islam will take over europe inshallah

[Enfant terrible]

alhamdulillah they are the most feared religion because the disbelievers know when the sleeping giant wakes up its over for them and their forefathers dreams.

Death to america

death to israel

death to britain

death to france

death to russia

 

[Deleted member 14826]

what about india

 

[Gargantuan]

Cope islam will be dismantled as well, eventually. They already managed to destroy christianity's social power in the west and the same will happen to islam, in the middle east as well as everywhere else.

That's the agenda

 

[Deleted member 12234]

Hopefully. I wouldn't mind seeing more middle eastern women

 

[Deleted member 12234]

Imagine walking outside and seeing this.. I support islam

 

[AlwaysHaveQuestions]

their women will be their downfall

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

Cope islam will be dismantled as well, eventually. They already managed to destroy christianity's social power in the west and the same will happen to islam, in the middle east as well as everywhere else.

That's the agenda

Only reason Christianity fell was because of the constant changes to the bible and Protestantism becoming massive. Islam is unique in that our holy book hasn’t been changed in 1400 years. Meanwhile Christianity has constantly changed to suit the period its in. Modern Christianity is cucked and lost its way

 

[Haven]

Hopefully. I wouldn't mind seeing more middle eastern women

Only for muslim man you retard

 

[Shrek2OnDvD]

Only for muslim man you retard

Are you Muslim turanid?

 

[Haven]

Imagine walking outside and seeing this.. I support islam

Lets kill this nigger my afgan brother @Shrek2OnDvD

 

[Haven]

Are you Muslim turanid?

Yes there are too much muslim turanids uzbeks,too much afghans,kazakhs,kyrgz,turks,tatars

 

[WontStopNorwooding]

And the new Islamic leader will be

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

Only reason Christianity fell was because of the constant changes to the bible and Protestantism becoming massive. Islam is unique in that our holy book hasn’t been changed in 1400 years. Meanwhile Christianity has constantly changed to suit the period its in. Modern Christianity is cucked and lost its way

Akhi our religion will also follow the footsteps of theirs in regards to lower numbers and the jews also, it was prophesied. We just have to fight for it ALL IN, and give everything we have for the sake of Allah, that depends on us.

 

[Deleted member 13994]

do you really think the jews will allow the west to become a muslim country? They will just kill of the whites and as soon as we are dead they will make you their slaves. Enjoy that i guess

 

[Deleted member 13994]

also if your original country where islam was practiced was so good why did you come to the west?

Once the west becomes an islamic nation it will be a shithole like the place you lived before

 

[Danish_Retard]

jfl @ anyone thinking the west will bow to anyone or anything

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

also if your original country where islam was practiced was so good why did you come to the west?

This is a fallacy, there is no such thing right now as a 100% muslim country, they all engage in some sort of haram law. Perhaps Brunei, and maybe Afghanistan in the future might be the only muslim countries.

Also i don't understand this question to be honest, it shows lack of knowledge. I don't know a single migrant in my entire life who has migrated because of some sort of islamic law, the vast majority did it because of economical matters. That same people when they collect money they go back on vacation to their native land.

This question can also be reversed to you in a even higuer degree, if Christianity was so good then why there isn't almost a single country in the entire world that promotes some sort of Biblical laws? In the west they all seem to choose and promote anti christian laws. If you said to me "Why muslim countries are becoming more pro human rights?" to me the answer is simple, they have been pressured for decades by the west and other powers, and forced with economical sanctions, ouppet dictatorships, etc, to enforce more secular laws while it is clear that in Islamic countries almost every time there is a democracy the Pro Muslim party wins. Meanwhile why that doesn't hapoen in Christian majority land?

Once the west becomes an islamic nation it will be a shithole like the place you lived before

Again, a fallacy, go to Qatar or UAE, they live better there than in every western country, even westerners live better there and prefer to stay. You are mixing economics with social matters and religion.

 

[Deleted member 756]

jfl @ anyone thinking the west will bow to anyone or anything

Indeed

 

[bossman]

hinduism mogs. its better for an indo-european religion to take over europe than some jew one (any abrahamic faith tbh)

 

[Deleted member 13994]

This is a fallacy, there is no such thing right now as a 100% muslim country, they all engage in some sort of haram law. Perhaps Brunei, and maybe Afghanistan in the future might be the only muslim countries.

