RSS Feed MenuThe anti-Islam extremists who are trying to take over the conservative movement have never had to answer for their shrill and intolerant rhetoric. But now that the top commanding General in Afghanistan, David Petraeus, has called out some of them for endangering the lives of U.S. servicemen and women overseas, that may change.
Petraeus, of course, has widely and publicly denounced a Florida church’s plan to burn copies of the Qur’an. The book burning is designed to mark the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center which precipitated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But Petraeus’ remarks are also a rebuke to some conservative pundits and scribes who are providing intellectual cover to yahoos like Qur’an-burning pastor Terry Jones.
“I am very concerned [about] the potential repercussions of the possible [Qur’an] burning,” Petraeus told the Associated Press.
Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy, and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.
Petraeus’ comment was no isolated, off-the-cuff remark. It was a deliberately planned statement issued to several different news organizations after the General spoke about the issue with the Wall Street Journal.
This “is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems,” Petraeus said. “Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”
Indeed, the radical Islamists would love nothing more than to assume the mantle of “defenders of the faith,” defenders of all of Islam against an amoral and immoral America.
That’s why an integral part of our military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan has been to make important distinctions — distinctions between Islam proper and radical Islam, between faith-loving Muslims and violent Jihadists, between those who want to work with the West and those who would destroy the West.
The radical Islamists say these distinctions do not exist. They tell ordinary Afghans and Iraqis that America is really at war with them and their religion — and yahoos like Qur-an-burning pastor Terry Jones agree with these Islamists! They agree that America is at war with all of Islam.
We’re not, of course. In fact, our entire military strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan involves working closely with moderate-minded Muslims so that they can assume control of their own countries and we can recede quietly into the background.
But if Islam is inherently violent and dangerous, then such a strategy is complete and utter folly. Our Soldiers and Marines are dying for a mistake, a rather big and dramatic mistake.
I don’t believe this, but if you think that all of Islam is the problem, and not just radical Islam, then I don’t see how you can avoid such a conclusion — and thus, I don’t see how you can support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some conservatives like Jed Babbin are candid about this. They want the United States to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan — now. But most of those with a prejudice and an animus against Islam are less clear-eyed than Babbin. They pretend to support these wars while condemning all of Islam as the enemy. And, in so doing, they give aid and sustenance to the radical Islamists who would destroy us.
NewsReal Blog, for instance, to which I once contributed, traffics in the most virulent and nasty anti-Islam rhetoric and propaganda. Recent posts, for instance, have called for the “eradication” of Islam, insisted that Islam equals Islamofascism, and warned that “Islam has taken over Europe and is fully intent on conquering America.”
In short, Islam “sucks,” says NewsReal contributor Andrew Klavan. It is “the enemy’s ideology,” adds Klavan’s NRB colleague Bosch Fawstin. “And evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise.”
Actually, the inconvenient truth that many conservatives have been avoiding is that anti-Islam extremists are trying to take over their movement. These extremists peddle the most ludicrous and far-fetched theories; and these theories are undermining our war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan and jeopardizing the safety of our Soldiers and Marines.
It is high time that these extremists be confronted, exposed and driven back under the rocks from which they crawled. General Petraeus’ statement warning against the Qur’an book burning may herald the beginning of this crucial effort.
Historians, after all, mark the downfall of Joseph McCarthy to his April 22, 1954 exchange with Army counsel Joseph Welch. McCarthy, of course, was a reckless demagogue who shamelessly distorted a real problem, communist subversion in America. In so doing, McCarthy also undermined the anti-communist cause.
McCarthy had gained a popular following until, finally he went too far for most Americans: by challenging the integrity of the United States Army.
Until this moment Senator, I think I never gauged your cruelty or your recklessness… Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
The same questions must be asked today of the conservative anti-Islam extremists. They have seized upon a very real problem, radical Islam, and shamelessly distorted it to impugn all of Islam. And, in so doing, they are undermining the entire American war effort.
And so we must say: You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
General Petraeus has put that problem on the table for conservatives; and it is a problem the Right must resolve — now.
You can follow John Guardiano on Twitter: @JohnRGuardiano
ProfNickD // Sep 8, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Slide,
It is obvious that you are: 1.) a young person and 2.) were raised in a barn.
