Teacher Beheaded in France for Showing Class Picture of Muhammad (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

There is no distinction. Your individual or cultural spirituality could very well be achieving something against other people. See crusades. Even today Jerusalem is considered a holy land, and people see it a righteous enterprise to take it over, give it to the Jews, and defend it from the Muslims, because prophesy.


The Bible clearly states homosexuality is an abomination and people who practice homosexuality shall be put to death.

“against other people’s”
“the gospels”

Please read for context

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

In the world we live in today you can take the simple text “run spot run” and find 5 different people who have 5 different interpretations of it. But when Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the and the life and no one comes to the father except through me” John 14:6 that was pretty straightforward.

The entirety of the differences in Christian sects proves that this is nowhere close to straightforward

 

[tomwaits]

Ever heard of Pope Gregory IX?
Ever read passages like Ephesians 6:11-16?
Ever heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?

There. Go read.

How the heck are you misinterpreting Ephesians 6 that it is calling for violence?
It is clearly talking about spiritual warfare and especially when taken in the context of the New Testament, there is no way a reasonable person could see this as a call to violence for Christianity. Or do you mean this is something that can be taken out of context and used by political powers to try to sway Christians with very little biblical knowledge towards violence?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the whole thread before I replied. I see this was already brought up.

 

[tomwaits]

Maybe this guy was just trying to fit in with French culture and had recently read about the Reign of Terror (atheist movement) and wanted to remove some heads to show he was assimilated?

 

[SystemShock]

“against other people’s”
“the gospels”

Please read for context

I am reading for context.

Let's keep it topical: the actions described in the OP. I don't think all of the details have come out ( remember Pulse?) but let's assume for the sake of discussion, the teacher did get beheaded because he showed a cartoon of Mohammed.

Would you consider the actions of the attacker to be against other people? Or would you consider the actions of the attacker to be an act of individual and/or cultural spirituality, according to his religion?

 

[SystemShock]

How the heck are you misinterpreting Ephesians 6 that it is calling for violence?
It is clearly talking about spiritual warfare and especially when taken in the context of the New Testament, there is no way a reasonable person could see this as a call to violence for Christianity. Or do you mean this is something that can be taken out of context and used by political powers to try to sway Christians with very little biblical knowledge towards violence?

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the whole thread before I replied. I see this was already brought up.

So, again, what you think it means in 2020 is probably not the same meaning to someone in 1220, or whoever wrote the words around 0100. Add to that all of the translations...

Spiritual warfare came with actual warfare back then.

 

[DaveXA]

I am reading for context.

Let's keep it topical: the actions described in the OP. I don't think all of the details have come out ( remember Pulse?) but let's assume for the sake of discussion, the teacher did get beheaded because he showed a cartoon of Mohammed.

Would you consider the actions of the attacker to be against other people? Or would you consider the actions of the attacker to be an act of individual and/or cultural spirituality, according to his religion?

I consider the attacker to have lost his marbles. Has less to do with religion and more to do with him being crazy. At least that would be my first thought. But as you said, not enough information at this point.

 

[tomwaits]

So, again, what you think it means in 2020 is probably not the same meaning to someone in 1220, or whoever wrote the words around 0100. Add to that all of the translations...

Spiritual warfare came with actual warfare back then.

I absolutely think it means the same. I think it would be on you to reference how it didn't mean the same thing then that it does now.
Where is your source that Christian spiritual warfare came with actual warfare sanctioned by the early church when this was written? You can't produce it because its not there. If it was there we would have heard about it for centuries from the atheists.

 

[SystemShock]

No I wasn’t asking you if you thought it was ok. No one that is even remotely human would think that was ok and from reading your posts on here I would assume that you are at least human with maybe just a bit of questionable behavior at times.

That is going to depend on your definition of "human". I personally use "human" simply to define the species.

Now to your statement on the 2nd commandment no he wasn’t in direct violation. If you look at the Old Testament as a whole we are told throughout it that the only way to heaven is by faith. We must have faith in his word in order to achieve heaven. After Christ’s birth and eventual death things changed and we could reach heaven through grace. The grace and the blood of Christ paved our new way to heaven. This is also talked about a lot in revelations and even stirs up another discussion when it comes to pre millennials and post millennials.

Whether by faith or grace, I don't think it matters. The commandment is very clear. Obviously Revelations will back the claim of getting to heaven through Jesus, is the last book of the NT.

 

[DaveXA]

I absolutely think it means the same. I think it would be on you to reference how it didn't mean the same thing then that it does now.
Where is your source that Christian spiritual warfare came with actual warfare sanctioned by the early church when this was written? You can't produce it because its not there. If it was there we would have heard about it for centuries from the atheists.

Yeah, it's not like the early Church had armies of followers back then. I mean, what is a few hundred followers with no weapons actually gonna do? If anything, they were the ones being attacked and killed for their faith.

It was clearly a metaphor or allegory because it was the language people spoke at the time. Not really that difficult to surmise from history.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Would you consider the actions of the attacker to be against other people? Or would you consider the actions of the attacker to be an act of individual and/or cultural spirituality, according to his religion?

so it is a political action
there is no text in the koran that i know of that says "behead someone who shows a picture of me"

 

[SystemShock]

I absolutely think it means the same. I think it would be on you to reference how it didn't mean the same thing then that it does now.

Can you think of words of phrases that have their meaning change or altered the past 100 years? 50 years? 20 years?
Have you ever done the thing when you translate a song from English to another language, and then back to English?

Where is your source that Christian spiritual warfare came with actual warfare sanctioned by the early church when this was written? You can't produce it because its not there. If it was there we would have heard about it for centuries from the atheists.

They are brought all of the time: the crusades, the various Inquisitions, the conversions of people through slavery and torture...

 

[SystemShock]

so it is a political action
there is no text in the koran that i know of that says "behead someone who shows a picture of me"

There is no text in the Koran that says that. However, there is Athar (think of it as a sort of Catechism for Islam) , which explicitly prohibits making images, which would be considered apostasy, which is punishable by death. You don't have to renounce Islam to be considered an apostate.

 

[SystemShock]

Maybe this guy was just trying to fit in with French culture and had recently read about the Reign of Terror (atheist movement) and wanted to remove some heads to show he was assimilated?

Ah, yes, those atheist killers.
The reign of terror wasn't an "atheist movement".

But here...

"Atheism has killed more people than Christianity"

This is a common argument that apologists keep bringing up over and over again, mostly - as far as I can tell - ever since Christopher Hitchens started mentioning the number of deaths caused by religion throughout the centuries, during debates, talks, and in written pieces. And the "evidence"...

madaboutpolitics.com

 

[SystemShock]

In any case, I have taken this thread where it wasn't intended. But then again, it is not fun to rail against Islam, as most everyone here would agree about railing against Islam

I'll just leave this here:

Religion and Philosophy Discussion

This is a common board where religious topics are discussed

madaboutpolitics.com