Dear yabs... the 'old testament is a very violent book' is not my problem its urs :)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to, but I do know of some bits which to our western, and if I may say "New Testement' heritage minds, seem a bit over the top. But its quite unfair for us to project back our contemporary and often simply humanistic views on inter-racial/tribal conditions of 3000 yrs ago.

Tribal Experience

I can tell you with solid assurance, having lived in and spent a lot of time with Bornean indigenous people, that Israels experience, fits like a glove to how it goes in such circumstances. (this includes issues such as slavery)

Gods judgements on sinful people were always tempered with justice. They were judged for specific things. The wiping out of every last man woman and child of one group (today we call it genocide) is not so difficult to understand when you see how Palestinians teach even their infants to hate and carry model weapons and chant hate sloguns.
But those exterminated by God, (through Israelites) were guilty of horrendous sins, such as offering their infants to the gods by burning them. (archeological evidence abounds) In one Canaanite area 20,000 baby skeletons were found, as victims of this. It should carefull noted though, that in no way were such judgements intended to be 'general principles'. It is not taught or suggested or commanded. Those incidents are just 'reported'.

There isn't much point in debating that issue though, I can only resort to 'Will not the judge of all the earth do right'?....
But 'right' is what the Almighty determines it to be.

On the RC church, I could not agree more. But as I said "Post Constantine".Prior to that, such things did not characterize the church, and when disagreement occured, the worst to occur was a breaking off of fellowship. (the various heretical sects, Manicheists, Gnostics etc)

No offence, but please don't let an unbalanced view of Scripture hold you back from Christ and the abundant life in Him. "Which passes understanding".

"Jesus Christ

The Prince of Peace

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)"

Still squabbling boys.

Dawood...

You seems to be a no nonsense, straight talking guy.

Question 1: Please tell me what you think will be my fate in the hereafter. I guess we can all agree that I'm a three (Those who know the xxxxx of Islam and still reject it). Not only that, but I may be guilty of saying bad things about Islam's great prophet (of course, that is a matter of opinion - in my view I just said what Islamic writing say - so its not really me).

What fate do you think I deserve, or better, what would be my fate heyond the grave - as most Muslims understand Islamic doctrine?

Question 2: If I/you/we lived in an Islamic society under sharia, what would be my fate in this life?

Don't worry about my feelings. Just tell me what will happen to me, according to Islam, for being a three.

Thanks, John

PS: If any Muslims here want to take a shot at these two questions, please do.

Joh

Scout,
Yes verily you have set yourself against Christ, as his enemy, but some will go to the extent of crucifying Him and his followers with the sword, with lions, with fire. He doesn't have to do anything except promote peace and others will promote violence. That is the point of extremist Muslims, who will murder Christians with the sword because they will not accept Allah as God and Mohamet as his prophet. It only takes one polarised side to make a war, against a peaceful nation. I suggest you look at what Jesus had to say about his attitude to his followers using the sword:

Matthew 26:46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.
26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and
with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief
priests and elders of the people.
26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I
shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
26:50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then
came they, and laid hands on Jesus and took him.
26:51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his
hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s,
and smote off his ear.
26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place:
for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
______________________________

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)"

GOD LOVES CHILDREN

According to God's law, children are not persons but the property
of their fathers, who may sell them as slaves (Exodus 21:7)

God promised to send wild animals to kill and eat the children of
the Hebrews if they didn't obey him. If they still didn't obey him,
he promised to make them kill and eat their children themselves.
(Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 2:34 etc)

God frequently ordered the Hebrews to kill all the of people in
the lands they conquered. This includes slaughtering all the children
and all pregnant women (Deuteronomy 2:34 etc)

If you do not ovey God, he will punish your children and your
children's children unto the third and fourth generation
(Exodus 20:5, 34:7etc)

God says "Kill both man and woman, infant and suckling"
1 Samuel 15:3)

God says "Their infants will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes (Isaiah 13;6)

God says "Happy is he that dashes your little ones against
the stones" (Psalm 137:9)

Because some adults offended God, he deliberately drowned
the entire human race (except the Noah family). This included
every little child and every pregnant woman (Genesis 6&7

OK I'm getting lost here.

Just what has the battle over "my scripture is more barbaric than yours" got to do with the topic of "moderate Muslims being as fearful of Muslim/Islamic terrorists as non-Muslims".

I guess we are all pretty much aware by now that some posters believe that the muslim faith is rotten to the core and others think the same of the creistian faith (generally it is not muslim posters expressing the latter opinion). What does this old much travelled argument got to do with the topic?

Do some of you find it hard to accept the possibility that there is such a thing as a moderate muslim? Surely if christianity can accomodate the extraordinary range within that belief structure which exists there should be room for a range of muslims. Even if a moderate muslims was about a BD on the scale of moderateness that still leave (hopefully) a long way on the scale before you get to someone willing to pilot a loaded plane into the side of a high rise.

The key christian posters can collaborate on an article on what is wrong with the muslim faith and submit it for publication, likewise for those who do long posts with the failings of christianity and you folks can debate to your hearts content.

Meanwhile the rest of us can get on with working out how moderate muslims and moderate non-muslims can work together to make the world a better place for all of us.

R0bert