TurnLeftThenRight
You say that you are getting a bit sick of people of different faiths criticising other faiths to try and make their own look a bit better. But I don’t see how that is much different to what you’re doing.

It seems your position is that all religions are just ancient superstition, and by implication they are all wrong. Does that make you an atheist or an agnostic? You highlight the strictest parts of the Levitical law, and say that this represents (or ought to represent) Christianity.

Are you not attempting to make Christianity look bad to help make your position look good?

It can be tiresome when non-believers are telling us what we ought to believe, or telling us erroneously what we do believe. But some criticism is healthy. It is good that the Christian faith can be treated as an open book. The Christian bible can be studied, analysed and criticised by anyone who cares to open its pages. Our faith has a literary foundation. Maybe I can’t speak for Muslims, but I think they say the same thing.

Plenty criticise the Bible, but I think it stands up well to all challenges.

As for Levitical law, Christians are guided in their interpretation of it by the New Testament, which is clear and consistent. For the last two thousand years, Christians have not been bound by Levitical law pertaining to sabbaths, circumcisions, food restrictions, etc.

We are bound only by the law of love, (e.g. Galatians 5:6) I invite you to read it again in this light.

And we are free to follow our faith to the letter.

Mick - what I'm trying to do, is point out all faiths have their ugly parts. You're probably right in saying that agnosticism and atheism share similar properties.

The sole reason why I highlight leviticus and sections of the bible, is to point out that Christianity must be interpreted in a palatable fashion, or it could very well be seen as including barbaric practices.

What bothers me, is when people single out these facets of Islam. I frequently hear posters here try and tell muslims that if they are moderate, "they are better than their faith would have them be."

That's rot to me - you can't tell someone of another faith how they should be interpreting their religion. I'm not telling you to take leviticus literally, but I'm saying it isn't fair to hammer muslims via a literal interpretation of the Koran.

I bring up ancient superstition, because many point out that muslims have to believe the koran because it is supposedly the literal word of god - the thing is, when it's all religion, who determines where the interpretation of ancient texts is gods literal word, and the word of those interpreting it?

Basically, I'm saying when religions criticise one another on these grounds, it's essentially throwing stones while in glass houses. It's hypocritical and unfair, because it can be applied to other faiths as well - though Islam is the current whipping boy, so it cops more abuse.

Mick, you say Christians follow their faith to the letter - which letter is the right one? Is it the church of the Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Protestants, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, that of the Uniting Church, Brethren, Exclusive Brethren...

TRTL.. to answer your question about 'which' ones are right :) Well of course its we 'Bretho's :)
Yessss...I'm kidding mate. We are just more right than all the rest 0_- ok..still kidding.

Regarding your interaction with Mick V he makes a strong point that the Levitical law was not set down for obedience for the Church and this issue was settled at the first Jerusalem Council which you can read about in Acts 15.

The NT is indeed our guide for interpreting and applying the Old Testament. The Levitical punishments tell us God's abhorrence for particular kinds of sin in the social context, and we would be wise to structure our societies to reflect this, but I would not advocate the specific punishments of Leviticus.

PERICLES.
-The "Islamic" head scalf is symbolic of Islam.
-The Islamic faith is what gives the "Islamic" headscalf its meaning.
-At the fundamental level of 'Islam' as a religion, we may take the Scalf as being symbolic of that.
-Individuals wearing that scalf may NOT neccessarily adhere to the fundamentals of Islam, but this does not change it's symbolic meaning.
-The "Islamic" head scalf has not been given any other meaning than that it symbolizes the wearers relationship to Allah 'VIA ISLAM'.
-The Swastika as you point out, had an original meaning different from the Nazi use. But this leads to the issue of CONTEXT. If a Swastika is displayed at a NeoNazi rally, we all know what it means.
-The NUNs Habit stands for both the 'Christian' aspect (in RC eyes) AND the Historical Catholic aspect. (good and bad)

You still don't get it, Boaz.

Try this little game. I have taken your words and simply substituted Christian for Islamic. Take a look at how it reads.

