The 9/11 Islamist Attacks a Decade Later

Ed Hudgins's picture
Submitted by Ed Hudgins on Sun, 2011-09-11 01:30

The 9/11 Islamist Attacks a Decade Later
By Edward Hudgins

September 9, 2011 -- The first decade of the twenty-first century was defined by Islamists, who used planes as weapons against the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and who would have done the same to the Capitol or White House if not for the brave passengers who died in the process of stopping them. There is much being said about the lessons the past ten years have taught us—about war, about national security, about Middle East policy. But the most important, which is too often ignored, is that ideas have consequences.

Evil ideas

And irrational ideas are the most destructive forces in the human world, killing more people over the centuries than hurricanes, earthquakes, and natural disasters. The hijackers actually believed and took seriously the religious poison in the name of which they slaughtered nearly 3,000 innocent people. Some on the political left and the libertarian right have attributed the 9/11 attacks and subsequent assaults in London, Spain, and elsewhere to blowback for supposed economic or geopolitical wrongs committed by the U.S. But the hijackers were middle class, educated, and living in the West, where they could believe or do pretty much as they wanted. Yes, there are legitimate questions concerning American Middle East policy. But policy complaints do not justify nihilistic violence.

Islamists defend their criminal practices by appealing to the Koran. But their most dangerous idea is that any idea should be accepted on faith. One must not question, think critically, or use reason. One must not ask, “Why should I accept this or any alleged religious ‘revelation?’ Does this stuff make any coherent sense? Am I honestly seeking the truth or rationalizing and evading in order to believe this stuff?” Such faith-based believing is the ultimate root of all immorality, including that manifest in the smoldering ruins at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

The modern versus the primitive

As Atlas Society founder David Kelley has observed, the Islamist assault on America and the West is a manifestation of the struggle between the ideas of modernity and the pre-modern. This struggle occurred in past centuries in the West with the rise of the Enlightenment ideas “that reason, not revelation, is the instrument of knowledge and arbiter of truth … that the pursuit of happiness in this life, not suffering in preparation for the next, is the cardinal value … that the individual person is an end in himself with the capacity to direct his own life … that individuals have equal rights to freedom of thought, speech, and action.”

Islamic culture is still mired in a pre-modern mentality. The Arab Spring uprisings reveal a frustration with the economic failures and political repression in the Middle East, made more stark in comparison to the West. If these uprisings are not to result simply in more such failures and repression, what that region’s culture sorely needs but lacks are strong advocates of Enlightenment values. Instead, Islamists—who target those who speak for modernity—offer a return to millennium-old primitivism, with Shar’ia law chaining the bodies and spirits of individuals to greater repression and superstition.

Islamists in the West

In the West, the outcome of this battle of ideas will affect more than how long the security lines are at airports and how much oil prices spike on the occasions of Middle East instability. Here’s why:

Some 90 percent of the population growth in Western Europe since 1990 has been the result of Islamic immigration. In France, 30 percent of children under 20 years old are Muslim. In 40 years the majority in France could be Muslim. In the Netherlands, about half of newborns are Muslim. In 15 to 20 years the majority in the Netherlands could be Muslim. In Germany, a government report from the Federal Statistics Office says that the Fatherland could be majority Muslim by 2050.

The problem here is not with immigrants as such. Part of the problem is that European nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment can still trump Enlightenment values. No matter how many generations removed from their home country, descendents of immigrants are sometimes never accepted as “true” Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, and so on. Add to this the fact that many Muslim immigrants to Europe in past decades have brought with them pre-modern notions and one can understand why they have not assimilated.

Thus we see no Enlightened Islam arising in Europe. But we did see actual celebrations by Muslims in Britain of the 9/11 mass murders, and thousands in the streets screaming for the deaths of Danish cartoonists who drew pictures of Mohammed. If such moral sentiments eventually inform the majority in Europe, then the continent that gave rise to the Enlightenment could sink again into a dark age.

The West’s moral mess

In the decade since the 9/11 attacks, many in the West have blundered in the battle of ideas.

First, many on the political left were revealed to not be simply honest critics of aspects of society in America and Europe. Rather, they responded as knee-jerk haters of the West. Noam Chomsky, for example, doubted that the Taliban was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Well into the American response in Afghanistan, he declared that the war’s aim “was totally illegal. It was more, criminal.” Only a few on the left—Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, for example—have broken from that camp and have stood up for truly liberal values such as civil liberties, freedom of conscience, and the right of women to be treated not like children or chattel but as equal citizens before the law.

Second, many so-called liberals are paving the way for Islamist theocracy by silencing its critics. During the Danish cartoon controversy, many argued for the “right” of the most close-minded, bigoted, and murder-minded Muslims not to be offended—even though the cartoonists mainly meant to educate, not offend. In the Netherlands politician Geert Wilders was tried for voicing his opposition to Muslim immigration. Free speech is okay for those who want to destroy freedom but not for those who wish to defend it.

Third, many on the radical religious right also blamed America first. The late Rev. Jerry Falwell “pointed the finger” for the 9/11 attacks at gays, the ACLU, and those who favor legalized abortion. And Dinesh D’Souza stated that “The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 ... the cultural left and its allies … are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world.”

While many on the religious right have not gone to these absurd extremes, they want to oppose the tenets of Islamic religious faith with the tenets of their own faith rather than to oppose faith as such with reason and Enlightenment values.

An enlightened future

The best defense for the West is to get its own house in order. We need to stand up more consistently for rationality and individual freedom. These are the truths that will liberate and heal the wounded cultures of the world, and that will help the West continue to lead the way to a better, more peaceful, more prosperous future.

-----------------
For further reading:
*Edward Hudgins, “Are the People of the Middle East Fit for Freedom?” May 14, 2004.
*Edward Hudgins, “The Jihad Against Free Speech.” The New Individualist, Winter, 2005.


Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"The reasons for that are found within Christianity itself."

Which reasons for Deism did you find in Christianity, a religion, which based on the idea of original sin, that no hair could fall without God's will, and that Jesus himself should come back and sort out all the sinners?

You asked "In your opinion, do the reasons for Islam's lack of being tamed (tamed obviously meaning tempered by reason) lie within or without?!

In my opinion no religion could be tamed by reason. Religion, faith, is an exact opposite to reason-Deism included. Throughout history all religions have been defunged and tamed only when they have been divorced from the power of state. As long as Islam is supported by political power of state, no matter in the West or East, it won't be tamed.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

I know at least one person who'd agree with you-I. V Stalin. He used to say " if there is no person, there is no problem." So he resolved a lot of problems by using your metodology. In fact, there was another one whom we better shouldn't mention.

Response to 911 ...

