From the perspective of this unbeliever we have a bad news – good news story here.

--The bad news is that most Christians don't follow Christ's teachings as set out in the Gospels.

--The good news is that most Muslims, in Western countries anyway, don't follow the teachings of the koran. And for that let us gave thanks to whatever deity may exist.

More to the point I want to congratulate David Palmer on an exceptionally well thought out essay. It introduces a much needed dose of reality into Christian – Muslim dialogue.

Secularists who want to enter into dialogue with Muslims should also take note of David Palmer's insights

Steve....

The only reason Muslims call for 'dialogue' is that they are not a superpower. I don't find Muslims in Saudi Arabia calling for 'dialogue' with expatriot_Christians about anything.

Mohammad, mocked by the town of Ta'if when he was just a weak itinerant_preacher; returned with an Army and beseiged them.. they folded and embraced_Islam, being totally cutoff from all possible help.

THE_PROBLEM. When Muslims come to dialogue with Christians.. as David said "It is to call them to Islam". If genuine Christians meet with Muslims, it is to call them to repentance, faith in Christ and salvation and worship of the One True God who has spoken with absolute finality in Christ.

Mucking around trying to find 'common ground' is plain silly. You cannot have 'common ground' which remains static between 2 mutually exclusive faiths, one of which is doctrinally and militarily hostile to the other.

BACKGROUND. The call to 'find common ground' is remeniscent of the very early Muslims who fled Mecca and Quraysh persecution to Etheopia, where they pleaded with King Negus using early passages from the Quran which impressed the Christian king that they were at least 'on the same chapter' if not the same page spiritually.

But a few years in religion, can change much. The later chapters of the Quran emerged from a now more powerful Mohammad, so he writes to the same Negus:

"Embrace Islam and you will safe" Now..this is where 'history and chronology' have much to teach us.

All the 138 Muslims need to do to show 'true good faith' is add an apendix to their letter as follows:

"And we commit to allowing Churches to be built in Saudi Arabia and all Muslim countries" and BINGO.. they would have some credibility.

ABROGATION. To understand Islam truly, one must know about 'Abrogation'. If an earlier verse (the Christian friendly ones) is abrograted(contradicted) by a later one.. the later applies.
Hence..when evaluating "Muslim statements which include friendly Quranic quotes" one must absolutely know about this and interpret the statement accordingly.

Surah 9,(the warlike one) abrogates surah 2 (the friendly one) in this regard.

David Palmer is certainly insightful with his article and correctly calls the dialogue involving the so called representatives of half the worlds population at best, "a truce".

Western civilization’s delinquent knowledge of the Islamic faith leaves us naïve to many of its tenets. There are many aspects to Islam - many of which are moderate, but what is being invoked, however, feeds the intemperate. So, rather than go back to the fundamentals of each religion lets go back rather to some basic principles. Many branches of Islam do not take 'al -Taqiyya' totally to heart - a from of deceit which literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies" Let me also stress, in almost every reference to taqiyya in Islam it is held that there are only a very few times when it is permissible. However, it can be invoked by certain Muslims when interacting with government and law enforcement where giving damaging information on another Muslim is concerned - so, there are critical exceptions. The 'lie',in principle, is therefore permissible. Within the Shi'ite Islamic tradition it is a perfectly acceptable tenet. Need I mention also, Ahmadinejad, a devoted Shi’ite, has indicated without reservation his blind faith to Islam. Let's not be naïve therefore as to who exactly we are dealing with and understand its dire implication within Middle East politics.

Moderate Muslims in a secular society therefore need to denounce certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures, along with the basis of Tawhid, nubuwwa, and qiyãma , which form the so called constitution of Islam. They also need to totally and honestly reject the punishment of death as prescribed by the shari`ah for apostasy - i.e.the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam. This is all a big ask. I'm skeptical that the majority of professing Muslims are able to do this (even if willing) - I'd like to be proved wrong.

Absolutely correct Stevenlmeyer, David Palmer is to be congratulated. Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs. I'm not too sure which version, as it seems that they can't decide between them which is the right one either.

David

VK3AUU: "Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs"

I would have thought that would be an area of 'common ground', given the example of some of the godbotherers in this forum. In fact, I don't think I've read anything here from a proselytising Muslim, while we're subjected to biblical babble here on a daily basis - from several raving religionists of the Christian variety.

Given that we can't ban religions, as a society we should consciously foster secularism as our dominant worldview. For example, the Federal government should remove all direct and indirect funding of religious agencies and schools, and redirect the funds into schools and organisations that articulate and practise rational, secular objectives.

We can't get rid of religious delusions and their inherent conflicts, but we can certainly make them less attractive and authoritative. Our society and culture can and should remove any imprimatur that religion asserts - in fact it's inevitable that secularisation will continue. Let's encourage it.

The author of this piece is a Convener (lit: "the member of a group whose duty it is to convene meetings") of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria Church and Nation Committee, which position apparently qualifies him to indulge in all sorts of speculation:

>>...the letter from the 138 Muslim scholars and leaders is an invitation to the Church’s leaders to become Muslims<<

That is a fairly insulting claim. Where is his evidence?

>>Christian leaders for their part... must make clear their own adherence to the far richer revelation of the triune God given through Scripture and in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ<<

Why should they bother to do this, when neither side would be prepared to budge one doctrinal millimeter?

What is wrong with putting religion aside for the purposes of making the world a safer place, and in doing so, take responsibility for the example that you set to those who choose to follow you?

Is that too hard?

>>...issues such as the right of both Muslims and Christians anywhere to worship freely and to proselytise, even the right to proselytise persons of each other’s faith<<

Worship freely, yes of course.

But it is deceitful to put a "right to proselytise" in the same basket. In fact, it would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities.

Instantly, the world would be a better place to live, for all except those who make a living from the business of adversarial religion.

>>In the first place agreeing on what the unity of God means is impossible<<

True, but it shouldn't even be a question - being fundamentally irrelevant to the purpose of the talks.

It is patently pointless to convene a summit to discover which religion is "right".

One final point. When discussing issues such as this - and further, quoting additional texts that support the straw man you have set up - it is generally considered polite to provide a link to the source document under discussion.

I'm sure the author meant to do it, but forgot.

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1

senate vote?
australians check www.un.org
use information at united nations to help work a better role for us in most of the forum questions

A dialogue is better than war and it's a bit like Catholic-Protestant dialogue or Christian-Marxist dialogue in the last century. The extremists on both sides might call for total conversion to their point of view but the rest of us look for common ground. In that light I would not refer to Bernard Lewis, a guru for George Bush and proponent of a Clash of Civilisations. He's only "renowned" in certain circles not really interested in dialogue.

There are theocrats in Christianity as well as Islam (and Judaism) but fortunately not a majority. Calvin's Geneva is the model for many of them.

A dialogue is important to counter some of the hate being spewed out on both sides, like some of the stuff put out recently by the so-called Christian Democratic Party in NSW or the line put out by the Catch the Fires ministry in Victoria.

There are some voices of moderate Islam calling for dialogue in Australia as well as India (Asgar Ali Engineer), Malaysia (Chandra Muzaffar)), Europe (Tariq Ramadan), and so on.
Responding to their call is an important way forward.

Why is it that so many people, especially the zealots of the Western socialist Left, refuse to take orthodox Muslims and Jihadists at their own word? When a large group of very fanatical people repeatedly say that they will do everything in their power to sabotage and undermine the economies of western nations . . . when they openly declare their intent to increase the Muslim population in western nations, through a higher birthrate and the West's own foolishly generous immigration policies . . . when Islamists use intimidation to enforce Sharia law even in the concentrated Muslim communities of western Europe -- in defiance of the laws of their host countries . . . when radical Muslim activists, like Mr. Choudury in England, declare that democratic government is "evil", and that Muslims will subject the west to Islamic rule even if it takes 200 years . . . . is it not reasonable to take them seriously? Do we think they are joking? Do we think their bravado is just hyperbole?
It is becoming increasingly tedious to listen to the whining of Muslims as they complain about alleged western "imperialism". Very seldom is their own interpretation of imperialism actually defined with any specificity. I cannot count the number of times I have heard some Muslims refer to even a simple western TRADE presence in the Middle East as an act of imperialism.

Let's use a bit of simple logic.. for those calling for a 'fair' dialogue and those wishing not to force or proselytise the religion of one on to another.

In a dialogue among 'believers', it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other -
that presumes an equality of religions, and that one can admit the legitimacy of the other. This is the element missing from the proposed debate.

First problem - No common term of reference : Muslims are generally unable to accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth through using any form of 'higher' literary critisism, because they say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith (as with the 138 Muslim scholars).

Second problem - gross hypocrisy: This was the invitation made by the Muslim scholars: "We as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.” The “Two Commandments of love” were nowhere in evidence Aug 2007, when an Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity was sentenced to death by Islamic clerics. This is currently not just an isolated incident within the Muslim world.

In today's Islam, ideas are available, especially among reformists and young intellectuals, but they are keeping quiet because freedom in the Islamic world is highly limited.
 
By refusing the so called 'olive branch', the Pope was courageous enough to identify the key points: reason, violence, hermeneutics and so not enter a meaningless debate - as required by a sensationalist media. He touched on a sore point with the question of the interpretation of the Koran, without which there can be no dialogue.

Try refuting facts perhaps - but the vehicle of narrow literalism, devoid of interpretation should not be entertained by any 'enlightened' mind. An inability to objectively critique your own 'order' makes even less objective any criticism as given to others.

From "Pericles" :

It is deceitful to put a 'right to proselytise' in the same basket. It would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities".

I doubt if I have ever read a more infantile statement.

So, "Pericles" wants to BAN proselytizing! Astounding! Where exactly does a ban on peacefully proselytizing one's own faith fit in with the principles of freedom of religious association and freedom of individual worship? A ban would certainly not sit well with the countless numbers of Muslims and radical clerics who have assumed a "right" to immigrate to the democratic nations of the West . . . and there to build thousands of mosques and madrassahs -- paid for by Muslim governments -- where a significant portion of those same clerics preach hatred against the very western societies which have given them refuge. Where indeed is the reciprocity? When will the missionaries of Catholicism, Pentacostalism, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Scientology, Nose-Pickers Anonymous and UFO worshippers be able to freely preach in Saudi Arabia? If Muslims really believe they possess the one and only "TRUTH", why should they be afraid of having those beliefs challenged in open debate in their own home countries?

If one really believes in religious freedom, putting a ban on peaceful proselytising is just as hypocritical as a ban on "blasphemy", and just as stupid and dangerous as governments giving financial support to ANY religious institution. All true-believing "fundamentalist" Muslims -- Sunni or Shia -- are taught to interpret the Quran LITERALLY. Such an interpretation is inherently a political, as well as religious, ideology. This strain of Islam has always been blatantly imperialist in its INTENT . . . from the very origin of Islamic power. It is a waste of time to argue about how many "moderate" Muslims there are, because it is not the moderates who are setting the agenda for world-wide Islamic expansion. The future belongs to the fecund and the resolute, and unfortunately, it is currently NOT the non-Muslim West which is either

relda, you are attempting to drive the argument in a direction that it does not need to go.

