There Is No Such Thing As Radical Islam
Post Orlando, odd posts popped up throughout the web, hostile to Christians, even blaming Christians for motivating the massacre at Pulse. How odd, I thought, the gay community is so focused on its low level persecution by Christians and Western Civilization that it can't bring itself to see the people who not only perpetrated the massacre but, claimed glorious credit for it. Then it occurred to me, when we analyze events and threats, we use our own personal probability models. Even though Christians in the US can do little more than shout names at the gay community, the community is 100% certain the Christians condemn them emotionally. Muslims, on the other hand, just murdered 49 and wounded scores more gays. But, to the gay community, the odds of being killed by a Muslim are so small that they ignore the improbable, no matter how deadly and, focus on what they see as a sure thing, even though it's little more than an irritant.
Strange but, apparently true, the Calculus of Self Deception.
Strange but, apparently true, the Calculus of Self Deception.
A false dichotomy is afoot. The notion that Islam is only composed of “Radical” extremists and the other Muslims are simply peaceful is actually a two prong effort to instill Sharia law by two methods of infiltration. First ,the one that gets the most attention is the bloody acts of killing and maiming witnessed most recently by the attacks in Paris. Here the suicidal fanatics demonstrate to the innocents and the muslim population at large how dedicated and ruthless they can be. Willing to blow themselves up to instill terror in the hearts of the innocents they simultaneously instill that same terror in the Muslims passively going along who dare not speak up against their fanatical brothers acting out the atrocities of Mohammad. This method of spreading Islam has been the strategy of Islamists from the first days of this religion. The objective of creating Sharia law and the killing of infidels, the worldwide conquest of all nations, and the establishment of a caliphate drive this movement.
Once the terror is established by the fanatics the road is clear for the passive Muslims to make their move by infiltration and non-assimilation into countries primarily of another persuasion. Relying on the altruism and fear of their victims, mobs of Muslims take over by majority as in the town of Hamtramck Michigan. It is equivalent to a mopping up operation after the blitzkrieg of the fanatics. This follow up movement must be reinforced by periodic acts of violence and terror to reinforce the followers belief that the movement is inevitable.
Americans and many others have not wised up to this approach and have excused the followers as deserving of innocence. The taking over of pockets of formerly non-muslim areas proves otherwise.
If you couple this approach with a willingness to lie to promote Islam you have a potent objective that can only be stopped if it is recognized as the devious monstrosity it is. The intellectual defense of claiming islamophobia when “innocent followers” are accused of compliance to this spread of Islam works well in a country willing to give the benefit of the doubt and turn the other cheek .
This war is a different war than those of the past. It is not a war of identified enemies with uniforms and national loyalty. It is a war of subversives willing to connive and infiltrate, perform suicidal carnage and simultaneously slither into the population of the unsuspecting in two different forms. One is the fanatic and one is the follower but both have the same objective and only perform differently to obtain this goal.
The term radicalized has real meaning when the follower becomes the fanatic. Passively infiltrating and avoiding assimilation is a more subdued method so those who want to speed up the process and inspire the followers to comply become who we call “ radicalized” which means they are now of the fanatic class and will do violence to intimidate and strike terror.
So what is to be done in such a war? First identify the strategy for what it is and realize how attitudes and mores are affecting our ability to counteract the movement. Calling the followers innocent is a major mistake. When the followers do not denounce the fanatics you can be sure they are being compliant. How many Muslims did you see condemn the killings in Paris?
This logically leads to the need to identify and root out those who are plotting against the people who are innocent. The source of propaganda is wherever the notion of a caliphate and Muslim dominance is taught. These centers whether in America or the Middle East or the Far East must be targeted as seeds of conquest and infiltrated and monitored and/or destroyed. Hiding behind the “sacredness” of a religious temple or sanctuary is only another tool the true Muslims hide behind just as they hide behind women and children in battle.
Once the enemy knows we are onto their game, the game is over. When they talk we know they lie. When they seek peace we know they seek dominance. When they claim innocence we know they only use a different method to overtake us. When they cry discrimination, we simply tell them we discriminate against all criminal behavior. We need to give no quarter to this enemy that is doing everything it can to overtake us. They think they are being clever but the identification of their methods and connivance puts us in the position of strength they fear. Once they know that we know what they are up to, trepidation will begin, doubt will spread and the cleverness they were sure was undecipherable will disappear. Know your enemy is the first requirement of victory.
For example: "Islam is the religion of peace."
Plus everything he said about Obamascare and transparency.
Caution: Sometimes he tells the truth just to throw you off his game.
Two examples all about socialism~
1. "Fundamental change."
2. "I want to spread the wealth around."
We have discounted them for 1,000 years and they cannot be eliminated due to their sheer numbers. But at least we can recognize them for what they are and treat them accordingly, and stop this nonsense of Islam being peaceful, etc.
There is no such thing as a 'moderate' muslim; there are devout muslim's and non-muslim's
I can only guess, all Muslims end up being inadequate because the Quran's quite a demanding rule book.
And actually "Muslims" as a group were not behind Pulse either.
"The attack that targeted a nightclub for homosexuals in Orlando, Florida and that left more than 100 dead and wounded was carried out by an Islamic State fighter," ISIS said in a statement.
However, the gist of my message in this thread has been ISIS is Islam, Islam is ISIS. It doesn't matter who claims what. We're not being attacked by a country, we're being attacked by a tribe of people known as Muslims.
Christian's DO NOT HATE LGBTQ PEOPLE; Christian's know the Act is a sin to God but the person is a sinner as are we all.
Do not try to twist words to make a false point.
I wonder if there are as many calls for the death of gays in the Koran as the Bible, which also demands the death penalty.
The New Testament is, of course, a call against action, a call for infinite tolerance and passivity.
I'm not a Biblical scholar so, I don't know where or, how many times the Bible instructs us to kill gays. Do you?
Much Islamic practice stems from the Hadith, which is a very long collection of first hand accounts of how Muhammad instructed people to interpret the Quran. A full Hadith is around 4,000 pages. My abridged edition is 900 pages. My Quran is about 250 pages. The Quran is much easier to read with a Hadith, so you can look up whatever topics interest you, then be directed to the correct verses.
First of all, if Moses was a Prince, he would have been well educated and a man familiar with warfare. If, for whatever reason, he was banished from Egypt, why did an intelligent, knowledgeable man such as him wander around the dessert for 40 years? He'd need to be pretty stupi to not simply go in a straight line and eventually come out somewhere. The likelihood may be as follows: In those days tribes fought one another constantly. when one tribe conquered another they destroyed their clay idols, i:e: their gods and made them worship the conqueror's gods. Clever Moses could never be fully conquered because his god was invisible. He didn't wander. Being a trained leader he conquered smaller tribes, annexing them into his tribe until over the years he became the leader of the most powerful tribe. Apparently it took him 40 years. He died and when Joshua took over he decided to stop the wandering and beat up on Canaan where they finally settled. Lots of other stuff to explain but no time or room here. You may desire to take the bible or the quran literally, but both Moses and Mohammed were writing about themselves so they both came out looking like the heroes of their stories.
I could send you excerpts from old & new testaments that would make your hair curl. Mostly old. They're downright silly.
I realize the Bible describes many acts of violence and war but, I don't know of any command from the God of the Christians to do violence to nonChristians.
I'll wait, I won't hold my breath though
We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. It is not something fabricated to win an argument, or made up in the twentieth century, or manufactured to get around something somebody doesn’t like. It is clearly stated in the Greek scriptures. The Apostle Paul wrote it in Galatians:
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” (Galatians 3:10)
If we rely on following the Law (the Torah, the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse. The passage above, Galatians 3:10, contains a quote from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26. According to Paul’s statement below, things have changed.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming the cure for us. (Galatians 3:13)
But, you say there are SEVERAL more instances backing you up; I am waiting...STILL
Are the laws of the Old Testament still binding? Yes. Check these passages in the bible. Gen 17.19; Ex 12.14, 17, 24; Lev 23.14, 21, 31, 41; Dt 4.8-9, 7.9, 11.1, 28; 1 Chr 16.15-17; Ps 119, 151-2, 160; Ec 12.13; Mal 4.4; Mt 5.18-19; Lk 16.17 No. Lk 16.16-17; Rom 6.14, 7.4, 6, 10.4; 2 Cor 3.14; Gal 3.13, 24-25, 5.18; Eph 2.15; Col 2.14
Tell you what, let’s try a test to prove god
Let us do this experiment. Everyone can do it, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Zoroastrians and whatever: Talk to your god and tell him if he can do anything — such as create the world in six days, kill his own son for the sins of the world, set the galaxies in motion — then surely he can appear in your living room for five minutes so you can chat.
