Obama decries Quran-burning, violent responses

[Drew]

A note to the active participants in this discussion. Last night, after there was a hiatus of about 6 hours, I quietly went through the last few pages and deleted 10-15 posts where there were off-topic disputes. Calling someone a liar or claiming that someone has called someone else a liar is not productive. I'm not even saying anyone was actually called a liar, but the argument about it continued for some time. I was hoping that the message would be received and participation adjusted.

In the interest of keeping this thread open for discussion, participants should refrain from this kind of discourse. It is the expectation that this thread will continue with the topic being discussed; not other members themselves. If it goes off topic in such a way again, we will likely have no other option than to lock this thread.

Thank you.

deleted own post - I had posted a response to this, but I confess I had not read the above carefully enough. As a result, my initial post was inappropriate. Sorry about that.

 

[Pizzaguy]

This is somewhat a response to PJT:

... the Bible clearly shows that God that is indeed working out a redemption plan that is evolving ...

Not sure I can agree with everything from this post, but I have, FOR A LONG TIME, seen that, while God Himself never changes - His interaction with humanity has changed a bit over time.

To me, the obvious example of this is the advent of Christ - it is clear that, when Christ died and the veil of the temple was torn, we were given a new, direct way to interact with God. No longer would there be animal sacrifices, Christ died once for all.

If you stand back, you can see a "new attitude"* on the part of God towards humanity when you first read the old testament and then the new testament.






* If you will forgive the phrase!

 

[Drew]

Not sure I can agree with everything from this post, but I have, FOR A LONG TIME, seen that, while God Himself never changes - His interaction with humanity has changed a bit over time.

While it is clear that I take exception to some things you post, I will publically affirm that you generally are willing to agree with something somebody else posts, even if that other person has been giving you a hard time.

That is an admirable trait - I am not as good on that kind of thing as you are. If I think someone is being unfair to me, I tend to remian silent rather than affirm something they post that I agree with.

In other words, I respect your willingness to agree with someone who is otherwise "fighting" with you.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Thanks for that, Drew! It's all about the truth with me, and the fact is, I have observed the same "changing" in God's interaction with humanity that you have.

It's just that I focused, almost completely, on the BIG change that Christ's sacrifice made for all of us.

I've got to think about the rest of your post.

 

[Josh Asher]

Yep, His "attitude" changed only because of what Jesus did, since He died for all sin. If Jesus had not done it, none would go to heaven and man would have the same relationship with God, with the same severity, and animal sacrifices. It's just so sad to me that even though Jesus died for all sin still only few go to heaven.

 

[pjt]

Please read my posts carefully - I never said that God evolves. I said that his plan for the world is an evolving one.

Okay, as long as we can agree that God Himself is not changing and evolving and His Word is not changing and evolving then we are on the same page.

I would not describe world events as evolving since "there is nothing new under the sun", but I would describe events moving according to and with God`s divine plan. But how we describe world events moving is not an issue for me. I just want to make sure we are both talking about the same God who never changes. The God who existed before creation being the same God after this present world ends.

I mean if He is a God that is always changing and evolving then the Bible is very irrelvant since what was written back then would not apply today and who God was then is not necessarily Who He is today. In other words the God of Bibles times would not be the same God in our time. The God of our time, if He were evolving, would probably be a very politically correct God that reflected the culture rather than the Bible. But of course we would run into the problem of "whose culture?" and inevitably we would want to define God by a Western culture. In other words, humans get to define God rather than allowing God to define Himself. But since you have stated that you do not believe God evolves, then I think we can agree that the God of the OT is still the God of today.

I would disagree that His plan is evolving. I think He had it all figured out from the beginning and that is why we had prophets who could tell us a Messiah was coming and the end of the world is coming. And that is why all the feasts in the OT were done as they were done to point to the Messiah and prepare the people for Him. However, that point is not so important to me as Who God is. Whether God is stable and consistently Who He says He is or is always evolving through time is important on a very fundamental level. But I am glad you agree that He does not change. This is very significant, I think.

 

[Drew]

Okay, as long as we can agree that God Himself is not changing and evolving and His Word is not changing and evolving then we are on the same page.

I would not describe world events as evolving since "there is nothing new under the sun",

I politely suggest that you are applying an overly simplistic approach to exegesis here. There are many things in the book of Ecclesiastes that are clearly the thoughts of the writer, and are not intended to express what God believes to be the case.

