The shoe on the other foot

[WintrSol]

Think the Quran (Koran?) is violent? Subtitled, but it gets the point across: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ

[Valkorado]

From my perspective Christians don't seem to be causing the Islamist terrorism problem. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Interesting post. Thanks for sharing it. I'm afraid you are going to be labeled pro-Muslim , ant-Christian by many here. This is out of many's comfort zone.

[old2soon]

Even before I went to the link I knew where this was headed. HARD line Christianity is violent. BUT recently I have NOT heard of Christians cutting off heads or gunning down mooslims. RIDE SAFE.

[crow]

You don't need to be radicalized over seas, come to the USA, and our fears, bigotry, raceism will do it here. 

[Moonshot_1]

Well, there is the Old Testament, where such things are written, and then there is the New Testament where there is a bit of a different perspective.

What IS telling here with that piece is that the Christians and those in the Western Culture that were presented these passages, denounced them and found them abhorrent and a mind set from a time long, long past.

I would like to see something similar with the Koran in a Middle Eastern country and culture and do a "Man on the street" experiment like that and see if, when presented with such passages, they denounce them and find it to be abhorrent as well. I would tend to bet they would condone it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Well, there is the Old Testament, where such things are written, and then there is the New Testament where there is a bit of a different perspective.

What IS telling here with that piece is that the Christians and those in the Western Culture that were presented these passages, denounced them and found them abhorrent and a mind set from a time long, long past.

I would like to see something similar with the Koran in a Middle Eastern country and culture and do a "Man on the street" experiment like that and see if, when presented with such passages, they denounce them and find it to be abhorrent as well. I would tend to bet they would condone it.

Doesn't the Bible include both the Old and New Testaments ?

[Moonshot_1]

Well, there is the Old Testament, where such things are written, and then there is the New Testament where there is a bit of a different perspective.

What IS telling here with that piece is that the Christians and those in the Western Culture that were presented these passages, denounced them and found them abhorrent and a mind set from a time long, long past.

I would like to see something similar with the Koran in a Middle Eastern country and culture and do a "Man on the street" experiment like that and see if, when presented with such passages, they denounce them and find it to be abhorrent as well. I would tend to bet they would condone it.

Doesn't the Bible include both the Old and New Testaments ?

Yes it does and I would expect the New Testament to be more up to date perspective wise than the old one. No more choppin off body parts and even changing the definition of getting stoned.

[3fan4life]

Doesn't the Bible include both the Old and New Testaments ?

Yes it does.

The Old Testament (Covenant) is the common thread between Judaism and Christianity.

For Christians it is history, good advice (Proverbs) and the promise of the Messiah to come.

I can't speak for modern day Jews as to what the books of the Torah mean to them.

I do know that I don't see militant Jews reigning terror upon the world.


The New Testament (Covenant) is about grace and forgiveness.

It's about a God that loves us so much that He sent His only Son to be crucified on a cross so that our sins could be forgiven and we could be saved.


Yes, the Old Testament is harsh.

It needed to be.

The Law was meant to prove to man that he could not save himself.

It was not possible for man to successfully follow the law.

The people of the Old Testament looked to the future Messiah as their savior.

The people of the New Testament look to Jesus as the Messiah that is their savior.


The video from the OP affirms what I already knew:

Many Christians and Non-Christians alike do NOT know what is in the Bible.

Christians should and it is sad that many of them don't!

That's how people like David Koresh mislead whole congregations.


There will always be some idiot that commits atrocities in the name of God/Jesus, the Bible tells us so:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matt 7:15-20 NKJV

 

Fortunately, these people are the exception to the rule where Christianity is concerned.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Islam.
  
 

[Robert]

Interesting that people don't know their Bible. Its also interesting that this was lifted up as a point in trying to defend the Koran. It says much about the person who wrote this post as it does about the people who didn't know what they were hearing.

we are not of this world but we are in the world

Nor is our kingdom in this world.

 When Jesus was speaking He specifically said His Kingdom was not of this world. This was done in front of the rulers and disciples.

The Koran IS a system of government posing as religious.

They actually read Jewish law not Christian law.

These laws they read were given to Moses as the Torah and were Jewish laws they are the Old Testament and the Old Covenant God made with His people the Jews. We have a new covenant that this is done by the Blood of Jesus and the work on the Cross.

These first 5 books of the Bible, the Torah, was known as the laws of sin and death, because sin leads to death, because the only forgiveness of sin in those days was the blood of animals.