What a small thing for the god of the universe. Nothing is too hard for him (Jeremiah 32:27); with God all things are possible (Matt. 19:16). And we’re not even asking him for a miracle, like water to wine so we can party. We just want him to spend five minutes with us in person. If he really loves us so much (John 3:16), he should be willing to spend some time to remove our doubts.
Please try this in your own home. Let me know the results. Be sure to video the event, send me a copy and put one on YouTube. I’m particularly interested in what this god looks like — if he has an elephant’s head, for instance, there are going to be lots of disillusioned Muslims.
LOL...WHAT A MAAAAROOON as your leader Bug's Bunny would say...LOL
If your goal is to convince a person of another orientation, then attacking the person you want to change is not likely to lead your objective. Probably you know this, and I can dismiss it as the motive of your comment.
If you feel better by putting other people down with bromides and pontificating, then I suggest you place a lot of mirrors in your house and run from one to the other reciting your slogans. You may wish to video them. But do not pretend to yourself the exact nature of your motives and goal.
If, however, you genuinely want to communicate, and not play a role of being the heroic, right-thinking, all-knowing seer without whose words others will wither, suffer and die, then you must end role playing and posturing. Treat people as equal humans and enter into discourse.
As Eric Hoffer said: “The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.”
BTW, did you try the test to prove god?
Do you mean they're conscious of their lack of knowledge or, they're engaging in taqiiya - deceiving the rest of us to hide Islam's true nature?
BTW, given the war on coal that's driving so many companies to bankruptcy, are you still a coaldigger?
Taqiyya, I leave to believers that profess to dismiss a large part of the Qur'an to infidels.
"coaldigger" comes from being raised in Southern WV and our HS mascot was a coaldigger. My father was in management and never worked below ground but my father-in-law was the son of immigrants and he was a miner. It is tough, nasty and dangerous work but the cheap energy and steel resulting from coal is one of the main reasons for the greatness of the US.
In Wyoming we just dig huge pits and haul it off or, we did, until the war on coal.
Former Wyoming coal miner, returned back to digging gold in Nevada.
It is Muhammad's word. Deceit is holy in the name of conquest.
Most Islamic scholars practice taqiiya. All other historical sources say I'm right. Muhammad wanted in on Mecca's religion industry but, nobody wanted him so, he dreamed up his own religion and tried to wedge it into the dozens of other religions in Mecca. He made no progress, got angry and declared all the others false gods. That's when the Meccans threw him out.
Your religion was a scam that turned into a book of bloody revenge.
Funy, to you if Islamic people dont speak out against terrorism thay are supporting terrorism, if they do speak out.... they are lieing...
You didn't recognize or understand the quote, did you? No self respecting person of Irish descent would miss that quote.
Actually arabic is NOT what I spelled , it is the english version .... And I really dont care that I am a lazy typist ... In addition, I don't care about your quote ... do you want to talk about the Irish Slaves of the Carribean?
You are a pompous ASS and incorrect on so many things ... including my Irish heritage and the FACT, that I am NOT Islamic.
Never mind number6, who claims to be Catholic or Irish descent but, corrects my Arabic translations and misspells everything in English and fails to recognize the most famous lines from Joyce. He's obviously a verbal Jihadi.
Who are you? Why do you call yourself thus?
This is precisely the same difference between radical christians and most christians. Most christians just go in for what they consider convenient and let the rest go as allegory.
There is not one bit of difference between the power struggle in today's radical islamists and the actions of the christian church of the middle ages. Both are wrong. Both motivated by power. Faith has no place in government or as any basis for argument. Until each religion accepts this they are dangerous because they assert a place above logical discussion, criticism and humor.
I wholeheartedly agree that the insistence of discrimination by the gay community against christians versus muslims is misplaced. It is cut from the same cloth as the argument for income inequality solely measured within the US, ignoring the much poorer people of the rest of the world, who live on a fraction of what the poorest in the US have.
The Inquisition was short-lived and those murdered in its name numbered in single digits. The most accurate number I've read is four (yes, 4). The infamous Spanish Inquisition killed four people.
Four people is a slow afternoon in Mecca.
No honest comparison of Christianity and Islam paints them as equivalent. As I've also said before, the Crusades were a military response to Muslim invasions of Christian lands, lands that had been Christian for centuries, some a millennia before the Muslims invaded, raping, pillaging and murdering their way through the Middle East (You realize, Egypt wasn't Muslim, right, until the Muslims invaded, taking it by force and massacring everyone along the way? You realize Turkey was Christian and Constantinople was the seat of the Orthodox Christian Church until the Muslims invaded and massacred the besieged population? You realize the Muslims took most of Spain, building pyramids of human heads as they massacred whole populations? You realize they weren't stopped until Polish King Sobieski defeated them in Vienna in 1683? Yes, for almost a thousand years Muslims invaded and massacred Christians.) Can you find anything comparable in Christian history? Really, Christians murdering millions of people just because they weren't Christians?
BTW, there were many more than four people who were killed in the inquisitions.
Got a favorite reference for the Inquisition? My favorite book on Islamic history is "Jihad" by Fregosi.
There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. Although there are no exact numbers, scholars believe they have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately. There were not as many deaths as the popular press claims. Numbers have often been inflated to as high as 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research. This figure is completely erroneous. A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions. They looked at all the existing records and were able to extrapolate. In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)
According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition's 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal's higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy ("El 'banco de datos' del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisicion espanola, 1550-1700", BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that "in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances" (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).
During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.
If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about 20% of the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11......" continued
http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/in...
Sources range from the fairly accurate Wikpedia who list it if something is unsupported to a number of other which always need watching such as Huffington and Guardian.
The total numbers are wildly skewed and defined.
Use Google to find other sources readily available. 'My sources.' is not acceptable in objective research no matter how accurate it may be. We have no way of knowing that one way or the other.
This source had an interesting explanation at the least and at the best gave a spread I suspect as with many situations the facts were buried and are now unavailable something like Kosovo and the purple dress story .
For me in my non uniformed life I rememer the admonishment Turn the other check - once. nothing was said about twice.
Worth reading from a historical perspective as well as it's present day applications.
Now the Crusades again not called for by God were done to stop the genocide of Christian's by the muslim's.. that was good and will be again
The inquisition was short? It was started by Papal Bull in the 12th century, and officially ended in 1813. It was murder for power, and it was fully sanctioned by the church...for power... not a little, but EXACTLY like the muslims today. To deny this is simply sophistry and zealotry. If you really believe, accept the mistakes of the past, and seek heartily not to repeat them.
As I have also said, my Bible scholar friends say there is one case in the Old Testament when Yahweh commanded the Israelites to attack another tribe which, shortly thereafter was lost to history so, the Israelites probably did the job. Let us know if you can find another and, if you would let us know book and verse, so we can see it.
Are you claiming the Spaniards were still torturing Jews to death in 1813? The actual executions lasted a few years and, my source says the Spanish Inquisition resulted in 4 deaths. Guess all those good Catholics were remiss in following the many Pope's orders.
If I really believe what? I really believe what I write. I'm not at all religious. I have no dog in this fight. I have a zeal for the truth and, the truth is Christianity forbids murder but, Islam demands it.
Buddhism forbids murder yet, Thai monks have killed Muslims. Does that mean Buddha secretly told them to do it? Is Buddha tainted by his fallen followers?
Are Christ and Christianity tainted by those who use his name and break his rules? I think not.
The truth is good Muslims, those who follow the Quran kill and enslave non-Muslims. Bad Muslims don't. That's all I have ever said.
If you can come up with a list of all those killed in the Spanish Inquisition, as an amateur historian, I'd be interested. My sources say 4. Maybe yours can come up with more.
Your assertion that the christian bible does not command the believers to kill is completely false. In addition, I don't know about you, but the idea of distributing the virgins sounds a little like a special kind of slavery to me. You need a new biblical "scholar".
There are more, but you go find them, and stop quoting what's his name. While you are at it, actually read some of what the quran actually says. It is equally contradictory, but includes such phrases as:
"2:62 - Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (faith), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
Regarding the inquisition:
On 26 July 1826 school teacher Cayetano Ripoll was condemned and executed in Spain for teaching deist principles. Yes, it went on into the 1800's.
The Alhambra Decree, the Edict of Expulsion (of Jews from Spain) was not formally abolished until 1968.
Here is one site, taking your side of the argument that claims the inquisition killed only, "...between 3,000 and 5,000".
http://www.strangenotions.com/spanish...
As far as 4 names, here are five:
One well known death is the monk, Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy after having a spike driven through his palate and tongue, lest he no longer tempt others. He believed in heliocentricism (the earth rotates around the sun)...like Galileo, and everyone today.
