Yesterday, (Sunday) I and a brother in Christ, went to the State Library to share Christ with any who would listen.

Actually.. this is a story of 3 Sikhs,a Korean, a Caucasian Muslim, a Republican group and a 'man who would illuminate us' :)

I approached the steps of the library where there were a number of people sitting at random. I noticed one fellow of Asian/Indian appearance and after saying hello, asked "If I say "Jesus Christ" ..does that mean anything to you?" He said "YES.. He gave his life for the benefit of mankind".. he was a Sikh. As we discussed things, he intimated that he felt no peace in the Sikh Temple, but when he entered a Church he did feel peace. I asked him if I may explain about the story of Jesus. He said yes no problem. I gave as good an account as I was able, and then he told me "Yesterday I prayed to Jesus "if ur so great, please send someone to help me know about you." and now.. here you are!" He wanted to become Christian.
He said this with that special glow of someone who's prayer had just been answered. So, I commended him to the Lord in prayer, and provided a contact email.

Then I found an Asian bloke around 20ish.. I asked if he knew anything about Jesus? "Not much" but he was aware of the large Christian movement in Korea. Again, I asked permission to share about Jesus and he welcomed this.
Finally, 2 more Sikh's... one with Turban and the other without.
They had been to a Christian school in India and when asked about Jesus, they said "Yes..he is also God" -amazing stuff. We had a good chat and I just encouraged them to take time to read one of the Gospels when they have a chance.

Finally..the others :) have to waith for the thread approval for that.

This statement of yours intrigues me, Boaz.

>>I commended him to the Lord in prayer, and provided a contact email<<

The Lord has email?

I suppose I shouldn't be at all surprised, after all it is 2008.

But when you next speak to him, could you find out whether he runs Windows?

If he does, it would go a long way to explaining why life is so random. After all, no-one knows when to expect the Blue Screen of Death.

Dont we have laws against public nuisances?

Seriously, this is someone who bags muslims for trying to convert others to islam.

I gather that the State Library steps in Melbourne performs a similar function to that of the Domain in Sydney, i.e. to provide a venue for various frootloops to get up on their soap boxes and have a public rant. Personally, I'd rather Boazycrap did it there than here - but in some ways the General forum seems to be an online equivalent.

At least it's often entertaining :)

<<Yesterday, (Sunday) I and a brother in Christ, went to the State Library to share Christ with any who would listen.>>

It's come to this: an illiterate bigot proselytizing the meaning of life to lonely, sad immigrants. They'd have been safer inside the Library.

A Sikh, a Muslim, Polycarp and an Irishman were all sitting on the steps of the State Library discussing what is the fastest thing in life.

After much deliberation the Sikh said, ‘I believe it is the process of thought, it comes to one in a flash’

‘Good try’ agreed the Muslim, ‘but I think blinking is even quicker.’

‘Pretty good but not quick enough,’ quipped Polycarp. ‘ I am sure electricity is faster, just think if you hit any light switch you get instant light’

After a few moments the Irishman cut in,’ I believe you all have valid points but I think diarrhoea wins!’

‘What are you talking about, Paddy?’ chimed the three other blokes.

‘Well it is like this. Last night before I went to bed I went down to the local curry house for a vindaloo, which I washed down with 12 pints of Guinness. However at 3 o'clock in the morning, before I could think, blink or turn the light on, I shat myself!

Note to self:

Avoid State Library on Sundays.

Thanks Boazy

Does anyone else here find the levels of delusion exhibited in this post alarming? Or have I just temporarily misplaced my sense of humour?

Polycarp,

The name of Jesus Christ is used quite often where I work. Usually when something goes wrong. I asked a Vietnamese man where I work why he didn't say "Buddah" instead of "Jesus Christ" when something goes wrong. He thought that would sound stupid.

"The name of Jesus Christ is used quite often where I work"

Yet the guy, even if he happened to hear your work-colleagues saying it, would not turn his head around.

- He simply wouldn't recognize that name "Jizus" because in his time and culture he was known by the name "Yeshua" (=salvation). The 'Y' turned via a latin 'J' (that sounds as 'Y', as still in German/Dutch today) into an English 'Gee' (a sound which he probably never heard because it does not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic), the Latin vowel 'E' into an English-E which is like Latin-I, the 'SH' into 'Z' and the ending "Ah" turned into the Greek-ending "Us".

On the other hand, had he actually appeared, your friends from work would totally freak out and either run away or lock him up is some psychiatric ward. You see, they didn't actually mean anything serious when they mentioned this name - just a cultural gesture, such as asking "how are you?" when you have no real interest in getting an honest answer.

Now to the Muslim and what an interesting but tragic individual.

he had a $2000/day cocaine and heroin habit..but while in Jail was given a Quran..and found it most impressive. (I'd agree that the first page is most impressive linguistically and spiritually ..its the one about 'In the name of Allah the merciful and beneficent' who would argue with that? Well he ended up in Balak Papan (Indonesia) and married a Muslim girl, and is now recovered from the heroin he says..but I still find myself incredulous that people can give up heroin but not niccotine?... seen it more than once.

Well.. he retreated a bit when informed of some of Mohammads less savory actions.. but we didn't pester him on those things..

Country Gal.. aaah you need a pinch.. I don't bag Muslims for "trying to convert" I bag them for 2 reasons.
1/ Using a sugar coating and deception. (they never tell you that it's "welcome with a hug/depart in coffin"
2/ Trying to convert them to a faith which I believe will take them on that AC/DC highway.. straight to hell.

But actually.. what I 'bag' is Islam.. as a set of beliefs and the one from whom they came.