Richard Goode's picture

Deism isn't Christianity but

Richard Wiig's picture

Deism isn't Christianity but Christianity has been influenced by it. The reasons for that are found within Christianity itself. Islam, despite the few muslims who have fought to adopt reason, isn't anywhere near so open to reason as Christianity is. In fact, it isn't open to reason, fullstop. Likewise, the reasons for that are found within Islam itself. I have just finished reading the closing of the Muslim mind in which those reasons are clearly laid out. The real life consequences I can see with my own eyes and ears. When you tell me they are the same it just doesn't stack up. There are muslims still fighting to this day for the incorporation of reason into Islam, as has been done throughout the history of Islam (even though you say that Islam has never been exposed to enlightenment ideas) and still to this day they are failing. If they could magically stack the Qur'an with a few reason friendly Christian ideas they might start having some success. The fact is, the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunnah is stacked against them. But I'd like you to answer my question. In your opinion, do the reasons for Islam's lack of being tamed (tamed obviously meaning tempered by reason) lie within or without? If you answer within, then specifically what is the obstacle? If Christianity is the same, then why has Christianity not been afflicted similarly by the same obstacle?

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

Sorry, Deism isn't Christianity.

http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

Nothing in Christian doctrine supports or suggests Deism. Deism is a theology which exists in spite Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Some Muslims became Deists as well as Christians and Jews.

http://www.sullivan-county.com...

Marcus

Richard Wiig's picture

I understand your disdain for all religions, but treating them as all the same when they are not doesn't help. If Islam is to be "defanged" then what needs to be extracted needs to be identified. Then it needs to be determined whether or not an extraction is even possible. The answer surely determines how non-muslims should best approach the problem.

Unless you are saying that

Richard Wiig's picture

Unless you are saying that Christianity is still what it was at its inception, then it is the Christian view. The bible supports that view reasonably well; the Qur'an only very tenuously. That's ultimately why Christianity was open to the philosophers and reason while Islam was not. Every attempt in Islam to introduce reason has so far failed, and it is still failing to this day. In your view, the reason is what? That non-muslims haven't been brutal enough with the mullahs? Reasonable enough with them? Submissive enough? The reason is from without or within? If within, then what is it specifically? I'm giving you a clear reason from within Islam itself, but you reject it. So you tell me. Why has Christianity been so "tameable" while Islam hasn't? If it is not because of doctrinal differences between the two religions, then what is it? For the life of me, I cannot think of anything else that it could be.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"The Christian concept is of a god that created an order. The things he created are what they are, in and of themselves. They have an independence from God and become secondary causes, following the natural laws that god created. I'm sure you can see the likely outcomes from the two different views."

This is not Christian concept. You describe God of philosophers-Deism.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy....

Christians, as Jews and Muslims believe in God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.

Response to 911...

Marcus's picture

The Islamic concept is of a

Richard Wiig's picture

The Islamic concept is of a god of pure will. God is the first and only cause. There are no other causes. Allah wills the universe into being and keeps it in being with his will. There is no thing that is in and of itself. The Christian concept is of a god that created an order. The things he created are what they are, in and of themselves. They have an independence from God and become secondary causes, following the natural laws that god created. I'm sure you can see the likely outcomes from the two different views.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"Have you no shame?"

I refuse to feel shame for performing the slaughter of few sacred cows you revere. However I do understand that "it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” as Voltaire said.

"They are very different,

Leonid's picture

"They are very different, because the Islamic conception of God is very different from the Christian conception of God."

Really? And how they are different? God of Islam and God of Christians is the same "old good" God from OT who created earth and heaven., ordered many massacres and sent his beloved son to die on the cross.

"If Islam truly is the equivalent of Christianity, then there's really not a great deal to fear from it."

They aren't equal because Christianity has been pacified and Islam not yet. But they have the same origin and the same mind set. It was Christianity, not Islam which created Judo-Christian civilization and determined its bloody course for almost 2000 years. I'd say, there is a great deal to fear from both. Both glorify "grieve, mourn and wail". BTW, what are distortions you're talking about?

Submit yourselves, then, to

Richard Wiig's picture

Submit yourselves, then, to God

As your obviously know submission in Arabic is Islam. So all these Christians who submit themselves to God are no different from Muslims.

They are very different, because the Islamic conception of God is very different from the Christian conception of God.

You are mistaken if you think you can denigrate Islam by whitewashing Christianity. By doing so you actually endorse and appease both religions. Stop to shoot yourself in the foot.

I'm not whitewashing Christianity, and my defending it in the face of your distortions isn't about denigrating Islam. My defence is in the interests of justice. You're the one who enables an evil, Leonid. If Islam truly is the equivalent of Christianity, then there's really not a great deal to fear from it.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Have you no shame?

No posting unless it's commentary.

Richard Wiig

Leonid's picture

"Actually, that is a huge fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, one that Leonid, I believe, is ignorant of...All in the aid of appeasing Islam."

Let see how fundamental this difference is?

"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 1Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up." (James 4:1-12)

You also can check http://www.gotquestions.org/su...
http://thefathersloveim.org/su...

As your obviously know submission in Arabic is Islam. So all these Christians who submit themselves to God are no different from Muslims.

You are mistaken if you think you can denigrate Islam by whitewashing Christianity. By doing so you actually endorse and appease both religions. Stop to shoot yourself in the foot.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"You are confusing the Resurrection with the Second Coming."-And how do you know to what this parable refers?

"Is the latter your idea of Biblical exegesis?" more or less. One always can find a quote in the Bible to justify just about anything. You want to love and forgive your enemies?-Jesus said to do so. You want to slaughter them-Jesus said he would do it himself ( after second coming or resurrection).
You want to follow 10 commandments-Jesus said he came to preserve the Law. You want to throw it out-no problem, Jesus said he is a fulfillment of the Law. You want to stone the prostitute-Jesus never objected to such a practice, he just attached a certain condition to the process ""If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." ( John 8:7)
You want to live as a parasite-Jesus approves: "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. (Matt. 6:28-29)
You want to honestly earn your living-Bible actually order you to do so ( Genesis 3-19)

You want to love the whole humankind and forget about racial and religious differences-Bible approves (Colossians 3:11, Ezekiel 47:22).

You want to discriminate-you welcome, Jesus himself called non-Jewish woman a dog ( see below)...and so on and so far....

That why the clergy can interpretate any scripture in any way they please, to adjust it to any political condition and to control the herd of believers. But to understand this you need an unbiased mind, free of religious brainwashing.

"Is being Jewish relevant to your hating on Christ?"

I don't hate Jesus. I'm not even sure he ever existed. But if he did, according to every description in the Bible, he was a Jew by himself. He actually died as a King of Jews.
What I do hate is a bunch of Christian Anti-Semites who used the scriptures in the way I described above in order to prosecute Jews for two millennia.