Also i don't understand this question to be honest, it shows lack of knowledge. I don't know a single migrant in my entire life who has migrated because of some sort of islamic law, the vast majority did it because of economical matters. That same people when they collect money they go back on vacation to their native land.

This question can also be reversed to you in a even higuer degree, if Christianity was so good then why there isn't almost a single country in the entire world that promotes some sort of Biblical laws? In the west they all seem to choose and promote anti christian laws. If you said to me "Why muslim countries are becoming more pro human rights?" to me the answer is simple, they have been pressured for decades by the west and other powers, and forced with economical sanctions, ouppet dictatorships, etc, to enforce more secular laws while it is clear that in Islamic countries almost every time there is a democracy the Pro Muslim party wins. Meanwhile why that doesn't hapoen in Christian majority land?

Again, a fallacy, go to Qatar or UAE, they live better there than in every western country, even westerners live better there and prefer to stay. You are mixing economics with social matters and religion.

- You are coping, You are retarded too. The reason they migrated is that western countries and their laws and teachings are all based from the bible and muslim countries and islam does not allow innovation. European countries may be secular now but that is their origins and laws are direct from the bible. The reason the west is anti bible now is because of the Satanists in power aka the joos.

quatar and uae have the least muslim practices in the world and sharia law isnt forced so that isnt a good argument and they also still have slavery

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

- You are coping, You are retarded too. The reason they migrated is that western countries and their laws and teachings are all based from the bible and muslim countries and islam does not allow innovation. European countries may be secular now but that is their origins and laws are direct from the bible. The reason the west is anti bible now is because of the Satanists in power aka the joos.

Have you read the Bible? Show me where the Bible promotes LGBT, abortion, freedom of speech, blasphemy, economical interest, and all those kind of so called biblical values. Majority muslim countries promote Biblical values more than any christian majority country, i think any decent sociologists would agree on that. Insult Jesus (alayhi a salam) in public in a muslim country and see what happens, meanwhile if you do that in europe they may give you a medal or something for "Freedom of speech"

quatar and uae have the least muslim practices in the world and sharia law isnt forced so that isnt a good argument and they also still have slavery

False, Qatar is probably Top 3-4 countries that are closest to Sharia. Anyone who knows about Islamic law would recognize that Turkey, Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia are the furthest muslim majority countries from Islamic law, while the Hejazi ones are the closest ones.

In regards to slavery, first and foremost slavery is both permitted in Islam (With difference of opinion among scholars if it should be abolished or not) and Christianity, and second, who said that Qatar is 100% Islamic? And what about slavery promoted in Africa and Asia by western powers in the textile and mineral industries?

 

[Deleted member 13994]

Have you read the Bible? Show me where the Bible promotes LGBT, abortion, freedom of speech, blasphemy, economical interest, and all those kind of so called biblical values. Majority muslim countries promote Biblical values more than any christian majority country, i think any decent sociologists would agree on that. Insult Jesus (alayhi a salam) in public in a muslim country and see what happens, meanwhile if you do that in europe they may give you a medal or something for "Freedom of speech"

False, Qatar is probably Top 3-4 countries that are closest to Sharia. Anyone who knows about Islamic law would recognize that Turkey, Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia are the furthest muslim majority countries from Islamic law, while the Hejazi ones are the closest ones.

In regards to slavery, first and foremost slavery is both permitted in Islam (With difference of opinion among scholars if it should be abolished or not) and Christianity, and second, who said that Qatar is 100% Islamic? And what about slavery promoted in Africa and Asia by western powers in the textile and mineral industries?

like i said the base of western culture pre the Millenium was on the bible. The jews are the reason there isnt any more christianity and why they are inviting muslims over here because if you replace the white population you will become their slaves


you can buy alcohol in qatar, women are allowed education, and can drive if you think that slave labour aka being paid 50 cents a day what indian labour earn then there is no point in speaking to you

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

like i said the base of western culture pre the Millenium was on the bible.

