Yvonne, I suggest that virtually all of us here are dogmatic. Including you, say, on the abortion thread. All I mean by dogmatic is a belief that one is right and, therefore, that a contrary view is wrong. On its own, I don't see this as troublesome. It's possible to be dogmatic and, despite that, both well-mannered and inquisitive. I have found this to be true of most of us. Of you more than most: on many occasions, you go out of your way to be gracious towards other posters. And you like to go behind the posts to the people which I think is good - and brave, as you risk being ignored or bitten.

Personally, I don't see Boaz as hysterical, except in the sense that anxiety can be high-energy. Being anxious about Islam, even in Australia, is not so strange. How does one avoid associating Islam with trouble and danger? (EG In view of recent developments, how long will Turkey remain secular?) I see Boaz as someone who is, with passion, sounding an alarm. I believe he is really concerned for our safety. (I know he's also concerned about getting things right about God, but I don't think that's what he's "hysterical" about.) When you see a danger, and warn people about it, and are ignored or rebuked for your trouble, that would be frustrating.

Boaz, If it turns out that you are, after all, simply hysterical, please accept my apology.

Pax,

Goodthief, you are one of my other thought provoking Christian posters. But I have to disagree with your view that if a person thinks their view is right it means another view is wrong. A view does not necessarily have to be right or wrong, often it is just a different view.

It is a bit like the elephant story. Many of us understand that we are all trying to see the elephant in the room, but are at a particular phase only able to see the trunk, or one leg, or the tail. But there are some who are convinced that they know what an elephant is just from the part they see.

That is why an articulate argument is thought provoking. Or when one is challenged on a statement. It requires a rethink: Did I say what I meant to say? Did I think of that? Why do I think that?

I agree with you that Boaz is most sincere in his beliefs and convinced of his task to warn us, or save us from great evil. I understand that he has certain experiences which validate his beliefs. But we all have experiences which are valid. But a personal experience is just that, personal.

Boaz is stridently anti-Islam. He is not able to countenance contrary arguments and thoughts put forward by people who practice the Islamic faith and have thought about their faith or have experienced living/knowing people who practice Islam.

Is it not dogmatic to think that a faith with 1.4billion followers practiced over a thousand years, in many countries, by many of different cultural back-grounds is only a source of evil poised to destroy civilization? If it was going to destroy and enslave all, why did it not do that at the height of its power?

Although this set of commentaries must have broken a record, and our commentaries sometimes reveal glimmers of light towards true wisdom and understanding especially for our troubled Middle East, we seem again to revert to sniping at each other.

Certainly the main problem is that we have no ChairPerson or adjudicator, and maybe it would be a good idea suggestions are given through our thread for some means to overcome this problem.

Anyhow, as an oldie knowing he has not much time left, thank you all so much for your broadband companionship, reckon it is a means of worldwide discussion which can only improve global stability.

Cheers BB.

*Takes_off the 'hysteria' hat and puts on the 'articulate' one:)

YVONNE.. you raise an interesting point.

"If it(ISLAM) was going to destroy and enslave all, why did it not do that at the height of its power?"

Fair point: Lets look at it more closely.

First observation, it is a matter of 'degreee'.

If only 25% your freedoms have been taken away, you might not feel a slave, but if 50% are removed.. hmm maybe, maybe not. But lets say a law is introduced, which does not 'immediately' destroy you, but like smoking, eventually, it will. Aah..thats different. Not many smokers I know light up and then have a mad panic about the lung cancer they will likely get as a result, because the know it will be possibly 20 yrs away.

Lets take a real world example of how historic Islam unfolded.

OMAR the 2nd caliph is praised by many, he is reported to have taken a very humble approach to his triumphal entry into Jerusalem which was conquered by force. He was invited by the Christian Patriarch to offer prayers in the Church on the site where the Al Aksa mosque is located today. He refused, saying "If I offer prayers there, my followers will change it into a mosque" he was quite adamant that existing Churches not be destroyed.