Finally..the man who would 'illuminate' us all.. quite amazing..I actually thought he might be "Wobbles" or one of our other conspiracy theorists.. he definitely believes 9/11 was an inside job.
Adam Weishaupt.. Illuminati, Rothchilds, Rockerfellas, J.P. Morgan etc...the Fabians and Illuminati...CFR
At first I listened intently, then asked some questions, but he seemed to be preconditioned for "Anyone who asks me a question is agin me"...even when I agreed with him he responded as though I was agin him :)
Finally..he began following me around.. and around...and around..
until I evaded.. and he got into the Republican Party dynamic duo..wow..what a couple :) nose to nose yap yap yap.. for probably an hour.

Pericles.. ur a funny boy arn't ya.

Spikey.. "illiterate"?

This thread brings back very
unpleasant memories of my youth
when the Sisters of Mercy taught
us at school that only Catholics
entered Heaven. That our God was
the one true God. And that other
religions were inferior.

They tried to inspire in us, the
"Missionary Complex," whereby we
had to go out and try to convert
others to Catholicism.

That was soooo long ago.

Reading this
thread I'm amazed that this
sort of mentality
still persists today

"Country Gal.. aaah you need a pinch.. I don't bag Muslims for "trying to convert" I bag them for 2 reasons.
1/ .....
2/ Trying to convert..."

Pollie, them's easy pickin's! Usually trying to trip you up requires too much work for me - slipperier than a certain serpent.

Polycarp,

" actually thought he might be "Wobbles" or one of our other conspiracy theorists.. "

I'll thank you not to use my name in vain.

As for spreading conspiracies and sinister plots, I think I'm way way way out of your league.

You'll believe anything that supports your prejudices and work backwards from there to justify them.

CG.... you missed the finer point of my point :)

"trying to convert" can be a benign activity... it is on WHAT they are trying to convert people TO that the emPHAsis should be.....

You see.. a person can convert to Buddhism..and the next day say "Hmm..I'm sick of this.. I think I'll change to Zoroastrianism" and no-one will do much. Buddhism does not have a death penalty for 'apostasy'...but Islam DOES....and it doesn't matter that we don't see it taking place much but you know as well as I do that the next Sharia based stoning in Nigeria might only be as far away as the lack of international outrage.

Perhaps I should have been more clear...well.. I'll consider myself pinched back :)

Wobbles.. I agree you are wayyyyy out of my league :) and happily so.
You will think you are looking in a mirror is this chap does start writing here

Once more Polycarp,

Regarding apostasy, have you ever heard of something in Mormonism called "blood atonement"? There have been a number of killings over recent years attributed to this concept.

I thought Deuteronomy 13:6 states that the punishment for apostasy is death by stoning or is that referring to unbelievers generally?

Wobbles... please don't confuse the theocratic establishment of the Israelite community with the Church based on the fulfilled Old Testament/New Covenant in Christ.

The only punishment for 'apostasy' is when people meet their creator, though in the interim if a person denies Christ after confessing Him as Lord, I hardly think they would even want to remain in a local Church.

The only overt Church discipline to be meeted out is to those who still claim to be Christians, but who are obviously living a double life and are involved in some act of on going sin.. such as an affair. In such cases, the welcome is removed.

Apostasy is just one side of the coin. When Islam is established you get things like this:

[On March 21, 2006, the Algerian parliament approved a new law requiring imprisonment for two to five years and a fine between five and ten thousand euros for anyone "trying to call on a Muslim to embrace another religion." The same penalty applies to anyone who "stores or circulates publications or audio-visual or other means aiming at destabilizing attachment to Islam."]

If you also recall, there is an Islamic insurgency movement in Algeria which claims the government itself is 'apostate'... go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Bah.C3.A1.27.C3.ADs

[More recently, on January 21, 2007, the Central Council of Ex-Muslims was founded in Germany, an association led by Iranian exile Mina Ahadi and Turkish-German immigrant Arzu Toker. The association stands up for former muslims who chose to abandon Islam. Shortly after going public on February 28, 2007, the group received death threats by radical islamists.]

You see.. it matters not a scrap that "most Muslims" are moderate.. what really counts is where this kind of thing comes from..and we both know that...don't we?

Don't believe me, and surely not CJ Morgan or Pericles, and God forbid you believe Spikey..... but by all means believe the Muslims.

http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/12406

"The only overt Church discipline to be meeted out is to those who still claim to be Christians, but who are obviously living a double life and are involved in some act of on going sin.. such as an affair. In such cases, the welcome is removed."

From another recent thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2077#43341
"1/ The applicant obtaining the divorce is not free to re-marry within her faith or community because in their eyes she is still legally married to the husband.

2/ The divorcing spouse would need to re-marry outside their faith and community, which could result in serious psychological consequences.

QUESTIONS/ISSUES. Should the law.. Australian law, make it unlawful for a religious group (this would apply to Christians equally) to use 'religious marriage' in this way? "

David, you need to make up your mind if faith communities are entitled to impose discipline on those who belong to that faith or not. On the one hand someone will be kicked out of church for living in sin, on the other you claim concern for the serious psychological consequences of someone forced outside their faith to continue a choice which goes against the teachings of that faith.

R0bert

I cannot remain silent any longer - maybe due to all the wonderful sunshine. Does anyone else have the same problem as I with Polly's opening line to this thread?

"...I and a brother in Christ, went to the State Library to share Christ ..."

If finding this sentence simultaneously repugnant and hilarious outs me as perverse, well I am guilty.

Even when I share a pack of Tim Tams, I'm not in them as well. Well usually.

Is this how all the EB's talk?

It matters most significantly that “most Muslims are moderate”, just as most Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are indeed moderate.
Most people just want to go about their lives living in quiet harmony with others and free from danger and discomfort.
It’s only the very few that take it upon themselves to force their beliefs on others – whether it’s by invoking culturally oppressive laws (as in Algeria) or by approaching people in public places – it’s just a matter of degree but the motivation is identical.

