Should American Muslims be voting for Obama or killing him?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would be the Old Testament (Jewish), not the New Testament (Christian).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Old Testament is as much a part of the Christian bible as the New Testament, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading the rest of his post.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
the crime for converting from it to another religion is death.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, or invite them to tea to talk it over.

[ QUOTE ]
does this make Obama political enemy #1 for American muslims

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall any U.S. Muslims being murdered for leaving the fold. You'd think Fox would be right on it.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would be the Old Testament (Jewish), not the New Testament (Christian).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Old Testament is as much a part of the Christian bible as the New Testament, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not explain it fully, and my usage of the term "New Covenant" has the potential to sow confusion, because there are varying views of the New Covenant, from purely Jewish/House of Israel standpoints to Christian (especially Baptist) standpoints. So I will attempt to summarize in other words the key concept I wished to convey, and hopefully this may shed some light upon the matter.

Yes, the Old Testament is part of the Bible, but it is entirely B.C. (Before Christ). It therefore refers to the old Jewish laws.

The New Testament contains the story of Jesus' life and sacrifice, and his teachings. For Chistianity, that is more important than the old Jewish laws. Jesus' instructions to forgive and to love others carry more weight than the Old Testament principles such as those regarding an eye for an eye.

It may be helpful to consider the overall theological picture of Jesus and the sacrifice:

Since Jesus was the son of God, he was able to show through his great willing sacrifice that forgiveness and love may be extended to all, even to the most cruel and ignorant persons.

Crucifixion is thought to be perhaps the most torturous slow death known to mankind. The entire body, besides being wracked for a day or two by great muscular and nervous pain, is very slowly deprived of oxygen due to the gradual exhaustion of the diaphragmatic muscle (which facilitates breathing). The cells of the body are very, very slowly starved of oxygen as the body automatically keeps trying to fight an uphill losing battle to breathe sufficiently. Eventually, the diaphragm becomes completely exhausted and can no longer cause the lungs to breathe sufficiently to maintain life.

It is hard to imagine a mere human undegoing this all day, and then forgiving his tormentors, but it is not hard to imagine that the Son of God could manage to maintain the spirit of forgiveness and even pray aloud that his Father would forgive his tormentors.

The central idea is that Jesus showed that love and forgiveness can surpass all, and that this is the same love that God has to offer every human being. According to Christian theology, Jesus came to this world for the purpose of suffering as a human and displaying the love of God for all to see, and that some might then accept it for themselves as well, and that if they accepted God's love and sacrifice made through Jesus, that they would dwell with God forever in the hereafter. It is important to realize that Jesus is considered not only to be the Son of God, but also God himself - God who came to Earth and lived and suffered fully as a human, that all His children might see the unimaginable love He holds for us all. What is asked in return is acceptance of this, and a commitment to love others in the same spirit that Jesus loved us.

So while the Old Testament is indeed part of the Christian Bible, the New Testament contains that which is most immediate and central to the Christian faith.

As Jesus' coming and sacrifice changed the relationship of man to God (being in God's good graces no longer required such things as sacrificing animals in the temple, but rather the acceptance of Jesus and a genuine attempt to pass his love on to others through kindness), so too the old laws became of less importance to Christian theology and the focal point of Jesus and his teachings assumed much greater relative importance.

Sorry that this was long but it is the best that I can do to explain it. Thanks for reading and thanks for responding to my post (which I would also like to say after every post to everyone, especially any brief posts or posts that might be perceived as curt, but I often forget).

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the crime for converting from it to another religion is death.

[/ QUOTE ]

That, or invite them to tea to talk it over.

[ QUOTE ]
does this make Obama political enemy #1 for American muslims

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall any U.S. Muslims being murdered for leaving the fold. You'd think Fox would be right on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

These days I tend to believe CNN more than Fox News.

[Dane S]

Thanks John. I did miss the line after the one I quoted somehow in my sloppy reading of your post.

Still, though, isn't what you're talking about just a matter of interpretation? What you're saying if I read you right, is that most Christians place more importance on Jesus' teachings and examples, but I don't believe it's uncommon at all to hear Christians using Old Testament scripture to support viewpoints that seem to contradict Jesus' teachings directly.

So does that make them wrong? They can point to the same Bible you can when defending their beliefs.

Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament? If so, why is the Old Testament even there?

I'm trying to point this out because when anti-Islam people talk about Islam, they usually point the most warlike and intolerant interpretations of the Koran, but I think it's possible to make an equally warlike and intolerant reading of the Christian Bible, and still be within "the Word".

Thoughts?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
That would be the Old Testament (Jewish), not the New Testament (Christian). For Christians, when Jesus Christ came and ushered in the New Covenant, all the old laws were superseded by the teachings, instructions, and the example of Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to 12 years of Catholic school and studied scripture every day for those 12 years. You know as well as I do that when xians want to justify some sort of intolerance, there's the Old Testament. when xians want to instead actually, you know, be Christian, as in Christ-like, there's the examples/teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. If fundies weren't pulling crap out of either the Old Testament or the book of Revelation, they'd never have a political point and would be busy loving their neighbors and their enemies, working for social justice, and other things I don't particularly mind.

Besides, the point still holds. How many Jews do you know that still take a significant percentage of the Hebrew Testament teachings about proscribed punishments seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
That is, there is possibly some scriptural basis for it,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Shari'a is not just another cultural preference; it is a legal system which is directly opposed to many of the human rights and civil rights which are most cherished by Westerners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is Christian Dominionism. What's your point? Fundamentalists of any stripe are ignorant human beings that I don't particular want to associate with and I sure as hell don't want to be governed by.

