Page 6 of 6

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:14 am
by Lizard Man
Judah wrote: It is not the Bible that tells the KKK or the Aryan Nations to commit hate crimes.
The KKK and Aryan Nations are absolutely not acting according to the message of Jesus Christ, but Muslims absolutely are acting according to the Qur'anic message of Mohammad reportedly from Allah.
What you call Christianity's fringe is a category of people not acting according to the dictates of Biblical Christianity.
How does this passage mesh with your logic then? ;)

"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls."


Deuternonomy 20:10-189


You could of course argue that this applies to a certain situation, that the directions given here to those who follow the Bible are not relevant in today's society or that these people were wicked and deserved what they got. Why then, are you not willing to look at the Qur'an with this depth? What makes you think that the people Muhammad and God were referring to innocents? Neither Christianity nor Islam are violent religions. What many people find distasteful, however, is that the Qur'an (unlike the Gospels) addresses nearly every aspect of human life, including war. ;)
Judah wrote:But regardless of that, you compare them to the mainstream of Islam who are acting according to the dictates of the Qur'an.
No, they are not. God gave the Muslims (after nearly ten years of oppression by the non-believers) permission to defend themselves. Even then God reminds us "but do not transgress your limits". What are these limits? Attacking or harassing those not involved in the actual fighting is not permitted. Muhammad even ordered his soldiers not to harm the women, the children, and even Christian monks or priests in his hadiths. Any Muslim who disrespects the hadiths is not a Muslim - and the same applies for terrorists who strap bombs to retarded children or load bombs into helicopters.

I'll respond to Can's post when I have more time. Lunch is almost over. ;)

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:32 am
by Canuckster1127
Lizard Man wrote:
Judah wrote: It is not the Bible that tells the KKK or the Aryan Nations to commit hate crimes.
The KKK and Aryan Nations are absolutely not acting according to the message of Jesus Christ, but Muslims absolutely are acting according to the Qur'anic message of Mohammad reportedly from Allah.
What you call Christianity's fringe is a category of people not acting according to the dictates of Biblical Christianity.
How does this passage mesh with your logic then? ;)

"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls."


Deuternonomy 20:10-189


You could of course argue that this applies to a certain situation, that the directions given here to those who follow the Bible are not relevant in today's society or that these people were wicked and deserved what they got. Why then, are you not willing to look at the Qur'an with this depth? What makes you think that the people Muhammad and God were referring to innocents? Neither Christianity nor Islam are violent religions. What many people find distasteful, however, is that the Qur'an (unlike the Gospels) addresses nearly every aspect of human life, including war. ;)
Judah wrote:But regardless of that, you compare them to the mainstream of Islam who are acting according to the dictates of the Qur'an.
No, they are not. God gave the Muslims (after nearly ten years of oppression by the non-believers) permission to defend themselves. Even then God reminds us "but do not transgress your limits". What are these limits? Attacking or harassing those not involved in the actual fighting is not permitted. Muhammad even ordered his soldiers not to harm the women, the children, and even Christian monks or priests in his hadiths. Any Muslim who disrespects the hadiths is not a Muslim - and the same applies for terrorists who strap bombs to retarded children or load bombs into helicopters.

I'll respond to Can's post when I have more time. Lunch is almost over. ;)
The reason we are not willing to look at the Quran in this depth is that the followers of the Quran, especially the Wahabbi, take this as literal justification here and now to kill infidels based on these types of verses.
Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate. (Sura 9:73)

The true believers fight for the cause of God. But the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan. (Sura 4:76)

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads...(Sura 47:4)

Slay them wherever you find them. (Sura 2:190)

Arrest them, besiege them. And lie in ambush everywhere for them. (Sura 9:5)

Mohammad is God's Apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (Sura 48:29)

But he forbids you to make friends with those who have fought against you on account of your religion and driven you from your homes or abetted others to do so. Those that make friends with them are wrongdoers. (Sura 60:9)

