Dear Pericles

you are always free to dispute what I say..and usually do. You know my position well by now. You call it arrogance and narrow mindedness, and an unwillingness to learn... but as you also know, this is a faith issue.
As I said to a young man tonight "I get attacked from every angle on line for my faith, but it does not make a scrap of difference to me, because when you read about the healings which Jesus did, ..I've felt and experienced that"

That young man is now growing in grace and in Christ. The change has been dramatic so say the least.

We who know Christ, in our hearts, minds and experience, will never see things in any other way.. i.e.. it just does not register that what Paul said is just one view among many.

The reason you struggle to see this is your secular and as yet unregenerate mind. No..I'm not insulting you.. I did not say 'degenerate'.. but you are on the side of the equation of not being born anew..and you will see life and faith from that perspective.

We speak from within the (Christian) faith community and you from outside it. So.. what to us is faithfulness to the truth of the Gospel of grace is narrow mindedness and blinkered world view to you.

I'm sure Paul was called arrogant and a host of other names along his way.

Once again...the answer (for you and any non Christian) is found in Scripture and in the Gospel of Salvation. 1 Cor 15:3-5 is a restatement of the simple and essential elements of it.

It was the view of Jesus, the pre Paul apostles.. and Paul experienced it and passed it on as he received it... how can we speak of 'one interpretation among many'? I don't see how that's possible.

Pericles - if I'm not mistaken, all of Porky's last post above boils down to "Boaz right, you wrong", no?

Once again, I marvel at your patience.

The principle of revelation of God is that all life depends upon the sacrificial giving up of the life of others for our wellbeing. This principle is not dependent upon our moral purity as all men live from the life and living of others for their very existence. In radical Islam the impure and immoral are not worthy of life.

The mindset of the Islamic terrorists and their supporters is based in a moral judgment on those that they believe do not adhere to their moral standard and therefore deserve and must be put to death. This will create enough fear in the community so that observers will accept the laws of Allah. The first law being, "there is no god but Allah". For the terrorists any who do not ridgidly uphold that law are guilty of violating Allah's words and should die. They do not deserve to live under Allah's laws.

Jesus was put to death because he mixed with violators of the Jewish Talmud's religious laws. The Jewish zealots held out in the desert who plotted the overthrow of Rome tried to entice Jesus to join their plan, but he denounced them as opposing God (Matt 4). Islam is a branch of that religious view. The terrorists Kor'anic laws were influenced by the second Jewish Talmud that was formulated by the Jewish zealots during the years of Mohamet and he was deeply influenced by their strict religious world views. For them any person who ignores their religious laws are legitimate subjects for death. For them Allah has judged them guilty and death is the due punishment.

Paul in his his Roman defence contrasts such a view with the Christian view of forgivness offered to violators of God's laws. It is called grace. That God can forgive the guilty and call them his sons. That is the reason the apostle Paul is rejected by Islam because they believe he perverted the teachings of Allah.

CJ...not exactly "me right P wrong".... I was seeking to explain the reasons for our different perspective.

Where Pericles is incorrect/wrong/misled/misinformed is in his appreciation (lack thereof) of the mindset at work in the Islamic scriptures. We can leave "Muslims" as a group out of that argument for the moment, and simply focus our gaze on the 9th surah of the Quran.

FH claims that in a general sense the wars Mohammad fought were wars of survival, and to gain a few more points he says it was always the few (muslims) against the many (enemies).

That is only true in some cases, not all. So it is historically incorrect to characterize all of Mohammad's wars/battles as being about 'survival'. One prime (of many) example which comes to mind is the seige of Ta'if. That was the town which initially mocked/stoned the weak Mohammad and he never forgot this.

When be became strong, he went and beseiged them (this is called 'aggression') and tried to force them to at least submit to his rule, and definitely tried to force them to embrace Islam. They withstood the seige, but the leaders saw the historical writing on the wall as they did the number crunching for the Arabian Peninsula (other tribes status) and the issue became quickly 'Islam or death' for them. They chose Islam out of fear and intimidation.

If you feel I'm misrepresenting their situation, by all means read up on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%27if#630:_The_Battle_of_Hunayn_and_the_Conversion_of_the_City

620 they stoned Mohammad
630 they capitulated (via a delegation) to Mohammad who was newly victorious at the Battle of Hunayn.