>>In a dialogue among 'believers', it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other - that presumes an equality of religions, and that one can admit the legitimacy of the other. This is the element missing from the proposed debate.<<

In logic, if not in "belief", it is possible to admit that all religions are not equal - without the necessity for a debate on which is greater or lesser - and simply get on with the task at hand. Which is not, whatever you might imagine, the annihilation of one and the victory of the other, simply acceptance that it is necessary to live side-by-side.

It's a fact that there are people in this world whose views differ from mine on all sorts of fundamental topics - sexuality, capital punishment, abortion, Collingwood - and yet we still find a way to muddle through without killing each other.

>>First problem - No common term of reference : Muslims are generally unable to accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth through using any form of 'higher' literary critisism<<

They are not alone. Try suggesting to Boaz that the Bible isn't infallible.

However, "higher literary criticism" - whatever that means - is not the issue here. Preventing bloodshed is.

>>the Pope was courageous enough to identify the key points: reason, violence, hermeneutics and so not enter a meaningless debate... He touched on a sore point with the question of the interpretation of the Koran, without which there can be no dialogue.<<

It appears to me that this is where the process breaks down.

Instead of talking about living side by side in peace, all the Pope wants to do is discuss religion.

That's exactly what caused the problem in the first place.

Once again, I strongly suggest that you read the document in question, and come back with some objections based on its actual content, as opposed to the content you think it might have.

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1

Pericles, may I suggest you read this response, which goes into more detail, from Mark Durie.

http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1199&Itemid=88

This "letter" from the muslim group is definitely not what it seems to the unlearned.

Pericles,

I have to agree with sonofeire. Calling for a ban on proselytising is infantile. It also defeats one of the most important rights we should be defending, the right to free speech. Free speech includes inter alia the right to proselytise.

It also includes the right to "insult" Islam or any other belief system. Free speech includes the right to say things that others may consider hurtful.

It is precisely because I had read A common word – and understood the Muslim context in which it was written - that I thought David Palmer's essay so insightful. For the lay reader he explains what it is that Muslims mean when they talk about eg "unity of God."

Palmer, if you like, deciphers the code words.

You castigate the Pope for wanting to talk religion. Have you actually read "a common word?" It is full of religion. If that is not a religious essay with its multiple quotes from holy books I don’t know what is?

You say the issue is preventing bloodshed. If that is your only issue there is an easy solution. You can always avoid bloodshed by converting to Islam.

But if you want to retain your freedom to be secular, to live in a society in which freedom of speech and religion is permitted, then a more robust approach is indicated.

Consider this:

BERLIN EXHIBITION CLOSES AFTER MUSLIM THREATS

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,538666,00.html

"The gallery is now in negotiations with the Berlin authorities in a bid to get 24-hour police protection, so that the exhibition can be re-opened, hopefully by Tuesday of next week."

For how long will the gallery and its owners require protection? Could it be for the rest of their – perhaps short – lives? The murder of Theo van Gogh shows that the threat is real.

Can the state protect those of its citizens who are deemed to have "insulted" Islam or the so-called "prophet?"

How would you deal with this sort of thing Pericles?

Pericles, you are mistaken in your belief that Pope Benedict only wants to talk religion.

The Vatican was explicit when they announced the invitation that there would be discussion on the situation of non-muslims in muslim lands. As has been pointed out here earlier, one in ten christians are living in persecution, overwhelmingly in Islamic governed countries, ie where shar'iah law is recognised. Now that's just the christians, there are other non-muslims also being persecuted.

The Vatican also mentioned reciprocity, which as Islam is allowed to be practised in the West, means opening up in Islamic controlled countries.

In my opinion, based on the Vatican's first response which was about the need for recognition of differences before meaningful talks could proceed, I don't think the Vatican had any intention of responding in writing at all. It was only after the Yale "scholars" put forward their pathetic crawling response that the Vatican saw the need to step in before they further humiliated themselves as supplicating voluntary dhimmis, and in no way helping those Christians who are suffering under the hands of these muslim hypocrits.

Further, the Vatican has for many years now a regular inter-faith group, amongst whom there are already muslim representatives.

This "common word" was nothing but a sham. Well, that's Islam :)

Pericles..! are you just plain stubborn or ignorant? It has to be one or the other.

RELDA
Western civilization’s (specially Pericles-my emphasis) delinquent knowledge of the Islamic faith leaves us naïve to many of its tenets.

VK
Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs. (not quite true, their goal is to establish the Rule of Allah/Islam)

CJ

<<while we're subjected to biblical babble here on a daily basis - from several raving religionists of the Christian variety.>>

Now.. Relda raises many areas to consider..each one requiring considerable reading, which I hope we do.
Vk shoots from the hip, but doesn't back it up with anything substantive, and hence produces the casual reply from CJ.

HISTORY AND FACT.

Pericles. I've indicated above how the early Muslims approached interaction with Christians. (King Negus)It's not 'selective', nor is it speculative, it is, as my sub heading claims 'History'...and.. 'fact'.

You can do what you like with those facts, even deny them, but that would be foolish when the sources are in fact Islamic.

So, evidence has been provided on umpteen zillion occasions, but Pericles just writes it off as 'selection to prove a point'. Rarely if ever, have I seen Pericles actually examine the issue (on Islam) before the ad-hominems come gushing forth.

Yes..we 'babbling' Christians DO.. without the slightest hesitation, want to see all 'as we are' we want to convert.. persuade, change, save, re-direct, (call it what you will)the essential core of every life we come in contact with. "That"..is the command of Christ. "Make disciples of all nations" but the Biblical method is 'proclaim and persuade' not 'beseige and bash' as it historically and doctrinally is with Islam. (9:29) Yes, we have unbiblical historic excursions into Crusading darkness, but they are unbiblical.

We have no call to establish an 'earthly' Kingdom of God in the organizational physical sense , such is not the case in Islam. 9:29 is unambiguously clear, stipulating that offensive Jihad to establish the 'Rule (on earth) of Allah' is not only permissable, but obligatory.

Despite the proactive effort by senior Muslims to enter into dialogue with their Christian counterparts in order to seek "common ground", it's doomed to failure by the hypocritical intransigence of Christian zealots and their Islamophobic cheer squads. Quite simply, they don't want any kind of rapprochement with those who represent the Islamic variant of the God delusion.

Since the non-Muslim Islamic 'scholars' here have taken it upon themselves to cherry-pick the more unpleasant bits of the Islamic book of myths, how about a few from their own book of fairy tales:

"You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9"

Stacks more at http://www.evilbible.com/ .

BOAZ on Sunday: “…you do love the adhominem don't you ‘You are dishonest/Hypocrite’. My response? I'll just stick to the issue.”

BOAZ on Tuesday: “Pericles..! are you just plain stubborn or ignorant? It has to be one or the other.”

BOAZ on Thursday (anticipated): Whatever he thinks God would like him to say, or as he puts it – “the command of Christ”.

I suppose if God commands you to be a hypocrite and dishonest, BOAZ, we can better understand why you behave as you do. But maybe you should understand that some Christian actually believe God would prefer truth and honesty, and resent you using the Lord's name as cover for your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

CJ Morgan is correct. If our culture was run on strictly Biblical (the so called "holy" book) terms, most of us would have been executed by now.

CJ if you really cared to understand Biblical revelation you would read how to interpret it from those who have spent their lives explicating, preserving and living it. If you’re not prepared to do that why should you, or the skeptical sites be given the benefit of the doubt in your assessment of it?

With limited space I can only be brief, but one important point:

Life was very different nearly four thousand years ago. Religion was inextricably linked with social cohesion, they were not able to sustain a pluralistic society like our own, religion couldn't be seperated from law, order and political leadership. The whole existence of the tribe was at stake. Tolerance of foreign religions would be tantamount to tolerating the intolerable and putting women children and family under a death sentence. A person who tried it on was putting everyone at risk.

The Roman legions had the death penalty for any centurion caught asleep at their post for obvious reasons.

The difference between the Koran and the Bible is this: There are no more Hebrews, no more Canaanites, Jewish Religious Law has been fulfilled in Jesus. Our understanding of the bible improves as our understanding and holiness improves. But for Islam, there is no historical context in the Koran, the surah have the quality of absolute unchanging decrees.

Muslims believe the Koran is uncreated/ eternal, that an exact copy exists in Heaven, that it was dictated word for word by the angel Gabriel. The Koran has the same status as Jesus in Christianity. This is utterly different revelation as the Pope explains.

A Pakistani Muslim scholar [named] Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years, gave a lecture at the Vatican. Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran, like cutting off your hand if you're a thief, or being able to have four wives, or whatever, and takes the principles behind those specific pieces of legislation for the 7th century of Arabia, and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society [in] which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures.

And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said,

“well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures [emphasis added]. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He's used his human creatures, and inspired them to speak his word to the world, and therefore by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations.”

Reading the Bible as an entire document means you have to read the Old Testament IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. This is why if you trust skeptical websites the way you do it only serves to support prejudice, you shouldn't let them insult your intelligence.

AT school I was taught about both the OT and the NT. I also studied the sciences; biology, geology, botany, physics as well as pure maths.

I find philosophy and meditation fulfils me spiritually as well as teaching me how to think.

And science fuels my curiosity - what will we learn and discover next?

I fear that belief in religion impairs rational constructive reasoning. Its influence impedes scientific research, women’s equality, acceptance of diversity. It causes war and terrorism.

And ultimately and ironically it fosters the one thing it claims to be in opposition to: HATE.

Time and time again sceptics are exhorted to study religious texts, yet when we do and still find it contradictory and implausible we are told we have studied it wrong.

If we quote from the OT we are told to read the NT, if we quote from the NT we are told we have not read it properly or are cherry picking.

Belief in religion requires suspending intelligence and reason. I prefer to remain in a rational world - not one full of retribution and superstition.

I wish that those who study the bible so fervently would make the same attempt with science and philosophy; some claim they do, but given they still believe in a god and raptures, I have to wonder if there isn't some kind of god-neuron in the religious person's brain that renders them incapable of understanding reason and evidence.

Maybe that is why two such similar religions as christianity and Islam are at such odds because the idea of simply accepting each other requires common sense.

Pericles,
I'll quite agree, "it is possible to admit that all religions are not equal", the basic premise I offered, however, is more concrete and can be argued from substantively. A mere possibility does not provide this. On reading "A common Word”, I can only say, the orthodox Islamic position on Christianity and Judaism is they are derivatives arising from Islam.  The Qur’an presents it as the duty of Muslims to call Christians and Jews back to their original faith. Here, an evolving theology (beyond their bibles) of both Judaism and Christianity is totally ignored. Rather than the basis for dialogue there is the intent to proselytise (which you're against) – yes, Fundamentalist Christianity and Judaism are similarly afflicted through suffering a similar error.

From the beginning Christianity has had an expressed diversity, from the Jewish-Ebionite to the later 'unorthodox' Pauline (where there was little concern for the historical facts of Jesus). It is the politicisation of religion which should be ‘kafir’ not its differing form - today's Christianity, along with all other religion, is generally unacceptable to the sine qua non of orthodox Islam.

