Ruby, I must have missed the atheist statement, sorry.

katieo makes an important point about the lack of current relevance of your criticism of the Lot episode. The apparent savagery of the Old Testament is not preached as a guide to living. The Christian’s guide to living is in the other material katieo has referred to: the Sermon on the Mount and the assurance of Christ’s love for us. This is the predominant theme of the gospels – but I assume you know this? You don't regard Christianity as savage, do you? The gospels as a call to arms?

Then, there is rstuart's point about the separation of church and state. Isn't it clear that sharia is designed for a theocracy? Where else can it be accommodated?

There is another important difference between the Bible and the Qu’ran. Apart from literalists who regard the Bible as effectively etched in stone by God's own hand, adherents tend to ask “What is God saying to me now, in the Bible?”, not simply “What does the Bible say?”. It’s risky (ie can lead off in all sorts of directions), but so is literalism. Most, I think, accept some degree of risk and responsibility.

The way the Bible itself came into existence encourages this – several books, several authors, a variety of literary forms, different degrees of claimed divine input or inspiration, developed and consolidated over a long period (centuries).

By contrast, the Q’ran is claimed to have been delivered by one angel to one man over a relatively short period (20 years?). This is a very different pedigree – one which doesn’t readily permit any departure from a literal reading. I understand that there was a short period in Muslim history when interpretation was welcomed, but that the practice was overtly cut off. So, the savagery of the Qu'ran is of immediate relevance to the world.

Meanwhile, what do you suggest be done?

Pax,

sonofeire, That’s a very cool post.

katieo, I’m all for prayer, but we need to do something else as well. I shouldn’t say “something more”, should I? I’m looking for ideas about what action to take. Thank you for including Romans 8: the discussion needs some real beauty.

camo, Thanks for having a go at what to do. Exposure, certainly. Removing passages from the Qu’ran? Hardly. Ain’t our book. Expose to whom?

rstuart, You say “mainstream Islam has moved on”. I wish you were right, and I even hope you are. But, I think mainstream Islam is actually the problem. Whatever their beliefs, they should be condemning the extremists audibly – explaining why the extremists are not good Muslims, using the Qu’ran against the extremists. (Then, enter Boaz, who would say, perhaps rightly, that such an argument simply isn’t available because of the Qu'ran's content. Still, I’d like to see mainstream Islam try. I’m afraid they have a lot of growing up to do first, as we can see from sonofeire’s last post.)

Ruby, I'm afraid your task is now becoming more difficult. Good luck.

Pax,

Goodtheif, if I knew what needed to be done, then I would be working for the United Nations, not posting comments here. Look, I am not saying that Christians or Jews follow the Bible literally, in fact I said the opposite in my article. The point is that it is not the Koran or the Bible in themselves that are the problem, it is the way people manipulate them to suit their own agenda. They are just books. That is all. Just books.

This dialogue has deteriorated to a level that has absolutely nothing to do with my original article and as such I see no point in continuing here. Thanks again to everyone who read and commented.

Dear Ruby

you did indeed say that Christians don't follow the bible 'literally'....
but unfortunately, you made a claim which places all Christians in a very poor light.. and you have left unfixed a claim which is untrue and unsupported, and which now will linger in the minds of all who read it.

"GOD COMMANDED HIS PEOPLE TO (murder and) RAPE ENEMIES"

Your assertion is not only untrue, it is damaging to the public perception of all Christians.

Consider this. If I happen to go door knocking (which I don't) and say "Good evening, I'm BD from your local 'Denomination X' church, may I speak with you about the Gospel"?

The resident might respond with "Get the hell out of my face, I don't want to talk with people who believe in a God who commands his people to murder and RAPE" !

What's to say after that?

Your 'rape' assertion is beyond the text and is damaging to the safety and acceptance of Christians and the Gospel in society on the social level.

If you are an atheist... I have no idea why you would make a defense of Islam as you have done. Islam places YOU in the 'worst case' basket... you are (according to the Hook handed Sheikh Abu Hamza al Mazri)able to be either killed or taken and sold as a slave in the Market.

So... I want you to retract your claim about "and rape".
One thing you mentioned does deserve further comment though.

“forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”.

She has not "just" seen them killed. She has had a month of grieving.
I doubt she is 'forced' as it would mean immediate freedom from her slave status by law. I doubt an Israelite would jeapordize this simply for a forced quickie.

What you described is 'Islamic' practice in Mohammad's day supported by specific Quranic verses (23:5-6), not "Israelite practice in Moses day"

Passy

Sorry for the delay in response.

You infer I am a “troll”. It is you who is trying to divert this thread away from the subject in question.

I have never said “class is irrelevant”. Those are your words. What I meant in my post was that the situation today concerning the “working class” has changed immensely, and for the better, in the hundred and fifty or so years since Marx wrote “the Communist Manifesto”.

So much so, that "classes" themselves are hardly recognisable, compared to the situation in those days.

My belief is that genetics lie at the base of why society operates as it does.

Attempts to “engineer” society to eliminate the influence of genetics are doomed to failure for obvious reasons.

The concept of communism, a fine ideal to be sure, cannot survive outside the imaginings of its admittedly idealistic proponents.

Your comment that “Socialism has never been tried” is correct. Ask yourself why.

My answer: it never will be, as it conflicts with nature.

Read this:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml

All your other questions/propositions are simply your interpretation of events, based on your own particular world-view. Other people may interpret them differently.

In a way, I feel sorry for you, because your ideology will never succeed, and you are simply wasting your time.

As far as the actual subject of this thread is concerned, I think that the author is trying to defend the indefensible.

Read ”The Islamist” by Ed Hussein to understand why.

As regards the subject of Socialism and Communism, in their many and varied manifestations, I suggest you write an article for OLO so we can know exactly what your thoughts are, and what you are advocating for society.

Your hijacking of other threads to disseminate your ideas does you no credit.

The lengths to which you go, Boaz, to defend the indefensible, are sometime truly epic.

>>One thing you mentioned does deserve further comment though.
“forcing a woman who has just seen her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not”.
She has not "just" seen them killed. She has had a month of grieving.<<

Did you actually write that with a straight face?

So, in your book, you have no objection to "forcing a woman who only a month ago saw her entire family annihilated to marry you and then having sex with her whether she wants to or not"

No wonder you think it's OK to beat your daughter.