RoR: Forum

'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703915204575103481069258868.html

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war.

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."

Post 1

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 10:42am

Wafa Sultan, Dec 1, 2009

I hope both Wafa and Mosab survive to see their message come to some fruition.

Post 2

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 12:58pm

The Christian God is no less terrorist than the Muslim God.

In the Christian Bible, God orders Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. He orders the Israelites to slaughter millions of defenseless men, women and children in the conquest of Canaan. He kills every firstborn child in Egypt. He orders King Saul to butcher thousands of children and babies in the genocide of the Amalakites. He orders the Israelites to capture and mass-rape 32,000 young girls of the Midianite tribe after killing their families. He strikes dead 50,000 innocent people at Beshemish for merely looking into the ark of the covenant, and, during the flood of Noah, he drowns nearly every man, woman, child and animal on the face of the earth.

The only difference is that, unlike the Muslims, Christians no longer insist on following their God's example, courtesy of the Enlightenment, which the Middle East has yet to undergo.

- Bill

Post 3

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 1:18pm

Bill, I sanctioned your post yet want to observe that you cite examples from the Old Testament. Christians will argue that the New Testament created a new and more tolerant covenant between God and His people with the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, for the sins of the world. By contrast, as I understand it, the two books of the Koran take exactly an opposite stand, with the later book superseding the earlier book in terms of its intolerance of infidels.

Perhaps you would like to cite New Testament stories to support your thesis.

Post 4

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 1:34pm

As a good Christian, or so I was taught, you are not allowed to kill or harm another person - for your own defense or benefit. However, it is permissable, even mandatory, to kill or harm as needed to protect SOMEONE ELSE. Or, it may be justifiable - although you're supposed to feel guilty about the possibility that you acted selfishly - to defend y ourself or aggress against someone else IF your own live and well-being is necessary to the lives and well-being of OTHERS.

I.e., this is essential altruism. All actions must be based on the benefit to others, and ultimately to the benefit of God.

How is it - one naturally wonders - that GOD is allowed to be selfish? As Stirner opens his wonderful "The Ego and His Own," what is not to be MY cause. God, the State, Humanity, your neighbor, all may act selfishly to further their own interests. Only YOU may not act in your own interest - unless of course you can weasel out of the dilemna by showing that your benefit is the most effective way to benefit others.

Post 5

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 4:01pm

Luke wrote,

Bill, I sanctioned your post yet want to observe that you cite examples from the Old Testament. Christians will argue that the New Testament created a new and more tolerant covenant between God and His people with the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, for the sins of the world. By contrast, as I understand it, the two books of the Koran take exactly an opposite stand, with the later book superseding the earlier book in terms of its intolerance of infidels.

Yes, but the God of the Old Testament is still recognized by Christians as their God. They certainly wouldn't claim that the God of the Old Testament was acting immorally and unjustly when he committed these atrocities.

Perhaps you would like to cite New Testament stories to support your thesis.

It is true that in the New Testament, Christ asks us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, for in Matthew 5:39-5:45, he states: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.' However, I say to you: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. . . . You have heard it was said, 'You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous."

However, if we consult your namesake, Luke 19:27, we find the following: "These enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." So Jesus himself not only does not love his enemies; he asks his followers to slaughter them and those who don�t want to be ruled by him. He not only has the mentality of a vicious tyrant; he is also a hypocrite who does not practice what he preaches! But, when you think about it, is it really all that surprising that someone who demands the sacrifice of self to others, should be ready to sacrifice those from whom he demands it?! The common theme uniting his words is the doctrine of human sacrifice. In that respect, your average, run-of-the-mill suicide bomber is a good Christian as well as a good Muslim!

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/07, 4:06pm)

Post 6

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 5:19pm

You have really left the cee off the crap this time, Bill.

The line you quote from Luke as if Jesus were saying his disciples should bring Jesus' own opponents before him and slay him are from a parable where Jesus is quoting the words of some fictional King:

The Parable of the Ten Minas
19:12-27Ref -- Mt 25:14-30
11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12 He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13 So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.' 14 "But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.' 15 "He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it. 16 "The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.' 17 " 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.' 18 "The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.' 19 "His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.' 20 "Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21 I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.' 22 "His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?' 24 "Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.' 25 " 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!' 26 "He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.' "

My guess is that you got this specious nonsense from some militant atheist whose arguments you took on faith because you valued his conclusions more than checking the validity of his premises.