It goes without saying you didn’t refute the claims I made.
Rabiner // Sep 9, 2010 at 1:30 am
ProfNickD:
The burning of Koran’s is not a ‘religious debate’. If they wanted to debate they’d talk. It’s to show ambivalence and disregard for their religion, faith, and culture. The General speaking up about it as a military issue is completely in his realm. Considering it is his job to secure Afghanistan and they’ve already had demonstrations there related to this issue, if it was to proceed it is only likely that the demonstrations could escalate. This puts in harms way American soldiers and risks damaging the mission he has been asked to carry out. I find it funny you can call this national security issue simply a ‘religious debate’.
Slide // Sep 9, 2010 at 7:08 am
ProfNickD // Sep 8, 2010 at 10:36 pm: “Slide, It is obvious that you are: 1.) a young person and 2.) were raised in a barn.”
A young person? That must be your “go to” insult right? You claimed easton must be young as well. I’ll let easton fill you in on his rather interesting background but I am sorry to disappoint you (and my wife) but I am not a young person. I am in my late 50’s. Old enough to know bigotry and hatred in all its forms when I see it and you my friend are a text book case. It’s ok, I understand you are scared of things you don’t understand. Now, grab your binkie and get under the covers, and I promise that those bad bad Muslims are not going to get you tonight. shhhh.. child…. shhhhhh.
easton // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:08 pm
ProfNickD, claims? Your claim is garbage. And what are you are Prof. of? Cosmetology?
Currently, no Christian and no Jew engages in violence in the name of their religion because their religions do not accept violence as a means of relating to others.
Wrong. This from TNR:
It happened when I wrote about Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as a paradigmatic instance of moral and intellectual backwardness in the ultra-ultra-orthodox communities of Israel.
On the day that I wrote I’d noted a headline and article in the Jerusalem Post: “‘Sinner’ singer given 39 lashed by rabbis.”
I have no idea whether the rabbis involved were in the circle of “Ovadia”, as the grand rabbi is called by his faithful who are many, or not. But the sin for which the singer, Erez Yechiel, was sentenced and, in fact, punished was to have performed in front of a “mixed audience” of men and women. The court has no legal standing, having appointed itself. Still, the accused put himself under its jurisdiction to “rid himself of his sins.” Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak has apparently made his most recent crusade “the fight against musical performances for both men and women.” Another member of the “judicial panel,” Rabbi Ben Zion Mustafi, showed the whip which was made from ass and bull skin.
Yechiel, who said, “I accept upon myself the lashing for my sins,” was ordered to stand by a wooden pole with his head facing north (‘from whence the evil inclination comes’), his hands tied with an azure-colored rope (‘a symbol of mercy’) and served his ’sentence.’
Is this not a case of real sado-masochism but in spiritual guise? By rabbis, alas.
But in recent days far more dispiriting reports in the Post and Ha’aretz have come out detailing some of Ovadia’a antics.
Now, it is true that his calls for a curse on Mahmoud Abbas are not likely to provoke an Israeli to shoot the Palestinian president as the calls from all sorts of Arab and Muslim leaders provoke regular assaults against Jews. Still, the former Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel is an influential man to the people of the street. Some even think of him as a sainted person.
And when a “saint” says “May God smite the Palestinians with the plague” that saint is sanctioning all sorts of evil against what to be sure are also many many innocent people.
Indeed, since Israel justifiably demands that the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority end racial incitement against Jews and Israel as a condition of peace, it is shocking that the government in Jerusalem has not condemned Rabbi Ovadia, the head of the Council of Torah Sages of the Shas party, a pillar of the Netanyahu coalition.
Here’s a fuller account of Ovadia’s ravings against the Palestinians:
…[O]ur enemies and haters. May they vanish from the world, may God smite them with the plague, them and the Palestinians, evil-doers and Israel-haters…It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send must send missiles to them and annihilate them.
Maybe the torah sage would make do with another Dr. Baruch Goldstein who, 16 years ago on Purim, massacred 29 Muslims at prayer in the Cave of the Patriarchs at Hebron.