You cannot evade personal

Richard Wiig's picture

You cannot evade personal responsibility by submission to God, so it is no evasion to hold Christians personally responsible for their actions.

Actually, that is a huge fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, one that Leonid, I believe, is ignorant of.

Never before have I encountered such a blatant contradiction in a single post.

All in the aid of appeasing Islam.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

The fact that Jesus promises to commit his massacre when he returns doesn't change its violent nature. As we all remember, Jesus returned just 3 days after he left.

You are confusing the Resurrection with the Second Coming.

It is evasion because me being Jewish is not relevant to the subject-matter of the post which is Jesus' call to kill infidels.

Is being Jewish relevant to your hating on Christ? That's why I asked.

To suppose an existence of personal responsibility in the people who submit their minds to God is an evasion.

You cannot evade personal responsibility by submission to God, so it is no evasion to hold Christians personally responsible for their actions.

Please elaborate what contradicts what?

You said the only qualification you need to understand the Bible is an unbiased mind, and then you describe the Bible as a chaotic supermarket in which anyone can find justification for just about anything.

Is the latter your idea of Biblical exegesis?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Apparently, you compared Jesus to Hitler. That's why my response was to ask, are you Jewish? Hardly "an epitome of evasion."

It is evasion because me being Jewish is not relevant to the subject-matter of the post which is Jesus' call to kill infidels. Besides, your response implies that only Jews should be concerned with Jewish genocide. I leave to you the moral evaluation of such a position.

"I agree that the king in the parable is Jesus."-Thank you. That what is counts. You don't have to care that "most of commentators agree", but you agree nevertheless. The fact that Jesus promises to commit his massacre when he returns doesn't change its violent nature. As we all remember, Jesus returned just 3 days after he left.

"I pin the blame on the real perpetrators. How is insisting on personal responsibility an evasion?"

To suppose an existence of personal responsibility in the people who submit their minds to God is an evasion. There is no independent judgement and moral choice possible when God is a sole standard of value. Every thing, every imaginable crime is goes as long as it has God's approval-for example an extermination of the whole world's population in flood.

"Never before have I encountered such a blatant contradiction in a single post."

Please elaborate what contradicts what?

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

For example you responded to my post about Parable of the Minas with a question " Are you Jewish?" This is an epitome of evasion.

It wasn't your post, though, was it? It was your copy and paste. Your contribution was

This way or another Jesus is going to slay his enemies-bloody fucking Jews!

And he is not the only one...

Apparently, you compared Jesus to Hitler. That's why my response was to ask, are you Jewish? Hardly "an epitome of evasion."

Or you prefer to evade the nature of parable. ... as far as I know most of commentators agree that king is Jesus.

No, I do not evade the nature of parable, and I agree that the king in the parable is Jesus. But, tell me, why should I care that "most of commentators agree"? Why should I believe whatever it is that most commentators agree on? Why shouldn't I judge for myself what is right?

http://www.netbiblestudy.com/00_cartimages/parableofthepounds.pdf

You deny this as well.

No, I don't. What I deny is that Luke 19:27 is a verse in which Jesus calls for the murder of those who do not follow him. It is not, as you claim, an open-ended command to war against non-Christians, and it is not an instruction to his disciples to go on a killing spree. The king in the parable is Jesus when he returns. At the time of telling, he hadn't yet left.

You also decided to divorce Christianity from Christ's Gospel by saying "I think it's not right to pin the blame for Christianity on Jesus." Now on whom for Christ's sake you pin the blame then and how it is not an evasion?

I pin the blame on the real perpetrators. How is insisting on personal responsibility an evasion?

the Bible ... was written for the people like you and me and the only qualification which is needed to understand it, is an unbiased mind.

Scriptures are a chaotic supermarket of ideas where everybody can find justification for about anything.

Never before have I encountered such a blatant contradiction in a single post.

Religion however, is a way of life and mind set which is result of biased interpretation of the scriptures by clergy in order to fit it to the current political situation and to exercise total control over believers.

I agree. That is why I think it's not right to pin the blame for Christianity on Jesus.

If however you want to now who was Jesus as a person, the best way to do that is to watch the immortal "Jesus Christ Superstar " by Weber.

Thanks, I will put it on my watch list.

Richard

Leonid's picture

  "Can you give me a specific example of my alleged superpower"- For example you responded to my post about Parable of the Minas with a question " Are you Jewish?" This is an epitome of evasion.

Or you prefer to evade the nature of parable.   A parable  is a fable or allegory which purpose is to highlight certain principles. Therefore each and every character in the story is an allegory. Parable by its very nature presupposes an explanatoion and as far as I know most of commentators agree that king is Jesus.

"However, when we get to verse 27, the parable does speak of the unsaved. This 27th 

verse pertains to the unsaved. Notice they are NOT called "servants, but "enemies." See how 

differently they are treated: "Bring those enemies (not servants) of mine, who did not want me to 

reign over them here before me and slay them in my presence" (verse 27). "

http://www.netbiblestudy.com/00_cartimages/parableofthepounds.pd

You deny this as well. You also decided to divorce Christianity from Christ's Gospel by saying "I think it's not right to pin the blame for Christianity on Jesus." Now on whom for Christ's sake you pin the blame then and how it is not an evasion?

I don't have any formal qualification in the biblical studies and the Bible wasn't written for the academics. It was written for the people like you and me and the only qualification which is needed to understand it, is an unbiased mind.

If however you want to now who was Jesus as a person, the best way to do that is to watch the immortal "Jesus Christ Superstar " by Weber.

Incidentally, I don't blame OT or NT for the horrors of Christianity , as I don't blame Qur'an for the crimes committed in the name of Islam. Scriptures are a chaotic supermarket of ideas where everybody can find justification for about anything. Religion however, is a way of life and mind set which is result of biased interpretation of the scriptures by clergy in order to fit it to the current political situation and to exercise total control over believers. Believers are the people who submit their autonomy and their minds to supernatural omnipotent omniscient omnipresent being and therefore become an easy prey for the such power lusters. It doesn't matter what they call such a being-Elohim, Allah or Jesus-the result is always the same- a bloody carnage.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Your ability to evade is apparently unlimited.

Can you give me a specific example of my alleged superpower?

I quoted two explanations of the story which you simply ignored.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...
http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

Both commentaries refer to the king as Jesus. The call of violence attributed to him by modern teachers of Christian Faith. Whether Jesus was a mythical, collective or real character is not relevant. For Christians he is very much real.

I didn't ignore your explanations.

The first explanation is John Gill's. Gill's been dead 240 years, and so can hardly be described as a modern teacher of the Christian Faith. Also, he's a Calvinist and, therefore, totally depraved.

