Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

Posted on 05 June 2012 by Ilisha

Child with Bible

While many in the West are myopically focused on Muslim extremists, another form of religious extremism is poised to reach thousands of children in public schools across the US.

Aside from the disturbing implications for those who advocate a clear separation between church and state, the alarming content of the curriculum begs a question about the sponsors: What if they were Muslim?

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

By Katherine Stewart, Guardian UK

Good News Clubs’ evangelism in schools is already subverting church-state separation. Now they justify murdering nonbelievers.

The Bible has thousands of passages that may serve as the basis for instruction and inspiration. Not all of them are appropriate in all circumstances.

The story of Saul and the Amalekites is a case in point. It’s not a pretty story, and it is often used by people who don’t intend to do pretty things. In the book of 1 Samuel (15:3), God said to Saul:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. “In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul’s memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors,” writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly “Bible study” course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

There are now over 3,200 clubs in public elementary schools, up more than sevenfold since the 2001 supreme court decision, Good News Club v Milford Central School, effectively required schools to include such clubs in their after-school programing.

The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that “the Amalekites were completely defeated.” In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:

“You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left.”

“That was pretty clear, wasn’t it?” the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.

Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

“The Amalekites had heard about Israel’s true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment.”

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would “pass the test” of obedience, the text points to Saul’s failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

“If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, ‘I did it!’?”

“If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!” the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

“How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)”

The CEF and the legal advocacy groups that have been responsible for its tremendous success over the past ten years are determined to “Knock down all doors, all the barriers, to all 65,000 public elementary schools in America and take the Gospel to this open mission field now! Not later, now!” in the words of a keynote speaker at the CEF’s national convention in 2010. The CEF wants to operate in the public schools, rather than in churches, because they know that young children associate the public schools with authority and are unable to distinguish between activities that take place in a school and those that are sponsored by the school.

In the majority opinion that opened the door to Good News Clubs, supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned that the activities of the CEF were not really religious, after all. He said that they could be characterized, for legal purposes, “as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint”.

As Justices Souter and Stevens pointed out in their dissents, however, the claim is preposterous: the CEF plainly aims to teach religious doctrines and conduct services of worship. Thomas’s claim is particularly ironic in view of the fact that the CEF makes quite clear its intent to teach that no amount of moral or ethical behavior (pdf) can spare a nonbeliever from an eternity in hell.

Good News Clubs should not be in America’s public elementary schools. As I explain in my book, The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children, the club exists mainly to give small children the false impression that their public school supports a particular creed. The clubs’ presence has produced a paradoxical entanglement of church and state that has ripped apart communities, degraded public education, and undermined religious freedom.

The CEF’s new emphasis on the genocide of nonbelievers makes a bad situation worse. Exterminist rhetoric has been on the rise among some segments of the far right, including some religious groups. At what point do we start taking talk of genocide seriously? How would we feel about a nonreligious group that instructs its students that if they should ever receive an order to commit genocide, they should fulfill it to the letter?

And finally, when does a religious group qualify as a “hate group”?

 

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    In all fairness to Daniel, yes, perhaps I was being a little unjustly hard on evangelicals. What I really refer to is a specific ideological trait common to that persuasion of Christianity, especially with white middle class evangelicals. Not all of them, mind you, just as not all Salafis and Wahhabis are misogynistic fundies who strap explosives to themselves. But there is still a problematic ideology that needs to be addressed by the Christian world. By definition, the Lutherans (for example) are evangelical, but they don’t go around picketing funerals or cheering for dead soldiers.

    I DO stand by my opinion that there is a difference in the way that freedoms are applied to Christian groups, or at least certain kinds of Christian groups, and Muslim groups. Or just about anyone else for that matter. As I have stated numerous times on this website, I have no qualms about allowing religious groups to practice freely even in public schools. What I DO object to are thinks like mandatory school prayer, because it places undue pressure upon other people to convert for political reasons. If these clubs are given free reign to teach their doctrines to students, then why not allow Muslim groups the same privilege?

