C'mon BOZO; belly up to the bar...............

(Hey Slic!, still the master of cut and paste I see!!)

Hi there Ginxy..I've missed you :) welcome back.

TRTL.. I think your key phrase to be addressed first is 'but when God is concerned'......

I find myself stuck in the same dilemna Paul referred to in Romans 9

Reflect on this first please (by reading the context)

"9.1
<<I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race>>,

(so..if he wistfully desired that..why not just abandon his faith and go back to them?.....*think*)

Then...

9.14
<<What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.>>

Now..here is my problem. I cannot argue with Paul, because he clearly had an experience of the Risen Lord which is unparalleled in History.
Knowing all that he wrote, and his testimony, again.. I find no chink in his spiritual armour or integrity upon which to base some attack.

The point is...God IS...sovereign. I don't think you are giving this anywhere near as much weight as you should. We'll talk again when you have 'created' some new life form out of nothing :)

Finally, where do you get your ideas of 'justice and fairness' that you base your assessment of God's behavior from ? :) welllll..I hint that you got them from the culture which is based on no less than the same document you are criticizing. So.. perhaps your inherited cultural understanding of justice, fairness and most importantly the sovereignty of God, are not quite where they should be just yet?

Ultimately...there are and will be many unanswered questions this side of eternity.

For the most evasive answer, in recorded history, please see above.

You still refuse to judge gods actions, yet you consistently ask us to judge the actions in the Qu'ran.

You say, "he point is...God IS...sovereign. I don't think you are giving this anywhere near as much weight as you should."

On the contrary, I'm well aware of your point, I just think it's bulldust (I really really wanted to use a stronger term here, but alas, I suspect OLO frowns on that).

I'm giving it a great deal of weight. As much weight as you're placing on the actions of Mohammed.

I'm just willing to see these actions for precisely what they are - cruelty.

The fact you can't address the question shows that deep down you know it's cruel.

Because it's god, he gets a free pass.

I'm saying that nobody and nothing gets a free pass. You can say god created life from nothing, well, any man can have a child with a wife.

That doesn't give them the right to torture it.

I'm putting an assertion to you here boaz, and I don't see how you can deny it:

Your religion, requires you to set aside your morality in order to be a believer. You won't use your judgement when it's god in question.

God is excused from morality.

In Islam, they excuse mohammed, saying he's the prophet - in a way, he's the extension of god.

However ugly it looks, they can't judge it. Just like you can't judge your god.

This is what I'm getting at boaz. You're doing what you despise in the Qu'ran.

Ultimately, what's in the bible or the Qu'ran doesn't matter one jot to me. It's the people that count, not the book.

So I'll condemn extremists who murder, but I'll not condemn Islam. Just like I'd condemn the god who tortured Job if I believed in him, but wouldn't think it fair to condemn Christianity as a whole.

Hey Ginx, still the master of the useless comment I see.

Cut and paste?
You mean the list of Muslim atrocities?
I can only report what has already been reported elsewhere.
Or should I just make stuff up?

Phrases from America's founding documents and the Bible's deadly sins?
This is called "artistic licence".

Or "wit".
I wouldn't expect you to understand.

TurnRightThenLeft, now who's being evasive?
If you condemn the God of scripture (Bible or Koran), you must condemn the scripture.
If you condemn the scripture, you must condemn the faith based on it.

You can't say you condemn the Abrahamic God (based on what's stated in scripture), but "I'll not condemn Islam or Christianity as a whole."

What? The Abrahamic God is the basis of Islam and Christianity.
(And Judaism. Or is that the real problem?
You don't want to be seen as anti-Jew, so you "cop out" with a pathetically weak God/scripture/faith/believers distinction).

I don't believe any scripture, nor do feel any "atheistic zeal" to condemn it.
Scripture is irrelevant to my life.
My only use for scripture is ironic appropriation (and occasionally toilet paper).

But I can condemn plane hijackers, embassy bombers and hostage beheaders.
And I see Muslims, Muslims, Muslims whenever these events are reported.

If a culture or ideology, is *habitually* producing such things, don't we have the right to question the suitability of potential migrants from this background?
We are discussing multiculturalism *in* Australia, remember?
Not the validity of cultures in and of themselves, in their original context.

You draw the line *somewhere*.
Or do you allow cannibals, human sacrificers and eugenicists into the country?
If you say "No" to them, you are being "intolerant" and not embracing the diversity of human culture, belief and values.

You aren't 100% tolerant.
We all draw a line somewhere.
The only difference is *where* we choose to draw the line.

This perpetual, pathetic Pavlovian parroting of pompous PC propaganda is perplexing and perverse!
You may call me P.
P for Pissed Off.

No, shockadelic, it's quite simple. I couldn't give two hoots about what's in a book, I care about how people choose to use that information.

Besides, I agree I'm not 100% tolerant. I'm not the least bit tolerant of your posts.
I note you haven't actually disputed the hypocrisy I've highlighted in boaz's posts, so unless you want to further highlight the hypocrisy with which you attack ginx's 'useless comment' you might want to actually address the main points I've made instead of getting all worked up over your anti-tolerance schtick.

Sounds like you're the one "getting all worked up" TurnRightThenLeft.

"I couldn't give two hoots about what's in a book, I care about how people choose to use that information."

Duh! Isn't that precisely what *I* have been saying?

"I agree I'm not 100% tolerant. I'm not the least bit tolerant of your posts."

Then you're anti-liberal.

You're not the least bit tolerant of my posts because:
(a) You refuse to contemplate them for more than 1 nanosecond.
(b) You've convinced yourself I'm someone I'm not.
and/or (c) you are a paid agent of a Certain Agenda.
(My bet's on the latter).

"I note you haven't actually disputed the hypocrisy I've highlighted in Boaz's posts"

Maybe because I don't care whether Boaz is a hypocrite or not.

And how exactly am I a hypocrite for describing Ginx's useless comment as a 'useless comment'?
Did Ginx add anything to the debate? (Does Ginx *ever* add to a debate?)
I think I've contributed quite significantly, but you just ignore any valid points I make, because you've already made up your mind to dismiss anything I say.

"Anti-tolerance shtick"?
I thought this whole discussion was about tolerance? Am I mistaken?

You are intolerant, so is Boazy, so is Ginx, so am I.
We just define our *limits* differently.
That's not "shtick". It's a valid point.
Which you dismiss.
As usual.

I will not tolerate people who *execute* homosexuals.
Do you?
And don't go all evasive, answer me: Do you "tolerate" the execution of homosexuals?
There's no neutral responese here, TurnRightThenLeft: it's Yes or No.