Today the blood of Jesus covers our sins but in the spirit these laws still apply.

Just a tip for those calling themselves Christians,

Jesus said

Mat_7:21  "Not everyone who calls out to Me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of My Father in heaven will enter.

So how do you do the will of someone you don't know?

Just for grins women from the day Eve ate the apple was supposed to be in subjection to man. Woman was created from man for man but man has his birth through women all except Adam who God created.



Joh_18:36  Jesus answered, "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, My followers would fight to keep Me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But My Kingdom is not of this world."


The Koran states

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
— Qur'an, [Quran 33:21–36]

The path that Mohammed took on his last book of the Koran was war, brutal, bloody, merciless. That is the book that the Koran says is valid not the previous ones that speak of peace. There in lays the problem.

A Madhhab is a Muslim school of law

[WintrSol]

Just like there are some Christians who attack those they think are not 'Christian enough', and justify their actions through Bible quotes, there are radical Jews who attack other Jews and non-Jews, and through the same justifications. The concept of Infidel was created by Christians who attempted to reclaim the Holy Lands for only Christians, by driving out the followers of Mohammed and the Jews - the Crusades ring a bell? No matter which holy book you can name, there are passages that can be read to imply violent intolerance; we just cannot claim that only the Muslims are guided by such a book. Just look at the violence between Hindus and Bhuddists - basically, the same justifications.

[Patrick]

It seems that there have been those that believe in a god are also those that have sometimes been lead to kill for a god.

[3fan4life]

Just like there are some Christians who attack those they think are not 'Christian enough', and justify their actions through Bible quotes, there are radical Jews who attack other Jews and non-Jews, and through the same justifications. The concept of Infidel was created by Christians who attempted to reclaim the Holy Lands for only Christians, by driving out the followers of Mohammed and the Jews - the Crusades ring a bell? No matter which holy book you can name, there are passages that can be read to imply violent intolerance; we just cannot claim that only the Muslims are guided by such a book. Just look at the violence between Hindus and Bhuddists - basically, the same justifications.

Every Non-Christian always refers to the crusades.



The irony is that very little is actually known about the Crusades.

It was a Christian vs. Muslim war that began somewhere around 1095 AD (almost 1,000 years ago).

The Christians eventually lost and the Muslims as victors always have, got to write the history books.


I'm really not concerned with what happened in 1095 AD.

I am very concerned about what happened in San Bernardino, CA last week and about what may happen in Anytown, USA in the future !

[Patrick]

I'm really not concerned with what happened in 1095 AD.

I am very concerned about what happened in San Bernardino, CA last week and about what may happen in Anytown, USA in the future !
end quote





Me too.  I like to think that most people have changed over the years.

But, this last terrorist attack is the biggest since 9/11/01.

[Willow]

I watched a little over half the video.

Some of the quotes that were subtitled are either horribly mistranslated or intentionally wrongly subtitled.

Incidentally some of the quotes from the Old Testament regularly used to example the "violent" nature of Christianity are laws that were specifically given to the nation of Israel as it established itself in a previously pagan environment.  Those were not intended to be outside of that environment (the nation of Israel).  I've never heard any credible Christian teacher say that those should be practiced by the followers of Christ.

A few of the references used by the video were accurate but seemed to be taken well out of context.

I do believe some things that many of our modern culture would consider extreme and outdated.  None of those beliefs call for my slaying those who do not believe as I do.     

[WintrSol]

Yes, current events do tend to trump ancient stories, but I remember that, when I was young, there were many violent conflicts between various Christian church groups, like Catholics vs. Baptists, or Lutherans, vs. Adventists, and others; all because they weren't us, and shouldn't be tolerated. Back then, very few folks went around armed, so the conflicts usually didn't involve serious injuries or death, but the anger was just as strong as it is now. Thing is, people don't change, whatever book they read; there always seem to be a few with an us vs. those who shouldn't exist attitude. Easy availability of heavy weapons and home-made explosives is what makes the current situation so much worse.

[Wizzard]

Yes, current events do tend to trump ancient stories, but I remember that, when I was young, there were many violent conflicts between various Christian church groups, like Catholics vs. Baptists, or Lutherans, vs. Adventists, and others; all because they weren't us, and shouldn't be tolerated. Back then, very few folks went around armed, so the conflicts usually didn't involve serious injuries or death, but the anger was just as strong as it is now. Thing is, people don't change, whatever book they read; there always seem to be a few with an us vs. those who shouldn't exist attitude. Easy availability of heavy weapons and home-made explosives is what makes the current situation so much worse.

