Can A "good" Muslim be a good American?

[DHK]

DHK, I am really in awe to put in mildly. How were people of 1400 or 3600 years ago supposed to accomodate the standards of today? And what makes you think I am defending anything?

Civilizations progress as history progresses.
Divine revelation is the same way. We call it progressive revelation.
Moses knew more than Abraham, And then David knew more than those previous to him. John the Baptist knew more than all of the OT prophets for he was the last of the OT prophets, and by that time the OT had been completed.
By the time of John's death the NT had been completed and NT believers had the advantage of the entire Bible to rely on for God's revelation. Today, we not only have the Bible, but the advantage of many who have studied it, scholars and others who have done much to give us insight into the Word of God. We know more about the Word of God today than at any time in history. And it is from God's Word that we learn about Christ.

But what you suggest is not progression in revelation, not progression in civilization, not progression in morality, but rather a retrogression in all of the above.
Your logic is: Because it was ok in Joshua's time (the slaughter of the Cannanites), it is okay for the Muslims.
Because it was ok for Mohammed to do it in his time, it is okay for the Muslims of today to do it.
Time doesn't have anything to do with it you say.
Did you ever read the cartoon of the cave man dragging his wife by the hair with his club over his shoulder? Time doesn't have anything to do with it you say?

 

[amity]

Well! I thought we believed that the Bible was the only rule of faith of practice! Now you are telling me what we really live by is the studies of "scholars and others who have done much to give us insight into the Word of God."

And as I said no one is attempting to live according to how Muhammad did, not in that respect at least. They are attempting to live according to the Koran, just as we are attempting to live according to the Bible.

And by the way, civilizations do NOT progress. The Bible says that man waxes worse and worse, not better and better.

AND I never said anything was okay ... except that it is "okay" for Palestianians to attempt to defeat Israel.


Still, your point escapes me totally. Good night and God bless.

 

[DHK]

Well! I thought we believed that the Bible was the only rule of faith of practice! Now you are telling me what we really live by is the studies of "scholars and others who have done much to give us insight into the Word of God."

And as I said no one is attempting to live according to how Muhammad did, not in that respect at least. They are attempting to live according to the Koran, just as we are attempting to live according to the Bible.

Still, your point escapes me totally. Good night and God bless.

The point is that you can't take Joshua's conquest of the Canaanites, and use it to justify violence on the part of Christianity. That is what you did. To put it bluntly it is an asinine comparison. It so far removed from this day and age it makes no sense to even attempt the comparison, much less to note that they were Jews and not Christians.

Neither can you take that same conquest and say look at the similarity between the Jews and the Muslims, and thus try to put Islam in a good light. That again is absurd.
You have tried to do both. You have failed.

 

[amity]

The point is that you can't take Joshua's conquest of the Canaanites, and use it to justify violence on the part of Christianity. That is what you did. To put it bluntly it is an asinine comparison. It so far removed from this day and age it makes no sense to even attempt the comparison, much less to note that they were Jews and not Christians.

When did I attempt to justify violence on the part of Christianity? Using Joshua's example or anything else?

Neither can you take that same conquest and say look at the similarity between the Jews and the Muslims, and thus try to put Islam in a good light. That again is absurd.
You have tried to do both. You have failed.

How am I trying to put Islam in a good light? Is a failure to totally hate their guts now considered partisanship?

Look frankly I know almost NOTHING about Buddhism. But if you tried to say Gautama was a 2nd century Chinese general, I would be correcting you about that, too. Facts is facts!

This has gotten so lame that unless one of the others who were posting earlier shows back up I doubt I will post again.

 

[DHK]

When did I attempt to justify violence on the part of Christianity? Using Joshua's example or anything else?

Originally Posted by amity; Post #209
All those places where God said to kill every last person and leave not a man, woman, child, or even a beast alive? You actually want chapter and verse? Hoo-boy! That is a lot of places, actually.

