Does the Bible condone violence against other religions?

[truthman]

Just because the name Allah may be translated as "God", doesn't mean that the "allah" that Muslims worship is the same God as the God of the Bible. Mormons worship Jesus, correct? That doesn't mean that it's the same Jesus as the Bible's Jesus. Does that make sense?

My point exactly.

Look further into the etymology of the word Allah. It is quite informative.
If you were to translate the Bible into Arabic, what Arabic word would you use for God?
Arabic Christians have been using the word Allah for over a 1000 years for the God of the Bible.
Syriac speaking Christians were using the word Alah or Alaha for the God of the Bible before Muhammad was born.
Aramaic speaking Christians including Jesus Himself used the word Elaha for the God of the Bible.

You can even check it out in the Wikipedia (not perfect or a final authority, but quite informative and a good launching point for further research). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

[jlay]

The word allah predates Islam, and has pagan roots. One could argue what it means or doesn't mean. But, like all things it can simply be the context. Christians in Egypt, and Malaysia refer to the Christian God as Allah. The word allah, in the western world, almost always evokes the idea of what the muslims consider to be the god of Islam. And, so the word, 'god' is most associated with the Judeo Christian Creator God as revealed in the bible. The word, 'god' is not a Hebrew or Greek word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

No where do I get the idea that truthman is stating that the god worshipped by the muslims is the same. The word 'allah' in its original meaning does not refer to the god of Islam. The Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity). This is probably where the confusion comes in, and the word allah has just been substituted as a generic name.

Truthman is in error as to how Jesus referred to God. Jesus consistenly referred to God as Father. There is only one instance in recorded scripture where Jesus refers to God (personally) by any other name than 'father.' On the cross, and in this case the exact original word is maintained for us as Eloi. (which is likely a transliteration of Hebrew since they do not have a letter corresponding H.) I don't know that there is any proof as to what language Jesus spoke in and when, but it was likely Aramaic or Greek with some Hebrew as well. Aramiac was the language common to the region of Galilee. In fact the original translation into Aramaic was believed to have been around the time of Jesus. And many believe that Aramaic is in fact what some of the first NT manuscripts were written in. Although I don't make such claims myself.

I'd recommend you guys stop bickering and find unity.

BTW, Smiley, still waiting on you to back up your assertions.

[RickD]

jlay said:

No where do I get the idea that truthman is stating that the god worshipped by the muslims is the same.

truthman said:

BTW, Allah is not technically another or different god, it is simply the Arabic word for god or God having originally been identical with the Hebrew word for God "eloah".

jlay, I guess you missed what truthman said here. If allah isn't technically another or different god, wouldn't that mean allah was the same?

[smiley]

Aha. And yet, Paul tells you that you should keep the OT Law.

What? Please demonstrate how the context of Paul's epistles say any such thing.

"Do we therefore, make the Law void with faith? No, on the contrary, with establish the Law."

Then there's Jesus who says that the Law has not changed.

And there's the Book of Psalms which says that God's laws last forever.

And then there's the fact that there's no reason to assume the Law has changed unless there's anything to suggest that.

And even if we were not bound by the Law anymore, I would still question the morality of such an action. If you were born in ancient Israel, do you think it would be morally right to kill, say, your son because he merely proposed you to become a member of some other religion? That just seems like barbaric bronze age nonsense.

[jlay]

Simple Rick. Just as your quote of TM shows, you took his statement out of context. Even though it could have been better worded, it is clear that TM is making a statement about the use of the word allah, and not a theological statement. You guys both agree that the god of Islam is not the same as the God of Christianity. You simply misunderstood his statement. And even though you may have had good reason to misunderstand, TM's follow up statements show that he does not believe that the Muslim Allah and the Christian God are the same. He said exactly as much.
FWIW, Allah is NOT an Aramaic word. It is an Arabic word.

Smiley,
You cherry pick one verse out of all the context that Paul teaches on the Law. And buddy, it is a lot. Do you even understand in the context what this verse is saying? Obviously not. God's law has not changed. I never said the law had changed. This is an issue of where, when and to who it applies. If you read the bible rightly divided, you can clearly understand to who certain things apply. Try going to India and applying the laws of this country. Has the law changed? No. It just doesn't apply. Use some reason and common sense and you can better understand God's Word.

If you were born in ancient Israel, do you think it would be morally right to kill, say, your son because he merely proposed you to become a member of some other religion? That just seems like barbaric bronze age nonsense.
??

You said a mouthful. It is nonsense, TO YOU. Is it possible that the God of this universe had a very good reason for such a law?

[smiley]

-snip-

A lot of blabbering but zero substance.

Look, instead of screaming "out of context" (a typical Christian excuse to avoid uncomfortable conclusions they don't like), drop the obscurantism and actually tell us what you mean, I'd be delighted to hear it. I am entirely open-minded about this. If your argument makes sense, I'll be happy to embrace it.