 The basis used (ironically) for "A Common Word" is sola scriptura . There are no implied hermeneutics, as used, for example, by a Barth or a Bultmann . There is scant exegesis or historical context to be inferred from "The Common Word". If this represents mainline Islam, its scripture is devoid of literary criticism (let alone one that is 'higher'). A literal approach may arrive at a type of superlative but it is narrow - as with any narrative too literally interpreted. If a Christian simply says, "Our scriptures have perfect authority and yours don't", this presents a form of Islamic 'kafir'. Any expression of Christ’s ‘divinity’ or 'holiness' (a strong religious gospel theme) becomes demeaned of any significance.
 
An agreement to love each other with a resolution for peace, whilst charming, becomes merely symbolic if lost on those extremists who also consider Westerners, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jews etc. as kafir. Rather, Muslim leadership should seek a genuine dialogue with the Muslim fanatics.
 

Er, Martin - I put those quotes there precisely to demonstrate the fallaciousness of the common practice that Islamophobes deploy of 'cherry-picking' the most extreme verses of the Q'uran to discredit Islam. Of course there's context, and while I'm sure that the deep study of the complexities therein is an absorbing and meaningful pastime for some, for those who operate on a broader intellectual plane it's ultimately all variation on various mythic themes.

I'm with Fractelle, when she says

"Belief in religion requires suspending intelligence and reason. I prefer to remain in a rational world - not one full of retribution and superstition."

Interesting reactions. The invective comes from all quarters, and I'm only allowed two posts a day. Ho hum.

Sonofeire wrote:

>>I doubt if I have ever read a more infantile statement. So, "Pericles" wants to BAN proselytizing! Astounding!<<

Quick reminder. I said “It is deceitful to put a 'right to proselytise' in the same basket [as freedom of worship]. It would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities"

The reason the statement is deceitful is that it seeks to equate the peaceful act of worship with the aggressive act of attempting to force one's beliefs on others.

As VK3AUU wrote earlier,

>>Muslims only have one agenda, and that is to convert all other religions to theirs<<

Surely a ban on proselytizing would be a useful tool with which to curb this activity, no?

To which I expect relda would object, what about 'al -Taqiyya', they'll only pretend to conform, it's in their religion that they are forced to lie.

Perhaps an explanation to us all about the differences between 'al -Taqiyya' and “the fifth amendment” might be in order at this point.

Somebody can explain the subtle difference between lying, and having the legal right to not tell the truth.

relda further suggests:

>>Moderate Muslims in a secular society therefore need to denounce certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures.<<

Would you ask the same of Christians in a secular society, that they denounce “certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded to within their own scriptures” - starting, perhaps, with those that CJ pointed out?

If not, why not?

And Boaz.

>>Rarely if ever, have I seen Pericles actually examine the issue (on Islam) before the ad-hominems come gushing forth... Pericles..! are you just plain stubborn or ignorant? <<

I leave it to you to “examine the issue (on Islam)”, Boaz.

What I do is point out the flaws in your approach, the double standards, the selective use of one gospel or the other, and so on.

And you just hate it when I do that.

It amazes me how many articles are written highlighting the differences between Christianity and Islam. You would think that we are at war in this country. The reality is that the religion of secular humanism causes more death and destruction in Australia than all religions put together. The murder of the unborn , the violence of the 'environmentalist', the rebellion cause by ignoring the obvious sinful nature of humanity, the promiscurity promoted n schools has led to more suicides and drug use than all religions. The pathetic attempt by CJ Morgan and others to demonize the Christians by the twisting of Scripture is typical of those with their own agendas.

Thankfully many can see that most (if not all) attending bible believing churches are no threat to our society. The same can't be said for the secular humanist who have set themselves up as god and judge of all except for their own small minds.

Pericles,
“Would you ask the same of Christians in a secular society, that they denounce “certain principles (or lack thereof) as alluded within their own scriptures?” – Yes certainly. But I’m not actually sure of the principles to which you claim C.J. Morgan was referring – rationality is not a principle but a given, some just don’t use it - generally preferring not to, as it’s easier. Neither do I have a problem with science or its method – nor do I regard superstition as something particularly sane.

Our secular society is currently robust enough through adherence to some basic principles (as found particularly, but not always exclusively, within the Judeo-Christian tradition) - which also includes honesty. You may dispute the tradition that has given us our arrival – but you need also re-write history if you wish to validate you opinion. Our demise will also probably occur through a failure to appreciate this.

‘Whistle blowers’ and the like, whilst generally creating discomfort in areas of intitutionalised or individual corruption, generally have their actions validated. Where moral relativism occurs, along with an abandonment of the universal ethic, corruption will have little impact on our sensibilities. There are some values that are actually worth striving for, if not, defending...

FRANK feel totally free to analyise and highlight 'my hypocrisy'.. but all I ask is that you do it in a valid way.
I asked Pericles a question involving an important emotion "stubborn" and a state of mind "Ignorant" I mean both of those as questions to him, because he keeps coming back with sweeping generalizations, in the face of weighty evidence to the contrary.

That's why I ask 'stubborn'? I would ask the same of you.. evidence, reasoning and fact seem to mean little to you.

I've tried to debate 'specific' points, and all you do is come back with irrelevancies. Now.. 'Ignorant' or 'stubborn' may equally apply to you, just as 'hypocrite' might apply to me. Its up to you to demonstrate such.

I still await your 'other scholars' opinion on surah 65:4 which supposedly will show (based on sound contextual exegesis rather than speculative romantic isogesis) that the Quran does not permit marriage, sex and divorce of pre-pubescent children.

FRACTELLE says "Belief in religion requires suspending intelligence and reason"

I challenge you Frac.. read 1 Corinthians 15 and see if you can sustain that lamentably false statement.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31

Last but not least Perrrrricles.

"What I do is point out the flaws in your approach,etc."

er..no P, you don't, you decide b4hand that my approach is flawed then you scrape together some ad homimens and feel you have made your case..

You referred to '9:29' as being 'but one single verse' on which I make my case for Islam being warlike..but not so, I back that up with showing how THAT very verse is used in a context of invasion later to justify that very thing, by Mohammads closest companions.
Mohammad himself repeatedly refers to it Sahih Muslim book 1 Numbers 29,30,31, 32, 33 (and MANY others)

How much do you need Pericles. Even imams in Muslim countries speak of it..but you ? you want hear of it. Amazing.

You condemn Mohammad and his disciples of cherry picking when you claim I do so.. because they use the very same verse, that's simply irrational.

BOAZ

Your prolific postings do your cause no good. In fact, a cool assessment of the feedback here on OLO suggests that you alienate the majority. Only a minority of rednecks seem to be on your wavelength (although sometimes I wonder even what they make of some of your rants).

Why don't you go away and do a rigorous course of study on comparative religion, philosophy and logic? You - and OLO - would be all the better for a bit of scholarship and an improvement in the way you present.

I'm very grateful to David Palmer and Mark Durie for decoding A Common Word. I'm afraid I was one of those taken in by it when it came out - except for the passage that said Christians are not really agreed/concerned about Jesus' divinity. Even in my most saccharine moment, I knew that was a try-on.

Still, allowing for the disingenuousness (to put it mildly) of A Common Word, it doesn't follow that the dialogue shouldn't happen. Talking is still better than not talking. Even without much trust at the outset, talking can still achieve a great deal - so, I don't see a downside, so long as the Christians participating are more canny than I am.

Although each group is very enthusiastic about God, they could still explore common ground expressed neutrally. Each would have their own scriptural rationale, but that needn't intrude into the discussion or into what is agreed.

For example, if they were to agree that human beings are of equal, and enormous, value and must be permitted to believe what they like, they needn't explain why. Just agree to it. Of course, it seems that the meaning of key words would have to be spelled out very carefully, so that it really is an agreement.

This freedom would cover all religious belief and also agnosticism and atheism. This is just an example. My point is that, although it would be nice to agree about our reasoning and not just our conclusions, we might have to settle for conclusions.

Speaking of agnostics and atheists (and other religions), I would not limit the dialogue to Christians and Muslims. We "have to start somewhere", I suppose, but Christians and Muslims are not necessarily the best pilot for this exercise.

Pax,

It's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Boaz.

You continually talk of evidence, as if it is a given that your selection of ancient quotes - from whatever source - somehow trumps intelligence and common sense.

It doesn't cross your mind that ordinary people, whether Christian, Muslim or atheist, give no credence at all to your constant harping on about this or that verse in a document written fifteen hundred or nineteen hundred years ago.

Your arguments have about as much relevance to twentyfirst century reality as the Volsung saga, and a similar level of credibility. That is why your approach is flawed, and until and unless it changes, I will continue to point this out to you.

Incidentally, you keep insisting that my observations to you are ad hominem, when you know perfectly well that I do not indulge. Pure transference, old chap.

And while I'm here, I was fascinated that you quoted Corinthians to Fractelle:

>>I challenge you Frac.. read 1 Corinthians 15 and see if you can sustain that lamentably false statement.<<

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." 1Cor15: 4-8

Did you spot the deliberate mistake?

There is no evidence, anywhere, that Jesus introduced himself to Paul. What credence, then, should we give to his account of the others who "saw" him?

Hey, it really doesn't matter to me what you believe, or for that matter what I don't believe. The difference between us is that you use your religion to create divisions and foster hatred, while I use my absence of religion to try to make peace and develop harmony.

Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

Those who are defending Christianity here need a bit of a reality check.

Here is what the Catholic Church has been saying about condoms and AIDS.

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass …."

"The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

The Church is, of course, perfectly entitled to state that it considers the use of condoms immoral. But should it be spreading outright lies about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the risk of HIV infection?

And no the science is NOT in doubt. The use of condoms greatly reduces the risk of HIV infection without eliminating it entirely.

What exactly is the Church's attitude towards pain management in terminally ill patients?

"Furthermore, I believe their [The Catholic Church's] aversion to pain treatment for terminally ill patients is abhorrent - they seem to believe that pain redeems human beings." (Professor Stefania Maurizi of Rome's La Sapienza as quoted in New Scientist, 27 February 2008)

If Prof. Maurizi's allegation is true then abhorrent is a very mild term. Has anyone here ever seen a patient in the last stages of terminal cancer?

I do recognise the difference between Christianity and Islam. But let's not pretend Christianity is entirely benign.

Here's what the same Professor Maurizi has to say about Jesus.

"I had an education that made me suspicious of hierarchies and the truths that priests were talking about. However, I did not become suspicious of Jesus, a revolutionary figure who always sided with the poor, just as I am not suspicious of the Buddha or Confucius."

That is my attitude too. And, in the end, that is the difference between Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism on one hand, and the crazed 7th century Arabian warlord of Islam on the other.

Jesus yes, Christianity no.

But I could not say "Muhammad [or Allah] yes Islam no."

Steven your fear of Christianity is misplaced.

