Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

In another thread ebonics asked to see Biblical quotes which state that non-believers should be killed.

Here are a selection:

For ebonics who asked for Biblical references for killing non-believers (even though the previous quote was about killing innocents):

Kill Followers of Other Religions.

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Death for Fornication

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)


Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)



Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

And there are more, but I think this selection makes the point.

Edit - and just in case the argument is that these are from the Old Testament, here is a quote from the NT :

Infidels and Gays Should Die

So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

Cheers,
Shafique

No. It's talking about the ultimate death penalty that God can deliver- no everlasting life.

not to mention all these were around - 1000 BC

the final quote from the new testament, god will deliver his own penalty... he wont get humans to do it for him.



shafique, nice try.

valkyrie wrote:No. It's talking about the ultimate death penalty that God can deliver- no everlasting life.

The point is that ebonics asked for quotes from the Bible calling for the death of non-believers. QED.


You say these should no longer be followed - fair enough. But they are in the Bible and therefore at least the Jews believe in these verses and that they haven't been abrogated.

As for the Quote from the NT, in your view all those Christians in history and today who believe that homosexual acts should be punished by death were wrong. Thanks for the clarification - a lot has been done despite the teachings of Jesus, but I wasn't aware he had said that homosexuality was no longer punishable - can you give me a quote so that I can confront the Christians that think otherwise.

Also, are you both arguing that only Judaism is barbaric to believe that killing innocents and livestock is the word of God and that you believe these parts of the Bible are not God's words, or do you believe that God was unjust in the past and is now reformed?

These quotes, if from God, do show that the Bible is much more violent than the Quran.

I presume also that you believe anyone following the advice of these verses would be condemned by most Christians. I agree that this the correct view of those who use religion to justify violence.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique, you're well aware jesus taught christians to turn their other cheek...

nothing is punishable - by man, religion wise. thats what the law is for... you do wrong, you get jailed.

in your view all those Christians in history and today who believe that homosexual acts should be punished by death were wrong. Thanks for the clarification

of course they're wrong, they're not allowed to play god.
homosexuality is no one's business but god.... its wrong, but its no one's business to judge, or pass judgment. which is the fundamental difference between this verse, and the verses i quoted in the other thread.

in completion from the other thread

as you also know, in these beginnings of times, the concept of good and evil when it comes to man had just been introduced.. God was doing drastic measures to teach people lessons in life (including a flood, an arc and an old man building it)


times have changed - you may say times have changed again since islam and people need to be taught deadly lessons since... i cant really argue against that.. people now are probably worse than ever...


but if its going to come to personal beliefs, id follow the guy that says turn the other cheek... rather than a book that says if someone humiliates me and my prophet (muhammad) - he should get this and that happening to him.


now at the end of the day, based on the 2 quranic scriptures i quoted - muslims that say "we are a religion of peace" should just drop that claim, because there's no peace when they've got instructions to KILL none believers.. its a religion of peace for all muslims within muslims - granted.. but there's no peace seen for none muslims.

in closing

SCY wrote:She is Wafa Sultan. I cannot understand arabic, but I think the translations are right. Watch this video.

She is one amazing woman.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp? ... wmv&ak=nul

because its apt here.

ebonics wrote:now at the end of the day, based on the 2 quranic scriptures i quoted - muslims that say "we are a religion of peace" should just drop that claim, because there's no peace when they've got instructions to KILL none believers.. its a religion of peace for all muslims within muslims - granted.. but there's no peace seen for none muslims.

Islam is a religion of Peace.

The Quran does not say kill all non-believers, but does say criminals should be punished.

In Egypt, for example, when the Muslims conquered the land under early Muslim rule the majority of people remained Coptic Christian. Over the next 500 years the majority of these converted to the peaceful religion of Islam.

Edit - and let us not forget that for the Christians and Jews of Jerusalem, Islamic rule was a period of peace and Crusader Christian rule was one of genocide.

At least you and I agree that there are many parts of the Bible that we should not follow in this day and age - you have left Christianity and found solace in 'new age' beliefs, I have chosen to follow a religion that was revealed 600 years after Jesus prophecised that a new message would come in the future.

Cheers,
Shafique

yes shafique, because i have enough brains to make my own decisions..


if you just followed what a prophet tells you - you'd be telling your wife to breast feed strangers.

your egypt fable is what they teach you in islam school, egypt went down with a lot of blood shed, that continues today...

islam is a religion of peace, for muslims... muslims are instructed to kill me for speaking blasphemy regarding muhammad. well here is news, any none muslim speaks blasphemy on muhammad - because he's a complete hypocrite of a human being. so case in point, we should all be killed.

al azhar produced a fatwa that suicide missions against isreal, and isreal only, results in martyrdom - but its not ok to do anywhere else


peace will only be achieved when the entire globe is 100% muslim (thats why they kill everyone else off on a regular basis)

ebonics wrote:yes shafique, because i have enough brains to make my own decisions..


if you just followed what a prophet tells you - you'd be telling your wife to breast feed strangers.

Do you really hate Muslims/Islam this much that you believe Muslims do this?

ebonics wrote:your egypt fable is what they teach you in islam school, egypt went down with a lot of blood shed, that continues today...

Please provide some historical references - I gave you some refs from history books written by non-Muslims.

ebonics wrote:islam is a religion of peace, for muslims... muslims are instructed to kill me for speaking blasphemy regarding muhammad. well here is news, any none muslim speaks blasphemy on muhammad - because he's a complete hypocrite of a human being. so case in point, we should all be killed.