The base was roman culture, which even when christian countries were the most christian they were using more greek and roman law than christian laws.

The jews are the reason there isnt any more christianity and why they are inviting muslims over here because if you replace the white population you will become their slaves

There lies no doubt that the zionist filth (Not every jew tho, there are all kinds of jews, good and bad) wants to destroy both us and you (When i say you, i mean christianity, not white people, i doubt they care about white people because of their color)

you can buy alcohol in qatar, women are allowed education, and can drive if you think that slave labour aka being paid 50 cents a day what indian labour earn then there is no point in speaking to you

I understand what do you say. First, i never claimed that Qatar was an islamic country 100%, as i said in my first comment there is no such thing as an Islamic country right now, perhaps only Brunei and maybe Afghanistan in the future. What i said is that Qatar is one of the closest of being so.

In regards to alcohol being selled, in Islam if a jew or a christian lives in muslim land, he is allowed to rule his community by his law and drink alcohol, so there is no problem with that. But if that alcohol is served to muslims, then that is a different story.

In regards to women education, that is just an extremist view the Taliban took, we have since early Islamic history women who were scholars, including a wife of the Prophet if i'm not mistaken (alayhi a salat wa salam). Islam promotes clearly the education of both men and women.

About Indian-Pakistani labour, i agree that some of those gulf states treat badly those people, and that they should be corrected in their behaviour. Even if they were slaves (Which they are not as far as i know, because they were not captured in a war), the Prophet (alayhi a salat wa salam) said the next about their treatment. Ma’rur ibn Suwaid reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Your slaves are your brothers. Allah has placed them in your hand, and he who has his brother under him should feed him with the same food he eats and clothe him with the same clothes he wears, and do not burden him beyond his capacity, and if you burden him then help him."

 

[Deleted member 13994]

The base was roman culture, which even when christian countries were the most christian they were using more greek and roman law than christian laws.

There lies no doubt that the zionist filth (Not every jew tho, there are all kinds of jews, good and bad) wants to destroy both us and you (When i say you, i mean christianity, not white people, i doubt they care about white people because of their color)

I understand what do you say. First, i never claimed that Qatar was an islamic country 100%, as i said in my first comment there is no such thing as an Islamic country right now, perhaps only Brunei and maybe Afghanistan in the future. What i said is that Qatar is one of the closest of being so.

In regards to alcohol being selled, in Islam if a jew or a christian lives in muslim land, he is allowed to rule his community by his law and drink alcohol, so there is no problem with that. But if that alcohol is served to muslims, then that is a different story.

In regards to women education, that is just an extremist view the Taliban took, we have since early Islamic history women who were scholars, including a wife of the Prophet (alayhi a salat wa salam). Islam promotes clearly the education of both men and women.

About Indian-Pakistani labour, i agree that some of those gulf states treat badly those people, and that they should be corrected in their behaviour. Even if they were slaves (Which they are not as far as i know, because they were not captured in a war), the Prophet (alayhi a salat wa salam) said the next about their treatment. Ma’rur ibn Suwaid reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Your slaves are your brothers. Allah has placed them in your hand, and he who has his brother under him should feed him with the same food he eats and clothe him with the same clothes he wears, and do not burden him beyond his capacity, and if you burden him then help him."

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

I will watch the video Insha Allah, but just by seeing that zionist trash can of Ben Saphiro i know it is going to be propaganda.

Man, why do you speak against the zionist filth and then you post a video of Ben Saphiro?

 

[Deleted member 13994]

I will watch the video Insha Allah, but just by seeing that zionist trash can of Ben Saphiro i know it is going to be propaganda.

Man, why do you speak against the zionist filth and then you post a video of Ben Saphiro?

i realise he is a zionist but he is anti what jewish rulers want just watch the vid

 

[Enfant terrible]

free entertainment

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

Alright, i watched the video.

He makes 4 points for the West being more "advanced" according to his view.

1st-Religious Tolerance: Well with all due respect has he read the Bible? Apostasy in the Bible is punished directly with a death penalty, same with Blasphemy, i don't understand his point.

