Joe,

Don’t do a cultural relativist take. If you base all your beliefs on one man’s theory then that in itself has totalitarian potential. Lighten up. Open up. Live and let live. We are all tribal in the end. This is human nature, and there has always been a human need for spirituality and the community of religion. Always was, always will be.

It is a fact that science flourished uniquely in Christian Europe and did not rely on just one man. There were many individuals who contributed. I’m not taking this any further.

My recent point made is that Islam is not a true religion as it is hardly benign – like that son of a Hamas founder said, Islam has a split personality. It has too much doctrine based on POLITICS. Looks like over 60%. Muslims constantly bring up Gaza and Palestine as McAdam and NC have done also. Why?

Why did Islam have to go to Jerusalem – why couldn’t they just stick to Mecca or Medina?

I have always heard that when Islam grows in numbers that is when it becomes a threatening force. Then they're all over the joint.

That German site I posted I reckon is a good one. I believe Germans would be much more objective than the English for example as they do not have the Colonial baggage and the current apologetics that ensued.
http://europenews.dk/en/node/39451

>>>>>>

Thanks SPQR, and yes, curious your last post. They’ve already told.

Corrupt human rights advocates:
http://www.news.com.au/national/how-amnesty-international-was-conned-by-lindt-cafe-killer-man-haron-monis/story-e6frfkp9-1227176487268

http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-dead-in-police-chase-tragedy-in-constitution-hill/story-fncynjr2-1227179063691

Here is an example of just how out of touch the media (and leaders) are with public opinion. Compare the article with the Comments below it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-how-exactly-would-we-like-muslims-to-condemn-these-attacks-9966176.html

Michael Jackson - They Don't Care About Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNJL6nfu__Q

This S-uspicious P-erson with Q-uestionable R-eliability, is at it again; putting spins for his agenda; or assigned agenda it is?

He is attempting to scare every body "Now you know what to expect if McAdam & crew get the numbers!"

What has McAdam suggested? Equal treatment of all!

What to expect?.... Same rules, equally applied to all human beings; WHAT ELSE?

This could scare only those who assert a status, above others. Those who would have preferential rules for themselves. Who would consider it a crime for gentile, to claim a status equal to that of the chosen ones.

On the other hand, the equal treatment for all, should be welcome by all fair minded humans; the world over.

The forum has repeatedly seen, this Suspicious Person; paddling doubts, spreading negative thoughts and out right plain mischief. This can not be the agenda of a well meaning person, who believes in fair play.

Jonathon Swift, your post amply exposes the untruth, some people were trying to paddle here that only one scripture preaches violence.

Your conclusion is logical but incomplete in my humble opinion. If we follow this in isolation, we may be following truth but half truth it would be.The complete message of Bible will have to be seen in the light of numerous quotes that preach forgiveness, love and charitable behavior. And such quotes are far too numerous in comparison. We will have to assimilate the sum total of the message and then apply it in present environments

My impression of Christian religion (my knowledge of the subject, is limited, therefore I talk of my impression only) is that it a religion of compassion, tolerance and charitable love. Jesus stands out as personification of love, compassion and forgiveness.
I see no reason, that believers of different religions can not workout a system of mutual tolerance and peaceful co- existence. I am not talking of clergy or others who have stakes in dissension and in keeping people at each other's throats

May I be counted with those who sided with the good of humanity, amen. You pray the same?

McAdam : "I see no reason, that believers of different religions can not workout a system of mutual tolerance and peaceful co- existence."

Yes, it's called "secular democracy", but you disagree with this. Guessing why, it is because there is only one god, Allah, so there goes secularism (*), and, democracy puts man's self rule ahead of the rule of Allah. so we can't have that.

* Of course, secularism could be construed as a bunch of different Islamic faith-based parties vying to make the law. This is an oxymoron if a single law system, Allah's (sharia), is supposed to supersede all others.

I read sympathy between McAdam's lines re Charlie Hebdo and those for who hurtful acts provoke a them to take "law" in their own hands. What law?!

Next,I come back to a point I made earlier and a question unanswered.

Firstly, the point. Islam is internally divided, as is seen in Pakistan, with two Islams each calling the other unbelievers and hypocrites. Why is there no attempt at public convocation to determine what the Quran means in the Islamic world? Why does Islam defy introspection when it is so needed?

Next, the question, which I will put as an assertion as it might get a response. There a general view in the Islamic world that the violence done by its followers is self-defensive, and initiated by unbelievers. This fits with McAdam's sympathy mentioned above.

Finally, I am an atheist but will say that Christians follow the teachings of Christ, not all that is in a tome also containing great swathes of instructions for Abraham, Moses and Hebrews, not gentiles. There's a New Covenant in the New Testament, such that even the Ten Commandments were perishable had Christ wanted to add or take anything away. I reiterate that the NT does not exhort Christians to do God's destructive dirty work on his behalf. Any Christian doing so, such as abortionist killers, are not exhorted to it by Christ's teachings, IMO. Not so Muhummad.

Constance, your second last link goes through to an article with no comments following.

Kactuz,

"McAdam, Have you actually read the hadith and early Islamic histories?"

Yes, I have. I don't claim to be an expert, but have read enough to know that cherry picked study of history can be extremely misleading. And every thing one reads as history may not be true. It requires a careful and scientific approach, to benefit from history, like the example from Ibne Khaldun's Almuqadimmah we discussed earlier.

Kactuz, one can not put out fire by throwing fire over it. Nor can one finish hatred by fomenting hatred.
If you succeed finishing hatred by spewing hatred, you would have discovered a phenomenon unknown to science and the entire human experience.
Keep at it, if you must; good luck