I guess it would be futile for me to point out that there is no punishment for blasphemy in the Quran.

ebonics wrote:al azhar produced a fatwa that suicide missions against isreal, and isreal only, results in martyrdom - but its not ok to do anywhere else

peace will only be achieved when the entire globe is 100% muslim (thats why they kill everyone else off on a regular basis)

I come to the end of your post and haven't found anything factual to respond to.

At least you agree that the quotes you requested are from the Bible and also agree therefore that the Bible advocates the killings of innocents, non-believers etc. (And what is the obsession with breast feeding? )

Can I ask you why you asked twice for me to produce the quotes, and implied that they did not exist in the Bible?

Cheers,
Shafique

Can everyone keep "personal comments" to theirselves please. Discuss by all means, but in a respectful manner. This applies to ALL threads not just this one.

Many Thanks

Mod

At least you agree that the quotes you requested are from the Bible and also agree therefore that the Bible advocates the killings of innocents, non-believers etc.

Actually the first thing I thought when I read your post was "ignorance". I can't really blame you though because alot of people pick quotes etc. out of other peoples religions, misunderstanding and giving their own twists to them, I'm guilty of it myself. I'd recommend reading the whole book first before picking bits out and ask yourself who said that? to who? and in what circumstances? Because there wasn't one quote there in which God told us to go and kill innocents or nonbelievers as you implied.

Strawberries wrote:
Actually the first thing I thought when I read your post was "ignorance". I can't really blame you though because alot of people pick quotes etc. out of other peoples religions, misunderstanding and giving their own twists to them, I'm guilty of it myself. I'd recommend reading the whole book first before picking bits out and ask yourself who said that? to who? and in what circumstances? Because there wasn't one quote there in which God told us to go and kill innocents or nonbelievers as you implied.

However, the quotes were only provided by myself after ebonics repeatedly asked me to show Biblical references advocating killings etc. He had quoted the Quran out of context and I pointed out that the Bible could actually furnish unambigious calls for violence.

You say that not one quote says you should go out and kill non-believers - but Deut 13.13-19 quoted above unambiguously says if you hear of one town which contains apostates (those encouraged to worship false gods), go and kill all the people including the livestock.

The point is that even when quoted out of context the Quran never descends to this level of barbarity - calling for innocents and livestock to be killed.

Another difference is that ebonics misquotes the Quran to put down Muslims and Islam. I don't advocate that all Christians and Jews follow the numerous violent passages of the Bible - they rather sensibly choose to not follow these instructions.

I've said all along that Muslims are similarly sensible in not following all the verses of the Bible - the difference between Muslims and sensible Christians and Jews comes down to which parts of the Bible we choose to reject.

Cheers,
Shafique

However, the quotes were only provided by myself after ebonics repeatedly asked me to show Biblical references advocating killings etc.

As I said none of your quotes advocate us to go out and kill people

He had quoted the Quran out of context

Doesnt feel that great does it

I pointed out that the Bible could actually furnish unambigious calls for violence.

So you could read one sentence of a chapter book and understand without a doubt exactly/unambugiously what it is talking about? Its like overhearing half a conversation... can end up quite misleading!

You say that not one quote says you should go out and kill non-believers - but Deut 13.13-19 quoted above unambiguously says if you hear of one town which contains apostates (those encouraged to worship false gods), go and kill all the people including the livestock.

As I said go and read it properly, who is saying it? to who? at what time? and in what circumstances? and is it telling us to go and kill people... you find the answer is no. If you read the whole bible it will make much more sense and you will realize that we are not suppose to kill... it is not our responsibility here on earth to punish people.

The point is that even when quoted out of context the Quran never descends to this level of barbarity - calling for innocents and livestock to be killed.

Haha don't tempt me... i think it gets enough of that. And I don't agree with the "innocents".

Another difference is that ebonics misquotes the Quran to put down Muslims and Islam. I don't advocate that all Christians and Jews follow the numerous violent passages of the Bible - they rather sensibly choose to not follow these instructions.

I've said all along that Muslims are similarly sensible in not following all the verses of the Bible - the difference between Muslims and sensible Christians and Jews comes down to which parts of the Bible we choose to reject.

I think its quite a luke-warm faith to just choose to follow what suits you, that is not what the Bible advocates. But if you read the whole book it is quite clear... it is not all instructions on how to live today, it is also a history book that you can learn alot from. I personally believe if you read it all then it becomes so much clearer and very obvious what is directed at us today and what we must follow... its not just about picking bits out and discarding other bits.

Strawberries wrote:

I pointed out that the Bible could actually furnish unambigious calls for violence.

So you could read one sentence of a chapter book and understand without a doubt exactly/unambugiously what it is talking about? Its like overhearing half a conversation... can end up quite misleading!

No - disagree here. The verses are quoted in context and in full.

Strawberries wrote:

You say that not one quote says you should go out and kill non-believers - but Deut 13.13-19 quoted above unambiguously says if you hear of one town which contains apostates (those encouraged to worship false gods), go and kill all the people including the livestock.

As I said go and read it properly, who is saying it? to who? at what time? and in what circumstances? and is it telling us to go and kill people... you find the answer is no. If you read the whole bible it will make much more sense and you will realize that we are not suppose to kill... it is not our responsibility here on earth to punish people.

