There's one problem with all this. Islamic scripture must be taken literally. Amil Imani writes on Islam Watch, in "Islamism is Like Sadism," "Islam is about terror, punishment, control and domination":

Dont you think thats a little harsh

on sadism?

In other words, there is no moderate Islam. There is only Islam, practiced or not-so-practiced by its followers.

This is crap. I have Muslim friends from India. In addition to making some fantastic lamb dishes, they're also really good people who are raising lovely children and building a good life in the U.S. Yeah, sure, it may all be a scam. But more likely, they just want have a good life. Maybe, in the eyes of the nutters, they're apostates. I hope so. But if we want to win against the Islamist fundies, we can't act like the people I know are the same as those who wear explosives.

> we must blame the leading Islamic
> scholars for having failed to
> produce an authoritative book

Contradiction in terms. In Islam, academics of the secular variety capable of producing such a book have no "authority". All these terms imagine a western social scheme that isn't present over there.

[OT: He's antiscience !]

> we can't act like the people I
> know are the same as those who
> wear explosives.

Settle down. If your many Catholic friends swore allegiance to a faith portending as much violence and primitivism, we'd mock them, too. But over the weekend I visited a friend who had brain surgery in a Catholic hospital. His room was like the Starship enterprise. These faiths are not all the same.

But meanwhile, Amy's got your friends pegged as "not-so-practicing". In what way is this incorrect?

A lot of people get caught up on the "practicing" thing. I know Hindus who call themselves hindus who's only concession to the name is celebrating one day a year (I forget which one) with a big meal. There are lots of catholics who go to church only on easter and christmas, who use birth control and any number of other forbidden things. There are muslims who are muslims in name only. They are not practicing muslims. Practicing muslims DO have to follow the quoran (sp) to the letter. And if your friends lived in a muslim state instead of here, they'd probably be dead as apostates.

I liked Obama's "moderate Taliban" trial balloon:

Obama...expressed an openness to adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to moderate elements there.
"Obama's comment resemble a dream more than reality," said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban.
"Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?" asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments.
"'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?," asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.

"There are muslims who are muslims in name only." No they are Muslims who choose to ignore the more egregious elements of their faith. Similar to most Christians, Jews, etc. That's the equivalent of saying that a man who does not view his wife as an abomination during her cycle isn't a real christian, or who eats shrimp. That would also be say that the fucking nutter who e-mailed Amy is a real christian. Nutty but literal view of the bible.

But meanwhile, Amy's got your friends pegged as "not-so-practicing". In what way is this incorrect?

Kinda sorta. The wife prays 5 times a day, every day. The husband, not so much.

So when, over beer and pork ribs at weekend barbeques, the wife tells you that history has been written and all praise goes to Allah, how do you respond?

So when, over beer and pork ribs at weekend barbeques, the wife tells you that history has been written and all praise goes to Allah, how do you respond?

Neither happens. The meals are halal and she's very quiet about her faith. Just does her thing.

"That's the equivalent of saying that a man who does not view his wife as an abomination during her cycle isn't a real christian, or who eats shrimp"

Do tell, Vlad, where these proscriptions for Christians are in the New Testament, which is by definition what christians follow?

"Bible believing Christians" sure do take the Old Testament to be part of the word of god that is the basis of their faith:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/bibbeliev.html

One quick question momof3

Do you consider catholocism to be the correct faith?

I am not Catholic, no. I am protestant. I don't think denomination matters much, catholic methodist whatever. They agree on the fundamentals, and it's all human interpretation of God.

Cheezburg, I can find one individual denominational website saying it's ok to kill abortionists. Doesn't mean all christians believe it. Christians take their name from Christ. Meaning they follow Christs' teachings-New Testament. People who instead follow the Old testament are called Jews. Who I have no issue with either, they are God's people, no doubt about that.

We look at the Old testament as history, before Christs' teachings gave us the way to go.

Let me re pjrase my question and redirect it a all christians.

Given the bible was compiled by the catholics nearly 2000 yrs ago, why do christians who dont belive catholocism to be the true faith accept the limitation they catholics imposed on the bible?

How many books were edited out, and why dont any of you seem to care?

"Do tell, Vlad, where these proscriptions for Christians are in the New Testament, which is by definition what christians follow?" They are not, neither is the proscription for gays. But I'd hate to point one simple fact of your religion. The Old Testament has not been discarded (7 years in catholic school) by us and is followed exclusively the Jews. So nice try but no, they are still in our holy texts. This may not apply depending on what flavor of protestant you are.

There are things that Christ changed about the old testament, there is also plenty of things he did not touch on.

"Given the bible was compiled by the catholics nearly 2000 yrs ago" It wasn't. The original texts were written in the time of Christ as were many other gospels, lots of them. The compilation most often used today (that would include the old testament) was translated and complied in 1611. There have been multiple revision between those written by his deciples and what we have today. The Apocrypha was added in 1630 then removed 1824. The gospel of Judas was excluded at some point. Lots of other minor changes and likely lots of major changes during the rise of the holy roman empire. One being the path to the cross for Jesus was pretty much pulled out of someones ass under the orders of emperor at the time.

"How many books were edited out, and why dont any of you seem to care?" Lazy and obedient from my experience.

I guess I hashould have written "originally" compiled

There are massive contradictions in the Bible. Always amazing to me how Jews and Christians gloss over them.

There are adequate explanations for all of them I've seen. There's a lot of leeway when half (plus or minus 50%) is allegory and all of it presupposes an omnipotent diety. That said, biblical inerrancy is not, in my opinion, required for Christianity to be true.

In Sunday school I learned to classify religious belief into three categories. The first level is beliefs that are essential for salvation, the second is beliefs where disagreement justifies forming different churches or denominations, and the third is beliefs that we can disagree about and nobody really cares. People can disagree about which level a belief goes in, but for me, an example of the first is belief in God, an example of the second is whether or not to let priests marry and an example of the third is whether the rapture will be pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib or something else entirely.

So with regard to inerrancy, I believe that as long as someone gets the first level right, the rest doesn't really matter (we should still do our best to please God but he's not going to reject us for a category 2 or 3 belief that we get wrong). Nobody's going to go to hell because their church uses powerpoint instead of hymnals.

it is not only europeans that had been bending backwards to accomadate these kind of evil, harsh, inconsiderate domineering islamic terrorists, who tried various corrupt ways to impose their bad values on us decent normal nonbelievers human beings. everything about their islamic way of life is creepy.indeed, it is scary for a nonbelievers like myself, to be living in great discomfort in their evil inconsiderate islamic world. it is more like hell. many non-moslems in asia had grown to behave almost like them, and thus breeding a suffocating depressing backward insecure world that is full of dirt, instability and terror.