The 9th surah contains Mohammad's mindset of 630 and that is the mindset the Muslim Ummah has inherited to this day. This is the mindset which is like a time bomb residing in the heads of Sunni Imams and clerics.

Sufi's are considered heretics by some Sunni's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism#Sufism_and_Islamic_law

<<The Modernist criticisms of Sufism emphasize the claim that Sufi masters have introduced special prayers and devotional acts into their schools that are not part of early Islam, or even that Sufi Muslims have contrived entirely new beliefs.>>

The ignorance of Muslims (or dishonesty) about their writings is appalling. From the beginning Islam has been a religion of aggression. Consider the 26 raids Mohammad led personally plus the other 28 he sent out (incl. night and early morning attacks). Of the many battles he fought, only two can be considered defensive (because they Meccans were tired of his attacks). Yes, M was a good general, but these were not “survival” wars.

Any country that takes Muslim immigrants is foolish, asking for trouble. Muslims do not share our values of freedom and equality. Just look at their societies if you have doubts. The Muslims that post here are less than honest about basic facts.

Understand that there are no “moderate” Muslims.

If you think so, try this… Find a “moderate” Muslim. Get a copy of the Quran and Hadith. Start reading from it. Ask about the verses that teach hate and violence against non-Muslims. Ask about the passages that tell them to conquer and subdue us. Ask about why Allah even says they can kill or torture those who oppose Islam. Ask them to explain all those special privileges that Mohammad put into the Quran to benefit Muhammad.

Then go to the Ahadith, Islamic traditions. Ask about the attacks, plunder, murder, enslavement of men women and children, torture, lies, rape of women and even Muhammad beating his own wife. Ask them how they can say “Praise be unto him” after Muhammad’s name and consider him to be a moral example when their own traditions, written by friends/followers, detail hundreds of vile deeds. Of course, to Muslims, anything that Muhammad did is not evil, by definition. Figure out what that means.

Ask about the history of Islam. Ask about the so-called “rightly guided caliphs” that are also considered moral examples. Ask about their looting and conquest of half the known world. Ask about the slave women and the wars. Ask about the violence when thousands of Muslims killed thousands of other Muslims, all for the glory of Allah. Ask why 3 of the 4 so-called rightlyguided caliphs were murdered.

Continued…

Read about Karbala/Ashura andhow Muslim fought Muslim and how in 50 years after the death of their prophet a Muslim army was carrying the severed heads of Mohammad’s grandson and infant greatgrandson as trophies for the caliph. Read about 1300years of war against non-Muslims. They will mention the crusades so ask about Islam’s wars on other people back to the time of the prophet. Ask about the brutal 800years of Muslim domination of India. Ask why there arent Buddhists in that country. Ask what the Turks did to the slavic peoples for 600years. Ask about Muslim pirates attacking Europe for a thousand years.

Ask about current events. Ask how many bombs and murders in how many countries this last ‘holy’ month of Ramadan. Ask about how Muslims treat non-Muslims where they dominate. Ask about treatmentof women, gays and minority sects of Islam. Ask about apostasy laws in Muslim countries. Ask why there are so few Hindus now in Pakistan as compared to partition. Ask about the Armenian genocide or even what Paki Muslims did to Bangladesh Muslims, just 3 decades ago.
Ask why the Maldives have a law that non-Muslims lose their citizenship. Ask about the reeducation camps in Malaysia for exMuslims. Ask about increasing radicalism in so many Islamic countries, from Algeria (new laws against non-Muslims) to Egypt (persecution of Copts/Bahaii). Ask about honour killings, forced/child marriages, genital mutilation, abuse of women (evenwith how-to videos). Ask about Muslim trying to end our freedoms and kill those who criticize Islam/Mohammad.

These facts are not hard to find. Of course, Muslims have excuses. They will tell you that you don’t understand. They will say it is out of context or cultural. They say that others did these things too. They will say that the people that did or do these things are not ‘real’ Muslims, etc.

Maybe I am just picky, but I do not believe that people who are aware of these facts and still say “Praise be unto him” after the name of a man who did the evil deeds described in Islam’s own writings to be ‘moderates’.

Kactuz