Pastor Terry Jones and the burning of the Quran

[baron]

If its going to get the Gospel blasphemed, missionaries and native Christians murdered, persecuted, or driven from their homes, and Western soldiers killed, than its not worth it.

I seen a newsreport last nite that suggested the 2 soldiers who were killed this week was due to an ambush because of the burning of the Koran.

Here is a link to the story but not to the allegations that the Koran burning was the cause of the ambush.

WBEN NewsRadio 930 | The Voice of Buffalo, NY

So sad Sgt. Lammerts leave behind a wife, a 3 year old daughter, and a 1 year old son.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

Burning the Koran is no different than burning a phonebook. Just because idolatrous God-haters attach significance to it doesn't embody the book with any importance or worth.

Except no one ever started rioting over the burning of a phone book. No the Quaran is not a holy book but being flippant and burning it when you know the consequences is stupid and this man show any lack of foresight. This was a horrible idea.

 

[Grillsy]

The one thing we have failed to point out in this discussion is that, even if the Quran was not being burned, these radicals would be slaughtering people for other reasons. The Quran burning just gives them justification to continue what they were already doing (in spirit if not in deed).

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 AM ----------

The media wants to hype this an Islamic reaction to an ignorant Christian Fundamentalist rather than what is truly manifest; Islam taking off its mask and sneering in all its violence and hatred.

That being said the pastor is most likely in the wrong for reasons that Joshua mentioned above.

 

[Grillsy]

The burning of the Koran is fine, given the proper circumstances, motive, etc. regardless of what some foolish people may do (kill people, yada yada yada). If the magistrate is suppose to uphold the true religion and suppress and keep down false religion then the burning and banning of Korans is a fine thing, regardless of evil wicked Islamists throughout the world. The magistrate is not responsible for their foolish behavior. Obey God's Law and leave the consequences to Him. It is utter foolishness to tiptoe around propriety and righteousness out of fear of God's enemies.

I couldn't' have said it better myself. It seems the squeamish tendencies of some regarding the burning of certain books stems from a variety of factors involving misplacing blame on parties responsible for murder, political correctness, and others.

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

As an addendum, I do hate the bloodshed that is happening. I do pray that God would stop the heathen's rage and bring them to faith in Christ if it be His will.

 

[TimV]

If the magistrate is suppose to uphold the true religion and suppress and keep down false religion then the burning and banning of Korans is a fine thing

I agree with that logic completely (although I'm not convinced of anything past the mellow theonomy which wouldn't allow the magistrate that much power), although I doubt your typical fundy baptist would understand the necessary consistency of burning Talmuds. In fact, I would hazard a guess that if someone ELSE burnt Talmuds that guy would accuse them of being nazis.

As to whether those people would act the same way no matter what the provocation or lack thereof, I'm reminded of a comedy skit I saw several years ago. A skinny old white guy went to a black 'hood, stood in front of a house with a half dozen big black guys playing checkers, put on a crash helmet and yelled "Ni**ers!!!" and started running Sorry, but when I think of that nutty fundy I'm reminded of that skit.

 

[Curt]

1 Corinthians 6:12 NIV
"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything.

1 Corinthians 10:23 NIV
"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive.

There were specific contexts to Paul's statements, but especially the second reference can be generalized to overall Christian behavior. Was it permissible for Pastor Jones to burn that book? Yes, it was, both Scripturally and legally. Was it constructive? That, I believe, is the only part of this situation that should be under consideration.

I don't have a definitive answer as to the constructiveness of this act. I do know that people have died and some have claimed that it was because of this act. I also know that the groups involved in the acts of violence have displayed a tendency toward violence long before this act occurred. In the context of Muslim violence, I do not know whether Pastor Jones' acts were causal. I know that we cannot be held accountable for every act that results from our own actions.

Constructive? I don't know. My tendency regarding Islam is negative. I need to counter that, at times, with prayer.

 

[Rufus]

So sad Sgt. Lammerts leave behind a wife, a 3 year old daughter, and a 1 year old son.