I know that people will get very upset with this, thinking that I am questioning the word of God. Well, I am not doing that at all. In Job, we have the author suggesting that "once you're dead, that's it". Do you believe this, pjt? I doubt it. So you see that we have Job expressing his own ideas, not some fundamental theological truth.

Job is certainly mistaken in that particular statement - we are indeed promised a life beyond the grave. Same thing in Ecclesiastes - the author says "life is futile". Do you believe this, pjt? I doubt it, yet again.

So we need to be careful with the "there is nothing new under the sun". This is the author in a moment of despair - God is indeed doing all sorts of new things.

And I would expect that if the author of Ecclesiastes lived to see Jesus, and the initiation of the kingdom of God, he would happily agree.

 

[Sam21]

Nothing new under the sun in this thread though(he,he).

 

[Pizzaguy]

Okay, as long as we can agree that God Himself is not changing and evolving and His Word is not changing and evolving then we are on the same page.

I'm sure we are ALL on the same page. As I posted above, it has been OBVIOUS to me for DECADES that the way in which God interacts with us has changed greatly.

My focus (until I saw Drew's post) was on the tremendous change in God's interaction with us before Christ versus after his Death.

Additionally, have you noticed that in "O.T. times", there was more judgment and wrath from God? But in the New Testament, it's all forgiveness, grace and 'turning the other cheek'? One could even say that, once Jesus died, God tended to "turn the other cheek" just as Christ told us to.

As I read Drew's post, he made me think of the TREMENDOUS change that happened as Adam and Eve were escorted out of the Garden - talk about a CHANGE!

One can easily argue that God has not changed, He still has the same character and characteristics that He's always had. But the "tools" or techniques for dealing with mankind have changed or evolved. (I have a distaste for that word, but it DOES apply in this context).

I have often wondered - why? Why did he leave so much time between the fall in the garden and Christ appearing? I have no answer for that, other than His ways are so far above mine, I cannot hope to understand.

We can disagree with Drew all day long (and I am sure my disagreements with him here provide tremendous entertainment to those reading these threads!), but the fact is, Drew is not talking about "A different God" or "A different Jesus".

 

[pjt]

I politely suggest that you are applying an overly simplistic approach to exegesis here. There are many things in the book of Ecclesiastes that are clearly the thoughts of the writer, and are not intended to express what God believes to be the case.

I know that people will get very upset with this, thinking that I am questioning the word of God. Well, I am not doing that at all. In Job, we have the author suggesting that "once you're dead, that's it". Do you believe this, pjt? I doubt it. So you see that we have Job expressing his own ideas, not some fundamental theological truth.

Job is certainly mistaken in that particular statement - we are indeed promised a life beyond the grave. Same thing in Ecclesiastes - the author says "life is futile". Do you believe this, pjt? I doubt it, yet again.

So we need to be careful with the "there is nothing new under the sun". This is the author in a moment of despair - God is indeed doing all sorts of new things.

And I would expect that if the author of Ecclesiastes lived to see Jesus, and the initiation of the kingdom of God, he would happily agree.

This reply is actually to Drew and Pizza. As long as we are not talking about a different, changing God, then that is all that matters to me. All other points even the point of whether to burn a koran or not become highly insignificant compared to discussing if the God we worship today is the same God who created this world. If we can agree He is the same and has not changed, then that is all that matters to me.

I don`t think the way He interacts has changed. I see an extremely loving, forgiving, patient God in the OT who is equally loving and forgiving in our times. However, if you see Him more loving and forgiving now, then I will not argue that point, because I don`t see it a point worth arguing since we can all agree that He is loving and forgiving. It is not something He evolved into. In other words, He did not begin as wrathful and become loving. He has always been loving and forgiving. God is Who He is, so when we read the Bible and it says God is X, Y, and Z, we know He is still X, Y, and Z, has always been and will always be.

 

[Deavonreye]

Has this topic gone completely off topic?

I would like to revise my comments [way at the beginning of this threaad] a bit. Whereas the burning of the Quran DID result in deaths, . . . as an American, we are free to speak our minds IN THE FACE of potential threats of violence from a sect of religion that is determined to plunge the world back into the dark ages of their religious irrelevantism. Their violence towards those who do not share their beliefs, or who choose to destroy their own property should never cause a person to tremble in fear at what their actions would cause. Their actions are not the problem. The problem [and whatever violence arises] lies at the feet of primative, backwards thinking, iron age mentality thugs who use anything to promote their violence. We, as a people and nation, should never allow petty threats to take away our rights founded in the First Ammendment.

