The reference to the response to the Popes Regensburg address makes very interesting reading (from George). Difficult to tell were Taqiyya stops and insincerity starts.

I wonder also what the 100 Islamic authors to the above would say about this:

http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

BOAZ, there is a difference between giving someone information so they can make an informed judgment and persuading them to follow.

If it was true that we would sit next to god, have 7 virgin sex slaves or anything we wanted when death comes to us. You would have mass suicide and the world would be clambering for a better life on the other side.

The fact that this is not happening is because most people don't believe the bull@?$#

Boaz, that's ridiculous:

>>There are only 2 possible approaches to interpreting holy texts.
a) The 'wrong' one.
b) The 'right' one.<<

On the contrary, here are absolutely no right or wrong interpretations of holy texts, only interpretations.

Your interpretations of snippets of the Qur'an, for example, are significantly at odds with many other posters on this forum. Many of those who disagree with you have a far deeper and broader understanding of the Muslim faith than you do, and may reasonably be assumed by an observer to have a greater case to be "right" than you.

I have played cricket all my life. First at primary school, then senior school and on to club cricket. I still play today. I know the rules, in fact I umpire occasionally and can keep an impeccable scorebook.

If an American, say, chooses to dispute with me the nature of the LBW law, who - from an outsiders viewpoint - has the greater credibility?

Let us say that he has read the rules very carefully, and actively watched dozens of games. He therefore "understands" the mechanics.

He might point out that it is utterly ridiculous that if a ball that is going to hit middle stump happens to pitch outside leg, the batsman cannot be given out. How can that be? Doesn't the LBW law exist in order to ensure the batsman does not unfairly protect his stumps with his body?

His interpretation of both the intent and the application of the LBW law make sense.

However, if you ask a cricketer, who not only understands the letter of the law, but has over the years assimilated the spirit, essence and ethos of the game as well, he will point out exactly how that law makes sense.

Even that explanation does not make sense to the American, of course, who at the end of it will simply shrug his shoulders and mutter "stupid game."

Is my interpretation more "right" than his? Possibly. Is his interpretation therefore "wrong"? Not really, his argument has some - fairly narrow - merit.

But they are still both interpretations.

Boaz, regarding our ultra modern Christians helping the unfortunate Iraqi Christians, where is the truth, mate? Certainly not from the Murdoch ultra-right wing media, anyhow.

As one who has gained honours overseas in a study of the wrongs of colonialism, and still in contact with the Murdoch School of Humanites, your answers seem very evasionary as you've been schooled to ward off awkward questions regarding Christianity, both historical and of today.

You are among the many of our group who try to ward people off, Boaz, thinking we might have come down in the last shower. Our rule in political philosophy and as liberal Christians is to work like an honest umpire in sport. Not taking sides and sticking to the rules of fair play, which even as children we were taught that it was what the Sermon on the Mount was all about.

Furthermore, philosophers do say that the principles of the Sermon on the Mount could have been expressed by Socrates - who incidently could not write a word, but did very much prove that without reason, faith can become very misguided.

Incidently, Socratic Reasoning was the main topic in the Great Library of Alexandria, which sadly our Christians raped and destroyed to the point it has never been the same again.

Still like to stay friendly, Boaz, because you certainly have likeable qualities.

George C, WA

Who Destroyed Alexandria's Famous Library?

Early in the year A. D. 642, Alexandria surrendered to Amrou, the Islamic general leading the armies of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad. Long one of the most important cities of the ancient world and capital of Byzantine Egypt, Alexandria surrendered only after a long siege and attempts to rescue the city by the Byzantines. On the orders of Omar, Caliph of Baghdad, the entire collection of books (except for the works of Aristotle) stored at the Library of Alexandria were removed and used as fuel to heat water for the city's public baths.

[taken from the University of Minnesota]

http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/indextext/Alexandria.html

Who Destroyed Alexandria's Famous Library?

According to Sprague de Camp "Ancient Engineers" the collection was destroyed by a series of fires over a period of time, due largely to the fact that they didn't have the benefit of fire extinguishers, fire walls, automatic alarm systems, or even a fire brigade.

I don't know the truth but that does sound feasible.