F.H. I presume 'this guy is in the news' because Time magazine has a vested political/social interest in promoting 'moderate' Islam mate.

Far more influential than he would be Bin Ladin.

In any case, the bloke might be a bit of a visionary, he might be peddling a brand of Islam that Time magazine approves of....so.. they give him a bit of a lift up.

There..I've answered your question :) Now...come away from those ropes.. I've stopped whacking you now.. the bell has rung *DING*... we are in our corners and able to reflect on the round just gone by.

While reflecting, you might like to consider this:

1/ "Is the Quran the 'sent down' word of Allah" ?
2/ Why the discrepancy between 9:30 (destroy them) and the 'friendly' verses ?

Serious now.. Allah cannot have 2 minds on the one thing can he? I'm sure he does not throw up some coins and say "heads" -'destroy'.."Tails" -'be friends'

Context of 9:30 is quite clear, but by all means elaborate further.

-Tabuk Campaign.
-Christians allied with Byzantines
-Mohammad seeks to change their alliegance to him.

What troubles me about this verse, is that all the translations of the Quran show 'Allah is at war with them' kind of sentiment, but again..its based not on their loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor as you would expect...it is based on their core beliefs about the Son of God.
This being so, it is entirely reasonable to assume that this is 'the mind of Allah' towards Christians and Jews for all time.

Ok.. minute break is over *DING*....next round :)

Yvonne,
My challenge wasn't intended to remove Buddhism further than Christianity from the 'truth'. The intention was to challenge the common (Gen X) perception that Buddhism is nobler than the monotheistic faiths.

You wrote: "Islam should be interesting for Christians to study. One of their tenets is that some of the teachings of Jesus Christ has been manipulated by some with a vested interest in the early beginnings of the Christian church. Would it be wrong to look at why Islam thinks this?"

I have written a paper in the last month which addressed this very issue. After spending time in a Mosque and with Muslim leaders, I found that their beliefs on Jesus are far removed from an orthodox Christian understanding. Much of their views are not based on primary sources, but on the work of scholars.

The biggest discrepancy was found when they conveyed what they thought Christians believed. Some of it would have been laughable in a different context. But being in the volatile environment of the 21st Century, it is hardly so.

On the topic of the Bible's historicity, one will find many a source and evidence of the Gospel's which date back to the generation following Christ's death, not to mention the Canon being accepted as early as the 2nd Century.

[But I digress because this is a topic for another day... perhaps on another thread?]

Jesus Christ disqualified Himself from being just another wise Rabbi or Prophet. His teaching was profound, but His proclamation was even more so, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (Jn 14:6)

Sam said,

Thanks for the response, but you have not addressed the type of atrocities that I mentioned. They are common and do occur in many Buddhist cultures. Start with the Kh'mer and work your way around from culture to culture. Only then will you realise how different their worldview is to our Western one.

I recognise the need to let the rubber of faith meet the road. No amount of spiritualising will substitute for this.

'TR,.....I am actually surprised you couldn’t see through that. Your earlier comments sounded like those of an analytical mind.'

Fellow_Human, I think that you're being overwrought here. The tone of my previous post was obviously not too serious. Also, I don't always have to analytical in my posts. Religion can be a bit of a joke and doesn't always deserve to be over-analysed in a serious way.

But since you would rather me be analytical, he's something to think about. Quite obviously you missed the most salient bit of the whole remonstration. That is;

Ms. Sultan: "I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it."

Angry Sheik person: "Are you a heretic?"

Ms. Sultan: "You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural."

Western society is currently going through a painful period of self-examination whereby we are trying to come to terms with the collapse of Christianity and its revealed book, the Bible. This reassessment of cultural identity is our 21st century Renaissance and is personified by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Kurtz and Onfray.

Ms. Sultan has highlighted this point beautifully and has also pointed out that Islam should also go through the same resassessment. In other words, montheism has run its course and is no longer believable or tenable in a closely knit and globalised planet. Monotheism is just not worth the Trouble with a capital 'T'.

The real Islamic renaissance will occur when it gives up its addiction to the supernatural and embraces the whole of the humanity -not just those societies who adhere to a myopic and irrational set of orthopraxic dogma.

Lastly, I would love to see women like Ms. Sultan being a typical example of a citizen from an Islamic society. Indeed, we should all be encouraging gutsy women like her - now there's another lesson from the Al-Jazeerah interview for you Fellow_Human.

Aqvarivs, thank you.

Sam said, fair enough about everyone being flawed. (I wasn’t suggesting that Buddhists are especially so, I was just saying “Welcome to the human race”.)

I used to say, “You can hear the wind whistling through an open mind”. I’m not opposed to being generally open-minded: I have a few startup ideas, that I am utterly committed to, and I usually qualify other assertions with “as presently advised”. However –

i) my startup commitments are non-negotiable, and not “open”;

ii) my principal source of illumination and guidance is God, especially Jesus;

iii) you, too, have a startup position, namely, “One ought to be open-minded because an open-mind is the best, or the only, means of seeking and approaching the truth, or God”. My words, I realise, but suffice to say you do have a firm startup position – so firm that you are recommending it to other people just as I recommend Jesus. This is not a criticism of you;

iv) science also has a startup position – empiricism. It’s just assumed. From then on, the scientist looks open-minded.

TR: Christians are required to love all humans, without exception. Their reason for doing so is at least comparable (I would say superior) to any other reason I’ve ever heard of. So, you are wrong to suggest that Christianity does not “embrace the whole of the humanity”. Meanwhile, any reference to “the collapse of Christianity” is premature and wishful. Just too soon to say with such confidence. So far, I’m less impressed with Dawkins and Harris than I’m supposed to be. So far, I see an extremely colourful and entertaining satire of monotheism, a lot of pride in their own intellect, certainly no love (esp on the part of Dawkins) and arguments that are, so far, less impressive than I was given to expect. And, in any event, Dawkins et al are speaking to me from inside their little empiricist box. I could hear them better if they opened their box, but they won’t.

Pax,

BOAZ_David,

Now I understand why Rabbi Hillel put the summary of the law the other way round.

He said, anything that is hateful to you, do not do to others, that is the whole law the rest is all commentary.

That takes care of your neighbor trying to burn down your house, you can stop him, if the roles were reversed it would not be hateful to you to be stopped.

By the way, Hillel lived BEFORE Jesus.