Philo that is yet another approach to isolating the violence in the bible from the modern christain. There are a substantial body of christains who hold that the old testament is a record of the interaction of god with a people (there may be variations on the phrasing but that will do for my point). They don't see the times the israelites slaughtered the residents in places they were taking over as violent property realated actions of a more primitive people but as a people following the dictates of their god, the same god that the Jesus of of the new testament is reportedly one with.

I personally prefer the words and values attributed to Jesus than what I've read of Mohammed, my point is that christains who hold the old testament to be about their god are still for the most part able to live peacefull lives, not going about slaughtering those who offer unauthorised worship, rude kids etc. Just as a muslims do. If you don't understand the context have a read back through some of BD's posts regarding violence and the Quran.

For the record I've read the new testament numerous times.

R0bert

I don't get it. Islam is the religion of the sword, enforced by the sword, following the example of Mohammed. There is no separation of church and state, to prevent a bloody clash of religions. There is only the question, "Do you believe in Allah? and his prophet Mohammed?" If not, the sword.

Did I read the wrong Koran?

Robert,
Christians do not deny the history of the OT, but they must interpret it in the light of the NT. The OT if taken as final revelation and ignore the teachings of Jesus is not following Christ. They can hardly consider themselves Christian.

That is not to say we should consider the OT as irrelavent because we can learn many lessons of character, attitude and behaviour that form a persons relationship to God and His justice, forgivness and mercy.

We ought to recognise Jesus attitude toward the occupying Roman forces - no curses said. However note his attitude toward the Jewish zealots and religious forces attempting to overthrow Rome - not so accomodating. Anyone upholding violence as a hand of God, is not a follower of Christ.

Dear Rob
I quite agree that all of us, atheist, Christian (of all flavors) and Muslims (specially of FH's flavor) could work together quite well in that endeavour of exposing extremists.
My Christianity and FH's Islam could co-exist quite well... no drama there. Though once FH's brand got out of 'his' hands so to speak, and a 'Pharaoh who knew not BD' came along..things might change.

During our chat, FH alluded to his leaning towards Sufism, and this is one reason why his form of Islam is so benign. Sufism rejected the rigid 'law' approach of the more aggressive Islam and sought after the 'Love of God' aspect (unless I misunderstand them).

You really seem hung up on the OT and "God's violence". You've read the NT many times you say.. but you cannot see in Christ, the revelation of the Father as He really is. It just seems you are placing yourself above God. (no offense there) You are asserting "God SHOULD have revealed Himself 'this' way..to my liking" and you cannot see any Divine justice in patiently waiting for a people to turn from sin, prior to judging them in a terminal manner.

Here is a fascinating study for you.

Q "Why did God say "kill them all-, male female child, infant" ?

To gain an answer, ask any Jew 'Who was Haman' ? They have a special day to remember him. (Feast of Purim)
Look 'closely' at these things.
1 Sam 15:1-3 "Kill them all" (note the reasons)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=15&version=31

Then, look at verse 9

Now.. goto Esther 3:1
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=19&chapter=3&verse=1&version=31&context=verse
Haman was...a ?

Clearly he was a descendant of..... (guess who)

What....did he seek to accomplish and why ?

Are you seeing now why God said "kill them all"?

(read Gen 12:1-3 for background to Gods action. "Those who curse you, I will curse")

I look forward to your enlightened reply :)

G'Day Boazy,

I agree with your comments above, I think humanity moved on from theocracies whichever shape or form they may come. Religion in essence is a framework of values and therefore should remain a personal matter.

Philo,

Although we talked about history, religion and philosophy is our short meeting (Boazy and I), we never really debated anything as the purpose was just to meet as a friend and confirm that I am just another guy who happened to hold a different belief.

Hawaiian Lawyer,

There is one Quran but few meaning interpretations in English. Suggest a pickthall or a Yussuf Ali then you can judge for yourself.
There is also a good book that explains it by Sohaib Sultan on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Koran-Dummies-Sohaib-Sultan/dp/0764555812
And no, I don't have a sword and not planning on buying one. I much prefer a keyboard and an intellectual discussion :-)

Wisdom of the day I would like to share with fellow posters:

"the illiterate of the 21st century is he who fails to learn, un-learn and re-learn"

Peace,

BD I rarely tip toe but manners are the best asset we have, in fact this has been a week of roaring and it was needed every time.
The thread highlights my often quoted thought the answer to terrorism is much more likely to come from within the Muslim community.
Fellow Human has the answer in one post, no Christian, but the wisdom can not be denied, we must learn new ways forever to live as one, while respecting our right to be different.