The second explanation is worth considering, but it's one man's opinion among many.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

The question is, to whom do we attribute this call to violence? You say Jesus, I say the character in the story, the man of noble birth who was made King. For the time being, at least, let's agree to differ.

In his original post, Ed says

Islamists defend their criminal practices by appealing to the Koran. But their most dangerous idea is that any idea should be accepted on faith. One must not question, think critically, or use reason. One must not ask, “Why should I accept this or any alleged religious ‘revelation?’ Does this stuff make any coherent sense? Am I honestly seeking the truth or rationalizing and evading in order to believe this stuff?” Such faith-based believing is the ultimate root of all immorality, including that manifest in the smoldering ruins at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

This thread has been derailed, but I'd like to get it back on track. I'd like to get it back on track by asking a meta-question, viz., how do we settle the question? How do we decide whom to attribute the call to violence found in Luke 19:27? I asked you a couple of times already about your qualifications as a Biblical exegete. You seem to be thoroughly versed in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (which is more than I can say of myself) but many a fool can say he's read the Bible. Indeed, most of those who say they have, are. You indicated that having a mind was the only qualification you required. Well, contrary to opinions expressed elsewhere on SOLO, I have one of those too.

So, what I'm asking is, how do you go about deciding the answers to questions like these? What rules do you follow? What are your background assumptions? How do you self-correct your own opinions? I am aware of the facts of history which you describe as "14 centuries of Christian Hiroshima". But, as indicated elsewhere, I think it's not right to pin the blame for Christianity on Jesus.

I want to know what Jesus was really about. I think you do too.

"Are not two sparrows sold

Leonid's picture

"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father." Matthew 10-29

"Prov. 21:30, "There is no wisdom or understanding (That can come) against the Lord." (His secret plan)"

http://dewitttabernacle.org/go...

Raymond Ibrahim: The Closing

Richard Wiig's picture

Raymond Ibrahim: The Closing of the Muslim Mind (Book Review)

Last week, “Saudi Arabia’s religious police arrested an Indonesian housemaid for casting a magic spell on a local family and ‘turning its life upside down.’” The maid “confessed” to using sorcery, and “commission experts took the magic items to their office and managed to dismantle and stop the spell.”

Far from being absurd aberrations to be dismissed, such accounts, which are becoming better known thanks to the Internet, are stark reminders of the incompatibility between the Western and Muslim worldviews, or, more to the point, the difficulty Western peoples have transcending their own paradigms and understanding the Muslim worldview in its own right—above and beyond the issue of sorcery.

In his book, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, Robert Reilly, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council, helps explain the Muslim worldview by thoroughly documenting the historic and doctrinal roots behind it; by refreshingly bypassing the overly dramatized question of “what went wrong,” he explains the more pressing “why it went wrong.”

The book is a reminder of the importance of epistemology: before understanding Muslim acts, one must understand the Muslim mind that initiates them. We discover that Shakespeare’s dictum “Nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so,” in Islam becomes “nothing good or evil but Allah says so.”

The author sheds light on the struggles of the different schools of Islam, showing how by the 10th century, the fatalistic, deterministic schools triumphed, delivering the death blow, not only to the notion of free will, but natural law as well: “a theological deformation … produced a dysfunctional culture.” From here one can understand the full impact of the popular assertion “the doors of ijtihad [intellectualizing] closed in the 10th century.”

Reilly chronicles how the giants of Muslim philosophy, such as Ghazali and Ashari, concluded that knowledge was unknowable, that moral truths can only be ascertained through revelation. Accordingly, all knowledge—the very bounds of reality—came to be limited to the words of the Quran and its pronouncer, Islam’s prophet Muhammad.

The ramifications of such intellectual calcification are immense: “All acts are in themselves morally neutral”; “Allah does not command certain behavior because it is good; it is good because he commands it. Likewise, he does not forbid murder because it is bad; it is bad because he forbids it.”

Equivocations, such as the following by Ashari, become commonplace: “Lying is evil only because Allah has declared it to be evil…. And if he declared it to be good it would be good; and if he commanded it, no one could gainsay him.” Of course and as Ashari knew, the Islamic deity and his prophet are on record permitting and even encouraging Muslims to deceive.

Similarly, the spirit of inquiry perishes: “the only thing worth knowing is whether a specific action is, according to Shari ‘a: obligatory, recommended, permitted, discouraged, or forbidden. The rest is irrelevant.” It is precisely for this reason that in Islam, the law—what is right or wrong, how one should live—trumps “theology,” the latter designated as kalam, that is, mere “words.” This is also why in the last millennium Spain alone has produced more books than the Arab world in its entirety.

Likewise in the realm of science: Reilly cites a Pakistani physicist—not an uneducated, impoverished “radical”—saying it is un-Islamic to believe that combining hydrogen and water makes water; rather, Muslims are “supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah [which need not always be consistent] water was created.”

The Closing of the Muslim Mind explains the singularity of Muslim epistemology and its antithesis to Western sensibilities: it explains why a maid is arrested and charged with sorcery and the dread of bewitched animals; explains why adult “breastfeeding” and habitual lying pose no moral problems; explains why top Muslim clerics insist the world is flat and ingesting the feces and urine of Muhammad is salutary; explains why jihadists believe their terror is pious and a libidinous paradise awaits them.

All these “alternate” ways of thinking make sense when one accepts that, in the purely Muslim mind, intuitive reasoning, the human conscience, and even common sense take a backseat to the literal words of Allah and his prophet, seen as the founts of all truth and reality—or, inevitably from a non-Muslim perspective, the words of a deluded or deceiving 7th century Arab.

Raymond Ibrahim, a widely published Islam-specialist, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. He writes a weekly column for Jihad Watch.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"To whom does Leonid attribute this call to violence? To the character in the story, the man of noble birth who was made King, or to the story-teller(Drunk, the author or authors unknown writing under the pseudonym Luke? Neither. Leonid is lukewarm."

Your ability to evade is apparently unlimited. I quoted two explanations of the story which you simply ignored.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...
http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

Both commentaries refer to the king as Jesus. The call of violence attributed to him by modern teachers of Christian Faith. Whether Jesus was a mythical, collective or real character is not relevant. For Christians he is very much real.

"Islam today is religion's Chernobyl. As we speak, a toxic cloud drifts over Europe, poisoning Western civilisation and the shared values we hold dear. Already, parts of inner-city Europe are, literally, uninhabitable."

Quite true. And all this when we hardly recovered from the 14 centuries of Christian Hiroshima.

Ed

Richard Goode's picture

irrational ideas are the most destructive forces in the human world, killing more people over the centuries than hurricanes, earthquakes, and natural disasters.

