antineoETC wrote:No it doesn't
Of course it does. You were saying that it was problematic that God was described as 'jealous'. I have argued that in a marriage, 'jealousy' does not necessarily imply something bad. So I'm waiting for you to explain how it is problematic. Unless of course you want to back-track from the claim.
And it could justifiably be regarded as an indictment of the Origin of Species if Darwin had therein explicitly or implicitly argued in eugenics favor. I am not aware of any such passages. Are you?
Utter rubbish. Your claim was that Islam was that the very fact that Islam was 'inspired' by the bible was an indictment of the bible. For this to be true, it really doesn't matter what the original teaching was - only what it 'inspired'. The fact that the ideas of Darwin were used to argue in favour of eugenics should be sufficient to be an 'indictment' of Darwin's theory if your argument is true. If your argument now is that the exact teaching needs to be identified in the original then it is quite plain that what Islam teaches is not what the bible teaches.
And the teaching of the Old Testament, among other things, IS that:
> Jehovah hates idols, likes to see them smashed to pieces, their worshippers persecuted and killed
> wants to see "witches" killed
> has handed down laws from heaven along with punishments like stoning for transgressing them
Actually no. The Old Testament records the giving of laws to the people of Israel in the context of his covenant with them to govern their communal and religious lives. Many of these laws were directed as preserving their religious identity in a threatening political environment. In the light of the New Testament, we can also see that many of the laws also forshadowed the coming of the Messiah and were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. This is the 'teaching' of the Old Testament in the context of the bible as a whole and what clearly eliminates Islamic teaching as being from the same God.
> hands down messages to specially selected individuals called "prophets"
Yep. And shows how those 'prophets' should be identified and distinguished from 'false prophets'. A key criteria for this is consistency with earlier revelations which is how we can know that Mohammed was not a prophet - no matter where he got his 'inspiration' from.
> favors particular human groups over others and likes, through his "prophets", to tell his "favorites" to attack and conquer non-group members, plunder them, rape and enslave their wives and children etc etc
So many false claims in one sentence it's hard to know where to begin. Firstly, he appears to only favour one group - not 'groups'. Secondly, it appears that this 'group' is not ethnically homogenous in the first place. Thirdly, it is clear that he also relates to members of other groups and therefore access to him is not restricted only to his chosen group. Fourthly, he specifically commands his 'group' to attack certain other peoples as his judgement on them. A judgement which as God he reserves the right to command. There is never a generic command to attack all 'non-group' members nor that the important characteristic of these peoples was that they were 'non-group'. Fifthly, there is no command to rape anyone.
antineoETC wrote:The effect of these ideas is with us to day and they continue to spawn demented Islam-like judaeo-Christian subcults, whether led by charlatans or madmen who genuinely believe they are in direct communication with god, whose danger to the rest of us is, I repeat, only limited by the membership they can gather.
Sure, like you, others can misread the texts to suit their own agenda. Like I said, it's really not very hard to do.
antineoETC wrote:The following excerpt from a 17th century document called The Westminster confession of faith under the subheading "The Law of God" highlights the problem:
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God....
Sure, 'true believers are not under the law' but it is useful. Here's the full section:
I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace.
VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.
So the section you quoted is actually describing the usefulness of the 'moral' law which the Westminster Confession of Faith identifies with the ten commandments. Notice also the 'expiry' of the judicial laws with the State of 'that people' in IV. I.e. what you quoted provides your answer - back in 1646!
antineoETC wrote:It is a thin dividing line between regarding "divine" law as outlined in the Old Testament as "a rule of life informing of the will of God" and regarding it as something by which society as a whole should be governed. It is no wonder then that numerous Christian sects large and small have crossed that line down the centuries right up to the present.
It's only a thin dividing line for those who, like you, prefer to crop quotes that support their personal agenda rather than to bother reading what the text is actually saying. Anyone who does bother to actually read the text in full finds that the meaning is fairly obvious.