God's law has not changed. I never said the law had changed.

Ah, so when Jesus says "I have not come to change to Law but to fulfill the Law", He actually wants to tell us that although the Law has not changed we should just ignore it.

And of course, Jesus advocated the application of the OT Law throughout His ministry. He chastised the Israelities for ceasing to apply capital punishment for things like children cursing their parents. So why does this command not apply, then?

You said a mouthful. It is nonsense, TO YOU. Is it possible that the God of this universe had a very good reason for such a law?

Perhaps, that's why I opened this thread. What do you propose?

But let me warn you, "God is beyond our understanding" won't do.

[truthman]

I would like to hear Christian interpretations of the passages like this:

Deuteronomy 13:6

A very straightforward interpretation seems to be that we should kill people of other religions. However, obviously I find it very hard to believe God would command something like that. The non-Christian could also use these verses to show that the wars done in the name of Christianity were inspired by the Bible.

Not a straightforward interpretation at all.

A straightforward interpretation would be that worship of the infinite Creator, the one true God is a matter of eternal life and death, and that it is such a harmful action to entice someone to worship a false god, that the offender has committed a terrible crime against his fellow man and humanity would be better off if the offender were killed, even if the offender is a close relative or a loved one.

[smiley]

Not a straightforward interpretation at all.

A straightforward interpretation would be that worship of the infinite Creator, the one true God is a matter of eternal life and death, and that it is such a harmful action to entice someone to worship a false god, that the offender has committed a terrible crime against his fellow man and humanity would be better off if the offender were killed, even if the offender is a close relative or a loved one.

You just basically repeated what I said in different words. Therefore, you admit that it is true that the Bible condones violence against other religions and the Crusades had a theological justification.

And also, what you're saying is still total nonsense. Asking someone to join another religion is a victimless "crime". If the "victim" of this "crime" thinks that his eternal destiny depends on his choice, then he should simply refuse to join that religion, or explain to his friend that he is wrong. Furthermore, there are verses in the Bible that command death to any idolator, not merely the ones trying to convert others.

[truthman]

Not a straightforward interpretation at all.

A straightforward interpretation would be that worship of the infinite Creator, the one true God is a matter of eternal life and death, and that it is such a harmful action to entice someone to worship a false god, that the offender has committed a terrible crime against his fellow man and humanity would be better off if the offender were killed, even if the offender is a close relative or a loved one.

You just basically repeated what I said in different words. Therefore, you admit that it is true that the Bible condones violence against other religions and the Crusades had a theological justification.

And also, what you're saying is still total nonsense. Asking someone to join another religion is a victimless "crime". If the "victim" of this "crime" thinks that his eternal destiny depends on his choice, then he should simply refuse to join that religion, or explain to his friend that he is wrong. Furthermore, there are verses in the Bible that command death to any idolator, not merely the ones trying to convert others.

I am at a loss as to how to answer you. What I said is totally different from what you said. If you cannot see that there is no way for us to communicate. I will have to think much harder about what to say and do....

[truthman]

Asking someone to join another religion is a victimless "crime". If the "victim" of this "crime" thinks that his eternal destiny depends on his choice, then he should simply refuse to join that religion, or explain to his friend that he is wrong. Furthermore, there are verses in the Bible that command death to any idolator, not merely the ones trying to convert others.

I will answer this and hope we are communicating.
It is absolutely imperative for every person to have faith in and worship the infinite Creator God or face eternal death, which is eternal separation from God. This is made clear in the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:3-5).
Therefore, anyone who causes another person to not have faith in and worship the infinite Creator God has caused that person to face eternal death. It is not a "victimless crime".

I answered your question about the verse in Deuteronomy. Now, if you wish to discuss other verses, please post them.

[smiley]

I am at a loss as to how to answer you. What I said is totally different from what you said. If you cannot see that there is no way for us to communicate. I will have to think much harder about what to say and do....

I'm not sure what you're so confused about. You quoted me, and then basically embellished what I said with kind words - but the core of my post remains the same and untouched.

Me: "Does the Bible condone violence against other religions?"

You: "Not at all. The Bible condones killing those who don't worship the Creator God which is a matter of life and death!"

See what I'm getting at? You, therefore, admit that the answer to the thread is "yes". So, I fail to see how this isn't a "very straightforward interpretation". The fact that you can add a few kind words to make it sound more fair and softer doesn't change that fact.

[narnia4]

Context, context, context. Keep in mind that this is addressed specifically to the people of Israel and refers specifically to family members or those who are the very closest to them, ie. other Israelites. With that important distinction in mind, we can't forget that Israel was a theocracy at the time, they were under the direct authority of God. Serving false Gods was like betraying the king. It was worse than high treason (which throughout most of the world's history, has been an offense worthy of execution). The Israelites all knew that it was a theocracy and that God was their King, betraying him would bring about that punishment.

