Robert
a quick reply to your feeling of "I denigrated" you. Actually, I was attempting to make the point that if you believe in something, you will be passionate about it. I did'nt mean to hurt your feelings by suggesting you stand for 'nothing' in the wider sense, I was referring to the Islam/Christianity issue. You clearly don't have any strong feelings other than to be nice to all :) which, while a commendable attitude, does not make a lot of progress in the debate between the 2 faiths positions. Hope you don't take such comments in any personal or hurtful way ok :)

Ash

Yes, other faiths are regulated, its worthwhile looking at how Christianity is 'regulated' in Afghanistan. It is basically regulated in such a way that it is clearly intended to die out with the current generation of people and structures. Never mind, God is greater than such things. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church :)

JustDan

I've tried to avoid a "we are right you are wrong" slant in my posts, and have attempted to take a "This is what is at the heart of yours, and this is at the heart of ours" approach. I have been selective, but I've selected legitimate aspects. I have made a contention, then illustrated that from their foundations. I have contrasted this with the foundations of our faith. One can be as selective as one likes, and you will not find the same things about Christ and the Apostles as you will about Mohammed and his companions. It not a biased approach its very factual.

Waleed calls a nutbag someone who is prepared to state such things publically. He will call it 'vilification'.

I can feel Anomie's eyes drilling the back of my head so NO CAPITALS :)

Thanks, BD. I appreciate it.

I recently heard a comment on radio about a comparison between the rhetoric of G.W.Bush the Current US president with Roosevelt the President during another crisis, the Great Depression. The comparison went on to note the statement of Roosevelt "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" and the repetitive arousals of fears in the US community by the current President. When our elected political leader follows such a lead by G.W.Bush, is it any wonder that there are elements of our community who trust this leadership with a belief that bad legislation which reduces freedom and democracy is made law in the name of the greater good. There seems little chance in the near term at least of removing a religious undertone from these legislative responses by our elected representatives. But let's not give up. We still have free speech, except if ASIO believes you shouldn't make any comment about something they may have done in the name of national security.

Boaz, - David you missed the point again. It's not about being "nice" to everybody. Being nice is often very different to being fair.

I'll be nice where I can be and still play a valid role in the discussions, I'll generally try and be polite in my posts and where practical put them in as friendly a manner as I can. I try pretty hard to avoid the "I can't beat your logic so I'll insult you instead" approach which so often hampers debate.

The point I have raised is about fairness. I'm not OK with one side of a debate working with different rules than they allow the other side. I don't know how else to put this, maybe someone can put it more clearly. There does not seem to be a lot of point repeating the examples already given.

As already noted I was not to upset by your comment about standing for nothing, raised as an example only.

In regard to the current debate, it is clear that the christian political movement is a threat to my freedoms if given the chance. Clearly their interests (and your own) go a long way beyond the small list you published some months ago - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3040#3280 Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:03:10 PM

What I don't know is what kind of threat western muslims are to my freedom if given the opportunity. I do know I would not like to live in a muslim controlled country. I know what parts of the christain church would have me believe about muslims but competitors are not always the best source of information.

R0bert

ROBERT

This will be a 2 part reply because of the length of your quote I need to properly examine what you say.

You said:

Boaz, I'm not disputing the legitimacy of the need to "understand culture and history" when reading ancient texts. It does make the idea of absolute authority kind of irrelevant when you do so though. Who gets to decide which bits are the absolute commands of god and which bits were cultural allowances? One of my points was that the same space does not seem to be given to moderate muslims by some christians. Quoting selected bits of their writings is about as legitimate as quoting selected bits of the bible

1/ Absolute Authority.
The authority of the Bible is not as appears to be in your mind Rob. You seem to suggest that you are expecting 100% unambiguous, literal statements about every area of life. In terms of culture and language this is not possible for any faith. Time changes meanings.
The authority to which we appeal, is that God in his providential wisdom has communicated His will and person to us in Christ. It is clearly a step of faith.
But that aside, 'which bits' have authority etc, is not a difficult matter. Let just one example suffice. Paul said "On this matter I have no command of God, but I have my opinion ...in Christ"
This was a clear division between divine revelation and personal opinion. On other matters we have to refer to context, history, culture and use of language to 'hone' the meanings of parables and sayings. The 'cut off the offending hand' and 'gouging out the offending eye' are examples where this must be employed.(i.e. "How did the people of JESUS day understand such sayings")

2/ Selective use and Moderate Muslims.
Rob, there is legitimate 'selectiveness' and illegitemate. If I find "Judas went and hung himself" and join this with "Do thou likewise" and "What you do, do with all your heart" and then turn this into some suicidal Jonestown cult, clearly I have totally missed the mark, right ?

BD, 1 of 2

- First I don’t think Islam needs my defence, it is a great religion and have much conviction as you have to yours. I am just clarifying things which are put intentionally or in error out of context to mislead people about my faith and hence was my contribution.
- The myth of Islamic conversion:Arab Christians and north African Christians have been living among muslims since Islam appeared. Dr Milad Hanna, an Egyptian Christian, have actually documented that muslims became the majority in Egypt after 500 years since it came in the 7th century.
- Islam and Christianity are fundamentally different on conversion. Muslims are not required because a) it is a simple religion: God is one, created everything; you can only save your self through good deeds and repent when you commit a sin. Believe in one God and all his messengers, pray 5 times a day, pay the alms, fast in Ramadan and pilgrim once in your life time. In Christianity is different, you have a collective responsibility to “save” others and hence you have 21 million priests and missionaries with huge budgets for this purpose only. We don’t. Muslim imams are volunteers and have no holiness whatsoever.
- This ‘pressure’ upon you drive some of your missionaries to ‘twist facts’ about Islamic faith specifically because unlike other religions, Islam is the only modern day religion that; provides a credible, honourable story of Jesus Christ. And again I use the CTF example: the behaviour and text used (and I read the transcript) was at best unethical.
- Muslims agenda myth: Islam is religion that mixes spiritual and life style similar to Judaism for example. The Koran to us is the word of God and defines how to honor your parents, interact with your family, respect and honour your neighbour and always do good deeds even by smiling to a blind man. There can be no agenda for us because there is no specific authority, pope, budget, money, hierarchy, etc.. There are no transactions of any sort in our faith and there cannot be…simple?