Wow,, I grew up in Iowa in a much different world than you! We had many different faiths in our community and we all got along.

[3fan4life]

Yes, current events do tend to trump ancient stories, but I remember that, when I was young, there were many violent conflicts between various Christian church groups, like Catholics vs. Baptists, or Lutherans, vs. Adventists, and others; all because they weren't us, and shouldn't be tolerated. Back then, very few folks went around armed, so the conflicts usually didn't involve serious injuries or death, but the anger was just as strong as it is now. Thing is, people don't change, whatever book they read; there always seem to be a few with an us vs. those who shouldn't exist attitude. Easy availability of heavy weapons and home-made explosives is what makes the current situation so much worse.

Not sure where you grew up.

The only conflict among Christians that I recall from my youth was the one between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland (One that I never understood BTW). I've never even seen so much as a shouting match break out between Methodists and Baptists.

Maybe, I've just lived a more sheltered life than you. 


I will say this, Civil discussion about differences in beliefs is acceptable. But, if Christians from different denominations are outright fighting over their differences, THEY ARE WRONG.

 

[Valkorado]

Yes, current events do tend to trump ancient stories, but I remember that, when I was young, there were many violent conflicts between various Christian church groups, like Catholics vs. Baptists, or Lutherans, vs. Adventists, and others; all because they weren't us, and shouldn't be tolerated. Back then, very few folks went around armed, so the conflicts usually didn't involve serious injuries or death, but the anger was just as strong as it is now. Thing is, people don't change, whatever book they read; there always seem to be a few with an us vs. those who shouldn't exist attitude. Easy availability of heavy weapons and home-made explosives is what makes the current situation so much worse.

The Great American Christian Feuds.  In every histoy book out there.  NOT.

[Serk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88DQIJmxRI

[Valkorado]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88DQIJmxRI

       

[3fan4life]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88DQIJmxRI

[WintrSol]

Not sure where you grew up.

The only conflict among Christians that I recall from my youth was the one between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland (One that I never understood BTW). I've never even seen so much as a shouting match break out between Methodists and Baptists.

Maybe, I've just lived a more sheltered life than you. 


I will say this, Civil discussion about differences in beliefs is acceptable. But, if Christians from different denominations are outright fighting over their differences, THEY ARE WRONG.

 

In my area, it was basically a small-scale turf war, where 'tough kids' that attended one church didn't want the kids that attended another church in 'their neighborhood'. Neighborhoods often sorted out by church, because church members tended to live clustered around it. As the neighborhoods grew together, different groups started bumping up against each other. Kids that attended the same church knew and hung out together, so it was easy to know who the others were. Usually shouting matches, but sometimes they exchanged more than insults. Since there was no real electronic news back then, word of a conflict was usually spread by rumor. Eventually the groups mixed together in the same neighborhoods, and the conflicts subsided.

[Willow]

Yeah, it sounds like someone's growing up experiences were very different from that of most of us.  I never saw or heard of a "Christian feud" becoming violent or even that intensely vocal.  As to the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland those are, and were, basically two political groups consisting of long time native Irish who tended to be Catholic and those descended from English immigrants who tended to be Church of England.  There different religious identification really had nothing to do with the conflict but it was an easy way to refer to each faction.

Trying to compare religious differences between Christians to the slaughters that go on between rival Muslim factions seems a bit of a stretch to me. 

[WintrSol]

Incidentally some of the quotes from the Old Testament regularly used to example the "violent" nature of Christianity are laws that were specifically given to the nation of Israel as it established itself in a previously pagan environment.  Those were not intended to be outside of that environment (the nation of Israel).  I've never heard any credible Christian teacher say that those should be practiced by the followers of Christ.    

The New Testament is not without its violence. How about
"Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
"

And, as far as the Old Testament not applying to His followers, there is
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Seems that, for a 'true' Christian, the old punishments still apply, doesn't it? Of course, most of the books of the New Testament were also written in uncertain times (as was the Quran), so a modern follower should choose to ignore those outdated parts. There are some in each following that choose NOT to ignore those rules, and the radical Muslims currently have the stage, since our press rarely reports on those Jews in Israel who stone other Jews.