So a "correct" interpretation (and straightforward when context is considered) would look quite differently than what you seem (to me) to be trying to say here.

Also, it is very, very well accepted among Christians that we are no longer under the law but under grace. The verses that apply specifically to ancient Israel do not apply in the same way to Christians since Christ's return. If Christians didn't believe that, we would be doing animal sacrifices.

A couple of good links (also addressing Christ fulfilling the law)-

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html


And as a sidenote- although Christians accept that we are no longer under the law, many do seem (wrongly, imo) to follow some of the OT laws as if they applied to us today. An example of this is the tithe. I'm adamant in my belief that believers "should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion" (2 Cor. 9:7). I just see giving 10% as an example of something that some churches wrongly teach as something Christians must do or else they are sinning (of course, a Christian could give more or less depending on the situation) when it's clearly a part of OT law that no longer applies to us. But that's another topic.

[smiley]

Context, context, context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

Seriously. How is it that only the violent and barbaric commands need "context"?

Keep in mind that this is addressed specifically to the people of Israel and refers specifically to family members or those who are the very closest to them, ie. other Israelites. With that important distinction in mind, we can't forget that Israel was a theocracy at the time, they were under the direct authority of God. Serving false Gods was like betraying the king. It was worse than high treason (which throughout most of the world's history, has been an offense worthy of execution). The Israelites all knew that it was a theocracy and that God was their King, betraying him would bring about that punishment.

How do you explain away the fact that Paul recommends Christians to keep the OT Law? Jlay accuses me of taking things "out of context" (rolleyes), but of course, he never explains how. Yes - we don't live in a theocracy anymore, but if you want to be a good Christian, it seems to me, you have to keep the Law.

Furthermore, you can apply this same excuse to explain away any other command from the Bible. For example, when Jesus tells you to "love your enemies as yourself", I could argue that because this was addressed to first century Jews, who still lived in a theocracy at the time, that we are not bound by this, or any other loving and peaceful command of Jesus. But we don't know want that, now do we?

Also, it is very, very well accepted among Christians that we are no longer under the law but under grace. The verses that apply specifically to ancient Israel do not apply in the same way to Christians since Christ's return. If Christians didn't believe that, we would be doing animal sacrifices.

Keeping the Law is not necessary for salvation, however, Paul still recommends it in order to be a good and honest Christian.

[jlay]

Smiley,

I'm very sorry that you do not understand context and how critical it is to comprehending a matter. Whether you want to admit it or not, context is essential to rightly handling the Word of truth. Despite my better judgment, I'm going to delve into this. Just to be candid, I don't think you are sincere. I find your questioning antagonistic, and laced with condecension. I don't mean that as an attack, I'm just laying it on the table. You mock people for using context, and then out of the otherside of your mouth you say that, "I am entirely open-minded about this."
I've seen anything but open mindedness demonstrated in your rhetoric. Context is important. i suppose rejecting context is a convenient way to maintain your position.

How do you explain away the fact that Paul recommends Christians to keep the OT Law?

Where does Paul do this? The quote you provided does not state such. Paul recommneds a lot of things. Not sinning is one. But, in his letters he clearly paints a much different picture than what you are stating.

Keeping the Law is not necessary for salvation, however, Paul still recommends it in order to be a good and honest Christian.

No where does Paul say or imply that to be a, 'good and honest' Christian, one was keep the OT laws.

Smiley, God is beyond our understanding. That doesn't mean you can't understand. Let me see if I can help.

So why does this command not apply, then?

Romans 3:31 "Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
if you read the CONTEXT of chapter three you will see very specifically what Paul is addressing. In verse 1 he says, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew." There should be a bell ringing, "context.!"He goes on to say in v.19, "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law." Another bell. A big distinction is being made here, from those who under the law, and those who are not.
Paul then goes on to explain the purpose of the law, that "through the law we become conscious of sin." v.20
He continues, "But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Here Paul is saying that as the Law distinquished the Jew from the gentile, there is now do distinction. Not because Gentiles are to keep the Law, but through faith in Christ the law is upheld. Now 3:31 makes sense. How do we uphold God's law? Not through sacrifices, or tithes, or what we eat, etc. But, through faith in Christ.

On into chapter four, Paul begins to really break this down so both the Jew and gentile can understand the unity they have in Christ. "For if those who live by law are heirs, (Israel) faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression."

