Dear Boazy,

Thanks for your above reply.

Cow [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. - Koran

Boazy: What is the alleged god Allah saying here, via Mohammed?

To me, it would seem this diety is represented as being, say, more panoramic, if you like, than the gods of Abraham גאָט פֿון אַבֿרהם [Principles of Faith], Moses [Law] & NT [Messiah]. Herein, said Allah, would seem to be chiding other religions for their exclusiveness, perhaps. The relationship of Jewish and Christian et al. individuals to Allah appears to be aside from their religious group.

The concept of Oneness, as a kernel feature of God, is dominant in all three major monotheistic religions, basically by definition. Said Allah would also seem to be against polytheism as a result. Assuming Mohammed framed these scriptures, it seems odd that he was unaware, perhaps, lacking the necessary scholarship, that the OT Hewbrews were henotheists, as Moses encountered.

I thought an interfaith experience was all about seeing the similarities between peoples of differing faiths, not identifying enemies.

I'm going to have to set my kids straight on their positive experiences with interfaith experiences. They got it all wrong didn't they Boazy?

Boazy, you may ridicule any other faith and shake your head that there are people who can believe the most unbelievable things. So you should be able to walk a mile in the shoes of a non-Christian, including a Muslim, who still treat you with courtesy and respect though you regard a virgin giving birth and a man dying on the cross, then coming alive again as THE cornerstone of your faith. There are those who cannot see any difference in the unlikeliness of that with that of believing we descend from aliens.

Truly, you vastly overestimate the whole enemy_of_Christianity thing.

The monotheistic faiths with their man made rules, books and discourses have this one thing in common: fear of losing followers to the other side. An effective way of stopping anybody from leaving any organisation is through making the other real scary, real dangerous, the 'other' slightly less human-basically the enemy, who are out to destroy you.

Propaganda is used by political parties and religions alike. It is man made and of this Earth.

Explore your own spiritual beliefs, practice living your own life according to your spiritual beliefs because they give meaning to your own life. Focusing so much on others and what they think or say of your belief, knowledge (or lack of) will not make what you believe more or less valid.

You want others to see the greatness of what you believe? Then show by example. And here's a hint Boazy: humility is a hallmark of greatness.

Telling us you lovingly shook the hand of your enemy is not good enough. For all we know you were just too scared to do otherwise.

yvonne: << Telling us you lovingly shook the hand of your enemy is not good enough. For all we know you were just too scared to do otherwise. >>

Too funny. I can just see old Boazy, quaking in his socks and sandals, anticipating the potential martyrdom or curses that might result from his confrontation with his "enemy".

I think his success rate at converting people to Christianity via his "MBS" activities would be pretty much on par with his success rate here - i.e. zilch.

No matter, Boazy obviously feels very pleased with himself. Such courage and fortitude in the face of sheer adversity!

Dear Yvonne.. "too scared to do otherwise" innnndeed :) 'for all you know'....

but now you have me curious.. I'm most interested in your 'mental image' of 'me' :) am I a short skinny puny old dag with narrow stooping shoulders..and no hair.. all shrivelled up hobbling around. unable to 'punch his way out of a wet paper bag' as they say. C'mon..fess up now.. you must have some kind of image there. *smile*.. I'm intensely curious.

I suppose I partly have myself to blame for that little crack, because the carnal mind may well "interpret" some of my posts in a rather physically beligerant way.. but then, that's because they don't knowwww me and it's a case of 'projection/transference'.

I say 'carnal' mind in the nicest way...as in 'not Christian' in the sense Jesus and Paul spoke of.

CJ joins the assault "quaking in his socks and sandals" :) maybe I was 'quacking' instead?

The point you dear folks continually miss.. (still) is that sharing the Gospel is not about beating up the unbeliever until he submits..its about calling men and women to repentance from sin and faith in Christ.

You don't embark on such things if ur fearful and trembling.. the possibility of being hurt goes with the territory, you know that b4 u begin. I recall Kings Cross.. at the Alamain fountain.. a small group of Christians I was with.. one was speaking and a bloke came up and king hit him.. down for the count.
Do you really think I'm a fraidy cat given that at least CJ knows I stood among 25,000 unionists at flinders street while a woman was trying (unsucessfully) to urge them to whack me? How in the world would 4 or 5 'men in white' scare me.

If I approach people in person, I bring self control and restraint. There's no reason to worry about physical retribution.
I made the point I wanted to make, (Grace/Gods love) and had some interpretations of their book confirmed and amplified.

"SUCCESS?" a human term. God works in His own ways and time.

I guess it largely depends on your perspective here, Boaz.

>>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'.<<

You could always dismiss it from your mind by saying "well, that's your opinion, and I guess you are entitled to it."

Ah, but of course you won't allow yourself to do that.

>>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.<<

Boaz, you are most welcome to declare invalid any and every "something that is utterly precious and pivotal" to my belief system, and I would ascribe to it exactly the weight and importance that it deserves.

For a start, on what authority, I might ask, do you declare my beliefs invalid?

You might then waffle on about your God giving you the authority, to which I might reply "phooey to your God - you believe in him, but I don't"

At which point I would simply acknowledge that you think differently about the topic, and walk away.

I wouldn't, by the way, try to change your mind. Why should I?

What puzzles me - and probably the vast majority of non-militant religious evangelists - is why you guys don't do this.

After all, I barrack for a different football club, vote for a different political party, use a different airline and drive a different car. Why do these opinions and loyalties - which are also lifestyle choices that I make for myself - not upset you, but my choice of religion somehow affects you personally.

I can understand you disagreeing with my choices. But I cannot for the life of me see how those choices might do you harm. Or even the slightest irritation.

Pericles,

What also intersts me is; why Jesus and the Christian godhead?

Unlike Boazy, were I to investigate divinity. I might start with:

1. Is there a Creator?
2. Is that creator a god?

Assuming, it were possible to answer these two questions, then, I would move on to the contest of the claimants: e.g, Allah, JC, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Amon...; Wherein, if 1 & 2, are true; it does not necessarily follow "any" of these claimants are valid. Claims need to be tested.

Yet, religionists pick a god, then develop their faith, without any precusor foundation. Typically, a self-referencing phenomenon(a) is held existant, because it says so; only, to be reforced by indwelling within the aura of the phenomenon, without really looking for non-confirmatory evidence.

As you know, I have tried several times with Bozy, Sells and Co. to present a conceptuual model of god, but, none has been forthcoming, regrettably.

Regrettable, because, if a model were presented, better hypotheses could could be developed to facilitate discourse between believing and non-believing communities. With regards Christianity, Islam et al., scriptures would need to sit "inside" the framework and not generate the framework. That is, "A Sentamental Bloke" is a product of C.J. Dennis, not C.J. Dennis a product of " A Sentamental Bloke".

We need to tether the text to the writer, else, at best, we can claim is subsistence, vis-a-vis existence, and, Micky Mouse, can do that, without Disney, who is his, no, its, creator. Mickey Mouse does not exist, it subsists.

Thus, we need to know, how god exists [Acknowldgement: Peter Sellick, but Peter used in a different context.].

Boazy, how does God exist?

- Explain god how god exists?
- What is the manner of its existence?
- How is God composed? [please no ousia or ectoplasm :-)]
- What is the purpose of its existence?

N.B., "How does" is different to just "Does". If one maintains "Does", one should demonstrate, or, at least, be able to approximate, "How does". Else, what is the basis of, "Does"? Scripture? Scripture can only take us to subsistence, at most.


O.