In the Bible, it states that God decrees that the punishment for working on the Sabbath is being stoned to death. That's pretty clear - there's no confusion apparent in the verse - you work on a Sunday, you're dead, end of story.
There's no verse that explicitly states that that requirement is repealed. I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that I would need a lot more clarity before I advised a client to work on a Sabbath, if we were governed by biblical law. Their relatives would sue the pants off me if I did.
I hope I've made the point that the Sabbath has been fulfilled and that it was given to Israel in any case and not to anyone else. We don't just reinterpret things, there are clearcut historical reasons why the Law no longer applies to Christians, reasons foreshadowed in the Old Testament but fulfilled in the New.
As I understand it some sects of Islam reinterpret some of the language in their sacred writings in a spiritualized way that removes the physical violence, and that's probably because they are better people than their religion; but other sects call that hypocrisy and the actual language in the books is so clearly physical the spiritual interpretations sound rather flimsy and subjective, and there is nothing really certain about them. I'd certainly rather admit to the country those who are members of the spiritualizing sects of course, however tenuous that system of thought.
There has also always been some confusion about Christian interpretations of the Bible, but they aren't just subjectively determined, there are historical and theological contexts that define their meaning, making them more stable it seems to me. And in any case none of them promotes any kind of violence against anybody.
Now I know that you and other Christians believe that Jesus wiped away that law - and I'm extremely happy you do.
Um, He didn't "wipe it away," He fulfilled it so that we are freed from its judgment of it. Most of the Moral Law is still in operation because it's a universal law that operates inexorably on all of humanity, because we are made in God's image, whether or not it is recognized in any given culture. But that may be a nitpick in this context.
In any case, wherever the Sabbath is still observed, since some Christian sects do still believe in observing it, it is recognized to be fulfilled in Christ even among them, and it is not enforced by the severe punishments of the OT. I've been part of a church that preached that we should honor the Sabbath Day by making it a day spent in honoring God and quiet forms of recreation, and avoiding all the forms of work we do the rest of the week; but that's hardly to be compared with how the Israelites were taught to observe the Sabbath. I think it probably was punished in some of the Puritan colonies but not by the death penalty and I'm not even sure it was punished at all so take it with a grain of salt. I always thought it was nice when businesses closed on Sunday, one day a week when work stopped in honor of God. No punishments, just a nice custom. That's really as far as any western country will go to honor the Sabbath these days so you don't have to worry how you deal with your clients.
But the basis upon which you believe that is very convoluted.
Not really. Sometimes people are confused about what it means, but I think the explanation I've given above should sort it out pretty well.
It involves interpretations and references to history and practice, and above all an appeal to belief. You turn to scholarly debate and interpretation, because the language is completely nonspecific and vague and open to interpretation.
So when we point out that the Bible advocates this brutal practice, you tell us that a proper Christian interpretation is that this is an incorrect view.
Well, yes and no. I think it should be answered as I answered it in the previous post. It is about the extreme importance of the Sabbath in God's relationship; with the nation of Israel, so that to profane it or violate it was an extreme offense and deserved an extreme punishment, and again, there wouldn't have been a single soul among the Israelites who hadn't heard the law thousands of times, making them inescapably guilty if they disobeyed it. I would guess nobody did ever disobey it for that reason, unless it was during those periods when the Law was forgotten, which did happen. But since nobody in those times knew the Law anyway, nobody would have been punished either.
And that is precisely what the vast majority of Muslims do when it comes to the Quran. They explain why their religion does not in fact include following the more outrageous and brutal things that people can cherry pick if they're minded to.
I don't consider anything in the Law of God to be "brutal." abe: Or let me rephraise that: it's not GRATUITOUSLY brutal which is what you mean. /abe The Law is very clear and its punishments are clear and they apply only to the nation of Israel anyway. I'm very glad there are Islamic sects that interpret away the violence in their writings, but there really isn't any comparison. They are explaining away actual commands for the reader to commit violence against unbelievers. The reason we don't follow the Old Testament Law is theologically explained by the mission of Christ, but there was never any command to the reader to hurt anyone.
So you're allowing yourself to explain away the brutal aspects of the Bible, but not allowing Muslims to explain away the brutal aspects of the Quran.
As usual I think there is a failure here to understand the different contexts involved.
There's the basic problem.
Seems to me this basic problem is due to your inability or disinclination to recognize the clearly different contexts.
(And the double standard is not explained by the lying thing - the vast majority of Muslims take the relevant passages (which are pretty broad, and don't say what you've been told they say) to mean they can lie about being a Muslim to save themselves from being killed etc., not as a nefarious method of taking over the world).
In context that is exactly what it means, and it is not reserved for that one dire situation in any case. And Christians by the way are forbidden to lie to protect ourselves. That is considered to be betraying Christ.
And of course there are extremist fundamentalist Muslims who are vile specimens of humanity -
No, I don't believe that. I don't think any of this has to do with the character of the people themselves. It's not Muslims, it's the ideology of Islam that is the problem. What turns one Muslim into a jihadi and not another is probably not some shared characteristic among the two groups. Sometimes the Muslim may be an idealist captivated by the idea of dying for God; sometimes it may be a Muslim who feels he has nothing left to live for. The Muslims who took the planes to their doom on 9/11 were known to be very nice intelligent guys in their regular lives.
just as there are extremist fundamentalist believers of other faiths.
The more "fundamentalist" a Christian becomes, the more the Bible is taken to heart, and therefore the more kind and self-sacrificing he becomes and the less inclined to fleshly expressions of violence. It's all in the ideology, in the books rather than in the person. The fundamentalist Muslim is steeped in commands to violence, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his personality, it's all about the ideology.
But they are in the overall minority - most people of faith in my experience are broadly kind, attentive and peace-loving.
I'm glad, but you absolutely misunderstand the dynamics involved in these two religions.
So apply the same standards - either admit that the Bible is a brutal, warmongering, tribal handbook, or do what you want us to do with you, and listen to what actual Muslims actually say about their faith.
Sorry, you've got it all upside down and backwards. I truly AM sorry.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2