Martin
In a previous post you wrote "Dictation is different to inspiration." Which concept of inspiration?
There is verbal inspiration commonly known as "biblical infallibility" This view is held by many churches & is functionaly equivalent to the dictation view. Indeed this was the view of the catholic church at one point. I have photos of woodcuts showing angels guiding the pen of the apostles. This view doesn't explain the multitude of errors that exist in matters of geography, history, science, etc. :)

Could your concept of inspiration be "thought inspired"? Then how does one explain Psalms that reek of hatred like the one we have discussed? They are evil thoughts. Does God inspire evil thoughts? No? Then this view of inspiration won't do either. :)

To quote wikipedia "Catholic apologetic considers the scriptures first as merely a historical source". But this raises a problem. If the bible is merely a historical resource then it is merely a fallible human document. But this raises a problem. You can NEVER logically gain infalible information from a fallible source. It is a contradiction in terms. So all catholic doctrine would have to be held tentatively. This view would have to be be rejected by you as well. :)

Finally we have the neo-conservative view. It holds that inspiration of God occurs when the mere historical resource & the reader get together. But according to this view view the bible means whatever the reader wishes it to mean. So which view do you hold Martin?

Now some corrections:

You wrote that divorce was prohibited by Jesus except for adultery & that this shocked everyone who heard. Wrong!
Many Pharisees had advocated the same thing for over a century. Hardly shocking by Jesus' time.

You wrote that Jesus was executed because he taught that he was the messiah. Wrong! In point of fact Jesus was executed by the Romans because they saw him as a political threat to Roman rule. They couldn't have cared less about his claims to messiahship.

With respect Martin please learn about history & scripture before you argue about it.

Numbat,

“I have no hatred for any moslem but for the stupid death-loving pagan religion YES!”

Let me share a story: in 1983 after high school graduation, a bunch of Islamists at Uni picked on us, Moslems who went to Christian/ Catholic schools.

Our response was: what do you have against Christians or Catholics? ISn’t some of our best teachers here at uni are, in fact Christian?

His response was exactly like yours: “I don’t hate them, its their religion”.

Interesting to see religious wackos have a lot more in common than they think.

Coach,

Your comments define exactly what is wrong with Christianity today: philosophy!
The difference between Judaism/ Islam and Christianity is people like you who insist in ‘philosophical inserts’ in religion.

Bosk - for the record:

Jesus on DIVORCE:

[Matthew 19:1-12]-

Then the Pharisees arrived with a test-question.

"Is it right," they asked, "for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds whatever?"

"Haven't you read," he answered, "that the one who created them from the beginning 'made them male and female' and said: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?

So they are no longer two separate people but one. No man therefore must separate what God has joined together."

"Then why," they retorted, "did Moses command us to give a written divorce-notice and dismiss the woman?"

"It was because you knew so little of the meaning of love that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives! But that was not the original principle. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife on any grounds except her unfaithfulness and marries some other woman commits adultery."

His disciples said to him, "If that is a man's position with his wife, it is not worth getting married!"

________________
Jesus Execution - note Pilate's (Romans) attitude

Matthew 27

22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They (jews) all answered, "Crucify him!"
23"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
24When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
25All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!

Bosk, numbat was saying that the law has been superseded in the New Testament; this is the difference to Judaism. Of course she knows that Jews don’t acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah.

I deliberately gave my personal definition of a pacifist so there would be no misunderstanding, and concluded Jesus was not one by my definition. If Jesus’ wasn’t then MLK Jr wasn’t one either. I’d like a word for those great souls, champions of non-violent resistance, that won’t be confused with my definition of a pacifist.

I said the Quran as a book lacks context, not Mohammed. But since you brought it up. It is many times more difficult trying to prove Mohammed was an historical figure than it is Jesus, yet you have no problem with accepting M’s historicity but trot out E.Doherty who doesn’t believe Jesus exists. You can’t have your cake and eat it too Bosk.

But anyway given you missed the point this is what I was talking about.