Ovadia Yosef is not only a malign nut case against the Palestinians. He has a longer and incendiary record against the Jews and the Jewish state.
He said that the six million dead in the Holocaust were all sinners.
He urges young men who are his acolytes not to join the Israeli Defense Forces.
Schools under his dominion do not teach secular subjects, neither math, nor English, nor real history, nor science.
He is raising generations of ignoramuses.
An optimistic note: He is 90 years old.
easton // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm
“Islam is based fundamentally around one man, Muhammad, who was real” You mean Jesus wasn’t? This is pretty damn stupid. While Jesus didn’t kill anyone, lets not forget the hundreds of millions that were killed in his name.
there are no verses in the Gospel (“New Testament”) that justify slavery. Love how you left out the Old Testament, as though people don’t read that or consider it part of the Bible:
Exodus 21:1-4 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
Deuteronomy 15:12-18 “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.”
Exodus 21:7 “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”
Regarding the beating and killing of slaves, the Book of Exodus contains laws regarding punishment for the one who kills the slave as well as injunctions to avoid injuring the eyes and teeth.
Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
Exodus 21:26-27 “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
The Book of Leviticus prohibited the harsh ruling over other Israelites, but that slaves could be taken from the Gentiles.
Leviticus 25:44-46 “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”
Also, in Leviticus, a distinction is made between the hired servant and the slave.
Leviticus 25:48-53 “After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.”
Slaves were to undergo circumcision.
Genesis 17:13 “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”
Genesis 17:27 “And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.”
Female captives are considered spoils of war.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”
Deuteronomy 20:14 “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”
The punishment for sexual activity with a female slave who is engaged consisted of animal sacrifice in the Temple. There is no comment on sexual activity with one who is not married or engaged.
Leviticus 19:20-22 “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.”
It is not permitted to return an escaped slave, nor was it permissable to “oppress” him.
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”
The Book of Numbers makes references to thousands of female captives who were to be given to the priests.
Numbers 31:28-47 “And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.”
Mark 14:66 “And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest.”
There were restrictions on reselling slaves. Apparently a Hebrew slave could not be resold.
Exodus 21:8 “If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”
If one were to purchase his own brother into slavery, laws in Leviticus prevent treating him as other slaves, but rather as a guest or servant. The Living Bible refers to “a fellow Israelite” rather than “brother.”
Leviticus 25:39 “And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.”
The Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy mention that the punishment for kidnapping an Israelite and selling them into slavery is punishable by death. And a debtor who could not pay back creditors could be sold into slavery or have his children sold.
Exodus 21:16 “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
Deuteronomy 24:7 “If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.”
II Kings 4:1 “Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.”
Slaves could, themselves, own slaves. Saul’s slave Ziba owned 20 slaves of his own: 2 Samuel 9:10: “…Now Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants.”
The Sabbath applied to slaves as well.
Exodus 20:10 “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”
The New Testament did not forbid or alter the institution of slavery, nor did it improve their conditions.
1 Corinthians 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 3:11 “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
easton // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm
And just to show you truly how ignorant the unlearned Prof is, here are more New Testament verses:
A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)
Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)
Although Jesus is using slavery in order to illustrate larger points, the question still remains why he would directly acknowledge the existence of slavery without saying anything negative about it?
The letters (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Paul are even worse, making it clear that the existence of slavery is not only acceptable, but that slaves themselves should not presume to take the idea of freedom and equality preached by Jesus too far by attempting to escape their forced servitude.
Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
And this took me, oh, about 15 seconds on google. I could, of course, continue to destroy his feeble little argument but he is far too stupid to even be aware of it so why bother?
easton // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Busboy, I read your take, we can go back and forth on this forever (as an example, can you really say “Gorbachev” won the cold war, he very well could have been killed in that abortive coup, and he was removed from power by Yeltsin who had simply abolished the Soviet Union, rendering his position of leader of it moot.) and when I say we won that war, we created Containment, held firm to it, and waited out the system to implode. While Democracy didn’t win totally (as in China) Market economics have. And I can make similar comments about a lot of things you wrote, but we are getting into nuance here which will never end.