700 million condoms have been dispensed in Africa, which is only 7% Catholic, if promiscuous sex is wanted there is nothing stopping them.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,12835371-25717,00.html

In Uganda which is 50% Catholic HIV has fallen dramatically
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2005oct08_h.html

Wife of Ugandan President:

condom use is one method of reducing the rate of infection; but we target such messages to those who are already infected with HIV, or who have risky lifestyles and are so set in their ways that they cannot change their behavior.

…..it is wiser to show our people there is a surer way to stay alive; because the truth is that there is no "safe sex" outside of faithfulness to a partner. Giving young people condoms is tantamount to giving them a license to go out and be promiscuous; it leads to certain death....To encourage children to use condoms is to admit that you have no faith in their ability to make correct choices. ….the greatest reduction in the number of infections has occurred among the age group of 15 to 25, this occurred before the condom campaign in Uganda.
http://www.newmancentre.org/pages/museveni.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/668cbrke.asp?pg=1

Hilaire Belloc 1938:
“Millions of modern people of the white civilization that is, the
civilization of Europe and America have forgotten about Islam. It is, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

What we need to face this challenge is not the vacuity of the new atheists who cannot tell the difference between Islam or Christianity, nor can we acquiesce to that worst of all faiths – secularism, that seeks the exclusion of Christianity from the public square and refuses to acknowledge its foundational and integral importance to our civilisation.

Harvard Historian and unbeliever Niall Ferguson:
Heaven knows how we’ll rekindle our religion but I believe we must:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/31/ixopinion.html

Death by Secularism
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

The Decline of the Family
http://www.demographicwinter.com/

Why Nations Die
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH16Aa02.html

Why Europe Chooses Extinction
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

Faith, Fertility and American Dominance
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

Oh no! Another BOAZ. So many fears to share.

Pericles,

Boaz’ faith was directly accused of being contrary to the evidence, he pointed to the Greek documents that show this to be false. This is an intelligent and common sensical thing to do.

As for relevance of old texts - the vast majority of humanity have cared enormously about ancient history and its fruits. You are alone here. It is your chronological snobbery that is truly irrelevant to the modern world; it is an idea that would keep a man in the degrading slavery of being a child of his own age.

You say Paul’s road to Damascus experience in unhistorical. This contradicts pretty much all of New Testament scholarship - it is a belief that would be laughed out of court in any historical journal. Even Gert Lüdemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

And then you finish with the astounding claim that truth doesn’t matter, that arguing for the rational grounds of Christianity, which Boaz does, by default fosters hatred! This is pure prejudice and is exactly what the discredited new atheists would write. No Pericles, it matters enormously what we believe, we you haven't understood is we may disagree but be civil and tolerant in our disagreement. When we debate what the good life is we must use valid arguments in defence of our conceptions.

You, far from bringing harmony, wish to bring an unholy peace based on the coercive silencing of beliefs you have no rational counter to. You did this by labeling them hateful and divisive.

It is this kind of irrationality that is the genuine threat to our peaceful coexistence. The idea that you are the neutral one stems from a deep misunderstanding of the meanings of secular and ideological secularism.


The Irrational Atheist
http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1933771364
http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html (free copy)

Read the Gospels – then talk to me about peace and harmony.

Martin etc: "You are alone here.."

No he's not.

FrankGol: "Oh no! Another BOAZ. So many fears to share"

Indeed. Gawd help us :)

Being an ever curious little Vegemite, I check all the new posters out,-(we are all equal, tis' just sumfink I do).

We are being swamped with the 'hell fire and brimstone' mob!

OLO seems to have thread after thread on God-y type things.

S'pose it makes a nice change from bigotry to Indigenous Australians, which gave a short respite to the 'Islam is comin' to getyer' mob. Or did it?

So little time so much to condemn from the pious throne of Christianity.

Honest to...er.. I do not know how you do it. I haven't the energy to engage with ANY religious mind that is so obviously slammed shut.

Over time, I’ve see-sawed from being bemused to sometimes irritated at the approach of Jehovah's Witnesses' on my doorstep. Bemused, because of the increasing sophistication in their approach i.e. - friendly mother and child, woman and child, two young men or two young women etc. with a beguiling entry for supposed genuine conversation. Annoyed, because there is only one motive, and that is to proselytise. At heart they often seem lovely people - but they're well versed and true dialogue is generally impossible. No longer, however, do I need entertain myself as I now gently send them on their way. Their visit is simply a lopsided affair - not a mutual discourse.
 
Amidst some generally held naiveté, I’ll contend, the Pope does have a point on this particular issue, where he’s perhaps beyond the presumption of being able to entertain dialogue with a “Common Word”. The Catholic view of 'holes in condoms' is another area of contention, certainly stretching credibility. The underlying morality of our actions, however, is ‘fair game' - and if there is any moral authority around able to expose true motive, then surely, let the show begin.
 
A basic premise operates with many 'true believers’, it comes down to this, absolute authority rests with what is usually called the "word of God". For example, ‘the Qur'an is the Word of God. It does not contain any human writings, not even the inspired teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) himself. The inspired teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) are found in separate books called hadith.' or we have the variant, 'The Bible is the Word of God and is an infallible authority - no other book can approach this authority and it is also essential for mans' salvation'.
 
Fundamental believers of both books sometimes state, "Science and the “Theory of Evolution” has given them [disbelievers], so they believe, proof that man is at most no more that an advanced animal, a progressive monkey, and man’s basic needs are little different, fundamentally, to those of our supposed ancestors: food, drink, sleep, safety from predators and sex." ('mission Islam').
cont’d..
 

..cont’d
Qur'an and Biblical fundamentalists say, "The conflict will be there as long as there are those who stubbornly resist submission to their Lord and Creator - this conflict is one of truth against falsehood, justice against oppression, the way to Paradise against the way to Hellfire...”

So what separates the two Fundamentalisms? It lies partly with the third characteristic of Jihad – many ‘true-believers’ possess the first two.

• The first level - a jihad of the heart, or jihad of the self and the internal struggle to acquire the correct creed and remove all self doubts and misconceptions concerning this creed.
• The second level - the jihad of the tongue, it is a struggle against evil and wrong belief and actions through preaching and writing books etc.
• The final level of jihad - that of the hand, or sword, where one expends life and property, is characterised by its use against unbelievers.

Perhaps an uneasy truce can exist within the first two elements of Jihad, where the possibility of finding common ground for a peaceful faith is found through exegesis. The third element of the 'package deal' (whether by implication or explicitly expressed), however, will always provide the potential for Allah’s or God’s ‘authority’ to become coercive through force or intimidation. Over time, this violence becomes inevitable, if the goal of total “submission” is to occur under Muslim authority - as it was with medieval Christendom.

The important and all consuming question thus becomes, can Orthodox Islam modify or reform itself sufficiently and remove its brutal aspect as did Orthodox Christianity? And, Can Orthodox Islam, where it exists in the West, pass over its considered right to violence and totally hand over this 'right' to secular authority? This, I might add, is something not even the United States is able to do, arising from the ambiguity of its Second Amendment.

History has few examples of lives where a total 'submission' leads ultimately to peace. The example most know requires both an understanding and a faith before their commitment toward peaceful action.

PERICLES... you continue to dig those heels in mate.. soon you will have callouses.

You mention some kind of 'deliberate mistake' in 1Cor15? mind telling me what it is ?

I did the olo splattering of coffee thing when I read "There is no evidence that Jesus introduced himself to Paul" huh?

That's strange.. I thought you had read Acts. 2 mentions of Pauls conversion experience, and then there is his own testimony in Galatians 1:11-12

[I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.]

Pericles, you criticize my method, but what better method of understanding either Islam or Christianity than looking at what the founder said, and then at how his followers interpreted those sayings in real life? Its blatantly obvious.

Search high and low and you won't find any apostle laying a finger on anyone in violence or armed conflict. The opposite is the case for Islam and I've shown the evidence numerous times. The connection between 9:29 and
a) Mohammad quoting in the hadith in connection with attacking people.
b) Al Mughira with Caliph Omar during the invasion of Persia quoting it to justify the invasion.

That IS the very verse...the ONLY verse..I've seen used in that way in the hadith tradition in connection with offensive Jihad.

RELDA has it in one. "The difference between the 2 sets of fundamentalism is JIHAD".. bingo!

STEVEN... your fears of Roman Catholicism are rightly founded. There is little difference between Islam and RC when the RC church has the power of the emperor. You might find the talks of Dr James White (Reformed Baptist) interesting when he attacks Steve Ray (RC)and others.
http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20080226fta.mp3

Pericles

Thanks for quoting that piece from Corinthians, I was still getting my head around Boaz's idea that, somehow, my reading of something HE selected would prove that religious people don't have to suspend all reason. Extraordinary, twisted thinking - which basically proves my point. As I have explained to Mjpb; quoting from the bible doesn't prove the bible.

Just for fun Boaz (and I suspect you never read anything unless it is religious), I challenge you to read Chapter 11 'The Unification of Physics' of Stephen Hawkings "A brief History of Time".

Present your precis in no more than 350 words and it had better make sense, dude.

The link below is to the HTML, although I recommend the PDF version (located at the top of the HTML page) as it is easier to read.

http://littlurl.com/7ze4c

BOAZ: "...what better method of understanding either Islam or Christianity than looking at what the founder said, and then at how his followers interpreted those sayings in real life? Its blatantly obvious."

It sure is.

Dear Fractelle.. I'll do that :) bear with me.

"You cannot use the Bible to prove the bible"

is both correct and false. You can use ANY document as evidence. You can use 'Witness statements' in a court of law. We learn much of history from 'documents'. The assumption behind the statement "you cannot use/to prove" Is that ALL statements made are dogmatic in origin rather than factual and historical. We have Justice Micheal Kirby of the high court making a contribution to OLO.. I venture to suggest that even he, with his personal proclivities as they are, would describe such a view as 'absurd'.

Only those unfamiliar with the documents, their broad scope of personal journal style and doctrinal explaination would say such an untenable thing.

A witness who says "You can believe me, because I always speak the truth" is self condemning..yes. But a witness who offers a view, which is supported/corroborated by a number of views, allows the possibility of cross examination and comparison. This fact seems to escape some of our more 'enlightened' posters :)

FRANK.. now that you have found the truth (at last) why is it that you are in some kind of time warp denial thing about Islam, Mohammad and his behavior/followers etc ? Thats all I present you know..I find no value in the heated emotional opinions of 'muslim haters' who rely more on spiced up adjectives than solid truth.
I don't try to persuade a Sunni of the error of his ways by using Shia documents or vice versa. That would be like coming to an evangelical Christian and using the Jehovah Witness version of the Bible to prove Jesus was 'just a man'.

Martin, this quote might need a little more context:

>>Even Gert Lüdemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”<<

Did Gerd make this observation before, or after, his "provocative hypothesis that early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was the product of hallucinatory experiences originally induced by guilt-complexes in Peter and Paul" (Dr William Craig)

And you are more than a little out of line with your accusation

>>you finish with the astounding claim that truth doesn’t matter, that arguing for the rational grounds of Christianity, which Boaz does, by default fosters hatred!<<

It is not the "rational grounds of Christianity" that foster hatred, Martin, but his constant, mindless denigration of Islam.