DHK: This was a command given to the Jews of the OT. What has that got to do with present day Christianity, or Christianity of any age? Care to be a bit more relevant.

How am I trying to put Islam in a good light? Is a failure to totally hate their guts now considered partisanship?

Originally Posted by DHK (Post #824)
God commanded the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites to rid idolatry from the land. That was a different time and a different dispensation.
God has also sent a world wide flood to destroy the world.
God has also sent fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorroh and all the cities surrounding it.
Will you fault God as well?

Amity: No, but analogy of Islam and Judaism holds up pretty well, doesn't it?

In addition read Bible Boy’s post to you (#210) and see how confused you are, and all the contradictory statements you have made on this very topic.

 

[webdog]

I see amity was banned. I hope it was because she was defending Islam, and anybody else that wants to defend a satanic, pagan religion suffers the same fate here.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I saw this at the following website under --- "When World III Started" --- www.patcorrao.com

It is very interesting indeed.

So can a "good" Muslim be a good American?

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.
====================================
....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in America. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it’s still the truth.

Here is the response of one imam in Calgary to this question.

Muslims of Calgary : Can a Good Muslim be a Good Citizen of Non-Muslim Country

...
We shall take one issue at a time. First, the statement about God in the Qur’an, “the actual word "love" is not used in the Quran when referring to God". If you look into chapter 85 verse 14, you will see that states: “And He (God) the oft forgiven and the loving one” The word in Arabic is (Wadood) among the 99 glorious names.

And by the way, He is not a moon God of Arabia, but He is the creator of all, including the moon. Just because we follow a lunar calendar, does not mean we worship it.

Second, to address your comment about “"Philosophically", I would expect that rather than the word, 'autocratic', the word should be 'theocratic'. “ Let us find out what the words mean. “Theocracy“ is a form of government in which the divine power (God) governs an earthly human state via its religious institutional representative(s) (church, temple, and mosque). An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single individual.

So the comments, “Philosophically – no, Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression” could not be furthest from the truth. Please understand that Islam does not force a belief on anyone. The Qur’an states, “No compulsion in religion” chapter 2, verse 256, “To you, your way, and to me, my way” chapter 109, verse 6.

Given, it’s the fastest growing religion on earth, but we have no swords any more, it’s only by choice. The proof is in Indonesia, where Islam was spread by honest merchants. Also, the rulers mentioned, were not placed in power Islamically, but they were appointed by others to serve their interest as a puppet government.

Third, the answer is in the question in itself, “ “Can a good Muslim be a good American/Canadian/British citizen? “ A good Muslim must be a good citizen regardless of the origin. Because Islam teaches us to abide by the law of the land and to be loyal to the country you live, given it does not contradict the essence of the religion. Since the countries mentioned give freedom of religion, I have to admit more so than some Muslim countries, the question should have been, why not?

The Qur’an states, “God forbids you not to be kind and just toward those who do not fight you in your religion and drive you out of your homes” chapter 60, verse 8, which is minimum requirement for any human being to exist, in return we treat them with kindness like our parents (Arabic word Bir), and more than just (Arabic word Qist).

Fourth, the remark made about “Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews” he may have his own interpretation of the text. But Islam allows Muslim men to marry Christian and Jewish women. So, you can imagine saying to your wife, “I love you honey, but I can’t be your friend”. Does it make sense to you?

Fifth, the irresponsible comment, “Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him, please refer to the answers for the following question on the web: What are the woman rights in marriage? And Domestic Violence and Women Rights in Islam

Finally, how can anyone deny the fact that Prophet Mohammad peace be upon him live in Madinah among Christians and Jews?
...

 

[Bible-boy]

It would seem that we (amity and I) were both accurate in what we were saying about Arabic preservation of the ancient Greek works and how the actual Greek manuscripts ended up in medieval Europe. However, neither of us was accurately painting the entire historical picture because we were each talking about a different historical time period and set of events.