How would you feel if I quoted the verses that talked about the implementation of these verses - where thousands were slaughtered?

I chose to only quote the verses which 'said' non-believers/idolators and innocents (the verses are clear that not just the disbelievers are to be killed - and as Chocs will point out, livestock is always innocent!)

Strawberries wrote:

The point is that even when quoted out of context the Quran never descends to this level of barbarity - calling for innocents and livestock to be killed.

Haha don't tempt me... i think it gets enough of that. And I don't agree with the "innocents".

The Quran does not say anywhere that innocent women and children or livestock should be killed. If you think otherwise, I do tempt you.

Strawberries wrote:
I think its quite a luke-warm faith to just choose to follow what suits you, that is not what the Bible advocates. But if you read the whole book it is quite clear... it is not all instructions on how to live today, it is also a history book that you can learn alot from. I personally believe if you read it all then it becomes so much clearer and very obvious what is directed at us today and what we must follow... its not just about picking bits out and discarding other bits.

I have read a lot of the Bible - have you read it from cover to cover?

I would say it is a statement of faith that the Bible is clear about which verses to follow and which to ignore. The violence between Christian sects over theological differences (look at the persecutions of monotheites and monophysites in the Middle East, for one example) shows that amongst Christians there was and is not unanimity. The unitarians call themselves Christians, for example.

In practice Christians do decide which bits of the OT and NT to follow and which to not. Paul says in the NT that women should not speak in Church and that they should cover their heads. Christians tell me that this should have been followed at the time the words were said and written down, but today Christian women do not have to follow these teachings. Therefore, they tell me, commandments can change over time. Do you disagree?

Cheers,
Shafique

Strawberries - do you agree with the summaries of the following verses, or is there another non-literal explanation for these:

* In 1 Chronicles 21, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census.

* In Deuteronomy 3, God also orders 60 cities destroyed so that the Israelites can live here. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of valuables.

* In Joshua 6 He again orders an attack and killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses.”

* In Judges 21, He orders the murder of the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married.

Cheers,
Shafique

Strawberries wrote:

The point is that even when quoted out of context the Quran never descends to this level of barbarity - calling for innocents and livestock to be killed.

Haha don't tempt me... i think it gets enough of that. And I don't agree with the "innocents".

Another difference is that ebonics misquotes the Quran to put down Muslims and Islam. I don't advocate that all Christians and Jews follow the numerous violent passages of the Bible - they rather sensibly choose to not follow these instructions.

I've said all along that Muslims are similarly sensible in not following all the verses of the Bible - the difference between Muslims and sensible Christians and Jews comes down to which parts of the Bible we choose to reject.

I think its quite a luke-warm faith to just choose to follow what suits you, that is not what the Bible advocates. But if you read the whole book it is quite clear... it is not all instructions on how to live today, it is also a history book that you can learn alot from. I personally believe if you read it all then it becomes so much clearer and very obvious what is directed at us today and what we must follow... its not just about picking bits out and discarding other bits.

strawberry hitting the nail square on the head.

islam is about taking what you want, and ignoring what you want... hence you still struggle to reply to all the quotes out of the Sahih's that i quoted, you just chose to say "these arent true" without any research on your behalf. the exact blind faith i been talking about all along...

if i ignore, and i dont like how it sounds, it cant be true..... when al azhar says its true - so again, what sort of qualifications do you have to make the decision that particular hadith is false? thats right.... zilch.

you're the same life story of every muslim, taking what they want, ignoring the rest.


im seriously done here, talking to you is just wasting great energy i can be investing doing much better things.

ebonics - the difference is that you have a go at Muslims for dismissing dubious 'sayings' but in the same breath advocate the dismissing of verses of the Bible.

We should compare like with like - the Quran should be compared with the Bible. You quoted the Quran out of context whilst I have tried to give the full quotes from the Bible.

You have asked time to disect the Quran - and I shall wait patiently.

What I don't understand is your motivation. You don't follow the Bible as you have decided to give up Christianity and have more 'new age' experiences, including ones utilising mind-altering chemicals. Yet despite the fact you don't believe in the Bible's message that Christianity provides salvation, you defend it ahead of the Quran. The Bible is acknowledged to be much more violent that the Quran - and the selections of verses in this thread are a taste of this.

I note that in this thread you have not disputed that the quotes are from the Bible. Nor have you tried to justify them.

That you have chosen to give up on the thread that your question started is no surprise to me. In the UK we have a phrase 'all mouth and no trousers'.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:The Bible is acknowledged to be much more violent that the Quran - and the selections of verses in this thread are a taste of this.