2nd-Abolition of Slavery: Again, slavery is clearly promoted in the Bible

The Bible permits the beating of slaves in many verses, like for example this one in Exodus 21: 20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

This is also to be found in the New Testament, Luke 12: 47-48
"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

Same with the selling of slaves according to Exodus 21: 7
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

Leviticus 25: 44
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property."

There is also the famous verse of
Numbers 31: 17-18 which orders the slavery and rape of the female children of the Amalakites:
"Now kill all of the boys of the males and kill every woman who has known sexual relations of males. And every female child of women that has not known sexual relations of males save for yourselves."

Leviticus 19: 20
“If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;"

The authors of the Bible for some reason put special emphasis in the obedience the slave must have towards his master and the rights of the master over the slave, while it barely speaks about the rights of the slave.

Peter 2: 18
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust."

Titus 2: 9-10
"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

Colossians 3: 22-24
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."

We could go on all day with these kind of verses.

There are weak recent christian allegations that the Bible was somehow at the end of the book promoting slowly the abolishment of slavery, claims which are easily disproven since it is a position that almost no christian scholars held before the 18-19th century.

Let us analyze for example this verse in Galatians 5: 1
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

First and foremost these are words of Paul, not of Jesus, therefore their reliability is that of a potatoe since Paul was a man admonished and condemned by the own companions of Jesus, and also Paul himself gave orders to slaves in many verses on his writings. Second, this verse in complete context is referring as "slavery" to the laws of the Jews since supposedly, Paul was addressing some people and a group of Jews came and told them that they need to be circumcised, the next verse (Galatians 5: 2) says: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

3rd-Universal Human Rights: Wait, what? Universal? You mean the ones that were decided by 5 countries? Were there any Chinese, or Arabs on that room where they were decided? What makes him think that they are universal? As far as i know they are constantly forced in the different parts of the world, starting with colonization and later on with economic pressure, sanctions, puppet leaders, etc.

And can he prove them objectively? Let alone the fact that a lot of those so called Human Rights if not the majority of them collide directly with Christianity and the Bible

4th-The Scientific Method: This one has a lot more to do with Islam and Greeks than with Christianity.

Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method (the core of all science) and was one of the scientists which most advances produced on that field. It is very well known that according to him, it was based on a assumption he got from Al Qur'an; that there is truth embedded in nature and that this truth can be found by repeated testing.

For example, Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.”

Without the Qur'an this would have been a very bold assumption in hindsight.

To finish, i see this Ben Saphiro as clearly one of these neo right wingers who don't know where they stand in regards to religion like Jordan Peterson. Muhammad Hijab has challenged him many times to expose the inconsistency of his views and he never accepted a debate, because he knows that he either has to choose his religion or his political views since both are simply inconsistent with eachother.

 

[Deleted member 13994]

Alright, i watched the video.

He makes 4 points for the West being more "advanced" according to his view.

1st-Religious Tolerance: Well with all due respect has he read the Bible? Apostasy in the Bible is punished directly with a death penalty, same with Blasphemy, i don't understand his point.

2nd-Abolition of Slavery: Again, slavery is clearly promoted in the Bible

The Bible permits the beating of slaves in many verses, like for example this one in Exodus 21: 20-21
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

This is also to be found in the New Testament, Luke 12: 47-48
"And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more."

Same with the selling of slaves according to Exodus 21: 7
“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

Leviticus 25: 44
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property."

There is also the famous verse of
Numbers 31: 17-18 which orders the slavery and rape of the female children of the Amalakites:
"Now kill all of the boys of the males and kill every woman who has known sexual relations of males. And every female child of women that has not known sexual relations of males save for yourselves."

Leviticus 19: 20
“If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;"

The authors of the Bible for some reason put special emphasis in the obedience the slave must have towards his master and the rights of the master over the slave, while it barely speaks about the rights of the slave.

Peter 2: 18
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust."

Titus 2: 9-10
"Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior."

Colossians 3: 22-24
"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord."

We could go on all day with these kind of verses.