He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and his apostle and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God. (Sura 4:1)

Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal and maternal aunts...Also married women, except those whom you own as slaves. (Sura 4:23-24)

Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them). (Sura 23:1)

As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their hands to punish them for their crimes. (Sura 5:38)

Women are your fields; go, then, into your fields whence you please. (Sura 2:223)

Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. (Sura 4:34)

Just for comparison, the Old Testament has numerous passages that no Jew nor Christian would take as marching orders for today, nor do these stories have the status of divine commands. Both Jews and Christians have developed highly refined methods of allegorical interpretation through which they view bellicose scriptural passages - but for the Muslim, all of the Qur'an's commands are valid for all time. There have been many, many unsuccessful attempts throughout the history of Islam to temper the aggressive understanding of the Qur'an.

There is no Muslim version of "love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you," or "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn him the other, also." (Matthew 5:39 & 43)

Khomeini's vision of Islam: "Allah did not create men so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
Islam doesn't recognize a division where this was to cease and love for an enemy to take over.

It's certainly comforting in one sense that these millions of Muslims are not really true Muslims by your measure. The trouble is, they see themselves as Muslims, further, the Quran is clear to them, the restraint your seem to advocate has not effect in stoppoing them and so many of the moderates lift not one finger to stop them and claim the moderate ground.

The protestation is weak, primarily verbal and with not real action taken.

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:07 am
by Lizard Man
Canuckster1127 wrote:The reason we are not willing to look at the Quran in this depth is that the followers of the Quran, especially the Wahabbi, take this as literal justification here and now to kill infidels based on these types of verses.

The problem is that terrorists (as well as some Christians) are not willing to research or look at the situations these revelations were delivered, and even then some just ignore it. Just because people take these passages out of context and use them to “justify” their actions does not mean that they are completely relaying the actual message.

For instance, someone could quote “Get up Simon, kill and eat” from Act to justify cannibalism or raids against villages. When you isolate a sentence from a story or instruction book, it loses its meaning and becomes hot metal ready for the bending.
Canuckster1127 wrote:Islam doesn't recognize a division where this was to cease and love for an enemy to take over.
These are all quotes from Hadith:

"You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).

"Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:50 am
by Canuckster1127
Lizard Man wrote:"You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." - Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362


I've heard this verse. The context is between Muslims. It does not extend to infidels.

"Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud).


As opposed to killing whom else?

"Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship" (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal).


Again, limited context.

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher092302.asp

September 23, 2002 9:00 a.m.
Not Peace-Loving, After All
Is Islam itself a threat?

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer (Encounter, $24.95) 170 pages.

Most Americans have a benignly positive attitude toward religion, one that holds faith to be a good thing for the commonweal, regardless of sectarian particulars. Norman Rockwell's famous "Freedom of Worship" painting captures this nicely, while Eisenhower's remark — "I believe every American should have a religious faith, and I don't care what it is" — does so a little more clumsily. That tolerant, pro-religion view has served America well over time, but one cannot help wondering if our civic piety, allied with political correctness, is blinding us to some hard questions about Islam — questions upon which the survival of our civilization depends.

I don't know many non-Muslims who believe President Bush's politically necessary but theologically nonsensical proclamation that, "Islam means peace." But there are many more who take comfort in the belief that the threat to America comes not from Islam itself, but from an extremist form of the religion espoused by terrorists and their small but vocal band of supporters. That's certainly the line taken by the mainstream media, who seem so afraid of sparking American bigotry against Muslim citizens that they have largely resisted critical analysis of Islamic writings, practice, and history.

What if they are wrong? What if the threat is not extremist Islam, but Islam itself? That's the view set out by author Robert Spencer in his new book, Islam Unveiled, a relatively short, plainspoken analysis of the Islamic faith and the challenge it poses to pluralist democracy. Warns Spencer, "The culture of tolerance threatens to render the West incapable of drawing reasonable distinctions. The general reluctance to criticize any non-Christian religion and the almost universal public ignorance about Islam make for a lethal mix."

