It's a matter of perspective, isn't it, Boaz.

You continually talk of evidence, as if it is a given that your selection of ancient quotes - from whatever source - somehow trumps intelligence and common sense.

It doesn't cross your mind that ordinary people, whether Christian, Muslim or atheist, give no credence at all to your constant harping on about this or that verse in a document written fifteen hundred or nineteen hundred years ago.

Your arguments have about as much relevance to twentyfirst century reality as the Volsung saga, and a similar level of credibility. That is why your approach is flawed, and until and unless it changes, I will continue to point this out to you.

Incidentally, you keep insisting that my observations to you are ad hominem, when you know perfectly well that I do not indulge. Pure transference, old chap.

And while I'm here, I was fascinated that you quoted Corinthians to Fractelle:

>>I challenge you Frac.. read 1 Corinthians 15 and see if you can sustain that lamentably false statement.<<

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." 1Cor15: 4-8

Did you spot the deliberate mistake?

There is no evidence, anywhere, that Jesus introduced himself to Paul. What credence, then, should we give to his account of the others who "saw" him?

Hey, it really doesn't matter to me what you believe, or for that matter what I don't believe. The difference between us is that you use your religion to create divisions and foster hatred, while I use my absence of religion to try to make peace and develop harmony.

Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

Those who are defending Christianity here need a bit of a reality check.

Here is what the Catholic Church has been saying about condoms and AIDS.

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass …."

"The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

The Church is, of course, perfectly entitled to state that it considers the use of condoms immoral. But should it be spreading outright lies about the efficacy of condoms in reducing the risk of HIV infection?

And no the science is NOT in doubt. The use of condoms greatly reduces the risk of HIV infection without eliminating it entirely.

What exactly is the Church's attitude towards pain management in terminally ill patients?

"Furthermore, I believe their [The Catholic Church's] aversion to pain treatment for terminally ill patients is abhorrent - they seem to believe that pain redeems human beings." (Professor Stefania Maurizi of Rome's La Sapienza as quoted in New Scientist, 27 February 2008)

If Prof. Maurizi's allegation is true then abhorrent is a very mild term. Has anyone here ever seen a patient in the last stages of terminal cancer?

I do recognise the difference between Christianity and Islam. But let's not pretend Christianity is entirely benign.

Here's what the same Professor Maurizi has to say about Jesus.

"I had an education that made me suspicious of hierarchies and the truths that priests were talking about. However, I did not become suspicious of Jesus, a revolutionary figure who always sided with the poor, just as I am not suspicious of the Buddha or Confucius."

That is my attitude too. And, in the end, that is the difference between Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism on one hand, and the crazed 7th century Arabian warlord of Islam on the other.

Jesus yes, Christianity no.

But I could not say "Muhammad [or Allah] yes Islam no."

Steven your fear of Christianity is misplaced.

700 million condoms have been dispensed in Africa, which is only 7% Catholic, if promiscuous sex is wanted there is nothing stopping them.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,12835371-25717,00.html

In Uganda which is 50% Catholic HIV has fallen dramatically
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2005oct08_h.html

Wife of Ugandan President:

condom use is one method of reducing the rate of infection; but we target such messages to those who are already infected with HIV, or who have risky lifestyles and are so set in their ways that they cannot change their behavior.

…..it is wiser to show our people there is a surer way to stay alive; because the truth is that there is no "safe sex" outside of faithfulness to a partner. Giving young people condoms is tantamount to giving them a license to go out and be promiscuous; it leads to certain death....To encourage children to use condoms is to admit that you have no faith in their ability to make correct choices. ….the greatest reduction in the number of infections has occurred among the age group of 15 to 25, this occurred before the condom campaign in Uganda.
http://www.newmancentre.org/pages/museveni.htm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/668cbrke.asp?pg=1

Hilaire Belloc 1938:
“Millions of modern people of the white civilization that is, the
civilization of Europe and America have forgotten about Islam. It is, the most formidable and persistent enemy which our civilization has had, and may at any moment become as large a menace in the future as it has been in the past.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT

What we need to face this challenge is not the vacuity of the new atheists who cannot tell the difference between Islam or Christianity, nor can we acquiesce to that worst of all faiths – secularism, that seeks the exclusion of Christianity from the public square and refuses to acknowledge its foundational and integral importance to our civilisation.

Harvard Historian and unbeliever Niall Ferguson:
Heaven knows how we’ll rekindle our religion but I believe we must:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/31/ixopinion.html

Death by Secularism
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH02Aa01.html

The Decline of the Family
http://www.demographicwinter.com/

Why Nations Die
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH16Aa02.html

Why Europe Chooses Extinction
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html

Faith, Fertility and American Dominance
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

Oh no! Another BOAZ. So many fears to share.

Pericles,

Boaz’ faith was directly accused of being contrary to the evidence, he pointed to the Greek documents that show this to be false. This is an intelligent and common sensical thing to do.

As for relevance of old texts - the vast majority of humanity have cared enormously about ancient history and its fruits. You are alone here. It is your chronological snobbery that is truly irrelevant to the modern world; it is an idea that would keep a man in the degrading slavery of being a child of his own age.

You say Paul’s road to Damascus experience in unhistorical. This contradicts pretty much all of New Testament scholarship - it is a belief that would be laughed out of court in any historical journal. Even Gert Lüdemann, the leading German critic of the resurrection, himself admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

And then you finish with the astounding claim that truth doesn’t matter, that arguing for the rational grounds of Christianity, which Boaz does, by default fosters hatred! This is pure prejudice and is exactly what the discredited new atheists would write. No Pericles, it matters enormously what we believe, we you haven't understood is we may disagree but be civil and tolerant in our disagreement. When we debate what the good life is we must use valid arguments in defence of our conceptions.

You, far from bringing harmony, wish to bring an unholy peace based on the coercive silencing of beliefs you have no rational counter to. You did this by labeling them hateful and divisive.

It is this kind of irrationality that is the genuine threat to our peaceful coexistence. The idea that you are the neutral one stems from a deep misunderstanding of the meanings of secular and ideological secularism.


The Irrational Atheist
http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1933771364
http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html (free copy)

Read the Gospels – then talk to me about peace and harmony.

Martin etc: "You are alone here.."

No he's not.

FrankGol: "Oh no! Another BOAZ. So many fears to share"

Indeed. Gawd help us :)