"But the meaning of both Christianity and Islam as they are passed on across the generations is that ultimately it is the open, inclusive and hospitable community which survives in all contexts."

Ah, so all the massacres, witch-hunts, Crusades and Jihads were all just a mistake, then? And the zealots currently destroying ancient tombs in Mali are not really Muslims but.. something else not religious at all? Like all theists, Professor Davies believes a made-up story that he cannot support with evidence and so -- like most theists -- has to make up other evidence-free stories to support it.

Theology is a discipline without a subject. And anyone who hasn't read The Courtier's Reply should do so immediately:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

Kourosh Ziabari asked: Why has secularism extended its roots such deeply in the political structure of Western societies? As a professor of theology, do you believe in the separation of religion from state? Don't you believe that secularism in politics will lead the youths to a kind of identity crisis and undermine their moral and ethical values? Let me make it clearer. Religion is an instrument for promoting modesty. If religion is removed from the society, the people will go astray and lose their values. Religion has always been an important part of culture and civilization. Why do the Western societies insist on limiting the role of religion and endorsing secularism?

The above question contains erroneous implications. Secularism in no way undermines moral and ethical values. Moral and ethical values do not have to have a religious base at all. Morality existed before religion or even humanity. A wolf may help a wounded or sick member of the pack. The assumption that religion is necessary for morality is rubbish.

It is not borne out by reality. The societies with the least degree of corruption, the greatest degree of political and economic freedom and the smallest gap between rich and poor are the Scandinavian societies. They are also the most irreligious.

Western societies have endorsed separation of religion and state because of exacerbation of conflict due to religion and the oppression by religion.

One factor that led to the separation of religion and state was the burning at the stake of dissenters. Servetus was burned at the state for doubting the Trinity. Castellio who believed in the Trinity opposed the persecution of those who didn’t believe.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 contains my essay on that.

Possibly the first advocate of the separation of religion and state in North America was Roger Williams, a Baptist Minister, who believed that religion should not use coercion. The founders of the United States were for separation of religion and state because they wanted to avoid the horrible religious conflicts that had gone on in Europe.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 contains my essay on that.

Ziabari promulgates much nonsense.

Jon J,

Yes, indeed, this is a dialogue from a parallel universe. The idea that religion is necessary for morality was refuted by the Ancient Greeks and the "proof" of the existence of God presented by Ziabari is specious. However, there's more to this discussion than the usual theological nonsense in defence of the indefensible.
KZ's 'interview' is really an exercise in "Moslems as Victims" propaganda and is transparently tendentious, the prejudice that Western Moslems suffer is trivial relative to the persecution of infidels in Islamic nations.

John J. and David F - you are very harsh and judgemental people. More proof that fundamentalism is a human condition and one that does not only stem from religious belief.

Dear Ian D,

Rather than making a counter argument or contributing to the discussion you prefer to call names. I think secularism has contributed greatly to western society and gave instances of why it was adopted. That is neither harsh nor judgmental.

Religious freedom is most likely to occur in a secular liberal democratic state, so religious people should support its values. By undermining secular values, religiots are really endangering their own freedom--there's no guarantee that supporters of their particular superstition will achieve power in a theocratic state.

The three mono-theisistic tribalistic cults that dominate the poltics and culture of the Middle East and indeed the rest of the world are all armed to the teeth and now engaged in global warfare. Both Islam-ism and Christian-ism have been engaged in this global warfare for forever and a day.

Fundamentally, among all the religious traditions of the world, ONLY Islam, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Judaism, are inherently and aggressively associated with an expansionist ideal, and an attitude of not only cultural but also social and political superiority, that irreducibly intends and actively pursues the destiny, to which each of these three traditions appoints ITSELF, of total world-domination, or global totalitarian rulership. This is particularly the case with Islam-ism and Christian-ism both of which pretend that they are THE ONE true faith/way/religion, which is necessarily binding on ALL human beings.

Likewise, by their very nature, these three religious AND political traditions are, perpetually, in an intentionally performed state of competition, that always seeks and frequently achieves conflict, confrontation, and even aggressive warfare with one another, and in the case os Islam-ism and Christian-ism, even with ALL other religious, cultural, social, and political traditions, systems, or institutions in the world.

