Boaz, I believe my articled read thus:

"The Old Testament frequently instructs the Israelites to murder and rape other tribes".

And yes, I stand by that statement. It does. Whether you like it or not and no matter how much you twist and distort the words to make them mean something more acceptable to you, there is no getting past it. That's what it says. Plain as day.

Ruby

HYPOCRISY

Jesus had much to say on the subject, particularly those who preached but didn’t act on their proselytising. Boaz have you forgotten what Jesus had to say about the pharisees? For surely you are one.

“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’”
Jesus Christ, Mark 7:6

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Matt. 7:15)

Boaz your heart is far from Jesus and inwardly Boaz is ravening; particularly at women who dare to claim equal status to men and judgemental of any who disagree with his narrow and literal interpretation of the bible.

I made reference to Jesus “coming with a sword”, below are the lines in full context. Anyone can see that they may be used to justify violence against any who do not accept Jesus, including family. Therefore my use of this is entirely relevant.

"10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... A man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
.
.
.
.

Any and all religions have been used to incite violence against others.

Like Ruby, I stand by everything I have said and my right to say it.

Pericles:

<<It should make absolutely no difference to anyone what religion an individual follows. Everyone should have the right to indulge their need for a spiritual support structure without interference, so long as it does not involve breaking the law.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population to which it seems to have a fundamental and visceral objection to this approach, and that is the followers of a different religious subset.

Even this isn't a problem, until and unless the law is broken.

At that point religion is no excuse, and they become common criminals.>>

This is beautifully spun non-partisanship, and even if I don’t agree with what you say, the conclusion is relevant here.

Taking Pericles’ argument ipso facto, Ruby, your obstinate obsession with OT literalism and denunciation of Christianity is criminal in the state of Victoria.

A truthful and honest engagement with your statement requires at least an admission that “there must be more to it than that” in the light of BD's post.

If you have any perspective left on this, take a look at the Hamas charter, Articles 20, 28 and 31. Your written statement has it’s home there.

http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

John Greenfield:

<<Ruby, you are clearly a thoughtful and curious young woman, so let us hope you can free yourself of the cerebral porridge that afflicts you at present. You need to apply your critical skills to your OWN religion; Leftism>>

Thanks John for your post.

KatieO. Not once. Not once have I denounced Christianity. That is your own imagination. I am simply responding to Boaz's incessant demands that I apologise. I didn't write the Old Testament Katie. If you have a problem with it I suggest you take it up with Jehovah.

Fractelle, You say –

<Any and all religions have been used to incite violence against others.>

I think we all know this, and I don’t recall anyone suggesting otherwise. In fact, the principle is not limited to religions, is it? People will get violent over anything they feel passionate about.

This isn’t the problem: the problem is that, on the basis of an unreasonably literal reading of the passage you’ve quoted, you’ve decided that Jesus is just as great a war monger as Mohammed. This is an unreasonable point-of-view. Jesus’ life and Mohammed’s life were different – you know this, right? Jesus’ words, taken holistically, and the words of the Qu’ran, taken holistically, are different – you know this, too, don’t you?

You’ve been doing more than say both religions are used to incite violence. You’ve been accusing the Christians of hypocrisy because they criticise Islam. But, the Christians have not claimed that they have their house perfectly in order: we claim that Islam is dangerous.

Aren’t you concerned at just how easy it is to use the Qu’ran to incite violence? With the New Testament, you need to distort; but it seems that the Qu’ran just drives the message home, and does not invite interpretation.

You conclude -

<Like Ruby, I stand by everything I have said and my right to say it.>

Of course, but it’s not the point. You can say the world is flat, if you like, or any other silly thing, but you can’t reasonably expect people to swallow it.

Pax,

Froggie,
I agree totally that Saddam was a homicidal maniac, but he was the homicidal maniac that we sponsored, helped into power and supported morally and financially while it was in our own best interests – never really caring for the interests of innocent citizens in the region. I never blamed his actions on the West.

The Threat to World Peace claim seems a bit of an exaggeration, considering he wasn’t even a threat to his own neighbours. He had a “beware of the dog” sign out but had no dog to back it up and of course oil played absolutely no part in what has happened.

I only responded to this issue because the attitude of some is that we share no historical responsibility for the anti-Western attitudes of parts of the Middle East and that any subsequent antagonism from them must be entirely unprovoked.

What’s with this new “soft left” reference that keep popping up now? Is it the new buzzword for anybody who dares to be critical of the official propaganda line?

What's the correct term for somebody who wholeheartledly swallows the media-run view of the world and refuses to challenge anything without some sort of self-defined evidence.

I had toast for breakfast thing morning - in front of independent witnesses - but there are some who would assert otherwise, without some sort of authoratitive evidence to back up my claim.