Tracy,

Howdy..

>SNIP
>>>>Not quite correct. Judaism and Christianity have the same god whereas 'Allah' finds his origins in the worship of the pagan (multiple) dieties that Mohammad essentially refactored into a form of monotheism. Apparently he chose the moon god hence the crescent & star.
>
>I also do not find anything in your links below that quote the Qu'ran itself as stating that Islamics worship anything but GOD or that god is taken from the worship of pagan dieties. I see nothing in the Qu'ran itself that references worshiping anything BUT god itself, in fact the opposite is stressed over and over again.

Well, I wasn't trying to create a comprehensive list. Regardless, Islam has its roots in a polythiestic and pagan origin, originally emminating from the ancient religions of Babylon. Mohammed certainly deserves credit for turning a polythiestic approach to god into a monotheidtic approach to god but it (islam) is most certainly not referencing th same god that revealed Himself in the pages of the Bible. You're free to disagree with this but it is the fact of the matter. Also, I don't mean any disrespect by what I say but the truth is the truth and the facts are the facts. I'll be more than happy to go find some citations for you if you'd like.

Also, remember... 'God' isn't a proper noun like "Tracy" or "Doug" It's more like "Secretary" or "President"; a title.

>
>I think quoting from human interpretations of the Qu'ran is as dangerous as quoting human interpretations of the bible. All are susceptible to the human understanding and that understanding is oftentimes very different. You have to look at the text itself for a fair analysis, just as with the bible. I should not quote what 'someone else says the bible states' rather from the bible itself.

Sure. I think that each and all texts should be totally open to scrutiny. But, for example, there are inherent contradictions within the text of the Qu'ran. For example, do a little research and tell me how many days the Qu'ran assertts that the world was made in. Was it 6 or 8? It says both. Would you like me to cite the surrahs for you? Don't take this as anything else than a straightforward attempt to apply the same sort of textual criticism (as in research) as is possible, but it strikes me that the rules should be applied equaly to all...

There are also tremendous differences in how various members of Christianity have interpreted texts over the years. Candidly, it's often wrong, more than likely emparrassing and often quite beside the point, as it were. Bunch of knuckleheads. <g>

>
>I also see no evidence that historically the Islamic religion is any more violent than that of Christianity. Traipsing down the path of history, churches of many denominations and different spiritual paths were both intolerant and violent towards non-believers.

So, then you're saying that since all religious systems have had violence in their past that they are all wrong? Or that they are not all wrong because they have had this violence?

I think that Islam has a much more aggressive approach to prosetylizing than other religious systems. It wouldn't be growing as fast as it is if it didn't I suppose. <s>

As far as the level of general 'militantism' goes I also haven't seen many Christians strapping dynamite to their six year olds. Whether or not you agree you'd have to say that these folks understand the concept of committment! I do know that the Qu'ran ok's the use of violence agains 'infidels' and that this has historically been the case - even to the point that the Sunnis & Shiites were the result of a violent split in Mohammed's family immediately after his death. Seems to have been there from the beginning.

>
>Also, only a VERY small percentage of Muslims are actually Arabic.

?? What does this have to do with anything? I miss your point.

>The majority are Indonesian I believe.

I believe this is correct.

>Yet where does the majority of the violence occur in the name of Islam? Not in the countries that have the highest number of Islamics per capita.

So the Burnhams' didn't really die or they weren't kidnapped or thse other folks didn't have their heads cut off?

Oh, wait.. "Per capita" <g> Clever use of mathematics to avoid an issue of intrinsioce intolerance towards those not of Islamic origins. I don't recall Christians for example dousing an Islamic father and son in their jeep with gasoline and setting them on fire though.

> It is also the one (if not the) most popular religions in the world.

So, something is good and right the more people do it? I guess those who cheat on taxes must be darn near sainthood! <g>

>If violence and intolerance were based on the Qu'ran and not the individuals interpretation of it (as I profess), then that same violence would be evident everywhere in the world on the same scale.

Does the Qu'ran teach that it is ok to kill those who fight against Islam? Would you like a few citations?

>
>If you blame Islam for the few narrow minded perspectives we see in extreme cases, then you must in turn blame every religion for the actions of its members throughout history including the Catholic, Lutheran, Morman, and other churches.

Well, you have a good point. I think religions stink. I do blame religious systems for most of the world's troubles. Look, if you examine the history of Christianity (for example) you'll find that almost without fail it is the entrenched religious leaders who persecute those who wish to lead people to Jesus. I differentiate between religious systems and a close, intimate, personal, one-to-one relationship with He who willingly dies for my personal sins and failings. For goodness sakes, it was the religious leaders of His day who crucified Him, but at the end of the day it was my sins that put Him up on that cross. So, sure, religions actually are to blame for most of the wars, fighting and so forth. Christianity doesn't teach that this is a good thing though and the trouble I think you may be having here is that you may not 'get' that I'm talking about something quite different than introducing yet another religious system designed to take your hard-earned money for self aggrandizement. But I hasten to add that no religious system can lead anyone to god. None whatsoever. They are IMO all empty and powerless. Do they make some people feel better about themselves? Sure. Do they often do wonderful deeds? Absolutely? Is that limited to so-called 'christian' faiths? Good heavens no! The Red Crescent does marvelous good works. Do any of those works create a relationship with God. Nope, none of them do whether Christian or any other. The concept here I'm referring to is 'grace' and I hope it doesn't escape you.

Regardles, fact is still fact and history is still history.

I don't say that to be belligerant or offensive or dismissive or in any way as a 'put down'. I say that as a simple recognition that it is what it is - quite apart from any personal animus or posturing or politicizing or attempt at glossing anything over whatsoever. It simply is what it is.

>snip<