The powerful nation-states that exercise themselves in the name of one or the other of these 3 "great" religions of the Middle East now presume they can wage "final war" and, thus and thereby, establish their self-appointed "final rule". And they are now ACTIVELY MOVING themselves on that basis.

Except for Ian D., I found the readers' comments in the forum to be far more insightful than the answers given within the article. Interfaith dialogue may lead us to appreciate another’s viewpoint or perspective - but so what? One can only be on the "inside of one religion at any one time." You can't be a Christian AND a Buddhist AND an adherent to Islam all at the same time!

I don't believe that interFAITH dialogue is possible because there are totally conflicting views on what constitutes a particular faith. One can't be a Christian without accepting the Trinity, and one can't be a Muslim without accepting the Oneness and indivisibility of God that makes a "nonsense" on the notion of a Trinity. Trying to be "nice and tolerant" of other religious views is not to be accepting of those views!

I can and am "nice to Mormons, and Scientologists" but I think that their beliefs are at the "looney tunes" end of the religious spectrum! :-) How can I have meaningful dialogue with them? Now perhaps the more objective "inter-religious" dialogue might be a better title. At least we can learn about WHAT makes one religion different from another...

Genuine tolerance means accepting the different political, social and religious views that make us uniquely human. If the acceptance of a particular religious worldview becomes condemnatory, judgemental, and hateful of others holding opposing views, then no mutual understanding is possible.

One only needs to look at the person of Jesus Christ and contrast Him with Mohammed, Gandhi or Buddha to see how compatible the gospel is with other religions. Christianity is far more tolerant than secularism or any other religion for that matter. That is a large part of the reason the West is a place everyone wants to live. The only ones in the West in great danger are those in the womb. You don't see any tolerance for other religions in Islamic nations.

Dear runner,

Christian love and tolerance? Let's see? The Holocaust carried out by the Christian Germans with the help of their Christian allies, the Catholic and Orthodox Christians killing each other in the former Yugoslavia, the Catholic and Protestant Christians killing each other in Northern Ireland, the two World Wars fought in the twentieth centuries between mostly Christian nations were all examples of Christian love inspired by sweet Jesus? A quarter of the world coloured pink as the Christian British Empire spread by peace and love. In addition there were the Christian French, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Italian Christian Empires. At the beginning of the twentieth century except for Turkey and Afghanistan the peaceful Christians had conquered the Muslim world. Peaceful, tolerant Christianity? What have you been smoking?

The West is not a den of religious pluralism because of any foundation on Christianity. As the oft-quoted Luke 19:27 states, Jesus delivers in his parable this message: 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me'. This is not a message of equality or tolerance.

It is through the introduction and acceptance of secular values and beliefs that we flourish, not the other way round. As should be clear from runner's line 'You don't see any tolerance for other religions in Islamic nations', it is the injunction against a State established religion that promotes and protects religious pluralism.

The only thing we have to thank Christianity for in the West is finally getting out of the way.

davidf

all inspired by Jesus ah! No wonder you are blind to the death culture created by secularism when you clearly misrepresent the truth so blatantly.

@Yuri: "I don't believe that interFAITH dialogue is possible because there are totally conflicting views on what constitutes a particular faith."

Quite so. These days 'interfaith' initiatives invariably mean one of two things: either a nice tea party for all our Imaginary Friends -- preferably at the taxpayer's expense -- or a temporary truce between warring tribes while they confer on how best to take out their common enemy, the atheists.

Dear runner,

I told the truth. Christianity has given a sense of righteousness to the imperialists and murderers. The truth hurts.

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things it takes religion. Possibly all religions operate that way, but Christianity seems most effective at it.

May you open your eyes to the beauty of reason, and reject superstition.

I don't give a damn about organised religion; interested people should read Sam Harris's critique of Islam in The End of Faith and his critique of Christianity in Letter to a Christian Nation.

Every human has a capacity and need for faith in accordance with his and her personal circumstances and nature. Organised religion is the antithesis of that fundamnetal human attribute. Organised religion denies the individual nature of faith and distorts it into the corporate structure of the particular organised religion.