Upon further research I found the following:

Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) [I inserted the B.C. & A.D. date designations because as a Christian I refuse to use the secularized B.C.E & C.E.] Greek philosopher whose writing on logic, natural science, psychology, mathematics, metaphysics, and ethics were translated from Greek into Syriac and then into Arabic by the ninth century A.D. They were commented on by Arab and Persian philosophers and scientists throughout the medieval period and formed the basis of falsafah (philosopgy) in the Muslim world. The commentaries of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rusgd (Averroes) were widely read and disseminated, along with those of al-Farabi. Hebrew and Latin versions of the Arabic translations formed the basis of learning in the Western Jewish and Christian traditions, since direct translations from the Greek were not available in the West until the thirteenth century. Some scholars in the Muslim world erroneously attributed certain Napoleonic works to Aristotle, resulting in confusion about his ideas. His Politics seems to have been unknown in the Muslim world; scholars relied on the Rhetoric and Nicomachean Ethics for his political thought, and sometimes Plato’s Republic.

Source: John L. Esposito, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, c.v. Aristotle, pg. 24.

The Major rise of Scholasticism was the emergence in Europe of the philosophy of Aristotle. Except for some translations of parts of Aristotle’s philosophy made in the fifth century by monks, led by Boethius, little was known of his philosophy until Latin translations by William of Moerbeke (1215-86) from Jewish or Arabic sources began to appear in Western Europe in the twelfth century. The translations of Aristotle by Averros (1126-98), the great Arabic philosopher, were introduced into the West through Spain by 1200. About the same time translations by Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), a famous Jewish rabbi and philosopher, were appearing in the West. Men like Alexander of Hales (ca. 1186-1245) welcomed this philosophy and attempted to relate it to theology.

Still another cause for the expansion of the Scholastic movement was the interest of the new mendicant orders in the use of philosophy in the study of revelation. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Scholastic of all, and Albertus Magnus, his teacher, were Dominicans; and William of Ockham and Bonaventura were Franciscans.

The expansion of the university movement, which began in the twelfth century, provided a home for the new intellectual movement; and the universities rapidly centered their curriculum around the study of theology by aid of logic and reason. The University of Paris in Abelard’s time became the leading center of Scholasticism.

Source: Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pg. 228.

The time period referenced above was the beginning of the end of the “dark ages.” However, it should be noted just who was studying the ancient Greek philosophy obtained through these early Arabic and Hebrew sources. Those “Scholastics” were the European Nobility and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. So initially there was a very limited use of such philosophy in Western Europe. Now let’s jump forward a couple hundred years to the fall of Byzantine (Christian) Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks and see what happened.

The Renaissance appeared first in Italy during the fourteenth century because the classical tradition was stronger there than elsewhere, Italians where surrounded by the material remains of their past greatness, and the Italian spirit was sympathetic to an emphasis on their cultural values of this present life…. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 caused many Greek scholars to bring themselves and thousands of valuable Greek manuscripts to Italy in order to escape destruction by the Muslims.

Source: Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, pg. 254.

Likewise, according to Justo L. Gonzalez in his book, The Story of Christianity:

The revival of antiquity had many advocates, first in Italy, and then throughout Western Europe. One of the advocates was the Italian poet, Petrarch, who in his youth had written sonnets in Italian, but later preferred to write in Latin, imitating Cicero’s style. He soon had many followers, who also emulated classical letters. Many began copying and circulating manuscripts of ancient Latin authors. Others visited Constantinople, and returned with copies of the works of Greek writers. When Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, Byzantine exiles flooded Italy with their knowledge of classical Greek literature. The result was a literary awakening that began in Italy and then spread beyond the Alps.

Source: Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity Volume I: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, New York: Harper Collins, 1984, pg. 366.

