And Happy Republic Day for all our Indian friends.

Ah, so in essence, your entire argument shockadelic, is that we should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality.

Clearly, the key difference here, is that rather than react in fear of the actions of a minority of muslims by overall numbers, and in doing so, piss away what our society is, I'd rather keep the things that make us different.

TRTL...I always find myself intellectually stimulated by your posts.. at least you think about them rather deeply.

<<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.>>

There are a couple of dimensions underlying those statements which deserve closer examination.

With regard to Job.. yes, I absolutely agree, the process of whittling the poor bugger down and trashing his family, to me is absolutely cruel.
and then, covering the blighter with 'boils' *ouch*.....

Lets look at it 2 ways.

1/ Its poetry, a parable...designed assure people that no matter how bad things get... trust in God is the best thing.

2/ It really happened. In which case the order of events is quite important.
a) God says "Look at my servant Job, how faithful he is"
b) Satan says "hah... give him to me for a while and see how faithful he is!"
c) God allows it...
d) Satan does it.
Job survives, is more blessed than in the beginning.

Ok..no matter which way you cut it, from OUR human framework and reference point, it certainly challenges our values and 'sentimental' understanding of God.

QUESTION.. 'from where did we GET those values' ? aaaah.. *think*

We obtained those values from our Christian heritage. Is it then fair to judge He from whom our values came ? Asking me to 'judge' God is a longshot mate.. I simply won't do it.

I can judge the Quran, and Mohammad beCAUSE of the reality of God, the finality of the Scriptures and of Christ. Now..b4 you jump on me, I knowwww that is where circular reasoning/arguing begins.

CONCLUSION. My condemnation of the Quran and Mohammad is based on a very simple principle. I cannot link Biblical teaching or Christs example to earthly violence against non believers simply because they are unbelievers. In the Quran and Islam it is entrenched.

ummm...don't mean to be a hog here but I'm noticing a trend.

SHOCKA is actually saying some very sound stuff.. usually toward the end of his posts.

"Do you welcome"? ..then he lists a few gross attitudes.

I'm not seeing much by the way of 'answers' to this, and after all..it is the key to the whole topic.

"Do we accept and tolerate
-"intolerance" "British police goto hell" (sign at London Islamist protest)

-Eugenicists.. (looks that up...)aah..got it.. kind of Dr Mengle type stuff.. race improvement..mein kampf :)

SOOOO.. Ginx.. this is your que to actually make a ...(takes a breath) CONT..RI...BUUUUUTION :)

How far does your tolerance go ? "to the extent where Australian law permits" ? or.. do you accept much more and freely allow them to change our law to 'their' particular ism or thing?

*awaits courteous and thoughful response*

PS.. the last few posts gave me plennnty of laughs :) Jack, Ginx, Shocka TRTL...

So boaz, in that post you make two key points:

1) If the story of Job is true, at the end he is left more blessed than he was in the beginning.

2) We can't judge god with our morals, because Christianity is where our morals are derived from.

When you stop to consider them carefully, neither of these are particularly persuasive.

In regard to the first one - it isn't okay to kill something, then just replace it. You say Job is left more blessed - but how can that excuse the murder of his daughter?
What's more, the writing in the bible speaks of his new, prettier, better daughter.

What kind of attitude thinks that just replacing a daughter with a 'better' one is acceptable? This is a human being, not a bike.

In regard to 2) - if we're gifted with these morals, regardless of where they come from, what reason is there to discard them simply because of the alleged originator?

Consider this for just a moment - if I get my morals from my parents, then one of my parents does something heinous like torture, should I look the other way?
Regardless of the issue of loyalty which does muddy the waters, it doesn't change the fact that the torture is immoral.

Are morals concrete or aren't they, boaz?

What is more important? Doing the right thing, or doing what's sanctioned by god?

I reject the actions of suicide bombers, because they're doing the wrong thing. They see it as doing what is sanctioned by their god.

Tell me boaz - if god repeated the story of Job today and you were required you to carry out those actions of torture to make it possible by His wishes, would you do it?

Actually, I'll go a step back -

Would you stand by and let it happen?

If I could put a stop to it, I know I would. The real question I have, is knowing that it's god's will, which you say can't be thwarted, would you try anyway?

TurnRightThenLeft: "Your entire argument, shockadelic, is that we should adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality."

Why not? We did it before in WWII. (German? Japanese? Off to the internment camp!)

There's an obvious threat from a *specific* ideological/cultural group.
Yes, not everybody in that group is a threat.
But considering the avalanche of destruction in recent years coming from that group, it would seem appropriate to *temporarily curtail* the usual "rights" (not that we have a bill of rights anyway), and wait until the dust settles before we *risk* any further damage.

If you were Australia's insurance company, how would you evaluate the probable risk of Muslim migration?
Harmless? Dangerous?

Large numbers of Muslim migrants will "piss away what our society is".
"I'd rather keep the things that make us different."
But those "things" won't exist if we became demographically too Islamic.

As Boaz pointed out, you won't respond to my question about *limits* to tolerance/freedom.

No society is 100% tolerant, no person 100% free.
Or we'd allow cannibalism and human sacrifices.
Other societies found them perfectly acceptable!

*Australians* define what's acceptable to *Australia*, which can differ to other societies.
There's no *universal, permanent* definition of what's acceptable or unacceptable.
This changes from culture to culture, and even within a culture over time.

Things we use to "tolerate" (slavery, whaling) we no longer tolerate.
Things that were illegal (walking down the street at night - strange but true) are now permitted.
Tolerance isn't fixed. It's relative to the time and place.

At this time, there's a large amount of vicious behavior emanating from the Muslim world, directed at *Westerners*!
This place, Australia, has suffered minimally so far.
But for *how long*, if hundreds of thousands of Muslims walk in the door over the next few decades?

When we see signs the Muslim world is maturing and no longer a threat, we can rethink.

But don't hold your breath.
Remember the witch hunts and inquisitions went on for centuries before Christianity "grew up".

We both *agree* on liberal principles.
You think they're fixed and universal.
I know they're not.