There are weak recent christian allegations that the Bible was somehow at the end of the book promoting slowly the abolishment of slavery, claims which are easily disproven since it is a position that almost no christian scholars held before the 18-19th century.

Let us analyze for example this verse in Galatians 5: 1
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery."

First and foremost these are words of Paul, not of Jesus, therefore their reliability is that of a potatoe since Paul was a man admonished and condemned by the own companions of Jesus, and also Paul himself gave orders to slaves in many verses on his writings. Second, this verse in complete context is referring as "slavery" to the laws of the Jews since supposedly, Paul was addressing some people and a group of Jews came and told them that they need to be circumcised, the next verse (Galatians 5: 2) says: "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."

3rd-Universal Human Rights: Wait, what? Universal? You mean the ones that were decided by 5 countries? Were there any Chinese, or Arabs on that room where they were decided? What makes him think that they are universal? As far as i know they are constantly forced in the different parts of the world, starting with colonization and later on with economic pressure, sanctions, puppet leaders, etc.

And can he prove them objectively? Let alone the fact that a lot of those so called Human Rights if not the majority of them collide directly with Christianity and the Bible

4th-The Scientific Method: This one has a lot more to do with Islam and Greeks than with Christianity.

Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the architect of the scientific method (the core of all science) and was one of the scientists which most advances produced on that field. It is very well known that according to him, it was based on a assumption he got from Al Qur'an; that there is truth embedded in nature and that this truth can be found by repeated testing.

For example, Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.”

Without the Qur'an this would have been a very bold assumption in hindsight.

To finish, i see this Ben Saphiro as clearly one of these neo right wingers who don't know where they stand in regards to religion like Jordan Peterson. Muhammad Hijab has challenged him many times to expose the inconsistency of his views and he never accepted a debate, because he knows that he either has to choose his religion or his political views since both are simply inconsistent with eachother.

that is your flaw the old testament most of the quotes are not applicable

Christians don't ignore the Old Testament (well most don't anyways) but they do understand it differently than you do.

Like other issues discussed here, the question of the relevancy and interpretation of the Old Testament is answered in different ways by different Christians. In general, Christians don't ignore the Old Testament, but most of us do feel like there are hermeneutical methods to determine when and why it shouldn't be applied literally (which is pretty often). These methods range from popular explanatory metaphors to book-length academic discussions, and it's important to realize that most (though not all) Christians are in fact not "picking and choosing" from the Old Testament but are applying any one of several hermeneutical methods to its application.

There are different kinds of law in the Old Testament. They are Ceremonial, Civil and Moral Law (Mirror).

• Civil Law was law relevant to the civil society of that time.
• Ceremonial Law (which had to deal with manner of worship and are seen by Christians usually to point towards Christ). This is also contains the sacrificial system and food restrictions.
• Moral Law which are things like the 10 Commandments.

We don't live in ancient Israel their civil laws don't apply to us. The Moral Law is more like what God is.

The Ceremonial Law is something you might think of as a glass with a hole in it and water continuously pouring into it. You have to keep water pouring into it until you you make the glass whole or stopper the hole. Christ is the stopper. The Ceremonial Law is something to do that can be accomplished. Once it is accomplished it is no longer a condition. Christ accomplished it.

You can go here to see a previous discussion concerning this topic.

Another good point to remember when considering what one should make of the Old Testament Law is to consult the Book of Acts. This is our earliest reference detailing the question about how much we should obey the Old Testament Law. In what is called the "Apostolic Decree" (Acts 15: 19-21) Gentile converts are merely required to abstain from fornication, food offered to idols, food that has been strangled and blood.

What about all the violence and other bad stuff in the Old Testament?​

The Israelites were called to be a witness of God's power within a world where the power of a god was measured by land acquisitions and cattle quantity. The campaign through Canaan thus seems appropriate in this context. Also, there's the fact that this land Israel was to conquer was overrun by tribes who worshiped everything under, and including, the sun, and committed all kinds of lovely atrocities in the name of their gods. The most obvious parallel to the New Testament with what Israel did to them (i.e., kill to the every last man, woman and child in most cases) would be what St. Paul calls, "giving them over" to their desires (Romans 1:24), or basically giving them the end result of what they were pursuing anyway within idol worship/child sacrifice/sex worship, etc.

