aah..burly is WORKING.. I'm about to catch a KENNY :)

Kenny.. THANX :) I can roll with the punches as well as give them.
Sarah, was Abrham's HALF sister. I dont suggest for a moment that this was a good thing, and I don't see any indication in Genesis of it being anything other than a statement of historical fact. The ETHICAL and moral teaching about such relationships infringing Gods law are found in Leviticus, via Moses.. a LONG time after Abraham.
Now.. myths and fairy stories u propose. I'm currently trying to get a book banned.. I have a complaint with the EOC about this. Its called "Da gospel according to Ali G." U might be wondering why I mention this in connection with 'myths and fairy stories' well here is why. The Author of that book is named COHEN.. a Jew. But the significant part of this, u can discover urself by researching the DNA link between COHEN=> KOHEIN==> AARON the brother of Moses. The guys very NAME is testimony to the reality of the one he is mocking (he did a satirical.. holding up to contempt reversal of the 10 Commandments)

And what I was pointing out re Mohammed and Australian law... was just THAT... and my stating this also alerts us to the DANGER of 'moral relativism' which u, by implication appear to be advocating.
If it was 'not harmful' for a child to have sex 'then'.. WHY should it be NOW ? on what grounds do we jail a guy for such an act now for 25 yrs ? are we not just waiting for the lobby groups and activists ..the paedo's to claim that we have NO enduring foundation for such laws.. and they point out such things as Arab culture in support of their claims.. to gain favor with our politicians' .... is that where u are at ? If u can refute my reasoning here..I'll be rather suprised.. I suspect you will appeal to some imagined 'universal sense of morality' that all people allegedly have.. (well.. I guess they didnt have it back then eh :)....
If u doubt that what I'm suggesting here could happen.. do a google on 'NAMBLA' I wont tell u what it is..but they are DOING exactly as I'm saying here... I await ur more informed next comment :)

Actually I don't think there is any universal morality. My position is that we make our own morals/laws/social norms. We use a figure of 10 years old for paedo's why not 5 or 15. In most cultures in history adulthood in females was signaled by the womens first period. This can happen as young as 8, more importantly the child is perpared for adulthood which I don't think we do now. In Australian law in a attempt to have some common rules we have said that the age for lawful sex is 16, sex with someone between the ages of 10 and 16 is not on and sex with anyone younger is a serious crime. But I ask you what magic happens to someone at the age of 10 or 16. I think that the person should be sexually mature and mentally prepared for sex and it's consquences and in our culture I think that could be anywhere from 14 to never with average of about 20. Anyway this is off topic which is free speach.

FOR KENNY
Sure, free speech.. in a moment.. have u pondered 'why' we jail a guy for 25 yrs for infringing what appears to be described in both your response (by implication) and even the LAW 'simple cultural taboo' while knowing full well that it may not be as 'horrifying' as it seems. I have worked in an indigenous culture.. my wifes parents were married when the mum was 12 and the father 14, as the mum told me about 5 weeks back..when I was in that country "We didnt have the slightest clue what to do" so.. it puts HUGE doubts in my mind that a girl in Arab culture would be in any better position because this culture is an equivalent one. Of course.. a mature experienced MAN could give her all the clues.. right ? but .. I reallllly wonder about that whole deal. I think our sense of moral revulsion may come from Jesus words "IF any one causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a millstone around his neck and be thrown in to hell" <== I wonder if the paedo priests read that ! guess not. One more left jab on the 'fairy stories' ..I've done considerable study on the matter, formally, and in my own church we are blessed with Dr Clifford Wilson a significant archeologist of great experience. (do a search) I'm quietly confident that the scriptures can stand up to any level of scrutiny. Paul did not say we can 'disregard' the Law he says Christ in us enables the requirement of the law to be fulfilled.. Romans 7.4 saying "You have died to the law" means we no longer look to a 'set of rules' as much as we look to Christ himself to fill us 'WITH' that law in our hearts.

Sure..we fail and stumble, but sanctification is not overnight.. its a process. Justification is instantaneous.

FREE SPEECH. The 2 pastors. They are from a very enthusiastic section of Christian tradition.. that enthusiasm was misunderstood by the 'spies' as being 'threatening. They just plain didnt 'get it' :)

Boaz_David, I sense much anger in you. No need to get personal, get yourself a nice cup of green tea and chill out for a minute.

The critical issue here is that preachers were misleading their flock about tenants of the Qu'ran and the plans and motivations of the Muslims.

Just remember that shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all are an abomination before the Lord. www.godhatesshrimp.com

And don't forget that Lot offered to give his virgin daughters to men so that they might rape them instead of men. Nice.

DMAC .. thanx.. please dont misconstrue 'passion' for anger..

I dont really see why u haven't picked up on the 'collusion' (EOC&ICV) background to the entrapment ? Did u actually notice that ?

Thats one reason I'm so passionate about this. Its the old "When 'they' are 'US' syndrome. You mentioned in your first comment above, that 'they said the Quran promotes violence' ..but are

1/ u suggesting it does NOT ? Did u see the references and submissions they made ? Did u visit their web site and actually check them ? I grant it does not suggest violence in every 2nd verse, but those quoted are pretty clear.. and when u see how these verses are utilized/intepreted by the authors of the text named in Durie...
its pretty clear.

2/ And u made no comment about what Mark Durie found about Islamic curriculums in Melbourne. (he was an expert witness for CTF)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/Witness%20Statement.pdf
(Duries argument is well developed and crucial to understanding Islam in Melbourne)

3/ Have u been to a Pentecostal church meeting ? (I'm not Pentecostal)

Can u address these specific issues pls ? Show ur view, then support it with actual evidence and references.

I appreciate the back and forth.

HI BOAZ_David

Easiest to start with your last question: no< I have never been to a pentecostal church meeting.

I have read the statements by Mark Durie, but I don't believe you could really consider an ordained minster an independent witness...

But that is really beside the point. The point is that these preachers selected tracts of another religions scripture to promote an anti muslim view. That's it. That's what this is all about.

Do you believe it is appropriate for these preachers to claim that Muslims will embark on a spree of rape, torture and killing of Australians? Do you believe this yourself?

I must say I am amazed by the anti-muslim sentiment that I have witnessed since first looking at online opinion around a month ago, absolutely amazed. I find it quite amusing to be considered pro-islamic, I have never been acused of this before, and aside from anything I am not pro islamic (what next? will I be a traitor to my country and race?), I am however anti-vilification and this is the crux of the issue.