There was discussion many comments ago about the relationship between Christianity and the Old Testament. This is the link to the sermon from our church last Sunday which explores a couple of the links between the old and new Testaments, and Jesus' attitude to them. It's also a good lesson in how cultural context can make something you thought you knew wrong.

For example, I've often used the phrase "go the extra mile", but it doesn't mean what I think it means when you see the context it comes from. Had to be there in first century Palestine to really get the nuance.

http://stmatthewshollandpark.com/articles18.html

Dear Graham,

Thanks for that.

That's one of the many reasons why I enjoy the
forum. You can learn a great deal if you keep an
open mind.

AJ: and by marginalising them all, you only encourage radicalisation.

We’ve seen this statement before. What does it mean exactly? I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?

Suggest a solution AJ. Nah, that’ll never happen. I’ve asked for contributors solutions before. The reply. “Not my job.”

Foxy: How can you speak on the behalf of all Muslims and what they do or do not believe in or take literally.

I can't. I can only go on what I see happening around the World. Moderate moslims running rampant because they can't get there own way according to the Koran. France Denmark, Germany & Sweden, even Norway.

Foxy: That's simply nonsense. You can't speak on the behalf of all Christians or Jews. Fundamentalists exist in all religions.

I don't, but Christians & Jews are not the ones raping & pilliaging.

Foxy: But not all religious advocates are fundamentalists.

All religious fundamentalists are religious but the religious are fundamentalists. Runner is a fundamentalist but not dangerous, but would he be if his Sect were leading a Government? I think they would be.

look up the Bible:
Deu 13:6-10.
Deu 21:18-21
Deu 28:53-60
Very interesting!

Najla,

It is claimed that

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

Is this true?

Jayb,

I’m not sure why you would need me to explain my statement to you. There was nothing cryptic about it.

<<We’ve seen this statement before. What does it mean exactly?>>

Perhaps a hypothetical will help?

Take, for example, a hypothetical teenaged Muslim boy: born in Australia, has only ever lived in Australia, and considers himself to be Australian. Then, one day, after ordering more money be printed to solve our financial woes, Prime Minister Hanson says to Australia’s Muslim community, “You are no longer welcome here, and those like you will be blocked from entering the country.”

How quickly do you think that kid is going to be radicalised?

<<I think it means that if we give into a Radicals demands, they win, & if we don’t eventually convert, they’ll kill us. If we don’t give into their demands, there will be more radicals, who will kill us. Either way We lose. Is that right?>>

No, the first part isn't right. Giving into the demands of radicals is never necessary.

<<Suggest a solution AJ. Nah, that’ll never happen.>>

That’s easy. Given the tensions that declaring Australia’s Islamic community to be the enemy would inflame, and the increase in radicalisation that would inevitably follow from that, doing absolutely nothing would be a better option. A more proactive approach, still, would be to engage with Australia’s Islamic community, fight intolerance and racism (yes, I know Islam’s not a race), implement mental illness prevention measures, etc. Things we’ve already been doing more or less successfully for decades now.

Ignoring for the moment the difficulties involved in identifying all Muslims with any degree of accuracy, the only way we could take yours and LEGO’s approach, without increasing the risk of radicalising significantly more Muslims, would be cease all Muslim immigration, deport all Muslim migrants, and then round up and kill every Muslim born here.

I hope I don’t have to tell you why we can’t do that.

Unless you have another suggestion, of course? I mean one that doesn't exacerbate the problem. LEGO obviously doesn’t. He’s avoided this question twice now.

To AJ.

Once more for the dummies. If I say that Muslims as a group are dangerous, AJ, I am prejudging them. I am also stereotyping them. If you say that Nazis and Klansmen are dangerous, you are doing the exactly same thing. The fact that you claim that prejudging and stereotyping are utterly wrong, then refuse to recognise it when you quite plainly do it yourself, says something about the convoluted Leftist mindset.

If you and your muddle headed brahmin caste believe that everybody is equal, AJ, then unfortunately for you, the onus is upon you and your friends to treat everybody equally.

We are examining three separate groups of people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs", Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and Muslims. You are quite plainly judging the first two groups of people, (which are white) with a completely different standard to the last group (who are non white.) That is racism. If you try to justify your racism with an argument. Well congratulations, AJ, welcome to the club of racists.

Your racist justification goes like this. You say that I can not condemn (non white) Muslims as a group because their "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs" are not universally held by every individual Muslim, and because I can not "see inside the hearts" of every individual Muslim. But with your customary Doublethink, you refuse to extend the same argument equally to radical groups of white people with "demonstrably false and dangerous beliefs." Your premise is that every single individual within radical white groups all think exactly alike and they are therefore all equally dangerous. Only non white radical organisations can have individuals with more moderate views. Therefore a non white a radical organisation can not be labelled as dangerous.

I know you are going to use your customary sneery one liners to dismiss your racist double standard, AJ. But if you wish to convince anybody who is reading this that you are not a complete hypocrite then I think you need to do a lot better than that.