Originally posted by millerbleach:
Originally posted by 3Rfan:
So you who is constantly preaching to the rest of us about this have no particular religion? If you have a goal to follow the teachings of the bible in it's entirety I guess you think you should be following the Old Testament in it's entirety too? Do you attend a particular church or just have your own at the house?
What you are missing is that a religion is like a club people want to be associated with.
I have a faith in holy creator God and his son Jesus Christ. I try to follow their teachings and examples.
The teachings of the Bible in their entirety teach us to NOT follow the Levitical Law but the accounts found there are accurate.
I attend a church almost every week at least once since scripture says to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.
We showcased violence in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) in parts
6
of this Series. Even though this list of Biblical verses was hardly
exhaustive, it was more than enough to refute the claim-made by
Islamophobes like
accepted as fact by the majority of Americans)-that the Quran is more violent than the Bible.
In response, many Christians rely on a "fall back" argument: they
claim that this "doesn't count" since "it's just the Old Testament!" and
supposedly Jesus Christ rejected the violent legacy of the OT. It is
of course of paramount importance to the anti-Muslim Christians-as well
as to
"culturally Christian" atheists
and your run-of-the-mill Islamophobes who need to prove the "uniquely"
violent nature of Islam's holy book-to neutralize the Old Testament.
After all, if the Old Testament "counts", then it would be a case of
Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) to attack the Quran for its
alleged violence: the Old Testament is by far the more violent book.
There are numerous reasons the "But It's Just the Old Testament!" Defense doesn't do the trick:
1) There is no explicit or categorical textual proof from the New
Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law)
"doesn't count". For every verse cited to prove such a claim, there is
another that can be cited for the opposite view. In fact, it seems that
the textual proof for the opposite view is greater, even overwhelming.
For example, Jesus says in the Gospels:
Matthew 5:17 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.
5:18 I tell you the
truth, 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.
5:19 Anyone who breaks
one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
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.
And Jesus also said:
Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.
There are other verses that similarly seem to affirm the importance
of keeping the Law. On the other hand, the evidences used to counter
this view are less explicit and less direct.
2) Both the Old and New Testament are considered by all mainstream branches of Christianity to be
"just as inspired as the New Testament." The New Testament itself affirms the accuracy of the Old Testament:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"All Scripture - This
properly refers to the Old Testament
it includes the whole of the Old
Testament, and is the solemn testimony of Paul that it was all
inspired." More importantly, as
Catholic.com
says (emphasis is ours): "Scripture - all of Scripture - is inspired by
God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as
inspired as the New Testament and
thus an expression of the will of Christ."
[
Update I: A reader pointed out the following:
Christians
see Jesus as God. That means that he was also the God of the Old
Testament. The same God who commanded all those killings and the author
of all those violent and disgusting commands as listed in your previous
articles. So the violence Jesus supports and predicts is not only
evident in the New Testament, but he is supposedly also the author of
said violent commands in the Old testament as well. Not only then is the Old Testament "an expression of the will of Christ"-it
is Christ.]
Protestant Christianity, as seen on this popular
Evangelical site, also agrees with this assessment:
Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (
James 1:17).
3) On this note, Jesus Christ
himself is depicted in the
New Testament as being
very violent during his Second Coming (see
part 5).
Even if we completely sweep the Biblical prophets and the Old
Testament under the rug (which is exactly what anti-Muslim Christians do
in debates with Muslims), it doesn't change the fact that Jesus in the
New Testament is
very violent: he promises to kill or subjugate
all of his enemies, which includes those whose only crime is to refuse
to believe in him. So, even if we completely disregard the OT, this
wouldn't solve the "problem".
More importantly, the fact that Jesus
promised to kill his enemies (a promise he made during his First Coming)-
even if he is yet to fulfill this promise-shows that Jesus did
not reject
the violent ways of the earlier Biblical prophets. He simply was not
in a position of authority or power to carry out these acts of unbridled
violence. He wouldn't have promised violence if he truly rejected the
OT's violence.
When we published an article about the violent Second Coming of
Christ, many critics cried "you can't compare Jesus' supposed violence
in the future with what Muhammad actually already did!" (How quickly
anti-Muslim Christians can turn something they believe in with all their
might and which they believe is central to their faith-the Second
Coming of Christ-into a "supposed" event makes us wonder if this is not
Christian
taqiyya?) Yet, it was during his First Coming that Jesus made the promise to kill all those who did not believe in him; the
action-a violent threat to ruthlessly slaughter infidels (i.e. Luke 19:27)-
has already been made.