Pomponio Algerio
Cesare Corte
Garcia de Orta (burned along with 342 others)
Francesco Calcagno (outwardly gay)
There are 6 (or 348), right out of Wikipedia.
The word in Italian for fennel, finiccio, is a present-day idiom for gay people. Why? Because when gays were found they were burned at the stake, and fennel was used to cover the smell of burning flesh. Maybe four peoples caused this cultural idiom, and maybe you'd like to buy a bridge in NY. The idea that four, a few or less than thousands were killed in the inquisition is an outrageous, unsupported position, that in no way supports your assertion of a "...zeal for the truth".
Christians persecuted and killed mormons and amish peoples in the US years ago, and they kill people in abortion clinics today.
What you are saying now is that real muslims are killers, and real christians and buddhists are not. Smells a little like a common fallacy of logical argument ...what is it...no true Scottsman? The assertion does not stand the test of history, or even present behavior, nor is it well supported in the texts.
I take no issue with islam being a problem, particularly in misleading poor persons to seek more by persons using religion for power. This is true.
However, it is completely false, that the same has not been done by christians seeking to maintain power by persecuting others for their personal definition of heresy (simply meaning you don't properly believe in my invisible friend). This is false, and denying it sets the world up for a repeat performance.
But, as I say over and over again to you, Christ forbade violence so, Christians who engage in violence aren't following their religion. Christ forbade judgement, saying judgement is the lords so, those who condemn gays aren't following their Christian religion.
Islam demands judgement and violence. Those who don't engage in violent Jihad aren't following their religion.
I've lived amongst the Christians and lived amongst the Muslims and, I prefer the Christians.
As to the first two statements, you do say them over and over, but, and have been wrong about the facts over and over, and you have not otherwise supported your assertions.
Yet another example: "...those who condemn gays aren't following their christian religion". The catholic church still condemns gays via essentially excommunication. Perhaps you mean something than "condemn", like "murder". However, the catholic church will come around soon enough, to keep their roles up, just like it recently supported socialism to gather more support in the third world (laughable for the richest religious institution in the world). None of this has anything to do with the word of their invisible friend. It is about power.
Here is something entertaining to help you understand the evil in the church. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nCa...
Here are my points on bad religion.
1. They are all bad, because they exclude the ability to openly discuss, debate and change with that which is sacred.
2. We have to have them around for now, because some people need them...may always be a few, but thank goodness there are fewer now than 50 or 100 years ago.
3. Because of point 1, religion can NEVER be allowed to be the basis of government. This is a big problem for muslims, perhaps THE problem for muslims.
The next step in your assertion that muslims must kill to be muslims, is that they can not be allowed to fall into the category outlined in point 2 above. Why are muslims not allowed to modernize their religion, making allegory from the words of Muhammed, just like the christians and jewish have done with the words of Jesus and god. Are jewish still jewish if they do not keep kosher?
It is wholly acceptable to tell the muslims to cut this killing out (or else) and to police their own ranks (or else). It is not acceptable to tell them they are not allowed to become part of the modern world, just like the christians did many times over when they accepted basic science or natural rights instead of rote dogma. (e.g. heliecentrisism, creationism, slavery, women's place, on and on).
I agree muslim behavior is bad, and the violence is unacceptable. The Government and O-dumbassl should call a spade a spade, and either require these countries governments to fix their practices, or remove them, only when they trespass, in a manner reimbursing us for the need to do so. However, only one conclusion can come from your assertion that muslims must kill. We either eliminate muslims by isolation (ineffective), conversion (maybe with a lot of education and $) or extermination (effective, but immoral). I think telling them they can only be a part of the real world and trade with those that have real $ and technology when they moderate (just like our nutty religions) and police their own (just like we do) is the only reasonable path forward.
If we claim the Right of Association, we must respect the Right of individual Associations, meaning not only businesses but religions, etc. to state their own rules about inclusion and honor them. It doesn't matter whether we like them or not. No one has the right to force any other Association to change their rules of membership.
One of the big differences between Islam and Christianity, however, is that Christianity claims the privilege of excommunication or denial of Association while Islam claims the right of corporal punishment. Christianity does not claim to be both secular AND religious authority. Islam does. That to me is a major and significant difference.
"Here are my points on bad religion.
1. They are all bad, because they exclude the ability to openly discuss, debate and change with that which is sacred."
That is certainly your opinion to hold, but again, what we must go back to is the Right of Association and who is allowed to set those conditions for Association. Your basic disagreement here is that you want to be able to change the rules of association. Most religions simply say that they (human beings) aren't the ones who set the rules and therefore have no authority to change them.
You also assume that the principles upon which anything called "religion" are not actually the correct principles in the first place. This is an incredibly broad and borderline argument. I'd strongly suggest that instead, one focus on deriving critical principles first and eliminating organizations which follow incorrect principle as being invalid.
"3. Because of point 1, religion can NEVER be allowed to be the basis of government. This is a big problem for muslims, perhaps THE problem for muslims."
You miss the point entirely. Government must be based on correct principles to be valid. The issue with Sharia and Islam is that they hold certain principles which are antithetical to natural law. That is why a government based on Sharia is a problem. There have been governments all throughout history which have been very successful and very powerful all based on a variety of religious creeds.
The Old Testament is a chronological history with commentary, not an order to commit mass murder.
The New Testament consistently commands Christians to be nonviolent.
As I have said repeatedly and people on this board have repeatedly, purposely ignored in order to argue their own pet issues, my thesis has only to do with religion, not with churches or individuals. Christianity clearly advocates nonviolence toward nonbelievers. Islam clearly demands violence toward nonbelievers. If you can debunk that, fine. If you have some other question to debate, start your own thread. Please, please, please, please. Go away and argue your pet questions somewhere else.
1) "The actual executions lasted a few years and, my source says the Spanish Inquisition resulted in 4 deaths."
2) "...there is one case in the Old Testament when Yahweh commanded the Israelites to attack another tribe..."
3) "...those who condemn gays aren't following their Christian religion."
I offered you an easy way out of #3, but you rather you want to argue the bible doesn't instruct execution to gays. Maybe. I only asserted it and the church condemns the practice, and catholic church excommunicates them.
You are welcome to admit error, and start over with your new assertion, but you do not get to pose a new argument until you finish the last one.
PS - I told my old buddy Blarman, I was ready to let this nonsense drop, but if you want to keep playing, bring your lunch junior...and your "scholarly" bible advisors.
Had you visited the several websites supplied by myself and others here, you'd have far less confidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality. The explanations for Sodom and those involving Gaius in particular seem to clear the issue. I'm only interested in what the religion itself commands, not what a church run by a man born a millennia after Christ died commands.
So far no one has come forward with multiple verses in the Old Testament commanding the Israelites murder a particular class of person, like homosexuals or nonbelievers. My Jewish friends say there is one, they assured me it's there but, didn't give me the book and verse.
I'm more informed on the Inquisition. The Catholic Church's representatives in Spain apparently killed approximately as many people in 200 years as the Muslims killed when they took Jerusalem in the first hour but, there's nothing in the Bible telling Christians to kill nonbelievers, in fact, the New Testament commands them to do the opposite.
So, once again, my premise is about Islam, the religion as stated in the Quran. Others (you not the least) have dragged Christianity into this but, if you insist on talking about Christianity it must be the religion itself, the Bible, not a crazed Pope who kills Jews or some goofball in Missouri who kills Mormons. If you can find Bible verses that tell Christians to kill Jews or Mormons, I'm interested, otherwise i consider your contribution here a waste of time and your mention of blarman in support of yourself a slander against him.
I did not say the bible instructed christians to kill gays. I said the bible condemns them, simply refuting your unsupported assertion using the No True Scottsman fallacy. My statement is supported by the catholic church's past and present interpretation of the bible. Your statement is a recent, less literal and modern interpretation, where the bible is not the "literal word of god", but more than a story written by wise men a long time ago. Great. On to islam.
Islam is ~600 years younger than christianity. Additionally, islam has not benefited from open dissent, evaluation and argument in a free and wealthy society for hundreds of years. People offer chrisianity the benefit of hundreds of years of open discourse in rich society where the participants have been protected by law. Now the dogma has become allegory, molded to what has been logically concluded acceptable by society, and it seems so reasonable. Well of course it does.
So when do we offer muslims the same benefit. First 600 years of religious evolution, and second hundreds of years of open dialog, discussion and argument, allowing the purveyors of dogma to back away from their untenable positions.
If one wants to argue, the present behavior of christians is less violent than that of present muslims, ok.
If one wants to argue, that islam is fundamentally violent, and christianity is not, that is completely debunked by history. With respect to present behavior: What I hear is 1) present christians aren't as violent as muslims. 2) The new testament, says not to kill, so the old testament is overcome. 3) The quran says to kill in some places. Therefore, islam is fundamentally violent and christianity is not. This is flawed logic.
