of course, you religious guys are free to argue over the value of your books - implicitly over the value of your gods. heaven knows why you think you'll resolve anything, but it's your argument and i hope you have fun.

but, on the off chance you care what others might think, i'll just reiterate my view as a non-adherent: i couldn't care less about your books. i couldn't care less how you contextualise them, rank them, interpret them, excuse them, metaphorize them or anything else them.

i care only about the practical moral stances you hold and the morality of your actions.

Wonderful discussion, robust.

BushBasher. Hang in mate, it's in your interests socially and politically. See THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0

WHICH AXE?

To Pericles (in the 'Bunker of Blindness')... how can I say 'that' with a straight face? Very simply,- if you look back over the history of say Skid Marx or.. Stevenlmeyer or even Paul L a more recent contributor.. you will see that Christian, Jew and Atheist (Don't get the Hindu's started) are ALL saying the same thing... criticizing the violence inherent in Islamic sources, linked directly to Mohammad, which is applied by Muslims to their own actions in periods later than Mohammad, and while today there are Salafists, Wahabists and “moderates” all who variously justify or rationalize or make total claim to, those teachings... it is not an exclusively 'Christian' axe.

Dar_Ul_Harb/Darul_Islam(land of war/Islam) search this out, and you will find it rests on Surah 9:29

The only issue which should concern you, is... “is this information true and correct..or not”

As to the issue “Does Islam contain specific commands to embark on war against non Muslims, and have the early (and many modern) Muslims themselves interpreted 9:29 to this effect”, the answer is a resounding YES”

I don't suppose you would know this from your 'Bunker of Blindness' Pericles, but Caliph Omar is considered by all Muslims to be one of the 4 'rightly guided' Caliphs. He was a personal companion of Mohammad, as was Al Mughira.

So.. I'm sorry to dissappoint you, the facts are on the side of the position I am asserting. They are on the side of the Atheist, Jew,Hindu and Christian, in asserting this.

As for you, you simply dive into your bunker of blindness, make claims about “I don't consider YOU capable of interpreting these texts because you have a 'Christian' axe to grind”

From KatieO (a fellow warrior in the faith :)

“The non-believer expects the Christian to have a more compelling argument than “I’m not a total idiot”

... how beautifully said!

Bushbasher, you should care about the books, because they are the foundation myths that will give you some of the explanations for why people act the way they do, and also give you an idea of the limits on their actions.

It's also a little more complicated than that, in that most Christian denominations have theology that has grown up as explanations of the books, and some of that theology, particularly in Roman Catholic practice, tends to be accorded status approaching that of the book, or even, in the case of papal encyclicals, I would argue above the book.

I think you can tell a lot about Australia by looking at our legal system. The same applies to religions and their books.

yes, graham, you are right. the books give some sense of the boundaries, and obviously a strong sense our cultural and legal backgrounds. and to that extent i am interested in your books.

but, the underlying reality is that you guys are playing a game of "my god is nicer than your god", and to play this game on the basis of the texts is just incredibly silly. again, that's up to you, but the point is it gives no useful information to a non-believer such as me.

it is blatantly obvious that different "christians" take dramatically different messages from the bible, with dramatically different emphases on love and/or fear and/or moral prescription/proscription. ditto "muslims".

for me, the proof is in, and only in, the pudding. are you telling me how to live my life because god says so? are you promoting eye for an eye barbarism? are you promoting a message that we must love one another, or do you simply think that god is on your side? do you think seriously about abortion, or homosexuality, or capital punishment, or are you simply reading from a script?

if you are thinking seriously on an issue then i will deal with your serious thoughts directly. if those serious thoughts originate from a religious text that's fine: extract them. but the text itself does not and cannot carry any authoritative weight.

you and i must argue on common moral ground. for that, your books are fundamentally irrelevant.

Any person who does not have an education in at least Introductory Comparative Religion is really all at sea in debates such as this one. It is not possible for a Westerner to think of him/herself as "educated" if s/he has not been educated in The Bible and in particular the history of Christianity.

If I had my way, I would make Comparative Religion and World History compulsory in all schools from Kindergarten onwards. But never to be taught by clergy, only historians, linguists, fine arts types.

At the moment we have the totally unacceptable situation where at the Griffith Madrasas of Unitarianism, the Head of the "Islamic Research Unit" is not a scholar but a Wahhabist imam.

This is a disgrace that we must all campaign to rectify.

BB... you said:

"are you promoting eye for an eye barbarism? are you promoting a message that we must love one another, or do you simply think that god is on your side?"

The point about becoming familiar with the 'books' of various religions, is so that you can yourself determine what the religion teaches.

From that starting/reference point, you can then see also, who is talking twaddle and who is speaking truth.

Christianity is quite different from Islam. Islam is a religion which involves the establishment of a 'State'..and this is clear from just about every syllable in the Quran and Hadith and the unfolding history of the Muslim world.

Now..it would be easy to simply conclude (due to lack of knowledge) that Christianity says the same. NO.. (sorry.. emphAsis needed :)
It does not. If you look at the Gospels and Letters (NT) you will see that these major themes exist.

1/ 'PROCLAIM' the Gospel of forgiveness....
2/ 'CALL' men and women to repentance... (call..invite, encourage, persuade)
3/ 'WAIT' for the return of Christ, while doing the above 2 things.

4/ 'BE' faithful, diligent, active, pure, generous, hospitable, loving, etc.... while doing all of the above.

5/ ESTABLISH a theocracy and FORCE everyone else to do what God says:)

GOTCHA..no..that last point is 'opposites day' speak. There is NOTHING even remotely suggesting that Christians are to establish any kind of 'Christian' State..

IF....there is no 'Christian State' there can be no 'Christian' foreign policy.
So, there can never NEVER be a 'Christian' doctrine of invasion in the name of God. A point I have been laboring about Islam, which DOES have exactly that.

I speak here from the Protestant perspective, feel free to sus out any differences in the RC version,but as Graham Y says..the answer to 'who is right' is found in the scriptures themselves.