Pericles...... there are various reasons for providing a link to that video, but how about we stick to the reasons given.

"Against this or at least in its embryonic form"

Here is the Embryo.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAc5RPfAfQ&mode=related&search=

So, we have Hezbollah in Lebanon...
This demonstration "F*&^k Yahood" in Sydney....
13 blokes on trial in Melbourne.. 11 in Sydney charged with terrorism.

Today, I met with a Jewish person, a Messianic Jew, a Christian and an Atheist.... 2 of us were the specific 'objects' of this hate.
Both of them support Israel...

and..."I'm Paranoid"... I honestly think Pericles that until someone rocks up to your front door with a rocket launcher you will not feel any urgency about this kind of thing.

But the point here, is (bringing it back to the topic)-God reaching out to Muslims.
So..it is in spite of this kind of goings on, that nevertheless, light is shining, and I note with interest that Olmert and Abbas chose "Jericho" to begin peace talks again. (where the initial video for this thread was made.)

Boazi

"with the dual goals of liberating the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslims"'

Why did Jerusalem need liberating from the Muslims? And why by Christians? That was hardly a commendable thing.

If you accept that Christianity went astray with Constantine. assuming I understood you, then parts of Islam have gone astray with the modern Jihad. But as you know Christianity has good at its centre and so has Islam. The basic principals of the three Abrahamic religions are similar and good.

Can we not separate religious belief from opportunistic groups such as the Crusaders or Hisbollah?

Hi Logic...welcome to the thread.

Well.. in a very general way, I can agree with you on the 'central ideas' of the Abrahamic faiths, but will have to defer to your own email to me mate.. where you stated that the exesses of the Crusades etc cannot be linked to the teaching of Jesus, but the wars of Islam can very much be linked to the Quran and Sunnah.
I spent quite a bit of time yesterday looking for Sharia rulings on 'Jihad' in particular Offensive and Defensive and what criteria existed to determine which applied.

I found very little, but I did notice a trend. They often spoke of 'defensive' Jihad, but in the context of 'conquered territories'
Spain was used as an example. They spoke of how it is neccessary for all Muslims to rise to the challenge of defending 'Muslim Lands' but they seemed to avoid the historic reality that those lands were taken by 'conquest', particularly Spain.

CRUSADES..and 'why by Christians'

Probably best to read up the background, it was not simple or straight forward. The Byzantine Emperor made a call for help not so much about the fate of Jerusalem,but of his own territory which was under threat from the Turkik Muslim tribes.
I'd say (from reading) that "Jerusalem" and the idea of "The Holy city" were used as 'emotional hooks' by the Pope to gee up the general populace.

So in concluson. (speaking from a New Testament perspective)

1/ Jerusalem did not 'need' to be liberated at all.
2/ Certainly not by Christians.
3/ Romans 13 does come into play though, and is the only valid basis I can see for going to war against Islam at the time...nothing to do with Jerusalem or Israel.

David

I expect that you, fellow human and I will be sitting around a dinner table some day and enjoying a friendship.

But I must clarify one point. I meant that some sections of the Quran have been interpreted (misinterpreted?) by evil people to justify Jihad, and the Gospels cannot be interpreted that way. However someone did put on the site an awful interpretation of a statement in Exodus which suggested Jews were instructed to kill non believers. When I checked that statement with a translation prepared by Jewish scholars with commentary by Rabbi Rashi, I saw a totally different statement.

Trouble with translations from ancient text is that you have to be conversant with the early meaning and context of the language. That is why fellow human can give us a meaning which does not allow killing of non Muslims. My contention is that the Quran may be easier to misinterpret.

Thanx Logic... I know what you mean.. thats why I, without Arabic skills rely on at least 3 or more translations to get a better picture of what the Quran is saying..I also familiarize myself with not only the historical background, I also try to see how a particular section has been 'interpreted' by various Islamic factions.

My own background in biblical interpretation and exposure to higher criticism, and familiarity with textual issues does help in assessing this kind of thing.

Yes..I do hope we can have a nice fellowship together some time :)
But on such occasions, I tend to be just a 'bloke' rather than my online persona :) as FH now knows.

The problem with ripping into the radicals... is that the moderates feel threatened also. I don't think Nazism and its attitude towards Jews, can be defeated unless one can demonstrate that Hitlers "and in defending myself against the Jews, I know I am doing the Lords work" (Mein Kampf) can be shown to be NOT "The Lords work" on the basis of scripture.

On the other hand, I don't believe you can understand radical Islamists apart FROM the Quran and Sunnah. Even if some like FH cannot see justification for hating Jews or Christians in some passages, others do... in fact they VERY do... so given that their (radicals) understanding is costing many lives, and threatens even the existence of Israel, we have a duty to try to determine who is right, and then, we can seek to solve it.

I don't want to just be negative, and this thread is an example of trying to be positive.

David

We seem to have stopped the debate. When the principal protagonists shake hands and look for common ground the spectacle is over.