I interpreted Yabby's point more as a hypothetical, rather than a hard and fast rule.

Of course many young people reject their parent's teachings.
Of course where you where born doesn't necessarily dictate religious belief.

I think the point that Yabby was trying to make was directed at the extremely literal christian posters such as Philo, Coach or Boaz. These people continually present that their religion is the ONLY way. They are completely dogmatic about their beliefs and express pity and /or contempt for those who don't believe exactly as they do.

Now, if I was to picture people like this being indoctrinated in, say, Islam, had they grown up in, say, Syria or Iran, well I find it difficult to picture them as being anything else but totally and fundamentally Muslim. Some people seem to be just programmed "ON" for religion.

There is talk among psychiatrists and neurologists that some people are 'wired' for religion. So that, no matter where in the world they are born and raised they are more likely to be superstitious or religious. This has not been proven beyond any doubt, but I cannot imagine the likes of Boaz posting an opinion without it relating to his vision of christianity and I have no doubt that he would've been just a vehement a muslim as he is a christian.

All hypothetical. All probably pointless. But some people can't be anything else except religious - just like some people can't be anything else except homosexual. Nature, nuture - probably a combination of both.

The doctrine of religious pluralism (that religious claims to truth don't point to any objective reality) is itself just as geographically relative (only a small percentage of bourgeois Westerners have ever believed it) as Christian doctrine. We should focus on the content of the beliefs. Is it true or not? Otherwise I have no need to check religious pluralism's claims – I can just say "only some middle class Westerners of the late 20th and early 21st centuries believed it"

Holding this doctrine often goes hand in hand with vigorous proselytizing (much more than any Christian has from my experience of OLO). These people run our schools and airwaves. They form the minds of many of our children.

The difficult thing for me is that they don't even know they have been converted (and don't know they're proselytizing) .

Which makes this age as I've said before one of the densest in all history. Therefore going along with the most fashionable doctrines of this age is a bit of a worry.

Many of us have been thoroughly converted away from our Christian upbringing, by a creed that contains the faith statements "all religions are the same" "there is no such thing as objective truth" "the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind".

I am betting my life on the fact that history will not be kind to these beliefs, it is a frightening experiment as Bill's article explains.

Ordinarily speaking it is a rare thing to move out of ones tradition (although we in the West are experimenting with that at a hideous cost;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HE23Aa01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

Some though do change traditions and know it. Eg Mark Gabriel Lecturer (and Imam of a mosque) on Islamic theology at the greatest Islamic university in the world Al-Ahzar in Egypt http://www.arabicbible.com/testimonies/gabriel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_A._Gabriel

Bennie,

Pantheism - (God's parts are in everything including evil things) Aristotle argued convincingly that God is indivisible and all good. Giving independent existence to evil (when in reality it is a parasite on the good) – has severe implications for culture – as we see in the Indian caste system and other odious cultural practices.

Nothing in Christianity teaches profligacy, greed and environmental destruction. Just point these people to the Gospels.

Kieran,
To argue Hitler's behaviour was due to Christian belief is like arguing Hitler was a good guy because he treated his dog well. It’s a reveals a lack of that crucially human faculty – a sense of proportion.

turnrightthenleft

1. Humans need meaning. There is meaning to life the specifics have to be worked out between the individual and God. He made us and to Him we return so it centres around love.

If you mean hedonism is the correct philosophy, its been tried and roundly refuted, but some try it on anyway.

2. God is perfect "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect"

3. 1600 years ago St Augustine suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

4. Need? Like we need truth? Those who say they're not fussed about what happens after death are at the same time fussed about whether so and so snubbed them or what he/she is wearing or what people think of them. We should be fussed about such a monumental thing.

5. The Bible doesn't pretend to be a science textbook, classification of the animal kingdom is interesting but its not knowledge of ultimate things.

Michael T,

Crusades and jihad are very different, I'm sure you don't mean to conflate them.

"Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Scout, excellent post. Wired, missed out on the evolution gene, understanding's limited, can't see reality, deluded, nature, call it what you like you've describe it beautifully.

Example, Numbat, can't handle the fact his entire belief comes from a plagiarised work and a copy of a copy more than 300 years after the supposed non verifiable misunderstood event. History and archaeology are irrelevant to those “wired” in religious denial

Many may not agree with my approach, but any other, meets with more evangelism or condemnation. As I always say, it's a merry go round, revolving door syndrome monotheists live. Fact means nothing to them, fearful illusion is all they can understand.

Most religion in earlier times, was enforced by invasion, fear of torture and mandatory tithing to church and aristocracy. People enforced in their children, the need to practise their religion, for fear of death if they didn't. It's only in the last 100 years we've had the opportunity and equality to be able to question the barbaric control and expectations of monotheism.

The problem we are facing is the followers of Yahweh can't comprehend the evolving opening world in front of them, so have need to destroy it and return to the past, of moronic morality and corrupt monotheistic control.

Pretty fuzzy thinking to me.

Alchemist

Sometimes you make sense and at other times I cannot understand a word.

And you are a little bit dogmatic. You are quite wrong about Judaism following the OT to the letter. It doesn't. May I recomend "Judaism for Dummies", no joke it is very good.

Tenny, you say my question on religion and geography is strange
and then note one single exception!

Its actually one of Richard Dawkin's points and is worth thinking
about. Yup some kids don't follow their parents into a religious
life, but if you look around the world, something like 95% of
people simply adopt the religion that they were brainwashed with
as children, as the religion to follow for the rest of their lives.

So much for free will and rational thought lol, geography clearly
has a huge amount to do with it, in most cases.