//And you people believe this stuff...is God's waord//

No we don't.

Op2,

"Solomon couldn't keep his pants on....

Did Solomon wear trousers?

"So does GOD make idol threats also?"

Well, I guess that He did threaten idols.

The Op2 Show; a laugh a minute!

Dear OP2,

I still don't understand why you're so set on proving that
what's in the Bible is wrong.

Recent Gallup polls
show that a high percentage of the population know their
astrological "sign", and an equally high percentage
believe that their lives are governed by the stars.

Many believe in one or more of such practices as fortune-telling,
palmistry, numerology, tarot-card reading, and seances with the
dead. Many people believe in reincarnation. All these beliefs
and practices run directly contrary to the teachings of the
established churches, yet they thrive in our societies.

Many people, too, adhere to an "invisible" or "silent"
religion, acknowledging a supreme but unknowable force in the
universe. And new sects and cults appear in unprecedented
profusion, offering the prospect of further religious growth
in new directions in the future.

What we see is that there will be growing religious diversity
in the future, reflecting the increasing individualism and
diversity of our societies. Particularly in times of
uncertainty and rapid social change, people in the future may
look, as they have in the past, to religious values to
stabilise and revitalise their culture. It may well be the
case, in fact, that the need for religion will eventually
re-assert itself most powerfully in precisely those
societies that have become the most industrialised, rationalised
and materialistic.

For many years it was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the
universe, religion would have less and less of a role to play
and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than
superstition. But there are still gaps in our understanding
that science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the nature
of morality - science is silent.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and as I've stated in
the past in this fundamental sense religion is probably
here to stay.

It’s come up quite a few times, mhaze.

<<Well when that comes up I'll be happy to and compare the Bible's OT/NT to the Koran's Meccan/Medinan texts. >>

Perhaps the occasions that I'm thinking of all happened on one of your extended breaks from OLO?

I'm not sure what comparing the two Testaments with the Qur'an's Meccan and Medinan have to do with anything, though. Was that an attempt at suggesting that it's more forgivable to assume universal acceptance of a single interpretation of what the Qur'an says than it is to do the same with regards to the Bible?

I do like discussions on the differences and relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, though. Most here appear to know nothing beyond the naive assumption that Jesus came to chuck the Old Testament out, and that it is all sunshine and lollipops from here on in.

<<Perhaps you could go back and check given your expertise at trolling through other's prior posts..now that's sarcasm.>>

Why would that be sarcasm unless you were suggesting that I was terrible at it? Given that you resorted to ad hominem by attempting to make me look obsessive the last time I quoted the past comments of others (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247733), I would hardly think that you thought my ability to search thoroughly was terrible.

Looks like you could do with a bit of brushing up on what sarcasm is yourself.

Well, well, well, mhaze.

I decided to have a bit of a look for one of these posts which you were presumably referring to.

<<Actually I think I've already had that discussion in these pages [comparing the Bible's OT/NT to the Koran's Meccan/Medinan texts].Perhaps you could go back and check given your expertise at trolling through other's prior posts …>>

And it appears my suspicions were right:

“But here's the thing..the NT supersedes the OT for Christians where they conflict,” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336027)

And look at that, I even corrected you:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336036
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336040

I’d forgotten about that discussion entirely. Apparently, you did too.

AJP

"It’s come up quite a few times, mhaze."

Previously you said you looked FORWARD to my discussing it when it came up. Now you're talking about the past discussions. So you're looking forward to me discussing it in the past!!??

Actually almost exactly two years, here's what I wrote:

"The problem with an Islamic reformation is that there is no obvious viable path for it.

The fundamental difference between the Bible and the Koran, at least as regards this issue, is that, in the Bible, the parts that a modern liberal society want to reject (the Old Testament) were written first and the more liberal sections (New Testament) later. The Bible's focus (Jesus) was a relatively (for that time) gentle soul who enjoined his followers to "do unto others..", "love one another", "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to cast a stone" and so on. So the path for the Christian reformers was laid out since much of the old ways were rescinded by the more recent Jesus/Paul and their successors.

Not so with Islam. The opposite in fact. The gentler more liberal parts of the Koran came first. The more war-like, blood-thirsty, doctrinaire parts came later and were the last written. They, according to the Koran itself, supercede the earlier pronouncements.

Christianity could reform without rejecting or downgrading Jesus. But an Islamic reform has to reject vast swaths of their prophet's acts and pronouncements. That's a much tougher call especially since the very core of Islam states that Mohamed was perfect and everything he said and did was both correct and to be emulated.

Hersi Ali calls for Islam to adhere to the Meccan Koran and reject the Medinan Koran and that would be good for Islam and the world. But how Islam gets there is unknowable. How does Islam reject and/or ignore half of its texts, and the most recent half, and remain Islam?"