I note that in this thread you have not disputed that the quotes are from the Bible. Nor have you tried to justify them.

aknowledged by who? you with no credentials? you're as far deluded as you can get... im giving up because doesnt matter how right someone is, you would never see the light blinded by what you believe in. i left you on several occasions unable to come back with any plausable explanations of muhammad's teachings, you wont becuase they are 100% accurate as confirmed by the highest of muslim clerics in press conferances and on satellite tvs on muslim channels - but if thats not going to work in getting you to use your head, well nothing is... so why am i wasting my time?

the quotes you quoted do not in the slightest show that christianity or the bible is a violent book by any measure, i dont even know what i have to answer to - you're simply making verses fit how you want them to fit your vision.. but you clearly have no understanding of whats going on - period...


my quotes out of the quran are not out of context - simple proof is that that same verse is what every terrorist organisation utilises as their reason - the quran told them to fight none believers, to kills, cut their hands, feet etc etc etc - so lets go and get "martyrd" so we can go to heaven, enjoy 70 virgin women, endless young boys, gold and silver utensils and fields of food.......... thats their idea of heaven... how materialistic and utterly bullsh*t - now you may not believe in the same, but truth of the matter is this exists....

what happened when the danes published cartoons? "CUT THEIR HANDS" they dont make up the words, the quran contains them.

there's a reason why muslims call jews "monkeys and pigs" - like are you poeple serious?? they're humans just like you, if not better... what makes them monkeys and pigs?

everything i quote you'll dismiss as unauthentic - so tell me, WHY would i bother?

A simple 'no ' would have sufficed.

Will we ever see your 'disection' of the Quran?

Cheers,
Shafique

I think it is interesting that in the thread about Quranic contradictions each alleged contradiction was addressed without resort to insult or personal attacks. (Note that exchanges with ebonics was not on the subject of contradictions in the Quran)

In this thread, we have just had blanket 'you don't know what you are talking about' or 'you should read in context' type comments.

My experience is that the majority of Christians haven't read the whole Bible and that many are unaware of these violent verses in the Bible.

Christian teachings are peaceful despite the presence in the Bible (especially in the OT) of these verses. It seems ok for Christianity to be viewed as a peaceful religion despite these verses and despite the many atrocities that have taken place at the hands of those nominally Christian.

I would therefore have expected that Christians should be the last to quote the Quran out of context or to call Islam violent. Alas, not the case.

That said, Ebonics is not a Christian any more - so therefore he is not being hypocritical for any un-Christian behaviour.

Taking a leaf out of the Bible 'Forgive them father, for they know not what they do'!

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I would therefore have expected that Christians should be the last to quote the Quran out of context or to call Islam violent. Alas, not the case.

would you like to explain to the kids at home why the lady above has a price on her head after a fatwa - making her blood "halal" ?

same with father zakaria boutros? a whopping 20 million US dollars... if islam is a religion of peace, think of how much peace the people in the gaza strip would do with 20 MILLION in aid money... they wouldnt have to attack their neighbouring country egypt to push themselves onto egyptian land the way they did (together with several tonnes of explosives siezed by the egyptian army)

would you like to explain to the kids at home as well why the azhar produced a fatwa making it halal to do suicide operations in isreal?


i insist - that im not quoting the quran out of context, the above, case in point.

shafique wrote:and that they should cover their heads.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

I chose to only quote the verses which 'said' non-believers/idolators and innocents (the verses are clear that not just the disbelievers are to be killed - and as Chocs will point out, livestock is always innocent!)

These are descriptive verses. They are historical acts of violence that have taken place in the past. They are not commands to the reader of the text to do anything. They are simply history.

Islam is a religion of Peace.

when the Muslims conquered the land

Did the Muslims conquer the land without shedding blood? If not, then it is not a good example of Islam being peaceful.

Crusader Christian rule was one of genocide.

Not true. There were different crusades. Most of them were violent, but some were peaceful. Massacring the inhabitants of cities that resisted the conquering army was a common practice back then. Muslims did it in Constantinople, Carthage, Iran and many Indian cities.

At least you and I agree that there are many parts of the Bible that we should not follow in this day and age

Ignoring that Christians are not obligated to follow the OT, the verses you quoted are descriptive verses (passages that describe something in a historical context). Prescriptive verses are ones that command the reader to carry out acts of violence. You won't find that in the Bible except in the Torah passages dealing with civil law.

despite the many atrocities that have taken place at the hands of those nominally Christian.

Alright, you name a historical atrocity with citation and death toll in the first three centuries of Christian history and then I'll name a historical atrocity with citation and death toll in the first three centuries of Islamic, and we'll see who can go the longest.

ebonics wrote:would you like to explain to the kids at home why the lady above has a price on her head after a fatwa - making her blood "halal" ?

Sure. But what has that got to do with the Bible?

ebonics wrote:
same with father zakaria boutros? a whopping 20 million US dollars... if islam is a religion of peace, think of how much peace the people in the gaza strip would do with 20 MILLION in aid money... they wouldnt have to attack their neighbouring country egypt to push themselves onto egyptian land the way they did (together with several tonnes of explosives siezed by the egyptian army)

Where does the Quran say father boutros should have a bounty on his head?

And which news coverage of the Gazan blockade have you been watching (it couldn't have been the Israeli, for even they said the Gazans went into Egypt and spent money buying up food etc - hardly an invasion!)

ebonics wrote:
would you like to explain to the kids at home as well why the azhar produced a fatwa making it halal to do suicide operations in isreal?

Yes - they consider it ok to fight against an oppressor and target those doing the oppressing. I personally don't agree with killing any civilians, but Israel does that week in week out.

But again, what has this got to do with the Bible or the Quran?

ebonics wrote:
i insist - that im not quoting the quran out of context, the above, case in point.

Sorry, what case in point is that? What verse of the Quran are you referring to and what context?


Are you going to address the quotes from the Bible you requested I provide - and hence this thread?

Cheers,
Shafique

valkyrie wrote:

shafique wrote:and that they should cover their heads.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Please explain this verse to me in relation to the quote above then
Corinthians, chapter 11 verses 3-10.