Deeply unfortunate I pray for both the families of soldiers and the enemy (there wifes(s) and children need to survive on there own or on family reliance...My Dad will be in Afghanistan starting this June (Indiana now for training), actually I would greatly appreciate it if people who read this could pray for him, he's not saved, but believes in God or a God, and actually wants to read the Screwtape Letters.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

If he is killed because of this stunt, would he be a martyr?

 

[JennyG]

The cause of Christ will be blasphemed for this.

I was discussing this with a liberal "Christian" the other night. She had seen a BBC (I think) documentary about it, and was full of approval for the fearless "exposure" of these hate-mongering fanatics who had murdered so many. She didn't mean those who actually did the murdering, of course

 

[ChristianTrader]

The burning of the Koran is fine, given the proper circumstances, motive, etc. regardless of what some foolish people may do (kill people, yada yada yada). If the magistrate is suppose to uphold the true religion and suppress and keep down false religion then the burning and banning of Korans is a fine thing, regardless of evil wicked Islamists throughout the world. The magistrate is not responsible for their foolish behavior. Obey God's Law and leave the consequences to Him. It is utter foolishness to tiptoe around propriety and righteousness out of fear of God's enemies. That noted, my comments pertaining to the aforementioned pastor still stand. The seemingly gimmicky and "stunt" nature of having a "Koran Burning" is what's so provocative.

I agree with your point that the only possible argument against Rev. Jones is that what he did, in and of itself, was morally deficient/not morally justified. If it was then the rest on up to God to sort out. Otherwise we run into a "telling lies in order to keep the Nazi from the Jews" scenario. (Beautifully refuted here - Political Responsibility and Exceptionless Moral Norms « Public Discourse).

Now I either disagree or misunderstand the "stunt nature" objection. Now by burning the Koran, Rev. Jones demonstrated moral contempt for the Koran/his belief that the book is morally obscene. If one believes that this standpoint is a morally justified one, then I am not sure what it means to show moral contempt in a wrongly provocative fashion.

CT

 

[Bill The Baptist]

As far as the "telling lies to keep the nazis from the Jews" I think the bible makes it pretty clear where God stands on that issue in Exodus chapter 1 verses 8-21;

.
8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; 10 come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were in dread of the children of Israel. 13 So the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with rigor. 14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage—in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in the field. All their service in which they made them serve was with rigor.
15 Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of one was Shiphrah and the name of the other Puah; 16 and he said, “When you do the duties of a midwife for the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstools, if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the male children alive. 18 So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and saved the male children alive?”
19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are lively and give birth before the midwives come to them.”
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied and grew very mighty. 21 And so it was, because the midwives feared God, that He provided households for them.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Josh,
I agree that if somehow the action is morally deficient then it can be faulted, but my issue is how exactly do you think it to have been morally deficient and how would a morally justified version look different?

CT

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Dear Hermonta,

Maybe I can clarify by noting that if all three of the aforementioned criteria are not met (matter, manner, motive) then it's not an acceptable practice. I am not beyond correction, of course.

Dear Mr. Perkins,

I'm not sure what your affirming by alluding to the Hebrew Midwices actions, but if it is to say that:

1. They were lying
2. *IF* they were lying, that God commends their lying

Then neither of those things can be lawfully derived from the text, in my opinion. Nowhere does it say the midwives lied and, in keeping with the spirit of the 9th Commandment to uphold the good name of our neighbor, we should assume that what the midwives told the king is true, unless the text says otherwise (and it doesn't). Further, if it were the case that the midwives *did* lie, it would not have been that action for which the Lord dealt well with them; rather, the Lord commended them for not carrying out the king's murderous command.

I think verse 17 makes it pretty clear that they were lying because it says they did not obey Pharoah and instead kept the male children alive. Later it says that they told Pharoah that the babies had already been born by the time they arrived, which was clearly a lie according to verse 17. I agree that clearly God is not commending them for lying, but for not obeying the evil command of Pharoah. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that they did lie, nor the distinct possibility that their lie contributed to the babies being saved.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It says they *kept* the children alive. In other words, the boys had been born and upon the midwives' arrival they didn't kill them. How does that, without importing anything to the text, say that the midwives lied to Pharoah? Either way, their action, if lying, never give us sanction to lie. We are to obey God's Law and trust Hin with the consequences. Just because God promotes His plan by using what we mean for evil for His good is no commendation for the use of unlawful means to do evil that good may come.