Listen to yourself. "...not a crazed pope killing jews or some goofball in Missouri who kills kills mormans..." You reject overwhelming evidence of christian-inspired violence in favor of your own (or a few around you) interpretation of the bible. However, you offer islam no such benefit. This is unfair, illogical and precisely the kind of argument used to support genocide.
The problem with all religion is that faith offers absolutes, and logic need not apply. This allows institutions to manipulate populations and individuals to take extreme positions outside logical social behavior. The only difference between christianity, islam et al is external pressure from freedom and economic position of the groups.
I have no idea what you are talking about WRT to slander of Blarman.
The Quran progresses from tolerance to intolerance chronologically and, after the contradictions became too many to ignore, Muhammad instituted the principle of abrogation: the earlier verses are made invalid by chronologically later verses. Muhammad and is scribes made this less accessible by reorganizing the Quran into nonchronological order. Quranic scholars know the true chronological order and thus, know which verses remain true and which were made null by Muhammad's later revelations. As Muhammad's military success expanded and he became more martial, his revelations became less tolerant until, by his later years ALL the peaceful, we can live together, let's be tolerant verses were made null. His final revelation was Muslims must enslave or rid the earth of all infidels. That is the final, lasting, only verse that matters, core of the Quran and Islam.
Now, tell me something useful. Is there a way to prevent a specific member from posting on a specific thread? Does the Gulch make it possible for me to exclude you from future discussions and prevent you from hijacking my future posts?
This one was only about the limitations imposed on Muslims by the Quran, the literal, unchangeable, uneditable, unreinterpretable word of Allah. You've chosen to make it about the Catholic Church. I have no expertise in or desire to talk about the Catholic Church but, every time I try to get the discussion back to the Quran, you go off the rails again.
So, if you want to teach me something, tell me how to exclude you from future discussions. If not, let's simply agree to ignore each other. I haven't sought you out or tried to hijack your posts, please do me the same courtesy and we'll be fine, coexisting in the same digital world but, apart. :)
If you pick a subject other than religion, I suspect you and I will not bang heads so much :)
Funny Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSq...
Stoic Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true...
No one ever claimed the Bible to be the literal word of God. Questioning and debating the truth of Christ's life and works was and still is the order of the day. That's why humans could spend 300 years writing and rewriting it before it ended up as we know it now.
Muhammad claimed to be delivering the exact, unaltered, undiluted word of Allah via the angel Gabriel so, it can't be changed. An Islamic reformation isn't possible because, suggesting any change at all is apostasy, punishable by death.
I try to be precise about my premises. I'm not talking about churches, I'm talking about religions. People who represent themselves as Christians but commit murder are lying so, for my argument, they don't count. People who call themselves Muslims but don't commit murder are lying so, for my argument, they don't count. Additionally, when Muslims that do murder get the chance, they kill the Muslims that don't. Even Muslims agree with me, they must murder or else, they're not Muslims.
I don't advocate any of the things you mention. I don't think they'd be effective. Actually, they've been tried already and haven't worked. My idea is very different. After wandering around the Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, and animist worlds for decades I've learned people are the same, especially young people. They do what they grow up learning to do. That's where I see an opportunity, young people.
I've done a little treatment on the idea but, friends have given mixed signals on the treatment. Some want me to cut it short, some want it expanded. It needs editing either way. Give me a few days to revise it and I'll give you the URL or post it here so you can read it.
Don't know why I bother, but WRT the catholic (and christians of convenience) view of gays, it is a derivative of various passages from roamans, corinthians and leviticus. Interesting choice for christian organized religions where the rules of the old testament are considered "guidelines" in deference to the new light of the new testament.
The rest is more unsupported assertions....convenient, but irrelevant. Somehow you found your way here, with your new special ideas, but starting with "four names of people killed in the inquisition", I feel like I'm arguing with a nine year old.
Please do present your new ideas in a new post.
I ask people for information because the world is too big, there is too much for anyone to know it all. The Bible is over 800,000 words and, it was written in different languages. I'm not going to read it and in particular, I'm not going to learn Greek to read it. Latin was enough.
I'm still not convinced the Bible condemns gays and, even if somewhere someone who wrote one of the books of the Bible claims gays won't get into heaven, he still doesn't order them to be killed. A Christian telling me I can't get into heaven would hurt me only as much as if I were to tell you you're pigheaded would hurt you. These are insults, not assaults. They only hurt as much as we let them.
I suggest you read this, by a gay theologian who claims Christianity does not condemn homosexuals: He may be right, or may be wrong but, even he can't find a clear cut call for Christians to kill gay people. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-ni...
I'd say his case supports my assertion, Christianity is a passive religion that condemns violence. Islam is a code of conquest that demands violence.
That is all I have asserted and so far, no one has been able to prove it wrong. They always resort to altering my premises to fit their arguments. Looking at you bud.
1. The Mosaic Law was built to be not only a religious code of conduct, but the basis for a governmental code as well. The Israelites were their own people and government. The religious authorities were also the legal authorities, so there was inevitably going to be overlap in jurisdiction. The notion of a secular society did not exist in their day - it is a much more recent development. You may disagree with this combination of roles or the values themselves, but it is history and to attempt to portray it as something it was not is disingenuous. Their religious values were very much intertwined with their legal code.
2. If one is looking at Mosaic Law, one should understand that the Israelites themselves denied the first set of rules brought down from the Mount by Moses - the rules Christ later brought back. It is entirely proper for New Testament proclamations to override Old Testament ones. Such was the case of the woman taken in adultery and brought before Christ. The rulers thought to trap Christ by adhering to the letter of the Law, forgetting entirely the spirit of it. When He reminded them of the spirit of the law, they recused themselves and walked away, condemned by their own consciences. But the entirety of the story also needs to be brought out: the commandment to the woman to "Go, and sin no more." There was no condemnation of the woman, but there was no tolerance of her acts either.
3. People were free to leave the association of the nation of Israel. It was a rare occurrence because it meant forsaking one's heritage, one's way of life, and one's potential for inheritance. If we claim to respect natural rights, we must accept freedom of association as one of those.
4. The peoples of the land into which the people of Israel traveled were asked to permit them passage. Very few were amiable. Most attacked the Israelites as soon as they had opportunity. What should also be understood is that Israel was commanded to keep themselves apart from the pagan traditions and rituals of the other peoples in those areas. Many worshiped idols or groves of trees. Some sacrificed their own children by burning them to death. Israel was commanded to leave nothing like that standing for several reasons. First, it was a warning to the Israelites themselves not to participate in these practices. Second, it was a warning to other nations. But before one summarily condemns those laws, one must do significant historical research into the times and the peoples of 2000-3000 BC. To say that they lived by significantly different rules than the ones we enjoy nowadays is an understatement.
Regarding Numbers 31, don't cherry pick. Read the entire chapter. Israel was supposed to destroy the entire people. They didn't, and ended up compromising their principles. The entire Old Testament is an example of a nation with high standards who didn't live up to them time and time again. To hold up ancient Israel as a paragon of virtue is to ignore the lessons of history. Ancient Israel was not a nation to emulate. They were an example to all mankind of the failure to meet high standards.
"Christians persecuted and killed mormons and amish peoples in the US years ago, and they kill people in abortion clinics today."
And when they do so, are they following the words of Christ? If Obama claimed himself to be an Objectivist, would any who was a true Objectivist actually consider them an Objectivist? No, nor should they. Just like any other sect or philosophy, there are principles and there is practice. One should never confuse the two.
1. ...but we refuse to offer muslims the same benefit of learning secularism, allegory and moderation.
2,3,4 - are not arguments. They are responses to simple statements of fact from the bible refuting ridiculous falsehoods asserted earlier (e.g. "The bible only has one reference to killing..."). Before you argue with me, go back and read what was said, and make sure you really disagree with the facts. If you want a separate argument about the how to interpret "Kill every man woman, child, infant..." please do make a separate argument, but there is NO question that there are many more than one place god tells his people to kill, period.
Last sentence..."no true Scottsman", again in the same thread. Maybe you and Wanderer should read what that is. Apparently none of you "real" christians would do the things the church leadership demands and gobs of other "christians" have done, because we should trust in your interpretation of dogma. Maybe we should just allow a little gun control too, because "they" just want to control the "bad" guys. We should just trust all the "real" christians, but not any muslims. I ask a simple question. "Would you ask god for his ID if he told you to kill your first born, like he did Abraham, or would you just do it?"
If you are going to tell me, that the word of god is yours alone to interpret, I say, fine for you, but not for anyone else. You may NOT base a logical argument on faith, ever.