4) Christians not only routinely cite the Old Testament, but they
specifically cite it with regard to Jesus. Various prophecies in the OT
are attributed to Jesus: these prophecies depict the Messiah as a
violent conquering king who brutally vanquishes his enemies. (Please
read the section entitled "Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament
Prophecies" in
part 5 of the Understanding Jihad Series.) This reinforces point #3 above: Jesus is seen as
fulfilling,
not rejecting, the violence of the Old Testament. After all, the
violence of the OT was "an expression of the will of Christ."
5) The official views of the Church itself do not endorse the idea
of "tossing the Old Testament aside": even when it comes to formulating a
doctrine in regards to war,
Prof. Samuele R. Bacchiocchi concluded:
An attentive study shows that the NT complements, rather
than contradicts the teachings of the OT regarding warfare
A balanced
reading of the NT texts suggests that there is a basic agreement between
the Old and New Testaments on their teaching on warfare.
The violent wars in the OT are reconciled by arguing that Biblical
Israel was justified in its declarations of war and was only acting in
self-defense:
the aggressors, annihilating and/or running off the indigenous populations
of a land that they believed was divinely given to them. They were
only "defending themselves" insofar as any aggressive occupier will
"resist" those they occupy.
6) The fact of the matter is that all mainstream Christian groups
affirm both the Old and New Testament as canon. The Church fought off
any attempts to "throw away the Old Testament". In the second century
of Christianity, Marcion of Sinope rejected the Old Testament because of
the violence, war atrocities, and genocide contained therein. He was
denounced by the Church, and his views towards the Old Testament were
officially damned as heresy. Tertullian, the Father of Western
Christianity, issued a rebuttal against Marcion.
We
read:
Marcionism. Marcionism owed its existence to Marcion, an
individual who gained popularity in Rome in 140-144. His theology was
influenced heavily by the Gnostics, and he denied the power of the God
of the Old Testament. He promulgated the use of a limited form of the
New Testament, including Luke's Gospel and Acts, and many of the Pauline
epistles, the former since Luke was a Gentile and the latter since he
was sent to preach to the Gentiles. He found the God of the Old
Testament contradictory and inhumane. The "orthodox" Christianity of the
time rejected his argumentation, upheld the value of the Old Testament,
and dutifully began the work of canonization of the Old and New
Testaments. The specter of Marcion loomed large enough so as to merit
refutation by Tertullian at the end of the second century; nevertheless,
Marcion's movement mostly died out or assimilated into other Gnostic
groups.
Marcionism died out, thanks to the Church and its insistence of the Old Testament's validity.
The Catholic Encyclopedia
calls the Marcionist sect "perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity
has ever known." Today, there are some modern-day believers, called New
Testament Only Christians, who reject the Old Testament due to
its inherent violence, war atrocities, and genocide. This group is a
very small minority, a "heretical" group that is at odds with the main
body of Christianity.
So, unless you happen to be a New Testament Only Christian, the "But
That's Just the Old Testament!" Defense simply doesn't apply to you.
The existence of the New Testament Only Christians, however, is
actually indicative of just how violent the Bible is: it couldn't be
reconciled, so more than half of it had to be jettisoned.
* * * *
None of this is to say that Christians
must interpret the Bible in a violent manner. But what we
are saying
is that a softer reading of the Bible requires textual acrobatics,
convoluted argumentation, and theological mind-bending. The reasons
given why the Old Testament Law are no longer in effect are far more
complex to grasp then the simple, straight-forward understanding one
gets from reading Jesus' seemingly simple, straight-forward statements,
such as:
Matthew 5:17 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.
5:18 I tell you the
truth, 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.
5:19 Anyone who breaks
one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
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.
This reinforces a point made in an
earlier part of this Series:
Why is it that these anti-Muslim ideologues allow
theological and textual acrobatics when it comes to the Bible, but
meanwhile they forbid the contextualization of Quranic verses?
Certainly it is much easier to "constrain" the violent verses of the
Quran than it is for the Bible, since the Quran itself almost always
cushions these verses in between mitigating verses. This contrasts
quite considerably with the Bible, which has violent verses wrapped in
violent passages.
Anti-Muslim Christians point to various verses of the Quran that they
claim are intrinsically violent. When it is pointed out to them that
their own holy book is replete with violent passages, they respond by
explaining why and how they interpret these Biblical passages in a
peaceful manner. In the same breath, however, they forbid Muslims from
doing the same to the Quran.
Rejecting the Old Testament is a perfectly fine way for a Christian
believer to theologically constrain the violence of the Bible, one that
we wholeheartedly support. But such a believer should know that his
holy book requires such theological mechanisms to constrain its
violence, and this should logically endow upon him some religious
modesty when it comes to the holy books of others.