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraces his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not covered, let her be shaven. But if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. A man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority over her head, because of the angels


This is pretty clear to me, and it is in the New Testament. I thought this is why many Christian communities have women who covered their hair (and many still do).

Edit - this article written by a Christian tackles the above and concludes that the Bible says women should wear a hat or other head covering (not just have long hair)
http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence ... vering.htm

And what about not speaking in Church?

valkyrie wrote:

I chose to only quote the verses which 'said' non-believers/idolators and innocents (the verses are clear that not just the disbelievers are to be killed - and as Chocs will point out, livestock is always innocent!)

These are descriptive verses. They are historical acts of violence that have taken place in the past. They are not commands to the reader of the text to do anything. They are simply history.

The quotes in the first post were instructions and then there are quotes showing what happened in history - that thousands were killed by those on 'God's' side.

valkyrie wrote:

Islam is a religion of Peace.

when the Muslims conquered the land

Did the Muslims conquer the land without shedding blood? If not, then it is not a good example of Islam being peaceful.

Conquest of land is not the same as the spread of a religion. Islam in asia for example spread without a conquest of land - and the most populace Muslim country is Indonesia. Even in Arabia, the exponential growth in numbers of Muslims only took place after the treaty of Hudaibiyya when the Meccans agreed to leave the Muslims alone.

As stated before, when the muslim Arabs conquered Egypt the majority of the population was Christian.

Just after the conquest, the majority remained Christian - and it was through gradual conversions that some centuries later the Christians became the minority.

The Muslim conquest of Egypt took place in AD 639. Despite the political upheaval, Egypt remained a mainly Christian land. However, the gradual conversions to Islam over the centuries changed Egypt from a Christian to a largely Muslim country by the end of the 12th century.
Kamil, Jill (1997). Coptic Egypt: History and Guide. Cairo: American University in Cairo

valkyrie wrote:

Crusader Christian rule was one of genocide.

Not true. There were different crusades. Most of them were violent, but some were peaceful. Massacring the inhabitants of cities that resisted the conquering army was a common practice back then. Muslims did it in Constantinople, Carthage, Iran and many Indian cities.

You say that Most Christian rule was violent - I agree.

I disagree that most Muslim rule was similarly violent - I agree that masacres did take place later on in Muslim conquests - but never on the scale of the slaughter of Christian conquest of Jerusalem and even the bloodbath of the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders who massacred their Christian bretheren in the 4th Crusade. I mean for 3 days they murdered raped and looted Constantinople - Roman Catholics attacking Eastern Catholics.

valkyrie wrote:

despite the many atrocities that have taken place at the hands of those nominally Christian.

Alright, you name a historical atrocity with citation and death toll in the first three centuries of Christian history and then I'll name a historical atrocity with citation and death toll in the first three centuries of Islamic, and we'll see who can go the longest.

An interesting choice of periods - for the Christians you want to take the period before there was a formal Church or even a codified Bible. You want to look at the time when the religion was not one of the ruling class.

I think the better comparison would be to look at the atrocities in any given 300 year period - I think Islam would win that count. When there was peaceful rule in the Islamic world, the Jews were being masacred in Europe. When the east was busy getting on with developing civilization, the west was in the dark ages and brutalizing their populations and neighbours. etc etc.

The problem is that Islam went through the same stages of Christianity (and all other revealed religions in the past) but at an accelerated stage (because it was the final, universal religion).

The period of only the weak joining the religion and being oppressed lasted about 13 years for Islam - whereas it was something like 2 or 3 hundred years for Christianity.

So - if you want to compare the first 300 years of Christianity, you would have to compare that against the period of time when Islam was confined largely to Medina and Mecca was still in the hands of the idolaters.

Anyway - history speaks for itself.

Islam has not been responsible for the biggest wars in human history - the mass genocides that took place in the 20th century weren't in Muslim lands . The numbers of Muslims killed on the other hand...

Cheers,
Shafique

I think it's worth repeating what I have said before:

I do not believe that Christianity teaches violence.

This thread was started because ebonics stated that only one religion - Islam - advocated the killing of non-believers and that Islam is a violent religion.

Islam is not a religion that advocates the killing of non-Muslims, but is also not a pacifist religion. In fact, one of the reasons for fighting oppressors is to protect places of worship of other faiths (this is in the Quran 22.39-40).

Therefore the purpose of this thread is to show that the Bible does contain verses which advocate the killing of all inhabitants of a town, including livestock. This is in the OT which also records events where tens of thousands were slaughtered by the forces on the side of God.

I further consider that the acts of genocide and atrocities that have occured in the name of Christianity and Islam have both taken place despite the teachings of the respective religions.

I am happy to compare military campaigns and do a statistical comparison of atrocities etc - but this is really a different topic. At the end of the day, my analysis is that more people have been killed as a result of nationalism than in the name of religion, and that when it comes to religiously motivated attacks, the conduct of the 'Franks' marks the low-point in human brutality both in terms of numbers and in callousness.

Muslims do come off better in comparison, but are also have examples of brutal acts of war and war crimes. Saladin is feted in the West as a noble adversary whilst generally under-playing the more significant Muslim victories under Bayburs who repaid the Crusaders with a taste of their brutality.


Cheers,
Shafique

Quote:
I pointed out that the Bible could actually furnish unambigious calls for violence.