With the New Testament the struggle becomes internal. Finally, the weakness of Mosaic Law to transform the inner man is replaced with a law of grace that works man from the inside out. Now the landscape is not a geographical area but the inner landscape of the soul. Now there are different enemies -- demons, our passions, etc. -- who want to do things just as bad as those the Israelites drove out. We are to be just as merciless towards them as God commanded the armies of old to be towards His enemies. Like everything else, the violence of the Old Testament has not only been used to demonstrate the power of God during the time it occurred, but also during a future time of which those who chronicled Israel's journey were not aware (1 Peter 1:11-12).

See On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?​

Well, think about any literature you read. When Emily Dickinson writes,

Have you got a brook in your little heart,

Where bashful flowers blow,

And blushing birds go down to drink,

And shadows tremble so?

Are we to wonder about whether she was confused about the anatomy of the heart, or do we affirm the truths she expresses about life and love?

There are parts of the bible that are historical narrative. There are parts of the Bible that are poems. There are parts of the Bible that are letters. And there are other parts that are written in obscure genres barely used today (such as apocalyptic writings). These all need to be understood as what they are.

Why is There a Difference Between Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament and Protestant Old Testament?​

This had to do with Jewish revolts, another person who a group was calling a messiah, politics, and the Reformation. A more in depth explanation that is still very abbreviated may be found at the following link:

 

[ThatDjangoWalk]

that is your flaw the old testament most of the quotes are not applicable

Christians don't ignore the Old Testament (well most don't anyways) but they do understand it differently than you do.

Like other issues discussed here, the question of the relevancy and interpretation of the Old Testament is answered in different ways by different Christians. In general, Christians don't ignore the Old Testament, but most of us do feel like there are hermeneutical methods to determine when and why it shouldn't be applied literally (which is pretty often). These methods range from popular explanatory metaphors to book-length academic discussions, and it's important to realize that most (though not all) Christians are in fact not "picking and choosing" from the Old Testament but are applying any one of several hermeneutical methods to its application.

There are different kinds of law in the Old Testament. They are Ceremonial, Civil and Moral Law (Mirror).

• Civil Law was law relevant to the civil society of that time.
• Ceremonial Law (which had to deal with manner of worship and are seen by Christians usually to point towards Christ). This is also contains the sacrificial system and food restrictions.
• Moral Law which are things like the 10 Commandments.

We don't live in ancient Israel their civil laws don't apply to us. The Moral Law is more like what God is.

The Ceremonial Law is something you might think of as a glass with a hole in it and water continuously pouring into it. You have to keep water pouring into it until you you make the glass whole or stopper the hole. Christ is the stopper. The Ceremonial Law is something to do that can be accomplished. Once it is accomplished it is no longer a condition. Christ accomplished it.

You can go here to see a previous discussion concerning this topic.

Another good point to remember when considering what one should make of the Old Testament Law is to consult the Book of Acts. This is our earliest reference detailing the question about how much we should obey the Old Testament Law. In what is called the "Apostolic Decree" (Acts 15: 19-21) Gentile converts are merely required to abstain from fornication, food offered to idols, food that has been strangled and blood.

First, many of those rulings, verses, etc, are found also in the New Testament, what Ben is proposing is clearly inconsistnt with both New Testament and Old Testament. He is just appealing to emotion by using Judeo-Christianity as a weapon to influence his public. (And by the way, Shapiro is a jew, not a christian) And i also don't understand what Saphiro is saying, how is Judeo-Christianity the one which made the western world more advanced (We would also have to define advanced) when literally almost every teaching of that part of the world collides with the judeochristian Bible and has a much more of consistency with Pagan greek and Roman law? I just don't understand his point, he is clearly being inconsistent.

Second, i know what is the modern christian position in regards to the law and the Old Testament. The problem is that it is just not consistent with the teachings of Jesus (Alayhi a salam) according to the Bible since he clearly orders to follow the Old Testament laws, practices them, he never even shows a single evidence of him being sent to the Gentiles and even says the contrary according to the book of Matthew.