[Valkorado]

[Willow]

The New Testament is not without its violence. How about
"Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
"

And, as far as the Old Testament not applying to His followers, there is
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Seems that, for a 'true' Christian, the old punishments still apply, doesn't it? Of course, most of the books of the New Testament were also written in uncertain times (as was the Quran), so a modern follower should choose to ignore those outdated parts. There are some in each following that choose NOT to ignore those rules, and the radical Muslims currently have the stage, since our press rarely reports on those Jews in Israel who stone other Jews.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.  I see what you have selected as a rather long reach.  I don't really understand whether you're trying to say that Christians are known to put to death their children that curse them or that Christians today don't do what you think Jesus demanded.  The conversation to which you referred was Jesus pointing out that the Pharisees had put aside the requirement for one to honor his father and mother.  If you follow the conversation further you'll not find His insisting on parents putting their sons to death. 

As to the Old Testament reference, the term "Law" in this case refers to a portion of the Talmud that defined behavior again for the nation of Israel.  Interesting that He specifically said He came to fulfill that portion of the Scripture.  I'm not certain how you would interpret that to mean the fulfilled communication needed to continue to be followed.  I can see how someone uncommitted to the Christian faith and relationship might choose to believe that.  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a significant number of those claiming a commitment to Christianity or the associated relationship to see it that way. 

I simply don't believe your reference to modern day Jews stoning other Jews.

For what it's worth I will again tell you that I do hold some beliefs that are very contrary to our current cultural values.  You made reference to some of the portions of the New Testament (or Quran) as being outdated.  I guess that's based upon our greater wisdom than you believe was held by the authors of the New Testament or some seven hundred years later by the authors of the Quran.  I don't think any true Christian or any true Muslim would agree with you regarding parts of their scriptures having become outdated.

I'm okay with not being able to convince you of your error.  I'm just as okay with your complete ineffectiveness in convincing me of my error.  I'm okay with walking away from this shaking my head and agree that we will always disagree on these subjects.         

[solo1]

The Old Testament was Law.  The New Testament is the Gospel. 

I've probably been around more than most and I NEVER saw any kind of violent action between members of different Christian churches.

I most certainly don't see ANY Christians today beheading others in the name of God.

Replying here is barely worth the 48 words that I reply with.

[Gryphon Rider]

Here's what I think the video is about:
Two men without a strongly-held faith of any kind see that all Muslims are being tarred with the same brush as Muslim terrorists.  They know that text of the Qur'an is used by terrorists and their ilk to justify their actions.  They also have heard that the Bible of the "Christians" who are tarring all Muslims contains some examples of instructions from God to do some things that are considered harsh or extreme by our currently genteel and egalitarian society.  So they use Google or some other search to come up with a selection of verses from the Bible that show that Muslims aren't the only ones with scriptures that contain "extreme" stuff.  They don't bother trying to get an understanding of the context of the verses or of the culture or history of the people they were originally given to, or of orthodox Christian understandings of those particular sections of scripture.  Then they wrap their selected verses in the jacket of a Qur'an and present it to people on the streets of a country with Christian heritage but a largely secular population, and then get their entertainment from the responses of those Biblically illiterate and largely irreligious citizens.

[Robert]

Incidentally some of the quotes from the Old Testament regularly used to example the "violent" nature of Christianity are laws that were specifically given to the nation of Israel as it established itself in a previously pagan environment.  Those were not intended to be outside of that environment (the nation of Israel).  I've never heard any credible Christian teacher say that those should be practiced by the followers of Christ.     

The New Testament is not without its violence. How about
"Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
"

And, as far as the Old Testament not applying to His followers, there is
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I think you forgot to think about this in your quote "to fullfill them"

So if you want instruction as to what this says or what any passages actually say, I would be happy to explain it. But I would ask you do not argue in ignorance which makes you look bad. Because in this case you begin to look argumentative and there is no ground for speaking to someone who does not have or want an understanding of the subject they are talking about.

   Misquotes and misunderstanding is the exact reason that the Koran keeps recruiting terrorists and why some misjudge the Bible not understanding the true words and intent. Your examples of the boys was a very good in that the boys acted out of ignorance and their own desires and you were turned off by it and rightly so. But there actions and your action has nothing to do with God or what He says to do. The Bible is a personality profile of God, if you took one day of your life and used that to explain who you are it would be terribly distorted, so dont take one scripture and paint a broad and incorrect conclusion.

Many have done many things in the name of God but this has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.