So you could read one sentence of a chapter book and understand without a doubt exactly/unambugiously what it is talking about? Its like overhearing half a conversation... can end up quite misleading!



No - disagree here. The verses are quoted in context and in full.

The VERSES are quoted in full but the Bible is not a whole lot of seperate verses, it is one full book... this is sounding really repetitive but I'm not sure why you are not getting it, seems straight forward to me... to understand the context then you should know who is saying it? to who? and in what circumstances? None of those verses are instructions for us today to kill people as you are implying.

Strawberries wrote:

Quote:
You say that not one quote says you should go out and kill non-believers - but Deut 13.13-19 quoted above unambiguously says if you hear of one town which contains apostates (those encouraged to worship false gods), go and kill all the people including the livestock.

As I said go and read it properly, who is saying it? to who? at what time? and in what circumstances? and is it telling us to go and kill people... you find the answer is no. If you read the whole bible it will make much more sense and you will realize that we are not suppose to kill... it is not our responsibility here on earth to punish people.



How would you feel if I quoted the verses that talked about the implementation of these verses - where thousands were slaughtered?

I chose to only quote the verses which 'said' non-believers/idolators and innocents (the verses are clear that not just the disbelievers are to be killed - and as Chocs will point out, livestock is always innocent!)

Really its abit pointless. You are missing in history where almost all the animals and people on earth were purposely killed except Noah and his family because they weren't following God. Yes there was alot of violence and death in history but you cannot twist it into saying that today God advacates us to go and kill innocent people.

I have read a lot of the Bible - have you read it from cover to cover?

I would say it is a statement of faith that the Bible is clear about which verses to follow and which to ignore. The violence between Christian sects over theological differences (look at the persecutions of monotheites and monophysites in the Middle East, for one example) shows that amongst Christians there was and is not unanimity. The unitarians call themselves Christians, for example.

Yes I have read it from cover to cover. I'm surprised you've read alot of it because you are missing some real basics. I think you've gone the wrong way about it, if you really want to understand it then try cover to cover, it is in a logical order for a reason that makes alot of sense. You don't seem to understand the differences between the old and new testaments because you are continually trying to apply the old testament as instructions for us today. The Old Testament gives the Law for that time which has two parts: the commandments and the blessing/curse that comes from obedience or disobedience to those commands. The Old Testament describes the sacrificial system God gave the Israelites to temporarily cover their sins (which yes did involve killing innocent animals!). The Old Testament lays the foundation for the teachings and events found in the New Testament and there is so much to be learnt from it but it is very clearly not direct instructions to us on how we should live today. The old testament was meant to prepare the Israelites for the coming of the Messiah (who the majority rejected although the Bible tells us they won't reject Jesus when he returns again). The New Testament starts at Christ Jesus's birth and directs christians ("followers of christ") along with alot else - how they should live.
There is so much more that can be said... read it... its all in the Bible. But dont just pick out bits and pieces or it wont make any sense, you'll get the total wrong idea.

In practice Christians do decide which bits of the OT and NT to follow and which to not. Paul says in the NT that women should not speak in Church and that they should cover their heads. Christians tell me that this should have been followed at the time the words were said and written down, but today Christian women do not have to follow these teachings. Therefore, they tell me, commandments can change over time. Do you disagree?

I dont know any christians that follow the teachings of the old testament except those teachings that are reinforced in the new testament. But yes in practise alot of christians do pick and choose what to follow in the new testament and thats wrong. I don't follow everything exactly because its really not easy... but it makes me happier then the "i dont give a damn, i'll do what I want" attitude that I used to have. And yes many christians and so-called christians have done violent and wrong things in the past.
I was brought up in a church where women covered their heads and don't speak. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. Although its clear what parts of the Bible we should follow, verses or I should say sections of the Bible taken in context can still be interpreted in different ways but the basics of the faith are quite clear. And no commandments have not changed since the birth of Christ.

Throughout history some of the worst crimes against humanity have been carried in the name of God, fanaticizing religious values to justify unspeakable acts against humanity. That doesn't reflect the true teachings of that religion and if it didn't exist I'm sure the idiots would have found something else to exploit/ another excuse for their acts.

Strawberries wrote:The VERSES are quoted in full but the Bible is not a whole lot of seperate verses, it is one full book... this is sounding really repetitive but I'm not sure why you are not getting it, seems straight forward to me... to understand the context then you should know who is saying it? to who? and in what circumstances? None of those verses are instructions for us today to kill people as you are implying.

Please read my last post above - Christianity does not promote violence, but the Bible contains violent verses (which can be 'misquoted').

Strawberries wrote:
Really its abit pointless. You are missing in history where almost all the animals and people on earth were purposely killed except Noah and his family because they weren't following God. Yes there was alot of violence and death in history but you cannot twist it into saying that today God advacates us to go and kill innocent people.

In other words, in the past war crimes were committed and now God is 'reformed' and would never now condone killings of innocents and livestock by humans.

Strawberries wrote:

I have read a lot of the Bible - have you read it from cover to cover?

Yes I have read it from cover to cover. I'm surprised you've read alot of it because you are missing some real basics. I think you've gone the wrong way about it, if you really want to understand it then try cover to cover, it is in a logical order for a reason that makes alot of sense.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I can argue from the point of Christian theology quite well. I often do so when faced with Muslims with a narrow view of their religion and Christianity - it is disapointing how many times I 'win' as the 'Christian'!