DavidSwindle // Sep 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/09/09/more-lies-from-the-back-stabbing-anti-anti-islam-brigade/
CO Independent // Sep 9, 2010 at 3:01 pm
@ Easton:
I’ll try to provide a serious reply to your unserious posts:
>> there are no verses in the Gospel (“New Testament”) that justify slavery. Love how you left out the Old Testament, as though people don’t read that or consider it part of the Bible.
Most, if not all, Christians would distinguish between the Gospel and the Bible. As the professor’s post implies, the Old Testament is generally not considered part of the Christian Gospel. If you don’t know this single, basic fact then you really have insufficient substantive knowledge to write with any authority on Christian theology.
>> The letters (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Paul are even worse, making it clear that the existence of slavery is not only acceptable, but that slaves themselves should not presume to take the idea of freedom and equality preached by Jesus too far by attempting to escape their forced servitude.
Paul did most of his writing from the Greek and Roman worlds, and much of it during
bouts of imprisonment and torture, ultimately ending in his beheading in Rome for treason. Slavery was an accepted and essential institution in these worlds, as it was throughout most of the earth at the time. Most people sold into slavery were captured as booty from distant wars or were infants rescued from infanticide. Escape for slaves was all but impossible–there was nowhere to go (their kingdoms had been destroyed) and no way to get there–and punishable by death. Paul’s counsel for slaves was to endure their earthly circumstances with dignity and to look forward to reward in an eternal afterlife. All told, this was pretty good advice at the time Paul was writing.
Paul’s life, writings, and death sowed the intellectual seeds for the doctrine of the separation of church and state which we in the modern world take for granted. This separation rendered possible the development of a moral authority in the church that was separate from political authority in a temporal government. This separate moral authority of the church is where moral opposition to slavery was developed, free from the interference of the economic interests of the political state. Hence in the Western world slavery was phased out over the course of the next two millennium in response to moral opposition. By contrast, in the Muslim world slavery remained largely intact until it was quashed by Western Colonial powers.
In the literary sense, Paul could be thought of as the Mark Twain of his time, and his letters are in some ways the Huckleberry Finn of the ancient world.
Your cut and paste post exposes your ignorance, not the prof’s.
busboy33 // Sep 9, 2010 at 5:16 pm
@easton:
Agreed that lots of this (Cold War, etc.) is a nice discussion that could go on forever and is wildly off topic in this thread.
Nothing wrong with disagreement, and no disrespect intended if I came across as such.
easton // Sep 9, 2010 at 7:42 pm
OK, CO. the Prof. said there were no New Testament verses that justify slavery. And please, enough with historical revisionist horseshit. If this isn’t clear than nothing is:
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
Yeah, absolutely when I read this I am reading about the doctine of separation of church and state, and if you look extra carefully you can read about Capital gains tax cuts.
Contrast this with: And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
– Exodus 5: 1 (KJV)
So it was ok for Moses, but not ok for Paul. What, only Jews get dispensation from slavery but everyone else has to suffer for it? So Moses had a direct pipeline to God to get all sorts of plagues to free Jews from bondage, but Paul, he just tells them to endure it?
Yeah.
Do you know anything whatsoever of History, of the concept of the Divine right of Kings, and how embedded the Church was in state affairs all the way up to the time of the Reformation?
Look, I know Slavery was a part of society, but do you truly think the Paul never heard of Spartacus, that he had no idea about the dissatisfaction the Jews felt towards Roman rule? Have you ever heard of the Diaspora? Or Masada? Are you aware of the story of Moses and the deliverance from captivity in Judaism?
And of course slavery still exists in many Christian nations, Haiti is overwhelmingly Catholic yet has the tradition of Restavics, which is nothing less than Child slavery Throughout huge sections of non Muslim Africa in many Christian nations child slavery is common. You talk about the Western world as though it is all that matters (though, of course, Haiti is part of the west though you would wish to deny it)
It is like you create your own bubble universe that you live in. This fantasy history where every Christian barbarity can be explained away, but Muslims are forever guilty.
“Christians would distinguish between the Gospel and the Bible. As the professor’s post implies, the Old Testament is generally not considered part of the Christian Gospel.” This is idiotic. Of course the Gospels are not the Old Testament, you are saying the New Testament is not the Old Testament and everyone knows this. No shit sherlock. It is not even generally not considered, hell the word Gospel itself refers specifically to the New Testament and nothing else.