I agree with your point that lying is a sin no matter what the motivation and that clearly God is not commending them for lying, however I must disagree with your interpretation that they in fact did not lie. I will simply defer to John Calvin, who writes in his commentary volume two pages 34 and 35;

18. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives. He was not reduced to a more moderate course by equity or mercy; but because he dared not openly expose to slaughter the wretched and harmless infants at their birth, lest such atrocity should arouse the wrath of the Israelites to vengeance, He therefore secretly sends for the midwives, and inquires why they have not executed his murderous command? I doubt not, however, that he was restrained rather by the fear of rebellion than by shame. 2 In the answer of the midwives two vices are to be observed, since they neither confessed their piety with proper ingenuity, and what is worse, escaped by falsehood. For the fabulous story which the Rabbins invent to cover their fault, must be rejected, viz., that they did not come in time to the Hebrew women, because they had warned them of the wicked design of the king; and so it came to pass that they were not present when they were delivered. What can be more tame than this invention, when Moses shews in his narrative that they were guilty of falsehood? Some assert that this kind of lie, 3 which they call "the lie officious, or serviceable," is not reprehensible; because they think that there is no fault where no deceit for the purpose of injury is used. 4 But I hold, that whatever is opposed to the nature of God is sinful; and on this ground all dissimulation, whether in word or deed, is condemned, as I shall more largely discuss in explaining the law, if God grants me time to do so. Wherefore both points must be admitted, that the two women lied, and, since lying is displeasing to God, that they sinned. For, as in estimating the conduct of saints we should be just and humane interpreters; so also superstitious zeal must be avoided in covering their faults, since this would often infringe on the direct authority of Scripture. And, indeed, whensoever the faithful fall into sin, they desire not to be lifted out of it by false defences, for their justification consists in a simple and free demand of pardon for their sin. Nor is there any contradiction to this in the fact, that they are twice praised for their fear of God, and that God is said to have rewarded them; because in his paternal indulgence of his children he still values their good works, as if they were pure, notwithstanding they may be defiled by some mixture of impurity. In fact, there is no action so perfect as to be absolutely free from stain; though it may appear more evidently in some than in others. Rachel was influenced by faith, to transfer the right of primogeniture to her son Jacob; a desire, undoubtedly, pious in itself, and a design worthy of praise, anxiously to strive for the fulfillment of the divine promise; but yet we cannot praise the cunning and deceit, by which the whole action would have been vitiated, had not the gratuitous mercy of God interposed. Scripture is full of such instances, which shew that the most excellent actions are sometimes stained with partial sin. But we need not wonder that God in his mercy should pardon such defects, which would otherwise defile almost every virtuous deed; and should honor with reward those works which are unworthy of praise, or even favor. Thus, though these women were too pusillanimous and timid in their answers, yet because they had acted in reality with heartiness and courage, God endured in them the sin which he would have deservedly condemned. This doctrine gives us alacrity in our desire to do rightly, since God so graciously pardons our infirmities; and, at the same time, it warns us most carefully to be on our guard, lest, when we are desirous of doing well, some sin should creep in to obscure, and thus to contaminate our good work; since it not unfrequently happens that those whose aim is right, halt or stumble or wander in the way to it. In fine, whosoever honestly examines himself, will find some defect even in his best endeavors. Moreover, by the rewards of God, let us be encouraged to the confidence of thus obtaining good success, lest we should faint at the dangers we incur by the faithful performance of our duty; and assuredly no danger will alarm us, if this thought be deeply impressed upon our hearts, that whatever ill-will our good deeds may beget in this world, still God sits in heaven to reward them.

 

[NB3K]

When would something like this have a positive outcome? How does burning the Koran preach the Gospel to Muslims? It doesn't challenge their thinking it only fuels their hatred towards us.

How did Ellijah preach to the prophets of Baal? They will hate us. Jesus said the world will hate us because we are not of this world. There is nothing we can do to make them love us or hate us any less. They are dead in sin. They are blind to the truth. They are deaf to the call of God. They have hearts of stone. They are haters of God!