You are one of the few Christian lay people I have met/conversed with who has read the Bible cover to cover. I applaud you for that. Many aren't aware of the violent and more distasteful accounts in the Bible.

My point is that I do read the Bible and take what is good from there - I read the teachings of Jesus and follow his teachings - he empasised the spiritual over the material, preached tolerance but also was a stickler for not sinning (going against the wishes of God). I pray to the same God Jesus prayed to, I pray in the same manner in which he prayed (and I still know the Lord's prayer off by heart - and have no problem in praying it, for it does not say to pray to Jesus or that he is God in that prayer).

My problem is only with the teachings of St Paul - that is the part of the Bible I choose not to follow.

Above all Jesus also said that there would be a new law to come that we would all have to follow.

Strawberries wrote:You don't seem to understand the differences between the old and new testaments because you are continually trying to apply the old testament as instructions for us today. The Old Testament gives the Law for that time which has two parts: the commandments and the blessing/curse that comes from obedience or disobedience to those commands.

Yes, I am aware of this. But as I said, I disagree with St Paul's 'spin' as I see it.

Strawberries wrote:

In practice Christians do decide which bits of the OT and NT to follow and which to not. Paul says in the NT that women should not speak in Church and that they should cover their heads. ...

... But yes in practise alot of christians do pick and choose what to follow in the new testament and thats wrong. I don't follow everything exactly because its really not easy... but it makes me happier then the "i dont give a damn, i'll do what I want" attitude that I used to have. And yes many christians and so-called christians have done violent and wrong things in the past.

There are two points here - there is the knowledge of Christian theology and then knowingly not being able to follow all the teachings. I think everyone of any religion has issues with following all the teachings all the time (we are all human and are not perfect - another principle that is common to ALL religions).

However, a separate point is that Christian theology requires that some verses of the Bible are ignored or require elaborate explanations. I'll give one example - Christian teaching is ultimately pacifist - turn the other cheek, give your shirt when your cloak is stolen. But then there is Jesus telling the disciples to carry a sword, and to sell their clothes to buy a sword if they don't have a sword:

Luke 22:36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." (New Revised Standard Version, NRSV)

Thus, I am referring to Christian having to ignore the literal meaning of this verse to fit in with the Christian theology. We know that at least one disciple carried a sword and the Bible records him chopping off an ear (and being rebuked by Jesus).

Strawberries wrote:I was brought up in a church where women covered their heads and don't speak. I'm not sure if I agree with it or not. Although its clear what parts of the Bible we should follow, verses or I should say sections of the Bible taken in context can still be interpreted in different ways but the basics of the faith are quite clear. And no commandments have not changed since the birth of Christ.

The fluidity of Christian teachings has caused much discussion amongst Christians themselves. The debate and potential split over ordination of women, homose.x.ual priests etc within the Anglican community is a case in point. If commandments have not changed since the birth of the Church (which is what I think you mean, rather than birth of Christ when Judaic law still applied), then how can the injunction that women should not speak - which your childhood church followed - be now disregarded by those who have women priests/chaplains etc.

Strawberries wrote:
Throughout history some of the worst crimes against humanity have been carried in the name of God, fanaticizing religious values to justify unspeakable acts against humanity. That doesn't reflect the true teachings of that religion and if it didn't exist I'm sure the idiots would have found something else to exploit/ another excuse for their acts.

That I agree with - but I'd also qualify that the very worst crimes in terms of brutality and numbers have occurred in conflicts where religion had no part to play as well. The common factor in all these was human committing evil.

Cheers,
Shafique

In other words, in the past war crimes were committed and now God is 'reformed' and would never now condone killings of innocents and livestock by humans.

No thats not what I said at all. In the Old Testament Gods law on earth was suppose to be followed and when it wasn't punishment happened and yes that was violent, at times entire races were wiped out. But it wasn't because God advocated killing people, he created humans and loves humans.... but he has also given us our own will and people choose to turn against him and do wrong things, he warned people that the result of this would be death.
But throughout these times God also promised a Messiah/Saviour, there are many prophecies about this (see Isaiah 53, Micah 5:2 to name a couple). So things changed when these prophecies were fillfulled by the birth and death of Jesus Christ. You will not see any voilence being advocated in the New Testament.

Yes, I am aware of this. But as I said, I disagree with St Paul's 'spin' as I see it.

I'm not sure what 'spin' you are talking about but if you don't agree with the differences between the old and new testaments as I explained then its not just Pauls teachings you need to cut out of your Bible but alot of sections in both the old and new testaments.
But I can understand you not following the whole Bible being Muslim because there are parts that contradict Islam however there is still alot of good lessons to be learnt as well.

However, a separate point is that Christian theology requires that some verses of the Bible are ignored or require elaborate explanations. I'll give one example - Christian teaching is ultimately pacifist - turn the other cheek, give your shirt when your cloak is stolen. But then there is Jesus telling the disciples to carry a sword, and to sell their clothes to buy a sword if they don't have a sword:

Its not about elaborate explanations, its about reading in context. His teaching is pacifist, that quote is not instrutions for us, it is telling us about a conversation he had the night before he died. Understand the circumsatances... Jesus knew that he was soon to be arrested, it had been prophecied, all of the desciples were there except Judas who he also knew was going to betray him (he had told the disciples this, although they didnt understand)

Luke 22:35-38 says:

35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied. (NRSV)

I don't understand the significance of the swords but I do understand this that he did not promote them being used in violence... if he wanted to fight off his arrest that he knew was going to happen do you think 2 swords would have been enough? and then when he was arrested that night he told Peter off for using the sword.
Yes I don't fully understand that verse but I don't see violence being promoted there and nowhere does it advocate us to be violent.