And Boaz - ah, Boaz.

>>That's strange.. I thought you had read Acts. 2 mentions of Pauls conversion experience, and then there is his own testimony in Galatians 1:11-12<<

The problem here is that you contend that Paul's "conversion experience" equates with a physical meeting. Hi, Paul, how's it going? Not bad thanks Jesus, the eyes are fine now.

If this hallucination is at the base of the claim that upwards of 500 people "met" the resurrected Jesus, then it is certainly open to some question, no?

>>Pericles, you criticize my method, but what better method of understanding either Islam or Christianity than looking at what the founder said<<

Fine by me. But all you have to support your view of Christianity is not "what the founder said", merely what a bunch of vested interests would have you believe that he said.

There is no, repeat no, contemporary evidence that supports your theory, except for the carefully selected writings of people with a strong incentive to write what they did.

>>But a witness who offers a view, which is supported/corroborated by a number of views...<<

This is a little bit like claiming that because Martin Ibn Warriq agrees with what you write, it must be true.

I don't think so.

Dear All,

First of all I would like to thank steventmeyer, relda, VK3AUU and goodthief for their kind words.

Its been a while since I’ve been on Online Opinion, but somethings don’t change – CJMorgan is where he was last time I met him. BOAZ_David and Pericles still at it hammer and tongs (I can only say they must love one another), and like Ginx I was surprised by the number of articles written by “God-y types” as she puts it. Sorry if you are a “he” Ginx but I got the feeling you are a “she”.

I have another essay in the pipeline on “Legislating Morality?”(and looking forward to meeting up with Don Aitkin, Yabby, aqvarivs, especially Celivia and the rest of the gang from last year when we slugged it out on abortion). Perhaps I should allow OLO to post more non religious essays – trouble is so many of them are so damn boring, so much motherhood, pretentious stuff. Part of the reason for my absence is that I’ve been working my way through all the new atheists and might have something to say on that depressing subject as well.

I suppose everyone has caught up with the fact that yesterday the Vatican announced that the Pope has Muslims coming to the Vatican for a confab in November – good thing too because if anyone is going to stand up for Christianity and beleaguered Christians (and persons of other faiths) in the Muslim world, then the current Pope is the person for the job. And hey, good opportunity for Muslims to put their side too.

Like CJ Morgan, I am disappointed to see no recognisably Muslim contribution on this thread, but maybe it’s early days.

Pericles, thank you for posting the link to acommonword.org.

Continued.....

However, Pericles why do you object to Christians and Muslims proselytising - secularists of all descriptions do it all the time? If Hitchens, Dawkins et al are not proselytising for their own ugly brand of atheism, then I don’t know what they’re up to. We are all in our own way proselytising for our own point of view whether or not it is tied to some holy book or assured finding of modern science or prejudice for that matter.

I do agree with your comment that we do need to accept the necessity of living side by side, if only because the way the world is shrinking. Whilst I have serious reservations about what can be achieved, genuine dialogue between Muslims and Christians (I would also like to see Jews included as well) is vital provided both sides set aside political correctness and speak truthfully, without fear or favour. Where I think you go wrong as noted by one of the other contributors is in thinking religion can be taken out of the discussion. You provided the link to A Common Way and therefore if you have read the document you will know it is a profoundly religious document. Religion lies close to the centre of all things. Even if we wish to deny that as a fact, we can’t help ourselves arguing about it, can we, Pericles?

CJ Morgan - loved all your quotes from the Bible – thought I was reading Hitchens et al again, you even made the NT sound scary. I fully endorse Martin Ibn Warriq’s response to you on this one

(PS Ibn, how do you get a name like that, do I detect some plagiarism? Ibn Warraq perhaps?).

Et tu David Palmer

>>Pericles why do you object to Christians and Muslims proselytising<<

I don't. I have absolutely no objection to proselytising per se, so long as it doesn't frighten the horses.

But what I did object to is the sleight of hand with which you concatenate the concepts of worship and proselytising...

>>the right of both Muslims and Christians anywhere to worship freely and to proselytise<<

These are two distinctly different acts, as you well know, and it smacks of deceit to pretend that the "rights" involved are identical. It is a bit like pretending that the right to bear arms and to shoot at people are one and the same.

>>If Hitchens, Dawkins et al are not proselytising for their own ugly brand of atheism, then I don’t know what they’re up to<<

It would be absolutely appropriate to include these folk in any ban on proselytising. However, I suspect that if religious folk were to confine themselves to worship, and refrained from ramming their version of the truth down everyone's gullet, the world would be such a calm and mild place that you wouldn't hear a peep out of the atheists either. There would be absolutely nothing for them to rail against.

>>Where I think you go wrong as noted by one of the other contributors is in thinking religion can be taken out of the discussion<<

Fair comment. But unless you are able to get past this barrier of "I'm right, he's wrong", there will never be any kind of progress. If you insist on reading “A Common Word” as a challenge to your faith - as it seems many other Christians have done - nothing will be achieved.

chrisse even posted the site where you guys can go to get a pre-packaged response http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1199&Itemid=88

This is where you go to have someone else do your thinking for you. It tells you how to “interpret” the letter, and instructs you to respond in a particular way.

Unfortunately, the interpretation is heavily prejudiced, and laced with contempt. Hardly constructive.

Pericles - I think I'm in love

You said:

"However, I suspect that if religious folk were to confine themselves to worship, and refrained from ramming their version of the truth down everyone's gullet, the world would be such a calm and mild place that you wouldn't hear a peep out of the atheists either. There would be absolutely nothing for them to rail against."

Spot on. It is this 'holier than thou' attitude that really gets me annoyed. I keep saying live and let live, but no, there is this constant badgering on and on.

Really Palmer, Warriq, mjpb, Boaz et al; if you are so sure of your faith why do you keep on having to tell the rest of us all the time? A touch of the Lady Macbeths there you know.

As I have said before I resent the implication that, as an atheist, I am somehow morally reprehensible and need 'saving'. Just leave us to enjoy the world as we do, as we rejoice in the expansion of scientific discovery and stop trying to control everything, please.

You will never find common ground with your close cousins, the Muslims, until you can be a little bit more humble. Nothing to be ashamed of; being humble. I think there may have been a man who thought that treating others as you would like others to treat you was a very enlightened way to live. Who was that man?

BD's short_Theory_of_“Time”.

Taking up Fractelles friendly challenge to read outside the fundy loop, I indulged msyelf in the absolute luxury of reading chapter 11 of Hawkings work on time.

Now..(out_of_Intensive_care_for_fractured_brain)) taking the foundations of the Illustrious Hawking a step futher, I have decided to introduce my own theory :) naturally, (to borrow the imagery of another eloquent OLO poster) “soaked in humility and clothed in love” (Thanx Pericles)

Dr Hawking concludes his work correctly with a discussion about God. But he rests his conclusion on the apparent inability of science to arrive at any firm result in finding a unifying theory of the universe.

He precedes his mention of God with a listing the following possibilities.

1/ We will find the ultimate theory of everything when we are smart _enuf.
2/ There is no single theory, just many overlapping_theories.
3/ There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

To this, I would add one more.

4/ The inability of man to find a unifying theory is testimony that we are human, not God.

I think we can see that the Universe is held together by very real and predictable forces. It's duration in time surely testifies to this. Does it seem so frail that there is “One” outside it.. holding it together?

WHO said there is no humor in science? I found Hawkings discussion most entertaining. The highlight was his mention of two 'particles' in existence. (spelled differently of course)

1/ Pea Brains. ( P-Brane)
2/ No Brains. ( 0-Brane)

What insight! While he may not have found the 'theory of everything' He has at least described a considerable number of posters on OLO and to some of them, that would include 'myself' :)

PS.. much of my output is a response to “The History of Western Philosophy” by Russell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(Russell)
It was cited in his Nobel Prize presentation.
It simply confirmed my views.

still in print..why not get a copy :) Or you can borrow mine.

David Palmer: "CJMorgan is where he was last time I met him"

Thanks for noticing, David. Yes, it's a rather pleasant place, bathed in the light of rationality and untroubled by religious paranoia. Occasionally I'm bothered by proselytisers of the Christian variety, but I've developed strategies to deal with them that are mostly quite effective.

Pericles – good. We’ve established these events are historical.

With respect to the hallucination hypothesis it has major problems. Hallucinations are projections of the mind that have the appearance of physical reality - i.e. we can only hallucinate what is already in the mind. But the resurrection appearances of Jesus were completely novel, Jews believed in a resurrection at the end of time not one within history. We know all about it in hindsight because we've had the gospels with us two thousand years, they didn’t nothing like that had ever happened. If they were hallucinations it would have been of Jesus in glory in heaven with the prophets like they were brought up with. The resurrection appearances were to believers and nonbelievers, individuals and groups; how, if they are hallucinations, would everyone see the same thing?

As for vested interests, no serious scholar doubts that the early Christians were at least sincere about their experience of the resurrected Christ, because they all went to their deaths for it. What vested interest, apart from what we read in the Gospels, is their to be a martyr for something known to be fraudulent?

And you wouldn’t have us believe that for this one case only, common sense is reversed and instead of disciples following a leader, a leader is invented so they can follow – to their deaths! Nor is it credible to believe that fact checking didn’t occur back then. Enough knew the facts that if someone tried to write nonsense it would be thrown in the bin. How could the Gospels become authoritative for the early church (at great risk to themselves) unless they knew it was true?

Fractelle,

How is responding to critics of Christianity, ramming the truth down your throat?

Disputation in normal in public debate, this is how humans get to the truth. You knew before hand what this website was. What your complaint sounds like is: “I don’t like religious truth claims, I want to believe whatever I like, Christians should keep their beliefs private, I should be allowed to be public about all this”. We’re not fully conscious of the way we acquire our beliefs, we shouldn’t assume they correspond miraculously with the truth and that we need no rational debate. If you believe the universe is triangular and I think its square we have to argue, with respect and mutual benefit but we must argue. Humans want to know what is really real.

Christians believe we are made in God’s image, things we’re never meant to go bad (our willful disobedience for forbidden fruit creates a lot of jams). We couldn’t help ourselves, it took the King to come and fix it. This rescue made us a new creation, one that can be part of the amazing life lived by the three person King. We just humbly accept the gift. But we’ve gone so bad its not as easy as it should be - to repent is difficult. What we know now is that there is a big party ready for us. We were invited by name by the King of Kings. Imagine a famous Hollywood actor warmly welcoming you to a big party with all the stars. Multiply this by a billion. The excitement and anticipation of this party we can bring into our daily life and preparations. We phone him, get to know him, ask what the party will be like etc. And all as if you were the only invited guest. To get in, you have to look the part, you can’t wear grubby clothes you would feel ashamed. We put on the clothes given to us. And then wait patiently and avoid distractions. It is the only party in town, to stay behind is just silly

Pericles,

"But unless you are able to get past this barrier of "I'm right, he's wrong", there will never be any kind of progress."

Are you saying David is wrong?

I meant to say something yesterday on stevenlmeyer’s comment, the first one in this thread.