  • Susanna

    @ Ahmed

    Your arguments again are convoluted.
    1. Christians globally are being persecuted in every dominant Muslim country. Do they turn violent? Not many reported incidents of Christians wantantly killing Muslims.
    2. The Amalekites were NOT innocent. They were judged to be a vile people generation after generation not wanting to repent or change. God gave them 300 years to do this. God does not command anyone to kill innocents.
    3. But you need to look to your own Quran. It affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures ( 3:3-4: 5:66; 7:157; 10:94) as well as man’s inability to corrupt God’s Word (6: 114-115; 18: 27)

    So when you say the Bible is corrupted or not the Word of God, you go against your own Quran.

  • JT

    Ahmed is right. This isn’t an Islamic website to do dawah on. Most of the writers are non-Muslims, and there are plenty of non-Muslim readers too. Even though I disagree with Steve on many things, he is spot on when he says:

    “There are people of many faiths and no faith contributing to this site, please allow them their beliefs, this isn’t a site where anybody should be claiming superiority of belief.”

    It’s not about being moderate or liberal, it’s about understanding that you should keep your discussion relevant to the topic of the website (Islamophobia) and not see this site as a battleground for Islam vs Christianity. There are Christian readers and contributors, like Daniel, and saying things like ‘your holy book is full of crap’ isn’t very productive. Especially when they are on ‘our side’.

  • CJONE

    @ahmed

    Why?does it offend u?or r u one of these “moderates” or “liberals”?

  • Ahmed

    Thanks for clarifying, Daniel.

    As I myself said in my previous post – this is not the place to discuss The Quran versus The Bible. So I agree with what you said regarding the matter.

    As for the comments here – well, you have to accept that Muslims, like Evangelicals, come in all different forms. Some will make sweeping generalisations. Others will be more fair, like you seem to be.
    I believe the moderation here is supposed to allow a cross-section of views. It does not, however, mean that if a comment is published, LoonWatch agrees with it. Therefore, if you find a problem with a LoonWatch article, then please do let us know, and hopefully the Admins will correct it.

  • Ahmed

    @Steve and CJONE,

    Please take your debate elsewhere – I am sure there are plenty of forums where one can discuss “The Bible versus The Quran” – this is not one of them.

  • Ahmed

    Of course you didn’t! There must be a logical reason (other than bare assumptions) that you mused “Maybe he had attended a CEF school?”

    Dude, it was sarcasm!

    Unlike the loons, we’re not irrational and stupid. The loons would make a comment to link everything a Muslim does wrong with Islam – it happens day after day. The SEALS actions were clearly of someone who believes in “us versus them”, “good versus bad” – as this is what CEF teaches, I made a sarcastic comment that he might have been to one of their schools. Considering CEF still have a relatively low outreach in the USA, this is unlikely.

  • Elmo

    Is Christianity tolerant of non-believers? Let us see…

    According to Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary of 2 Cor. 6:14

    “…The caution also extends to common conversation. We should not join in FRIENDSHIP and acquaintance with wicked men and UNBELIEVERS (non-Christians). Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing and hearing, and being with such, yet we should NEVER CHOOSE THEM FOR FRIENDS. We must not defile ourselves by converse with those who defile themselves with sin.

    ewordtoday c o m comments/2corinthians/mhc/2corinthians6 h t m

    For a Christian, dating a non-Christian is unwise, and marrying one is not an option. Second Corinthians 6:14 (KJV) tells us not to be “unequally yoked” with an unbeliever. The imagery is of two incompatible oxen sharing the same yoke. Instead of working together to pull the load, they would be working against each other. While this passage does not specifically mention marriage, it DEFINITELY has implications for marriage.

    gotquestions o r g/date-marry-unbeliever h t m l

  • Steve

    CJONE, that’s what you believe, I believe differently. There are people of many faiths and no faith contributing to this site, please allow them their beliefs, this isn’t a site where anybody should be claiming superiority of belief.