Ideas don't kill people, people do.

their most dangerous idea is that any idea should be accepted on faith.

The idea that some ideas should be accepted on faith is no more dangerous than nuclear power generation. Proper containment is key. In terms of religious ideas, proper containment requires, at least, the strict separation of church and state.

Islam today is religion's Chernobyl. As we speak, a toxic cloud drifts over Europe, poisoning Western civilisation and the shared values we hold dear. Already, parts of inner-city Europe are, literally, uninhabitable.

The plot thickens

Richard Goode's picture

It was actually me who said that Leonid had to yet produce a single verse.

The plot thickens.

According to most, the Gospel of Luke is a more or less accurate account of the ministry of the historical Jesus. It was written by Luke, the author of Acts of the Apostles. Luke describes an actual event in which Jesus tells the story we know as the Parable of the Minas.

According to Leonid, the Gospel of Luke is a fictional account of the life of a fictional character called Jesus, written by author(s) unknown. The Parable of the Minas is a story within a story.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

To whom do we attribute this call to violence? To the character in the story, the man of noble birth who was made King, or to the story-teller, Jesus? It can be argued either way. "Hot" if you attribute it to the story-teller, Jesus. "Cold" if you attribute it to the character in the story, the man of noble birth who was made King. I'm cool.

To whom does Leonid attribute this call to violence? To the character in the story, the man of noble birth who was made King, or to the story-teller(s), the author or authors unknown writing under the pseudonym Luke? Neither. Leonid is lukewarm.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

It was actually me who said

Richard Wiig's picture

It was actually me who said that Leonid had to yet produce a single verse. So far he has only produced one, and one that is not really usable.

Richard

Jmaurone's picture

Thanks for the clarification.

Richard Goode: "You have yet to produce a single verse from the New Testament that amounts to an open-ended command to war against non-Christians."

Me: To quote the late Maude Flanders: "I don't judge Homer and Marge. That's for a vengeful God to do."

Richard Goode: Romans 12:14-21
Posted on September 24, 2011 by Richard

(Romans 12:14-21): Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NIV)

Jesus

Richard Goode's picture

Which verse? That quote is not mine.

Leonid has misattributed the quote to you. Here the man of noble birth who was made King said

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

and here you quoted him saying it.

Joe

Richard Goode's picture

Which post? That quote is not mine.

Leonid has misattributed the quote to you. Here I said to Leonid

You have yet to produce a single verse from the New Testament that amounts to an open-ended command to war against non-Christians.

and here you quoted me saying it.

Leonid

Jmaurone's picture

Which post? That quote is not mine.

Jmaurone

Leonid's picture

"You have yet to produce a single verse from the New Testament that amounts to an open-ended command to war against non-Christians."

Sorry, I missed your post.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:25-27 For the explanation see below.

"As an online discussion

Leonid's picture

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

You said.

Richard

Leonid's picture

" Are you Jewish?"

Yes, but this is not relevant. As you can see, Jesus' list is long...

Godwin's law

Richard Goode's picture

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

Are you Jewish?

"The one who said that Jesus

Leonid's picture

"The one who said that Jesus instruct Hid disciples to kill doesn't know anything about the Holy Bible and very carnal in mentality"

Your problem is that you as a good Christian don't ever bother to read the Holy Bible, let alone the commentary.

It was a parable and the king

Leonid's picture

It was a parable and the king was Jesus himself.

"Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies
Meaning particularly the Jews, who were enemies to the person of Christ, and hated and rejected him, as the King Messiah; and rebelled against him, and would not submit to his government; and were enemies to his people, and were exceeding mad against them, and persecuted them; and to his Gospel, and the distinguishing truths of it, and to his ordinances, which they rejected against themselves:

which would not that I should reign over them;
see ( Luke 19:14 )

bring hither, and slay [them] before me;
which had its accomplishment in the destruction of Jerusalem, when multitudes of them were slain with the sword, both with their own, and with their enemies; and to this the parable has a special respect, and of which Christ more largely discourses in this chapter; see ( Luke 19:41-44 ) though it is true of all natural men, that they are enemies to Christ; and so of all negligent and slothful professors, and ministers of the word, who, when Christ shall come a second time, of which his coming to destroy the Jewish nation was an emblem and pledge, will be punished with everlasting destruction by him; and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed, sin, Satan, the world, and death: of the first of these the Jews

`http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/luke-19-27.html`

Compare with http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_u...

Here is another explanation

ANALOGIES IN THE PARABLE

The nobleman = Jesus Christ our Lord
His going into the far country = his ascension to God in heaven
His receiving of a kingdom = reigning over the church
His citizens refusing him = secular Israel's rejection
The ambassage they sent = "We have no king but Caesar."
The ten servants = all of the servants of Christ
"Trade ye ... till I come" = the faithful work of Christians
The ten pounds = the trust God gives to every man
The one who gained ten = the faithful Christian
The one who gained five = the faithful Christian of less ability
The one who hid his pound = the wicked and unfaithful Christian
Ten cities and five cities = different kinds of employment in heaven
Taking away the pound = punishment of unfaithful servants
Slaying his enemies = judgment of Jerusalem as a type of eternal judgment
The return of the nobleman = the Second Coming of Christ
Extended absence of nobleman = the long period of time before the Second Coming
http://www.searchgodsword.org/...

This way or another Jesus is going to slay his enemies-bloody fucking Jews!

And he is not the only one...

It was a parable

Richard Goode's picture

It was a parable. The character in the parable was a king, and any king in this world kill their enemies.

Jesus did not instruct His disciples to kill.

The one who said that Jesus instruct Hid disciples to kill doesn't know anything about the Holy Bible and very carnal in mentality.

* 3 years ago
* Report Abuse

11 And as they heard these

Leonid's picture

11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
3 years ago Report Abuse
Additional Details
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
3 years ago

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:25-27 (KJV)

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

The mirrored parable in Luke ends with a verse in which Jesus calls for the murder of those who do not follow him:

Luke 19:27 says:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

What is a mirrored parable?

I Googled the phrase and nearly all that came up was the page (and copies of the page) from which you copied and pasted the above.

In my view Christians in

Leonid's picture

What path, in what Age, under what circumstances?

In my view Christians in essence are pragmatists. They pick up from OT and NT whatever suit them at the current moment. They accept some commandments from OT , but reject others in spite the explicit declaration of Christ that he didn't come to change the law but to preserve it.

So they can find support in the scriptures for every thing-from the hanging of homosexuals to the unconditional brothery love to all sinners and infidels.