In England it was against the law to have a Bible in English because the church was under the control of the King and he wanted to use the Bible as a way to keep people in line. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own that policy intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages. So when you talk about any thing like the crusades you need to really research the circumstances and what was truly happening. Also it was again the Muslims that were the problem.

Laws restricting bibles
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
End


Why didn't the church want the people to read the Bible because it was a source of life and living that would liberate the people to live a life of freedom and understanding the feudal system they were subject to. A system that we are starting to have back again, where we own nothing.

Jesus said there is no one good except the Father, so dont look at other people just be responsible for yourself since when you stand before God there will be no one else to help.

This is also why the Pilgrims came to America to live a life according to the words of the true and living Bible. Thats also why for 150 years America had no law except for the May Flower Compact to rule life in a new land. This is also one reason that the first school books were Bibles.

That was the first thing I did before I accepted the Lord was to find out who He was, what was expected of me, what could I expect from Him and How did God act towards people. It was out of insecurity because I never felt good enough to come to Him and wanted to make sure He would not back out or leave me because I could not live up to His expectations. So I don't judge others but I do know that if you don't know the Bible then you don't know the Lord and are missing out on some of His blessings. That makes me sad for those people. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, His son died on the cross so we could have a relationship with Him, so why would anyone think that God would not want us to be close and personal with Him.

[3fan4life]

Incidentally some of the quotes from the Old Testament regularly used to example the "violent" nature of Christianity are laws that were specifically given to the nation of Israel as it established itself in a previously pagan environment.  Those were not intended to be outside of that environment (the nation of Israel).  I've never heard any credible Christian teacher say that those should be practiced by the followers of Christ.    

The New Testament is not without its violence. How about
"Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
"

And, as far as the Old Testament not applying to His followers, there is
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

Seems that, for a 'true' Christian, the old punishments still apply, doesn't it? Of course, most of the books of the New Testament were also written in uncertain times (as was the Quran), so a modern follower should choose to ignore those outdated parts. There are some in each following that choose NOT to ignore those rules, and the radical Muslims currently have the stage, since our press rarely reports on those Jews in Israel who stone other Jews.

First of all let me say that I am sorry for the experiences that you describe growing up.

My own experiences have been very different.

From your description, it sounds like a neighborhood turf war with religion as an excuse.

Religion BTW, is something that Jesus was against.

It is religion that he is going up against in the verses you quoted.

 

15 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’

You inadvertently left out verses 5-10:

5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God” 6 then he need not honor his father or mother. ’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

    8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
    And honor Me with their lips,
    But their heart is far from Me.
    9 And in vain they worship Me,
    Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

The New King James Version (Mt 15:1–9).

Verses 10 and 11 are also of value in understanding this passage:

10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

The New King James Version. (Mt 15:10–11).

Jesus here is turning the tables on the Pharisees (religious zealots). The pharisees have come to Jesus demanding that he explain to them why his disciples are breaking dietary laws. Jesus knows that the Pharisees are guilty of breaking many "laws". He is saying that honoring your father and mother includes supporting them. The Pharisees got around that responsibility by dedicating their money as a gift to God, and that would relieve them of supporting their parents. This gave a pious way out for a man to break the Mosaic Law.

Jesus then goes on to explain why what a man eats doesn't make him unclean.


As for Matthew 5: 17-18

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

The New King James Version (Mt 5:17–18).

The key part here is: but to fulfill.

Paul is referring to this passage in Romans 8:1-3

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

The New King James Version (1982). Romans 8:1-3

It is not enough to just read the Bible. To understand it one must also study it in order to glean the true meanings of its verses.

[WintrSol]

I didn't say the Bible is to be interpreted that way, just that it CAN be. And yes, they are, essentially all turf wars, using religion as an excuse. I though I said that.

While I was in Tel Aviv, there were several incidents of women being pulled from public buses, because they were not chaperoned by men, then beaten, one in which stones were used. All in the name of the 'true' Hebrew faith.

And now, we have non-active Marines making death threats to Muslims on telephone answering machines, including a threat to 'cut your ... heads off'.

I brought all this up to point out that anyone can use their religion to justify whatever they want, as there are passages that can be taken out of context, and used to 'prove' their cause is just. Demonizing a whole faith because this can be done, and is done by a few, is just wrong, no matter what faith you cleave to.

[3fan4life]

I didn't say the Bible is to be interpreted that way, just that it CAN be. And yes, they are, essentially all turf wars, using religion as an excuse. I though I said that.

