Pericles,

What you and others are saying is that Islam could never come to a moderate consensus view of what is the best way forward for humankind, in a 'unified' effort with other world religions and belief systems, to end contempt, conflict and oppressive practices. Similarly, you condemn Christianity on the same grounds.

What makes you so sure? A very big ask,yes, but is it not worth working towards? And your alternative, of dropping all religious, belief and faith systems, in favour of Ethics - a noble objective, but an even bigger ask if coming from a start-point of the demolition of all existing belief systems. Working With something has to be easier than trying to start from scratch.

This is not a matter of supremacy or domination, it is a matter of the future of humankind. Exaggeration? Are you so sure?

How far are we in the West (Western Anglo-Saxon libertarianism) willing to compromise? Or does all compromise have to come from the 'other side'?

It may never be possible to rationalise a common ground between 'strippers' and bikinis on the one hand and burqas on the other, but it may be possible to reach common ground on the rights of women, and to bring an end to FGM, child brides, child-witches, rape to 'cure' lesbianism, and even the scourge of Aids. Discourse and a helping hand, but by whom? Politicians or church leaders? Law and the gun, or progressive social and cultural reform from within?

Maybe I have it wrong, and the only future lies in closed enclaves, and never the twain shall meet? Is Capitalism to reign unfettered as the new 'belief system', or can there be a better, more humanitarian way?

BTW, Belfast is politics.

G'day Davidf
kenoath works for me, although I believe some non ockers find it a little vulgar. (I started to spell it with all the appropriate apostrophes, but decided that was too pretentious.)
Kenoath, Pericles.

I've been away for several days and read some of the recent posts.

1.Ignorance supposes Christians do not believe God and scientific reality are compatable. All reality is the work of his hands, man only learn some principles to evaluate that reality. Science is the study of not the creation of reality.

2. David F is convinced in his mind he has the fatal blow to Christ.
I will answer this later showing its falacy; as I am busy at the moment.

3. Joh:14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Joh:14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Has a spiritual application not a physical, and must be understood in context. See my previous answer above.

Josephus wrote: "2. David F is convinced in his mind he has the fatal blow to Christ."

Dear Josephus,

You can read my mind? Some humans have a neurotic need to worship legendary figures. These legendary figures are based on myths constructed by other human beings. Christ like Adonis, Thor, Mithra and others is one of those figures. I have no illusions that I can cure that neurosis or any others that you may have.

I doubt that you even want to be cured of your neurosis. Without that desire even a competent practioner is helpless. You'll just have to live with it. Other people do. We who are rational in that respect although we may be irrational in other respects have to live with those who have the Jesus and other similar neuroses.

Sometimes we cannot live because fired by their neurosis they may burn us at the stake. I am glad the secular state curbs their power even though it does not cure their neurosis.

That is a fairly... ummm, energetic misreading of my post, Yuyutsu.

>>What you are saying in effect, reflecting over Belfast, is that you believe that Christianity (or at least certain denominations within it), is not a religion<<

Not a bit. Christianity is definitely a religion. Ask anyone.

Your wide-eyed, idealistic approach to the concept of religion has been frowned upon through the ages. Here's Pope Pope Leo XIII on the topic:

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Immortale Dei, 1885]

But I guess that doesn't worry you, since you believe that even atheism "may possibly lead some people to God"

You don't actually grasp the concept of atheism, do you.

>>I am using "religion" in its original meaning, derived from the Latin "Re-Ligare" - reconnect with God.<<

No you are not. The meaning of "ligare" is "to bind". God is not even hinted at.

Anyhow the etymology of the word itself is disputed. Here's a Jewish scholar giving us the drum:

"Cicero, for example, thought that religio derived from the verb relegere in its sense of “to re-read or go over a text,” religion being a body of custom and law that demands study and transmission."

http://www.forward.com/articles/10776/roots-of-religion/#ixzz1uA8Z3Y6q

>>...if you call a hat "an umbrella" or an orange "an apple" long enough then I should do the same?<<

Back atcha. I suspect you'll find you are on your own with this one.

Maybe I was being too obscure, Saltpetre.

>>BTW, Belfast is politics<<

The Belfast I was referring to is the city in Northern Ireland, where for the best part of the past fifty years, Roman Catholics and Protestants have been killing and maiming each other in the name of their version of Christianity. The city was, and is still, divided on religious lines.

It is of course very PC to describe the violence as "sectarian", and that it only occurs between "loyalists" and "nationalists". But this is merely a convenient fiction, a fig-leaf covering the bred-in-the-bone hatred between the Micks and the Proddy dogs.

This, from less than a year ago.

"Homes in the Catholic Short Strand district were attacked shortly before 11pm, just a few hours after an Orange Order parade passed by the area."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/02/riots-belfast-sectarian-violence

What possible significance can the statement that it is a "Catholic" district have, bar the fact that the Orange Order is Protestant?

The lack of understanding that you demonstrate on the topic of Belfast infects all your half-baked, peace-on-earth ideas.

This is, for instance, horrifyingly typical:

>>What you and others are saying is that Islam could never come to a moderate consensus view of what is the best way forward for humankind, in a 'unified' effort with other world religions and belief systems<<

The fact that you have already decided in your own mind that it is not you, but Islam, who needs to "come to a moderate consensus view" is practically a declaration of war. The good old "my way or the highway" attitude, one that has itself been the source of endless, pointless, religious conflict.

And what is clearest of all, is that you don't even realize the dangers inherent in what you are suggesting.