boaz and greenfield, you're missing my point. when it comes to comparing your books, i don't care what's "true" or "good". i pointed out the obvious nastiness and bad faith and silliness of cherry-picking, but otherwise i took no part and will take no part. i am unskilled to do so and am uninterested in doing so.

but, to the extent that you guys are really discussing moral codes, i have a stake. and, to the extent that you guys are discussing moral codes, i just don't care less about the origins of such codes.

i don't care what a real "christian" or a real "muslim" is. as i said, the majority of self-proclaimed christians, and the majority of self-proclaimed muslims, that i have met have been admirable and loving people. and i certainly read about "christians" and "muslims" who are much less admirable and much less loving, and occasionally i meet some such fellows.

so, if i meet a "christian" or a "muslim", or pretty much anyone, i will presume that they are admirable and loving, unless they provide evidence otherwise. if there is evidence otherwise, i am going to give no weight to any scholarly backing. what else do i need?

look, i know you guys wished i cared more about your books and your gods. but i don't. i don't believe in your gods, and (for moral questions) i don't care about your books. sorry, but you'll have to get used to it.

i don't claim to speak for other non-believers. and it's your argument. but you might consider the relevance or irrelevance of your argument for non-believers.

i think i've given whatever it is i have to offer here, so i intend this to be my last post. good bye and, as dave allen used to say, may your god go with you.

Bushbasher, I don't think I have once used scripture as a way of proving things. If I've referenced it it would be in the context of what a Christian might believe, not in terms of trying to convince someone of the rightness of an argument.

I think one of the strengths of Jesus' approach was that, more often than not, like Socrates, he'd ask a question rather than provide an answer, and he'd again frequently do it via stories - parables.

Thomas Aquinas said that God wrote two great books - the Bible and the book of nature. Christianity has a faith basis, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't engage with the world of logic, but it does that while asking at the same time, What is right? What would please God? And those are not straightforward questions with straightforward answers.

You can actually view the Christian book not as a handbook of rules of what to do, but an account of man's struggle to understand the fundamentals of the universe and his relationship with it and everything else in it.

I haven't seen Keysar on the thread for a while, but I think that this idea of continuing revelation is one that Christianity has, but Islam doesn't. He might like to comment.

Hi Bushy....

mate..I do appreciate your position, and sorry for being a bit of a nag, but there is something ur missing also.

Whether you believe in our books or not is actually not the most important question.

You make a lot of fuss about 'morality' and how it (as the rubber) meets the road (of your life)..and this IS most important.

'Truth' or falsehood of the books is not the question you need answered....but 'what' do those books actually teach and HOW can this effect 'you'? right? Unless I've misunderstood you, this appears to be your primary concern. (Book content/teaching translates into behavior)

Ok.. if that is a safe assumption, I've not been trying to prove 'this' "book" or..'that' "book" is true, but (now please, look closely at the development of my ealier posts in this thread)

...I've been looking at how one particular command IN the book of Islam,

a)has been used by its own prophet..
b)How it has been used and applied by those AFTER that prophet to different historical circumstances.
c)How that can effect......YOU. (and me and we)

My assertion, has been "Mohammad claimed Allah told him "I have been commanded to fight those who do not believe in Allah (etc) until they are subjected"

Then..I showed how 'post Mohammad' Muslims (but those who knew him personally) applied and understood that very same command (9:29) which according to our dear friend Kaysar was 'only for one historical situation'(which Mohammad himself faced).. but which is clearly NOT the case on the basis of the evidence.

I've tried also to develop:"Christian foundational documents do NOT have a 'we will rule the world' agenda" whereas in the other case..they do...

BB, unless ur living in some twighlight zone, that... effects...you.

You don't 'see' the evidence right now, but did you look at that Vid of London cops surrounded?

Here it is again:
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1341&Itemid=63
scroll to the Glen Jenvey youtube vid image.

If 'any'one outrageously infringes on our police..they infringe on us!
(If not now...then eventually)

foolish me, thinking i was going to get out of here so easily.

graham, i'm not sure i accused you of proof by scripture: if i did, i'm sorry and i retract. my various uses of "you" above was meant to reflect a generality of views that i feel have been expressed in this thread. i did not mean to imply that every such view was held by every such religious poster.

i like very much your description of "the Christian book not as a handbook of rules of what to do, but an account of man's struggle to understand the fundamentals of the universe". i do appreciate this, and i feel one of my great educational failings is my limited knowledge and understanding of religious traditions. to this extent, i agree with both you and greenfield.

but:

1) there is no shortage of "christians" who do regard the bible as a handbook of rules. ditto koran/"muslims".

2) as a non-believer, my take is coloured by the feeling that resorting to a god is not "struggling". rather, i see it as an understandable but regrettable reaction to the fear of the rather awful truths that such struggle heightens: death, and ultimate meaningless.

(no, boaz or anybody, i'm not going to defend item (2) ).

but truly, honestly i take your point. even with my limited reading, i have read beautiful, meaningful truths, in both the bible and the koran. and it seems to me fair and meaningful to compare the intellectual traditions of differing religions (if done in good faith!).

my argument above is:

A) no religious text has, for me, one iota of moral authority.

B) the koran and the bible are extremely poor predictors of the practical morality of the purported adherents.

and B) is critical, and comes mostly from my personal experience of the people i have met.

boaz, to quote groucho, who am i going to believe, you or my own eyes?

Clearly Keysar Trad is not alone among Muslims who wish religious dogma to trump scholarship in Australia's universities. A chain petition is currently doing the rounds as a complaint to the Australian Press Council trying to silence our media!

http://culturewarriorwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/islamists-complain-to-press-council.html

Boaz, I have no interest in attacking you at all. I would hate to see you so deluding yourself.

Yes, I have been away for a while.

As a matter of fact Boaz, you keep going in circles, I do not engage in circular debates. I have answered both your questions succinctly, I have no intention of elaborating further through this forum, I am happy for the other readers to make up their own minds on the basis of what had already been said on the topic. If readers including you wish to take this topic further, a private email may be more appropriate, this I may answer in my own good time.

Quite frankly, looking at the material today, I could not read all of it, I find it far too boring.

I will answer Graham's question though.

Graham, from our perspective, Christ is part and parcel of the Muslim tradition. You are correct that Christ came to return the focus on the spirit and not just the letter, though the quote from KatieO Matt 5:17 means that the law which is the O/T still applied, but rather the Israelites should look at the spirit and not just the letter, that is, do not look for loopholes in the law, if the spirit is to forbid gambling, prostitution, Usury, do not reintroduce those under other names such as "Bingo/meat raffles/lotto", "Sex Industry" or "Interest". The early church fathers kept the O/T because that was the law. Paul’s comment about circumcision etc being less important should not be interpreted as an abrogation of the law (O/T), but rather a prioritising of issues, i.e., you explore the intricacies of the beliefs using logic and reason before you consider the detail of what God requires of you (such as prayer, fasting, etc [inc. male circumcision]). In other words, we see Christ as much a preacher of Islam as we do Noah, Abraham, Moses and Muhammad, peace and blessings upon them all. We agree with the immaculate conception of Christ but differ on points such as the crucifixion, original sin and monasticism.

Love