• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Completely reasonable people demand deputy be fired then deported

Ladewig said:
Yes, his Constitutional scholarship is ... noteworthy, but his Bible scholarship is even more so:

He trots out examples of verses in the Quran, calling for harsh punishments and death to non-believers, but Ruiz points out that those verses were written during war time and not meant to extend beyond a specific historic battle.

[snip]

While acknowledging both the Bible and Quran may have similar patterns of violence, he [Rosenthal] said it doesn't apply to him because he is a Christian and doesn't necessarily have to follow teachings from the Old Testament.

"Just because I believe in the Bible doesn't mean I'm called to follow everything in Deuteronomy," he said.​
Click to expand...


That's not exactly noteworthy actually. The debate about if and how much of the old testament is negated by the new testament is as old as the new testament. What did Jesus mean when he said he was not here to destroy the old laws, but fulfill them? He also contradicts many of the laws of the old covenant and doesn't follow many of them himself. He tends to focus on the spirit of the law and it's intent rather than following the letter of it.

If this guy follows some kind of replacement/fulfillment theology (supersessionism), he's not exactly 'wrong' any more than other interpretations like dual-covenant theology or one of the forms of dispensationalism.

He's contrasting his favored interpretation with abrogation, that an ayah supersedes earlier ayat in the Koran, in Islam. This is of course not exactly a settled idea there either. The Koran is supposed to be the final perfect revelation from Allah, but various groups can't even agree if abrogation applies to the Torah and Injil, let alone which parts of the Koran abrogate others. The Koran itself claims that no part of itself is at variance with any other part of it, even as Saruh 2:106 claims that 'we substitute something better or similar'. At any rate, the requirements for violence do tend to increase in later parts of the Koran (fornication goes from 100 lashes to stoning to death for example).

Thus if one believes that strong abrogation is part of Islam, while believing in the somewhat similar progressive revelation for Christianity, one could conclude that Christians don't have to follow the old testament and can go by the relatively peaceful teaching of Jesus while Muslims must follow the more violent later passages of the Koran.

The elephant in the room is that Muslims disagree on abrogation, so they are under no requirement to interpenetrate it as this guy does.
 
smartcooky said:
Anyway, what is it about Florida that it seems to have a higher than usual number of total nut-job bigots in its media and politics.
Click to expand...


I am often ashamed about my home state. To be fair, if the rest of you would stop dumping your old, senile, racist parents (who can unfortunately still vote and drive a car) on us poor native Floridians, we could then focus on driving out the racist idiot rednecks. Alabama has offered to take those in.
 
You have to find some irony in a Christian saying he's free to interpret his holy book how he sees fit while claiming Muslims somehow can not.
 
foophil said:
I am often ashamed about my home state. To be fair, if the rest of you would stop dumping your old, senile, racist parents (who can unfortunately still vote and drive a car) on us poor native Floridians, we could then focus on driving out the racist idiot rednecks. Alabama has offered to take those in.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::D
 
tyr_13 said:
That's not exactly noteworthy actually. The debate about if and how much of the old testament is negated by the new testament is as old as the new testament. What did Jesus mean when he said he was not here to destroy the old laws, but fulfill them? He also contradicts many of the laws of the old covenant and doesn't follow many of them himself. He tends to focus on the spirit of the law and it's intent rather than following the letter of it.

If this guy follows some kind of replacement/fulfillment theology (supersessionism), he's not exactly 'wrong' any more than other interpretations like dual-covenant theology or one of the forms of dispensationalism.

He's contrasting his favored interpretation with abrogation, that an ayah supersedes earlier ayat in the Koran, in Islam. This is of course not exactly a settled idea there either. The Koran is supposed to be the final perfect revelation from Allah, but various groups can't even agree if abrogation applies to the Torah and Injil, let alone which parts of the Koran abrogate others. The Koran itself claims that no part of itself is at variance with any other part of it, even as Saruh 2:106 claims that 'we substitute something better or similar'. At any rate, the requirements for violence do tend to increase in later parts of the Koran (fornication goes from 100 lashes to stoning to death for example).

Thus if one believes that strong abrogation is part of Islam, while believing in the somewhat similar progressive revelation for Christianity, one could conclude that Christians don't have to follow the old testament and can go by the relatively peaceful teaching of Jesus while Muslims must follow the more violent later passages of the Koran.

The elephant in the room is that Muslims disagree on abrogation, so they are under no requirement to interpenetrate it as this guy does.
Click to expand...

Acknowledged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom