BD, how about writing an article for publication here dealing with some of these issues so that there is a valid forum to discuss them.

You could cover
- why the massacres in the OT were justified (killing of children, animals etc)
- how the instruction to stone rude children to death was a one off judgement and not a command
- why the Jesus of the New Testament has nothing to do with the God of the Old Testament or is not accountable for the actions of that God. I'm guessing that you will see this issue differently but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.
- why some of the commands of the new testament are not relevant today (women covering their heads when they pray etc)
- why the christain God and faith cannot be held accountable for atrocities and abuses committed by adherants of that faith. War, child abuse etc.

Please ensure that does not look like a cop out to the rest of us and is consistant with the approach taken to muslim history and teaching by christian posters to this site.

I would be interested in seeing a credible consistant explanation of the above. I'm guessing that a number of other's would be interested to see it as well.

Maybe then we could actually spend some time on other threads talking about the issue raised in the article.
R0bert

G'day Boaz,
I briefly define my position in relation to the religions-
Each religion has a high level of 'cultural' attachment. To be of Arabic descent, for example, would statistically be more likely to make one able to coprehend & be comfortable with Islam, as I, as an Anglo, have a greater understanding of the christian bible. Familiarity breeds understanding - I argue with those that use 'out of context' quotes from any religious writings. Intrinsically a poor argument.
I think John Saffran chose cathlocism in the end, although this may only be due to Father Bob. If I was to to choose a well-known god to worship, it would probably be the Hindu god Krshna. I'm a Humanist by choice.
The participants in this thread have quite successfully melded religious argument with the race argument. This should not be the case.

Well,it will continue to be a heated debate.One of my son's best friends is Christian Lebanese.We introduced him to surfing a few years ago and he loves it.On the other side of the coin we have these Middle Eastern gangs who are mostly Muslim who rampage our city with almost impunity spewing for hate,bile and violence upon any skippy they can find.Just yesterday we heard of life savers at Cronulla being viciously attacked for no reason.This is happening on a daily occasion in Sydney and in the main,goes unreported because police don't have the numbers to cope with it.Both my children and myself have had direct experiences or observed this intimidation on many occasions.To say it is confined to a minority is to distort the facts.Go to places like Auburn or Bankstown and the hate filled environment makes you afraid to walk down the streets.

The Muslim community is not facing up to it,nor is our NSW state Govt.I have yet to hear one Muslim leader say they will back our Federal Govt policy on terrorists or even assist in their capture.All we hear how Muslims are constantly being made the victims by racist Anglos.Has it occurred to Muslims that their isolationist attitudes and general aggression is contributing to this?

It is a two way street.Muslims in my view have made almost no attempts to intergate.Either change your attitudes or face more calls to end Muslim immigration.Call it racist if you like,but it is more akin to religionism.

France is stuffed.I don't see a peaceful solution.If they give 8 million Muslims more social security ,it will destroy their ecconomy.John howard suggests IR reform so everyone bar the aristocracy will have to work harder for less.This could cause even more problems.More people competing over fewer resources and jobs with China and India doing the manufacturing.

Wouldn't it have been better not to have caused the problem in the first place?

I have tried to stay out of this particular thread, as my mother taught me that if I couldn't say anything nice, I should say nothing.

Sorry mum.

Mr Stone is an archetypal rabble-rouser, conflating concepts of religion and nationhood in the classic "ethnic cleansing" manner. His approach - the semi-intellectual references to mediaeval history, his sneers at more liberal opponents and the emotional but superficial comparisons with incidents in other countries - is oratory designed to inflame the less intelligent masses to the cause.

I find his approach dishonest, his attitude despicable, and his ends nefarious.

There is absolutely not the remotest possibility that Australia will become an Islamic state. By holding this up as some kind of "ghost of Christmas yet to come", and using apocalyptic images to do so, Stone is trying to reach the basest and most ignoble instincts in our nature.

If he succeeds, more fool us. We should have grown out of such visceral responses to such blatant emotionalism back in the schoolyard.

Coach,

No dramas, answering your questions:

1. For us to accept other people and creatures and to honour people of the book is not ‘charity’ but it is a condition to be a Muslim (2:61-69, 284-286).

2. Majority of Muslims read the bible: I studied it through the Bible society of Egypt since I went to Catholic school (refer to many threads I had with Boaz David).

3. The bible, The Torah and the Quran enforces the commandments and the Mosaic law. The Quran claims to be a confirmation of the previous Holy books and not a ‘new religion’. The history of the bible show 60+ gospels existed at a point in time.

4. The central message of the Holy books is about the commandments. The only inconsistency enforced by Catholicism is about the divinity of Jesus and the original sin. These are imposed theories (325AD-386AD). Islam position (622AD) was similar to early followers of Christianity (before Catholicism). Please research Pope Honorius (648AD) writings to see how much Islam and early Christians had in common.

5. Jesus (PBUH) was mentioned in the Quran 33 times (Mohamed PBUH only 4). The only woman mentioned by name in the Quran is Virgin Mary ( a whole chapter by her name). Meaning: Jesus is a prophet of Islam, he was glorified in the Quran than all gospels and the number of his miracles in the Quran exceeds what was mentioned in all gospels combined (incl. Gospel of Barnabos).
Yet, there is no substance anywhere for us to toy with the first commandment.
That is simply an average Muslim logical position.

Tennyson,

You forget that today Muslims were, many centuries ago Christians as well and Arabs (now less that 15% of Muslims) were pre-dominantly Christians (many still are).
Faith, belief and truth are personal choices and people can go whichever way they like. What matters, is intent and good deeds which should not be exclusive to any religion or non-religion.

Boaz,

Minor correction: Mohamed (PBUH) = founder of faith but it is Paul not Jesus (PBUH) that is the founder of Christian faith.

Peace,

Redneck: John Stone cannot answer my question because his argument is non-sequitur. On other words,his conclusion does not follow from his premises. It cannot be argued successfully or fairly that a few British Muslim homeboys represent the behaviour of the entire London Muslim community.

Your opinion slips into plain nonsense. First Redneck you can't even tell the difference between an ostensible statement re: "the elephant" and a systematic proposition re: Stone's claim that the London bombings show that multi-culturalism isn't working. (Just as a point of interest: there are those who argue that even ostensible statements are really propositions that can be examined and refuted. But there is no need for that here because your analogy does not rest on shared properties.

Also you mention that the terrorists were "homeboys". Using your logic that would have to mean that homeboys will be excluded from your ideal utopia? That must also mean that for you the crimes of Australian homeboys represent the aspirations of all Christians.

Australian culture usually works on the idea of fair go and that people are innocent until shown to be otherwise. You cannot offer a sound argument that multiculturalism is a failure because of the actions of a few Christian or Muslim fanatics.

I think it is a tactic of the Nationals to keep this negative stereotyping of good Muslim folk foregrounded on cultural grounds so that the real issues that cause disharmony in this world - such as the actions and callousness of the Coalition of Killers and terrorists isn't examined more closely. Blame the behaviour on some sort of inate Muslim characteristic so that the circumstances that lead people to take up arms is not examined.

Davo (and Redneck), you must be a full on commos. You'd have us all wearing black PJs and being force fed Doc. Jim Saleam and John Stone's propaganda.

If you didn't have such racist view of things, you could see that individuals and groups have cultures and behaviours that have nothing to do with their ethnicity. (Market days).