question you asked in #1 tomorrow. I don't have time to get into it right now...

 

I suspect you're a little smarter (or more well-read) pertaining to the broad picture of the world than I am Hatz, but I enjoy the discussions with you nonetheless.:thumb:

1. I agree totally. But does that mean we ignore the testimony of the Old Testament and if we don't, which parts do we take with us and which do we leave behind?

 

I don't think we should ignore any testimony in the Old Testament. I just think we have to understand that certain aspects of the old law cannot be carried out under the new covenant of grace and mercy.

 

Laws that required people to be executed (stoned) for various reasons are what I'm primarily thinking of. We are not called to execute those judgements today. I think Jesus set that example for us by refusing to stone or approve the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. However, we shouldn't ignore that testimony. Offenses that were punishable by death are often things that we should abstain from today. We just don't kill people because of it, but the fact that it was once a commandment of the law to do so, should speak volumes about the seriousness with which God views the matter.

 

Other commands, like circumcision and viewing swine as unclean and therefore forbidden to eat, were rescinded in the New Testament. There is no longer the need to offer animal sacrifices for any reason. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean we ignore the testimony found in the Old Testament. Many of the things the Jews were commanded before that are not required of us today in the literal, physical sense are symoblic of or foreshadowing a future fulfillment or truth for us in the church. There are often valuable insights to be gained from studying these issues. So, while we don't have to obey them in the literal, physical sense...they shouldn't be ignored. We can still learn from them and gain valuable spiritual knowledge. But, we don't need to be cleansed by the ashes of red heifer today...