Well this is heating up nicely, isn't it?

Boaz first.

You continue to spin the story that while the Bible is metaphor, the Koran is literal.

You must be aware that there are many Christian groups who insist that the Bible should be read literally too.

“Not only CAN we take the Bible literally, but we MUST take the Bible literally... Many today will read a verse or passage of Scripture, and then will give their own definitions to the words, phrases, or paragraphs. But, this is not what God intended... We should take the Bible literally because the Lord Jesus Christ also took the Bible literally... As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, Jesus answered and quoted the Old Testament. It is clear from the context that He took the Bible literally”

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html

So it would appear that you are simply being selective in your use of evidence. Again.

Horus.

You assume that because I noticed that you lumped together “cultures & religions”, that I myself believe they should be separate.

Not so. I was merely expressing surprise that a Christian apologist should consider them one and the same.

GZTan

Thanks for the intemperate serve, complete with an exhortation to “listen up”, in which I am labelled hypocritical, intolerant, lecturing, presumptuous and putting myself on a pedestal.

Insults certainly avoid the need to address what I said.

Poor form, GZ.

Numbat

I didn't understand a word of your “argument”.

So nothing new there.

Coach

Once again you have the last word.

>>...when someone threatens to convert you and your children, gazump your political system, abrogate your laws, change your social habits forever, etc… – you don’t walk away – you react<<

Yep. When that happens, or even looks like happening, I'll be there at the barricades.

In the meantime, I hold to my opinion that you are inventing the enemy and his intentions simply for your own aggrandizement, and that of your religion.

Pericles,

Why omit from that impressive list my not-too-subtle suggestion of a lack in open-mindedness, etc... ?

You wrote (paraphrased): "...the need to address WHAT I SAID."
I sense an arrogance here.... I suppose this implies you couldn't be bothered addressing the question I put to you. So g'bye and g'luck!

ps. I did incorrectly spelt Judas' name (as Judah)... so much for my Biblical knowledge.
.

GZTan,

>>Why omit from that impressive list my not-too-subtle suggestion of a lack in open-mindedness, etc... ?<<

Lack of space, firstly, but also because it didn't make an awful lot of sense.

You asked

>>--> What do you understand by being open-minded?<<

Leaving aside the crude innuendo of my understanding being somehow different from others, being open-minded involves being able - and willing - to see more than one aspect of a situation or issue.

In your last post, you observed

>>Your questioning me whether I implied "turn the other cheek" is love..etc... You are way off the mark. Indications are that your misunderstanding of my arguments is nearly complete, which speaks volume about your intellect. Even your remark unintentionally admitted this likelihood: "... danger of over-intellectualizing..."<<

GZ, that is pure bluster. You stated a position, I questioned it, and all you respond with is insults and bluster.

To reiterate, no-one, including myself, is suggesting that tolerance involves turning a blind eye to evil or wrongdoing of any kind. To suggest that in order to be tolerant, you have to tolerate absolutely anything, is pure nonsense.

But exercising tolerance in our daily lives by finding a way to live with the beliefs and customs of others is, in fact, a sign of an advanced civilization.

The examples I gave were, I still believe, relevant.

The ability to metaphorically turn the other cheek is a form of tolerance. It isn't a perfect example, I will grant, but it fits.

The other example showed intolerance, in the form of an explicit threat that if you disagreed with Jesus, and informed on him to the authorities, you would be punished - you'd "wish you hadn't been born".

Sounds more like an episode of the Sopranos.

Pericles,

No quite !

'ABILITY' is an intellectual issue.
'TO SEE' is not about open-mindedness. It's only perception.
'WILLING TO SEE' is not being open-minded, because no outcome is implied. (What's the point of seeing everything that there is to see, if perception does not change a thing?)

My definition of being open-minded, in an idealist sense is:

--> A willingness to see and change, without prejudice.

I'm not saying to be open-minded one must change. Rather, it's about a preparedness to change. Whether one actually changes (or is able to change) is something else.

'without prejudice' is vital in open-mindedness. To see something in isolation, in its own merit, without any preconceived idea is definitely a part of being open-minded, in its purest sense.