One of the great developments of humanity has been the secular state which disenfranchises the essential tyrrany of organised religion. The formerly oppressive Christian church, in all its forms, has been largely dismantled in terms of its insidious influence.

However, Islam is a huge threat to modernity and the individual rights based secular Western societies. Islam has festered in no small part due to the pernicious influence of left ideology and its emasculation of Western democracy through elitism and an inability to recognise that relativism does not preserve rights but destroys them.

Islam needs to be opposed at every level, not only because of its barbaric values which include eschatology and extreme intolerance but because it is atavistic, at every level. Islam literally represents a return to humanity's primitive past. The idea that there should be a dialogue with it is both impossible and grotesque.

davidf

'May you open your eyes to the beauty of reason, and reject superstition.'

No your reason incorporates the total misrepresentation and twisting of character. I suggest your superstition that this world came about from nothing is far more irrational than what you consider mine.

inter faith..*
in what..the common point

*god*
just glod..{regardless of the prophet/messenger or text]
drop creed/greed..get back to god[who needs no son]..who is with/in us all

the holy spirit[who's true sign is life
for he lives enthroned in our heart

christ came not to found a religion
but to unite the children of the father BACK TO IT BEING ABOUT GOD

the GOOD of god
not the judge[jesus refuted 'rerserction/judgment days']
drop the lies..athiests need to push harder..so you lot can get over to the basics

if its not about god
its materialistic..[a rite of men..not a way to grace/mercy[good]...god

there is not one speck of bad in god
he dont judge is..thats the santa clause
satan/claws...its as easy as loving other

doing charity for other
is giving back good to the only good [god]

all ahhhhh*

ye shall call him
emmanuel;..god with{in} us {all}...

who is christ but the messenger/savious..son of good
do you not see now even the christs house is divided

but did he not say
i go to buld you a room in our fathers house

not a new house
grow up...there is no just war

HOW DOES ANY DEATH..glorify the life giving good?
the god of life/charity..not creed/greed threat or fear

@ one under god

Obvious troll is obvious troll.

AdamB,

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time on OLO before you start declaring who is or isn't a troll.

oh dear im a troll
gee dont we all got adgendas?
why bother posting if we got nuthing to say

thats about as usefull as [nope wont go there]
cheap shot

many were called
few saw any need
even fewer meet want
for want of grace and mercy..the flock was lost[and the power that goes with it]

jesus said he who will lead you..will serve you!
[only a servant can come close to the charity to others..;oneness demands]..if your not forgiving..your not doing it right

@ one under god

If sincere then I apologise, it was not intended as an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you could focus on your formatting however to facilitate ease of discourse, your comments are very fragmented and difficult to read.

AdamB,

OUG does have an unusual style....many posters have given him the same advice in the past. But he is what he is and he writes as he writes. He's a sort of institution on OLO.

btw, welcome to the forum : )

AdamB,

I wouldn't describe OUG as a "troll" either, he's a practicioner of the "stream of consciousness" style of blogging.

I can remember only one real troll on OLO, some years ago, thankfully he's disappeared.

even im not sure what i am[i know hippies thought me freaky..and a narc..allways telling me to be me[but i was being me]

its funny how i met ross kelly..[the 7 th angel]..he told me he would be talking to the world leaders...arround about now..[prove to them god is real]...so expoect a radical change shortly[ross called it operation..stagflation..as the beast slowly self consumes..as the people put their faith in food[via seed of life],..see rev 22..or google wikiseed/wikigeld..peace money

anyhow ross time traveled..from 96 to 2012..its all written in his book all for the love of ana..its his story not mine[but anyhow our leaders will soon discover the rightiousness of all life being living only by gods will

thus..each living thing is a lawfull mortal heir
of the immortal living good[god]..ana [alpha negative alpha]..for short

anyhow under great adversity[we drop the creed]..and unite.as one the christs divided house[bring the good of all the messengers.together as one...for the service to the least living..so much more to come shortly[best thing we know its going to be done..;cause we dun it allready..1996/2002..still doing it today eh