" there is NO question that there are many more than one place". Then cite them. You are trying to put into your terms and based on your perspective things that happened four thousand years ago - in a different land with different laws and customs. MichaelAarethun put together a very detailed argument outlining an extensive list of scriptural passages regarding the issue. It was excellent and I'd refer you to it.
"Apparently none of you "real" christians would do the things the church leadership demands and gobs of other "christians" have done"
No, I wouldn't. Want to know why? Because the "christian" church that Christ founded apostatized shortly after it was created. By the advent of the Nicene Council in 423 AD it had lost all power and all authority to be called Christ's Church. The Catholic Church initiated a procedure called indulgences where priests would "forgive" sins in exchange for money. If you think I support that, you're gravely mistaken. The Catholic Church was responsible for the execution of William Tindale whose crime was to translate the Bible into English and publish it for the common man. They also persecuted Galileo for pointing out that they had taken upon themselves the mantle of God by proclaiming that the Earth was the center of the universe. I won't even go into the ridiculous assertions of the current Pope. I don't hold it against anyone who looks at the Catholic Church and then wonders why anyone would be a Christian - and that very pointedly includes Ayn Rand. I simply tell you that the whole reason for the Enlightenment was that suddenly people began to read the Bible for themselves and questioned the hegemony of the Catholic Church and its teachings because they did not match the Bible. And so people like Martin Luther, Roger Williams, and many others left the Catholic Church. I do not defend the Catholic Church nor its actions of the past 1600+ years. I also do not confuse that entity with Christianity.
"Would you ask god for his ID if he told you to kill your first born, like he did Abraham, or would you just do it?"
Did you even read the rest of that story either? The whole point of that exercise was to show an example of the future sacrifice of Christ to all of Abraham's posterity. Have I personally ever been asked to do something and not known why at the time? Yup. And if you'd like to know more I'll tell you in a private thread.
What really galls me in these topics is the continued assertion of guilt by association. It's why I don't deal with sects and stick with principles. Identify the principle in play. Identify whether or not it is correct/accurate/real and then we know what to look for.
CAN YOU READ?
We were all done with this discussion weeks ago. Do you know what a troll is?
Yes a troll is one that looks to start false debt, much like you did.
Maybe you can get a part in the next hobbit movie
Well, like I and others said elsewhere in this string is posts: 1) the bible has way more than one place supporting killing; 2) the actions of the churches and religious individuals well-support my assertion; 3) the "no true Scottsman" argument is a fallacy.
If you have a real logical argument to present, do so. If you just have some christian axe to grind, you are in the wrong place.
Killing is different then murder; you must understand that correct?
The Word of God misused by man does not weaken the Word, I have no more 'ax' to grind then those misquoting the Bible or making incorrect statements about it.
the topic sentence by you was: "Really? The Old Testament prohibits MURDER? Better read it again."
Maybe we should discuss your verbiage?
You want to assert that muslims are simply blood thirsty as a documented whole, but only recent behavior by well-to-do christians and poor muslims separate the overall actions of either. I assert they are both 1) easily misled, 2) historically overwhelmingly killing for power, and 3) the texts of both support mortal behavior in vague manners (way beyond one statement, and definitely one-sided interns of exoneration).
If you want to support an argument that all true muslims are murderers, you need to start all the way back and exonerate all the christians first. As I have repeatedly explained, the "no true Scottsman" fallacy is wholly inadequate, and trying to begin with a new, virgin, modern-context literal interpretation of the bible is simply a conveinent definition of a new religion, not a defense of christianity.
Vague notes about "misquoting the bible" or making "incorrect statements about it" are just obfuscating irrelevant noise.
Make an assertion and support it with logically applied facts or end this discussion.
Now speaking of the qur'an; it contains at least 109 verses which demands Muslims to go to war with nonbelievers [Kafir (singular)/Kuffar (plural)/People of the Book (Christian and Jew)] for the Islamic rule of the world.
Some being quite graphic, commanding them to chop off heads, fingers [ever heard or seen this in the news?] and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.
Now to speak to your 'so-called' nice muslims; those that DO NOT join the fight either through action, funding, lying or protecting those that are fighting directly are called 'hypocrites'. These people are warned that allah WILL SEND THEM TO HELL if they do not take part in the several forms of 'jihad'.
I do understand your ignorance of the several books of islam; qur'an, hadith, sira and laws in sharia; I mean why read and learn when you can speak just as confidently from a position of ignorance. But, the qur'an unlike nearly all [all but one] of the Old Testament verses regarding any act of violence, these verses calling for violence in the Quran are almost all open-ended; understanding that this may be confusing to you, let me further explain, meaning they aren't confined by the historical context referred to in the surrounding text They are the main piece of the 'eternal' word of allah, of course as told to the illiterate one [Moe] by Gabriel and they remain just as relevant to interpretation as anything else in the qur'an, more so then those that came before them such as the 'Meccah,' verses do to Moe's claim of 'abrogation'.
Now it is highly possible the uneducated in islamic writings not understand what 'Moe' meant of 'abrogation' or in layman's terms nullification of earlier verses when used with or in confusion with later verses such as verses
3:56 "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
2:191-193 "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief of allah or worshiping of any other] and worship is for Allah alone.
4:76 "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From worshiping any other but allah alone). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
8:59-60 "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (allah's purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy, [enemy is anyone that believe's in anything BUT allah as the only god], of allah and your enemy."
8:65 "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
9:5 "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
As you may have noticed, I have some verses out of numerical order. This order was purposely done to point out that the qur'an is not written in historical or chronological order and this was purposely done by the 'writers' of the book; SPOILER ALERT it was written after Moe's death, a horrendously painful and humiliating death at the hands of a 'Jewess' [Jewish female]. This is classic God as Moe treated women as do all muslim men as second or third class citizens and the fact that Moe like Hitler hated the Jewish people. For Moe to die at the hands of a Jewess is yet another classic move showing Moe wasn't anything to the One True God!
Now there is a word for those that try to help muslims without being one; they are called 'dhimmi's'; a dhimmi is a non-Muslim who goes along with Islam and even defends Islam while never reading any of Islam’s source texts.
An examples of what is known as 'dhimmitude' [the action] are Ministers, Priests, Popes, Rabbis and President's who attend multicultural meetings with imams and SAY THEY WORSHIP THE SAME god, or when schools fail to teach the history of 270,000,000 murdered in jihad, these schools are acting as dhimmis for islam.
If you would like to continue puffing out your empty chest; I welcome the opportunity to continue educating you and those other readers here.
May the One True God [YHWY] bless all His children; even those children that do not know Him yet.
Do you resort to childish insults like "empty chest" and "ignorance" because the argument you cling to is a thread?
Thus far, you have educated a number here that you are a zealot. The he loud (capital) words, insults and week-long studying to respond, do nothing to offset silly "spoiler alerts". Guess what? The gospels of the new testament was also written hundreds of years after Jesus death. Surprise!
You can keep your one true god, all his man-created dogma, the easter bunny and the belief that all the people killed in his name are not due to faith. None of it is logic. None of it is supported by the actions of the followers and religious leaders.
Religion too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2...
Not so many jokes about logic, except it is boring.
The relationships under Obama have become more twisted than a strand of DNA. If what Wanderer says is true, there's a heluva lot of deluded people out there. Didn't they ever learn about "sticks and stones?" Invective doesn't carry with it 9mm clips. Although, Christians should make sure that their words don't carry violence, just as we ask Muslims the same.
I have a perfectly straight face and can do the same for fully automatic revolvers or silenced/supressed revolvers.
Christians can carry such items as long as they aren't Democrats as the combination would probably be too much of a load.
For me, its certainly takes too much time to perform a litmus test on all muslims to see an individual stands.
When it comes to humanitarian acceptance of muslim immigrants, I say we stop it now until that litmus test can be figured out. The stakes are just too high.
Its time to call a spade a spade. Obama is an idiot. He is supposed to protect us, not endanger us.
Islam without the elements of totalitarianism and strict adherence to the words of Muhammad would not be radical. Remove the adjective and you imply that all Muslims who practice their religion in any manner are evil.
The position of Islam is: The Holy Quran is the word of Allah transcribed accurately in every detail and thus, cannot be revised, nor can Muslims pick and choose between its verses. It's all or death.
I respect the Jihadi's for being honest. They are doing exactly what their religion orders them to do. Just as I don't respect Christians who lie cheat and steal, I don't respect people who say they are Muslims but, don't participate in Jihad. Muslims who don't kill are as hypocritical as are Christians who do kill.
I simply don't understand why someone swears allegiance to a book and religion but, doesn't follow the instructions in that book and of that religion. I tend to think of them as either hypocrites or liars. Since Islam orders them to lie about their faith, I assume most Muslims who aren't yet Jihadis are simply exercising taqiiya prior to becoming Jihadis.