So while it would be accurate to say that Arabic scholars translated, studied, and wrote commentaries on the ancient Greek writings of Aristotle etc. and some medieval Europeans obtained copies of those Arabic translations. It is not accurate to say:

We would have totally forgotten our own arts and sciences if it was not for Muslim culture preserving them and developing them during that time…

Clearly, the Byzantine Christians of Constantinople maintained, studied, copied, and brought copies of the original Greek texts into Western Europe when they fled the advancing Turkish Muslim armies. It was this infusion of the original Greek texts into Western Europe that brought about the Renaissance and an end to the “dark ages” of the medieval period.

 

[bound]

Hi Bible-boy,

My only criticism of your thesis and that of Cahill, which you appear to be attempting to establish is that it neglects the role the Crusades had on Western Culture due, in large part, to the interaction with Arabic Culture. This whole thesis is 'novel' and I dare say a bit revisionist, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate the motive but I call into question the objectivity of the scholarship.

Be Well.

 

[Bible-boy]

Hi Bible-boy,

My only criticism of your thesis and that of Cahill, which you appear to be attempting to establish is that it neglects the role the Crusades had on Western Culture due, in large part, to the interaction with Arabic Culture. This whole thesis is 'novel' and I dare say a bit revisionist, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate the motive but I call into question the objectivity of the scholarship.

Be Well.

Nope. It does not negelect the role of the Crusades and the interaction between European Crusaders and Arabs. In fact the quote I gave from Christianity Through the Centuries and the one from the Oxford Dictionary of Islam both make it clear that some Western Europeans were influenced by Arabic translations of Aristotle (by Arabic philosophers) as early as A.D. 1200 through Spain. This is one of the causes of the rise of Scholasticism during that period of church history. However, the Renaissance exploded in Italy and then the rest of Western Europe as a direct impact of the infusion of original Greek manuscripts and the Greek speaking monks, clerics, and scholars who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thus, amity's statement on this issue was not accurate. Likewise, none of the three sources I provided make any reference to Cahill's "theory" or Ireland with respect to the subject matter/time period.

 

[Bible-boy]

Hi Bible-boy,

My only criticism of your thesis and that of Cahill, which you appear to be attempting to establish is that it neglects the role the Crusades had on Western Culture due, in large part, to the interaction with Arabic Culture. This whole thesis is 'novel' and I dare say a bit revisionist, in my humble opinion. I can appreciate the motive but I call into question the objectivity of the scholarship.

Be Well.

University Professor as well as Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, John L. Esposito is Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: History and International Affairs in the Walsh School of Foreign Service. Previously, he was Loyola Professor of Middle East Studies, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies, and Director of the Center for International Studies at the College of the Holy Cross.

Read more about his full career and published works here: http://www.onlineislamicstore.com/johnesposito.html

Earle E. Cairns (PhD, University of Nebraska) is professor emeritus at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. He is a member of the American Society of Church History, the American Historical Association, and the Conference on Faith and History.

Justo L. Gonzalez, author of the highly praised three-volume History of Christian Thought and other major works, attended United Seminary in Cuba, received his M.A. at Yale, and was the youngest person to be awarded a Ph.D. in historical theology at Yale. Dr. Gonzalez is now on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta.

To attempt to call the scholarship of John L. Esposito and the other authors I referenced into question because you don’t like what their research reveals is simply outrageous.

 

[bound]

Nope. It does not negelect the role of the Crusades and the interaction between European Crusaders and Arabs. In fact the quote I gave from Christianity Through the Centuries and the one from the Oxford Dictionary of Islam both make it clear that some Western Europeans were influenced by Arabic translations of Aristotle (by Arabic philosophers) as early as A.D. 1200 through Spain. This is one of the causes of the rise of Scholasticism during that period of church history. However, the Renaissance exploded in Italy and then the rest of Western Europe as a direct impact of the infusion of original Greek manuscripts and the Greek speaking monks, clerics, and scholars who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thus, amity's statement on this issue was not accurate. Likewise, none of the three sources I provided make any reference to Cahill's "theory" or Ireland with respect to the subject matter/time period.