One side may think that martyrdom is a fasttrack to Paradise but the other may believe they are squirreling away “salvation dollars” to spend in heaven in the hope that they aren’t in deficit when the big day arrives. In both cases it’s really about the individual SELF, and a perpetuation of an "Us-and-Them” mentality.

“..what really counts is where this kind of thing comes from..and we both know that...don't we?”
The reality is that they both come from the same place, historically and philosophically. I feel they are each different sides of the same coin – both promising the same thing and both are victims of their own undeniable histories. Just ignore the many elephants in the room and they’ll eventually go away.

It’s only the misguided zealots that take it upon themselves to throw bombs or cast ever-widening nets of aspersion and mistrust and harm the innocent.

Some are deliberately used to carry out the sinister will of others and some create their own version of reality where they alone know The Truth and are compelled to demonstrate it to others.

Most people can even go for days without worrying about what's wrong with the world and simply enjoy what's right with it.

Fraccy..yes, you are a perverse evil woman :) but God loves you anyway.... after all.. He loved and loves me!

You might find repugnance in the idea of sharing Christ..but those who are politely asked if they wish to hear or not.. don't :)

Robert.. please spend less energy trying to 'trip' people ane more on how to 'walk' :)

Frac..I'm not EB...I'm just plain Christian..who happens to be in fellowship at an O.B. chapel. When I share the Gospel at the State Library.. I point across the street to the Swanston St Church of Christ.. as I know one of the elders there. I am happy to chanel any new believer into that fellowship because the issue is not about learning which one is 'right'.. but about Christ "Learn of me" said Jesus.

They have a good small group ministry and great follow up even extending to overseas.

The potential for world mission outcomes from evangelising people at the State Library is huge..Sikh's..Koreans.. Chinese... Tibetans..Muslims of various nationality...
Then again.. there might even be the occasional caucasian Aussie there who has not surcumbed to the mind deadening onslaught from secular atheism and be open to the Word of Salvation.

Why not drop along one day yourself and we can have a chat.. maybe even share a Tim Tam :)

But you better watch out for the Rebuplican Party lady.. she is a TERROR.. has a voice stronger than 3 blokes.. I swear she is scary :)
She doesn't mind giving a whack both verbally and physically to people who get up her nose.... I've thus far survived :)

But it was quite hilarious watching the 'Monarchist' who was 'illuminating people' going nose to nose with her at her lecturn.

Wobbles.. you better come down and meet him.. you would lean much young Jedi :) (about who runs Australia)

Silly me.

I almost forgot to ask.

Boaz, were any of the three Sikhs carrying a kirpan? After all the fuss you made about it in another thread, I would have thought it would be your first question.

I haven't been particularly curious about your specific church affiliation before, but there was something about your last post that began a chain of thought.

>>Frac..I'm not EB...I'm just plain Christian..who happens to be in fellowship at an O.B. chapel.<<

Now I cannot pretend that I have the faintest idea what an "O.B. chapel" is, but it presumably differs from the EBs, which Fractelle alluded to.

So in a spirit of genuine enquiry, Boaz, could you give me a quick thumbnail sketch as to why you are "in fellowship" at that particular place?

If you have time, you might give a few words on why you are an O.B. (if that is the term) and not Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Pentecostalist, Episcopalian, Orthodox (as in Greek, Russian etc.), Anabaptist, Adventist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, Methodist, Reformed, Wesleyan, Apostolic, Revivalist or Charismatic?

That is just a short-list, of course, as you well know.

Two further questions arise from this. One trivial, the other deadly serious.

How does anyone get to reject all those superfluous versions, and find the right one?

But that apart...

If you can accept that there are many versions of Christianity, reflecting different attitudes towards the various scriptures, how come you can't see the same can apply to Muslims?

Both groups have their terrorists, who are prepared to kill for their religious beliefs.

Or in the name of their religion, at least.

Here's one example, of many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings

As I have tried to explain on many previous occasions, Boaz, terrorists are "merely" terrorists. The baggage they carry is not scriptural quotes, just a hatred of the "other".

They don't need any specific religious affiliation in order to be a terrorist, there is enough justification in their enemies simply being, in their eyes "non-believers".

"Robert.. please spend less energy trying to 'trip' people ane more on how to 'walk' :)"

David, you've tripped yourself, I'm trying to provide some suggestions which might help you walk (or at least expose your attempts to lead others down a path to darkness for what they are).

R0bert

Pericles: << Boaz, were any of the three Sikhs carrying a kirpan? >>

Of course they were - and this is another example of Boazy courageously risking life and limb to share Christ with the heathens.

He's a legend in his own mind.

Pericles.. I have to admire the level of thinking and research which goes into your posts.. specially this one.

All most important questions, and also symptomatic of your basic lack of understanding of what it means to be a "Christian". I don't say that in any way mean spirited.. but it is very clear nevertheless.

SIKH'S/KIRPANS
First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus. In any case I approached them with humility and friendship.. why would I worry if they had one or not? My issue with that.. is nothing to do with personal interaction..it is about the social/legal climate.. which therefore neccessitates it be addressed in the appropriate forum.. i.e... here and to my local member

O.B./E.B The 'O' stands for 'open' rather than 'exclusive'.. sometimes I think we are too open and not exclusive enough in the sense that the EBs are.. we probably tolerate much more than we should in terms of behavior.

THE CORRECT CHURCH.
Most evangelical protestant Churches are already "one" in spirit with the same fundamental beliefs. Some baptize infants, others do not. Some place great importance on 'Believers Baptism'. The Bretho's are more the 'cover the ladies hair' mob, but I doubt you will find more than 2 or 3 in ours doing that.

You see.. to be "Christian" is about grace..not law. Thus, one fellowship might criticize another for some aspect of doctrine "Infant Baptism" is one common point at issue, but they cannot enforce a different form on those they disagree with.

