If a person says "I believe in Santa Claus" then, one would expect, based on the traditional stories, for the person to hang out a stocking on Christmas eve and to expect a large person in a red suit to descend via the Chimney and deliver presents to those who have been GOOD! (and that as Christmas approached the behavior of the believer would noticably improve)

FAIRIES. If a person believes that Fairies inhabit their garden and will only be visible to those who are on their bestest behavior, it stands to reason that they will seek to manifest such behavior in order to see said fairies.

RELIGION. If a person such as a Jehovah's witness believes that "The life is in the blood" of a human being, and that interfering with human blood is an awful sin... it not only stands to reason that they will refuse blood transfusions, but it is a verifiable FACT.

So..on the basis of the last example, if a JW was found to have received a blood transfusion, and this got back to the elders of that persons local assembly... one would expect a disciplinary session of rather serious proportions.
http://watchtowerblood.blogspot.com/

In such a case, we may call the person a 'good' JW or a 'bad' JW only on the grounds of their committment to their agreed values/doctrines.

Other than this, we might call them all manner of names about how we feel about them, but on faith issues? "Doctine" is the determinant.

Just so, it is illogical, unreasonable and irrational to call people 'Christians' who deliberately and manifestly DEFY a clear Biblical imperitive, but more importantly the agreed teachings of CHRIST Himself; to do so is patently fraudulent.

If Jesus of Nazareth said "put away your sword" to the only follower of his EVER to have raised one in anger in his defense, and then Healed the victim.....it is most UNreasonable to suggest any connection between His teaching, or that of His disciples with violence. All historical evaluations must be subject to HIM, and Him alone.

David! So you have found another cult that is worst than yours. I don't know what angle your coming from, but this is not helping the case for people choosing religion.

The man and woman on screen are complete nut-jobs.

You are a standing mountain of logic compared to that lot. If I had to choose a religion, I would pick yours.

I will go back and worship the earth:)

Thanks for pointing that out.

EVO

Dear Polycarp,

This thread has the potential of being
an interesting one.

In Matthew 26:55 Jesus said:
"Am I leading a rebellion, that you have
come out with swords and clubs to capture me?"
Perhaps this question was rhetorical.

He was leading a rebellion against the orthodox
Jewish religion. He was also leading a revolution
against wealth and privilege.

In Matthew 5:3 Jesus said (among other things):
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the
earth." Jesus threw the money lenders out of the
temple, shared food, healed the sick and told
the rich they had as much hope of getting to heaven
as a camel had of passing through the eye of a needle.

The most important thing to me, is the Christian
golden rule:

"Do to others as you would them do to you."
(Luke 6:27-36).

This golden rule exists in other cultures and
religions. However, it is central to the Christian
value system.

So the Crusades were non-Christian holy wars?

Interesting concept, tell me more.

Polycarp,

Are the Christian churches, Christian; i.e., Christian to the word of Christ's teachings?

[You know I have Christ pegged as a revolutionist Jew making a run for the House of David, but I will put that idea aside for today.]

Where do the main churches stand, in-history, in respect to his teachings vis-a-vis a modern secular humanist? Should Christians kill others in wars?

Oly.

"Just so, it is illogical, unreasonable and irrational to call people 'Christians' who deliberately and manifestly DEFY a clear Biblical imperitive, but more importantly the agreed teachings of CHRIST Himself; to do so is patently fraudulent."

The point David makes is a valid one and I intend to stop refering to David as a christian. The bible has clear imperitives about truth and honest.
- Don't bring false false witness against anoth
- Let your yes be yes and your no be no
- God is a god of truth

Clearly given Davids posting history he can not and should not be called a christain.

R0bert

Hmm... I see, so let me think, what appears to be the core point of this thread?

That the 'doctrines' of religions are crucial to being a proper follower, and that interpretation is merely a side point.

Call me cynical, but my suspicion is that polycarp is hoping to draw this toward Islam, cite some section of text in the qu'ran which he will then interpret in a manner he deems appropriate, disregard the fact that the vast majority of muslims are not violent, then proceed to outline why some piece of text from thousands of years old is more valid evidence as to why they are evil, despite the reality today that there's millions of muslims living harmoniously with others.

Of course, were he to do so in the opening paragraph, many people would rightly point out that this dead horse has been well and truly flogged.

Hi Oly :) *smile*

BUGSY... you want to hear more ? :) yikes... ok.. I'll try.

The simple answer to your question about the Crusades is found in Foxy's post.

I have to say clearly that the Crusades were NOT "Christ-ian" wars.

They were wars of State and of an Ecclesiastical network which was enmeshed in the State at the time.
Historically, they were defensive, as the expansion of the Islamic Empire was eroding the territory of "Christendom" i.e.. those places considered part of the 'Holy Roman Empire' (which is an entirely human construct, not Biblical)

In order to raise motivation and soldiers, the Church did indeed use whatever it could to justify the invasions. But I suggest that even if the realm of Christendom was a 'Realm of Zeus' the reaction to the Islamic expansion would have been the same. It would also have been the same if it was not an 'Islamic' empire expanding.. it could simply have been an empire of a different 'god'.

ROBERT you are welcome to criticize me on the basis of scripture, but you have confused 'myth' generated and multiplied by certain individuals with my intent. I could goto the trouble of showing exactly how this occurs, but frankly, that would not change how people wish to perceive me. Call me whatever you like. ISSUES but please don't forget, OLO is more about issues than people.

EVO...you'd choose mine ? :) nah..just read the Bible and find an expression of it's values which suit your personality and understanding.

BELIEF and BEHAVIOR

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES no blood transfusions.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE always 'Spiritual' healing first then medical 2nd.
MORMONS "Jesus and Lucifer were brothers"
MANSON FAMILY "Kill the pigs"
HEAVENS GATE "The mothership is waiting.. we must die to meet it"
AUM SHINRIKYO "Saren Gas attack"
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS "worship on Saturday"

Another noteworthy characteristic of JW's is their belief that 'works' save rather than faith. This translates into intrusive door to door "witnessing". If you believe you must 'earn' your salvation, you will obviously 'work hard' to attain it, no?

Hey Polycarp, what part of the Bible did Christ actually write?? He didn't consider himself divine, so why did the early christian(catholic) church elevate him to divinity. Moses would clearly not have agreed. Indeed,to hold tenet in such puerile dogma is actually the antitheseis of the message of Christ.

"but you have confused 'myth' generated and multiplied by certain individuals with my intent."

No David this is not about myth, it's about the obvious conflict between your spin, twists and evasivness compared to the standard of truth which followers of the the christain god are called to. It's not about your intent, it's about your words and actions and those have been demonstrated to be far from honest on numerous occasions.

You don't get it but that does not mean that it's not really obvious to most of those who don't share your evangalise by almost any means beliefs.

You might think that because you have left some wiggle room, a semi-plausable reason why your words my mean something other than their most obvious meaning that you have not born false witness or been deceitfull but I and a number of others take a different view.

Your attempts to deceive and distort in service to your message have no place in someone claiming to follow a god of truth, no place in someone who's god demands plain and honest speech.

R0bert

Interesting ideas there Polycarp. I love the idea that a belief in fairies can manipulate people into acting at their best when in the garden.

Please, go on.

sillyfilly

You are living up to your name by claiming Christ did not claim to be divine. Go back and read the Scriptures before making such absurd or at least come clean with your motive for being deceived or deceptive.

For a start the apostle John called Him God (remember my Lord and my God). Jesus referred to Himself as I am (the same as Jehovah God revealed Himself to Moses). The Jews were so upset they wanted to stone Him. The old testament spoke of Him as being the everlasting Father and Mighty God. Unfortunately space and time would not allow for me to continue to pour water on your silly assertion that the divinity of Christ is a conspiracy theory. By all means choose not to believe the Scriptures but don't mis represent them so blatantly.

Polycarp
Glad to see you have finally seen the "light?" you apparently agree with the atheists.
(Well you did make the association between with childish fantasies and religion)
(Snigger snigger he he he ha Ha Ha Ha! )
some of your own medicine? :-)

“Polycarp report to the head master for detention.”
“Write out 100 times “I must not use self referential or selective facts when trying to justify my reasoning”

Hey, runner, your brain has obviously done one. Christ is never mentioned in the Old Testament and I suggest you read issues relating to the Council of Niceae, before casting the proverbial stones. Or indeed, have you gone too far past christianity so as to forget the basic tenets of its faith, poor deluded child.

Runner,
The divinity of Christ was first established by the Church after the 4th century at the Council of Nicea, where the current four gospels (authors actually unknown but later credited to specific people by a Bishop) were accepted as canonical and the other available gospels discarded or destroyed.

Were those 4 chosen because the others portrayed Jesus as a man or what was so wrong with the others?

Are any miracles or resurrection references mentioned anywhere in the earlier biblical books or were these introduced to the narrative later, along with other references "borrowed" from other older religions?

Where does the word “Trinity” actually appear in the gospels?

Why are there different accounts of the same events between the gospels?

If the concepts of divinity, the Trinity and miracles are central themes of the religion, why did they take hundreds of years to surface for the first time in writing? Were these essential things of no importance to earlier authors?

The notions of divinity and original sin were introduced by Paul, who was the true author of what is called Christianity.

There are thousands of sub-sets of what is generically called Christianity, so which is the "true" one and where does that leave all the others?

sillyfilly

If you are unable to read of Christ in the old testament you are as blind as the pharisees of Jesus time and the earth worshipers of today. Next you will be speaking of an impotent religous belief that denies the resurrection. The basic tenets of the faith you refer to are totally useless when you don't even know the Author of such

Yes. I'm sure that the modern Bible gives an accurate account of what a religious-political figure said 2000 years ago, in a dead language, and despite the myriad translations, abridgments and exploitations it has been subjected to.

It's indisputable.

Hi Examy... snigger-snigger eh :)

For TRTL who is salivating and chafing at the bit waiting for me to turn this thread into some whack-a-mozzie episode... he will be dissappointed.

So many who inhabit these corridors of ideas have such woolly thinking on this issue (and that includes well educated folk like David F) that a thread dedicated JUST to the principle is in order.

If I believe a,b,c then I will act accordingly.

If I say I believe a,b,c but DON'T ACT accordingly, then my confession of belief is highly suspect.

It is equally wrong when a person manifests contrary behavior to a set of beliefs, for OTHERS to say he IS a believer in those doctrines.

Accordingly, we must always look at what people SAY they believe, and see if they are interpreting those foundations correctly in the normal manner in which any historical or legal document is interpreted. OR...if they are simply announcing conclusions or doctrines which have ZERO connected to their claimed beliefs.

A typical example is David F's slanderous and dangerous allegation (repeated a number of times Moderators) "The Holocaust was applied Christianity"

Such irresponsible statements are as dangerous as the Hindu propoganda currently resulting in many thousands of innocent Christians being hunted into the forest, their houses and church burned (200 Churches thus far) all over a lie. That lie is "Christian terrorists/missionaries murdered Laksamana Saraswati, a self appointed Hindu Holy man (who despised the Christians for giving education to the downtrodden Dalits who the Hindu's wish to KEEP on the bottom rung of the social ladder.)

Realizing this, you can understand why the Hindus are so full of hate towards Christians... they are upsetting the exploitative social caste system.
All this over a HUGE LIE. The Man was murdered by a MAOIST.

http://in.ibtimes.com/articles/20081007/orissa-persecutiono-attack-maoist-vhp-leader-laxmananda-saraswati-india-christian-manmohan-singh.htm

So.. Hindu's BELIEVING that Dalits/Untouchables are those who by CASTE are always destined to clean toilets and do other dirty jobs, are BEHAVING towards those who offer hope to Dalits in a most evil of ways.

But I want to hear more about these fairies you mentioned. I'm ready to believe in fairies, just give me a reason to believe and I will be a good person.

Runner! Earth worship is far more believable than that spooky in the sky baloney, and you don't get sent to hell if you mess up. ( or live in constant fear ) So you say god made the heavens and the earth?

Prove it!

The day I pick up a rock that says "MADE BY GOD" I,ll be the first one to start praying.

The problem with you and gibo, poly and a like, you all rely on the protection from this god that never comes.

How many times have you christians got your ass,s kicked?

O yes! I can see god was right there to help out with disputes of the past.

Your god does have a funny sense of humor.

And what about paleontology? I guess god just went down his back shed and made a few fossils just to throw a red herring in just for fun.

Runner will say that he hears distress signals from god!, and in reading some of his post, I don't doubt it:)

EVO

Dear EVO,

Talking about a sense of humour...

I've got a joke that I think you may enjoy:

A burglar late one night broke into a house
that he thought was empty. As he began to
empty the silverware into his bag a voice
came from the dark living room,
"Jesus is watching you!" it said.

The burglar froze in fear. The voice spoke again:
"Jesus is watching you!"

"Who said that?" asked the frightened burglar.
No answer.
"Where are you?" questioned the burglar.
No answer.

The burglar finally got up the courage to shine
his flashlight around the dark room.
In the corner of the room, the burglar saw
a cage with a parrot sitting quietly on a perch.

"Did you speak to me?" asked the burglar.
"Yes it was me," said the parrot.
"What's your name?" asked the burglar.
"Clarence," replied the parrot.

"What kind of a name is Clarence for a parrot?" asked
the burglar.

"What idiot named you Clarence?"

"The same idiot that named the rottweiler, Jesus,"
replied the parrot.

One of the things that is most aparent from watching fundies of various persuaions is that they adjust their beliefs to fit their behaviour.

Judging by the attitudes and actions of our most vocal christain fundies we can assume that the fundie believers in fairies in the garden believe that the fairies really hate trees and flowers and require that all trees and flowers be chopped down and burned as soon as practical. Well actually one will be convinced that the fairies hate trees another that the fairies hate all growing things and a third will know that it's the flowers which the fairies hate.

They will squabble amongst themselves but hardly ever criticise each other in front of those who don't believe in fairies but will spend countless time criticising those who believe in elves, hobbits, leprecauns and other false garden dwellers.

They will also criticise those who believe in fairies but are misguided enough to think that the fairies actually like tree's and flowers.

R0bert

LOL Foxy! No, I just like poking them with a stick, cause they bite so well:)

EVO

Why oh why don't all the Christians like Polycarp not just become Catholics? They are so stuck on the bible as being the only source of their experience and knowledge of their God.

The bible, which is a book selectively cobbled together by the early Catholic church.

Why do Johnny-come-lately's in the Christianity industry focus exclusively and only on this originally Catholic text and perhaps on some 'revelations' by a charismatic guru whom followers are absolutely not permitted to question or doubt? Really curious.

Other Christian off shoots simply never had access to all that is written about the early Christian faith or Jesus Christ.

Polycarp may think that the Crusades where not Christian wars, but the people at the time most certainly thought they were.

If I tell you that I have SEEN little people at the bottome of my garden Polycarp, that is a verifiable fact to me. I didn't even need a heavily edited, much translated book to tell me that they are there. I saw them all by myself. And I wasn't very 'good', whatever that means, either ;).

Ah, my mistake boaz. Instead of filing this under your 'muslims are evil' pursuit, I should have filed it under your other one, the 'how can I persuade people the bible is all important' category.

Anyhow, allow me to break this down to the basics.

Okay, so lets say we were going with something non-theological, say, lawyering or doctoring or whatever.

Say I state that I believe that the kidneys are located somewhere around the gut area, and the heart pumps blood. Because I know this, I state I'm a doctor - what's to stop me?

Well, the truth of the matter is that we have human agencies which can establish the validity of my statements. Qualifications.

Ultimately, there are only qualifications which are assessed by the public as having merit or not. If I am cleared by the AMA and have a medical degree from a respectable university, then yes, I could call myself a doctor.

Fact of the matter is, most Australians agree with this system, and respect that the AMA and our universities make reasonably qualified doctors.

Theologically speaking however, this all because irrelevant, because you're talking about fairytales that are thousands of years old.

You keep positioning yourself as some kind of expert. Who respects this? Clearly not the people here. There is no consensus, you can't position yourself as knowing more, so you certainly can't keep acting with such arrogance and condescension. You speak of people who are misguided on faith, but there is *no* guide, there is no verification of the bible. Thus, there can be no strict interpretation.

P.S. compared to doctoring or other professions (perhaps not lawyering), theology's about as useful as a nine-arsed camel.

Evo :) I don't rely on the Lord to protect me in the sense you mean.. my spinning back kick serves me quite well there:) see..I can poke with a stick tooooo....

Foxy.. it took me by surprise that joke... and about 1 minute to recover from the laughing fit :) It's a goody.. a keeper.

TRTL.. I'm seeking to develop one major principle here.

IF...you believe xyz
THEN...(you know.. the simple computer language stuff) your behavior will quite likely reflect that belief.

ELSE.. maybe you don't believe what you say you do.

ENDIF.

If I believe that

a) Unprovoked Assault is evil
b) I see a man assaulting another person
c) I am lawfully allowed to make a citizens arrest.

It's quite likely that I'll try to intervene and hold the perpetrator until police arrive.

On the other hand. If I believe:

a) Unprovoked assault is evil
b) I see a man assaulting another
c) The police don't give a damn and if the do at all they will punish ME for causing a problem.

I'm less likely to intervene unless I can accurately size up the perpetrator in terms of my own capability to deal with him.

If Christians believe

a)-Persecution of Christians is evil and Satanic.
b)-Christians have been authorized by Jesus to stand up for themselves by gathering weapons and forming 'hit squads' then.....
c)-Jesus had clearly arranged for the murder of the Chief Priest or other enemies
d)-That we are more answerable to God than man or human law.

Of course you could expect people like Hilali to end up in a coffin by 'unknown assailants'.

But if you remove b) and c) from that list..and substitute

b) Pray for your enemies and bless them.
c) Do not resist one who is evil.

Don't you think the outworking of the faith might be different?

David. I have a ring tone for you, called the dead terrorist! and it sounds a little like you at times.

It goes like this!

SILENCE! I kill you! SILENCE I kill you!

You really wouldn't hurt someone in the name of a god, would you?

The rest of us are past that stone-age BEHAVIOR.:)

EVO

Jehovah's Witnesses does not follow the teaching of the mainstream Christian Churches that most Christians on these forums belong too. Jehovah's Witnesses have some differing beliefs and some of these beliefs can be challenging to Christians. I don't believe in cutting down other religions to make mine look better, however I'm glad that I don't belong to a religion that requires me to spend almost all my leisure time knocking on doors. Depite their differences there are some sincere Christians within the Jehovah's Witness religion.

Dear Steel... thankyou for making my point.

They (JW) knock on doors because of....their....BELIEF..which, if you dig down deep enough, you will find connects to their idea about "salvation". Door knocking is the 'behavior' which fits their belief.

We must face at some stage that there is a need to criticize other faiths/ideologies from within our own. Political parties do that daily.

TRTL.. you said "You keep positioning yourself as some kind of expert"

How much of an expert does one need to be?

The simplest method of determining 'yes/no' on that score is to debate a real issue. I'll suggest "surah 9" in the Quran as it does fit into this topic.

1/ Did Mohammad simply 'decide' to end his own obligations to any treaty he had with Mushriks/unbelievers?
2/ Did he simply 'decide' that those who had treaties, but had not ratified them in a particular mosque were thereby suspect and not worth the papyrus they were written on?
3/ Did he or did he not, give a time limit for the 'Mushriks' to get out or get killed (unless they embraced Islam)
4/ For those who did not embrace Islam, did he or did he not declare that ALL of them found would be killed?

There are no if's buts or maybe's..he DID or he did not. If he DID, then that forms part of his EXAMPLE where surah 33:21 claims

<< You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day, and who engages much in the praise of Allah.>>

If you don't see this as a problem ask yourself this.

IF the local Baptist Church told you "You have 3 months to become Christian, if you don't, and we find you, you will BE KILLED without mercy" THAT...is what the non Muslims faced from Surah 9.

Roll that around for a bit...and then do some serious thinking.

Dear Polycarp,

I have a problem with you picking out various
verses and not giving a full explanation of
their historic context.

For example Surah 9 - as quoted by you gives
a totally different picture to the one I
managed to scroll up, where God instructs
Muslims to fight back, during a time of war,
but not to trangress and remain just during
battle. "Only if the enemy treacherously denounces
his treaty ... attack, but give time before the
declaration of war."

This was during a war in the defense of their
homeland and their Faith.

And why go to Surah 9. Why not start with the
verses 2.190-2.194
The Battle of Badr. Which were the first instructions
from God to Muslims to prepare themselves for
fighting.

I just don't understand your behaviour. You have to
give a full account of something - on its own merit,
and not according to your own wishes.

Also you continue to paint Mohammad's teachings are
"horrific." Yet how could you know what they actually
are. You only select what suits your purpose.

Mohammad's teachings are included in what is called
Hadith. Yet the Hadith is recorded in many books, and by
many people, not all of them agreed upon by all Muslims.
There are thousands of Hadiths.
How do you know which are the "authentic" words of Mohammad.

You keep pointing the finger at Muslims, but is the
Spanish Inquisition something Christians should be proud
of? And the Crusades? And did any of the Christian churches
and/or their leaders try to stop the Jewish Holocaust?

You need to keep a balance in your own thinking
before you point the finger at other religions.

You can always find bad things in anything - if you set
your purpose in life to look for them.

Dear Foxy..... thanx for that contribution. I'm a bit confused though.

I didn't expect you to take up that challenge, I know ur usually good for a serious discussion, but it's the other folk who seem reluctant to engage on real issues.

I think I undersand your approach there. You used Surah 2 to show how Muslims should conduct themselves during times of being attacked?

The point I'm asking about though, is not surah 2 but surah 9 which is later.

This is important regarding understanding Islam..the chronology.
You see.. often you will find 'milder' statements such as in Surah 2 and 'bolder' ones in later passages.
We need to know the actual historical background of the particular Surah in order to understand it.

Regarding 9, it was a completely different real world situation from 2
If you like, you could read a Muslim background commentary here.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau9.html

Then there would be a better basis for discussion.

blessings.

I'm not going to hear more about these fairies am I?

Bugsy...I'm treating_your_contemptable_posts_as_they_deserve :)

Dear Foxy.. referring again to your last post.

<<And why go to Surah 9. Why not start with the
verses 2.190-2.194
The Battle of Badr. Which were the first instructions
from God to Muslims to prepare themselves for
fighting.>>

In that, you asked a question: "why surah 9, not surah 2?" the reasons are quite sound.

Primarily it is the chronology. Later Surahs, if different from earlier are said to 'abrogate' the ealier.
Secondly, in Surah 2 the Muslim community was very weak and the whole of the non Muslim Arabian peninsula were out to get them. (Pretty much as you explained)
Also, that is reflected in this commentary at point 3
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau2.html (please look at this)

So..yes, Surah 2 was about 'survival' but surah 9, was not about survival it was about absolutely imposing the rule of Islam on weaker groups and of annihilating all who did not comply. 9:4 and 9:5 show a very different Mohammad.

Yes...he said not to harm ONLY those who (in his view) had not supported anyone against the Muslims while their treaties were valid.

BUT..and it's an important but, after the cessation of those treaties and the end of any holy month, they were to be exterminated wholesale.
This did not depend on the absense of malice during the treaty period, it depended on one thing..'that they were idolaters'.

This was a very strong Mohammad giving an ultimatum of extinction to weaker pockets of non compliance with his rule.

The final important point, which I hope is not lost on you, is.. don't you notice a dramatic contrast between Jesus and Mohammad here?
According to Mohammad "Allah told us to fight" according to Jesus "Love your enemies" and indeed the Christians did not 'fight' the Romans, but in the end the Gospel (not an army) triumphed over Rome.

If a movement is truly of God...does it need to 'fight' to establish God's rule? Is earthly political rule what Jesus had in mind?

"Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them" :)

Hey, you're the one who mentioned fairies. If they make people act nicely, then I thought they may be worth hearing about.

If however, you think that a belief in supernatural entities is silly, then I can fully understand that as well.

Dear Polycarp,

I keep trying to get through to you.
I keep trying to understand you because
I know that deep down you are a good man.

But, you don't seem to realize that by adding
further to unnecessary, bitter divisions
between people, and making them deadly
religious enemies, you make a common future
for humankind an extremely difficult project
to bring to fruition.

All I can hope to do is again point
out that the vast majority of modern mainstream
Christians, Jews, and Muslims seek a better life
on earth, rather than seeking it in heaven.

The religiously minded modern person is not a
"card-carrying" fundamentalist. The latter are a
tiny minority. Of whatever faith, any psychologist
would be likely to declare them to be of unsound
mind.

There is enough hatred in the world, we don't need
to actively add to it. We don't need to preach
religious hatred against others. We need voices of
reason and sanity.

Humanity cannot afford to have fundamentalists with
their fingers on the nuclear war button.

The world is in a sad state today.

We need to have reasoned discussions, rather than
arguments of, "Your God is Evil..."

Think about what you're doing.

Dear Foxy
that response surprised me, (in one sense) -I know you are a warm hearted person and detest the idea of 'us/them' in personal, racial or religious affairs, so in that sense I understand you pulling back a bit from facing the actual issue in your last post.

Here is how our posts went for the past few.

I requested people examine a particular (Chronologically recent) surah of the Quran. I raised certain specific questions abou it.

Then... you responded with a 'Why don't I look at the historical context' question, (when in fact I did.. it was just a later context than the surah you offered -being the 2nd)

Why would you offer one which tends to support your personality, yet reject one which is legitimate in terms of the real or at least fuller picture?

It is not legitimate to allow the ideas of Surah 2 to dominate those of Surah 9.. quite the reverse, based on chronology.

Surah 9 establishes the approach of the State founded by Mohammad, toward non Muslims ... at least of that time. They were not a threat militarily as by that time most of the Arabian peninsula had been subdued by his armies.

So we must (yes.. sadly, we must) face the question about 'why' did he treat unbelievers then..as the Quran and history show he did, and..
what can we draw from this about the man, his faith, and how this might relate to us under similar circumstances.

The other question directly bearing on that is his "example".

I never have to defend our Lord on issues like this, because he was a "a lamb without spot" He gave himself sacrificially for us, for our sin and for our salvation.

Remember.. the topic is "Beliefs".....and "Behavior"

One follows the other. This is a place to safely thrash out these ideas at the 'idea' level. I don't think there will be anything like a 'Dreyfus case' world polarization over my woffle here :) Golly...there are only about 11 of us writing.

Bugsy...go play with ur train set. (or.. grow up)

So you don't believe in fairies? What about this Santa Claus fellow then, is he worth believing in?

Dear Polycarp,

This is becoming rather tedious,
and frankly I can see that I am
wasting my time.

However, I shall try just once more.

Surah 9 (The Ultimatum in many a Hadith is
the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, with 129
verses). This was revealed at the time of war.

I repeat, at the time of war. That is the
historic context to which I referred in my
earlier post. It is where Allah demands the Muslims
to fight under the conditions that existed.
To defend their homeland and
their faith. I made that quite clear to you in
my earlier post.

In the Qur'an 9:5, the famous Sword verse,
states,
"...but if they repent... then open the way for
them:...for Allah is...Most Merciful."

Again, I repeat, view things in their historic
context - don't simply select what suits you. And, Surah
2 and 9, were both revealed - at the time of war - where
Muslims were directed to fight.

Try viewing - behaviour in this light.
Then perhaps you may (or not) see the point
that I was trying to make in my last post.

Foxy! Again and again you prove to us the meaning of a balanced mind, and the percentage of your humanity is astronomical.

If people learn to have the feelings and heart that you do, this world is going to be alright.

P/S Iam dam sure your reading my mind.

Another gold star.

Daivd daivd daivd! That's all I can say to you.

EVO

Dear Foxy...

tedious it might be, but truth is worth it.

You said:

I repeat, at the time of war. That is the
historic context to which I referred in my
earlier post. It is where Allah demands the Muslims
to fight under the conditions that existed.
To defend their homeland and
their faith. I made that quite clear to you in
my earlier post.

Now..the true context for surah 9 was a war of MOHAMMAD'S MAKING. This is where it is different from Surah 2's social/historic conditions. If you read Maududi's commentary you would have seen this.
He was threatening ALL non Muslims with death if they did not convert. Yes..that is exactly what he was doing. Evidence?

You gave it yourself. "If they repent"... what is the obvious (and clearly stated) threat surrounding that?

1/ When the sacred months are past KILL THEM wherever you find them.
2/ IF...they repent (when you have your sword at their throat) then.. let them live.

Now.. Foxy.. apply that balanced mind of yours to those 2 simple facts.
No one with a shred of honesty will ignore the first issue "Kill them" and only focus on 'if they repent'... you cannot separate one from the other.

Let's put it differently.

INQUISITION 2 Now that we have attained power of State (we Christians) we will give atheists 2 months to think about their condition, then wherever we find them we will KILL every last Pericles and Morgan and Bugsy and anyone else who does not mouth the words "Jesus is Lord"..in which case we will allow them to live.

The most obvious part of that is that 'confessing with the mouth' has no connection with the heart, so you should realize something about the supposed revelation of Mohammad.. very supposed.
I don't know why you use the word 'revealed'... do you really think his message came from God?

So what about this Santa fella? I see his picture around every year, is he worth believing in? Does he actually make people act nicely?

Dear Polycarp,

Thank you
for taking the time and effort to
explain your point of view to me.

However, for me this discussion has
now run its course.

It saddens me that you have missed the
point that I've been trying to make to you
during this discussion of ours.

None of us can be responsible for other
people's actions. We can only be responsible
for our own.

Jesus taught, " You shall love your neighbour
as yourself... By loving them, you have loved me..."

He did not make any exclusions or specify that he was
only referring to Christians.

Take care,

TRTL spotted it first.

>>Call me cynical, but my suspicion is that polycarp is hoping to draw this toward Islam, cite some section of text in the qu'ran which he will then interpret in a manner he deems appropriate, disregard the fact that the vast majority of muslims are not violent, then proceed to outline why some piece of text from thousands of years old is more valid evidence as to why they are evil, despite the reality today that there's millions of muslims living harmoniously with others.<<

Boaz' response?

>>For TRTL who is salivating and chafing at the bit waiting for me to turn this thread into some whack-a-mozzie episode... he will be dissappointed. So many who inhabit these corridors of ideas have such woolly thinking on this issue (and that includes well educated folk like David F) that a thread dedicated JUST to the principle is in order.<<

But we know our man too well, don't we?

>>Now..the true context for surah 9 was a war of MOHAMMAD'S MAKING. This is where it is different from Surah 2's social/historic conditions. If you read Maududi's commentary you would have seen this. He was threatening ALL non Muslims with death if they did not convert. Yes..that is exactly what he was doing.<<

It is the self-deception that continues to be so remarkable.

Dear Foxy
I had a feeling it might get to that point. It's ok. I know you don't like to find ill in anyone.
If you can excuse.. I wish to make a few points further about your posts, so that anyone who has possibly been following the discussion can see angles which still need to be tidied up.

Foxy said:

You keep pointing the finger at Muslims, but is the
Spanish Inquisition something Christians should be proud
of? And the Crusades?

But what concerns me about Foxy's approach is this:

<<Again, I repeat, view things in their historic
context - don't simply select what suits you. And, Surah
2 and 9, were both revealed - at the time of war - where
Muslims were directed to fight.>>

2 things worry me about Foxy's post.

1/ She condemns the Crusades but seems to legitimize the wars of Mohammad.

2/ She uses the term 'revealed' and that Muslims were 'directed' to fight.

Why would the Muslims be told by God to fight, but the Crusaders not?

I suggest that due to the reality of erosion of the so called "Holy Roman Empire" (ChristenDOM) by Islamic expansion (which was a direct fulfillment of 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe in Allah"etc....
Therefore the Crusades (using this reasoning) were entirely justified by Foxy's reasoning about the Muslims.

Personally, I reject the idea that any war can or should be fought in the 'Name of Christ'...and that any war to extend 'Christian rule' is totally spurious.

Now..to all those others who have obviously declined the challenge about a serious examination of Surah 9, I can only conclude they have now read it, understand it and realize that it is exactly as I've described.(with the support of Muslim commentators)

HISTORICALLY

Surah 2
The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Holy Prophet's life at Al-Madinah. (Maududi) AD 617

Surah 9 The first discourse (vv. 1-37), was revealed in Zil-Qa'adah A. H. 9 or thereabout. (Maududi) AD 622

5 YEARS and a lot of crushing_of_opposition after surah 2.

Come on, what about this Santa character? Is he worth believing in?

Dear Polycarp,

You have again misread me.

I am not trying to legitimize Mohammad.
I was merely trying to point out that
every religion has history that can be
questionable.

What I am trying to do is remind you that
Christianity believes in forgiveness, even
of an enemy.

This is the real core of Jesus' moral teaching.
Everything else is secondary.

There are many non-violent Jews and Muslims who
are committed to peace.

Thanx for that Foxy...I appreciate the clarification.. for future reference.. I'll be less confused if you used terms like "Mohammad wrote" rather than 'was revealed'.. as I take you at ur word :)

I have a slightly different perspective on 'enemies'.. we are called to love our enemies, and if I read about forgiveness (a separate issue) rightly.. it is dependant on repentance.

Luke 17:3-6 Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, I repent,' you must forgive him."

The HUGE GULF of difference..and this is the CRITICAL CORE difference between Islam (as a faith/practice) and what our Lord brought, is this.

CHRISTS TEACHING.
Even if our enemy has not repented, we STILL love them. (Romans 5:8)

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

MOHAMMAD'S EXAMPLE 9:5 "Kill them wherever you find them, if they repent, ..., leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I think it is just your good nature and loving attitude which doesn't want to see such things as they are. i.e.. that in the case above, the threat of death hung over the unrepentant non Muslim in THIS world...I suggest it is your gracious Christian upbringing that this comes from.

Yes..there are 'Christians' who say some very UNbiblical things.

Example Pat Robertson.. on the assasinate Chavez thing. I myself (among many others) wrote to rebuke him for that. But no one can rebuke a Muslim who says "Allah says such and such, and our prophet did this very thing" for being "UN"Quranic when they say the same thing as Robertson. The simple reason is that Mohammad DID actually order 'hits' on people he considered enemies.

Making such points, does not mean a lack of love for Muslims. It does however indicate a passion for truth, even the unpalatable kind.

You're not going to comment on Santa either are you?

Dear Polycarp,

I'm going to give you a quote from someone
who is better qualified than myself. It's
Dr Paul Collins, a graduate of Harvard
Divinity School and the Australian
National University, he is a former priest,
historian, and broadcaster.

In his book, "Believers," Dr Collins tells us:

"Forgiveness can seem like weakness, especially
within an extreme terrorist context where the
"lex talionis" is seen as justified and
even exalted by some Muslims as an aspect of "Jihad."

This confronts the Christian with the question of how
we should respond to outrages like the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on New York, and the Bali, Madrid and London
bombings.

Should we turn the other cheek? What would that achieve?
Personally, I think it would achieve a lot more than
the so-called "war on terror."

Only a truly superior statesperson would have shamed and
isolated the terrorist by saying "I forgive you."

This would have had to have been accompanied by
intelligent and astute diplomatic and political work
to isolate the terrorists and by appealing to the vast
majority of sensible, civilised and peaceful Muslims.

Sadly we are not governed by such intelligent political
leaders."

If only we could learn from our mistakes in the past.
If only we could accept the "unpalatable truths."
However, the human trait seems to be - to only see things
that we want to see.

It's an interesting point Foxy.. the idea of forgiveness from a Christian viewpoint.

I still think it goes like I said from our Lords words in my last post.

"Repent..then forgive"....

But lack of forgiveness does not mean lack of love... the love I'm talking about here is Agape love.. which does not rely on the behavior or qualities of the object of that love. It depends only on the subject..in this case God... and those of us who love him.

"For God so loved...." you know the rest of John 3:16

He came.. gave Himself.. for our sins WHILE we were enemies.

Remember.. Paul was an adamant enemy of Christ pre conversion. Christ's death was for him also. But had Paul died in sin, prior to faith in Christ he would have faced judgement like any other sinner.

I think this is the most difficult aspect of the Christian faith to take hold of for the unbeliever. They cannot understand how a person can condemn sin, or injustice, or evil, but still hold love for the perpetrator.

That's how God works...its how we SHOULD work and indeed the closer our walk with Him.. the more we WILL reflect this core truth.

This is the absolute nub of Beliefs....and Behavior.

Regarding terrorists, my view is the law will take it's course. The law is formed by our own choices through democratic processes, and we all participate in that. This is why I myself am very active in providing information (again.. often unpalatable) to assist in making what I believe to be wise long-run choices and laws.

If the murderers of Brit Lapthorne are arrested, I would not forgive them unless they were truly sorry. Even then, they would remain in the clink for a longggggg time. The staggering thing about Gods love though, is that even such horrible people can be saved....but only by grace.

Dear Polycarp,

Thank you for being so open and honest
with me.

Take care.

cont'd

A few final points I'd like to make, and
then I'm out of here...

Tor Hundloe tells us that:

"We all came into this world as
"blank sheets," as every child does,
but then from an early age, we are
taught our various idealogies.

If we are willing to label Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot and Idi Amin as sub-human zealots -
why not those who preach reliious hatred
against others?

Today's fundamentalists (be they Muslim or Christian)
were taught to be bad people, yet they believe they
are good people...In this context... they are acting
rationally according to their beliefs..."

"Richard the Lionheart led his soldiers from the front.
Richard's Christian soldiers were on their own "jihad."
Like their Muslim enemy they believed they would get easy
access to heaven if they fought bravely."

As Tor Hundloe points out,
"Today, we seek the good, sustainable life and find
not only unimaginable environmental problems
(climate change, but we replay, at a far more dangerous
level than in 12th century warfare, the Crusades.

What is the point of saving humanity and the planet from
a possible environmental disaster if we are going to
keep killing each other in the name of different
prophets of the same god?"

Thanx Foxy. Those words are always aimed at achieving reconciliation between humanity and I accept that this is your hearts desire.

Indeed it is mine also, but I certainly operate from a less sentimental perspective (not a cricism of you, just an observation). I think my time in Malaysia sorted me out on many of these issues.. or perhaps hardened my resolve on them.. yes..I think it's the latter without doubt.

See you in other threads.

I'm still wondering about some of my critics who always claim I 'run' from difficult threads.. I think the shoe is on the other foot.

So..for critics out there.. the usual mob.. I still hold open the challenge I raised earlier. The silence can only be taken as a lack of confidence about the issue or material.

When those who are rabid and passionate Poly-Bashers are equally focuses on gleaning the historical background to various Islamic texts, and then determining honestly how the text, its' background and the call by the author of the Quran (Mohammad alone) to view himself as an example to follow..(33.21) Then they will have my respect. Until then, they have none, because they have not earned any.

But that was just one example among many possibles.
The persecution of Christians in Orissa Province India by Hindus is equally a worry.
It directly relates to 'beliefs' and 'behavior'. In that case, the belief is "Christians murdered a hindu holy man" and that is a lie spread by Hindu extremists. It matters not that it is a deliberate lie, what matters is that in BELIEVING it the Hindus are now harming, hurting, killing, burning and raping innocent Christians in the name of that lie(belief).

Hence...this thread.

Poly, poly, poly. Where to start.

Firstly, I find this comment incredibly objectionable, not to mention childish:

"The silence can only be taken as a lack of confidence about the issue or material."

From a literal sense, this is flawed from the outset. "only" as a lack of confidence?

Only? What the hell? People could be away, they could have better things to do, they could be sick to death of your dishonest motives. As far as "only" goes, a remedial student in critical reasoning could hammer the holes in that argument. A far more likely explanation is that you're more persistent, and want to claim victory using any means possible.

Let me take this back to the simplest things here: you make a simple assertion which is patently obvious, but your motives are well known and your intended extrapolations are what are rejected from the outset.

It is the fundamental principles of your intended extrapolations which cause issues. You say you have no respect for the people who don't research the background of the texts, blah blah and so forth - but what if the background of said texts is believed to be so utterly irrelevant to the argument at hand, it is not worth scouring them?

What if simple argument and proper logic can eliminate their relevance to the argument here and now? Why place a premium solely on what you consider to be relevant, especially when it is a niche interest, with a contested interpretation.

cont'd.

That is again, what we come back to. Your interpretation is that and that alone, and before you can even argue your interpretation is right, you must persuade people it is relevant, and frankly you botch it on both counts.

As an example, the massacres in Orissa province. I agree they're a worry - but to use an example, I could just as easily say that they're more about generalising and categorising people by belief, as you are keen to do. Lets say there was a hindu holy man murdered by a christian - then seeking justice against a single christian would be justified, but taking action against the many based on their beliefs would not. Similarly, if a muslim commits a crime in Australia, it would be erratic to take action against all of them by limiting muslim migration, something you have long argued in favour of.

We need no ancient texts here. The issue is simple, but because your pet interest is using ancient texts to categorise people in such a manner, then of course, that's what you consider worthwhile.

But don't you dare pretend others have not 'earned' your respect for not indulging your pet cause.

So to reiterate - the vast number of contested interpretations and offshoots of religions, combined with the different practices of those within them show an extremely limited adherence in most instances. Some will be devout, some will not, and some will ignore the intended meaning in favour of one that suits their pet causes - i.e. your lack of humility and your apparent belief that your own interpretations are more valid than others, appears unchristian to some - but fortunately, the rest of us know that the lines are far more fuzzy than that... right?

Polly: MUUUUUUM!

Mother: What is it this time, dear?

P: No-one will play my game with me!

M: Well, dear perhaps they want to play another game.

P: I want them to play MY game.

M: Sometimes, we have to play different games so that everyone gets a turns at playing what they like.

P: They should like my game, its the best game.

M: When you get a little older, dear, you will see that there a lots of different games; some are fun and learning a new game can be fun.

P: No! My game is the bestest game of all!

M: Sometimes sharing means playing games differently to how you would like to play. Now run along dear, I am sure you will find someone to play with.

Polly stamps his foot, slumps and sticks his thumb in his mouth.

"Polly stamps his foot, slumps and sticks his thumb in his mouth."

Yes, your thumb's all you've got - when you've just spat the dummy!

Thanks for a good laugh, Fractelle, and some good home truths there too, TRTL. Unfortunately though, once again, it will all be water off a duck's back.