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

This pastor is just as responsible for these deaths as David was responsible for Uriahs death. 2 Sam 12:9 "You have struck down Uriah..." David was not the one to perform the act of killing but it was his fault because of his foolish actions and the same is the case here.

 

[NB3K]

How can you link the murder of Uriah the Hittie by King David to this Pastor burning the Koran and christians being killed because of it??? Where is your logic? I think we all can make better use of the koran by using it as toilet paper why burn it?

 

[Grillsy]

This pastor is just as responsible for these deaths as David was responsible for Uriahs death. 2 Sam 12:9 "You have struck down Uriah..." David was not the one to perform the act of killing but it was his fault because of his foolish actions and the same is the case here.

No he isn't. The pastor didn't put an individual in harm's way as David did Uriah.

 

[JennyG]

David was not the one to perform the act of killing but it was his fault because of his foolish actions

not foolish - David really did set out to get Uriah killed, and "foolish" is not the name for that

 

[Claudiu]

When it comes to burning holy books, Muslims in general have better ethical standards than modern American Christians. Bibles are burnt routinely by the US military and American Christians think it's cute, but the last time Bible burning by Muslims made the news (a year ago?) in Africa it was highly criticised by Muslims.

Would I do it? I have to live here on earth. I detest what many liberal Jews like my State's two Senators stand for, but I've got lots of liberal Jewish customers, so I tend not to lecture on liberal Jewish politicians in front of them. I think homosexuality should be criminalised, but I've got lots of gay customers and I tend not to talk about bringing about the death penalty again in front of them.

Am I cowardly? I don't think so. If burning the Koran or Book of Mormon or would further the Kingdom I like to think I'd do it. But I'll need a better reason than some ignorant fundy baptist opinion that doing so somehow makes me and those around me more spiritual. Or, "look how brave I am! I just told some lady with an Obama bumper sticker she's an idiot and lost my bid! She hired someone else because I offended her! Aren't I spiritual and brave!"

It would be like bragging about getting a voluntary lobotomy.

Why do you have to single out liberal Jews?

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

David knew the outcome that would arise from his decision and so did this Pastor. Did Terry Jones honestly think the Muslims would take it lightly? I stik by my guns that he is just as responsible for these deaths because of what he did.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

How can you link the murder of Uriah the Hittie by King David to this Pastor burning the Koran and christians being killed because of it??? Where is your logic? I think we all can make better use of the koran by using it as toilet paper why burn it?

This man knew full well what would come of his actions. The pastor was the spark that lit the flame in this case and he needs to be held responsible. If he wanted to burn the books privately then that is his business but he made it into a public spectacle and his buffoonery cost people their lives.

 

[ChristianTrader]

David knew the outcome that would arise from his decision and so did this Pastor. Did Terry Jones honestly think the Muslims would take it lightly? I stik by my guns that he is just as responsible for these deaths because of what he did.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

How can you link the murder of Uriah the Hittie by King David to this Pastor burning the Koran and christians being killed because of it??? Where is your logic? I think we all can make better use of the koran by using it as toilet paper why burn it?

This man knew full well what would come of his actions. The pastor was the spark that lit the flame in this case and he needs to be held responsible. If he wanted to burn the books privately then that is his business but he made it into a public spectacle and his buffoonery cost people their lives.

You can only blame him if you can make an argument that his actions were unjustified in and of themselves. Otherwise you are just using utilitarian/ends justify the means argumentation. Such withers under any amount of scrutiny.

Let us try two different scenarios.

1)Let us say the potential murderers attack a group that was welled armed and were in fact killed in self defense. Under your reasoning, Rev. Jones would be responsible.
2)Let us imagine, a book was written on how to take advantage of women sexually etc. How to spike their drinks etc. This book was widely respected by a number of folks. A women reads this book, is repulsed, speaks out against it and burns a copy on TV. Those who respect the book react nastily. Do we tell this women that she should not have been that aggressive in her actions?

CT

 

[Grillsy]

I stik by my guns that he is just as responsible for these deaths because of what he did.

So will Luther be held responsible for all the Protestant martyrs?

You can only blame him if you can make an argument that his actions were unjustified in and of themselves. Otherwise you are just using utilitarian/ends justify the means argumentation. Such withers under an amount of scrutiny.