    Henry VIII didn’t rewrite the bible, you are referring to King James I of England who commissioned a new translation into English, the translation was performed by scholars within the Church of England.

  • CJONE

    @Daniel

    Spencer and all the Islamophobes DO make sweeping generalisations.

    This topic is about some odd group teaching young impressionable children about ”acceptable genocide” as stated in the Bible.

    There are no sweeping generalisations here.

    My point was simply that Muslims spend all their time having to defend Islam. If these diehard Christians want to generalise about Islam then they should defend the accusations agains their religion. Let us see them justify what is the Bible.

    The Qu’ran doesnt accept the murdering of anything let alone children and people.

    Fighting and death in war is not considered as murder in Islam btw.

  • CJONE

    @Steve

    Im afraid Muslims have won the argument…many times.

    The Qu’ran was never rewritten by any King like the Bible was by Henry VIII.

    The Qu’ran hasnt got any contradictions unlike the bible which has multiple contradictions.

    Im not sure what you believe but I know that Christianity is an imperfect ”religion” and if you open your eyes you will see it too.

    Christians need to read and embrace Gods final ”testament” – the Holy Qu’ran.

    Then you won’t be blinded by stupidity and this ridculous talk of trinities and Jesus dying for everyone’s sins.

  • Steve

    @CJONE, that is what you believe, I believe differently.

    I know how the koran is said to have been revealed, at no point does it say your god wrote anything.

    Muslims haven’t won the argument, you just believe they have won the argument.

  • Ilisha

    @Daniel

    One glaring difference between Loonwatch and hate sites is that they are sometimes dishonest if it serves their agenda, and we are not. If there is something in the article that is untruthful or factually inaccurate, please let me know and I will update accordingly as soon as practical.

    You made some other points I’d like to address later, but right now I’m on my mobile and pressed for time. I will try to respond this evening.

  • CJONE

    @Steve

    GO and do your research about how the Qu’ran was revealed before asking stupid questions.

    If you read the Qu’ran and study it it is clear that it is indeed divine revelation. You will find no imperfections.

    The Bible has contradictions and errors in many places and it is a well known fact that it has been rewritten and changed and infiltrated over the years. You can find a copy of a ”bible” in nearly every hotel room.

    Christians even argue that Jesus abrogated the Old Testament.

    The bottom line is that Scholars more capable than you or I have studied these Scriptures and this argument has been won by Muslims.

  • Steve

    @CJONE, how much of the koran was written by your god? Are the original pages as written down by your god preserved anywhere?

    The fact is all “holy” books are written by people. There isn’t a single extant example of anything written by a god.

  • Daniel

    It seems as though my post elicited the kind of reactions that I would have expected in JW, only opposite.

    I can’t respond to everyone, but I’d like to respond to a few posts here:

    CJONE wrote:

    “If US Christians and NeoCons are allowed to ridicule the Qu’ran and make sweeping generalisations about it then the same should apply the other way way round.”

    Of course you’re “allowed” to make sweeping generalizations. But why on earth is this considered “right”? If it’s wrong for Spencer to make “sweeping generalizations” about the Quran, then why consider it right to do the same stupid, illogical and unfair thing to the Bible? Do you really want to use the same stupid, bigoted arguments as Spencer?

    And your phrase “Christians and NeoCons” implies that all Christians are guilty of making “sweeping generalizations”–any one see the irony here? It’s exactly the same kind of “sweeping generalization” as if I said “If Muslims are allowed to commit acts of terror…”, implicating the entire Muslim community.

    The answer to “sweeping generalizations” is not to respond with your own “sweeping generalizations”, but rather facts and logic.