It isn't Christianity that is discredited when supposed believers in reason resort to such tactics.

Post 7

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 5:36pm

Ted,

Thanks for the heads-up. I stand corrected. Yes, I did get this from another non-Biblical source, which was evidently taken out of context, so your point is well taken. I was trying to respond to Luke's challenge by finding something in the New Testament that would support God's actions in the Old.

But I wonder if, in offering this parable as wise counsel, Jesus wouldn't also be endorsing the actions of the king as appropriate. Just a thought. I don't have a dog in this fight. The fact that Jesus would have endorsed the actions of the God of the Old Testament is enough to show that he is of the same character.

- Bill

Post 8

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 5:55pm

Jesus' parables cannot be taken literally, and indeed many make no sense at all in orthodox Christian interpretations. They have to be interpreted in either rabbinical or Gnostic contexts. The New Testament reflects a merging of rabbinical Judaism with its parables and legalism (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and oriental myster cult gnosticism (John, Paul, Revelations)

If you are interested in modern interpretations of what Jesus the rabbi meant based on studies of the rabbinical and Gnostic influences of his time I first suggest reading A N Wilson's Jesus, a Life, and Paul. They are extremely approachable and readable sympathetic studies aimed at laymen written by a well educated Oxford atheist.

The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, and The Five Gospels, What did Jesus Really Say reflect the consensus of modern textual analysts.

Finally, the various technical yet still approachable works of Geza Vermes, such as

Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, Minneapolis, Fortress Press 1973 ISBN 0-8006-1443-7
Jesus and the World of Judaism, Minneapolis, Fortress Press 1983 ISBN 0-8006-1784-3
The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, London, Penguin 2004 ISBN 0-14-100360-X
Searching for the Real Jesus, London, SCM Press 2010 ISBN 978-0-334-04358-4

reflect a deep scholarly vision of Jesus based upon a rigorous contextual historical study.

Post 9

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 6:40pm

Luke

. Christians will argue that the New Testament created a new and more tolerant covenant between God and His people with the sacrifice of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, for the sins of the world.

My only response to that is then why wouldn't they expel the old testament from canon?

Post 10

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 7:39pm

Among other things the Old Testament contains all the prophecies the fulfillment of which demonstrate that Jesus is the promised messiah.

Issues like the place of the Old Testament in Christian belief are not exactly ones that haven't been explored. Questions like these have been addressed by both sophisticated believers and scholarly non-believers for decades, centuries, and millennia. It behooves serious thinkers to do at least some minimal research to find out what is actually believed and taught and what has already been said before making objections that ironically end up sounding, methodologically, like the kind of "challenges" that creationists make when trying to disprove evolution.

One recent such ignorant objection I have hear is James Valliant's claim that there never was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and that he was invented centuries after the fact to perpetrate a hoax called Christianity. Well, it's perfectly possible to not believe that Jesus was the son of God without denying that there was a preacher from Galilee who called himself the Son of Man.

Many of Jesus' words and sayings have long been inscrutable. Scholars like Geza Vermes (a Jew) have shown that many phrases attributed to Jesus can be explained and clarified in light of texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls which document sects and beliefs that ceased to exist with the Judaean Revolt and the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in the first century, and which were as unknown to the Romans as they were until recently to us. To hold that some Roman hoaxer composed words for Jesus which would have no meaning in the context of third century paganism or the Jewish diaspora but which could be understood in the light of the beliefs of tiny sects which disappeared from the earth two centuries before is naive in the least.

While scholarship about Jesus is as relevant to, say, the physical sciences as is interpreting the various versions of Silmarillion of J R R Tolkien published posthumously by his son Christopher, such scholarship when rigorous is scholarship no less than is scholarship directed towards an understanding of cuneiform Hittite or the plays of Shakespeare. To be an expert in such matters is as difficult, if not as practically profitable as being an expert in medicine or the law.

