This has, for me, been a most interesting thread. I have followed it from the first post to the last comment by bushbred, and have found much to think about.

I'm sure many of these arguments are also available elsewhere in the vastnesses of the Web, but I still found it worthwhile to see it all here.

Thank you all for a most stimulating discussion (even if I have only been a spectator in this one).

Cheers!

BRUSHY.. ur a scallywag :) in between 2 of your paragraphs, and from the same article, you neglected to include THIS

[The sepoys entered Delhi, massacred every Christian man, woman and child they could find and declared the 82-year-old emperor to be their leader.]

That was BEFORE the British came and 'did their thing' in Delhi... hmmmm maybe, just mabye, they were a bit annoyed by the massacre of men women and children by the Hindu's and Muslims? And.. it was done on the basis of their FAITH.. 'because they were Christians'

Next time.. please give a 'balanced' account.

GEORGE.. thanx for the obviously well intended question about what to 'do' about the Muslims in Australia.

No..we cannot expect all of them to be converted.
No..we cannot do a 'Brits at Delhi' on them either.

What we can do is as follows:

1/ Re-committ ourselves to our own traditions, rediscovering the lost pearls of cultural identity that have been mercilessly eroded over decades by people with philosophical, immoral and financial interests in doing so.

2/ My preference is for us to re-discover our 'first love' (if we ever had one) for Christ.

3/ Politically, we can close the door to Muslim Immigration.
4/ Spiritually and socially we can EXPOSE the ugly truth of this abhorrent faith and strip it naked for all to see. The main reason people convert to Islam is limited information. I don't know how many who
a) Know of MOhammads true life Quran 33:50
b) Know of the WE WILL KILL YOU exit policy. Quran 4:89
c) Authorization for domestic violence (beating wives) 4:34
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-beating-toothbrush.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY
d) Authorization for capturing and keeping sex slaves. 23:5-6
e) Murder of political opponents is quite ok if they are perceived to be acting against the interests of the Islamic state.(Ka'b bin Al Ashraf)

5/ Show love to Muslims and caringly lead them from darkness to light in Christ. "Speak the truth ...in love" Eph 4:15

"I came..that they might have life" Jesus

To Rhys Probert, thanks for your reference to my last Post. Reckon the whole bunch of Posts must have just about broken a record.

However, as a student of political philosophy, do feel disappointed that no one has stooped to offer an apology to Islam for what Mubarek of Egypt once asked for concerning the major problem of the Middle East.

Simply Western intrusion and injustice.

In all truth it has not changed much from the colonial days really, except that British gunboat diplomacy has turned into US missile diplomacy

BOAZ,
You again prove that you are more at home with the Koran than I. Your suggestions:
1/ and 2/ are no alternatives, they are compatible with what I (and others here) have suggested.
3/ is not practicable in Europe, and I doubt it very much it is practicable in Australia. And even if, it probably would not contribute to the solution of the global problem.
4/ “to expose the ugly truth” of your neighbour’s sincerely held faith, and call it “abhorrent”, is not what I would call spiritual, certainly not in the Christian meaning of the word. Abhorrent are the deeds of some Muslims, not their faith. We all know that also Christians were capable of very bad deeds (some are still), which we could call abhorrent, not the Christian faith. We should be grateful to God (of Christians as well as of Muslims) that we have our Middle Ages behind us, whereas they still have a painful road ahead of them.
5/ is also no alternative but compatible with what I suggested though I would use less patronising words.

David
You never got back to us about the Salvation Army? You said you would be happy to assist in overveiwing our letter to them. We were all very excited to have you help.

There is only one God. That Gods loves all people regardless.

Sure their are some nut cases in this world but they are not all Muslims .

They are a mixture. Yes they are some extemists groups in Muslim Faith but then again most Muslims will tell you thats not the 'real' Islam.
The fact after sending out THOUSANDS of letters to the Church Leaders of this country we received ONE reply regarding the cruel trade of live animal exports and unexceptable transport treatment.

That was From Muslim Leaders of Australia.

Please think about it.

You can tell a nation by the way it treats its animals.

Muslim Australians have spoken out about cruelty to Animals.
I dont hear our Christain Church Leaders?
Do you?

Pericles, I started attacking empiricism in response to be called “deluded”, “superstitious” and “irrational”, and worse, (arrogant, bigoted, and so on) by Richard Dawkins and his disciples. They say I’m deluded and superstitious because God “almost certainly” (Dawkins’ words) isn’t there, and irrational because I cannot point to empirical evidence to support my belief in the existence of God.

So, it is their movement (not to mention their almost mind-bending rudeness) I am speaking against. I say that the empiricist creed that I outlined earlier, that prompted our discussion, can be true only on non-empiricist grounds. I don’t consider that statement I offered as circular, as you described it. It’s a lot tighter than yours (the OED’s), but no tighter than the language of Dawkins and posters like TR. (I don’t know where you stand, but perhaps you will say?)

Meanwhile, you and I have not defined what we mean by “experience”. I see two alternatives (happy to see a third and fourth):

i) “Experience” means experience for which there is reliable empirical evidence – in which case my original definition is correct.

ii) “Experience” means an actual event, but not one which necessarily leaves a supporting record – in which case the empiricists cannot accuses theists of delusion.

When a person claims an experience of the second type, it will be difficult, case by case, to determine whether the claimed experience was actual or imagined. After all, the theist’s experience of God typically leads to this difficulty. After many years of acquaintance (or presumed acquaintance, you might prefer) with Jesus, I still don’t have a photo or an autograph.

So, my answer to your questions depends on whether or not my experience of Jesus is “experience” for the purposes of your axiom.

If the image of God issue was just a red herring, just say so and I’ll drop it. Otherwise, please tell me what’s on your mind.

Pax,