Mr. Friscus
Governor
... is open-ended vs. situational
Anyone knowledgeable on historical interpretation of literature knows that the "awful, horrible" verses of Leviticus, for example, were for specific situations, and not to be followed throughout time. Meanwhile, the modernist who might judge the behavior is ignorant of how even the "savage" acts of Leviticus were actually morally superior to all others around them. Non-believers flock to the irrational, un-biblical Protestant doctorine of sola scriptura, or the literal interpretation of the Bible, except the non-believer will choose to pluck new meanings of language in modern English only.
The verses of violence in the Quran are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Muslims who do not join the fight are called "hypocrites" and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Meanwhile, the Bible has scores of verses of showing love for one's neighbor, one's enemy, of sacrifice, and of love in general. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.
That's why it's sound to question whether the Muslim religion can safely exist in Western Civilization. The Old Testament examples that are often cited by those who irrationally judge history by modern standards were for a specific time, while the Qaran violence isn't cut off, and can easily be justified as being applied today.
Anyone knowledgeable on historical interpretation of literature knows that the "awful, horrible" verses of Leviticus, for example, were for specific situations, and not to be followed throughout time. Meanwhile, the modernist who might judge the behavior is ignorant of how even the "savage" acts of Leviticus were actually morally superior to all others around them. Non-believers flock to the irrational, un-biblical Protestant doctorine of sola scriptura, or the literal interpretation of the Bible, except the non-believer will choose to pluck new meanings of language in modern English only.
The verses of violence in the Quran are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah.
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Muslims who do not join the fight are called "hypocrites" and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Meanwhile, the Bible has scores of verses of showing love for one's neighbor, one's enemy, of sacrifice, and of love in general. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.
That's why it's sound to question whether the Muslim religion can safely exist in Western Civilization. The Old Testament examples that are often cited by those who irrationally judge history by modern standards were for a specific time, while the Qaran violence isn't cut off, and can easily be justified as being applied today.
