Hi Aziz,
After Jesus, why does God consider it unnecessary to continue protecting believers and cleanse the world from polytheists, atheists etc.? Why the change of policy?
Firstly, there was never a policy to 'cleanse the world of polytheists' and I don't think atheists are mentioned once in the commands we have been discussing. The commands were very limited in scope and geography.
Secondly, the Israelites were chosen to bring a blessing to all of mankind - i.e. through the Messiah. They (not all believers) were protected as a people for that purpose. Once the Messiah had come, those commands became redundant.
all because of the commands and recommendations from a God who thought that certain sins were absolutely intolerable.
That is only part of the reason. The other reason seems to have been the aim to preserve a community of people who believed in him.
But the Christian view is that all sin is intolerable to God. So the surprise isn't that these people were killed, it is that all of mankind wasn't killed off years ago. When Christian's talk about a loving God, this is what they mean - a God who desires relationship so much that he withholds judgement and sends his son to receive the judgement instead. The understanding of a loving God is predicated on the belief that judgement is real and is God's right to exercise.
Now, I'm not saying that you, as a present-day Christian, have to follow those things, but you have stated that you agree with the punishments God dealt out to those people.
Actually, I think I have said that no-one has given me reason to think that they could not have come from God. I don't pretend to 'agree' because I am not God and have little basis to evaluate his decisions 3000 years ago at all.
So, where does Hassan do wrong, when he says that the actions of Yahweh qualify him to be blood-thirsty and psychopathic? After all you say He didn't change and He's on record for wanting brutal and insane behaviour. What natural conclusion do we draw from that about this deity?
On what grounds is it called 'blood-thirsty and psychopathic'? The reasoning seems to be 'well, if a person did this they would be blood-thirsty psychopaths'. But we're not talking about a person, but God. God, as the source of all morality, the one who really knows us and who determines the purpose of mankind, is the only one placed to judge people. He is the only one who can give or take away life - whether an individual or a society.
Many Muslims will be of the opinion that certain verses were revealed in the context of war, because of the overall picture of the chapter and because many believers also consult their conscience before doing interpretations. In addition to this, the Hadith and the Tafseers are always there to clarify the details of those verses.
I.e. not really from the text of the Quran itself ('the overall picture of the chapter' is rather vague, don't you think). That was my point.
There's no reason why Muslims can't also interpret the violent verses in the Qur'an to be bound to their historical time of revelation. Muslims will consider it to be absurd that this should require some kind of personal sacrifice by God.
I didn't say they couldn't, I just said that the degree of lattitude is much greater because of the absence of context in the text of the Quran.
And a muslim's appeal to ridicule is no more meaningful than Hassan's (although it does shed light on his 'three God in one' line in the video).
No, sparky. It's not great. It's not great that in those stories God acts like a tyrannical monster. It doesn't matter how many prophets God has sent, that doesn't make wholesale slaughter just or reasonable. And don't give me the answer that I think like that because "I don't like it."
As we are talking about God's actions then what matters is what is 'just or reasonable' to him - not to you. Given the rest of what is revealed about God, I don't see why taking people's lives is, by definition, unjust.
It's not acceptable to be oppressed let alone slaughtered for believing in something else than the majority of a community. Nobody has the right to do such a thing. Most certainly not whackos who claims to have been informed by a God that he wants the believers to go out and murder the polytheists and rape their women. It's a principal most civilized people believe in. To you yours, and to me mine.
I'm not sure who you are talking to here. I've not seen any commands by God in the bible to rape women or to kill believers because they are minorities.
If God hadn't sent Jesus to "fulfill the OT", as you say, would you have followed the prophets, or the religious rules, however unpleasant they may seem?
But God did send Jesus and I'm not living in that time so it's a hopelessly hypothetical question.
After all, you don't disagree with the biblical events
And you haven't given me a reason to.
You said you don't know what it would have been like an Israelite. That's rather a convenient cop-out answer.
It's also true - for both me and you.
No, it's more or less obvious that this recommendation is universal.
How do you know? It was also given to people many years ago.
Well, it really depends also on the core principles and the conscience of a person who tries to interpret those verses.
Really? The Quran teaches that you should obey Allah's commands only if they agree with your core principles and conscience? Where does it say that?
Also why should any apparently negative teaching be any concern for people like you who believe that not liking something doesn't have any bearing on the reality, value or truth of it?
I didn't say that the fact that this teaching is negative is what causes me to reject Islam. I just brought it up as another example of how lack of context makes it impossible to 'wave away' the commands contained in the Quran.
That is exactly how people who want to have faith bring themselves to believe, despite all the nasty things written in the "holy books". "Who am I to question the word of Allah? You may not like the beating verse and eternal hell for unbelievers, but I'm not the one who makes the rules. Allah knows best."
Again, I don't know who you are talking to here. I don't believe 'despite' the things written in the bible.
What I tried to say is that Muslims can also successfully divide the Qur'an into something like the OT vs NT.
From your examples, it doesn't seem to be particularly successful. In fact, it is nothing like the OT and NT because it is from a single author, revealed in a short space of time, has little theological development, contradicts the earlier revelations that it claims to confirm and has little or no historical context contained in it.
Cheers,
sparky
Topic: Readings from the "Holy Book"