Stickman,

Don't hold your breath, if you are expecting BOAZ to answer. Well, at least that is my experience.

In Christian [and Jewish?], a connected concept is LIMBUS INFANTIUM which states infants dying without personal sin go to Limbo. Limbo is denial/delay of beatic vision of God. Why, so? A deceased neonate has not felt the guilt of original sin.

When I was ten, I had to make-up sins for Confession, which I attended until I was thrown out of a confessional, becuase [genuninely] I could not remember, if had eaten meat of Friday. What made matters worse the priest gave me a dressing down in front of 10-12 of peers. I went to state school but the sisters would muster-up the catholics and take them to the church.

Thread,

One success of Islam was how quickly it spread with high adoption rates. The same cannot be said of Christianity, especially before Constantine. That said, it was helpful to Christianity that the Jews even from before the fall of the second temple [like before WWII] moved away from the centre of persecutions, establing a foundation for Christianity centuries later.

I would not like to over generalise, but perhaps the causes of the eraly schicisms were different between Christianity and Islam? With the former on doctrine and the latter succession from Mohammed.

BOAZ,

How are "we"? [Christians?] The Romans called the Christians "athiests", because they would not prayer for the good health of the Emperor nor burn incense to "their Christian god" in poly-religous temples. The Romans were very superstitious and made associations between non-observerance and natural catastrophies.

Also, [male?]Christians were seen to be antisocial louts. Louts because back then [c.200-400], there was a 2-3 year preparation period for Baptism. The Christians basically tore up the town, "before" taking on the serious duties of the religion [Tertullian]. Constantine had to deal with the catechumen problem too [Fox].

The Christian Church also promoted [virginity and] no second marriages. Roman authorities warned Christians away from preying [ahem] on widows for on-death bequests to the Church. It grew its own coffers.

Hi Stickman,

Hope your exams are going OK.
“Islam seems to give more comfort to those who would give violent expression to their opinions, than other religions”

Replace “Islam” with “Arabic culture” and the above statement will be correct.
There is no theological backing in Islam as a religion, for intolerance (I am talking about the (Quran which is what all Muslims agree that it’s the word of God). Arabic culture, being influenced by Bedouin culture has a ‘tit for tat’ definition to many aspects in their day to-day life. This is regardless of the individual religious conviction. A simple example few years ago in Egypt, a Christian priest was caught blackmailing women who confess and forcing them into having sex with him. When the story hit the news, there were riots in the streets of Egypt by Orthodox Christians to free the culprit and death threats sent to women who wanted justice. Its when people associate themselves with pure tribalism and have no respect to law or reason.

I can’t stop nutcases from issuing death threats to the likes of rushdi. I actually can't see why any muslim should be offended by his comments. As a believer in the Islamic faith, I would say let him insult God and his prophet(s) as much as he likes. Its not my funeral its his.

Boaz,

There are 3 types of missionaries in that region: those who peacefully preach and debate, those who force ‘jesus for food’ (in Africa) and finally those who carry ‘Jesus axe’. I welcome the first, pity the 2nd and wouldn’t want to be near any of the lunatic broo haaa haaa ‘repent or die’ mob : -)

Peace,

Fellow_Human,

I see a slight contradiction in your logic.

On the one hand you say people like Rushdi can insult your prophet and God all they want:

"As a believer in the Islamic faith, I would say let him insult God and his prophet(s) as much as he likes. Its not my funeral its his."

Salman mentioned that your prophet Mohammad personally admitted the influence of Satan in some Qur'anic revelation.

Then you say:

>>(Quran which is what all Muslims agree that it’s the word of God)<<

two questions:

1) How can Allah and Satan co-author your holy book?

2) How can you prove the Qur'an IS the exact words of God worthy of your Islamic defence?

When clearly:

- Many versions existed before they got heavily edited and burnt by Khalifa Othman.
- Non-Arabic words in it. (Example: ‘injil’ from Greek)
- Many grammatical mistakes, few personal names and no dates – make it incoherent.
- Other orators "apart from God" (including Mohammad personal additions), and of course the Satanic verses
- Many obvious contradictions to Biblical stories. (Jesus was never Crucified)
- Historically incorrect and/or unprovable (Kaaba built by Adam?? or Abraham adventure to Mecca??).
- Borrowed local fables including Christian and Jewish sects of Mohammad's time. (Jesus talking in his cradle and making live pigeons out of clay)
- Too many scientific anomalies and absurdities. Women also produce sperm)
- Dates discrepancy. Example Miriam (Mary) mother of Jesus is also the sister of Moses and Aron.

Common FH. Anyone can see the fraud of islam – why DON’t you? (this is an optional question – between you and God)

Islam will never attain religious respectability unless free thinking people have the balls to invite open, and independent inquiry into this absurd and dangerous faith called Islam.

Accepting a religion without substance or proof is suicide.

Forcing conversions on other people and religious cleansing is what I like to call in 2007: Religious Terrorism.

You are defending an aggressive cult FH, no matter how much you are able to sugar coat-it..

Fellow-Human wrote;

'we are talking about 2 different things:
Issue 1: Is there a conflict between Muslim Sunni and Shiaa? The answer is yes.
Issue 2: is there a theological difference between Sunni and Shiaa: ther answer is not really or trivial.
The causes underlying issue one is pure tribalism.'

'Tribalism' is the whole point Fellow-Human, and I'm glad that you admit that it is a problem.

What's more you appear to agree with Richard Dawkins when he writes;

'My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to 'we' can be identified at all'

- 'A Devils Chaplain', p187.

Therefore, if we combine your words with those of Richard Dawkins we conclude that religion, especially monotheistic religion, is horribly devisive and a focal-point for violent intolerance. In short, monotheism is a recipe for tearing apart a society.

What is most frustrating is that monotheistic tribalism is completely unnecessary. None of the monotheistic texts are logical or coherent, and because they prattle on about quasi supernatural elements such as angles and jinn, utterly ridiculous.

Scientific naturalism combined with philosophy and humanism is far more beneficial to the individual than religious faith. There's a lot to be said for the liberating experience of discovering truth. It really does set you FREE.

TR,

“'Tribalism' is the whole point Fellow-Human, and I'm glad that you admit that it is a problem”
So we agree on this one : -) Tribalism is not related or connected to theism (mono or poly). Tribal war fare existed in Africa, Latin America, Europe way before theism of any sort appeared.

“ if we combine your words with those of Richard Dawkins we conclude that religion, especially monotheistic religion, is horribly divisive and a focal-point for violent intolerance”

Replace “we” with “I” (meaning you, TR). For some reason I don’t understand you want to pin all world’s problems on monotheism.
We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Coach,

Your first question is answered here:

http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996016412

As for your second question that s really surprising coming from you.
I believe in Islam not because I can prove it but because the story board makes a natural sense to me, just like you believe God is incapable of forgiving and had to re-incarnate a son for blood sacrifice and just like TR here who believes everything around us is a gazillion random incidents with no single source coming from no where and going no where.

There are no proofs whatsoever on anything spiritual otherwise one would have been proven and we will be living in a boring mono-belief world.
We believe simply because we want to believe.
There are no ‘documented video tapes’ on Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or even atheism.

Peace,