This is a deeply unsettling little volume, because it offers scant hope that the West can live at peace with Islam unless the religion changes radically, and even less hope that that is possible. Still, the questions Islam Unveiled poses and the answers it provides are hard to dismiss, and given the urgency of the times, necessary to ask. As Spencer writes, "This is not in order to incite thugs to attack Muslims on the street, but to look squarely at what the West is up against."

If Spencer is right, the West faces a primitive, violent, and fiercely chauvinistic religion whose followers, to the extent that they are pious adherents to its teachings, cannot be reasoned with, only resisted. Islam is at its core inimical to democracy and human rights as we in the West understand them. To expect Muslims to drop their belligerence toward the West, which has existed since Islam's founding in the 7th century, is to expect them to jettison core values of their faith — something for which there is no precedent in Islamic history.

The Koran, writes Spencer, is more central to the Islamic faith than the Bible is to Christianity. Muslims believe it was revealed directly from God to the Prophet Muhammad. A pious Muslim may consult an imam or spiritual leader for guidance, but he will also read the Koran himself. He will find there many divine instructions to make constant war on the infidel, who is only to be given the choice of conversion, slave-like subjugation (in historian Bat Yeor's word, dhimmitude) — or death. And throughout Islamic history, that's exactly how Muslim societies have behaved toward non-Muslims, who are by the very fact of their unbelief not considered innocents in the eternal, divinely mandated conflict.

Undeniably, Christians have in the past committed many despicable acts in the name of God, but they did so in violation of scriptural teaching, not in fulfillment of it, as in Islam. Though the Bible testifies to violence committed at the command of God, and they the few if any Christians or Jews today believe that this is how God expects man to live today. "Islam, by contrast, generally rejects the idea of a historical progression in revelation, and allows little latitude for allegorical interpretation of the martial verses in the Qu'ran," Spencer writes. "A book [that claims] literal perfection tends to resist any interpretation that diminishes the literal truthfulness of any of its statements."

This literalism has profound consequences for the way Muslims live. Unlike in Christianity, there is no scriptural mandate for separation of church and state in Islam, making secular democracy an alien and hostile concept. Women have few rights over and against their husbands, who may legally beat them, and men in general. (Spencer, quoting from Islamic sources, demonstrates that Muhammad, considered the ideal man for all time, treated women cruelly by contemporary Western standards.) Enslaving infidels and raping infidel women are justified under Koranic law (and still occur in some Muslim lands). Grotesque punishments for crimes — beheadings and the like — are not medieval holdovers, writes Spencer; "On the contrary, they will forever be part of authentic Islam as long as the Qur'an is revered as the perfect Word of Allah."

Spencer does not believe that Islam can be tamed. While Muslims in the West live in peace, prosperity and religious liberty, Christians and other non-Muslims are persecuted, sometimes unto death, throughout the Muslim world today. Turkey is the only Muslim country that could be called democratic, and that's a stretch; its example shows that secularist values can only be imposed on Islamic societies by force, and will therefore remain tenuous. Because Islam demands death for heretics, moderate Muslims will always risk their lives by offering more liberal interpretations of their faith.

And most crucially, in his view, Islam cannot be other than a religion of violence. "Of course, most Muslims will never be terrorists. The problem is that for all its schisms, sects, and multiplicity of voices, Islam's violent elements are rooted in its central texts," Spencer writes. His final verdict on Islam is sobering, particularly when one considers the rapidly increasing Islamic presence in Europe, the cradle of Western civilization: "It would be too pessimistic to say that there are no peaceful strains of Islam, but it would be imprudent to ignore the fact that deeply imbedded in the central documents of the religion is an all-encompassing vision of a theocratic state that is fundamentally different from and opposed to the post-Enlightenment Christian values of the West."

To be sure, Spencer's despairing view is not shared by many scholars, even one as reliably critical of radical Islam as Daniel Pipes. In his recent Militant Islam Reaches America, Pipes emphatically denies that radical Islam is the same thing as traditional Islam. He insists that drawing the distinction and encouraging moderates within Islamic societies is an imperative for the West, though he offers scant evidence for this conclusion. And he admits that Muslim moderates are "weak, divided, intimidated and generally ineffectual. Indeed, the prospects for Muslim revitalization have rarely looked dimmer than at this moment... ." One gets the feeling that Pipes would rather light a candle for the unlikely hope of a peaceful revolution within Islam, not because the alternative — one-sixth of humanity, many of whom are already living among us, as implacable enemy of the West — is unrealistic, but because it is unthinkable.

"Nowadays, nothing seems less tolerated than what people call pessimism — and which is often in fact just realism," says Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Is Islam Unveiled pessimism, or realism? We can only know for sure if we have a serious public discussion of the issues Spencer raises in this important (but unsatisfyingly brief) book — issues that stand to be ignored by the media, for fear of trading in anti-Muslim bigotry. If Islam Unveiled, which is published by Encounter Books, Peter Collier's imprint, becomes the bestseller it deserves to be, it will be through talk radio and word of mouth by Americans who believe that post-9/11, America cannot afford the moral disarmament of indulging in multicultural platitudes.

Spencer may be wrong — I doubt it, but I'd like to hear a convincing refutation of his arguments — but he is asking questions that few others have the courage to. And until we hear from this supposed vast silent majority of peace-loving Muslims, the answers Spencer gives go a long way to explain the hatred, violence, backwardness, and fanaticism endemic to the Islamic world.

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:25 pm
by Gman
Lizard Man wrote: How does this passage mesh with your logic then? ;)

"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them? 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls."


Deuternonomy 20:10-18


You could of course argue that this applies to a certain situation, that the directions given here to those who follow the Bible are not relevant in today's society or that these people were wicked and deserved what they got. Why then, are you not willing to look at the Qur'an with this depth? What makes you think that the people Muhammad and God were referring to innocents? Neither Christianity nor Islam are violent religions. What many people find distasteful, however, is that the Qur'an (unlike the Gospels) addresses nearly every aspect of human life, including war. ;)
I was wondering when this argument would come up.. First up, these verses from Deuteronomy are actually defensive in nature not offensive.. These areas of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites were morally corrupt and would have destroyed the Israelis if left alive. Notice that the text doesn't say, now after that go into Asia, Europe, and Africa and take those ones out too. There has always been a buffer zone around the country of Israel because this land was promised to them by the Father. In order to keep the borders clean from attack and moral corruption they had to defend themselves.. The creation of a buffer zone... Like the one we just saw a few months ago against Lebanon...

Notice this verse..

15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

This is a great talk, I'm learning a lot from it... Please keep the ball rolling here... :wink:

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:02 pm
by Gman
Lizard, could you find such verses in the Quran?

Galatians 6:4 Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

1 Timothy 1:19 holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith.

It appears to me that the driver of Islam left his car in 5th gear then bailed out of it long ago.. Could someone please put the brakes on this thing before someone else gets hurt? Detours from other books will not suffice.. This car is out of control that only a brick wall could stop... :shock:

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:56 pm
by August
Hey Lizardman, almost every answer you give is not an answer from Islam, but an attack on Christianity. As I already pointed out, those are non-answers, if Christianity is invalid it does not make Islam valid. Islam has to withstand the internal critique leveled at it here, and stand valid on its own if you are to convince anyone.

You also have not yet answered my question: How do you know that the Koran is the Word of God?

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:09 pm
by Lizard Man
Gman wrote:was wondering when this argument would come up.. First up, these verses from Deuteronomy are actually defensive in nature not offensive..
That's the problem though... the same applies for all of the verses found in the Qur'an dealing with war.
Gman wrote:Lizard, could you find such verses in the Quran?
In my signature. ;)
August wrote:You also have not yet answered my question: How do you know that the Koran is the Word of God?
I can't share that with you on the forums. :P Just PM me if you want to find out.