    Zakarya wrote:

    “I think the bigger issue is one that all of you evangelicals seem to be overlooking. What if they were Muslim? You evangelicals have worked very hard to fight against Muslim clubs existing in public schools. Hell, you get your panties in a knot when Islam, Middle Eastern history or Arabic language are included in the curriculum. Remember the amount of vitriol directed against Debbie Almontaser? Why should some stupid evangelical club be given more consideration?”

    First, I specifically acknowledged the “what if they were Muslim” question in my post. I did not “overlook” it.

    Second, “all of you evangelicals” and “you evangelicals” again is as much a sweeping generalization as anything Spencer has done. Nothing in historic Evangelical doctrine suggests that we should “work very hard to fight against Muslim clubs existing in public schools.” For one I support it, as a Evangelical who actually believes in both the Bible and the Constitution. But I guess we’re all alike to you, just like to Spencer all Muslims are alike.

    Thirdly, the “stupid evangelical club” is an club that is meeting in public school spaces just like any other group that wants to use the space. I know that some people object, but I have no problem if a Church, Mosque, Boy/Girl Scout troop or any other group wants to use that space, if they respect the terms of use that anyone else wants.

    Fourth, in so far as part of the official school cirriculum (and that is NOT what the Good News Clubs are), I have zero problem with a historical look at any religion (not prosyletizing, but teaching facts), history or language is included. But again, I guess “all us evangelicals” are zombies and monolithic in thought.

    Ahmed wrote:

    “I really do not know what the point you are trying to make is, Daniel,

    Ilisha makes it quite clear what the purpose of this article is – that they intend to teach this stuff in public schools, and that if something similar was being done by Muslims (like the Muslims teaching, say, how the men of the Jewish tribe were killed by Mohammed and his companions for treason), there would be an outrage by Spencer and Co.

    The “What if they Were Muslims” serves one purpose, and one purpose only – to highlight the double standard. How you can try and imply that this is becoming what we are fighting against is quite beyond me.”

    Let me try to clarify my point, if it isn’t clear enough yet:
    (1) I can understand why some people think it’s a violation of the separation of Church and State to let the Good News Clubs operate in their facilities. Fine; I think we can have a thoughtful discussion on this.
    (2) Personally, I have no objection to either a Good News Club OR a Muslim group–or any other religious/anti-religious group to have a club available for children–if they choose and their parents support their choice–for an after-school program.
    (3) I am not Spencer, nor an Islamaphobe, nor do I support the secular state of Israel, nor am I a Republican…and I am an Evangelical. Evangelical doctrine, as classically formulated, believes the Bible–and yes, that includes the story of the Amalekites. It does not, however, include an oath of allegiance to Robert Spencer, a pledge to eradicate Islam, nor a promise to form Good News Clubs in school facilities and to keep those evil Muslims from doing the same.
    (4) As it should be obvious from some of the comments here, many people feel strongly that the Bible is both corrupt and corrupting. Fine; that is their right. But smearing the religion of your opponents–and not caring that some of your allies have the same beliefs–is no way to win friends, and merely lowers you to your oppenents level.

    Is there a double standard among Islamaphobes who would support a Christian group but bar a Muslim group from using public school facilities? Absolutely. But one must be careful when pointing out this hypocrisy that you’re not engaging in the same kind of smear campaigns as your oppenents. That’s why I worded my response as I did. I totally understand the “what if they were Muslims” point. However, it is a thin line between pointing out this hypocrisy and emulating the same kind of tactics of Spencer, ripping out a Scripture from its context and saying “look at how evil you must be to believe this!”

    This should not be an Islam vs. Christianity website. It should be an anti-hate site. We could debate all day about what is the “one, true religion” but that would not stop the hate. The battle should be against Islamaphobes, not against the Bible, nor Evangelical belief. But looking at some of the posters here, I’m really wondering if that vision is being lost.

  • CJONE

    @InPeace

    Allah has said in the Qu’ran that cities were destroyed for transgressing and acting immorally but nowhere does it say that Genocide is acceptable.

    In fact it is said that to kill an innocent person is as if one has killed the whole of mankind.