Just be clear that, after the fall of Constantanople, the vast majority of trade entered into the ports of Venice and other centers of trade in Italy. Compared to the rest of the West this made Italy very metropolitan. It was in and around these centers of trade that the Renaissance emerged. I honestly believe that Cahill's theory is in error but at best hugely over emphasizes the role of Ireland and the Monks there of.

 

[Bible-boy]

Just be clear that, after the fall of Constantanople, the vast majority of trade entered into the ports of Venice and other centers of trade in Italy. Compared to the rest of the West this made Italy very metropolitan. It was in and around these centers of trade that the Renaissance emerged. I honestly believe that Cahill's theory is in error but at best hugely over emphasizes the role of Ireland and the Monks there of.

It was clear from your first post in response to my mentioning Cahill's work that you think much of the man's book. However, I am not trying to make the be all to end all argument that Ireland ought to get all the credit for the Renaissance movement in Western Europe. I mentioned Cahill's book because I beleive (if memory serves correctly) that he points out that the ancient Greek manuscripts did indeed come into medieval Europe along with the monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Let me be sure to be clear. My main point was to confront the inaccurate information that amity was espousing regarding how classical Greek and Roman works became known in Western Europe. I did so by showing that the original manuscripts of classical Greek and Roman cultural arts, sciences, and philosophical works etc. actually came into medieval Europe along with the Christian monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I am not here to debate whether or not Ireland played a major role in the Renaissance, nor is that the topic of this thread.

 

[bound]

It was clear from your first post in response to my mentioning Cahill's work that you think much of the man's book. However, I am not trying to make the be all to end all argument that Ireland ought to get all the credit for the Renaissance movement in Western Europe. I mentioned Cahill's book because I beleive (if memory serves correctly) that he points out that the ancient Greek manuscripts did indeed come into medieval Europe along with the monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Let me be sure to be clear. My main point was to confront the inaccurate information that amity was espousing regarding how classical Greek and Roman works became known in Western Europe. I did so by showing that the original manuscripts of classical Greek and Roman cultural arts, sciences, and philosophical works etc. actually came into medieval Europe along with the Christian monks who fled before the fall of Constantinople in 1453. I am not here to debate whether or not Ireland played a major role in the Renaissance, nor is that the topic of this thread.

Sure and honestly I don't really have a problem with a vast majority of what you have brought to the discussion. I must admit that Cahill's Book annoys me but I really don't want you to get the impression that you annoy me or the other references are considered suspect. Clearly the gentlemen's credentials are very impressive I only offered criticism because it gave the appearance that you are building support for Cahill's thesis, which I find distasteful. I don't believe his book, nor history, makes his case frankly and I prefer to reference 'older' historical evidence in which to establish my perspective.

Regardless of this I find you wonderfully knowledgeable and a true breath of fresh air.

Be Well.

 

[DHK]

I am not sure why the emphasis in previous posts has been on Greece. But here is what Josh McDowell summarizes in his book about the cultural expression that Islam has left to the world:

Islam, like Judaism, is both a religion and a cultural identity which cannot be separated from the people. In many countries the Islamic faith, though not strictly practiced, is woven into the web of society at every facet.
The Cambridge History of Islam comments on this phenomenon:
Islam is a religion. It is also, inseparably from this, a community, a civilization and a culture. It is true that many of the countries through which the Qur'anic faith spread already possessed ancient and important cultures. Islam absorbed these cultures, and assimilated itself to them in various ways, to a far greater extent than it attempted to supplant them. But in doing this, it provided them with attributes in common, with a common attitude toward God, to men and to the world, and thus ensured, through the diversities of language, of history and of race, the complex unity of the dar al-Islam, the "house" or "world" of Islam.
The history of the Muslim peoples and countries is thus a unique example of a culture with a religious foundation, uniting the spiritual and the temporal, sometimes existing side by side with "secular" cultures, but most often absorbing them by becoming very closely interlinked with them (P M. Holt, op. cit., Vol.I, p.569).

