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.