This interesting thread is opening up some fertile ground for discussion.

STEVEN.. "Christian nut" here:) I'd like to qualify 2 statements you made.
1/ "When Christians have political power, they are as bad as Muslims"
Steve..does that apply to Jews? Atheists? but more importantly, I recommend a through review of a foundation for what you said in the New Testament... which of course you will not find. So..I'd say as follows:

"When Christians have political power and use it UNbiblically..they may or may not be as "good/bad/indifferent" as Muslims"

2/ "Peaceful loving Christians" I'll spare you that.. partly.
the Genuine Biblical Christian walking with Christ day in day out IS.. peaceful and loving. Those who have strayed.. are not.

BUSHBASHER.... without meaning to patronize you, I note you have a very good grasp of reason..and applied this to KatieO's post, and I want to explore something with you.

You said:

"I tried to indicate why i thought the text-based attacks on islam here were in bad faith,"

BB..given that Islam is a 'text based' faith, I find that rather astounding. I suggest it is in the 'best' faith. I don't feel I have disgraced myself in the slightest as I've directed peoples attention not to my opinions, but to Islamic scholars commenting on the primary and secondary sources of this faith. Is there any 'other' way to go in serious debate? I don't think so.

When Keysar says things like "Allah said" where the direct implication of 'what' Allah 'said' is very unsavory for those with different ideas, surely you would expect a robust comeback from those effected?

Would you reject such an approach in the analysis of Mein Kampf and National Socialism? I rather doubt it. Sentimentality has its place...it's not this thread.

For Keysar.. I had an arabic expert check out the Hadith, (Bukhari Vol 7, book62 Number 63) and it turns out there is a difference in the numbering, but the hadith is present.

CJ.. *smile* :)

Bushbasher,

I only know you from 4 posts that briefly addressed me.

Your first post, "GZ, what's your point?" followed by a proposition to pick on "fine" christians.

My observation: A touch of rudeness, sarcasm, even naivety & ignorance. But that's alright, no worry.

I replied with a concise and adequate statement, 100% correct logically. (Fact is, I do not owe you a detailed explanation, let alone an explanation.)

But it got worse in your second post.

Bushbasher: <<GZ...can't you see...very strange...? you don't think mine is a natural question to ask?>>

1 - Well, I don't think it is strange at all to only attack Islam. It's only your biased perception, (out of ignorance). Perhaps the only thing strange is the strength of my attacks.
2 - Did my concise reply suggest your question was not a "natural" question? You put words in my mouth?

My observation: A tint of presumptuousness and self-conceit.

Bushbasher: << you repeatedly bombard K trad...most aggressive...i politely ask you one question...and you think it reasonable to dismiss my question out of hand?>>

1 - Do you elevate yourself by comparing with others? The presence of bad guys around you make you feel like a saint, is that it??
2 - Was I so rude to reply your first post with a concise statement?? Was my simple (but adequate) answer an unreasonable act that dismissed your very polite question out of hand?

My observation: A serous touch of presumptuousness, self-conceit and arrogance.

But it got worse and worse... all in just 4 posts!!

Importantly, you seem not a principled person. One that is easily fooled by a victim mentality and political correctness . Example:
1. Islam is attacked in this forum. So your sympathy goes to Muslims.
2. If you were to live in the Islamic country I came from, I suppose your sympathy would swift to non-Muslims.

But don't you bother - I tell suffering non-Muslims that someone of such a character, cannot be trusted.

BB: point taken (one way street, so I bowed out).

Motive: If you look at the examples of the dialogue between Grobian and Gerda, the “self-insulating” replies of Grobian raise some questions about debate in general, and ours in particular.

Is there a set of rules out there by which we are all expected to play by? Can we reasonably agree who is Grobian, and who is Gerda?

For CJ and Pericles, the Grobian character could be. BD, stevenlmeyer or PaulL. Meanwhile, for myself, it is KT.
Is the crux of the problem “because debate is one game and (KT) has chosen to play another? (All that talk about the ball, the game and own goals..). Is it that others enter the debate for reasons other than to be informed or to participate? Is one playing golf and another parchese?

Starting point: propositions on rudeness in debate (descriptive, not prescriptive):

- "a certain amount can be justifiable, even if offensive: “legitimate” in the sense that it is permitted by the content of the theory being defended and the good faith of the believer. It is not like telling critics to shut up, even though this too is always possible.”

- Rudeness as a defensive weapon

- Disdain for rudeness under the names of reasoned inquiry and debate, unhelpful

- “success at insulating the believer and the belief of which it is a part seems independent of the merits or truth-value”

- “… theories that are false or implausible could use a rude defense as well as true or plausible theories.”

- “we suspect that the license to brush off objections is not a sign of truth or even a supporting argument. It is a gimmick, a piece of insolence that “civilized” and “reasonable” people will not stoop to use”.