VIOLENCE/TERRORISM.
I note your contribution about the Corporals murders. I'll repeat what I've said ad nauseum "Can you show where Jesus by example or teaching can be used to justify this"?
No..but in Islam..you can....and that is the HUGE difference.

Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so.

Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so.

Because of this fundamental difference..very little 'Christian' terrorism takes place.

Well of course, Boaz.

>>symptomatic of your basic lack of understanding of what it means to be a "Christian"<<

The fundamental, basic, bedrock reason that I am not a Christian is precisely this, that I cannot for one moment identify with the thought processes, the negation of logic, and the sheer mindlessness that seems to be a requirement of the faith.

>>First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus<<

A while ago, you ranted at some length on this forum that we are all in mortal danger, because of these massive weapons carried by Sikhs. No amount of mollification - they are only small, they are invariably hidden, and they sre symbolic only of the faith of their wearer - would dissuade you from your position: that they are a clear and present danger to us all.

So to now tell us that "this was not your focus" speaks volumes.

- you have decided there is no danger after all
- you never really believed there was a danger (my personal favourite)
- you knew that if they didn't carry one, all your arguments fly straight out of the window.

There's a fourth, of course. That those you spoke with were not particularly religious in the first place, and to find they were kirpan-free would deflate the value of your evangelical purpose.

I of course also take issue with your over-simplistic, and highly tendentious, conclusion:

>>Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so<<

But his followers do not necessarily do so

>>Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so.<<

But his followers do not necessarily do so.

What's the point of setting an example, if it is ignored?

>>Because of this fundamental difference..very little 'Christian' terrorism takes place.<<

This is the bit where you have to cross your fingers behind your back, Boaz, because you cannot possibly justify it. The groups that immediately spring to my mind are the IRA, the Provos, the UDF and the UDA.

Christian terrorists, Boaz.

By their deeds shall ye know them.

David has said ad nauseum "Can you show where Jesus by example or teaching can be used to justify this"?

He has also wiggled, ducked and feigned loss of attention when it's been pointed out that there are numerous examples where Jesus's daddy slaughtered and demanded the slaughter of others for reasons which for many of us look no more justified than the excesses of Mohammad. He supposedly killed off the entire human race except for one extended family at one point (top that Mohammad). Jesus is reported to have said "I and the father are one" along with a number of other comments that suggest that he did not disown is murderously violent daddy.

I excpect that David if he is willing to comment at all will cry that that's not the same.

R0bert

" He said "YES.. He gave his life for the benefit of mankind"

So how did Jesus side track the Roman decree of heresy hovering over Judea - millions of his kin could not? I fail to see how not confronting Rome can be viewed as saving humanity! Everything else here is candy coated popcorn sustaining itself only on blatant omissions of the historical reality of this space time. Not confronting Rome is like saying and doing NOTHING.

"I and the father are one"

Let the father speak for himself - this never happened as yet. Huanity still awaits the real thing.

" I cannot for one moment identify with the thought processes, the negation of logic, and the sheer mindlessness that seems to be a requirement of the faith."

Faith may be a cozy feel good comfort for many, even it can be sincere and genuine. But faith via belief - in the absence of factual substance, eventually implodes in time. Here's proof that belief by itself can be untrue.

Consider the two belief systems of Christianity and Islam: both are genuine, powerful and the adherents of these beliefs will put down their lives for it or kill others. Does that mean that belief is true? Nope! Both these beleifs systems cannot ever be true - because they contradict each other - in their beliefs, their doctrines, and their historical dates and names: it means that at least one of those beliefs is not true - this is guaranteed, as opposed to anyone's opinions. It does not matter which is not true - the point being that belief - in the absence of historical and logical facts - CAN be untrue.

It would help if these two belief systems sorted theselves out and came up with some real truths and logic: the problem here is, the truth absolutely negates both of them. Thus they totally do not confront the issue of their chaos unto humanity.

A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER.

"Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so.

Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so."

Actually, European Christianity murdered far more than Islam did - even when the last two worst centuries are not included in that equation. Today's radical Muslims are only an emulation of medevial Europe: one invented a host of false claims which took millions of innocent lives, such as deicide [sic], blood libels, the Protocols, etc. Today, Muslims openly teach these falsehoods to its peoples and the Church is silent - even when these falsehoods come from European Christianity!

There is no coherence in 'LOVE THY ENEMY' - nor is it possible. In fact, it is a mandated crime not to confront an enemy wanting to kill or a wild animal attempting to harm a child.

The correct law is thus:

'LOVE THE STRANGER'

And we know for a fact Christianity failed with this one more so than any other group in all recorded history!

BOAZYCARP

<<First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus. In any case I approached them with humility and friendship.. why would I worry if they had one or not?>>

1. Pollycracker/Boazypops and humility = an oxymoron. More moron than oxy.

2. Why should you worry about whether your Sihks were carrying a kirpan? Because you told us a couple of months ago, kirpans were going to bring about the end of civilized society as we know it. Have you discovered that was an untruth David? We'll forgive you.

IamJoseph: << A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER. >>

Could somebody please tell this to Porkycrap?

"Could somebody please tell this to Porkycrap?"

I see the correct dogma to be: 'WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT DO TO OTHERS'. As opposed to 'DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU'. The latter allows one to enforce their views - but they would not accept it done to them. Millions were killed with the latter dogma.

IOW, reciprocity must apply. This has to be the foundation of all religions, Godliness, morality and law.

IamJoseph, you wrote:

"There is no coherence in 'LOVE THY ENEMY' - nor is it possible. In fact, it is a mandated crime not to confront an enemy wanting to kill or a wild animal attempting to harm a child."

I see no contradiction: one can and should love their enemy, yet when your duty calls to confront the enemy - you do, and if it is really necessary, kill them as well.