Going on into chapter 6 Paul says, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" And so although we are not under the law, we should live a sanctified life. How? Through faith, in the spirit, because we are under grace. It is no longer us keeping the standard, but the standard in now keeping us.
Paul continues to expound about this new deal that God is doing in Romans 7.
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ....... by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Again, how much clearer can Paul put it. I have explained it, and the scriptures are there for you to study in context. You can refuse to believe it, but you can't say that it hasn't been explained. It should also be clear that you were wrong, and that you have no basis to continue your accusations, and mockings of context as a proper perspective to rightly handle the Word of Truth. The bible is not 'a' book. It is an amazing collection of books that collectively do speak to one truth, but individually have very distinct and specific messages. They must be read as such.

"Does the Bible condone violence against other religions?"

Can you blame anyone for not answering you. First of all, it is a loaded question. The bible has harsh rules regarding Israel and how they were to live as God's covenant people. The bible does condone the sanctity of Israel by any means necessary. Even the methods that give you concern. I assure you Smiley, if you broke into my home with the intent of harming my family in any way, i would defend my family even with extreme violence to protect them. Just as a mother bear is deadly protective of her cubs, so God was with Israel.

Asking someone to join another religion is a victimless "crime".

How do you figure? To you it is victimless. God made it clear that it was a heinous crime against Israel.

Smiley, it is easy to see that you do not like God. You don't understand why He would have idolaters killed. I can respect that. But to say that God doesn't exist because you don't like His ways, is nothing short of arrogant. That is not an argument for God not existing. I don't like Barrack Obama. I don't understand his ways. But he is still the President. I know it is hard for a person who has no respect for God's law to understand why that god would go to such lengths to enforce His law. Hey, that can even be hard for the most devout Christian. But I can also identify that there were times when I was under authority, and I did not understand said authority. There were rules in my home, that to me, made no sense. Why did I need to make my bed, when I was just going to mess it up that very night? I work with children all the time who simply do not comprehend why they should sit quietly. It makes no sense to them. Does that mean that these rules are cruel, or meaningless? No. They are legitimate whether the one under them, understands their meaning or not. I can even remember thinking my parents were cruel for imposing such rules on me. Obviously, I see that much differently today.

Could it be that God was more serious about His covenant with Israel than you are willing to accept?

[narnia4]

Seriously. How is it that only the violent and barbaric commands need "context"?

They aren't. Did you miss my little thing at the end about tithe? The tithe is a very good guideline for giving, but they are verses that Christians take out of context. You're assuming much more than anyone is saying.

How do you explain away the fact that Paul recommends Christians to keep the OT Law? Jlay accuses me of taking things "out of context" (rolleyes), but of course, he never explains how. Yes - we don't live in a theocracy anymore, but if you want to be a good Christian, it seems to me, you have to keep the Law.

Do you care to give verses here? Did you look at the two links I had? You don't come across as a Christian who is just seeking answers, despite what you put on your profile. You're refusing to approach the question reasonably and without bias. Everything you've written has been addressed, and yet you keep falling back on the same, stale arguements.

Furthermore, you can apply this same excuse to explain away any other command from the Bible. For example, when Jesus tells you to "love your enemies as yourself", I could argue that because this was addressed to first century Jews, who still lived in a theocracy at the time, that we are not bound by this, or any other loving and peaceful command of Jesus. But we don't know want that, now do we?

No you couldn't argue that in an honest fashion, because Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law. You can make clear distinctions between what is necessary to follow, and what isn't. If something is commanded in the New Testament, it's a pretty good bet that you can keep doing that thing. When a verse SPECIFICALLY addresses a SPECIFIC nation at a SPECIFIC time, then we no longer need to follow that verse. In some cases, where the verse seems to contradict a later command, that verse should most definitely NOT be followed. This is an example of this. My goodness, how much more clear do you need to be? Others have addressed the details well enough.

Keeping the Law is not necessary for salvation, however, Paul still recommends it in order to be a good and honest Christian.

I have no idea where he said anything like that. Taking things out of context again, apparently?

You can roll your eyes all you want at context, but seriously, how could it NOT be important? To understand anything well you need to properly define your terms, the framework, the setting, etc. This is basic, basic stuff, and yet we're somehow wrong for talking about it? You aren't addressing anything "in context".

Asking someone to join another religion is a victimless "crime".

Let's think about this a bit. God is real and is the king of Israel. All of Israel know he's in charge. Turning against God in those circumstances (or any circumstances) is one of the worst sins imaginable given what we know of God and the Bible. Your faux moralizing doesn't change that.

Also, we know a couple of things. When anyone started worshipping false gods, for whatever reason it caught on like wildfire. Also, when Israel turned their back on Israel, they paid the penalty, often by God removing his protection and allowing other nations to attack them. It is not a "victimless crime". That's silly atheist nonsense. It's stamping out a fire before it burns down the entire barn.


Finally- forgive me is some of my responses seem curt. I'm simply doubting that you are approaching this honestly and with an open mind. Some of the arguments that you've been coming up with are textbook manufactured arguments from atheist websites (or youtube videos) that go ranting on and on disengenuously about verses that don't mean what they're trying to make them mean.