Runner's "god" *ordered* a man to kill his own child, and this "god's" greatet "prophet" committed genocide in his name, sparing only the little girls for the soldiers.

Runer also claims this "god" is unchanged. If this "god" is unchanged, I would prefer that no record or monument to it continue to exist, exept infofar as it is prefaced by disclaimers that the subject is obscene.

Got it runner? Your "god" is not fit to instruct me or anybody. Your literal belief in a "god" who orders genocide and infanticide makes you unqualified and unfit to offer advice on whether others should do so.

Hope that clears things up for you runner, either your "scripture" is false, or your "god" is obscene.

Rusty.

Oh dear, it seems runner has all but run out of luck on this one:) Its ok big R, there's plenty of room at the Greens house, and some what more believable.

cc

David f, George, Rusty and others, I cannot leave this thread without saying how sad I think it is that people of (mostly) goodwill can almost come to virtual blows over what amounts, for the most part, to historical and conjectural (or interpretational) irrelevancies.

The reality is that the future is here now, and, despite some minority radical elements, Christianity is endeavouring to come to terms with the 21st Century, and to foster goodwill and an avoidance of all conflict. Sins of the past cannot simply be washed away, but the focus should be on the present, and on the reality that many millions of people feel a real need to believe (or to trust) that there is something beyond this mundane or otherwise meaningless existence.

We all need to know that there is no future in conflict, religious or otherwise, but that any worthwhile future lies in peace, tolerance, equity and compassion. What can best be offered to all those millions, doves of peace, or eagles of destruction? How best then may the words and the manna of peace and goodwill, of a better future, be carried to those millions - through atheist conviction or through a unification of world religion in the cause of peace and the sanctity of life?

At this point in world history, atheism can only offer a hollow victory for those who place their only trust in science and in the ascendancy of the individual. The time of atheism may come, but for the present it remains the privilege of affluence.

Dogs will continue to fight over a bone until they learn that sharing creates a friend and conflict only an enemy. To offer a man bread, and a message of peace, may hopefully make a better man, but only trust may make Samaritans of us all. We need to better know our enemy, and to do our best to make him friend - for a future we would all like to share.

That's a very sad farewell note, Saltpetre.

>>...the focus should be on the present, and on the reality that many millions of people feel a real need to believe (or to trust) that there is something beyond this mundane or otherwise meaningless existence<<

I feel very sorry that you feel your existence is "mundane or otherwise meaningless", it must be a drag.

But there is a terrible, awful contradiction in what you say here. Let me point it out to you.

>>Christianity is endeavouring to come to terms with the 21st Century, and to foster goodwill and an avoidance of all conflict<<

Good for you. But you go on to say...

>>How best then may the words and the manna of peace and goodwill, of a better future, be carried to those millions - through atheist conviction or through a unification of world religion in the cause of peace and the sanctity of life?<<

"Unification of world religion", Saltpetre?

Just the one?

Which one?

Yours, or someone else's?

If someone else's, how would you feel about becoming, say, Muslim?

If your own, how would you go about persuading - say, Muslims - to convert to your specific religious worldview?

Because - and I know this may not have occurred to you - some of the most durable conflicts the world has seen have been caused by exactly this attitude.

"...a unification of world religion in the cause of peace"

Forget unification.

Try... tolerance.

That's how we atheists see it. We are not interested in "converting" people - that's what religious people do, with inevitably disastrous results.

>>At this point in world history, atheism can only offer a hollow victory<<

And religion can offer a solid "victory"?

At what cost?

Dear Pericles,

Does atheism have an equivalent to amen?

Dear Pericles,

Religion cannot be unified, not for the reasons you mentioned, but because it is already unified. There IS only one religion - that which leads to God is a religion and that which does not lead to God is false.

The practical steps which help me come closer to God may be different than the practical steps which help you, but this doesn't make them two religions - rather it is one religion which requires me to take certain steps and you to take certain different steps.

Dear David,

Etymologically, "Amen" is a construct made of the initials for "God Faithful King". As I explained many times on this thread and others, it doesn't mean literally that God is a king, or faithful, but rather it is a declaration that you treat Him as such. Your question then becomes, What/whom do atheists consider as their king - what/whom rules their hearts? What/whom do they trust to be faithful to them under all circumstances?