You may have tears in your eyes while doing so, but you do your bloody duty anyway, then: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls" [proverbs 24, 17].

"I see no contradiction: one can and should love their enemy, yet when your duty calls to confront the enemy - you do, and if it is really necessary, kill them as well."

The confronting calls for a justice response. Whatever one's opinion, it is not accepted in the judiciary system nor in real life. Justice can and should be embellished with love, mercy, forgiveness and forebearence - but it cannot be dismissed from the equation. The higher treshold is the attainment of equalibrium, without negating anything.

TOO MUCH PEACE = NO JUSTICE

TOO MUCH JUSTICE = NO PEACE.

Where there is no justice - it is a false love. The merit is lost, and this can be seen when tested. Nothing is unconditional. The OT is right here.

Boaz is it?
I must have missed something while I was away for a few months.
I was wondering why this person posting as Ploycarp came into another thread dealing with Animal Welfare and just made one posting reading what about the "HUMANS"
( We are ALL Gods creatures David)
To be honest I thought it was an act of aggression- Well thats how it seemed to me to be honest. Then I read this thread to find out it was you David.
Umm, You used to be a little more fair in days gone by as far as I recall.
I am just wondering if you are upset by pale pointing out that you seem to post a great deal about Muslims but you dont see,m to have any knowledge of Australian Muslims.
If I remember I invited you to meet some of Australia`s Muslim leaders to discuss your fears and see if you still felt the same after.
You ignored my 3 posts inviting you.
I think thats pretty clear David.
Yes of course theres some problems building up and TBO David your not helping. I dont mean to offend you- thats not my intention. I am being very honest with you when I tell you this and I am in a position to know.

*Yesterday, (Sunday) I and a brother in Christ, went to the State Library to share Christ with any who would listen.*

Question-

Why couldnt you just say yesterday I went with a mate- instead a brother of Christ?
Just asking

I matters little what's written down in ancient texts when history tells a different story. At least, those texts that we are presented with. Other texts that don't fit the tale have long since been deleted and some remaining ones edited to suit.

What religious group has

- participated in the largest number of mass murders over recent centuries and even spawned the creation of the new word "genocide"?
- deliberately used nuclear weapons (the ultimate WMD) againsts others?
- obliterated so many other cultures and beliefs in it's struggle for total dominance and greed?
- began its formal existence with a series of bloody purges killing both unbelievers and believers alike?
- even now maintains International Treaties to ensure it's financial viability and various immunities - many of which still remain secret. (Concordats).

In the end it's just like a vast pyramid scheme, big on rhetoric and promises, but delivering as much harm than good and existing primarily for it's own sake.

AMWAY sells soap but religion peddles hope, but only one is obliged to legally deliver something in the end.

At least L. Ron Hubbard recognised the racket for what it was and cashed in on it when he saw the chance.

RACHE.. sounds like ur talking about Saddam Hussein..

oh wait.. he didn't use a Nuke..

but I see some huge indicators of you needing some serious guidance..
I'm not joking.

How in this wide world.. do you connect "a religious faith" with 'Nuclear attacks'? Why..sure.. you can connect them to the Iraqi Mullah who openly declared they MUST use that method and biological and chemical weapons against the USA...

But it sounds like you are confusing 'Christian religion' with Hiroshima etc ?

aah.. that's where you are quite wrong....on 2 counts.

1/ Foundation documents DO matter..

2/ History includes (but is not limited to) an indication of 'how said documents have been correctly or incorrectly interpreted and used.

Yuyutsu...thanx for that proverb :) its a good one.

SPIKEY.. I'm not worried for my personal safety re the Kirpans, I'm concerned about ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law just for their group on issues where our law has good reasons for not allowing some things.

-Polygamy/Bigamy
-Carrying offensive weapons.
-Wearing ballistic grage body armour. (personally I think this one is silly)
-Abuse of children by allowing homosexual couples to adopt.
-Female genital Mutilation.
-Wearing safety helmets when driving a motorcycle.. or pushbike..etc

If we allow this or that new, non traditional religion to dictate how we approach these various issues.. then we will have social chaos.
Not exactly as you put it but serious problem for sure.

"the end is nigh" :) check this out.. it's really one of those 'moments' that must haunt politicians forever:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw&feature=email

but.. a bit more context here :)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&feature=related

"Structure" of a story.. where you cut and edit.. splice.. what ideas you associate with people... religious groups.. (The Discrimination thread).. it all determines perception.

How very odd, Boaz.

>>"Structure" of a story.. where you cut and edit.. splice.. what ideas you associate with people... religious groups.. (The Discrimination thread).. it all determines perception.<<

How very odd that you are able to write this (presumably) with a totally straight face, but refuse, time after time, to draw the same conclusion from your frequent use of selective excerpts from various religious texts.

"where you cut and edit" both the Qur'an and the Bible is designed for one purpose only. To help "determine perception" in the eyes of your readers.

It is pure propaganda, Boaz.

One-eyed, biased, one-sided, jaundiced, partisan, prejudiced, tendentious propaganda.

>>Foundation documents DO matter... History includes (but is not limited to) an indication of 'how said documents have been correctly or incorrectly interpreted and used<<

Only if you believe in them, Boaz. Which is where you go wrong, every time.

You believe in the power of your own "foundation document"

Or, to be more accurate, selected parts of it.

You reject the Old Testament when it suits you, and parts of the New when it gets a little close to the bone. But it is an article of your faith that you accept the rest.

You do not, presumably, hold the Qur'an in the same reverence.

Yet somehow you have convinced yourself - and try every day of your life to convince other people - to swallow the whole thing, lock stock and barrel as being a dangerous document, driving a dangerous religion.

If only... if only, one quiet moment, you were to take yourself to one side and ask "am I being fair? Am I holding myself to the same standards that I expect of others? Am I assessing the world around me on its merits, or as I wish it to be measured?