 

[Drew]

The problem [and whatever violence arises] lies at the feet of primative, backwards thinking, iron age mentality thugs who use anything to promote their violence. We, as a people and nation, should never allow petty threats to take away our rights founded in the First Ammendment.

Its not that simple. Many hundreds of millions of people in the world see the Koran as the very symbol of who they are. To burn the Koran is to engage in act that you know will be deeply insulting and symbolicaly threatening to a huge fraction of the world's population.

Besides, I suggest it is debatable whether such an act really is an act of "speech". True speech involves the reasoned articulation of some idea, whereas burning a Koran is the ultimate in "unreason" - there is no "content" to such an action, except a veiled threat of violence. You may wish to call that "speech", if you like. I wouldn't.

This is not about you and your "rights" only - its also about being a responsible member of a world community.

 

[Deavonreye]

The idea is that people in THIS country shouldn't feel that their opinions be affected by the threats of another. The problem is, . . . people are burning copies of the Quran quite a bit. Watch Youtube. One guy copied the Quran 40,000 times onto a harddisk, then used chemicals to burn the harddrive contents into a pile of nothing. It is a matter of princple. The world will not be highjacked by these types of "people". Giving into them is THEIR victory.

 

[Drew]

The idea is that people in THIS country shouldn't feel that their opinions be affected by the threats of another. The problem is, . . . people are burning copies of the Quran quite a bit. Watch Youtube. One guy copied the Quran 40,000 times onto a harddisk, then used chemicals to burn the harddrive contents into a pile of nothing. It is a matter of princple. The world will not be highjacked by these types of "people". Giving into them is THEIR victory.

I do not think this is the right argument to use in this case.

The issue is not about responding to threats, but about intentionally undertaking an act of symbolic violence against a symbol that hundreds of millions of people will see as representing them.

In any event, even if some Muslims had said "don't burn the Koran or we'll kill you", this is hardly a justification to then go and burn a Koran to show you "won't be pushed around".

If someone threatened to kill you if you killed your congressman, would you go out and kill your congressman, on a matter of principle? I certainly hope not. The real issue is not whether someone was threatened about burning the Koran, but whether burning the Koran is a constructive act in the first place.

You would have a point if someone threatened you if you "fed your dog". Feeding your dog, unlike burning a Koran, is an action mandated by compassion and love (in this case, for the dog).

 

[Nick]

And there are ways Islam can disagree with us, other than flying planes into building and planting explosives in public places.

But that won't keep you from apologizing for and siding with murders.

Yours is a very disturbing and silly position.

So you support vengeance for 9-11 by acting in hate towards them?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Has this topic gone completely off topic?

I would like to revise my comments [way at the beginning of this threaad] a bit. Whereas the burning of the Quran DID result in deaths, . . . as an American, we are free to speak our minds IN THE FACE of potential threats of violence from a sect of religion that is determined to plunge the world back into the dark ages of their religious irrelevantism. Their violence towards those who do not share their beliefs, or who choose to destroy their own property should never cause a person to tremble in fear at what their actions would cause. Their actions are not the problem. The problem [and whatever violence arises] lies at the feet of primative, backwards thinking, iron age mentality thugs who use anything to promote their violence. We, as a people and nation, should never allow petty threats to take away our rights founded in the First Ammendment.

 

[Pizzaguy]

So you support vengeance for 9-11 by acting in hate towards them?

Where did you get THAT from my post?

 

[Nick]

Where did you get THAT from my post?

That's what I got from your post (perhaps it's tone), I don't know. Anyway, do you support the pastor burning the Quran?

I consider 9-11 absoluely nothing to do with this.

 

[Deavonreye]

You would have a point if someone threatened you if you "fed your dog". Feeding your dog, unlike burning a Koran, is an action mandated by compassion and love (in this case, for the dog).

IMO, . . . "love" is A way to act. . . . . but so is preserving a person's individual rights. If the book is a person's own personal property, it is his/hers to destroy it, if they choose.

 

[Pizzaguy]

That's what I got from your post (perhaps it's tone), I don't know. Anyway, do you support the pastor burning the Quran?

I consider 9-11 absoluely nothing to do with this.

He can burn any book he wants to. He can do so to make a statement, same as an artist can immerse a crucifix with an image of Jesus on it in human urine to make a statement.

Oh, and 9-11 was what got our attention - this is 100% about 9-11.