"When reviewing the primary papers of any dogma we must be mindful that context comes in three forms. There is the context of historical chronology-that of circumstance, place, people, and time. There is the context of adjacency -the proximity of related words and thoughts within the writings themselves. And context can be topical; in this case similar themes can be brought together and organized by subject. All forms of context provide clarity.
Unfortunately, the Qur'an fails its faithful on all three counts. The book lacks any semblance of chronology. It is deficient when it comes to providing the required context of place, people, and time. Adjacent verses are usually unrelated and often contradictory."

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

You should check for yourself what a disorganised mishmash the Quran is, (twenty percent is incomprehensible). It requires other texts, the Sunnah, to interpret it.

You have too great a confidence in the power of your reasoning Bosk. You haven’t proved M was not a paedophile. Read this debate with a Grand Ayatollah from Iran

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/montazeri1.htm

Numbat-I was talking about Christians claiming a heritage-go reread my posts.

Numbat says: "As well there are over 300 prophecies about His first coming ALL that's ALL or EVERYONE of them have been fulfilled" QED if Chistianity was so independent from the Jews why bother 'fulfill' these prophecies? To claim the Jewish Heritage. Add what I said in previous posts and you're just helping me make my case watertight.

"Fancy here we have the Eternal God who wrote through the Israelites two Testaments" that is your opinion. Numbat there is absolutely no point saying one book is the word of God because the book says so, and then when another book does the same thing, ie claims it is the word of God because it says so, say its a bunch of lies. Its so hypocritical of you to claim that God was behind the Old and New Testament when the religion of the OT has rejected the New Testament with as much passion as you now reject Islam. Mohammed saw the way Christianity just hijacked the Jewish Heritage and decided he could do the same. He copied Christianity. If Christianity is going to use that tactic how can it complain if someone else follows their example?

Which brings me to Martin. What's the point of quoting to me parts of the NT saying its the Truth, etc? You think if the Bible says 'I'm telling the truth, I am good and I am all powerful' then I'm going to sit back and say 'oh yeah of course you are because you say you are'? As they say-every criminal in prison swears he's innocent and every politician makes promises he has no intention of keeping.

"Then add the words of non-violence against agression,"-quote from Martin about Jesus. That is pacifism Martin. I also agree with Bosk there's a third option with pacifism that is neither bending the neck to tyrants nor being violent.

I have read the Gospels and the Koran, I haven't read the Sunnah Hadiths but I am not going to race off and read them right now.

I'm not saying Islam is better than Christianity-I am saying that Islam is modelled on Christianity in many ways and its about time Christianity looked at the similarities and realised its those similarities that make Islam both so successful and so dangerous as it has Chrisitanity. Your eyes are clear to perceive Islam's faults and are blinded when christian faults are mentioned. What did you say about the slavery and the support for dictators? That its not relevant to today? That's what Moslems say about Ayeesha. Father/Son-peas in a pod.

Do you know what pacifism means? It means a belief in peace. Martin Luther thought he was a pacifist even if you don't: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/peace-&-war/start/peace-portraits/king-martin-luther.htm

Bosk-I brought up Islam. I didn't realise that it was going to make Numbat so polemical, but if you read my posts I bring up other religions left, right and centre but noone commented until I mentioned Islam and then the fireworks started.

At this point things are getting very circular. I feel like withdrawing because I am just repeating myself.

Chrisitanity doesn't encourage rationality-it encourages blind faith, and arguing with people talking about their blind faith, who don't accecpt any authority outside the bible, who say they accept uncritically the Bible as the absolute Truth even when they concede they don't take the whole Bible literally and think parts of it are irrelevant to today.

I concede I don't take the whole Bible literally and think parts of it are irrelevant for today and therefore I cannot in all conscience believe that it's the Ultimate Truth or Divine Revelation. Anyone that can do both is being hypocritical-it doesn't make sense. I can understand people saying the NT changes the OT which is why I try to confine my discussions to the NT where possible, but there's no logical explanation offered by christians on this list for how they justify their belief of part only and the whole of the Bible at the same time as yet.