"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion"* Robert Burns.

I don't envy you that journey, Boaz.

*Translation available if required.

Polycarp,
The point I was trying to make is that one single religion does not have a monopoly on the slaughter of innocents (innocence?).

While it's obviously true that Hiroshima itself wasn't caused by Christianity, is shows that religion cannot (or will not) stop atrocities from occurring.

I can name several wars started by religion but not a single one that was stopped because of it.

If that's the case, what good is it?

More recently, Priests and Nuns in Rwanda not only condoned the slaughter, some have been convicted in physically taking part in it, and just who sold Saddamm those nasty chemicals?

As you continue to hurl stones at the "opposition", careful of the glass walls that surround you.

By all means, keep tossing selective quotes around but remember that actions tend to speak louder than words.

Pericles,

A quick question - did you end up meeting Polly and Col for coffee?

To "see thyselves as ye wolde"

Please forgive mangling of Robert Burns.

Pollywaffle,

<<I'm not worried for my personal safety re the Kirpans, I'm concerned about ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law just for their group on issues where our law has good reasons for not allowing some things.>>

So you feel safe. So what's the concern?

"ethnic/religious groups seeking to change the law" What, like Catholics and Anglicans do?

"just for their group" Like Baptists and the Brethren?

Oh, no. I should have read on. You've answered my question.

<<If we allow this or that new, non traditional religion to dictate how we approach these various issues.. then we will have social chaos.>>

So it's only the non-traditional religions that you're worried about? The traditional ones have the right to seek to change our laws, it seems. They don't cause "chaos"?

Could you please supply a list of said "non-traditional" religions? And how does a non-traditional religion work towards the exalted status of a "traditional" religion?

SPIKEY... the concern about the Kirpan is "this"

1/ I've interviewed some Sikh's ad hoc and found 2 of 3 said they would use their kirpan offensively to defend themselves and others. (which is the actual purpose of the weapon in their religion)

2/ The mere presense of a deadly weapon on the person of a school child means that OTHER children/ youths can access it.. The religious symbolism says in a loud voice "I might be carrying a weapon"
So..in teenage schoolyard altercations..anything could happen.

3/ It is against Australian law.. that should be the end of it.
It should be mandatory for Immigration officials to INDICATE clearly and unmistakably to would be immigrants that THIS is our 'law' and you will not be able to practice aspects a) d) and f) of your religion in Australia. Just like Muslims cannot practice polygamy or female genital mutilation.

On the issue of Baptists and Anglicans.. there is no 'need' to change the law specially for them.. it already exists in a form shaped by our rather more spiritually committed history rather than our current paganism.

FRACTELLE...no Pericles was too scared :) no.. nothing like that.. I didn't hear from him and history passed him by. Col and I got along great. The way some of you go on.. ya'da thunk I'd whacked him repeatedly and mercillessly with the biggest King James I could find, while dragging him kicking and screaming down to St Pauls and yelling GET IN THERE!... :)

RACHE.. you are viewing Christianity through secular glasses. I have a recommendation for you.. actually READDDDD the bible :) try John's Gospel.. look.. see what you find for goodness sake.. "As the Father sent me.. so I send you" "I am the Good Shepherd.. who lays down his life for the sheep".. errr can you see nuclear conflagrations in that?

PERICLES..

Now.. FOUNDATION documents..and my 'selective' use of them. Honestly.. that is a total joke.

Assertion.

"Mohammad used 'revelation' to justify him gratifying his sexual desires with a procession of women"
This caused his wives to become Jealous, and then.. suddenly, he had 'incoming' revelation to justify his behavior.

Now..see if you see it in the following: (from the 33rd Surah.)

Verse 50 "The women MOhammad may marry"

[O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, ....
and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her-- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers.]

NOW.. 'TIME PASSES'...and no other verse is 'revealed'.. there is no verse 51 at this point.. so what's happening 'on the ground'?

He is enjoying the fruits of that 'a believing woman' coupled with 'temporary marriage' (which had not been forbidden at this time)

how do I know this ? :) simple.. I ask his young child wife who says:

Muslm Book 008, Number 3453:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (33. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

COMMENT:
DID_YOU_SEE_IT? wakey wakey... You now know the exact and unambigious circumstances for HOW and WHEN and WHY the 51st verse of the Quran was "revealed"

The question is.. do you see what it says about Mohammad and.. his motives?

Do you THEN see why people (including the Muslims of his day) have 'problems' with this chain of events?

Carpus,

<<I've interviewed some Sikh's ad hoc and found 2 of 3 said they would use their kirpan offensively to defend themselves and others.>>

I've interviewed some Sikhs ad hoc and 9 out of ten said they don't use the kirpan offensively. Is your scientific polling better than mine?

<<The mere presense of a deadly weapon on the person of a school child means that OTHER children/ youths can access it...So..in teenage schoolyard altercations..anything could happen.>>

As I asked before - and you met my request with stunning silence - when was the last time this "deadly weapon", the kirpan, was used in an assault in an Australian school?

<<It [kirpan] is against Australian law.. that should be the end of it.>> No, it's not and you know it. You are lying again. We've been through all this before.

<< Just like Muslims cannot practice polygamy or female genital mutilation.>> Can you please make the connection clear between the kirpan and female genital mutilation.

I see you've ducked the question AGAIN - which religions in Australia are "traditional" and therefore not wanting to change the law, and which are "non-traditional" and therefore likely to "cause chaos"?

I read the Bible as you recommended and found myself confused. Jesus actually preferred the company of sinners but you're saying as a Xian we must not sleep in the same bed because we might catch homosexuality from the sheets?

"and just who sold Saddamm those nasty chemicals? "

This turns everything into the non-credible zone, and should not be used to secure other premises.