The Old Testament has been the main source for Christian theologians advocating religious persecution. An example of this would be John Jewel. In defending the demand for religious uniformity by Elizabeth I of England, he declared: "Queen Elizabeth doth as did Moses, Josua, David, Salomon, Josias, Jesophat, ..." ( John Coffey, Persecution and Toleration on Protestant England 1558-1689, 2000, p.31)

Or how would you like this proclamation of Christian love :

" "Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, .. to take an oath that they will strive .. to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church."

( Medieval Sourcebook: Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215)

Saint Thomas Aquinas summed up the standard medieval position, when he declared that that obstinate heretics deserved "not only to be separated from the Church, but also to be eliminated from the world by death.

( Aquinas, Summa Theologica, quoted after Aquinas, Selected Political Writings (Oxford, 1959), p.77)

Was Aquinas following path of Jesus or Moses? Did he really see any difference? I doubt it very much.

However it would be unfair to attribute all religious atrocities only to OT. NT also have something to contribute:

The mirrored parable in Luke ends with a verse in which Jesus calls for the murder of those who do not follow him:

Luke 19:27 says:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

One may dismiss all this as medieval nonsense. One may claim that modern Christians on the path of love and tolerance and this would be mostly true as long as they stay separated from the power of state. However, the moment they get this power they do back to Aquinas and Torquemada in no time.

As one of the gay activists in Uganda observed in response to the proposed death sentence law for homosexuality :"In the beginning, when the missionaries brought religion, they said they were bringing love. Instead they brought hate, through homophobia."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Others just cannot wait

http://www.religioustolerance....

It doens't even matter if

Richard Wiig's picture

It doesn't even matter if Leonid's interpretation is correct or not. What matters is how mainstream Christianity has interpreted it. They clearly haven't taken the path that Leonid thinks they should have.

Leonid lies

Richard Goode's picture

You misquote again

I did not misquote. Not only did I not misquote, but I provided a link to the passage I quoted, so that the reader could verify that I did not misquote!

This is Colossians 2:13-17 full quotation:

I did not quote Colossians 2:13-17 in full. So what? Here is Colossians 2:13-17 in its entirety, with the bits I omitted in bold.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[a] God made you[b] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[c]

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I omitted verse numbers and footnotes. I omitted the first half of verse 13 because it is redundant.

(What is not redundant, however, is the male foreskin, the sexually sensitive sleeve of tissue that normally covers and protects the head of the penis. The barbaric Judaic practice of circumcision appalls and disgusts me. Male genital mutilation of a newborn is a vile initiation of force. Circumcision is child sexual abuse. Hang all the Law and the pedophile Prophets!)

Please note that I quoted from the New International Version 1984 translation. This is the only possible translation.

You misquote again

Leonid's picture

Your misquote again

This is Colossians 2:13-17 full quotation:

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

This doesn't means that Christ canceled the Law. In fact the uncircumcision of flesh considered to be a sin which Christ forgave. He canceled not a Law but a charge which is not the same. He revived the sinners who transgress the law by giving to them an amnesty. This is Paul's position who was speaking to Gentiles.

However, Paul's priority is not Jesus' teaching but conversion of Gentiles and final separation of his church from Judaism. So he continued:

" Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

In other words Paul claims that Christ substitutes the Law and by that he contradicts Christ himself who said:

" For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law "

Colossians 2:13-17

Richard Goode's picture

God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (NIV1984)

Paul confirmed that OT Law is an integrated part of Christianity. That exactly what I claim as well.

Your quote looks rather silly.

Richard Goode : Re "Hang all the Law and the Prophets"

Leonid's picture

"Hang all the Law and the Prophets!"

I didn't realize that you like to play this kind of games.

Matthew simply repeats Rabbi Hillel's golden rule :

"Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophet"

Paul repeats after OT :

Galatians 5:14 "The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
7:12 Joh 1:17 Ro 3:19-21 13:9 1Ti 1:5 1Jo 4:7-11,19-21 Jas 2:8

http://bible.cc/matthew/22-40.htm

In fact both Matthew and Paul confirmed that OT Law is an integrated part of Christianity.

That exactly what I claim as well. Your misquote looks rather silly.

" What the woman said to

Leonid's picture

" What the woman said to Jesus in verse 27? And what Jesus then said to the woman in verse 28?"

According to the Mark's Gospel, the woman actually confirmed that she is a dog.

"28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. "

For the recognition of her inferior status she was rewarded by Jesus.

"29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter"

Mark 7:24-30

Do you still insist that "Jesus did not loath Gentiles."?

"If you're correct, then

Leonid's picture

"If you're correct, then Christianity should be anti-reason, and militant. That clearly isn't the case."

Isn't it?

Do you consider Holy Inquisition as pro-reason establishment and endless religious wars
as a proof of their pacifism? ( not to mention Crusades)

Here are just few examples:

"*Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed,
because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]

"*The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to
pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a
Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415." ( you can rent a movie " Agora" which describes Christian "adherence " to peace and reason in great details)

"*Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to
convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30

"Begin of violence on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single
pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209
destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including
Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends)
20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]"

"*1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million
rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain.
[DO31]

*17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant) at least 40% of
population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

http://notachristian.org/chris...

A religion of "peace and reason indeed!

If you think that Christian violence belongs to the past, think again.

http://notachristian.org/chris...
http://www.religioustolerance....
http://www.armyofgod.com/POCPa...
http://www.wqxr.org/#/articles...
http://www.sectalk.com/board/t...

And the last but not least :

"By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[22]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Sweet Jesus!!!
http://images.search.yahoo.com...

Matthew 22:40

Richard Goode's picture

Hang all the Law and the Prophets!

God knows as your dog knows

Richard Goode's picture

Moreover, he loathed Gentiles, called them dogs.

Jesus did not loath Gentiles.

Leonid, aren't you going to tell us the rest of the story? What the woman said to Jesus in verse 27? And what Jesus then said to the woman in verse 28?

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"Do you have any extra-biblical evidence that Jesus was a Jew?"

No, but we discuss biblical Jesus. According to Bible he was a Jew. His name, names of his mother and father are typical Jewish names. He was called Son of David. The last supper is a Jewish Pesach. He also was called " Rabbi" and his words on the cross were in Hebrew " Eli, Eli, lama azavtani". Moreover, he loathed Gentiles, called them dogs.

"22. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed."

23. But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."

24. But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

25. Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, "Lord, help me!"

26. But He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs."

Matthew 15: 22 - 26

They do as the whole history

Richard Wiig's picture

They do as the whole history of Christianity proves.

Sorry, but the whole history of Christianity doesn't prove it at all. If you're correct, then Christianity should be anti-reason, and militant. That clearly isn't the case.

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

"The Jesus I'm referring to..." You refer to a myth, a legend, a story. There is no extra-biblical evidence that such a person ever existed.

That was then

This is now

However Jesus was a Jew and he was talking to Jews who were familiar with OT.