I'm not arguing for Sharia, I find it a horribly backwards legal system, I'm simply saying that even if Barack Obama was once a Muslim (which he wasn't) and then converted to Christianity, I don't think you'd find many Muslims in the US calling for his death. Now would some fundamentalist wackjob mullah call for his head somewhere? Probably. If those numbers for Britain are accurate, they're pretty damn scary, and I stand corrected.

Like nearly any scripture, you can make the Quaran say whatever you want it to say.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament? If so, why is the Old Testament even there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, both in terms of specific refutations - "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

and

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

and in generalities

"‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets"

Regardless, the debate over which parts of the Mosaic (Old Testament) Law Jesus was expanding upon and which parts he was doing away with have occupied bored theologians for a thousand years now.

Of course you can use any scripture to justify whatever you want. Hence christian pacifists vs the crusades. Fred Phelps vs Dorothy day. etc.

--

I have come to the conclusion that the more Christians focus on the "death/sacrifice" of Jesus, the more likely they are to be intolerant jerks. The more Christians focus on the life/example of Jesus, the more likely they are to be people I don't mind hanging out with.

--

hmmm this is turning into an SMP thread

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17). It's a bit complicated and pretty open to interpretation. You can't ignore the OT as a Christian, but neither do most feel you need to follow every single law written.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks John. I did miss the line after the one I quoted somehow in my sloppy reading of your post.

Still, though, isn't what you're talking about just a matter of interpretation? What you're saying if I read you right, is that most Christians place more importance on Jesus' teachings and examples, but I don't believe it's uncommon at all to hear Christians using Old Testament scripture to support viewpoints that seem to contradict Jesus' teachings directly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, it's not at all uncommon, unfortunately.

I don't think that question is just a matter of interpretation, but no doubt some would disagree.

[ QUOTE ]
So does that make them wrong? They can point to the same Bible you can when defending their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe they are wrong, if for instance, they hold that the "eye for an eye" of the Old Testament is of equal weight or importance in Christianity as Jesus' teachings. The fact that Jesus advocated forgiving those who smite you, which is the direct opposite of the Old Testament "eye for an eye", clearly supports this, I believe.

Yes, they can point to the same Bible, but the question is whether they are trying to follow the old Jewish law, or Christ-ianity.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it says that the sum of the law is contained in Jesus' instructions. I don't remember the exact wording, nor precisely where it may be found (perhaps more than one place), except that it is in the New Testament.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, why is the Old Testament even there?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Old testament traces the relationship of the Jews with God and gives some history. The concept of sacrifice in order to achieve God's good graces was an integral part of the old Jewish religion. Animal sacrifice was a regular part of temple worship. When Jesus came and laid down his life, it was considered the ultimate sacrifice (by his followers and those who would later become Christians); it was such a great sacrifice that no more animal sacrifices were ever to ne needed. The theme of Jesus changing everything between God and mankind, of changing their relationship, runs throughout the New Testament in more ways than one.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to point this out because when anti-Islam people talk about Islam, they usually point the most warlike and intolerant interpretations of the Koran, but I think it's possible to make an equally warlike and intolerant reading of the Christian Bible, and still be within "the Word".

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do have a point about selective verses from the Koran. The truth is that the Koran actually does contain many contradictory verses, and so it is very easily argued about in that sense.

In Islam, there was also no "earthshaking" event parallel to the sacrifice of Jesus, which changed the essential relationships of man to God within the religion itself. Muhammad's coming and transcription of the Koran was a major event, but Islam did not have a change within itself parallel to the way Jesus changed Judaism into Christianity (for Christians).

The other poster (latefordinner?) mentioned that there might be none or little scriptural basis for the claim that the Koran says that converts away from Islam must be killed. That may actually be so; I don't know. What I have read and clearly recall, though, is that in Islamic jurisprudence over major periods of time, Shari'a has been developed and Shari'a does spell out the death penalty for apostates.

I am glad you mentioned this, because I think I recently read that some Muslims are publicly claiming that the Koran does not order death for apostates and as such are striving for reform. Well, they might be right; the problem that they face, whether right or wrong, is that Shari'a law says that apostates must die - even if the Koran does not.

Shari'a law is supposed to be accepted by all Muslims, but of course Shari'a developed after Mohammed transcribed the Koran, and the development of Shari'a took many centuries. Shari'a is based upon scriptures and accounts of Mohammed's life and deeds; Islamic scholars and Islamic authorities/jurists gradually evolved Shari'a.

It is good that there are some voices of reform within the Islamic world who are daring to speak out, but sadly, they face an uphill battle, not to mention potential threats against their lives.

Islamic radicalism has the advantage of being louder than the voices of those souls who wish merely to live their lives in peace. It also has the advantage of being supported by many clerics, and Islamic jurisprudence is tilted in similar direction to the extent that it places Muslims above Others, legally speaking (and in my opinion it is a very serious matter when laws discriminate).

What might be needed is for a brilliant, brave scholar or jurist to develop a more moderate interpretation of Islam than Shari'a, and to support it strongly and convincingly. Could this be done? I really don't know. It would be an uphill challenge but that's not to say necessarily impossible. If such could be done, the more moderate Muslims (of whom there are plenty) could then authoritatively say that they have scripture on their side. At the moment, however, the shoe seems to be mostly on the other foot, at least as far as Islamic clerics and jurists go.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for responding to my post with some very good questions.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17). It's a bit complicated and pretty open to interpretation. You can't ignore the OT as a Christian, but neither do most feel you need to follow every single law written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, yet part of Jesus' fulfillment of the law and the prophecies was to offer through his sacrifice a new relationship for mankind with God. He also explicitly summarized the entire law as being contained within some brief instructions by him.

You're right that you can't just ignore the OT, but if there appears to be a conflict, as between the Old Testament "eye for an eye" and Jesus' instructions to love and forgive even your enemies, it is clear which for the followers of Jesus should take precedence.