* * * *
7) Perhaps the most important reason why the "But That's Just the
Old Testament!" Defense doesn't work is that it doesn't do a damned
thing for Jewish followers of the Hebrew Bible. Jews don't believe in
the New Testament or Jesus. In fact, their most holiest of books is the
Torah, which is the first five books of the Old Testament (known as the
Tanakh or Hebrew Bible to Jews). These include Exodus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy-some of the most violent books of the entire
Bible, replete with holy war and divinely ordained genocide. To Jews,
the Torah and the Hebrew Bible are 100% active and applicable, with no
New Testament to overrule or abrogate them.
When we published articles showcasing the violence of the Bible-especially after our article about
"the Bible's prescriptive, open-ended, and universal commandments to wage holy war and enslave infidels"-pro-Christian elements were quick to throw the Old Testament (and their Jewish comrades) under the bus:
The God of the Old Testament was a god of war, whereas the New Testament is a god of love.
In order to prove their claim against Islam, the anti-Muslim
ideologues must prove the "uniqueness" of the Quran's violence.
Certainly, this is Robert Spencer's clear-as-daylight argument on p.19
of his book
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):
The Qur'an is unique among the sacred writings of the world in counseling its adherents to make war against unbelievers.
Short of proving the uniqueness of the Quran's violence, Spencer et
al. have failed in what they set out to do. If it can only be proved
that the Quran is only as violent as the Tanakh (or the Torah)-or that
Islam is just as violent as Judaism-then what big deal is this? If
Spencer wants to fear-monger about Islam, and if-using the same
standards-it can be proven that Judaism is just as violent as Islam
(nay, more violent)-then will Spencer also fear-monger about Judaism?
Can we expect a
JewWatch.com website coming soon?
In fact, such a site already exists, and it looks like JihadWatch,
just against Jews instead of Muslims. Indeed, if the same conclusions
about Islam were applied to Judaism, then all this would be exposed for
what it really is: wholesale bigotry. But it is much easier to get away
with bigotry against Muslims than it is against Jews.
How can Robert Spencer hide behind the "But That's Just the Old Testament!" Defense when his comrade-in-arms is Jewish?
Pamela Geller
of the Atlas Shrugs blog is a partner in crime with Spencer and
company. Clearly, the anti-Muslim Christian right is linked at the hip
with Zionist Jews in their shared hatred of Muslims. Why is one side of
this unholy alliance willing to throw the other under the bus, and why
is the other side ominously quiet when they hear arguments such as "But
That's Just the Old Testament"?
Our argument has never been that the Quran has no violence in it. Rather, our argument is:
all
holy books, including the Quran but also the Bible, have violence in
them; in fact, the Bible is far more violent than the Quran. This is in response to the question that most Americans answered incorrectly:
is Islam more likely than other religions to encourage violence? Most importantly, this argument of ours is a response to a claim made by Robert Spencer.
This argument of ours is also based in our deeply held conviction
that religions and religious scriptures are just what their readers make
of them, as stated in the
introduction of this Series:
The reader should not think that I believe that a certain
religion or another is violent. Rather, there exist peaceful and
violent interpretations of religion. I reject the view held by
religious orthodoxy that the human mind is simply an empty receptacle
that unthinkingly "obeys" the divine plan. Hundreds of years after
their prophets have died, believers (of all faiths) are forced (by
virtue of not having a divine interlocutor) to exert their own minds and
ethics to give life to texts, to render 3D realities from 2D texts.
Such an elastic idea-that a religion is whatever its believers make it
into-is certainly anathema to orthodox adherents who simply desire a
step-by-step instruction manual to produce human automatons. But the
truth is that even these orthodox adherents necessarily inject into the religious texts their own backgrounds, beliefs, and biases.
One can see why I do not think that simply showing a Biblical verse
here or there would prove that Judaism or Christianity are violent
faiths. There is a long journey from what is on the page to what is
understood and put into practice. And once this reality is
comprehended, it is hoped that Jews and Christians will gain a larger
perspective when they approach Muslims and their religion.
Opponents have claimed that this Series so far has just been a case of
tu quoque
fallacy: yet, this is fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of
this Series, which is certainly not designed to convert the readers to
Islam, but rather to refute the commonly held notion that
Islam is somehow more violent than other faiths,
a view that the majoritarian group can easily hold (and demagogues like
Robert Spencer can reinforce) unless dissenters like ourselves
challenge it.
Update I:
See
page II of this article for our follow-up piece.