Here is an example of the architecture of Islam, and sometimes the violence that surrrounds it:

What sparked the violence is 800 miles away in Ayodhya. For Hindu nationalists this 16th-century mosque symbolized Muslim domination of their land. India is the birthplace of Hinduism, approximately 2,500 years ago. Islam first came to south Asia around the 12th century, and much of the region came under the rule of the Muslim Mogul empire at about the time this mosque was built. Hindu nationalists insist the Moguls destroyed a Hindu temple to build the mosque and that the site was the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram. In 1992, a Hindu crowd tore down the mosque. Hundreds died in violence that followed across the subcontinent.

The BJP -- or India People's Party -- allied with nationalist Hindu groups, rode the issue to electoral success. It campaigned to build a new Ram temple. In 1999, the BJP came to power with coalition partners who forced moderation. The government now says the courts should decide the matter.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week538/cover.html

However there are still many Islamic structures that still exist from the famed Mogul empire of the 16th century, primarily in India and in Pakistan.

 

[Bible-boy]

I am not sure why the emphasis in previous posts has been on Greece.

Hey DHK,

The emphasis is not on Greece. It has been on ancient Greek and Roman cultural material (the early writings found in the Great Books of the Western World). The subject arose because the poster amity made the following inaccurate statement when speaking about Medieval Europe:

We would have totally forgotten our own arts and sciences if it was not for Muslim culture preserving them and developing them during that time…

She was attempting to paint the Golden Age of Islam in a more positive light, speaking of its advances in the arts, sciences, philosophey, etc. and at the same time making the point that during that period Western Europe was languishing in the "dark-ages." Her statement could have led readers to believe that the sole reason the west has a link to its great ancient cultural heritage is because Islamic philosophers and scholars preserved it for us. I sucessfully refuted her argument with the string of recent posts. Now I must go. I have a deadline to meet for a project that is due by 9:00 AM Monday morning.

 

[Surfer Joe]

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran’s 99 excellent names.

First, is the American Constitution really based on Biblical principles?

Second, though I agree with your portrayals of each religion's God, I don't really understand what you're saying. One nation under God really doesn't have anything to do with "heavenly father, or love, etc.". It is just one nation under God. And they worded it that way so everyone could place the God of their religious beliefs in there.

 

[Surfer Joe]

Two of the 99 names of Allah in the Qu'ran is 'The Merciful, The Compassionate' and this word 'Compassionate' is very similar to our notion of God as Love.

Now don't take me the wrong way, I am very critical of Islam but I am familar with their Qu'ran and their notion of Allah and He's not a moon god no more that Gott or God is the chief god of the germanic pantheon. I'm supportive of rational criticism of Islam but I fear that a great deal of this is rhetorical posturing on our part.

I would encourage us to be more objective in our criticism. :tonofbricks:

Good point. Before people castigate Muslims for their beliefs (whether they want to kill infidels or not), they need to remember that OUR God ordered the killing of many men, women and children too.

 

[DHK]

Good point. Before people castigate Muslims for their beliefs (whether they want to kill infidels or not), they need to remember that OUR God ordered the killing of many men, women and children too.

What lame excuse is that? Show me from the New Testament where that is so. Jesus taught the exact opposite--"turn the other cheek." He never ordered, for example, a revolt, revolution, extermination of the Romans or against the Roman government. You are way of base.

 

[bound]

What lame excuse is that? Show me from the New Testament where that is so. Jesus taught the exact opposite--"turn the other cheek." He never ordered, for example, a revolt, revolution, extermination of the Romans or against the Roman government. You are way of base.

DHK, are you suggesting that Christians shouldn't defend their families in the face of attacks or Christians shouldn't join the Armed Forces to defend the country they live in?

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New... are you suggesting that there are 'two' Gods?