Persecution of Christians

Of course, if the US stops it, just wait for the cries of Islamic rage that will follow. Islam is demented and evil to the core. If the US doesn't stop it, at least Abdul Rahman knows where he is going after death.

Yes this is the type of thing Islam would show 'outrage' about. This along with cartoons about Mohammed. While Islamic 'radicals' behead and torture innocent people there is no outcry in the Islamic society. Islam has no historical credibility and the fruits of its followers go to show that it is a false religion.

Well while we're pulling the rug from under each others' religions, have a read of deuteronomy 13. It's not that judeo-xianity is "better" than Islam, it's just that only Islam has followers fanatical enough to actually impose Qur'ranic laws.

jez: Interesting point, but more for the Jews to contend with than for Christians. The OT was written to the Jews as a nation, corporately, and has to be understood in that context. Similarly, the various laws and regulations about the temple rites that were intended for the Jewish nation in the OT aren't applicable to modern Christians. (Even Jews have a tough time fulfilling them due to lacking a temple; they've pretty much given up on them, for whatever reason.)

That's a rather pragmatic opinion. Radical Islamists would claim that they have more to contend with than Christians. But I went too far if I suggested that "proper" Christians would implement these laws, when really I wanted to answer Tim's accusation that Islam has no historical credibility etc.

You rightly identify the practice of killing unbelievers as a travesty, but are willing to extend grace to the practice when it was undertaken by ancient Jews. How is this not special pleading? More terrifyingly, could grace be extended to a modern Jewish state applying these laws?

jez: Fundamentally the issue is that Islam is a false religion whereas Christianity and ancient Judaism were not. Under the modern notion of crafting a secular system of rules that provides the maximum liberty for the most people, and likewise gives Christians the greatest opportunity to obey God's commands with the least interference from the state, it's clear that allowing Muslims to kill unbelievers is a bad deal. If Christians or Jews wanted to kill unbelievers then I suppose we'd have to wrestle with that, but it seems like pretty much a moot point.

Modern Jews already miss out on the whole point of the New Testament. God has opened the doors to people over every race and nationality and given his followers a new set of commands, namely to go out into the world and preach the gospel (Matt. 28). Modern Judaism is already flawed, so using violence to enforce it would clearly be the wrong thing to do.

It's interesting to put it in the context of a converted Christian living in 1st century Israel. I wonder if any were killed by Rabbis simply applying their God-given law? Actually, I don't know how free Jews were to apply Mosaic law under the Romans -- I've a feeling they were reasonably autonomous.

The point isn't as moot as you claim in my opinion. The neutral standpoint from which the question of religious freedom should be considered is that all religions are probably false. While freedom to worship should be respected, this kind of thing, whether from Muslims, Jews or even Christians, must be illegal and considered religious persecution.

jez: Hm... anyone we might have heard of who was put to death in 1st century Israel because the religious teachers of his time thought he was a heretic?

Under Roman law the Jews were allowed to impose most punishments except death, which is why one particularly famous example was executed via crucifixion with the Roman viceroy's consent.

Why should the standpoint from which the question of religious freedom be considered be one that considers all religions "probably false"? Isn't enough to have a law that says you can't kill people without due process and that doesn't mention religion at all?

I think it's certainly a bad idea to legislate about religious freedom with one religion in mind as the true one, and therefore treat it favourably.
You're right, killing is illegal outside war and some justice systems; but you talked about Jews killing unbelievers as if it were a seperate problem that you would have to wrestle with when and if it arose.

Jez: Note Deutronomy 11:2-7, and the material leading up to Chapter 13. I think that, taken as a whole, these laws were given to two generations; the Exodous generation who died in the wilderness and their sons, in order to establish them in a new land. As you know, land is never given up easily, especially in the Middle East. But, for this one-time only covenant, the Jews had a God-given right of inheritance.

As far as the execution of Christians our modern-day policy with Afghanistan are concerned, I think our hands are tied in forcing the issue. However, we should impose many millions of dollars in sanctions and pull out troops if they engage in this sort of practice.

DD, when I read that I understood it as being a covenant for the whole time the jews lived in Israel. "These are the decrees and laws you must be careful to follow in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess—as long as you live in the land.", deut 12:1.
Didn't they live in that land for many hundreds of years?

Jez: Temporal context is important.

There are times when "as long as you live in the land" (NIV) or "as long as you live on the Earth" (NASB) mean exactly what they say. Those individuals received particular instructions to get them into the promised land, and those individuals would not have lived for hundreds of years.

Also, you should consider the NASB translation of Deutronomy 11:2: "Know this day that I am not speaking with your sons who have not known and who have not seen the discipline of the LORD your God."

In general, people often miss temporal context when reading the Bible. A prime example of this would be Matthew 24. Consider verse 34: "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place". Given this context, you might notice something that is often missed: Jesus was telling the individuals standing in front of him that the Roman army would destroy the temple within 50 years or so. And, he was telling them not to defend the temple "on that day", but to run for the hills. The secular historian Josephus records that in 70 AD the Roman army did invade Jerusalem, and the survivors were those who left the city.

DD: You're right about temporal context being frequently ignored. But, chapter 11 is the closing remarks of one discourse, chapter 12 the beginning of a new one, so I don't think 11:2 is relevent. Chapters 12-26 (all one discourse) stipulate rules that would make no sense to the individuals first occupying Canaan: references to a king, the priesthood, central criminal tribunal and so forth make no sense at that stage of Israel's development. To me, it only really makes sense if it applies to the whole Jewish residency in Israel.

Jez: I do not claim that the temporal context is easy to follow in this section, but look at Deut. 12:29 which is clearly leading up to Chapter 13:

"When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land..."

Specifically, this tells me that the context of Deut. 13:9 is associated with the initial occupation of the promised land. God was telling them to destroy and replace the culture of the pegans. That was His will for a limited period of time.

DD: NIV deut 12:30
"and after they [soon-to-be disposessed nations] have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods,..."

Notice the "after". King James also has "after", although it's in a knot of syntax that I can't honestly untangle fully. I've been searching around the net for some scholarly opinion on the temporal scope of deut 12-26, but haven't found any. Is yours the standard view?
Is there anything later in deut which would reset the temporal scope and let the laws which only make sense in the context of a mature, stable Israeli nation apply after the deaths of the first settlers?

Jez: I agree that there are no major contextual clues from chapter 13-26. At the beginning of the section, a few special days of rememberance are mentioned, one every three years, and another every seven years, for example. But it is not cut-and-dry.

There is another temporal context to consider for Christians, however, and that is the coming of Jesus and how He treated the Jewish law. Consider Jesus' description of how God sees the lost sheep, for example, and you know that we are not instructed to kill the "lost sheep" today.

Agreed. As a secular humanist, I am on the whole pleased that west-European Christians defended themselves against Muslims during the middle ages, since I doubt that our current freedoms would have developed in a Muslim culture. thanks david.