Exactly.

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

I stik by my guns that he is just as responsible for these deaths because of what he did.

So will Luther be held responsible for all the Protestant martyrs?

No, Luther had very specific, as well as honest, goals. This man intended mockery and was very deceitful in his actions. Also, I am against any and all book burning so maybe my premise comes from that.

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

David knew the outcome that would arise from his decision and so did this Pastor. Did Terry Jones honestly think the Muslims would take it lightly? I stik by my guns that he is just as responsible for these deaths because of what he did.

---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:55 PM ----------

How can you link the murder of Uriah the Hittie by King David to this Pastor burning the Koran and christians being killed because of it??? Where is your logic? I think we all can make better use of the koran by using it as toilet paper why burn it?

This man knew full well what would come of his actions. The pastor was the spark that lit the flame in this case and he needs to be held responsible. If he wanted to burn the books privately then that is his business but he made it into a public spectacle and his buffoonery cost people their lives.

You can only blame him if you can make an argument that his actions were unjustified in and of themselves. Otherwise you are just using utilitarian/ends justify the means argumentation. Such withers under any amount of scrutiny.

Let us try two different scenarios.

1)Let us say the potential murderers attack a group that was welled armed and were in fact killed in self defense. Under your reasoning, Rev. Jones would be responsible.
2)Let us imagine, a book was written on how to take advantage of women sexually etc. How to spike their drinks etc. This book was widely respected by a number of folks. A women reads this book, is repulsed, speaks out against it and burns a copy on TV. Those who respect the book react nastily. Do we tell this women that she should not have been that aggressive in her actions?

CT

1. Yes, he would hold some responsibility. I guess I should make it clear that the muslim radicals are responsible for their actions as well.
2. Did those people who support the book have an obvious track record or reacting violently when they see their cause as oppressed? The Muslims do. Terry Jones knew full well what would come from is actions and he has to bear, at least, some of the blame for the actions he provoked.


If I pushed a kid around for months on end until he snapped and hurt someone would I not be held responsible, even if not in a legal sense but a moral and ethical sense?

 

[Grillsy]

Also, I am against any and all book burning so maybe my premise comes from that.

The Reformers burned books. Godly, Christian men and countries have both supported and carried out book burning.

No, Luther had very specific, as well as honest, goals.

Yet, by your logic, he is still responsible for the martyrs even though his actions were, in and of themselves, right, considering his actions led to their murders.

 

[smhbbag]

If I pushed a kid around for months on end until he snapped and hurt someone would I not be held responsible, even if not in a legal sense but a moral and ethical sense?

You've got it backwards on who the bully is.

This book burning is the victim finally responding to the aggression with at least a symbolic protest.

When the Muslims respond to the book burning with violence, they are merely continuing the violence that was already established, not venturing into new territory.

When the Pope called Islam wicked, Muslims burned churches to the ground in Gaza. You don't need to burn a book, draw a picture, or even call Islam wicked to get this response. All you have to do is fail to be Muslim.

Does anybody recall any other time where "angering the enemy in a time of war" is treated with such contempt?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Hermonta,

As I've thought about it, I think I need to modify what I first said. I don't suppose I can rightly call what the pastor has done as being sinful, especially in itself, I just don't see the point of it other than to provoke. Since I'm not against burning the Koran, or any other non-Christian religious book, I figure I cannot call what he's doing wrong, even if it doesn't meet all the criteria I mentioned. But then I'm wondering can an act be amoral in that, I don't think what he has done is necessarily righteous, but nor do I think it was wrong?

What do you think?

I understand what you are saying but I think there are other options besides provoking. Look at my analogy #2 here in post #59. Would you say that the only read to read that women's actions would be she was trying to provoke? One could take it as shorthand for, "I believe this book is evil and the beliefs in it have no place in our society" It could be seen as a sign to the people who follow that book, that their ideas will be opposed openly. To people who are unaware of the book, that there is serious problems with this book and you should find out more about how it opposes our society. To people who are opposed to be the book but are afraid, you are not by yourselves. There are many just possible reasons besides trying to stick a finger in someone's eye.

CT