Head of Muslim counsel offers himself as hostage

[Redleg]

This is a very good point indeed Red. But let me post you a quest: What happens when the premises that lead the extremits to the border of irrationality is in the same "Holy" book that they follow, many at the letter? I always want to see how an still-being-faithful sees this kind of subjects.

Not an easy question to answer. The extremists have an interpation of the book that is different from the intent of the orginial teachings and messages of the Prophet Muhammad for Islam - and the teachings of Jesus Christ for Christianity.

For instance as a Christian if I just followed the teachings of the Old Testiment - I would be incorrect in my faith - since as a Christian the gospel that is my faith is the word of Jesus in the New Testiment - not the Old Testiment.

Old Testiment teaching would allow me to make certain claims to religious justifications - however they would all be out of context of my proscribed faith - since the New Testiment is the tentant of my faith.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Islam has a history of treating people of other religions with respect, Saladin the supposed enemy of Christendom was far more merciful that the so called Richard the 'lionhearted'.
It is only recently that its got a bad press.

[Fragony]

Now this is what I call guts; thumbs up for this man. I hope they will let her go, but these necrophile perverts will probably do what they do best anyway because of germany's undying support to the United States.

oh wait......

Ah who cares as long as you get to cut of heads. Now that I think of it, shouldn't the title be 'Muslim council offers head'?

[Soulforged]

Not an easy question to answer. The extremists have an interpation of the book that is different from the intent of the orginial teachings and messages of the Prophet Muhammad for Islam - and the teachings of Jesus Christ for Christianity.

Yes but what you know of Jesus or Muhammad is in the Holy Books, it's interpretation on itself, because none of them could have expressed themselves about any matter in life even with a general principle. So it's still a matter of interpretation. Many inmoral rules from christian doctrine come from the New Testament as well.

For instance as a Christian if I just followed the teachings of the Old Testiment - I would be incorrect in my faith - since as a Christian the gospel that is my faith is the word of Jesus in the New Testiment - not the Old Testiment.

So this will justify jews from just punishing anyone that the bible expressely sais so, because they're excused in the reverent fear to God?

Old Testiment teaching would allow me to make certain claims to religious justifications - however they would all be out of context of my proscribed faith - since the New Testiment is the tentant of my faith.

That maybe truth, however the word of God is composed by the two parts, you cannot simply ignore one of them and follow with the other.

[Byzantine Prince]

That maybe truth, however the word of God is composed by the two parts, you cannot simply ignore one of them and follow with the other.

Yes they can! That's what the whole scam is about! Jeeeeeeez.

[Redleg]

Yes but what you know of Jesus or Muhammad is in the Holy Books, it's interpretation on itself, because none of them could have expressed themselves about any matter in life even with a general principle.

As regards to Muhammad - you would be incorrect. There are plently of writings on the prophet - that exist from within the time period of his life.

Now Jesus - his message and existance is contained within the New Testiment - with several historical writings that mention his name but not his history - but they are few - and spread over different time periods.

So it's still a matter of interpretation. Many inmoral rules from christian doctrine come from the New Testament as well.

If the complete work is not used then the unterpretation of the individual is questionable, because the fraility of being man come into play.

So this will justify jews from just punishing anyone that the bible expressely sais so, because they're excused in the reverent fear to God?

Only as it relates to the text of passage, and only if that individual is jewish - however it doesn't not justify the individual of jewish faith from violating man's laws.

That maybe truth, however the word of God is composed by the two parts, you cannot simply ignore one of them and follow with the other.

You don't ignore the Old Testiment - you have to apply the New Testiment to the context of the Old Testiment. When one ignore's the teaching of the New Testiment to follow only the tenants of the Old Testiment that individual is not a Christian - to be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus Christ. By that belief you subscribe to the Good News carried in the New Testiment.

[Soulforged]

As regards to Muhammad - you would be incorrect. There are plently of writings on the prophet - that exist from within the time period of his life.

Yes I thought as much, I remembered it later. However they're writings about his phylosophy or his biography?

If the complete work is not used then the unterpretation of the individual is questionable, because the fraility of being man come into play.

But what if the whole work is questionable?

Only as it relates to the text of passage, and only if that individual is jewish - however it doesn't not justify the individual of jewish faith from violating man's laws.

If I believe in a superior being, who will punish me like a tyrant for all the eternity...What will I fear more: the laws of Earth for a period of time or the laws of Heaven? If I were an inteligent man I'll chose the second.

You don't ignore the Old Testiment - you have to apply the New Testiment to the context of the Old Testiment. When one ignore's the teaching of the New Testiment to follow only the tenants of the Old Testiment that individual is not a Christian - to be a Christian you have to believe in Jesus Christ. By that belief you subscribe to the Good News carried in the New Testiment.

But Jesus believed in the Old Testament, he respected and followed it in many matters if not all.

[Redleg]

Yes I thought as much, I remembered it later. However they're writings about his phylosophy or his biography?

Both if I remember correctly.

But what if the whole work is questionable?

Religion like philosophy is a matter of faith.

If I believe in a superior being, who will punish me like a tyrant for all the eternity...What will I fear more: the laws of Earth for a period of time or the laws of Heaven? If I were an inteligent man I'll chose the second.

Yep - but that does not get you a pass for violating the laws of man on earth.

But Jesus believed in the Old Testament, he respected and followed it in many matters if not all.

yes he did - but he also added messages to the lessons of the Old Testiment.

[Soulforged]

Religion like philosophy is a matter of faith.

Yes indeed. But through faith you cannot turn an express truth into a falsehood. If the letter sais exactly that homosexuality is a sin and will lead to hell, then through faith you cannot pretend that it sais the contrary actually.

Yep - but that does not get you a pass for violating the laws of man on earth.

Yep- But that will lead to more fundamentalism that one could endure.

yes he did - but he also added messages to the lessons of the Old Testiment.

Perhaps but some bad things remained the same, not because he wanted, but because he didn't said anything otherwise.

[Redleg]

Yes indeed. But through faith you cannot turn an express truth into a falsehood. If the letter sais exactly that homosexuality is a sin and will lead to hell, then through faith you cannot pretend that it sais the contrary actually.

Good thing I have never said otherwise then. However the New Testiment also states to forgive the sinner - and several other things now doesn't?

Yep- But that will lead to more fundamentalism that one could endure.

Not necessarily - a passage in the bible states clearly give unto Ceaser's what is his, Give onto God what is his.

Perhaps but some bad things remained the same, not because he wanted, but because he didn't said anything otherwise.

My opinion is different on this.