    SO your point doesnt cut it i’m afriad.

  • Skip

    @ Ahmed

    > Did I say it did? No.

    Great, then why the focus on this after school program?

    > It still does not change the fact that the Christian God is a VERY violent God. Go and read Daniel’s articles on this site – especially the ones that talk about how Jesus will come and kill people.

    Great, so you resort to a tu quoque argument as a defense. “I know people say Islam is violent, but look what these nasty Christians do!”

    Let me know how that works out for ya.

    > No, I did not suggest the SEAL was partaking in genocide. Don’t try that straw-man rubbish with me – it won’t work. He was not killing armed combatants, he was killing anyone he thought might be a combatant. Most rational people would have some regrets – they would think that the person they might have killed might have been a good person. This SEAL however was convicted that every person he killed was a bad guy and God would not punish him for it.

    Of course you didn’t! There must be a logical reason (other than bare assumptions) that you mused “Maybe he had attended a CEF school?”

    The CEF school certainly isn’t teaching genocide….no, wait!!!

    And that certainly doesn’t fit into the portrayal of a sniper just shooting “anyone he thought might be a combatant”.

    Shame on me! [/sarcasm]

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    > Islam does not accept the Covenant of Abraham.

    That’s news to me. Like I said, we consider Abraham to be one of our most important Prophets, and accept most of the story from the OT.

    > To do so, Muslims would actually have to accept the Old Testament
    > without reservation.

    Except that Christians don’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t believe that Jesus abrogated all of the material in Leviticus. Islam DOES accept most of material in the OT, but with the caveat that it is changed by man and we cannot know which parts are 100% ‘true’ and which parts aren’t. In the Shi’a view, this same standard applies to the hadith as well. It doesn’t mean we DON’T believe in it.

    > Much of the hoopla that Muslims have tried to argue to me on their basis
    > for claiming to be “Abrahamic” is Ishmael.

    Isma’il isn’t mentioned by name in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an is rather ambiguous as to which son Abraham was told to sacrifice. The fact that Arabs claimed Isma’il as an ancestor meant that has been the dominant interpretation throughout much of history, but never the sole one. Worth noting, Persians claim descent from Isaac as well.

    If you were actually familiar with history and interpretation of the Bible, you would be aware that European scholars pretty freely mixed their genealogies with those in the Bible. The idea, for example, that Europeans were the ‘children of Japeth,’ the Africans are the ‘children of Ham,’ and so forth comes entirely out of that myth. These are neither a traditional part of European folklore nor do they come from the Bible; rather they are attempts at reconciling pre-Christian heritage with the OT. Its also why Medieval legends try linking Greek gods and heroes from the Trojan War with Biblical patriarchs.

    > Ofcourse this does not help them one bit – the Ishmaelites were pagans
    > and sworn enemies of Israel – hardly evidence of a Covenant.

    Never mind that the ‘Ishmaelites’ disappear after King David, and were in fact largely integrated into the Kingdom of Israel. The fact is that they aren’t that important to the myths of Islam.

    > Christians don’t try proving to be “true” Israelites.

    News to me. Perhaps you’ve heard of the ‘British Israelites’? While they are unusual, they are far from the only group that has tried to claim the ‘true’ Jewish mantle. Many European groups have tried to lay claim to being one or more of the ‘lost tribes.’ More often than not, it is tied into anti-Semitism and the idea of Jews as ‘Christ killers,’ but there are some non-racist iterations of this as well.

    > If you knew anything about Christianity

    Christianity is not based solely off the Bible, but also centuries of history, theology and interpretations that have developed since then. The fact that you are NOT worshipping in the same manner as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Paulician dualists or the extinct Arian Creed rather proves my point.

    > and its Scriptures (as opposed to your assumptions) you would know that
    > the Bible says Christians are GRAFTED into the natural branch. Jews are
    > the NATURAL branch. It also says Christians are part of the
    > “commonwealth” of Israel.