The Greek word “evanggelion” is translated “gospel” in the King James Version. This word, together with its rendering of “good tidings,” glad tidings” and “preach the gospel” occurs some one hundred and eight times in the New Testament. However the Bible is the sacred book of Christianity, including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Christians do not distinguish the Gospel from the Bible since the Gospel is part of the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments. If you are saying can they distinguish the various parts, well freaking D’uh.
I mean, yeesh, I posted specifically Biblical verses from the New and Old Testaments proving I could distinguish between the two. Nice little straw man you invented there. Meanwhile I could easily rip you a new one for equivocatingly stating that the New Testament (the Christian Gospel) is GENERALLY not considered to be part of the Old Testament. No, not generally. It is in no way considered that the Old Testament is part of the Christian Gospel. No GENERALLY. Name me one person on earth who thinks otherwise, besides the straw man you constructed in your head?
Slide // Sep 9, 2010 at 8:26 pm
I love it when Easton gets pissed.
CO Independent // Sep 10, 2010 at 3:47 am
@ Easton:
The combination of sheer anger and ignorance in your rants frequently leaves me befuddled. This post may have set a record.
If you understood the differences between the Christian Gospels, the New Testament, and the Old Testament then your response to the Prof simply made no sense. The Prof stated explicitly that there were no verses in the Gospel (New Testament) that justified slavery, and you responded with a slew of quotes from the Old Testament. That’s what we lawyer types call “non-responsive.”
The prof is correct, and you are incorrect. The Old Testament provides specific instructions regarding the circumstances in which slaves may be taken, their treatment, and conditions for their release, as part of Jewish law. There is no analogue to this in the New Testament. The most you can come up with are the quotes you provided from Paul which recognize that slavery exists and do not explicitly condemn it. As I explained above, Paul gave pretty good counsel for slaves in Rome.
And yes, Paul would have known of Spartacus. How did that whole rebellion thing work our for Spartacus and his slaves? After a couple years of wandering the countryside his entire army of 50,000 to 80,000 slaves was slaughtered on the battlefield and the 5000+ survivors crucified–sucked to be them. Paul’s measured advice to Roman slaves looks better by the minute, doesn’t it?
>> Meanwhile I could easily rip you a new one for equivocatingly stating that the New Testament (the Christian Gospel) is GENERALLY not considered to be part of the Old Testament.
You’ve gone off the rails of logic here because you are using the phrases “Christian Gospel” and “New Testament” interchangeably. They aren’t. The phrase “Christian Gospel” is typically reserved for those portions of the scripture which describe the life, death, and acts of Jesus. Parts of the New Testament, e.g., many of Paul’s epistles and Revelation, would technically not be considered to be a part of the Christian Gospel.
>> No, not generally. It is in no way considered that the Old Testament is part of the Christian Gospel. No GENERALLY. Name me one person on earth who thinks otherwise, besides the straw man you constructed in your head?
This would be the “Whole Bible” or sometimes called “Unitary” (not to be confused with Unitarian) school of thought, which argues that portions of the Old Testament should be incorporated into the Christian Gospel. As for names, start with Graeme Goldsworthy or Vaughan Roberts. It is not widely accepted–hence my use of the qualifier “generally.”
Either your understanding of Christian theology, including its historical implications, is superficial or, like many modern lefties, you suffer from the almost standard-issue anti-Christian bias. I suppose both could be true. You would be well served to avoid commenting on such matters, as you’ve only made a fool of yourself.
Slide // Sep 10, 2010 at 8:35 am
CO Independent it is clear that you can be called a cafeteria Christian. The term implies that an individual’s professed religious belief is actually a proxy for their personal opinions rather than a blind acceptance of biblical scripture or Christian doctrine. Which is fine. I applaud you for not wanting to execute homosexuals as the Bible suggests, but I just don’t understand why you don’t allow Muslims to be equally “selective” on what parts of the Koran they wish to follow and which parts to discard as their personal opinions lead them? It seems they are held to a higher standard than Christians. I think that was the point easton was trying to make. One doesn’t need to be a biblical scholar to know that there are many many vile and violent passages contained in both the Bible and Koran. Trying to differentiate the two substantively seems rather forced and not very credible. But then again what do I know, I’m one of those “lefties” with an anti-Christian bias. Is it possible that perhaps you are a “rightie” with an anti-Muslim bias? I’ll let others decide.