Closer scrutiny reveals this.

-Not long after Omar, the Church was destroyed and turned into a mosque. (So it is an illegal building.)

-The Charter of Omar did NOT allow Christians to share/propogate their faith to Muslims and it also placed severe restrictions on them which underlined daily their inferior social status.

-NEW Church buildings were not allowed.

So, there are ways to "destroy" people without taking them out and slaughtering them wholesale.

I strongly recommend Yvonne.. that you seek an opportunity to view 'Obsession' the rise of radical Islam. You will see some amazing things. Don't write it off as 'Jewish propoganda' until you actually see it.

Passionate....yes.. Hysterical...no.. my statements are tied to history and fact, not 'irrational hysterical blubbering'.... I don't need a slap :)

Now I am convinced that you are not serious, goodthief, and are simply playing games with words.

>>I was disappointed. I asked what you believe, not what you don’t believe. If you can only describe your own position by energetic and contemptuous reference to its opposite that seems to me unfortunate<<

Pure bluff. Not to mention arrant discourtesy. There was no part of my statement that was a statement of non-belief, as you try to suggest. Nor was anything I said either energetic or contemptuous. The fact that it does not coincide with your concept of "belief" gives you no leave to be rude.

George set the pace for filling up the space with a lot of words without having the courtesy to provide any that contained any regognizable meaning, and you are starting to follow suit, I'm afraid.

George wrote:

>>The reason was, of course, that Pericles argued from a “Western” position: atheism or empiricism is after all an “illegitimate child” of Christianity. The other reason was that I felt more secure in the western context, although my original alternatives, that Pericles wanted me to further explain, referred not to God but to “Something” (spiritual world), in order not to leave out the Oriental religions like in Hans Küng’s definition: “By religion I mean the overcoming of self-centredness, in both individuals and communities, by getting into communion with the spiritual presence behind the universe, and by bringing our wills into harmony with it.”<<

You wrote:

>>George, What magnificent posts you’re putting up<<

There have been many posts from my original beef with your definition of empiricism to here, goodthief, but I suspect we haven't actually travelled very far. If you have been seduced into believing that George is providing deep insight, so be it. But look more closely - there is no meaning, just words.

George wrote:

>>If I ask an empiricist, ”Who created the universe, and why does it exist at all?”, he/she will answer that nobody, and that the question “why” does not make sense. If you ask e.g. a Christian, he/she will answer that God willed it...<<

But George, the true empiricist would actually respond with:

"no-one yet knows who, if anybody, created the universe. Nor is there any detectable motive behind its creation"

Without evidence, any answer to "who created the world" is just guesswork. The "why" is more intriguing; even lacking a known creator, it might be possible to deduce if there were sufficient circumstantial evidence. But there isn't.

The christian response merely avoids the need to think about either question. It sets you free to discuss the number of angels on the head of a pin, typified by this little amble into meaninglessness:

>>you either believe in a God who created the world or you do not, tertium non datur... you want me to consider a fully Imminent (rather than Transcendent) God (we are the self-aware cells in the body of God?) hinting at pantheism<<

No amount of detour into Eastern mysticism can divert attention from the proposition the the world was either created by god, or it wasn't. And the answer is "if you believe, it was; if you don't, it couldn't have been"

But back to empiricism for a moment. I am puzzled why this position causes you and goodthief so much concern. It is entirely non-threatening, and can comfortably accept religion within its ambit.

Religion is an observable phenomenon. People who practice religion are observable too, and their behaviours measurable. No empiricist can dispute the existence of religion, since there is ample evidence.

Why is it therefore so difficult from theists (or religionists, which would be more accurate) to see the sheer beauty and simplicity of the empiricists position? By dealing only in the human experience, which creates the knowledge that we employ every day, life is so much purer and straightforward.

No need to decide which god is "better" than any other, for a start.