--The bad news is that most Christians don't follow Christ's teachings as set out in the Gospels.

--The good news is that most Muslims, in Western countries anyway, don't follow the teachings of the koran. And for that let us gave thanks to whatever deity may exist.

...and I have to say I regretfully agree with his first comment and hope he is right about the second one.

Pericles:

I had no intention of practicing deception by, as you say, slipping proselytising in with worship. In the tradition I come from - Protestant of the Genevan variety – part of worship, ie the offering of our whole life to God as service, includes what we more usually call “witnessing” – you know what I mean, you’ve argued enough with BOAZ_David.

Re your comment regarding the proselytising of Hitchens and Dawkins, there is undoubted truth in what you say – but I would shift the focus – it is their concern that religion has not died out and that more “fundamentalist” versions seem to be advancing that results in their stridency and bad manners, and when you read Sam Harris you find he especially has Islam at the end of his barrel. I am kind of pleased that someone might think we are ramming our religion down their throat because most of us think us Christians are a very wimpish lot (BOAZ_David excepted of course).

BTW, the world will never be "a calm and mild place", with or without religion, human nature goes against us which is why the statement that “religion is the root of all evil” is such utterly asinine troll rhetoric.

I see "A Common Word" more as an opportunity than a challenge, though I think generally Islam poses quite a challenge to the church as for somewhat different reasons I think it is also quite a challenge to Western democracies.

Fractelle, it is a beautiful thing to be in love, but where does that leave BOAZ_David and Pericles?

I would never wish to say or infer that because you are an atheist that you are somehow "morally reprehensible". Forgive me please if I have suggested that. I’m sure that there are atheists who would embarrass some Christians with their superior moral rectitude. My question to you however would be, “what is the basis of your morality, what anchors it so that it does not slip around from day to day?”.

CJ, you’re a champ, and the thing is we can argue without being (intentionally) objectionable.

Martin Ibn Warriq, did I spring you?

David Palmer,

Thank you for your kind words.

I hope you will not be offended if I ask you a few questions.

When it comes to the existence of a creator of the universe I am agnostic. Not only don't I know, I don't know how it is possible to know.

If perchance a creator of the universe does exist I doubt he / she / it / they would ever give his followers the choice of murdering, crucifying or dismembering his "enemies" as described in the koran 5:33.

So much for the theory that the creator of the universe used an angel to dictate the koran verbatim to Muhammad.

However I find the bible equally improbable. How CAN you as an intelligent man believe in:

--Virgin birth? - how did Jesus get a Y chromosome?

--God incarnate?

--Resurrection?

Even if I wanted to I could not believe anything of the sort.

I find much to admire in Jesus' ethical teachings? The fact that these are largely a synthesis of various Jewish schools of thought of the time do not detract from their grandeur. In the end everything is built on something else.

But the "Son of God?"

Fractelle, *blush*

Boaz, you do this simply to antagonize, don't you?

>>I have decided to introduce my own theory... naturally,(to borrow the imagery of another eloquent OLO poster) “soaked in humility and clothed in love” (Thanx Pericles)<<

This suggests to readers that I once described you in this manner, which would be not far from libellous. It sounds more like the subheading of a particularly racy Barbara Cartland novel set in a monastery, "Two Cloistered Hearts Entwine - soaked in humility and clothed in love", perhaps.

>>I think we can see that the Universe is held together by very real and predictable forces. It's duration in time surely testifies to this<<

Are we talking Creation time here, Boaz, or Cosmic time? Given the likely life span of the human race's in the latter case - which would be infinitesimal in the overall scheme of things - how can this possibly "testify"?

>>PS.. much of my output is a response to “The History of Western Philosophy” by Russell.<<

No kidding? Which parts? All of it? Wow! It would help next time if you tell us which aspect of Russell's ideas you are responding to? Thanks.

Martin - nice try.

>>Pericles – good. We’ve established these events are historical.<<

Not at all. Unless of course you would like to call Grimm's Fairy Tales historical, simply because somebody historical wrote them.

>>How could the Gospels become authoritative for the early church (at great risk to themselves) unless they knew it was true?<<

Because they needed a unifying theme that they could all work with. No-one's doubting their religious fanaticism, only questioning the factual basis for it.

And David Palmer:

>>the world will never be "a calm and mild place", with or without religion, human nature goes against us which is why the statement that “religion is the root of all evil” is such utterly asinine troll rhetoric<<

No dispute on that. But it sure doesn't do much to promote calmness and mildness having the world's two mainstream religions tearing at each other's throats.

Does it?

PERICLES.. for the record.. it was you describing me this way:

"Your post is HARDLY soaked in.. etc" (that was the tone if not the words) i.e.. you were drawing a contrast between those qualities and what you thought you saw in my post. You were tearing me to bits.

My 'theory of time' had only one goal.. to demonstrate to Fractelle that I

a) actually do read other things, and
b) That I read enough of it to pick out the funny bits.

If you know anything about Russells book, you would realize it is a history of OTHER peoples ideas..not Russels alone. He lists all the major philosophical identities from early greeks down to modern, who have impacted 'how we think'....

So, he summarizes their positions. Who would want to read all of Plato, Bacon,Locke, Hume, Sartre, Neitczh etc just to get the guts of what they were on about. Much better to read the short version :)

What I observed in the renaissance thinkers was their primary goal seemed to be working out the meaning of life, and on what basis government can be established. God always figured in their thinking, even if it was to dispose of Him before proceeding.

I have seldom felt so vindicated as I was when reading those various thinkers.

STEVEN... you are in the position of the Jews of Jesus day.
Consider this.
-Jesus healed a man blind from birth. (John 9)
-The Blind man knew the source of his healing, as did his family and passers by.
-The religious leaders, by 'dogma' would not accept this.

Your question 'Son of God'? is not answered by the enquiring mind, but the opened heart.

It boils down to the words of Jesus

<<The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.>> John 14:10

cheers.

BOAZ_David,

You are obviously much more learned about christianity than I am; indeed possibly more than many of the writers here.

I draw on the work “Trial of Jesus of Nazareth” by Professor S.G.F. Brandon, a Christian. This work is rigorously researched and impeccably documented. Brandon has/had (I do not know if he is still living) impressive qualifications in Comparative Religion, presented significant lectures: Wilde lectures at Oxford, Forwood lectures at Liverpool. Not only was he a member of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, but also of the Society for Old Testaments Study; and the International Society for the Study of Time.

Brandon states that two Christian groups existed. Those of the Church of Jerusalem which comprised of Jesus’ original apostles and desciples, including Mary, (Jesus’ mother), James (his brother), Peter and John. This group denied that St. Paul had been an apostle. They also taught a “Christianity” at such variance with Paul’s, that Paul himself referred to it as “another gospel” ... “another Jesus”, particularly when “reporting” Jesus’ trial and death. The Jerusalem community perished in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

Paul had never met Jesus during his life. Paul distances himself from the Jerusalem group in a letter to the Galatians:

“I would have you know, bretheren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man ... but came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Paul’s intention was to establish that his teachings were divine in origin, quite independent of that taught by the original apostles.

In Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he defends himself from the Jerusalem group, which perceived him of unsound mind, of being delusional. The Jerusalem held Jesus’ death as a ‘human event’; Paul, on the other hand, claimed it as a ‘mystical event. Paul:

“... even though we once regarded (oidamen) Christ from a human point of view, we regard (ginoskomen) him thus no longer ...”

cont ...

From my own memory of religious teaching at school.

It was as late as 649 AD, that the dogma of the Virgin Birth was proclaimed under Pope Martin I, during the third council of the Lateran Council. It was not until 1854, that the Catholic Church, in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus, that Pius IX pronounced and defined that Mary, herself, had been of Immaculate Conception, thus, freeing her from original sin, and providing her with a pass into Heaven without the need for baptism.

I am in complete agreement with Steven.

“I find much to admire in Jesus' ethical teachings? The fact that these are largely a synthesis of various Jewish schools of thought of the time do not detract from their grandeur.”

Personally, I suspect that Jesus was either a rabbi or Jewish teacher. It is no coincidence that Jesus taught only in the area where “Jews” had been forced to convert to Judaism - an extremely rare occurrence. The only other time being a biblical reference.

Your response to Steven:

“Jesus healed a man blind from birth. (John 9)
-The Blind man knew the source of his healing, as did his family and passers by.”

Quite possibly this did occur. There are numerous cases of such - and undoubtedly result from “mind/body” connection. Lourdes has documented many; and faith-healers abound in history. To me, however, a miracle would have occurred if a disfigured child became whole; or an amputee grew a new limb.

Re: Lazarus’ rising from the dead. Even today, death can be misdiagnosed without the necessary technology. In one state (at least) in the USA, paramedics must continue with resuscitation unless the “patient” demonstrates morbid lividity, or rigor mortis, or is decapitated.

However, we have gone right off the original topic ...

Unless we want a life in which we only hear things we agree with, we’re all going to have to put up with being proselytised by someone or other, aren’t we? TV ads, spam, billboards, bus and tram stop shelters, opinion columns in newspapers, religious writers, atheist writers. Someone’s always trying to sell us something.

The problem, I think, is the way selling happens. It can be hard or soft sell. It can be respectful of the listener’s freedom to buy, or not. It can use reasoning or just push emotional buttons (like greed, conceit, fear, guilt).

Christians generally regard themselves as being under instructions to spread the word – so, they’re really not going to stop. And, when you consider that they (we, I mean) really believe other people will benefit from this, the activity will always be high-energy. But, we are also under instructions to love our neighbour. There are plenty of hard-sell, button-pushing Christians who should roll these ideas together, and realise they are evangelising their neighbour, so that their method has to be loving (respectful etc).

And I’m still waiting to read an atheist book by an author with the slightest notion of manners. They really need to calm down a little.

Anyway, I don’t see proselytism itself as the problem. We all just need to be more respectful of each other.

Christians and Muslims are rivals. Jews don’t proselytise (closed shop) and I’ve never noticed much sales talk from other religions. Atheists never used to proselytise, but now they do and so far they seem to have decided on the hardest sell imaginable, where you abuse the people you’re trying to convince: hard to see it working, but time will tell.

I think the competition between Muslims and Christians is a problem, as each is recommending a different approach to God. Still, they can agree on ground rules. As just mentioned, the Christian position provides an ethic, but I don’t know enough about Islam to know if a comparable ethic is available.

Pax,

Special for Danielle.

Hi mate :) *waves*

You went to considerable effort there to outline your case.
Sorry for the late response.

Just want to address a couple of points.

ONE.
'Official proclamation' of a "dogma" does not suggest it was not previously believed or taught. Regarding the virgin birth, I'm fairly sure that was a fundamental of the very early Church.

As to the Papal pronouncement that she was 'Immaculate' I find no support whatsoever for that in Scripture, and in that particular instance of what occurred increasingly in the Roman Catholic tradition "human" views and romantic ideas became 'dogma' apart from direct support in the Bible.

TWO.