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:24 pm
by August
August wrote:You also have not yet answered my question: How do you know that the Koran is the Word of God?
I can't share that with you on the forums. :P Just PM me if you want to find out.
Why not? I am not interested in a private discussion, the answer to the question has fundamental meaning for the whole thread.

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:32 pm
by Gman
Lizard Man wrote:
Gman wrote:Lizard, could you find such verses in the Quran?
In my signature. ;)
Ok, I got you Lizard..

However, what information is it exactly talking about? Again it says that you have been given a brain, hearing, eyesight, etc.. (which I must admit is pointing to the five senses, not any real moral issues..). However what about if my leader was a crazed lunatic? Also what am I testing this standard against? What exactly am I responsible for?

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them." [17:36]

I get this told to me at work every day... :lol:

Also these verses before it seem to be talking about something else also... In fact this whole chapter 17 is addressing "The Children of Israel"...

17:8 It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, but if ye repeat (the crime) We shall repeat (the punishment), and We have appointed hell a dungeon for the disbelievers. Allah made hell to be a dungeon for disbelievers.

17:9 Lo! this Qur'an guideth unto that which is straightest, and giveth tidings unto the believers who do good works that theirs will be a great reward.

17:10 And that those who believe not in the Hereafter, for them We have prepared a painful doom.

Again, this is not against you personally Lizard..

Take care...

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:42 pm
by Gman
Actually, when you get closer to 17:36 it even get's worse.. Is this the information it is talking about?

17:16 And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.

17:17 How many generations have We destroyed since Noah! And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins of His slaves.
How many generations Allah has destroyed since Noah!

17:18 Whoso desireth that (life) which hasteneth away, We hasten for him therein what We will for whom We please. And afterward We have appointed for him hell; he will endure the heat thereof, condemned, rejected.

I'm sorry my friend... This is the wrong road to win hearts...

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:24 pm
by Judah
Asking Lizard Man to defend his own religion here on this thread actually puts him in a very difficult position. He is quite right to say that he is not able to do so on this thread. If he were to do so, he would be violating the Board Purpose and he knows he is not to do that.

Please everyone, read over the Board Purpose again and see what I mean. Here it is copied here:
This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defense and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?

This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register, and participate in discussions, however it is only intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;

Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and

Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and dialogue sensatively and respectfully.

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civil discussions about Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

Why disallow debating from those who strongly disagree with Christian beliefs?

G&S originally provided an open discussion board where Christians and non-Christians could debate and voice their arguments for and against Christianity. In hindsight, it did not seem like this was the best approach to fulfill the G&S purpose as the board became a hub for a much more vocal non-Christian crowd, rather than being a place of fruitful exchanges amongst Christians and helping seekers. So after thoughtful consideration, it was decided to limit participation in discussions to a certain group of people--Christians and those open to Christian beliefs.
August made a good point when he pointed out that Lizard Man was criticizing Christianity and to do so did not validate Islam. The Board Purpose is not for those "who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity" and they "are discouraged and will be heavily moderated." Therefore Lizard Man faces moderation for that kind of response.

But then asking Lizard Man certain questions which he can answer only by offering an Islamic apologia also has him in a difficult position as the Board is intended for the presentation of Christian truth, not for the teaching of other religions.

Given the difficulties that this presents Lizard Man as a Muslim, I am asking that the rest of us think very carefully about what we are asking of him, and with regard to Board Purpose, the appropriateness of those questions.

Lizard Man, you are more than welcome to ask genuine questions here regarding Christianity. To do so is appropriate, whereas to unfavourably compare Christianity with Islam is not. There are other forums which do provide for debate between Christianity and Islam, but this is not one of them.

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:27 pm
by Kurieuo
In line with Judah's thinking, this thread is closed. The original discussion now appears to have ended, so feel free to take up any further debating Islam vs Christian privately.

Kurieuo