Firstly, the weapons, rather than being terrible, represent only a graduation of knowledge, and had Sadaam or any Islamic regime have gotten hold of these weapons - they would surely make US look like angels. US displayed majestic forebearence and responsibility with her arsenal, and should not be maligned for showing greater knowledge prowess.

Secondly, the weapons were supplied to some Islamist groups for a legitimate purpose: to counter the cold war, as with the Talibans. What Sadaam and the Talibans did with these weapons after the cold war - is entirely their own doing, and only confirms these Regimes and radical Islamists have a terrible agenda for humanity at large.

We must thus thank America for both, confronting the encroachment of Stalinist communism, and for exposing the Islamist agenda. Here, those nations which did not participate in confronting the cold war - should be addressed for their cowardice - specially the European states - because communism started in Europe's backyard - not America - thus Europe should have been in the front rows of the Afghan and Vietnam wars.

When we see that terrorism has increased in Iraq since US invaded this country - it means the correct buttons have been clicked: when one exposes a nest of poisonous wasps - it's success is marked when we find many wasps there, and it is a failure when we find no wasps. We saw many terror groups in Iraq - we also saw some 700,000 Iraqi corpses from the past 22 years of Sadaam's reign. Imagine what this regime would do to non-muslims with WMD? It begs the question - how should the world deal with Iran's Regime? I find those who attack the only nations confronting terrorism - as having blank resumes in confronting this threat - as if there is anything more demanding or important!

"Jesus actually preferred the company of sinners "

Oh!? - I never knew Jesus confronted Rome! News to me. Then he must have sacrificed himself along with 2 Million other Jews - protecting the right of freedom of belief and defying Rome's decree to worship its non-divine Emperor? If so - this is about the first good thing to come from the Gospels. Which verse?

'WHEN FREEDOM OF BELIEF - BECAME MIGHTY ROME'S GREATEST WAR"

Spikey.. you read the Bible ? Which part? Apparently one or more of the Gospels.. I sure hope you read a modern language version.. the old King James is like reading encrypted verbage from another planet.
I never cease to be amazed that the translators of the Quran use King James English :).. weird.. very weird.

Anyyyway... Jesus did not 'prefer' the company of sinners as you say.
He came to seek and to save the lost- ALL the lost..including you and every contributor to this forum.

29Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

31Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." from Luke 5

Now...spikey.. do you see the very last bit ?

His Mission: "To call sinners.... to... repentance"

That includes you, Joseph, Morgan, Pericles, Celivia, Fractelle everyone. It includes me, though in my case I am called to 'on-going' repentance as an attitude of faith because I've made the step from 'unbelief' in Christ...to 'belief'...

Joseph fails to recognize, that it's Jesus way..or the AC/DC highway to..... unowhere.

Jesus did not posture Himself as a revolutionary in the sense that Joseph would like.. but consider this.. every revolutionary movement against Rome ended in disaster and mass slaughter, and Rome STILL 'won'. (Masada)

Jesus came with the simple message "Repent..and Believe..and receive the Kingdom of God in your hearts with the simple faith of a child"

AND THE GOSPEL WON against Rome. Yes, it did have a large body count of mutilated Christians.. but in the end..Rome surcumbed to the power of that message within 300 yrs. No army..no fighting.. no military.

Your ability to contradict yourself within consecutive sentences continues to amaze me, Boaz.

>>Now.. FOUNDATION documents..and my 'selective' use of them. Honestly.. that is a total joke.
Assertion.
"Mohammad used 'revelation' to justify him gratifying his sexual desires with a procession of women"
This caused his wives to become Jealous, and then.. suddenly, he had 'incoming' revelation to justify his behavior.
Now..see if you see it in the following: (from the 33rd Surah.)
Verse 50 "The women MOhammad may marry"<<

The transition from describing my comments as a "total joke" to doing exactly what I suggested, is positively breathtaking.

You draw your own uneducated conclusions, and use them to excoriate a religion that happens not to be your own.

It is rabble-rousing, Boaz. Nothing more, nothing less.

Polly

So Jesus wants everyone to be like you? Count me out. Rub my name off your list. If you're the model of the sinner in repentance, I'm afraid my diary is full for the next 300 years.

IamJospeh,

"and just who sold Saddamm those nasty chemicals? "

This is what I was referring to -

The supplier of chemicals used against the Kurds in the 1980’s -
http://www.laweekly.com/2003-03-27/news/made-in-the-usa/

The fallout and subsequent sidestepping -
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/01/17/edjoost_ed3_.php

Some perspective –

These chemicals (and other weapons) were supplied primarily to be used against the Iranians. The US was using Saddam (helped into power by them) to fight the Ayotollah on their behalf. The Ayatollah overthrew their previous nominee – the Shah, who they earlier helped install after they in turn helped overthrow the previous Iranian government.

The rise of militant Islam is mainly down to their own meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.

Likewise, they were equipping, training and using groups like Al Quaeda the same way, to fight the USSR and then betrayed them and the Afghanis afterwards. That’s the main reason the terrorists are against them now.
The creation of any so-called “Islamist agenda” is a result of their own actions.

Just as they had earlier been the subject of frequent attacks in South America and now have 761 military bases in 39 countries around the world to protect their own interests, this is what’s sometimes referred to as “reaping what you sow”.

To be fair to the Americans, Churchill also wanted to use mustard gas the Kurds after WW1 but was stopped only because of how it could stir up trouble in the Indian colony.

Neither side can claim to have any monopoly on righteousness or decency.