The 2 communities 'Jerusalem' and 'Gentile/Pauline'

Yes..I've seen quite a bit written about this, but I think it fails the test of scriptural foundation. Of course there were the incidents of the Circumcision party, but that was resolved at the first council of Jerusalem referred to in Acts 15.

I think the conflict was more between the 'radical Jewish circumcizers' and the 'Apostolic founders' in Jerusalem itself.

I find it a rather uncomfortable 'square peg in a round hole' kinda fit to say there were 2 hostile and competitive communities between the Pauline and Jerusalem traditions. The hostility was between the Circumcizers and the rest.

The common ground most needed between Muslims and Christians will be found when Muslims depart from 'Hating what Allah hates' (Christians/Jews/infidels) and embracing the Christian idea

"God so LOVED the world,(Arabs, Jews, Gentiles) that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life"

blessings.

The latest from Pat Condell on "Appeasing the Muslims"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA

In terms of historicity, Danielle would be closer to the truth. There is little doubt, Jesus came from the ancient religious tradition of his own people, he would have been circumcised and later, a devout follower of the Jewish Torah and teaching. For example, the Lord's prayer was a combination or selection of formulas of prayer in circulation among the Hasidæan circles -there is nothing in it expressive of the Christian belief that the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus.To understand him we have to read more than the Gospels. We have to become aware of both Jewish life in the first century and what is now called the Old Testament. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6951#107297)

Rabbi that he was, Jesus had no interest in introducing a new law, in fact he insisted that "not even one jot or tittle” of the old one was to be abrogated. He spun out parables and told stories to demonstrate the present reality of something close to the heart or the Jewish tradition called the “reign of God": which mosrt Jews at the time believed would begin only with the coming of the Messiah.

Interestingly, in 1901German scholar and rabbi Leo Baeck wrote that there had been a moment 1900 years before when the time was ripe for a ‘God-sent personality”. The time had come for the pagans to learn and absorb Israel’s values. Baeck believed that the Jewish people did respond to this moment, and that the response was in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. The Gentiles early entry into this religion adopted this mantle but also fused this with their pagan beliefs (e.g. the 'virgin birth' adoption).

There is a borderline between the conscious and unconscious, where imagination and the mundane mingle, where myth and history intersect. Muslims and Christians certainly share similar myths - but what divides is more the hard-line belief that God's reign or covenant with an ancient people must reveal itself to the world through their own particular form or image.

Danielle/Boaz,

Still-off thread but for the record, there were in fact three main early churches, those of Paul, those of the Gnostics, and the Jewish-Christians sometimes called Ebionites.

The doctrines of Christianity come mostly from the teaching of Paul, who rejected his Judaism and converted to his vision of Christ, thereby writing or influencing most the books chosen for the New Testament.

According to scholars all the gospels were written AFTER Paul's writings, there are no originals.

Paul's visions were of the Jesus whom he had never met in the flesh.

The church fathers preferred the Jesus of Paul and not the Jesus of James because it offered an "easier route" to salvation.

James and the other apostles were in fact bitter enemies of Paul.

The first followers of Jesus, under James and Peter, founded the Jerusalem Church after Jesus' death. (Nazarenes).

Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism.

In this new religion, central myth was that of an atoning death of a Divine being. Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam - any many of the details and stories were "borrowed" from all other religions of the time and never existed in earlier writings.

(Cont)

(Cont)

A source of information about Paul is a group called the Ebionites, whose writings were suppressed by the Orthodox Church.

The Ebionites testified that Paul converted to Judaism in Tarsus, came to Jerusalem when an adult, and attached himself to the High Priest as a henchman. Disappointed in his hopes of advancement, he broke with the High Priest and sought fame by founding a new religion.

The Ebionites were stigmatized (later purged and victimised) by the Orthodox Church as heretics who failed to understand that Jesus was a Divine person and asserted instead that he was a human being who came to inaugurate a new earthly age, as prophesied by the Jewish prophets of the Bible.

Moreover, the Ebionites refused to accept the Orthodox Church doctrine derived from Paul, that Jesus abolished or abrogated the Jewish law. Instead, the Ebionites observed the law and regarded themselves as Jews.

The Ebionites were the authentic successors of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus, whose views and doctrines they faithfully transmitted, believing correctly that they were derived from Jesus himself. They both spoke and wrote in the same language as Jesus himself - not the Greek translations that were often used by the modern Church.

They were the same group that had earlier been called the Nazarenes, led by James and Peter and who had actually known Jesus during his lifetime. They were likely to be in a far better position to know his aims than Paul, who met Jesus only in dreams and visions.

Perhaps, like the VHS/Beta and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray battles for market dominance, one side won (with the assistance of Constantine) and the other was delegated to obscurity (although the Ebionites still exist today).

It's uncanny sometimes how similar are the beginnings of the various religions.

Joseph Smith wrote down the religious guidance from the golden plates that the Angel Moroni gave him, and created Mormonism

Mohammed wrote down the religious guidance provided by the Angel Gibraele, and creates Islam

Paul wrote down his ideas on religion following a vision of Jesus, and created his brand of Christianity.

Interesting that in none of theses cases did the inspiration come directly from "the source", but via an intermediary.

If there were a god, I'm pretty sure he would have made a better job of communicating to us mortals.

Congratulations, CJ Morgan . . . you have succeeded in finding some nasty singular quotes from the Old and New Testament, which purport to show that the Biblical lunatics of old are just as crazy as the "Prophet" and other lunatics of the Quran. So, tell us something we don't already know! The palpable truth we must face TODAY is that it is NOT blond-haired and blue-eyed Lutherans from Iceland who slammed jet planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and who try to use suicide bombs to sabotage western economies and force a theocracy and "Caliphate" on the rest of the world.
The vast MAJORITY of those in Christendom have accepted the scientific and social advancements arising from the 18th century Enlightenment, and EVOLVED -- intellectually and scientifically -- beyond a Medieval literalist interpretation of every word of the Bible. No self-proclaimed Christian that I know of preaches that the Bible was written DIRECTLY by "GOD", only that it was "inspired". They accept that its actual words were written by imperfect and fallible human beings. I have spoken to Muslims in many countries. I have read the Quran in its entirety more than once, something even many Muslims have not done. My experience tells me that most Muslims DO interpret the Quran literally. The very beginning of the Quran states, "This Book is not to be doubted". All "mainstream" Muslims are taught that the Quran is "uncreated" by man . . . that it was manifested in the heavenly realm by Allah, before being given to Muhammed.
It is preposterous to claim that PEACEFUL proselytising is "forcing a belief down other people's throats". It is, indeed, infantile to claim that peaceful attempts at persuasion can be separated from freedom of religion. If "Pericles" does not like what someone is trying to say to him, he can simply walk away or tell them to leave. I do not fear Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Taoists . . . for the simple reason that they have never tried to threaten or intimidate me. Muslims have.

Wobbles,
One should also note, if early Ebionite Christianity wasn't "left behind" in the early moments of church history, but had in fact prevailed, things would be radically different. Christianity would not be a religion separate from Judaism but a sect of Judaism, a sect that accepted Jewish laws, customs, and ways, a sect that practiced circumcision, observed Jewish holy days such as Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana and other festivals. Quite ironically, therefore, Islam (with its stong tie to early Judaism) is actually far more closely tied to this original Christianity.

There is a difference, however, between the Islamic and Jewish faith and this lies in their basis for belief. Judaism is based on their unique historical event of a 'divine revelation' experienced by the entire nation. Whereas Islam is based on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow him. Talmudic tradition says that while Abraham's son Isaac became the forefather of the Jewish people, the Islamic line is descended from Abraham's other son Ishmael.

Incidentally, what finally emerged as orthodox Christianity was a blend of various forms of early Christianity. It borrowed from (or shared with) elements of both Ebionite and Marcionite Christianity. By the fourth century the Gentile wing had thoroughly eclipsed the remnants of Jewish Christianity and became recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

One should remember too, Moses lived four centuries before Homer and eight centuries before Plato. Essentially, therefore, Christianity was not, in a certain sense, a new thing but something quite ancient. It is near certain, had Christians not been able to make a plausible case for the antiquity of their religion, it never would have succeeded in the empire - this is not to say Christianity's original member, however, didn't shed a new and dramatic light on antiquity. His 'ascension' to 'Christ' was entirely another movement - quite well beyond that of a simple but peaceful Rabbi. Christianity certainly has no reason to bear the imprint of violence, arguably, that reason does exist within Islam.

Danielle, Boaz notes the council of Jerusalem (in which the Apostles agreed on what was to be taught). St Paul's regularly returned to the centre (Jerusalem) with tithes he collected on his travels. In 1Cor15 he is explicit about his faithful preaching of the gospel he learned from the community in Jerusalem.

CS Lewis:
A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed. But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul's. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels come later. They are not 'the Gospel', the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted 'the Gospel'. They leave out many of the 'complications' (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the Epistles are more primitive and more central than the Gospels -- though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God's act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the Epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord's sayings."

"In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person. You say, 'The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans -- which, I'm sure, are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.' And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ Himself. They made the normal first move -- that of attacking one of His principal ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St Paul. It was unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the Gospels and the Epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step -- the attack on the King Himself."

Martin and Sonifere.. amen :)

but specially for Wobbles...who said:

"James and the other apostles were in fact bitter enemies of Paul."

Lets contrast that with some info from Acts. 21

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. (see chapter for more details)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=21&version=31

WOOPS... you wobbled a bit there mate :) "received us warmly" ....

They then go on to discuss the issue of 'The Law' and the fact that the FACTIONS were withIN the Jerusalem Church.. not between Paul and the Jerusalem church. It was Pauls teaching and the sub group withIN the Jerusalam Church,but not THE Jerusalem Church and NOT between Paul and James or the other leaders of it.

AAAh.. the sweet smell of 'truth' :)

Sonofeire: "CJ Morgan ...So, tell us something we don't already know!"

I have challenged CJ Morgan, (in "Master of Islamist doublespeak" thread) to tell us:

IN HIS OWN WORDS, how exactly Western freedom and democracy can practically and successfully fits in an Islamic Society like Saudi Arabia.

In returning to the subject at hand (perhaps with equal sleight). If it is 'writings' we are to compare, it should be said, "as a philologian a man sees behind the "holy books," and as a physician he sees behind the physiological degeneration of the typical Christian. The physician says "incurable"; the philologian says "fraud."... " - Nietzsche. So, let us perhaps regard what might typify a Muslim - "God forgiveth him that repenteth" - or in plain English, him that submitteth to the mullah or the priest.

In considering Paul - his home "was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Savior, or even to believe his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself--this would be a genuine niaiserie in a psychologist" - F.N.

And again, where there is this ' positive genius for conjuring up a delusion of personal "holiness" unmatched anywhere else, either in books or by men; this elevation of fraud in word and attitude to the level of an art - all this is not an accident due to the chance talents of an individual, or to any violation of nature. The thing responsible is race. The whole of Judaism appears in Christianity as the art of concocting holy lies, and there, after many centuries of earnest Jewish training and hard practice of Jewish technique, the business comes to the stage of mastery...' - will Islam now, go to beyond this?

