ISIS and the Old Testament

Armoured said:

Well that's good, considering the Ottoman Empire was a going concern until the end of the First World War, you know, in 1918.

Another predictive hit!

Click to expand...

More scoffing without knowledge...

Do a little research and learn that the Ottoman empire (Islam) came under the rule of the western powers in 1840. Do you not consider subjugation of an Empire to be a fall? Tell that to the Romans...

EastCoastRemnant said:

More scoffing without knowledge...

Do a little research and learn that the Ottoman empire (Islam) came under the rule of the western powers in 1840. Do you not consider subjugation of an Empire to be a fall? Tell that to the Romans...

Click to expand...

What the heck are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Decline_and_modernization_.281828.E2.80.931908.29

The Ottoman Empire was not under the rule of Western Powers in 1840. Where do you get this stuff?

Armoured said:

What the heck are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire#Decline_and_modernization_.281828.E2.80.931908.29

The Ottoman Empire was not under the rule of Western Powers in 1840. Where do you get this stuff?

Click to expand...

My apologies for misstating "the came under the rule"... they were reduced to looking to the western powers for resolution to their inevitable overthrow by the revolt of the Egyptians under Bashir II and Mohammad Ali with the signing the treaty of London in 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_London_(1840)

EastCoastRemnant said:

My apologies for misstating "the came under the rule"... they were reduced to looking to the western powers for resolution to their inevitable overthrow by the revolt of the Egyptians under Bashir II and Mohammad Ali with the signing the treaty of London in 1840.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_London_(1840)

Click to expand...

So... not really as prophetically impressive, then, is it?

Who said it had to be impressive? It was still the restraining of the "troubler from the east" that had being pestering Rome for the previous 300+ years... The Ottoman Empire may have remained on the world stage until the early 20th century ... but after 1840, she was merely a shell of her once proud glory.

Achilles6129 said:

We're all aware of the barbarity that ISIS terrorists have displayed towards anyone outside of their organization. We're also all aware that Western society (including, of course, modern Christianity) is basically horrified by their actions and that they have become the new face of evil for many in the West. However, there is something here that I think is worth considering from a theological standpoint (and I want to be careful how I say this):

In the Old Testament God commands things that are very similar, though perhaps not the exact same, to what ISIS terrorists do. Obviously the nature of God can never change. Indeed, the New Testament also has a great deal of violence in it: there's violence in the statements of Jesus Christ and there's an enormous amount of violence in the book of Revelation.

What do you make of these things? Wouldn't a society run by the Torah be sort of similar to one run by Sharia law (which is apparently what ISIS terrorists follow, if I'm not mistaken)? How does modern Christianity respond?

Click to expand...

Have you understanding of why God did the things He did?

TL;DR. Regarding the original post: From a human perspective just punishment is only seems the same as Satanic harm, because they both boil down to "pain." The reason is not because God is like Satan in any way. It is because of what the effect of each is upon human nature. There is only one human nature and it can not distinguish between the two. If you want to see the difference, you have to examine the morality involved.

I posted something last night about the seemingly-harsh, but actually deeply loving, God of the OT (skip the first few paragraphs):
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/gods-wrath-to-believe-the-ot-or-not.7951422/#post-69742328

You are all talking past each other. Before anyone can begin to think and discuss about the harsh saying of either the OT/NT, they need to sort out their exegesis, i.e. whether the best view of the text is literal, tropological, analogical, etc, or a combination. If the latter, the text pertains very closely to redemption. If the view of the text is literal, it may have some collective or historical meaning, etc.

It's far more relevant, and difficult, to ask how and why the Sodom of my own heart can be purified by fire, than pontificate about whether a big bad man up in the sky with a long white beard is or is not really a neglectful parent.

PuerAzaelis said:

You are all talking past each other. Before anyone can begin to think and discuss about the harsh saying of either the OT/NT, they need to sort out their exegesis, i.e. whether the best view of the text is literal, tropological, analogical, etc, or a combination. If the latter, the text pertains very closely to redemption. If the view of the text is literal, it may have some collective or historical meaning, etc.

It's far more relevant, and difficult, to ask how and why the Sodom of my own heart can be purified by fire, than pontificate about whether a big bad man up in the sky with a long white beard is or is not really a neglectful parent.

Click to expand...

Newly freed slaves from Egypt were not about to get all existential and Buddhist on Moses.

dupe

Christians don't celebrate the Eucharist because there are newly freed slaves from Egypt.

When the gospels say that Jesus is the lamb of God did he mean he was about to grow wool and say baaa?

If it sounds ridiculous, it's no less ridiculous to suggest that the hard saying of scripture can't solely be taken literally either.