"Jesus did not posture Himself as a revolutionary in the sense that Joseph would like.. but consider this.. every revolutionary movement against Rome ended in disaster and mass slaughter, and Rome STILL 'won'. (Masada)"

Firstly, understand I am not attacking christians - the Gospels is making all the attacks, and in a fatal, existential mode too. Rome's demise had nothing to do with JC - this began after the *WIN* of the Jews against Rome's blasphemous, genocidal decree - and not a single Jew surrendered. Otherwise, you can also say that Jesus lost because he died on a cross - like 2 million other Jews. The only resurrection which occured is that of Israel's return - in the sight of all the world, and this says that Jesus harkened to the true God of Israel, and NOT so to the Gospels. What's so bad about that - as opposed to the millions murdered by Europe's medevial church for 1800 years?

It is also a fact, self declared in the Gospels, that Jesus, or the European written Gospel's version of him, failed to confront Rome - the only position which can have any merit here. The vilification of hapless, rowdy money changers does not square against omitting those same money changers sacrificed their lives and families, along with the Pharisees and their families, to defend their beliefs. You cannot choose what you like and omit what you don't. The sinners and bad giys were the Roman Nazis - in case you forgot - and they disaapeared same as did the Pharoah's Egypt and Babylon. Factor what does not suit but which does merit factoring - else how can the truth set you free?

"So Jesus wants everyone to be like you? Count me out. "

This is why the Gospels does not have any merit - its so-called notion of love thy neighbour is strictly limited to those who sign up - all others are doomed to a very hot place for a very long time. Islam does the same. In contrast, the OT says ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY, and EQUAL RIGHTS FOR THE STRANGER AS THE INHABITANT. Note that there are no preference conditions for Jews here, namely a bad Jew does not get immunity, while the Gosels gives a free bonus to any who sign up. A law need not have any names attached - if its a correct law it is pristine and can stand on its own. The gospels also failed to assist the Jews back to their homeland, and went on to perpertrate the greatest murders in all recorded history:

'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope Not So Pious.

Does it mean Christians must loose Europe for rejecting Mohammed? Therein we see the diference in Rejecting Mighty Rome's similar decrees of heresy!



"The rise of militant Islam is mainly down to their own meddling in Middle Eastern affairs."

As I said, radical Islam does what it does globally, and needs not America to justify its attrocities. America did not meddle in India, Thailand or China. Iraq was once supplied weapons to counter Iran - a legitimate cause as the Iranians were entrenched with the red, stallinist soviets - and this is seen manifest today. The Ayatolah was an insane man who murdered 100s of 1000s of Iranians, not because of America either.

Pollycrap

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't see these questions.

* When was the last time the "deadly weapon", the kirpan, was used in an assault in an Australian school?

* Can you please make the connection clear between the kirpan and female genital mutilation.

* Which religions in Australia are "traditional" and therefore not wanting to change the law, and which are "non-traditional" and therefore likely to "cause chaos"?

If you don't answer, I'll assume you're just a tyre kicker wasting everyone's time.

Spikey: << If you don't answer, I'll assume you're just a tyre kicker wasting everyone's time. >>

Don't hold your breath, Spikey. Porkyboaz is renowned for cutting and running when you ask him a hard question.

Fractelle, my apologies, I didn't answer your question.

>>A quick question - did you end up meeting Polly and Col for coffee?<<

Unfortunately not. I don't get to Melbourne that often, every second week or so, and when I do it is usually a very full day, first plane out last plane back. On that particular Thursday I was expecting to have a couple of hours free, but it didn't happen.

Also, with reactions like this, I'm somewhat less inclined.

>>FRACTELLE...no Pericles was too scared :) no.. nothing like that.. I didn't hear from him and history passed him by. Col and I got along great. The way some of you go on.. ya'da thunk I'd whacked him repeatedly and mercillessly with the biggest King James I could find, while dragging him kicking and screaming down to St Pauls and yelling GET IN THERE!... :)<<

I just have that vague gut feeling that says I would have a better time doing something else.

Like sitting in a cafe, sorting my toenail clippings on the table, from left to right, by size and colour.

Or repeatedly preventing a tram door from closing, with my head.

And before you say anything, I have witnessed both the above activities on recent trips to Melbourne.

PERICLES

Hey man, no explanations necessary. I live in Melbourne and somehow the choice between cleaning out the toilet and meeting Polly (WITH COL R IN TOW - surely the work of the devil)... my toilet is clean and gleaming.

PS Understand about the toenail collection, keep it up and you may win an IgNoble Like Dr Karl did with his observations on belly button lint.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/lint/

Dear Mr Sincere Researcher (alias Polly)

I have been interested in your technique of setting questions for OLO people. On one notable occasion, you told us that you were only interested in genuine responses, that your aim was genuine research for disciplines such as psychology.

So you set questions, but you don't answer them?

A couple of days ago, I reminded you of the uncomfortable fact that their were questions you had failed to answer. I wrote:

<<I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't see these questions.

<<* When was the last time the "deadly weapon", the kirpan, was used in an assault in an Australian school?

<<* Can you please make the connection clear between the kirpan and female genital mutilation.

<<* Which religions in Australia are "traditional" and therefore not wanting to change the law, and which are "non-traditional" and therefore likely to "cause chaos"?

<<If you don't answer, I'll assume you're just a tyre kicker wasting everyone's time.

<<Posted by Spikey, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:58:53 PM>>

CJ Morgan now says you're "...renowned for cutting and running when you ask him a hard question."

I didn't think they were hard questions. It's not like you to let Morgan have the last word.

Spikey
Your spot on. David has cut and run many times on his own threads when asked how many Muslim Australians he knows - if any.

When asked would he like to sit at a table with some of these people and their leaders to put his fears to them and see if he still feels the same after meeting some Australian Muslims.

They answer is always the same. He cuts and runs from the thread without a reply and simple opens another anti Muslim thread.

If you look at the titles on OLO over a long period of time you will see all he is doing is stiring up hatred.


Just as long as people reply to him hes happy and he will say anything to get their attention.


Isnt that right David.