The fluidity of Christian teachings has caused much discussion amongst Christians themselves. The debate and potential split over ordination of women, homose.x.ual priests etc within the Anglican community is a case in point. If commandments have not changed since the birth of the Church (which is what I think you mean, rather than birth of Christ when Judaic law still applied), then how can the injunction that women should not speak - which your childhood church followed - be now disregarded by those who have women priests/chaplains etc.

Yes there is alot of disagreements between Christians, there is also currently alot of disagreements and fighting between Muslims. It also says in the Bible that towards the end days Gods people will be divided. Many people follow wrong teachings and there are some shocking practises going on out there but we can only be responsible for our own actions and we will all face God as individuals.

Cheers for the conversation! I dont think I will have much time to keep up with these replies but I'll probably have some questions for you about Islam in the future... I need to learn more. Actually reading a really interesting book at the moment... highly recommend it... "Benazir Bhutto Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy & the West".

Strawberries wrote:

Yes, I am aware of this. But as I said, I disagree with St Paul's 'spin' as I see it.

I'm not sure what 'spin' you are talking about but if you don't agree with the differences between the old and new testaments as I explained then its not just Pauls teachings you need to cut out of your Bible but alot of sections in both the old and new testaments.
But I can understand you not following the whole Bible being Muslim because there are parts that contradict Islam however there is still alot of good lessons to be learnt as well.

In a nutshell, I believe that Jesus' mission was as Messiah for the Jews and was not the literal son of God whose mission was to die for our sins (and we don't believe in Original Sin).

Therefore I do not believe in the preaching to non-Jews that began after the crucifixion.

Strawberries wrote:

However, a separate point is that Christian theology requires that some verses of the Bible are ignored or require elaborate explanations. I'll give one example - Christian teaching is ultimately pacifist - turn the other cheek, give your shirt when your cloak is stolen. But then there is Jesus telling the disciples to carry a sword, and to sell their clothes to buy a sword if they don't have a sword:

Its not about elaborate explanations, its about reading in context. His teaching is pacifist, that quote is not instrutions for us, it is telling us about a conversation he had the night before he died. Understand the circumsatances... Jesus knew that he was soon to be arrested, it had been prophecied, all of the desciples were there except Judas who he also knew was going to betray him (he had told the disciples this, although they didnt understand)

Jesus said carry a weapon and to sell your clothes if you did not have one. To my knowledge there is no verse saying not to carry a weapon.

Strawberries wrote:I don't understand the significance of the swords but I do understand this that he did not promote them being used in violence... if he wanted to fight off his arrest that he knew was going to happen do you think 2 swords would have been enough? and then when he was arrested that night he told Peter off for using the sword.

A sword's only use is violence. It can be used in defence as well as offence, but its only use is as a weapon.

Given that there were so many Romans at the arrest, there was no point in fighting.

Anyway - the point is you agree that Jesus says in the Bible that disciples should carry a sword, but that the overall message is one of pacificism. Therefore you are forced to find a way to reconcile this verse with the overall message - somehow one can be a pacifist whilst carrying a deadly weapon. This is what I mean by elaborate logic - a pacifist cannot carry a weapon.

I don't think Jesus was contradictory - I rather believe that Jesus' message was that violence was sometimes necessary (in essence, what Islam teaches and what Christians actually practice).

Strawberries wrote:Yes I don't fully understand that verse but I don't see violence being promoted there and nowhere does it advocate us to be violent.

The point is that a sword is a weapon whose only function is as a weapon.

Strawberries wrote:

The fluidity of Christian teachings has caused much discussion amongst Christians themselves. The debate and potential split over ordination of women, homose.x.ual priests etc within the Anglican community is a case in point. If commandments have not changed since the birth of the Church (which is what I think you mean, rather than birth of Christ when Judaic law still applied), then how can the injunction that women should not speak - which your childhood church followed - be now disregarded by those who have women priests/chaplains etc.

Yes there is alot of disagreements between Christians, there is also currently alot of disagreements and fighting between Muslims. It also says in the Bible that towards the end days Gods people will be divided. Many people follow wrong teachings and there are some shocking practises going on out there but we can only be responsible for our own actions and we will all face God as individuals.

Agreed - Christians and Muslims disagree over how to interpret their holy books. Some Muslims will go against what is clearly written in the Quran - the thing is that many a time Christians have argued here that there is no fundamental division on theology amongst Christians - I don't think this stands up to any cursory examination of the facts.

Strawberries wrote:Cheers for the conversation! I dont think I will have much time to keep up with these replies but I'll probably have some questions for you about Islam in the future... I need to learn more. Actually reading a really interesting book at the moment... highly recommend it... "Benazir Bhutto Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy & the West".

Sure, look forward to the questions about Islam.

This thread was really for ebonics - it is too easy to cut and paste criticisms of the Bible (for example, I have refrained from posting about contradictions in the Bible). I prefer constructive discussions about the strengths and commonality of religions. However, I will defend any unjust statements against any faith.

Cheers,
Shafique