Anyway it's odd you use two New-Agey words when the four levels of interpretation are medieval.

How can a mere literalist approach alone reflect the grand work of the Spirit who came to dwell in the apostles after the resurrection? The literal approach would emphasize the historicity of the hard sayings but not their meaning.

another dupe

ugh sorry

Achilles6129 said:

Yes. I'm just asking other people for their input.

Click to expand...

It really is a mystery; I think God gets blamed when he is not at fault. Isis has to be involved in prophesy being fulfilled. One thing seems to be sure; a six thousand year mathematical algorithm was activated with Adam; a two thousand five hundred year algorithm activated with Daniel and a two thousand year algorithm activated with Christ and recorded in Revelation. We can know from prophesy what is going to happen and if we keep the commandments of God we will either be spared or rewarded; as we know most people have abrogated the commandments of God.

sparow said:

It really is a mystery; I think God gets blamed when he is not at fault. Isis has to be involved in prophesy being fulfilled. One thing seems to be sure; a six thousand year mathematical algorithm was activated with Adam; a two thousand five hundred year algorithm activated with Daniel and a two thousand year algorithm activated with Christ and recorded in Revelation. We can know from prophesy what is going to happen and if we keep the commandments of God we will either be spared or rewarded; as we know most people have abrogated the commandments of God.

Click to expand...

Keeping the Commandments does not spare or reward anyone, unless they have become a Follower of Jesus Christ. (born again, genuine follower of Jesus Christ) Jesus told the rich man who had kept all the commandments from his youth, yet he was still lacking.

farout said:

Keeping the Commandments does not spare or reward anyone, unless they have become a Follower of Jesus Christ. (born again, genuine follower of Jesus Christ) Jesus told the rich man who had kept all the commandments from his youth, yet he was still lacking.

Click to expand...

A person who does not keep the commandments (what ever that may mean) could not really claim to be born again or to follow Jesus (what ever that may mean). I probably depends on semantics; in the OT one can read, "It is an abomination to keep the Law with out entering into the covenant". But the Law and the covenant are the same thing; I think it is an illusion to think one can keep the law without entering into it.

I think most people misunderstand the story of the rich young man. As I recall that story the rich young man asked how he could be saved and when he was told he replied that he already done what was required and Jesus replied, "If you want to be perfect then do this" ; remember Jesus didn't come to save the righteous but the unrighteous but that doesn't mean the righteous are lost.

Achilles6129 said:

I don't really understand what you're asking. I was commenting on the fact that God brutally tortures and kills everyone who disobeys his commands in Scripture. That's the real God (and the real Christ) of the Bible. That's the God and the Christ that people should embrace.

Click to expand...

No. The real Jesus said about the worst sinners "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.". And the real Jesus said about his worst enemies "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

The ancient Muslims weren't extremists. Most were very lay back and tolerant toward Christians. The methods of these extreme Muslims are very different from their ancient past. Their terrorist and killing methods against other religions has no basis from Muhammad or the early fathers of Islam. They really should be looking at the actual actions of Muhammad instead of taking the Quran out of context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_other_religions

"During the thirteen years that Muhammad led his followers against the Meccans and then against the other Arab tribes, Christian andJewish communities who had submitted to Muslim rule were allowed to worship in their own way and follow their own family law, and were given a degree of self-government. However, the non-Muslim dhimmis were subject to taxation jizyah at a different rate of the Muslim zakat. Dhimmis also faced economic impediments, restrictions on political participation and/or social advancement based on their non-Muslim status.

The Syriac Patriarch Ishôyahb III wrote in his correspondence to Simeon of Rewardashir, "As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule (shultãnâ) over the world, you know well how they act toward us. Not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honour the priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the churches and monasteries."[11]

After Muhammad's death in 632, Islamic rule grew rapidly, encompassing what is now the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, and Iran. Most of the new subjects were Christian or Jewish, and considered People of the Book. (After some argument, the Zoroastrians were considered People of the Book as well.[12]) Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians were called dhimmi, protected persons. As noted above, they could worship, follow their own family law, and own property. People of the Book were not subject to certain Islamic rules, such as the prohibitions on alcohol and pork, but were subject to other restrictions. Under the Islamic state, they were exempt from military service, but were required to pay a poll tax known as jizya. (They were, however, exempt from the zakat required of Muslims.) They could be bureaucrats and advisors, but they could never be rulers."

I believe I heard that sharia law, when it is in full force, condemns with the death penalty anyone who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Bible on the other hand says this:

1 John 4:15, Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

You can be certain that the reciprocal of this is also true: If anyone denies that Jesus is the Son of God, he is devoid of God...