The only very few parts in which he doesn't apply he law (The most famous being the story of the prostitute) are deemed as fabrications by christian scholarship, and not only he promotes the law directly according to the Bible, but he orders his followers to surpass the Pharisees which were known as pious upholders of the law.

According to Matthew 5: 17-19, Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus spoke of “the Law and the Prophets” as not being abolished. What did he mean by this phrase? The “Law and the Prophets” was a regular expression the people of Jesus used to refer to the entire Old Testament, according to the bible. (See Matthew 7: 12; 22: 40; Acts 24: 14; 28: 23; Romans 3: 21.)

In the next verse Jesus says that those who don't uphold "God's law" will go to hell
Matthew 7: 21-23
“Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’
But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’"

What about all the violence and other bad stuff in the Old Testament?​

The Israelites were called to be a witness of God's power within a world where the power of a god was measured by land acquisitions and cattle quantity. The campaign through Canaan thus seems appropriate in this context. Also, there's the fact that this land Israel was to conquer was overrun by tribes who worshiped everything under, and including, the sun, and committed all kinds of lovely atrocities in the name of their gods. The most obvious parallel to the New Testament with what Israel did to them (i.e., kill to the every last man, woman and child in most cases) would be what St. Paul calls, "giving them over" to their desires (Romans 1:24), or basically giving them the end result of what they were pursuing anyway within idol worship/child sacrifice/sex worship, etc.

With the New Testament the struggle becomes internal. Finally, the weakness of Mosaic Law to transform the inner man is replaced with a law of grace that works man from the inside out. Now the landscape is not a geographical area but the inner landscape of the soul. Now there are different enemies -- demons, our passions, etc. -- who want to do things just as bad as those the Israelites drove out. We are to be just as merciless towards them as God commanded the armies of old to be towards His enemies. Like everything else, the violence of the Old Testament has not only been used to demonstrate the power of God during the time it occurred, but also during a future time of which those who chronicled Israel's journey were not aware (1 Peter 1:11-12).

See On Old Testament Violence and Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

I see this as jus trying to justify the violence in the OT, including killing the Amalakites for sins their fathers commited 300 years before them, the verse which says "Happy is the one who dashes babylonian infants", etc. I don't care about this, it doesn't affect my argument whether they try to justify it or not, of course they have to since they believe the God of the Old Testament is their God (Jesus), so it is their matter.

How do you decide what parts of the Bible to take literally?​

Well, think about any literature you read. When Emily Dickinson writes,

Have you got a brook in your little heart,

Where bashful flowers blow,

And blushing birds go down to drink,

And shadows tremble so?

Are we to wonder about whether she was confused about the anatomy of the heart, or do we affirm the truths she expresses about life and love?

There are parts of the bible that are historical narrative. There are parts of the Bible that are poems. There are parts of the Bible that are letters. And there are other parts that are written in obscure genres barely used today (such as apocalyptic writings). These all need to be understood as what they are.

Of course, every part must be understood how it's meant, no one denies that. And hie is that done? By going to the original language of revelation, going to the oldest dictionaries, the oldest scholars opinions, etc, yet the majority of christian denominations don't do this. How is the Bible meant to be understood, how Jesus spoke it or how some random priest in the 21st century interpret it? This is one of the biggest problems of christian theology, the fact that there are different interpretations for everything and that's why the thousands of sects and divisions.

This reminds me to the subject of the so called copiest errors, allegories, etc, the scholars just don't bring a consistent way to measure and to judge those things because there isn't such method. In Islam everything as far as i know is literal unless the Prophet (alayhi a salat wa salam) and the early companions say it is not, or we have clear evidence that it is not. Meanwhile what is the criteria for calling "This is literal" and "This is an allegory" in Christianity? They need to bring a consistent criteria for these things.

Why is There a Difference Between Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament and Protestant Old Testament?​

This had to do with Jewish revolts, another person who a group was calling a messiah, politics, and the Reformation. A more in depth explanation that is still very abbreviated may be found at the following link:

I don't understand this.

By the way tongue and cheek, i'm not against you or something, i respect everyone who respect my religion and me.