In reality, no one is completely without prejudice because we all leverage upon our previous learnings, which is something else- an intellectual issue, quite separate from being open-minded.

Your preconceived opinion of others affects your ability to see things from others' viewpoint. This is definitely not being open-minded.

The saying goes: "love conquers all". "turn the other cheek", if not viewed in the context of love, is purely mechanical, nothing to do with tolerance at all. Tolerance (a loveless one) is when one's cheek is first hit and not retaliate FOR A (self-serving) REASON.

I read a sense of inevitability in Judas betrayal of Jesus. But no, bearing the consequence of one's deed has nothing to do with tolerance.

Assuming Judas understood his fate ahead, and so he begged God to 'change the course of history' such that someone else were to be the traitor.... God refused, insisting that it had to be him, then I would say God/Jesus is intolerant, unfair and unloving. But it wasn't like that.

You may say it's unfair someone had to go to hell for his deeds. I have no answer except- All attempts by BD and Coach to preach heaven to FH come to nothing. Do you think it's God's intolerance that FH is so stubborn? FH certainly does not believe there's anything to worry about.

F.H. first.

Mate.. say what you will, you and I both know that a substantial amount of Islamic law and practice is based on....wait for it.. the Hadith.. yes, exactly. Muslim and Bukhari, Abu Daud etc. are considered 'Authentic' hadith right ? Hence their use by muslim scholars as a basis for law. So, I must reject the BS claim and also such terminology in a debate about issues.

The situation in Rwanda ? Simple.
The Tutsi rebels were picking off Hutu Politicians and leaders one by one over time. So, the Hutu reacted in a rather 'clean sweep' way.
That was a political act not a religious one. As for them being 'Christian' ? good grief.. you would need to know the heart condition of each person involved, and what they say about their relationship with God. AGAIN..you are ascribing an Islamic concept of 'community' to Christianity which is invalid. People are born Muslims, they are only born AGAIN into Christ.

PERICLES my my.. if you read further in that article you would find this:

["First, just because you take the Bible literally does not mean that there are not figures of speech. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside,"]

"If your hand sins CUT IT OFF"..... how many times have I said.. this allows you TWO sins. Clearly not literal.

You are guilty of the same debating crime you charge me with "selectivity".

So, in understanding a document, it comes back to the same basics of understanding ANY document.

I am selective in an appropriate way.. choosing definative statements where the interpretation is corroborated by representative members of that faith itself. Why argue with 'me' ?

"Kill those who insult the prophet".
Assassination of Ka'b bin Al Ashraf. (Hadith)

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm (TODAY)

"Fighting to Establish Islamic state."

Hadith Muslim book 1 number 30,31,32

http://www.qss.org/archives/aqeedah/ch12.html (TODAY)
SCROLL to para/line 103.

Boaz,

Although I never swear I feel I can swear you are a goldfish: Why do you keep repeating the same rhetoric over and over again? Which part of 'hadith-is-not-compulsory-in-Islam' you don't understand?
Can you become a Muslim while rejecting the whole hadith? the answer is a simple 'yes'.
Hadith is collected few centuries after the prophet's death and 99% of muslims use 5% of the hadith. Is this simple, plain, enough?

So, Rwanda, Crusades, Nazi Germany, anything 'christian' for the last 2000 years have a 'political interpretation'...Sounds like good double standards to me.. Isn't GWB 'inspired by God and on a mission from God'?

Enjoy a sunny weekend on the beach and keep away from white sheets with holes, dungeons, secret tower meetings and stuff like that..

GZTan,

All I am asking your fellow mob is get us mossies out of your system.
Your 'brother' Boaz spends his life on Muslim forums aggrevating young muslims and cannot see he is part of the problem.

Do you see a Muslim on this forum or any other forum mocking Jesus or your faith? The answer is a simple no. So enjoy your beliefs and share them with others without 'infringing' someone else beliefs.
I thought this would be a basic 'Australian value'.

Pericles,

I am enjoying your logic and persistence. You stumbled on the CTMA (Christian Taliban movement of Australia). Good luck and if Boaz offers you a lunch I would suggest a food taster!

Peace,