Post 11

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 7:46pm

Among other things the Old Testament contains all the prophecies the fulfillment of which demonstrate that Jesus is the promised messiah.

Questions like these have been addressed by both sophisticated believers and scholarly non-believers for decades, centuries, and millennia.

It behooves serious thinkers to do at least some minimal research to find out what is actually believed and taught and what has already been said before making objections that ironically end up sounding, methodologically, like the kind of "challenges" that creationists make when trying to disprove evolution.

Then they are picking and choosing what parts of the Old testament they want to adhere to if they wish to reject the parts of the old testament that shows a violent and vengeful god but follow the parts that reveal the prophecies for the messiah. Why is one revealed gospel but the other isn't? That they selectively choose which passages they wish to believe in should be enough to discredit the religion.

The passage of millennia with scholars examining the question is not needed to reveal the hypocrisy.

I went to Greek Orthodox Sunday School for 5 years, and I wasn't taught that parts of the old testament should not be believed.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/07, 7:54pm)

Post 12

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 8:07pm

There are the stories of the Old Testament and there is the Law which it put forth and to which the Jews had been bound by the Old Covenant. Jesus was the New Covenant. You were taught that Jesus' message replaced and superseded the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, (circumcision, the dietary laws, etc.,) and that the essence of the Law was to love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. The stories never became false. The importance of the Law changed from legalistic formal observance for the Jews to God's saving grace for all mankind. But since you were most likely drawing obscene shitcock cartoons on your desk during class, John, it doesn't surprise me that you missed the essential points.

Post 13

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 8:35pm

My argument is still valid. They are still picking and choosing what to believe from the old testament, which is still arbitrary and hypocritical. To accept that the old testament was correct when it spoke of a coming messiah but one should not accept a violent and vengeful god even though plenty of the other passages in the old testament show this means there is no more a valid reason to believe Jesus was the messiah than that I should believe that god was violent, petty and vengeful.

Post 14

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 9:00pm

But with whom, then, is your argument? The Jews? Christians, as gentiles, don't celebrate the genocide of the Amalekites by the nationalist Hebrews, nor do they, as if keeping Kosher, refuse to eat at the table of non-believers. Christians are as critical of Mosaic legalism as anyone else. Not knowing what you don't believe in you make an awefully confused ex-Christian.

Pay attention to this. Christianity is historical. God's revelation occurs in time and in contexts. What happened to and was incumbent upon the Jews does not apply to Christians, even if what did happen to the Jews did happen to the Jews. Christians still believe in the "truth," if not literal, of the "facts" of the Old Testament. But Christians don't identify themselves as a people nationalistically with the Old Testament Hebrews who felt that God was on their side in wars against their enemies who had other gods. And fundamentally Christians do not believe they are necessarily bound by the 613 commands of the Torah. The last is the essential difference.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 3/07, 9:13pm)

Post 15

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 9:38pm

I was originally just addressing Luke's post. Not you, but you jumped in so I proceeded to defend the argument I posed to Luke.

Again, my argument is still valid. That Christians selectively choose what to believe from the old testament is hypocritical and arbitrary. This doesn't make me a confused ex-Christian. To the contrary, it reveals that Christians are confused. They are the ones that hypocritically follow some parts of the bible and not others.

Besides, the New Testament has some hateful things to say, specifically that God decrees homosexuals deserve to die:

Rom.1,24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom.1,25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
Rom.1,26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
Rom.1,27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Rom.1,28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
Rom.1,29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
Rom.1,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom.1,31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Rom.1,32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Post 16

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 10:17pm

I would have thought the humor of the confused ex-Christian remark was obvious. I am not really versed on the post-gospel books, since they are pure fiction, while the gospels purport what happened before Jesus died.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 3/07, 10:18pm)

Post 17

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 10:29pm

I've often found some of the things you say in your posts to be cryptic, leaving aside the smugness and condescension for the moment that appear more obvious. So no, I don't get the humor. It's difficult enough to communicate over the internet, talking with people in real life being more ideal as there is less chance for confusion. Considering that, maybe you can try being more literal and explicit, and well, polite?

Post 18

Sunday, March 7, 2010 - 11:25pm

Either quote where I have insulted you or drop the crap.

Post 19

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 9:27am