- “what good faith belief authorizes, we believe, is authorized – at least until it conflicts with a higher rule. In cases of logical rudeness, belief in certain theories authorizes believers to be incredibly smug. Is this a price, or an abuse, of freedom?

- Descriptive rudeness: instantly dismissive

... tbc

....cont.

- Some kinds are fallacious: “One may at least infer the presence of a fallacious defense, beyond a merely rude one, and the presence of self-referential inconsistency”

- “Epistemic democracy”: all persons presumed to have an equal entitlement to know the truth”; the “no holds barred” principle of debate (note the conflict of the either approach being used to challenge the other): principles of logical courtesy.

- Some forms are inevitable: “Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game.”

- “Sociability in debate may be important….but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth.”

- Possible falsehood: ask "can a theorist retain her good faith while sincerely conceding the corrigibility of her theory and herself”

- “If the consequence of a “bad” belief are intolerable to public order, we may deal with it through the criminal law. …. As inquirers we may deal with the rude believer’s belief without dealing with the rude believer; but we admit that this is to abandon a valuable practice that is valued for its contribution to inquiry – debate”.

- “We cannot automatically infer falsehood from rudeness.”

-“If we abandon debate and examine such theories in silence or apart from their proponents, we feel that we have abandoned a valuable practice, perhaps a practice indispensable to reliable inquiry”.

- “For the purposes of logical etiquette, good faith is equivalent to truth”.

- “ (debate) works best when the participants and spectators allow their assent to follow the evidence and reasons exchanged in debate, and do not enter with prejudice or simply for sport”.

There are several camps represented above, and all fall victim to rudeness, however, there are noticeable differences:

- the “no-holds-barred” approach that Christians encourage
- the defensive attitude taken by Muslims; absence of "good faith"
- the demand for truth by those not drawn in by a fallacious defence
- the descriptive rudeness of CJ & Pericles

SOUND THE LAST_POST...

This will be mine for this thread :)

TOPIC.

From the article:

<<I should be able to present arguments in defence of my faith and also my point of view, even if either of these is unpopular.>>

Agreed, BUT the problem emerges when 'your' sub cultural/ethnic/religious group seeks to influence the 'secular democracy SUCH that... people are NOT free to criticize that which you desire the right to defend! RRT2001! promoted by Muslims and Jews in particular. (each for their different reasons, and those reasons have seen both parties attacking each other after the laws were introduced)

With this in mind, I have systematically and carefully exposed ONE value in the religion of Islam, which, while not prominent in public discourse here, is nevertheless a part of "Islamic Societies" in places where that is the State Faith.

Let me finish on a positive_note.

EXHORTATION.

"Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Jesus.)

"My son, your sins are forgiven" (Jesus.}

"As to whether he is a sinner I do not know, but one thing I know, I was once blind, but now I can see" (Blind man healed by Jesus)

"If any man causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large stone tied to his neck and be thrown into the sea" (Jesus)

To THIS man, we look for salvation, for hope, for renewal, for redemption. There is no other, absolutely, finally and completely. He is the First the Last and the coming One. He was, and is, and is to come. The Alpha and the Omega.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."(Jesus)

When the storms of life seem too much, remember this:

<<He (Jesus) got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm>>

All Glory, Honor, power, majesty and praise..be unto Him.. both now and forever. Amen and Amen.

PAUL L... I hope you read this :)

katieO, i've had time to get the article you're referring to, so now i know what you're on about. thank-you, definitely of interest! will try to read it soon. i'd still say the main problem with this thread is plain, old-fashioned rudeness. but definitely the concept of logical rudeness is a very valuable one to keep in mind.

GZ, yes you didn't owe me an explanation. it was only worth your while if you want me, possibly others, to read your posts. and that is up to you of course. but your answers to my questions have just been silly. the logic wasn't tough, but you missed it.

you may have good reasons to hate islam, you may be right that we all should. but if your posts are premised on that idea, that we already agree with you on that, you'll only being preaching to the converted.

you say i defend muslims because islam is attacked. earlier in the thread i stated that the majority of muslims i have met have been good and loving people. yesterday, i spent a lovely hour tutoring a uni student, a gentle, charming and good-humored muslim fellow. i don't know whether you're attacking him or not. but if you're attacking him then, yes, i'm defending him.

stevenlmeyer i don't know who you're referring to as "apologists". if me, i don't see that i'm apologising for anyone or anything.

boaz, i took your question seriously, and thought to answer more directly. given religious texts are important to religious observers, you ask a reasonable question. but i don't think this is the time of the thread to do it. note that i am critical of these text-based attacks both because i regard them as probably pointless, and because i think they are being undertaken in bad faith. i think my reasons are spelled out enough above.

katieO, thanks again. that one reference made following this thread worthwhile.