Do you have any extra-biblical evidence that Jesus was a Jew?

"There's no problem with

Leonid's picture

"There's no problem with Islam in Russia, because they know how to treat them in Russia"

I never claimed that there is no problem with Islam in Russia, I said that Russians know how to deal with it. 3 wars in Chechnya is one example.

"Then he said to them, “The

Leonid's picture

"Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath... Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not? But they remained silent. ”

There is a well known principle in Judaism " pikuach nefesh doche shabbat"-danger to human life overrides shabbat. Jesus simply proved that he knows and observes Law better than Pharisees or synagogue leader

"If that is the only possible

Leonid's picture

"If that is the only possible meaning, then why have Christians not taken it the same way you have?"

They do as the whole history of Christianity proves. However Jesus was a Jew and he was talking to Jews who were familiar with OT. Paul, the founder of the church, was talking to Gentiles who were cherry-piking from OT in order to avoid de facto conversion to Judaism. They even abrogated one of the 10 commandments to keep Shabbat. Besides, early Christianity as Islam in its Makkan phase was persecuted religion and as such it couldn't use the militant verses from OT. Thus all the talks about "fulfillment of the Law" and its abrogation. However, when Christianity, supported by Roman legions became a dominant religion, it didn't hesitate to use militant verses from OT in order to persecute infidels, heretics, apostates, witches and so on and so far...

Mark 2:27

Richard Goode's picture

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Sabbath bloody Sabbath, Nothing more to do ...

Luke 14:1-11

Richard Goode's picture

One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.

Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?” And they had nothing to say.

When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

For all those who exalt themselves ("This is the only possible meaning of the verse and no interpretation can change it") will be humbled, and those who humble themselves ("If that is the only possible meaning, then why have Christians not taken it the same way you have?") will be exalted.

Luke 13:10-17

Richard Goode's picture

On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

I think that this passage is a proof of the straightforward and unconditional acceptance of OT's laws by Jesus. This is the only possible meaning of the passage and no interpretation can change it.

John 5:1-16

Richard Goode's picture

Some time later, Jesus went up to Jerusalem for one of the Jewish festivals. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?”

“Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”

Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.

The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat.”

But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’ ”

So they asked him, “Who is this fellow who told you to pick it up and walk?”

The man who was healed had no idea who it was, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd that was there.

Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

I think that this passage is a proof of the straightforward and unconditional acceptance of OT's laws by Jesus. This is the only possible meaning of the passage and no interpretation can change it.

Leonid, paraphrased

Richard Wiig's picture

There's no problem with Islam in Russia, because they know how to treat them in Russia:

Terror at the Beach
Sep 30, 2011 5:59 PM EDT

Radicals in Russia have been bombing bikini-clad women to enforce Islamic dress codes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

If that is the only possible

Richard Wiig's picture

If that is the only possible meaning, then why have Christians not taken it the same way you have? I'd like you to broaden the context and show without a doubt that there is no other possible meaning, because you asserting it does not make it clear.

Richard Goode

Leonid's picture

"But—apart from having read a lot of bad Russian philosophy and a few dictionaries—what are your qualifications in either area of expertise?"

You answer a question before to ask it. So I suppose that such a question doesn't require any response. Your post is also implying that you, unlike me have these qualifications. In such a case, I'd be glad to see how you refute my statement "This is the only possible meaning of the verse and no interpretation can change it."

Cannot wait .

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

I've noticed that when it comes to Biblical exegesis

That what you say. But certain J.Christ wouldn't agree.

and the semantics of religious discourse

This is the only possible meaning of the verse and no interpretation can change it.

you write in a tone of great certainty and project an aura of authority. But—apart from having read a lot of bad Russian philosophy and a few dictionaries—what are your qualifications in either area of expertise?

Yes, many Christian scholars

Leonid's picture

Yes, many Christian scholars like to comment on "fulfill the law", but ignore " For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law "

I think that this sentence is a proof of the straightforward and unconditional acceptance of OT's laws by Jesus. This is the only possible meaning of the verse and no interpretation can change it.

I can't reach conclusions

Richard Wiig's picture

I can't reach conclusions about the full meaning of that verse, Leonid, not without a broader context. What does Jesus mean when he says "fulfill the law"? How have christian scholars traditionally interpreted that verse? How is it treated by mainstream Christianity? Does your interpretation square with theirs, or are you in the minority? Even the most ardent Christian fundamentalists don't come anywhere close to what you tell me they ought to be. Even Fred Phelps and his Westboro baptist church members are more likely to be hurt by others than they're ever likely to hurt anyone. Sure, they say some vicious vile things and deserve the sharpest condemnation for it, but they are not even close to militant or to carrying out the harsh punishments of the OT.

"The NT was all about

Leonid's picture

"The NT was all about replacing the OT?"

That what you say. But certain J.Christ wouldn't agree. He 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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

Richard -

reed's picture

What kind of Christian are you?

I'm a half-arsed garden-variety Christian.

Goode

gregster's picture

"What kind of Christian are you? ;-)"

That equates to asking "How primitive do you admit to being?"

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

What kind of Christian are you? ;-)

*

reed's picture

Doug -

Hippie Christians promote/exercise mercy without understanding justice.

Crusader or Muscular Christians promote/exercise justice without mercy.

Interpretive Tradition

Doug Bandler's picture

Leonid's OT quote is surely open ended but aside from Richard's argument that the NT softens* the OT in Christian thinking (which I agree with), I think the larger picture here is that both Judaism and Christianity have developed interpretive traditions whereas Islam has not. Islam's central story is that of a conqueror who spread his faith by the sword. Islam's fundamental conception of piety is spreading the faith by the sword. Islam's 14 century history has been ceaseless attempts of spreading the faith by the sword (or pulling back when facing a militarily superior opponent and waiting for opportunity). Islam has never been softened. That is the central difference.

Islam is fundamentally political in nature. There was never a split between the secular/political and the divine as in "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. There are few if any loopholes existing in Islam for liberty and reason to grow and flourish. Fortunately as history has shown, there were enough loopholes in Judaism and Christianity. So, I think that Richard's argument that Islam is structurally different than both Judaism and Christianity stands.

--------

* Incidentally, it strikes me that there has always been a sort of schism within Christianity that I have seen referred to as the split between "hippie Christianity" and "Crusader or Muscular Christianity". I think that the "hippie" Christians are the NT centered ones whereas the "muscular" Christians are the OT centered ones. I see this also play out in politics. NT focused Christians tend to be Leftists whereas OT focused Christians tend to be strong cultural Conservatives (and very often PaleoCons).

