The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Some will not integrate > Comments

Some will not integrate : Comments

By John Stone, published 25/11/2005

John Stone argues the Federal Government is not facing the reality of an exclusive Islamic culture.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. Page 27
  10. 28
  11. 29
  12. 30
  13. ...
  14. 35
  15. 36
  16. 37
  17. All
Kenny,

Thanks for coming to the defence of yet another victim of racism. I am not so sure you followed the thread here. But I commend your arrogance – as an atheist – for budging in anyway.

My problem with muslims is nor what you describe at all. It’s not where they come from that worries me it’s where they are going after they die. A concept you won’t comprehend of course.

You see islam is not your ‘run of the mill just another religion’ thing. Take the blinkers off and you might see.

And I wonder when the time will come for you to surrender to it on what ground will you stand to defend yourself? Because for whatever rationale you may have concocted in your mind for deciding not to believe in God wont wash with them.

P.S. I liked the snake argument. Funny
Posted by coach, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 5:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OFF TOPIC...apologies.

Response to Robert Part 1of3

Dear Rob
thanx for that challenge, I’ll do my best. I can’t write an article, as I would have to pay the joining fee, and I can’t afford it at the moment.

1/ “MASSACRES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT”
You will first have to clear your mind of a ‘pre-determined moral evaluation’ In other words, if you don’t want my response to sound like ‘a cop out or spin’ you will have to allow for the possibility that Almighty God DID allow or command the destruction of whole peoples. If there are NO circumstances where you could accept this, no amount of careful explanation will prevail.

My position is:
a/ God DID in fact command/direct the destruction of 2 whole peoples. (Amalekites/Midianites)
God, did destroy most of Humanity in the flood.

b/ God is “just” and loving, and most of all ‘Sovereign’. (Old Testament and New)
This Link gives a good discussion of the subject: http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html

The link covers each specific case of ‘Genocide’ and I recommend you read it first.

Deuteronomy 9:1-6, "It is NOT because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations." <= this is part of the key.

2/ IS GOD ACCOUNTABLE/RESPONSIBLE FOR EVIL ACTS BY “CHRISTIANS”

Rob, this appears to be a recurring theme in your posts, (once you get stirred up :)
and the answer is still the same.

Christ [teaching and example]

Anyone who behaves OUTside those parameters either is a very disobedient and sinful Christian or is not a Christian. It is not GOD’s fault, we were given free wills and choice. Feel free to blame and accuse people who do wrong in Christs name, and hold them accountable to Christ’s life and teaching. But NEVER blame the teacher for the students rejection of his teaching. You cannot also blame the author of a text book which contains all needed information, clearly presented, for a students failure in an exam.

Can it be clearer than this ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 8:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Response to Robert Part 2

again.. APOLOGIES.. OFF TOPIC.. (All ignore me if you like except Rob :)

MOSAIC LAW and TODAY (GENTILES)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=31

Rob, I draw your attention to the decision of the ‘first’ Christian Council, attended by the Apostles themselves, and you can review their judgment on the matter. Then, you can argue with Paul and Peter :) I won’t say what they decided- you can see it and assess it yourself.
Some things to consider.

1/ What was the function/reason for the “Law”
2/ What aspects of the Law related to Israelite social/theocratic life, and which related for all time to the ‘covenant’ relationship with God ?

COVENANT
Means by which God fearing people can express their obedience to God ie. the 10 commandments. (for all time, BUT see below)

The ‘Intention’ of the LAW/ 10 commandments. = “Relationship with God, and secondarily, our relationship with our fellow people BASED ON the relationship with God”

Assuming you have now read the relevant portion of Scripture, let me add something about the concept explained by God to Jeremiah. (which is why the Apostles decided as they did in the link above.)
Ch 31
31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a NEW covenant
with the house of Israel
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
This, is fulfilled in Christ. “and I tell you, you must be born again” (Jesus)

4/ HEAD COVERINGS ETC FOR WOMEN RELEVANT FOR TODAY ?
My view is that they are relevant, but not crucial. Cultural context of the original was the dionysius cult, but I find no problem with a symbolic head covering during worship, its even nice.
We don’t practice it as a ‘rule’ in our fellowship some ladies cover their heads. (while a few other younger ones display their mid-rifs :)

Scout we got a new kitty “Pepper”
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 8:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, thanks for the detailed response and also for the tone of your post on the "When our religion belonged to us" thread. I would really like to see an end to the consistant attempts by some to argue theology and church/muslim history so that we can get on with working out how to deal with some of the other issues before us,
- those gangs in Sydney (By the way someone I know was bashed and robbed in Brisbane over the weekend and from what I saw in the paper today another guy was killed in similar circumstances and so far there does not appear to be a muslim connection).
- the risk of home grown terrorism
- people living in our community who are
o not being allowed to integrate
o or unwilling to integrate
o or don't know how to integrate

I was not aware that it would cost to submit an article. I was hoping that there was a way we could get some of this stuff on topic and open to discussion. What you put in your reply was close enough to what I had seen before and what we've been over occasionally that there were no new insights. Maybe other posters could have cast some of this in a different light. Why not write the article and see what happens.

Anyway please keep up being nice to FH and others and see if we can turn the tone of some of these discussions around. Otherwise I'll be tossing spitballs from my place at the back of the class next to Scout. From an outsiders perspective my view of the christian church is getting even more jaded by the approach taken by the most obvious christain posters on any topic muslim (and a few other topics).

I hope your Christmas is special for you.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 9:14:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I would like to wish everyone here a very good Christmas, a happy Hanukah, Selamat Hari Raya and everything else.
Posted by Irfan, Wednesday, 7 December 2005 10:32:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coach,
First, I’ll declare that I am a non-practicing, Christian-raised person. So I think you can forget the personal attack.

You wrote to Kenny “But I commend your arrogance – as an atheist – for budging in anyway.”

As a practicing Christian, I believe you owe an apology to Kenny for this slight. Isn’t it part of the Christian way to be kind and humble? Isn’t it part of the Christian way to be pleasant, even when faced with ridicule?

As far as I could see Kenny was in no way being unkind, however, if he was, shouldn’t your response have been more tolerant and patient? At the very least we see this from BD, who I think most know I heartily disagree with. So, I think it safe to say that you are the one being arrogant. Fine example of a Christian, wouldn’t most agree?

As to your assertion that Islam is a “different religion to the Judaeo-Christian faith from beginning to end”, I think you need to have a closer look at history and the writings. You may not believe they represent a true belief but that they are closely related in history and source is undeniable. I would think it is perhaps again your arrogance that drives your thoughts.

F_H,
Just a question (not sure I have asked before) – are you OK with the fact that I choose not to believe in Islam (much like I choose not to hold a great deal of faith in Christ I admit)? And secondly, in your ‘perfect world’ if this was the case, am I held to be any less for this? Please accept that I am trying to place my self in regards to many religions, not trying to be offensive, as I’m sure you would guess.
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 8 December 2005 9:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. Page 27
  10. 28
  11. 29
  12. 30
  13. ...
  14. 35
  15. 36
  16. 37
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy