Oh for crying out loud people. Don't you realise the Koran and Bible were written in **ANCIENT** times, with culturally applicable terms that apply to those **ANCIENT** times. There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran. Does this mean that Christians are obligated to go out and main, kill and invade? Of course not! ! ! Exactly the same applies to Muslims.

So by quoting **ANCIENT** phrases in the Koran, and then extrapolating that Islam is bad and violent is inaccurate in the extreme. Muslims are no more a danger to you than Christians. The people who are a danger to you are - - - - - - - **EXTREMISTS** and **FUNDAMENTALISTS** ; people who (1) commit terrorist crimes for political reasons under the guise of religion and (2) those who literally interpret violent phrases in ancient holy books and apply those interpretations to modern times.

Dear Benq

you said:

There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran.

Superficially this might seem true.. specially to one who only goes by what other people say rather than drilling down to the kernel of it.

Rather than dispute with you.. let me ask for further clarification.

Are you actually asserting that the Old or New Testament (more importantly the New) include 'generalized' commands (this is most important) to Christians (which are exclusively a NEW testament body of people) to go to war against non Christians ?

If you are asserting that, please back it up with a clear unambiguous, contextualized well exegeted passages.

Just to pre-empt you.. Matthew 10:34 is not applicable.

A "command" is in the form of "Go.. do.. kill...invade.. attack... "

It has an originator...
It has a subject "you"
It has a target "them"

Are you aware of the thing called "The Great Commission" in Christianity? You will find one form in Matthew 28:19-20
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28&version=NIV

There is another form in Luke 24:44-49
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NIV

That last passage is very encompassing. It captures the intent of all the Old Testament.

-Law
-Prophets
-Psalms

So..whatever follows this 'all encompassing' connection to the whole of the O.T. will then be representative of what can legitimately be described as "Christianity teaches" regarding it's self understanding and mission in the world.

To find the completion of Lukes account and his version of that Great Commission, you need to look at Acts, which Luke also wrote, and the continuation up to the day of Pentecost and subsequent events.

That final charge or commission of Jesus is recorded by Luke as follows:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1&version=NIV

8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts1:8)

So...the LAST words that Jesus (the risen Christ) ever spoke to mankind.... should be seen as the most defining for the Christian mission..and you may regard this post as part of that mission.

benq,
<<Does this mean that Christians are obligated to go out and main, kill and invade? Of course not! ! !
Exactly the same applies to Muslims.>>
bunq! ! !
You haven't been reading the Koran then?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary.html

<<Muslims are no more a danger to you than Christians.>>
bunq! ! !
You haven't been reading the news then?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

examinator

For the umpteenth time.

Though I posed the question my personal answer is:

NO we should NOT, repeat NOT, bar Cat Stevens from Australia.

GET THAT EXMAINATOR?

I am NOT in favour of barring Cat Stevens.

In another thread I posited two rules of internet discussion to rival Godwin's rule:

MEYER'S FIRST RULE

No matter what the original topic as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of Israel being attacked approaches 1.

MEYER'S SECOND RULE

No matter what the original topic if an online discussion continues for long enough the proportion of posts devoted to attacking or defending Israel approaches 100%

I am now positing a THIRD RULE:

When confronted with inconvenient facts about the nature of Islam change the subject to Israel

I guess it is a pointless exercise, to yet again point out to you the excruciating double standards you exercise in the defence of your own religion, Boaz, merely in order to attack someone else's.

It is so obvious to the atheist bystander, with no axe to grind on behalf of any ancient scripture.

It is also obvious to the atheist bystander, that by their very nature, religions have within them a burning need to eliminate all other belief systems, simply in order to validate their own.

They cannot abide the idea that others may feel that they are "right", because to do so would be to admit that... hey, they actually could be.

Your latest offering is quite blatant.

>>"There's plenty of calls for blood and gore in the Bible, just as there is in the Koran." Superficially this might seem true.. specially to one who only goes by what other people say rather than drilling down to the kernel of it<<

Which means, as long as you see it the way I want you to see it.

>>If you are asserting that, please back it up with a clear unambiguous, contextualized well exegeted passages.<<

Which means, we'll play by my rules (errr.. please sir, what is a "contextualized, well-exegeted passage?"), or not at all.

>>Just to pre-empt you.. Matthew 10:34 is not applicable.<<

Which means, I have an answer prepared for all the dubious passages you can think of, so don't bother trying.

I guess it all comes down to this, really:

>>So...the LAST words that Jesus (the risen Christ) ever spoke to mankind...<<

You need to have a particular mindset, to actually take these words at their face value. They were after all written by someone who had never met the person whose words he "quoted". Or, in fact, met anyone else who had met him.

But I guess that's the whole point about these ancient documents. Like te meanderings of Nostradamus, they can be made to mean anything that suits your purpose.

Which is why they are so dangerous, in the hands of the unscrupulous.

Dear Steven,

For the umpteenth time...

No one is suggesting that the fundamentalists
of Islam, or any religion, are to be condoned.
Violence in any form should be condoned.
Raising the issue of Israel's actions should
not however - be a "no-go" zone. No one is tarring all
Israelis with the same brush, simply questioning
the actions of the government and the military.

If you are willing to raise the topic of what a
person said over twenty years ago - and you dedicate
an entire thread to the subject of whether or not
that person should be banned. Why do you object
to a poster raising the issue of Israel's current
actions that has cause global outrage at present - and
whether they should be ostrized for their actions
as well? It's a fair question to most people.

Perhaps you need to amend your laws to include:

"When confronted with opposing arguments about
the nature of Islam - make Israel a 'no-go zone.'