antineoETC wrote:Yahweh's jealousy is clearly "problematic" in that it drives him to extreme acts of violence when the total fawning devotion he regards as due to him and him alone is directed towards a "graven image"
Now you are changing your claim. Before it was that there was something problematic in the term 'jealous' itself. Are you now saying that is not the case?
antineoETC wrote:By your absurd reasoning I should, for the sake of consistency, regard the existence of balistic missiles as an indictment of Isaac Newton's works on the laws of gravity - after all, we wouldn't have the one without the other! There is a manifest difference between an innocuous scientific theory which racists and others hijack for their own nefarious ends and a violence-glorifying "holy book" which people consult for guidance as to what constitutes "righteous" behavior and has, historically, clearly inspired the perpetration of all sorts of brutal acts by people who genuinely believed they were doing good.
Actually, it was your reasoning. Like I said, this was always absurd. The teaching of Islam is not the teaching of the bible. If the claim is that a teaching can be 'hijacked' then that is exactly what Islam has done to the bible. In which case Islam is no indictment of the bible either.
The bible teaches that there is an almighty god who has a history of handing down laws through "prophets" along with brutal punishments in this world for transgressing them; ordering his "chosen people" to conquer, rape and enslave his "enemies"; burns people forever in hell for not believing certain doctrines. It is quite clear that Islam in fact DOES teach much of what the bible teaches.
Wrong. The bible also contains the context for who the laws were handed down to and why - something that is missing from the Quran. The bible also clearly identifies that false prophets exist and warns against them. As a result, the lack of extension of the bibles' laws to Islam is clear from the bible itself. This is particularly true given the New Testament revelation - also included in the bible and claimed by the Quran as its 'inspiration' also - wherein the OT law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ who also says 'my kingdom is not of this world'.
Christians have always regarded the Old Testament, including the word's that Jehovah (allegedly) spoke to Moses as as having relevence to THEM. That is why for hundreds of years in Europe those accused of being "witches" were brutally murdered and continue to be so today in other parts of the world.
Actually the relationship between Christianity and witch-hunts is rather more complex. For much of the time belief in the existence of witches was considered heresy and witch-hunts were more connected to paganism than Christianity. This is still true in other parts of the world today. I would encourage you to read up a bit more on this.
At no point have I said that the Old Testament is not relevant. I simply said that the laws given were clearly given to the Israelites at a particular time for a particular purpose. There is still much to learn from that.
So you acknowledge that the Old Testament possesses an ongoing relevence to you as a Christian. Let us take a small part of that: The ten commandments. These were allegedly "handed down" to Moses to be relayed to the Jews. Now try and claim that you do not regard them as still applicable to you and everybody else in the world.
In fact it's interesting to note that the bible says that the Israelites were themselves asked to go to meet God but were afraid and sent Moses in their place. Note also that there is no angel involved in the transmission of the law and that the Israelites seem to very aware of the directness of the communication between God and Moses (shining face that had to be veiled, thunder and smoke, etc.). As a result God is portrayed as altogether closer to those he is communicating with than in the Quran and those in ultimate receipt have much more to go on than just the laws they receive via the prophet.
The laws were 'handed down' to the Israelites ('Jews' would be anachronistic here) as an expression of the moral law that was to underlie their communal lives. Also summarised more positively in the commands to love God and love your neighbour as yourself. This moral law was given a particular form in the political and religious laws that were given to the Israelites at the time. Those political and religious laws were for them
- not for Arabs living a couple of thousand years later.
As Jesus made clear, the moral laws continue to describe how God wants people to relate to him and each other (in love).
antineoETC wrote:I am not claiming that Islamic teaching is from REAL "god" or any other supernatural entity. I no more believe in the reality of Allah than of Yaweh. My argument is that "Muhammad" and/or whoever else cobbled together the Qur'an clearly got their ideas about "divine law", "holy war" etc from the bible and his today religion stands as the worst indictment of that book.
And you are wrong. He may well have got his ideas from the bible but that does not make it an indictment of the bible because he has extracted those ideas from their biblical context so as to make them mean something completely different.
antineoETC wrote:If one accepts the premise that the god of the bible reserves the right to send prophets until kingdom come one is going to be naturally inclined to entertain the claims of those who periodically pop up claiming a direct line to the almighty than, say, an atheist. If one is unshakable in their faith that the bible is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then Muhammad naturally must be a false prophet if for no other reason than the Koran disagrees with the bible on certain issues regarding the nature of Jesus and his fate. Other believers in the bible, however, may be rather more open to contemplating Islam's claims that the original message of Jesus has been corrupted and be persuaded to "go over". This does happen. More likely they will be taken in by nominal Christian "prophets" and charismatic preachers like Joseph Smith, David Koresh or Pat Robertson. The existence of millions of mormons and their still-polygamous subsectarians as well as the "Religious right" in the US amply demonstrates the power of Old Testament concepts regarding "The Law", violence etc to subsume those of the New Testament in Christian minds.
And an atheist might be more likely to entertain claims of a 'non-religious' prophet such as Stalin or Mao. People seem to be able to believe all kinds of things. This is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Nor does it mean that a particular teaching is responsible for everything that others might spin out of it.
antineoETC wrote:Yes, Jehovah in the OT favors the "Children of Israel" in particular. This is the origin of the CONCEPT of the "divinely favored" group that Muslims and members of countless other bible-inspired subcults right up to the present have claimed to belong to. Do you not YOU as a Christian believe you are favored by the almighty in that as a result of believing certain things you will go to heaven whilst the "disbelievers" who do not share your particular doctrines will be sent to hell?
The 'concept' is not that there are 'divinely favoured groups' but that God chose the Israelites for a particular purpose. One that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That's the biblical teaching that clearly rules out the need for God to 'choose' any other group.
And no, as the things I believe are as available to you as they are to me, I see no reason why I am particularly more 'favoured' than you. All the benefits that are available to me are available to you also. You just choose not to take advantage of them.
antineoETC wrote:Expand on that please.
It's probably not relevant to your claim as the muslims are not ethnically homogenous either but this was in case you were claiming the 'favouring' of the Arabs was parallel to that of the Jews. The bible describes the people coming out of Egypt as a 'mixed multitude' which suggests that they were not ethnically homogenous.
And all you need is some charismatic charlatan or deluded nut job like Muhammad to persuade people religously primed to believe in such vile nonsense that they have been sent by God to so "command" them.
Which is an argument from consequences. The prospect of a teaching being corrupted has no bearing on whether that teaching is true or whether it should be recorded. Nor is that teaching responsible for those who want to corrupt it.
Jehovah allegedly "gave" the women of the conquered to the Jewish men. What do you think they did with them?
Marry them. You claimed that he commanded them to be raped. Are you saying that you can't actually find that now?
That is to ignore centuries of Christian history.
Not at all. The church also remains responsible for what it has believed and practiced. Some of that can be traced to biblical teaching, some not.