While I was in Tel Aviv, there were several incidents of women being pulled from public buses, because they were not chaperoned by men, then beaten, one in which stones were used. All in the name of the 'true' Hebrew faith.

And now, we have non-active Marines making death threats to Muslims on telephone answering machines, including a threat to 'cut your ... heads off'.

I brought all this up to point out that anyone can use their religion to justify whatever they want, as there are passages that can be taken out of context, and used to 'prove' their cause is just. Demonizing a whole faith because this can be done, and is done by a few, is just wrong, no matter what faith you cleave to.

You are correct, people can pick and choose verses from any text to prove whatever they wish to prove.

The dragging of women from buses for not having a male escort sounds like a Muslim thing to me (there is a large Muslim population in Israel). There are laws in Muslim countries that require women to be escorted by a male family member at all times in public. I can't intelligently argue that this isn't some sort of Jewish law but I don't think that it is. For starters Jewish women serve in the Israeli Army and in Musad. I've always thought of Israeli women as being pretty badass myself. I just don't see a country who allows women to serve in this capacity, not allowing them to ride a bus without a male escort. Much less stoning them for it.

As for the demonizing of all Muslims for the actions of a "few". I personally don't see it as merely a few bad apples. It is thousands, possibly tens of thousands, maybe even millions who if given the chance would destroy life as we know it in a heartbeat.  

[Robert]

If you read the Koran there are some really beautiful places in it but the trouble is that is not what they are told to follow. It is the last written chapter that the religion actually says to follow and that chapter is one where Mohamed is in war with all the blood and guts that go with it.

So its the unfaithful Muslims that are the ones that are peaceful according to their religion.

One teaches to pray and allow God to work the other says kill, lie, destroy, and dominate and we wonder why we have problems.

They banned books that were to graphic the Koran could have qualified on violence and inciting violence.

Yes there are peaceful Muslims but they don't follow their religion but there are evil Christians and they don't follow their religion. While they both don't follow their religion its only the Muslim religion that teaches and incites violence.

Your example of the bus again shows you want to make a point before knowing the truth.

Anyone can use anything to justify their position, but the truth is if you have a religion that incites violence and a system of government then its just to demonize that religion and wonder about its followers.
 
Heavens Gate cult said that there would be a ship come and take them, they killed themselves, everyone had doubts about this religion.

Jones town mass suicide the same misguided adherents but they killed themselves but what if rather than kill kill themselves they started to kill everyone else.

So if they did start to kill everyone else would that make you feel the same squishy way when people spoke against them?


Let me just make one last point that you may not know about.

The Muslim Jihad had its origins in the Bible and God said what would happen. Its actually a family dispute if you want to know the truth.

[WintrSol]

The dragging of women from buses for not having a male escort sounds like a Muslim thing to me (there is a large Muslim population in Israel). There are laws in Muslim countries that require women to be escorted by a male family member at all times in public. I can't intelligently argue that this isn't some sort of Jewish law but I don't think that it is. For starters Jewish women serve in the Israeli Army and in Musad. I've always thought of Israeli women as being pretty badass myself. I just don't see a country who allows women to serve in this capacity, not allowing them to ride a bus without a male escort. Much less stoning them for it.

But, it did, and does happen. There are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who try to follow the Mosaic laws to the letter. They believe it is a disgrace to have women in the military, or as teachers.

As for the demonizing of all Muslims for the actions of a "few". I personally don't see it as merely a few bad apples. It is thousands, possibly tens of thousands, maybe even millions who if given the chance would destroy life as we know it in a heartbeat.  

Given the millions of Muslims in the world, a few thousand, or even tens of thousands, is still a relative few. But, yeah, even our allies, the Saudis, don't really like us, or our ways, very much. They were much more comfortable with my parent's generation, when 'proper' women didn't go out without a head covering; my mother wore scarves or hats all her life which, while not as extreme as what Muslim women are expected to wear, was still better than current Western standards.

[Patrick]

Incidentally some of the quotes from the Old Testament regularly used to example the "violent" nature of Christianity are laws that were specifically given to the nation of Israel as it established itself in a previously pagan environment.  Those were not intended to be outside of that environment (the nation of Israel).  I've never heard any credible Christian teacher say that those should be practiced by the followers of Christ.     