"The "Christian" cross is symbolic of Christianity.
-The Christian faith is what gives the "Christian" cross its meaning.
-At the fundamental level of 'Christianity' as a religion, we may take the Cross as being symbolic of that.
-Individuals wearing that cross may NOT neccessarily adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity, but this does not change it's symbolic meaning.
-The "Christian" cross has not been given any other meaning than that it symbolizes the wearers relationship to Jesus 'VIA Christianity'.
-The Swastika as you point out, had an original meaning different from the Nazi use. But this leads to the issue of CONTEXT. If a Swastika is displayed at a NeoNazi rally, we all know what it means.
-The NUNs Habit stands for both the 'Christian' aspect (in RC eyes) AND the Historical Catholic aspect. (good and bad)"

Does that help you understand that your arguments are going nowhere? While the above may be in some vague manner "true", it is also meaningless.

It also fails completely to support your earlier assertion:

>>Symbols can have meaning attritubuted [sic] them the AT their inception, AND they can be given different or additional meaning as time goes by according to their use. Now that wasn't hard was it ?<<

Or an earlier one:

>>Symbols have an 'inherrant' [sic] meaning based on their origin, and HISTORIC meaning given by those who use it rightly or wrongly in the course of their own lives.<<

Or your original assertion that the headscarf if symbolic of historic actions:

>>Islamic Head Scalf.... Genocide... Cursing of other specific religions and races... Death for simply insulting their prophet... Death for rejecting their prophet... Justification of wife beating... Prostitution ... Child exploitation/ sexual abuse of female children etc.<<

... an assertion that you proceeded to reject when transposed into the context of the cross, and crusaders' massacre of innocents in 1099.

Do yourself a favour. Walk away from this one.

Pericles not at all mate...

You problem is that you are tying to tie down a subjective issue in much too narrow terms.

Substituting the 'Cross' for Hijab is quite ok with me, because that list does not threaten me at all.

You fail to recognize that one major point which I've been harping on for (it seems like) decades now....

AT THE ROOT of Islam, at its core, at it's founder, you will find all those awful things which I've described ad nauseam. But at the Root, core and founder of Christianity, (Jesus and the Apostles) you will not.
You WILL find some unspeakable nasties in the history of ChristenDOM and I've never argued otherwise. I've even reported some in a recent thread.

I think its fair to say that in a Catholic Context, and to some degree Anglican (if one looks at the history of those faiths in England and the RC in older history (crusades etc)) Then this is the territory of 'historic' meaning and symbolic value. So, it depends to a degree on who is holding it, and what the current position of the Church is regarding various doctrines.

We can argue the toss about the accumulated or historically attributed baggage of the Cross, but there is nothing to argue about in regard to its foundational meaning in the Christian context.

Just as there is nothing to argue about for the Hijab/scalf in its symbolism of "Islam" (in contrast to it being simply a 'cultural symbol of nominal muslims).. the Hijab remains a strong symbol of all the fundamental and historically cruel aspects of Islam AT its absolute beginning, and this is where your own argument loses its wind.

You've gone to considerable trouble and effort to refute my position, and its made good discussion and enabled some reflection, but in the end I don't think you have laid a glove on my central point.
cheers.

The answer is still no.

>>the Hijab remains a strong symbol of all the fundamental and historically cruel aspects of Islam AT its absolute beginning, and this is where your own argument loses its wind<<

Those are good brave words Boaz, but they are not supported by any of your arguments to date.

>>Substituting the 'Cross' for Hijab is quite ok with me, because that list does not threaten me at all<<

Well of course it doesn't, that's the whole point. There is absolutely nothing in either paragraph that should disturb anyone. This is a fundamental recognition of the fact that a symbol only has meaning to the observer, and absolutely none in and of itself.

But the amazing thing is, you do actually understand and agree with what I am saying, it is just that you can't bring yourself to accept it.

>>You problem is that you are tying to tie down a subjective issue in much too narrow terms<<

That's the word, Boaz. It is a subjective issue. This means that there is no "objective truth" to be whittled from this raw stick of an argument, simply an acknowledgement of the way we feel, inside of us.

You feel threatened by the hijab. You don't feel threatened by the cross. Fine and dandy, and absolutely as it should be - it is your mind, and you will make your own evaluations and decisions.

But that does not give you leave to spread the notion that your fear should be everybody's fear. That your distaste for Islam, and by association the hijab, should be shared by the rest of the world.

>>You've gone to considerable trouble and effort to refute my position, and its made good discussion and enabled some reflection, but in the end I don't think you have laid a glove on my central point<<

True, there's no touching your "central point".

But since you have clearly and unequivocally come around to my point of view, there's no need, is there?