That's the first one you've

Richard Wiig's picture

That's the first one you've produced, Leonid. Thankyou. It does certainly appear to be an open-ended command, rather than just a specific one off event. I could see that as being a foundation for Christian apostacy laws if Christianity had taken that path. Anyway, now that we've found an open-ended command, we cannot actually say that it is open-ended, because the OT itself is not open-ended, is it? The NT was all about replacing the OT? Jesus came along and said that he died for our sins and from now on we should turn the other cheek and pray for the sinners?

" two examples don't cut the

Leonid's picture

" two examples don't cut the mustard either. "

You must be kidding. The whole book is a never ending story of the killings of infidels by the righteous. If you don't accept this as an open-ended command to fight the unbelievers for ever, then what is about your own theory of emulation? Don't you think that religionists emulate their own God who simply exterminated the whole humankind in flood, except one family, or his son who's going to kill infidels with the sword in his mouth when his kingdom come?

I don't really “bother to examine a folly", since it is evident what it accomplished. What Christianity accomplished during its bloody history is a a creation of mountains of the bloody and burned corpses

However, if you insist on the one single quote, here it is:

"“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If that doesn't persuade you, nothing ever will.

"Most seem to agree that the

Leonid's picture

"Most seem to agree that the Koran is a command to violence and Biblical violence is in the nature of allegory."

What is allegoric about Aaron's killing of 3000 Israelites or story of Elijah the prophet who singlehanded slaughtered 400 false prophets, one by one-and all this in the one day work?

Point, Goode

atlascott's picture

No one disputes that old Holy books are full of violence.

Most seem to agree that the Koran is a command to violence and Biblical violence is in the nature of allegory.

Thank you

Richard Goode's picture

I'd have thought you'd be rather pleased by the "compulsion" I've had touted lately.

I am well pleased.

Not just from the NT, but

Richard Wiig's picture

Not just from the NT, but from the OT too.

Romans 12:14-21

Richard Goode's picture

To quote the late Maude Flanders: "I don't judge Homer and Marge. That's for a vengeful God to do."

Romans 12:14-21

I don't know what it is with

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know what it is with you Leonid, but those two examples don't cut the mustard either. You don't need to post a lot of things that dont equate, simply post one that does. Just one.

"You have yet to produce a

Jmaurone's picture

"You have yet to produce a single verse from the New Testament that amounts to an open-ended command to war against non-Christians."

To quote the late Maude Flanders: "I don't judge Homer and Marge. That's for a vengeful God to do."

Leonid

Richard Goode's picture

I read the NPR article you linked to.

Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, says there's a major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the Quran, which urges an ongoing struggle to defeat unbelievers.

"It's an aggressive doctrine," he says. "The idea is to impose Islamic law on the globe."

Take suicide attacks, he says — a tactic that Muslim radicals have used to great effect in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. It's true that suicide from depression is forbidden in Islam — but Bostom says the Quran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Muhammad, do allow self-destruction for religious reasons.

"The notion of jihad martyrdom is extolled in the Quran, Quran verse 9:1-11. And then in the Hadith, it's even more explicit. This is the highest form of jihad — to kill and to be killed in acts of jihad."

You have yet to produce a single verse from the New Testament that amounts to an open-ended command to war against non-Christians.

"This information I obtained

Leonid's picture

"This information I obtained from secondary sources, but I would be pleased to have you direct me to any such passages in either the Torah or the Bible."

Please read the book and you'll find a plenty of such passages. Here is the one example :

Moses stood at the gate of the camp and shouted, “Whoever is for the LORD, come to me!” All the Levitesl then rallied to him,

and he told them, “Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Each of you put your sword on your hip! Go back and forth through the camp, from gate to gate, and kill your brothers, your friends, your neighbors!”

The Levites did as Moses had commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people fell.

EXODUS
Chapter 32

That was a punishment for creating a golden calf.

Here is another:

Samuel 15:2-23 Thus said the ETERNAL: I am exacting the penalty for what Amalek did to Israel, for the assault he made upon them on the road, on their way up from Egypt. Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!

Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them..as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; (Deut 20:16-18)

You can also check Numbers Chapter 31 and http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

Epic Fail

atlascott's picture

None of those versus command what the Koran does, Loenid.

Secondary vesus primary sources

atlascott's picture

This information I obtained from secondary sources, but I would be pleased to have you direct me to any such passages in either the Torah or the Bible.

"The closest thing you've

Leonid's picture

"The closest thing you've produced, to my mind, is "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". It seems to be open-ended (although I don't know that for a fact), so it's a good thing that Christianity is somewhat open to reason. However, it isn't a verse that deals with war"

Do you want me to quote all 1300 quotes from OT which related to the war against infidels or to the terrible punishments which God himself provides? I'll spare an effort. Get the Bible and start to read it.

"They appear to be contextual to a point in time to me rather than eternal commands to war against non-Christians."

Many verses in Qur'an also appear to be contextual, not eternal, especially when Mohammad changes them in accordance to his needs and political situation. And if Christians verses are contextual than why the whole history of Christianity is a non-stop war against infidels, apostates, dissents and so on and so far...The whole book of Revelation is a description of the future war of Christians against infidels. In this war 99% of humankind suppose to perish. That what I call open-ended and eternal command to exterminate the infidels. However, I already mentioned, that in NT are relatively few such a commands-Christianity simply adopted OT for that matter (as Islam did).
In the end of the day it doesn't matter what written where. The proof of pudding in eating the pudding. The whole history of Islam and Christianity is a history of the bloody carnage against infidels, and both religions compete each with other on the level of atrocities and horrors they created. I cannot see any factual difference between them, no matter what is written or not written in their scriptures. Now tell me which facts do I obscure?

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

How's the compulsion touting going, BTW?

I'd have thought you'd be rather pleased by the "compulsion" I've had touted lately.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Anti-realism in metaphysics: "Gobby exists; Goblianity is true."

"God exists" is realism. Realism about God. "God exists" says that God is real. Whereas, atheism is the claim that God is not real. I suppose that makes you the anti-realist.

Christianity is true? Which one? Christianity has more schisms than Objectivism. Martin Luther, for example, certainly didn't assent to the statement, "Catholicism is true." He thought the Pope was the Antichrist.

Subjectivism in epistemology: "I have faith that Gobby exists and that Goblianity is true. Don't bother me with this 'evidence' nonsense."

It's rational to believe that God exists. Depends what your reasons are, though, I suppose. As for, "Don't bother me with this 'evidence' nonsense." There is no evidence that God does not exist. If there was, I suppose you'd have bothered me with it by now.

Collectivism in ethics/socialism in politics: the policies of the ALCP for which party you are a candidate.

You make an uncomfortable point. But does one's candidacy for a party make that party's policies one's own? Talk to John Banks about that!

How's the compulsion touting going, BTW?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.