Islam didn't. But that doesn't mean that many Muslims don't practice it in a more modern, non-evil manner. Thus non-radical elements exist.
My Jewish friends tell me there is only one place in the entire Old Testament where Yahweh instructs the Israelites to attack anyone.
Please point out anything in the New Testament that resembles Christ telling us to be violent. If you can't find anything (and I don't believe you will because it doesn't exist) then please rethink your position on Islam vs Christianity. They are and always have been opposites.
2nd, there are sites all over talking about Christian violence in the past. One quote:
"Jesus in the New Testament is very violent: he promises to kill or subjugate all of his enemies, which includes those whose only crime is to refuse to believe in him."
3rd, you ignored the main point re. radical vs non-radical Muslim.
My Jewish friends are Old Testament scholars. I am not. They say in one place in the many books of the Old Testament, Yahweh orders the Israelites to attack another tribe.
Christ is the guy who said "turn the other cheek", the guy who ordered his disciples not to fight. I've read the New Testament and cannot think of a single verse that advocates violence of any kind.
So, if you can find Biblical orders or even permissions to perpetrate violence on others, please lay them out for us here.
No, I address the point of radical vs non-radical Muslims. Remember the title of the piece; "There Is No Such Thing As Radical Islam"? Islam orders its adherents to engage in violent Jihad. Quran: V.4:95,96: (The Book of Jihad) "Not equal are those of believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled, and those who strive hard and fight in furthering Allah's cause." And from the Hadith: A man came to Muhammad and said "Oh Allah's Messenger! If I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad." The man was blind so, Allah sent down the revelation to His Messenger that all must engage in Jihad except those who are blind or lame or disabled."
So, you see, it is demanded of every able bodies Muslim to engage in violence against all non-Muslims.
Find a place in the Bible where Christ commands his believers to commit violence against non-believers and I'll concede your point. If you can't find Christ's orders to do violence, then you should concede mine: Christianity as taught in the Bible and Islam as taught in the Quran are opposites.
Introduction
This study examines the Biblical view of self-defense. We're looking at questions such as, Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?
Self-defense here is defined as "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we speak about using potentially lethal force in self-defense, we're talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.
Now why in the world would we take time to look at this subject? First, as Christians, we want to know how to apply the Bible to current issues in society. We live in a country with approximately 250 million guns and approximately 300 million people. Furthermore, in our country, it is estimated that law abiding citizens defend themselves using guns approximately one million to two million times a year. Almost 200,000 people in this state alone have a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun. What does the Bible have to say about that many guns actively being used for self-protection?
We live in a time where the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, current possibilities of economic and societal collapse, and crime have people buying guns and ammunition in large quantities for self protection. What does the Bible say about that? What does the Bible say about so-called "assault weapons"?
As always, we want our hearts and minds to be ruled and informed by Scripture--not by our emotions, not by our experiences, and certainly not by the World. And because the Scriptures have much to say about this topic, it is relevant and worth examining in the Church.
The focus of this study is specific. I am not dealing with whether lethal force can legitimately be used in wartime. I am not dealing with capital punishment. I am not dealing with Biblical principles involved in the American Revolution or the War Between the States.
This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.
The Biblical Obligation to Preserve Life
We begin by first looking at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life--our own lives and the lives of other people. 1 Corinthians 6:19f teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His property and so we are not permitted to treat or destroy them as we please:
19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; 20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Co 6:19-20 ASV)
Not only are we to take care of our bodies and the life contained. We have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger:
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:
Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.
Ezekiel 33 is a well-known passage:
Ezekiel 33 "... 6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'
If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims. This is not to say that you can make people heed your warning. The surrounding verses also say that if the people refuse to heed the warning of the watchmen, the watchman is not guilty if they are harmed.
We also see principles in Mosaic law teaching that if we fail to guard the lives of others, we are guilty. In Deuteronomy 22:8, if someone falls from your roof, and you failed to install a safety fence around the edge, you would be held liable for the death of that person. Likewise, in Exodus 21:29-31, if a man has an ox which is prone to harm people, the owner is held liable if he fails to confine it and the ox harms or kills others. If the ox harms someone, the negligent owner is fined. If the ox kills someone, the negligent owner is to be put to death.
The principle could hardly be stated more forcefully: you must protect your life and the lives of others.
The Biblical View of Bloodshed
So we see we have a Biblical obligation to protect life. Now let's look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. When we come to this topic, we enter an area that requires cultural re-calibration. As you read through the Old and New Testaments, it's very clear that real blood, from animals as well as humans, has a significance not recognized in modern American culture. We must adjust our perception of blood to fit God's view of blood.
Let's look at some relevant passages and contrast them with what our culture thinks about bloodshed.
Genesis 9:5-6
Genesis 9:5-6 5 And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man.
These words come in the days of Noah. This is pre-Mosaic law. Don't think this is obsolete thinking from the Mosaic law.
If a man was killed, the man or beast who caused the death must pay with his/its own life. God says here, "I will require the life of man." Killing or bloodshed was not always wrong. But when it was wrong, the penalty was ultimate.
We learn here that there is sanctity to spilled blood. Why? Two reasons:
1) Life is precious, and the life is in the blood. When blood is shed, something precious is lost. You might not think blood is precious. We tend to consider blood to be just a "bodily fluid". It is, however, precious to God.
2) An attack on man is an attack on the image of God. At a trivial level, you're messing with sculptures in God's art studio. In God's view of bloodshed, it is not merely a physiological event, but it is an assault on the divine image. Why is murder punishable by death? It says, "For in the image of God made He man."
David
We learn more about God's view of bloodshed from David. David is a man who loved God and who was loved by God. God raised him up to defend Israel. God sent David to physically fight to defend Israel. When David killed Goliath and Philistines in battles, it was at God's command. They were righteous killings. Now, with that understanding, let's look at a few passages:
1 Chronicles 28:3 "But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name, because you have been a man of war and have shed blood.'
1 Chronicles 22:8 But the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build a house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
David wants to build a house for the Lord. This is a good desire. But God says, "David, you are disqualified from doing this." Why? Not because of the murder of Uriah. Not because of his adultery with Bathsheba. It is because of the wars, and because David had
"shed much blood upon the earth in my sight." David had killed men in the sight of God, and that disqualified him from this spiritual service.
But wasn't David obeying God in engaging in these wars? Yes. Did David sin in shedding this blood? No. But shedding blood is so significant to God that David was unfit to for certain "ministries".
Killing someone is not a light thing. Our culture casually depicts killing. In television, movies, and video games, killing, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate killing, is portrayed with such a frequency that most people are relatively desensitized to it.
Here is the bottom line: Shedding blood, taking the life of another, is a big deal. Your life is forfeit if you wrongfully take the life of another. Even if you take life in a permitted manner, it is serious enough that it can disqualify you from certain types of spiritual service. Even if you are the "good guy", you are "marked" in the eyes of God. I didn't say you are guilty. I am merely showing that God viewed Godly David differently because David had killed men (though righteously).
Bloodshed must have the same significance to us. It is never a light thing, even if you are in the right, even if you do it righteously.
As we move on, I want to ask this question: Does the believer have an obligation to resist evil and to protect life? Think about it.
Having looked at the obligation to preserve life, and the Biblical view of bloodshed, let's now look at passages dealing with self-defense and the use of lethal force.
Old Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense
We start in the Ten Commandments.
Exodus 20:13
Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.
Murder is wrong. This means the premeditated killing of others is wrong. Killing in a fit of emotion is also wrong and is prohibited here. But as we will see later, accidently taking the life of another is wrong. We must do all that we can to avoid it and stay as far away as possible from taking life.
Having stated this prohibition, let's look at some of the qualifiers to this prohibition.
Leviticus 24:16-17
Leviticus 24:16-17 16 'And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death. 17 ' Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death.
From verse 17, we see that "killing" was a crime requiring capital punishment. "Killing" here is defined above. But note that not all killing is wrong. In the immediately preceding verse 16, there were times (such as in civil judgments) in which "killing" was commanded and sanctioned. Blasphemers were to be killed. Likewise, in verse 17 itself it commands that "whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death." So we already see two qualifiers to the command "thou shalt not kill."
Killing a man in capital punishment for murder or blasphemy was permissible.
We saw earlier in the examples of the ox and the roof that if you caused someone's death through your negligence, you were also deserving of capital punishment. So, killing a man for causing negligent death was permissible.
Exodus 21:12-15, Numbers 35:6-34, and Deuteronomy 19:1-13
Exodus 21:12-15, Numbers 35:6-34, and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 give further qualifications to the prohibition to kill. Here the Lord deals with accidental killing where there is no negligence.
God defines accidental killing this way in Deut. 19:4: "...whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past...". It even gives an example: "as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies".