CO Independent // Sep 10, 2010 at 11:36 am
@ Slide:
I am not a Christian and I did not write anything about Muslims, Islam, or the Koran, except to point John to Andrew McCarthy’s column. You must be confusing me with someone else, or you’re just making it up.
>> One doesn’t need to be a biblical scholar to know that there are many many vile and violent passages contained in both the Bible and Koran. Trying to differentiate the two substantively seems rather forced and not very credible.
This statement probably makes some sense when applied to the Old Testament, in the sense that many of the legal aspects of the Old Testament would seem barbaric by 21st century standards. It makes very little sense when applied to the New Testament, which is the basis of Christian theology. I think this was precisely the Professor’s point vis-a-vis slavery.
Your comment about executing homosexuals is illustrative. You are referencing the Jewish law set forth in Leviticus. This is Old Testament theology. Christian theology is based on the New Testament, which does not prescribe execution or any other earthly punishment for homosexuals. Rather, the New Testament teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and will be judged by God.
I don’t think one needs to be a Biblical scholar to comment on these matters, but if you don’t understand the very basic proposition that in Christian theology the New Testament supplanted the Old Testament, and that therefore it is illegitimate to criticize Christian theology using Old Testament theology, then you really have insufficient substantive knowledge to comment with any insight.
Rabiner // Sep 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm
CO Independent:
“Your comment about executing homosexuals is illustrative. You are referencing the Jewish law set forth in Leviticus. This is Old Testament theology. Christian theology is based on the New Testament, which does not prescribe execution or any other earthly punishment for homosexuals. Rather, the New Testament teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and will be judged by God. ”
Sorry but you can’t just use this as a cop out. The Torah is part of the Christian Bible. Last time I was at a Church service as a visitor (I’m Jewish) they definitely used passages from the Torah in their sermon. And I find it ironic that Christians tend to have a much harsher view of homosexuality than Jews even though those passages are found in the Torah.
“I don’t think one needs to be a Biblical scholar to comment on these matters, but if you don’t understand the very basic proposition that in Christian theology the New Testament supplanted the Old Testament, and that therefore it is illegitimate to criticize Christian theology using Old Testament theology, then you really have insufficient substantive knowledge to comment with any insight.”
The New Testament didn’t supplant but supplemented the Old Testament. Both are used in parishes. How else do Christians get the belief of ‘God created the world in 7 days’? It it’s from Genesis which is part of the Torah.
CO Independent // Sep 10, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Hey Rabiner,
I hope you are well. Perhaps I should have been more clear by stating that the teachings of the New Testament, where such teachings exist, supplant the teachings of the Old Testament. (I didn’t really think this level of precision in writing is required in the comments section of a blog–I feel like I am writing a brief.) Where the New Testament is silent, there is nothing to supplant.
So yes, the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible, and many Old Testament teachings which are not addressed by New Testament are still considered part of Christian belief structure, albeit to different degrees in different denominations. Genesis is a great example. The New Testament doesn’t have a new explanation for the origin of the world–a new Genesis chapter–so it provides no new revelation regarding the origins of the world. Ergo the old Genesis is still in the mix.
By contrast, Leviticus for the most part is out, supplanted by the New Testament teaching that man answers to God, not to other men, for his sins. Thus, the assertion that the Bible instructs Christians to execute homosexuals is not correct.
I am similarly baffled by the relative views on homosexuality between Jews and Christians. How do Orthodox Jews handle this?
Happy High Holidays to you.
Slide // Sep 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
(Matthew 5:17-18)”
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’
(Matthew 23:1-3)”
CO Independent // Sep 11, 2010 at 12:34 am
You lefties can cut & paste, but you suck at comprehension:
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Matt/Christians-Must-Obey-Gods-Law
http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm//fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23920/eVerseID/23922
Better luck next time.