The New Testament is not without its violence. How about
"Matthew 15:1-9
1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
"

And, as far as the Old Testament not applying to His followers, there is
"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished.  (Matthew 5:17-18)"

 I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I think you forgot to think about this in your quote "to fullfill them"

So if you want instruction as to what this says or what any passages actually say, I would be happy to explain it. But I would ask you do not argue in ignorance which makes you look bad. Because in this case you begin to look argumentative and there is no ground for speaking to someone who does not have or want an understanding of the subject they are talking about.

   Misquotes and misunderstanding is the exact reason that the Koran keeps recruiting terrorists and why some misjudge the Bible not understanding the true words and intent. Your examples of the boys was a very good in that the boys acted out of ignorance and their own desires and you were turned off by it and rightly so. But there actions and your action has nothing to do with God or what He says to do. The Bible is a personality profile of God, if you took one day of your life and used that to explain who you are it would be terribly distorted, so dont take one scripture and paint a broad and incorrect conclusion.

Many have done many things in the name of God but this has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says.

In England it was against the law to have a Bible in English because the church was under the control of the King and he wanted to use the Bible as a way to keep people in line. The Church actually discouraged the populace from reading the Bible on their own that policy intensified through the Middle Ages and later, with the addition of a prohibition forbidding translation of the Bible into native languages. So when you talk about any thing like the crusades you need to really research the circumstances and what was truly happening. Also it was again the Muslims that were the problem.

Laws restricting bibles
Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.
End


Why didn't the church want the people to read the Bible because it was a source of life and living that would liberate the people to live a life of freedom and understanding the feudal system they were subject to. A system that we are starting to have back again, where we own nothing.

Jesus said there is no one good except the Father, so dont look at other people just be responsible for yourself since when you stand before God there will be no one else to help.

This is also why the Pilgrims came to America to live a life according to the words of the true and living Bible. Thats also why for 150 years America had no law except for the May Flower Compact to rule life in a new land. This is also one reason that the first school books were Bibles.

That was the first thing I did before I accepted the Lord was to find out who He was, what was expected of me, what could I expect from Him and How did God act towards people. It was out of insecurity because I never felt good enough to come to Him and wanted to make sure He would not back out or leave me because I could not live up to His expectations. So I don't judge others but I do know that if you don't know the Bible then you don't know the Lord and are missing out on some of His blessings. That makes me sad for those people. God walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, His son died on the cross so we could have a relationship with Him, so why would anyone think that God would not want us to be close and personal with Him.

I wonder what they would have thought about the 1611 KJV.

[3fan4life]

The dragging of women from buses for not having a male escort sounds like a Muslim thing to me (there is a large Muslim population in Israel). There are laws in Muslim countries that require women to be escorted by a male family member at all times in public. I can't intelligently argue that this isn't some sort of Jewish law but I don't think that it is. For starters Jewish women serve in the Israeli Army and in Musad. I've always thought of Israeli women as being pretty badass myself. I just don't see a country who allows women to serve in this capacity, not allowing them to ride a bus without a male escort. Much less stoning them for it.

But, it did, and does happen. There are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who try to follow the Mosaic laws to the letter. They believe it is a disgrace to have women in the military, or as teachers.

As for the demonizing of all Muslims for the actions of a "few". I personally don't see it as merely a few bad apples. It is thousands, possibly tens of thousands, maybe even millions who if given the chance would destroy life as we know it in a heartbeat.  

Given the millions of Muslims in the world, a few thousand, or even tens of thousands, is still a relative few. But, yeah, even our allies, the Saudis, don't really like us, or our ways, very much. They were much more comfortable with my parent's generation, when 'proper' women didn't go out without a head covering; my mother wore scarves or hats all her life which, while not as extreme as what Muslim women are expected to wear, was still better than current Western standards.

We're pretty much in agreement here.

I'm not calling you out on the bus thing, I wasn't there and didn't see it.

I was only saying the incident you describe doesn't fit my perceptions of the Jewish people.

I was in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and you are spot on that they don't like us either.

As for the head covering thing, you may be spot on there as well. In 1990 we weren't as PC crazy as we are now. The military women weren't required to wear any kind of headdress and the looks that they received from the Saudis weren't always good.

[Jess from VA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIaGWURONRU

[Robert]

Here ya go these videos the one in Jess's post and these pretty much express my thinking and feelings on this issue of religious/political correctness. This was posted from another member here, so thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG9QUiv8c2M

This video will also address the original posts wrong idea and misplaced ideas. Its good but more direct from the middle and maybe you will find yourself in the people he describes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOgV6Fvc8wc