These passages establish the cities of refuge. If you are not familiar with the system described here, I commend it for your study.
God says here, if you commit unintentional killing--that is, if you accidently kill someone, and it is not motivated by anger or hatred, and there is no negligence involved--then your life is forfeited. You are guilty of killing and could be put to death by the avenger of blood, but there is a way of escape. If you committed accidental killing, and there was no negligence, you would not be put to death if you fled to one of the designated cities of refuge.
This is like house arrest. In fact, it is stronger than house arrest! Number 35:25ff says that if you wander out of the city of refuge, you may be put to death if the avenger of blood finds you. The person guilty of accidental killing had to stay in a city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Then he was free to return home. (By the way, this is a beautiful picture of Christ's work—Christ, the city of refuge in whom we must remain hidden! And Christ is the high priest whose death takes our guilt and sets us free.)
It shows that killing someone accidently, with no malice, without negligence, made your life forfeit. It was almost as serious as murder in God's eyes. God makes a merciful provision, but it did not remove the fact that you were worthy of death for unintentional killing.
Premeditated, intentional killing, as well as killing in passion, was absolutely forbidden. Such a one had no protection in the cities of refuge and was to be handed over and put to death (Ex. 21:14f, Deut. 19:11ff, Num 35:16ff ).
This far, we see that killing someone out of 1) hatred, 2) negligence, or 3) sheer accident were subject to capital punishment. In the case of sheer accident without negligence, God established a network of cities of refuge which made merciful provision to spare the life of the killer. With that important background, let's look at passages speaking about victims of crime.
Exodus 22:2-3
Exodus 22:2-3 2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. 3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed.
There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime).
In the second case, it says "if the sun has risen on him", and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed. The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft ("if the thief"). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.
In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crime—assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.—different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) as was murder.
Matthew Henry writes: "...if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it, unless it was in the necessary defense of his own life. ... We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves."
Now let's look at two examples of defending your own life against murderers.
Nehemiah 4:8-23
In Nehemiah 4, Israelites have been sent back from captivity to rebuild Jerusalem. They were rebuilding their lives with the sanction of the civil ruler, King Artaxerxes. This was not a wartime scenario. It was closer to a racial integration scenario where racists wanted to kill them. Think of the KKK threatening black homeowners and students. They are surrounded by people who hate them and want to kill them.
These were citizens, not soldiers. Nehemiah 4:13 says that people stationed "people by families" around the city. These were not trained soldiers or law enforcement officers. They were merely concerned residents and settlers—citizens, not professional soldiers or law enforcement agents.
Note that these families were armed, with "their swords, their spears, and their bows." This is a situation where they are willing to apply lethal force to defend themselves.
Let's briefly discuss swords, spears, and bows. Swords and daggers killed Ehud, Amasa, and eighty priests. At longer ranges, we know bows and slings killed men like Goliath, King Joram, and King Ahab. Spears killed men like Asahel, Absaolm, the Israelite man and the Midianitish woman, and many others. These are handguns, shotguns, and rifles. These are implements of lethal force. In fact, at close range, a sword is more deadly than a handgun. These ancient weapons are as deadly as their modern counterparts.
Note that they are carrying these weapons for personal defense and civil defense, and that these are "assault weapons", namely, the same types of weapons that armies would use for offensive purposes. And why wouldn't they want assault weapons (for those weapons are the most effective weapons for defending oneself)? Why would you not want to use the best tools available for the task at hand?
Against what are they defending themselves? The crime of unlawful, racist murder. Hate crimes. They are defending their lives and their homes. Nehemiah 4:14 specifically says, "...fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses." It is good and right to defend your family, even using lethal force weapons.
One final observation: In self-defense, these citizens did not merely own weapons. Rather, where they perceived a risk of harm to their persons, they carried their weapons with them, as many people legally carry weapons with them today, for the purpose of self-protection:
Nehemiah 4 17 Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon. 18 As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me. ... 21 So we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared. .... 23 So neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me, none of us removed our clothes, each took his weapon even to the water.
If you live somewhere where you have reason to be concerned about crime, this would be similar to legally carrying a weapon to defend your family, even when running daily errands to the store.
Esther 8-9
The final Old Testament passage we examine is in the book of Esther. Here we have a historical example arranged by Divine Providence. In this account, the Jews are under threat of racial violence. The civil authority, King Ahasuerus, grants them legal permission to use lethal force in self-defense:
Esther 8:11-12 11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives -- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions...
So they have legal sanction to "protect their lives" using ultimate force, much as we do in most parts of this country. They are allowed to "kill and annihilate" in order to "protect their lives." Now, as people under obligation to obey God, not just stay within the civil laws of Ahasuerus, what do the Jews do with this legal freedom?
Esther 9:1-5 ...the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them. 2 The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could withstand them, because fear of them fell upon all people.... 5 Thus the Jews defeated all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, with slaughter and destruction,
We see that given legal sanction to defend their lives with lethal force, they do not choose non-violence. Rather, as it says in verse 11, to "protect their lives", they use the "sword" (verse 5). Here is another example of widespread use of weapons in self-defense—a non-wartime, non-law enforcement scenario.
New Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense
At this point, you may be thinking this is all relegated to Old Testament principles and thinking. Let's turn to some passages in the New Testament dealing with lethal force and self-defense.
Buying and carrying a sword
Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
Here's the context. Picture this. Jesus and his disciples have just had communion. They are about to go to a time of prayer in the garden. Jesus says these words to His disciples, and it's as if they are saying, "Look what we have with us, Lord. Two guns!" Jesus responds, "It is enough."
If you read commentaries on this passage, there are a number of questions which are not clearly answered. There are questions about the applicability of this passage, of the intent of Jesus, of the meaning of His response.
Whatever your interpretation of this passage, there are a few broad-stroke observations we can make about this passage.
Jesus expected them to have swords and anticipated a time when those without swords would need to acquire them.
Among eleven disciples, they did have two swords--in almost a 1:5 ratio.
Jesus expected them to carry the swords on their person as they traveled from the city to the garden prayer meeting.
It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations, but the observations themselves have significance. Namely, among those closest to Jesus, some carried personal weapons in His presence with His consent to communion and to prayer meetings. We cannot make absolute claims as to the reasons, right or, wrong, for the carriage of these weapons. Perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership. Perhaps it was protection against mere robbers. Paul in 2 Cor. 11:26 cites the "perils of robbers". Though there are questions we can't answer, we do know they possessed these weapons, that they carried these weapons, and that Jesus knew and consented. Furthermore, Jesus spoke of some time, present or future, when disciples would need to acquire personal weapons, even more urgently than garments.
The Garden of Gethsemane
Now, the next passage we come to follows these events. Jesus and the disciples are in the garden, and the men come to arrest Jesus. At least two of the disciples are armed, with the knowledge and consent of Jesus. Here is the question: Will they use the sword against the armed multitude which has come against Him? Let's look at the three passages which recount this event.
Luke 22:49-53 (NAS) 49 And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50 And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. 52 And Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber? 53 "While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours."
Matthew 26:51-56 51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
John 18:10-11 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"
In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance." See how this is expressed: "Lord shall we strike with the sword?" "No more of this." "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." "Put up your sword... or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father... all this was done that the Scriptures...might be fulfilled." "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup...?"
Why Christ tells Peter to put up the sword:
Christ is willingly laying down His life, though He has the right to use sword and angelic legions to deliver Himself from this unjust arrest (Luke 22:51, John 18:11).
Those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence (Matt 26:52). The Lord hates the one who "loves violence" (Psalm 11:5).
The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ.
There is greater protection than swords.
Possession of weapons and skills with weapons a good and useful thing
Having looked at a number of passages that deal with weapons and self-defense, let's spend a little time discussing Scripture's view of owning weapons and being skilled in their use. The imagery of weapon use and skill at weapons use is often employed in Scripture, and it is often portrayed as a positive or desirable thing. The Lord's might is something good, and it is often depicted using martial terms (Zec. 9:14, Psa. 7:13, 18:14, 21:12, 64:7, Hab. 3:11, Deu 32:42, 2 Sam 22:15). The Scriptures are a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12). A sword comes out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 1:16, 2:16, 19:15).
Possession of weapons is never discouraged in Scripture. In fact, in 1Sam 13:19ff, it is negatively reported that no spears or swords were found in Israel because of the Philistines:
1 Samuel 13:19-22 9 Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears."... 22 So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. But they were found with Saul and Jonathan his son.
Let's look at two verses from the Psalms:
Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 18:34 He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze
Skill and ability to use weapons here, whether literal and/or metaphorical, is positively portrayed in these verses.