I'm not so harsh as Nietzsche but he makes a point - the 'priest' knows of only one great danger: that is science - the sound comprehension of cause and effect.

I can certainly enjoin with Nietzsche when he says, "what the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of "sin," "forgiveness of sin," "faith," "salvation through faith" - the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the "glad tidings."

BOAZ,

Historically, before Marcion published the first truly Christian Bible (AD 116), Christianity already had been divided into two groups. In Paul's words, there were the "Judaizers" and there were the Pneumatics (the "Spiritual"). The Judaizers were more allied with Peter and James while the Pneumatics upheld Paul's Gospel of freedom.

Afterwards , there were four great divisions in Christianity - the Gnostics, the Catholics, the Judeo-Christians and the Marcionites.

Biblically - from Acts, it would appear that there was friction between Paul and the leaders of the 'Jerusalem Church'- the surviving companions of Jesus - but this friction was indeed apparently resolved. Remember that Acts was written by a supporter of Paul – apparently the same author of “Luke”.
The split that took place between Paul and the Jerusalem Church is minimized in Acts, which actually contrasts with Paul's own account in Galatians 2.
However, from some of Paul's letters, particularly Galatians, it seems that the friction was more serious than indicated in Acts, which thus appears to be partly a propaganda exercise, intended to portray unity in the early Church.

It was when Peter visited him in Antioch and became aware of the full extent of Paul's views that a serious rift began between Pauline and Jewish Christianity.

In Jerusalem (c.55), Paul was accused by James of teaching Jews "to turn their backs on Moses" (Acts 21:21). Again, however, Paul evaded the charge by concealing his views, and he agreed to undergo a test of his own observance of the Torah.

His deception, however, was detected by a group of "Asian Jews" (probably Jewish Christians) who were aware of his real teaching. A stormy protest ensued in which Paul feared for his life and was rescued by the Roman police, to whom he declared for his protection that he was a Roman citizen.

This surprising announcement was the end of Paul's association with the Jerusalem Church, to whom the Romans were the chief enemy.

The common ground is that all religions are influenced by political and personal ambition - and used to further both, as circumstances permit.

Anyone who knows the history of the region, Roman politics and practice, indeed the character of Pilate, evidenced from other sources, would see flaws in Marks writing of the Jesus’ trial. Mark’s reports of the interaction between Pilate, a Roman Governor, backed by massive military might, the native magistrates and the mob are not credible.

The chief priests, fulfilling their duty as required by law, handed over one of their own nationals, Jesus, on the charge of sedition. If Pilate had doubted the evidence he would have called for a trial at his HQ in Caesarea, providing time for further investigation; as Claudius Lysias did with Paul. In stating that Pilate gave the mob the choice, Mark presents him as an incompetent fool - which he wasn’t. There is no evidence of any custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover; indeed why should a Roman Governor do so? This was not a practice in traditional Judaism.

Mark presents a strong animus between the Pauline and the Jerusalem gorups; indeed gives the family of Jesus an extraordinarly bad press.

The crucifiction of Jesus appears to have been an embarrassment to early Christians. Amongst the miriad of Christian images, the first one of the Crucifiction is found as late at the 4/5th century.

Pericles raised correct points.

There are masses of documented scientific research into post-bereavement hallucinations and illusions - a not uncommon experience. Many of these papers are online.

Also, we only have to look at the last few years to see evidence of mass hysteria - those praying to a fence post when an apparition of the Virgin Mary appears at certain time of day; people prostrating themselves before salt damp marks on a church wall. Adding to the excitement in the same town, a woman identified a vision of Princess Di on the tiles of her front verandah - thus, providing ‘pilgrims’ with two visions for the price of one trip. Undoubtedly those who benefited most were local shop-keepers, and stall-sellers of religious trinkets.

cont ...

Bishop John S. Spong:
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox21096.html

“The Supernatural Being that we have traditionally called God has increasingly been rendered impotent by the explosion in human knowledge over the last five hundred years...

States:

In this world of scholarly dialogue God has not been spoken of as an external Supernatural Being who periodically invades the world in decades.”

Regards:

“the most pressing theological issue of this generation ...to envision God in some way other than in the theistic categories of the traditional religious past ...

“Jesus was identified in some sense as the incarnation of this theistic God... was portrayed as a sacrifice offered to this God to bring an end to human estrangement from the Creator. ...

In a post-Darwinian world, where creation is not finished, but is even now ongoing and ever-expanding, the idea of a fall from a perfect world into sin and estrangement is nonsensical. ... The idea that somehow the very nature of the heavenly God required the death of Jesus as a ransom to be paid for our sins is ludicrous ...”

Danielle

Excellent work.

The time for an anthropomorphic god was over long ago.

Time to step forward into an era marked by learning and wisdom, not straitjacketed by petty deities and those who gain from such limited notions.

SPONG? yeeeegads Danielle :) *sends Danielle off for intensive therapy*

WOBBLES.. I'm thrilled that you are investigating the issues.. wonderful.

I re-looked at Galatians, yes, there is more evidence there of the conflict, but the account does not seem to me to be at variance with the accounts in Acts. Given the dynamic of human thinking, and attitude with circumstance, the small differences are easily accounted for in my view.

Fraccy.. isn't it wonderful when you see someone writing according to ones own biases 0_^

TOPIC. We can have common ground with Muslims in basically one thing.
"God is Almighty and One" The problems begin after that, as they declare we "Cannot associate Partners with Allah" (their view of Christ as Son of God) and we cannot accept that "Mohammad is ANY kind of prophet"
So.. the whole thing is kind of moot if you ask me.

I'll leave you all with the verse from 1 John 1

1That which was from the beginning, which
-we have heard, which
-we have seen with our eyes, which
-we have looked at and
-our hands have touched—
this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

BOAZ_David

I am not a Christian, however, I do not have a problem with whatever someone believes as long as they are kind, care about others, and are not judgemental.

However, in all honesty, I think if Christianity has a long term chance of survival,
Bishop Spong and his teachings will be its saving.

As for Muslims and Christians finding any sort of common ground, I think they will have to agree to disagree on religious issues, and follow what I have stated in my first para. This means acceptance and goodwill on both sides.

Prominent Islamic thinker Said Nursi (1876–1960) stated that, if there is a clash, it is between, on the one hand, the civilization envisioned by “people of faith,” or “the God-conscious” and, on the other, a civilization that tries to banish God from everyday life, from politics, economics, and social interaction, and to reduce religion to privately-held beliefs, to ineffective ritual, to colorful folklore. As Richard John Neuhaus famously argued, if the public square becomes a naked, value-free space, then the religious sensitivities of perhaps the majority of its citizens are being disregarded. David Boaz, I'm sure you stongly empathise with this. Most of us hate the violent extemism of those who dare invoke the name of God in in their incitement for violence.

I guess the temptation for non-Muslims is to find a liberal secular Muslim as a conversation partner. But the fact is that the majority of Muslims are not secular and liberal. Almost all Muslims believe that the Qur’an is infallible; the western tradition of ‘textual criticism’ has not developed and is unlikely to develop amongst mainstream Islam.

Said Nursi’s conviction that Islam must play a role of peacemaker in today’s world is paralleled by the declaration of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council that Christians and Muslims together have a common task of working together for the benefit of all to build “peace, liberty, social justice, and moral values.”

Can there be a dialogue, where, between Muslims, outside the Sufis (and even many of them are suspect), and bible believing Christians (where all are suspect) who hold, there isn't more than one (i.e. their) valid approach to God? A purely secular attitude simply cannot enter into a dimension of the required dialogue - it is not through naïveté, a secular approach seeks peaceful resolution, but ignorance.

Fractelle,

Thank you for your support and kind words

relda,

I wish I had the ability write like you ... insightful, profound and a joy to read. Thank you.

The causes of conflicts are economic. They are only superficially caused by religions. What people care about is unfair economi advantage.

Conflict develops where there is an absence or denial of the ability to access, to analyse, to synthesise and to disseminate information freely. (Lack of academic, judicial or media independence are examples of this.)

The absence or the denial of social progress, either for individuals, or for groups, or for society as a whole, can also lead to violence. (Social progress can be perceived as attaining material or professional status.)

In Afghanistan there is 70% illeteracy. This is hardly a condition where academic, judicial or media freedom can thrive. They also have an antiquated feudal system where the majority is excluded from social progress. In Pakistan it is slightly better. the illeteracy there is only 60%.

"Leader" of "islamic" fighters can easily persuade the illeterates and semi-literates that there problem lies outside, by simply appealing to the only thing that is common to them: - their tradition, their religion. If the so called leaders identified the real problem, the powerful vested interest in their own country will see to it that they will not get anywhere.

The causes of conflicts are economic. They are only superficially caused by religions. What people care about is unfair economic advantage.

Conflict develops where there is an absence or denial of the ability to access, to analyse, to synthesise and to disseminate information freely. (Lack of academic, judicial or media independence are examples of this.)

The absence or the denial of social progress, either for individuals, or for groups, or for society as a whole, can also lead to violence. (Social progress can be perceived as attaining material or professional status.)

In Afghanistan there is 70% illeteracy. This is hardly a condition where academic, judicial or media freedom can thrive. They also have an antiquated feudal system where the majority is excluded from social progress. In Pakistan it is slightly better. the illeteracy there is only 60%.

"Leaders" of "islamic" fighters can easily persuade the illeterates and semi-literates that there problem lies outside, by simply appealing to the only thing that is common to them: - their tradition, their religion. If the so called leaders identified the real problem, the powerful vested interest in their own country will see to it that they will not get anywhere.

Stephen Cheleda

Stephen,
I would not simplify the cause of major world conflict to be merely economically rooted just as it is not merely religiously based. Neither is poverty the causative agent. Rather, It would seem the poor succumb to leaders who have the power to create such conditions for their own self-serving purposes. The cause of major conflict is far more closely tied to the socio-political structure of society and its culture.

Desperately poor people in poor nations cannot organize wars, which are exceptionally costly. I would certainly agree with your second sentence, and say that the situations conductive to war involve political repression of dissidents, tight media control stirring up chauvinism, ethnic prejudices, religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The historical record, however, shows that poverty has rarely, if ever, been a pro-active factor, either in inter-state or intra-state wars. Even as late as 1929, well after ' the war to end all wars', it was freely predicted there would be no more war. And on what basis? Economists and statesmen were giving assurances that prosperity was permanent; "globally", it was said," we are living in a new era and poverty is all but banished from the earth."

As ever, war has been tantalizingly profitable for those national political leaders who have eschewed it. It is certainly a matter of social justice and morality we address the needs of the poverty stricken, but if we do this on mere economic grounds, we address neither the root cause of global conflict or poverty. The culture and politics of a national body, society or civilisation are primarily significant for peace, whether aligned to the religion of Islam, Christianity , Judaism, Buddhism etc.

As I've stated similarly, in your forum topic on the U.N., it is the concept of sovereignty - the legacy of the Treaty of Westphalia, as signed in 1648 and reinforced at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, that has bequeathed us our situation. The justice of this legacy should not have superimposed on it, with the trappings of a world government, an 'authority' inherently as corrupt as any other.