Boazy,

"So, even if I regard 'all Muslims' as 'enemies'.. it does not mean any ill feeling toward them from us. (Political action is not 'personal')" - Boaz

I get the love not hate bit. You too would join the Hippies and put flowers in the National Guard's guns.

Can I rightfully delete "So, even if" from the above statement?

My understanding is that Muhammed merely demoted Jesus to the status of prophet, presumably thinking Christians had over-estimated his purpose. That would a long-way short of vilfication. Would not Abraham be favourably regarded by Muslims as the source of three major religions? Wasn't Muhammed perhaps just re-tuning things, playing the bass and andthe treble, until satisfied with an outcome suitable for his needs, unify the Arab tribes by making them feel special. If so, Islam has shades of the Judaeo OT: e.g., the 'Chosen People'.

The problem with monotheism is that it always assumes a previleged
perspective, not to be doubted. The Egyption, Greek and Roman systems involving syncretion of gods was less hostile, cross-culturally.

The Muslims I know are too busy making a living to feed their families and getting on with their lives to keep obsessing about this sort of stuff.

It seems that some people keep wanting to raise differences as an issue instead of similarities, and in a way that grants some sort of moral superiority over the other.

Likewise many just don't feel the obligation to speak out against things that are happening on the other side of the world and have nothing to do with them, just as the local Christians don't get out and march over atrocities carried out by members of their particular faith.

Following your logic is like watching a dog chase a rabbit, Boaz.

The rapid changes of direction are dazzling to the observer, but ultimately the rabbit's caught.

>>For the Christian, an enemy first and foremost, is an object of love, not hate... it should be abundantly clear to [Pericles], and all others, that "Islam" as a faith, is an enemy of Christ.<<

Ergo, Boaz, Islam is an object of... er, love, to the Christian?

Well, you had me well and truly fooled there, Boaz.

From the volume and consistency of your posts to this forum, I could have sworn that there is a significant animosity between the two of you.

So forgive me if I consign that particular paragraph to the barf-bucket, Boaz.

It has all the sincerity of a rat with a gold tooth selling snake oil.

The sentences contain words, but no meaning.

You manage to combine the cloying sentimentality of a Valentines Day Card with all the passionate conviction of a real estate advertisement.

So, let's agree that you are merely being Orwellian in your definition of love, and pass on to more concrete issues.

What's all this fuss about the shirk?

>>Shirk by Negation. (denying God... oops..that includes PERICLES)<<

Give me one good reason why my denying their God - along, incidentally, with every other one you can think of - should cause me the slightest discomfort, let alone a fully-formed "oops".

No, Boaz, the discomfort is all yours, not mine. You choose your religion, and have to live with the fact that it is different from all the other ones.

To normal, balanced people, this is simply another one of the many inescapable things one has to live with. Like not being French, or having ingrowing toenails, or actually enjoying listening to Abba.

I realize that religionists are required to fear other religions, it goes with the territory. Religions are a threat to each other because they require only faith, and therefore cannot be discussed factually.

So you and your fellow Christian evangelists may have "concerns over the growth of Islam in Australia".

I don't.

Dear Oly....

your view lacks the intesity required by the subject matter.

Mohammad did not 'merely demote' Jesus.. he claimed for himself that which is Christ's alone "The Way"..and the final, "only" way at that.
His 'demotion' as you call it, is gutting and disembowelling the absolute core of the Christian faith, it is an attack which can only be described as 'Satanic'.

I understand that ur looking at this issue from a secular or non Christian perspective.. perhaps you can appreciate how crucial it is for Christians by thinking of something which is utterly precious and pivotal in your own belief system, and then reflecting on how you might feel if someone came along and declared it totally invalid.

Your view of history and Jesus role in it probably impacts your perception of this issue.

CJ.. no, that is not the same.. 'that' reasoning is not applicable to Christians in the sense that while we would indeed prefer a 'Christian flavored' democracy, and laws which support our values, we can only ever arrive there (or depart from it) by democratic means. As I've been laboring a bit recently 'There is no.."Christian" state in the Bible. However.. Islam by nature IS.. 'a state'. That's the difference. I don't have to 'know' anything more than that.
Muslims who are not seeking (either passively or actively) an Islamic state would be described as 'hypocrites and apostates' most likely by their own scholars.

WOBBLES. When the differences are, where a 'central core belief' of Islam is attacking the 'central belief' of Christians, and considers Christian belief 'The ultimate crime'...you can even speak about 'similarities'?

PERICLES. By "Islam" in that context I mean 'Muslims'....
My terminology there was less than clear.
Your lack of concern probably arises from your lack of experience of being persecuted based on being an atheist.
But once you see 'Sayyid' promoted over you... and then Ahmad.. and you languish for years at "Static" you would feel it. (As Malaysians do)

NEW SUBJECT. "VEGETARIAN PETS"

VEGETARIAN PETS.. I didn't really want to get bogged down about the opening couple of posts.. and I am interested to explore the thoughts of others about this matter.

It seems that there is a growing industry out there in this field.

I became aware of it through the Supreme Master TV booth at the MBS.

It strikes me as rather odd that some/many? vegetarians are projecting their personal eating habits on animals which have lived by instinct since time immemorial.. Dogs.. from wolves.. pack animals... eat..MEAT.. as do cats.

It seems to me that 'animal love' is very twisted when it projects human vegetarian sentimentality onto their eating habits.

http://veganpet.com.au/articles/?page_id=7

What are they thinking?

On the vegetarian pets thing, I concur. I don't like it when anyone forces their unnecessary or detrimental religious habits on those who aren't in a position to reject it.

So forcing a dog to be a vegetarian I think, is cruel. Just as I vehemently disagree with those of certain religious beliefs who would prefer to deny their children a blood transfusion than step outside their religious framework.

To a far lesser degree, I also don't like it when parents force their children to go to church, but by the same token, I wouldn't like parents to stop their children from going to church if the kid wanted to.
I'd have some sympathy for a parent who was worried that some religious fruit loop had been in the ear of the child telling them stupid stories, but I guess some religious parents would regard an atheist or agnostic espousing the stupidity of religion in the same vein. I guess the solution there would be for the parent to go with them.

In regard to the earlier subject - boaz, you keep stressing how polite and nice the whole encounter was, but you reject that Islam is harmless, despite the warm and cordial atmosphere.
You also seem to reject the idea that despite a friendly meeting, your interpretation of their religion may create a more hostile impression than what the reality of these people appears to be from your cordial discussion. You also posit the notion in the other thread, that despite there being significant dispute over interpretations of religious texts, there is still an objective truth within, that you appear to be skilled at deciphering.

Starting to see why this all seems a little dodgy yet?