Further, we have accounts of David, not a soldier, not a law enforcement officer, but a youth, employing ranged weapons skillfully (with God's help) against bears and lions. This is domestic use of lethal weaponry, non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by young David are not "kiddie" slingshots. They are powerful enough to kill a bear and lion--in today's market, we're talking about a .44 magnum, not a .22, in the hands of someone too young to be in the army.
We might be tempted to think that was just for dealing with animals that could threaten sheep. But aren't humans worth even more protection than sheep?
We understand that according to Scripture, in matters not of worship or church government, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. I'm not making a claim that ownership of weaponry for the purpose of self-defense is required of the believer. It is not required, but it is permitted by Scripture.
Warnings
Now, let's conclude with some warnings.
Trusting in the sword
First of all, it would be a mistake to leave this class trusting in the sword. Guns, knives, weapons... these are mere tools, and none of these things can guarantee protection, any more than owning a fire extinguisher guarantees that your house won't burn down.
Psalm 44:6-7 For I will not trust in my bow, Nor shall my sword save me. 7 But You have saved us from our enemies, And have put to shame those who hated us.
We see in Nehemiah 4:14 that the people were armed and willing to use their weapons, but they were also trusting in the Lord:
"Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.... 20 "At whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us."
Do not put your trust in weapons. They are tools that are useful, but they are only dead, inanimate tools, at the end of the day.
"...the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD's." (1Sa 17:47 NAS)
Improperly resorting to the sword
Secondly, beware of improperly resorting to the sword. I would hope the passages dealing with the shedding of blood impressed on you the narrow limitations for when it is proper to employ lethal force. It is never to be in hatred, never in revenge, never in jealously. David in his pride nearly murdered Nabal, but Abigail restrained him. David would have killed Nabal...and regretted it.
1 Samuel 25:32 And David said to Abigail, Blessed be Jehovah, the God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me: 33 and blessed be thy discretion, and blessed be thou, that hast kept me this day from bloodguiltiness, and from avenging myself with mine own hand.
Employing potentially lethal force out of anger, hatred, jealously, or revenge is always wrong and is condemned by Scripture.
Here is a warning: If you find that you have anger or self-control problems, owning weapons is unwise. The believer is to be "not soon angry, no brawler, no striker" (Titus 1:7). Lamech is an example of someone who should not own weapons (Gen. 4:23f).
When you are insulted or cursed, when your wife or your mother is insulted or cursed, you are not to resort to violence.
27 But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, 28 bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you. 29 To him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and from him that taketh away thy cloak withhold not thy coat also. 30 Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. (Luk 6:27-30 ASV)
There are a lot of great virtues depicted in the classic westerns. The propensity to break into fistfights or gunfights when honor is insulted is not a virtue. The Lord, not you, is to take vengeance and set things right. An insulting slap in the face is something you can suffer as a Christian.
What if you are badly wronged? What if your wife or daughter is badly wronged? You must stop an attack that is in progress, but afterwards, you must not seek revenge. There is no room for vigilantes.
Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
A wrong admiration for the "man of violence"
Thirdly, do not admire the "man of violence".
Proverbs 3:31-32 Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways. 32 For the crooked man is an abomination to the LORD; But He is intimate with the upright.
Those who resort to violence rather than Godliness are not to be admired. There are many similarities between David and Joab. Both were skilled at killing men, and both had killed many men. Were they both men of violence? Here is the difference: David, first and foremost, sought the Lord, trusted the Lord, and loved the Lord. Why didn't he do violence against Saul? It wasn't because Saul was his father-in-law. Rather, it was because Saul was the Lord's anointed. It was because of David's regard first for the Lord that he would not resort to violence.
On the other hand, Joab, over and over, resorted to the sword to deal with problems. Joab was a man of violence.
Proverbs 1:16 For their feet run to evil, And they make haste to shed blood.
Romans 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Earth was destroyed in the day of Noah because "the earth was filled with violence" (Gen 6:11ff). God hates violence. There is a narrow scope in which it is applied righteously, but it is only because of sin that such skill is necessary.
Beware of influences in your life which would encourage admiration of a Joab rather than a David.
Perspective
Fourthly and finally, keep the right perspective on this. Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember three points. First, in the remainder of the New Testament, we have no further examples of believers taking up the sword. Secondly, the emphasis in the remainder of the New Testament is decidedly not geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel. Thirdly, possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is permitted but not required by Scripture.
Believers should be conscious that personal self-defense is legitimatized by the Scriptures, just as the use of construction tools, cooking tools, transportation tools are legitimized by Scripture. And these matters of self-defense should hold in our minds and in our affections the same position as those other legitimate, but transitory, matters.
The tendency in some circles is to make the topic of self-defense of primary importance. Though heavenly beings do battle and render judgments with the sword, in the perfection pictured in both the garden of Eden and in the Heavenly city, the primary activities are fellowship with God, fellowship with His people, singing in worship, and living in peace.
That is our destination."
For a start.
ing this! Was totally held throughout....Whew!!
Thanks for this.
Lot of good wisdom in there.
You see this is what those that do not read try to do to confuse 'young' Christian's. We must stand on the Word; evil is not Self-Defense, evil is murder, rape, enslavement
Please, obvious non-studier of the Holy Bible; Tell us
My Muslim driver used to drink beer with me but, give him enough beer and the inner Muslim came out. I once asked what he'd do if his imam told him to kill me. He said "If Allah orders me to kill, I kill." It seems always to be about the unthinking obedience to the dying words of a seventh century tribal chief disguised as a religious prophet.
EP82 | Mark interviews Dr Zuhdi Jasser about the fight against Radical Islam
Dr Jasser discusses the American-Muslim fight against Radical Islam in the face of Western ideas of freedom and the theocratic mentality of Islam.
I have more respect for the Jihadis than the apologists. At least the Jihadis are honest.
It would seem that if they got rid of all the stupid violent stuff in the Quran...the book would be half it's size. The funny thing is the OT and some integrations was originally the basis of the Quran...then, somewhere along the way...all this anger, violents, hatred built that faith...if you take all that away...you've got Christianity or Judaism...so why invent something new when the work, the knowledge and the concepts were already their. That's why I think that maybe they did not originally come from the same roots as the rest of us...silly maybe but how else do we explain the differences between us. (of course I am speaking of brain set or the Mind...if some have achieved one.
Read my rather long post on Medium. It gives a humorous take on Islam's founding. The facts are real. That is really how Islam evolved, from a religious scam to a violent conquest. It sounds ridiculous but, it's true. The post is about how I think we might end the Jihad, not by killing them all but, by allowing them to see how ridiculous their founder was.
https://medium.com/@Penseur/ending-th...
.
The launch price was $59 per year. I think they're charging $69 per year now. He does an average of 4 episodes per week. Each episode runs 40 to 60 minutes and usually tackles one subject in depth. He sometimes does hour long interviews with persons of interest. It's not trivial stuff, it's not a call-in show. It's well researched and written.
I hope to see him expand it sometime in the future, maybe get one or more co hosts and do 2 or 3 hours a day. Whether he does or not, it's well worth 30 cents per show.
.
.
.
The fact is that all of islam is extreme...however, all muslims do not follow it extremely...don't know how they ignore all the harm commanded of them but clearly there are a small percentage that do not buy into it. Our problem is how can you tell which is which prior to their commitment of violence.
About 10 years ago I had a Lebanese engineer named Hussein, who seemed happy and easy going until, he married a much younger woman back in Lebanon. He continued working for me in Africa but, each time he went home, when he'd come back he seemed more and more disturbed. He refused to talk to anyone about what was wrong.
After awhile he began spouting Jihad until none of the Westerners could stand to be around him anymore. He eventually came back from leave, very upset, and quit, to kill Israelis.
We never heard from him again. I can't prove he became a Jihadi and, I can't prove it was because of an unhappy marriage but, that was my thought as it was happening. Something was going wrong in his marriage and his way out was to become a martyr.
I think that's the problem with all Muslims. Martyrdom is their way out so, even if they seem nonviolent, if something goes wrong in their lives, their way out is to die while killing infidels.
It's as I said, Muslims fall into three groups: Observing Muslims, Fallen Muslims and practitioners of Taqiiya and, individual Muslims move between these groups as their lives and circumstances change so...
...none of them are safe to be around.
It's on Levin TV now.
https://www.levintv.com/videos/ep82--...
This will answer all of the questions and novels written in this thread!!!
For those who have time, I suggest "Jihad" by Fregosi, a fairly complete history of Islamic conquest from almost the dawn of Islam, complete with the details Molyneux hinted at but, left out for lack of time like, the horrific Muslim execution of Marco Antonio Bragadin after promising him and his troops free passage. This follows the Muslim habit of deceit in negotiation. Muhammad said "war is deceit" and Muslims have used it thus ever since.