    Citation please. This sounds like a doctrinally specific claim.

    > Gentile Christians do not claim to be natural descendants of Abraham,
    > but rather spiritual descendants, as the Scriptures declare.

    Then why are some Christian groups eager to claim an identity as the ‘true’ heirs of the Kingdom of Israel.

    > There is no need for any Christian to run around trying to prove they
    > are “Israelites”. Your claim is absurd.

    Then Christian attempts to claim Jerusalem are equally absurd?

    > That you consider the texts myths is irrelevant.

    Your inane rant proves that you have no understanding of what the term ‘myth’ actually means. Perhaps you would do well to consult a dictionary before throwing a hissy fit. Islam, Christianity and Judaism all have myths, but that does not mean they aren’t important.

    > The texts have their doctrines which contradict your claims.

    Every text can lay claim to having doctrines. It doesn’t change the fact that various schools of Christianity all have wildly different ways of interpretating those same central texts. And it doesn’t change the fact that there are hundreds upon thousands of other religions, some of which make contradictory claims. I am no more offended or intimidated by what my Christian brothers and friends have to teach than by what my Buddhist, Wiccan or Atheist brothers and friends have to say.

    What I AM offended by is the presumption that Christianity, specifically a single, rather narrow view of Christianity, is given such exclusive privilege.

  • Ahmed

    @Proverb,

    That you consider the texts myths is irrelevant. The texts have their doctrines which contradict your claims.

    I don’t think any non-Christian academic of The Bible has ever stated that they believe the Bible as we know it today is 100% genuine. If they have, please provide me with the source.

  • Ahmed

    @InPeace,

    Don’t use bold stupidly – it messes up the chat area.

    Yes, Allah (SWT) wiped out cities. In all religions, “God” is responsible for killing children – otherwise there would be no earthquakes, or tsunamis, or have you what.

    It still does not change the fact that nowhere in the Koran did Allah (SWT) tell people to commit genocide. Yet in the Bible, God did. God actually told people to go out and kill everyone, including children. (And as stated in the article above, in Rwanda, Saul’s genocide of The Amalekites was used to justify a genocide). I think that’s a pretty nasty thing. God killing children is one thing – it happens in all religions. God telling someone to kill children is another thing – it happens only in The Old Testament.

  • Ilisha

    @InPeace

    No, the article says nothing of the sort, but since you’ve brought it up: No, there are no comparable instances in the Quran.

  • Proverb

    @ Zakariya Ali Sher

    I find your response amusing, to say the least.

    1. Islam does not accept the Covenant of Abraham. To do so, Muslims would actually have to accept the Old Testament without reservation. The Covenant, its beneficiaries and its terms are clearly rejected by Islam. Much of the hoopla that Muslims have tried to argue to me on their basis for claiming to be “Abrahamic” is Ishmael. Ofcourse this does not help them one bit – the Ishmaelites were pagans and sworn enemies of Israel – hardly evidence of a Covenant.

    2. You also sound rather confused. Christians don’t try proving to be “true” Israelites. If you knew anything about Christianity and its Scriptures (as opposed to your assumptions) you would know that the Bible says Christians are GRAFTED into the natural branch. Jews are the NATURAL branch. It also says Christians are part of the “commonwealth” of Israel. Gentile Christians do not claim to be natural descendants of Abraham, but rather spiritual descendants, as the Scriptures declare. There is no need for any Christian to run around trying to prove they are “Israelites”. Your claim is absurd.

    That you consider the texts myths is irrelevant. The texts have their doctrines which contradict your claims.

    Take care.

  • InPeace

    the fact is, God ordered the death of women, children, and even animals. And because God is moral and never wrong, this theologically lays down the foundation that killing innocents (which the babies were) can be justified.

    So Allah never wiped out entire cities in the Koran is what you’re saying?

  • Pingback: How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren | WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com

Advertise Here
Advertise Here