I’m a Christian, and all too aware that my own scriptures can be selectively picked apart as easily as Richard has done with the Koran. Moses was a murderer. So was David. Abraham tried to kill his two sons and the slave woman he forced to bear one of them. Joshua committed genocide, on God’s instruction. The Bible has many commandments relating to anything from rape to disobedient children that today we find abhorrent.

Most modern Christians and Jews do not take these texts as normative, just as most Muslims don’t take the worst of the Koran as normative. A few fundamentalists do, and some Jewish and Christian fundamentalists are violent. But violent Islamic fundamentalism is a far more pressing issue for us at in our present time and culture, and even more so for people in predominantly Muslim countries.

This was not always so. Christian violence was much more common in the past – those calling for a Muslim “reformation” would do well to study the bloodbaths that accompanied and followed the European reformation, for example.

The challenge is for Islam to counter its violent fundamentalist minority in the way that other religions and cultures have mostly done. Demonising the whole religion and its adherents, as this article does, is not going to make that easier

Yeah right, ttbn.

<<Christianity and the other religions are harmless at worst...>>

Teaching children to reject science is not harmless.
Denying children life-saving medical treatments for religious purposes is not harmless.
Vilifying homosexuals is not harmless.
Ostracising family members because they no longer believe is not harmless.
Abstinence-only sex education is not harmless.
Denying women autonomy over their own bodies is not harmless.
Deny terminally ill people the right to die with dignity is not harmless.
Ignoring environmental issues in the belief that a dead person will return is not harmless.
The Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is not harmless.
Telling children that God loves them so much he has a special place for them to burn if they don’t love him back is not harmless.

Just because one major religion is more of an immediate threat than the others, that doesn’t make the others harmless.

AJ on his favourite hatreds

Teaching children to reject science is not harmless. - telling people they evolved from slime is not science AJ. In fact evolutionist crucify true science as you know.

Vilifying homosexuals is not harmless. - Promoting homosexuality is promoting suicide.


Ostracising family members because they no longer believe is not harmless. - Secular humanist are usally the greatest bigots.

Abstinence-only sex education is not harmless. - promoting porn and promiscurity is definetely harmful.

Denying women autonomy over their own bodies is not harmless. - killing the unborn is murder

Deny terminally ill people the right to die with dignity is not harmless. - Popping off the oldies for a quick inherintance ah AJ.

Ignoring environmental issues in the belief that a dead person will return is not harmless. - like the pathetically disproven gw religion. What a joke AJ.

Give it away AJ. Your education is taking away your ability to reason.

A returning dead person, or rather their eternal life force and basic personality, would inherit all that he'd created or reap what he'd sown! Nothing else guarantees that perfect justice, or absolutely explains most of the ills of our world!

Throw a stone into a pond and it will always create ripples, that only ends where the water ends.

And therefore just complete nonsense to claim he would ignore cause and effect environmental issues, but maybe the hysteria of feral green groups and their fundamental assertions, invented in cloud cuckoo land.

If carbon alone is all that is guaranteeing the destruction of an iconic reef, surely what we require is practical ways of reducing that carbon production/output, even if that requires a few largely harmless holes in a reef?

Moreover, tree continue to store carbon whether vertical or horizontal, and young vigorous growth is better at absorbing more of it than old trees, the geriatrics of the forest!

He would also want to return to a virtual paradise and the social justice obligations, that makes more than just barely tolerable. And pray tell, how do you guarantee that minius healthy economic growth?

To suggest otherwise is to completely misrepresent the reincarnation beliefs of over 60 million people!

It must be such a comfort A.J. P., to know you're always right, even when you resort to unmistakable verbal!
Rhrosty.

runner,

If I can provoke such a long response as that from an inarticulate, semi-literate person like you, then I must be onto something.

<<…telling people they evolved from slime is not science AJ. In fact evolutionist crucify true science as you know.>>

There is nothing in evolution about evolving from slime. Not even in abiogenesis - which is what you actually meant. Learn what evolution is first, then you can discuss it.

<<Promoting homosexuality is promoting suicide.>>

The only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like you.
<<Secular humanist are usally the greatest bigots.>>

Some examples would be great.

<<promoting porn and promiscurity is definetely harmful.>>

Who said it wasn’t? And what does this have to do with the harm caused by abstinence-only sex education? Speaking of which…

<<killing the unborn is murder>>

No, it’s not. Murder is an unlawful killing.

<<Popping off the oldies for a quick inherintance ah AJ.>>

Slippery slope fallacy “ah runner”.

<<like the pathetically disproven gw religion.>>

You need to look up the definition of ‘religion’. ‘Disproven’ too, by the looks of it. Either way, AGW denial is only one example of what I was referring to.

<<Give it away AJ.>>

Give what away, and to whom?

<<Your education is taking away your ability to reason.>>

A bit rich coming from the only person on OLO who hasn’t yet presented a single reasoned argument or said anything that was in the slightest bit true, for that matter.

Rhrosty,

Not only did your post make no sense at all, but how I fit in at the end there one can only speculate.

<<It must be such a comfort A.J. P., to know you're always right, even when you resort to unmistakable verbal!>>

Jesus was the dead person I was referring to, if that’s what you’re trying to respond to. That being said, none of your incoherent rambling is evidence for re-incarnation, if that’s what it was supposed to be. There is no reliable evidence for re-incarnation.

' If I can provoke such a long response as that from an inarticulate, semi-literate person like you, then I must be onto something.'

and if your answers are the best a so called educated person can give I certainly must be one to something. I get more reasoned answers from my 3 year old grandson than your regurgitated dogma.