Nice exit, G Z.

>>I accept that Keysar is the GOOD guy and I am the BAD one here. But truth is, the UGLY ones are actually GOOD guys who do not believe in the "Golden Principle" of freedom of speech. The BAD ones do not seem to have a problem with freedom and democracy. Do we actually believe in freedom of speech or let GOOD guys curtail it??<<

A bit of an injured flounce there, I detect.

But please don't go without answering my last question, I simply couldn't bear it.

"[G Z] >>The foundation of a false religion was laid... The rest is history.<<

[Pericles] Given that there is not one contemporary account that supports the deeds, actions and speeches of Jesus of Nazareth, could the New Testament not logically be described as "the foundation of a false religion" also?"

But don't worry, I know you well enough not to hold my breath waiting for a reply.

Dear Pericles we can objectively asses religions based on information.

We might not agree that the information is sound, or reliable for 'us'..but we must always consider that the adherents of a faith DO regard those documents as 'sound'...

You primary concern should be "Is it accurate"

But..in the best of bigoted buffoonery :) you just wildly and baselessly assert that (In spite of 3 yrs of formal training and extensive reading and discussion) I'm 'not qualified' to interpet texts of other faiths. Utter rubbish. So..now we have to rewind, and go through the lengthy exercise of establishing some workable guidelines of 'how' to interpret text of ANY kind, to sort out your fuzzy thinking.

Some Facts. (based on our foundation documents, the same thing I use/refer to when criticizing Islam i.e. 'theirs')

1/ Jesus spent 3 yrs in ministry.
2/ He had thousands of followers during that time, though he focused on 12 and 70 in 2 groups.
3/ After he died and rose, his followers increased abundantly.
4/ He never called an army, he never surrounded a city with one. He never implied 'If you don't follow me it might not go well with you'..rather. "If you follow me I promise you HARDSHIP"
5/ He appealed to the inner man, not the material,sensual man, he never offered 'worldly' success, but light, living water, living bread, and eternal life.
6/ He never pandered to mens sexual desires, but to their consciences. By example and word.

Dear Pericles... if you don't know by now the difference between 'that' and the early history of Mohammad and Islam, I urgently recommend that you do some reading. If you cannot see that God has spoken through Christ and not through any subsequent person, then.. thats a matter for your own heart.

The ONE important point you miss, is that Islam IS.. 'a State'..in waiting and watching and working. I happen to know where that can lead. Thus, I speak to the social and political reality as a citizen.

Dear KatieO....

your posts are an encouragement and inspiration to me.. sorry I've rarely acknowledged that (but always felt it).

May the Lord bless you and keep you.. strengthen you and yours, and guide and provide for you and your family in all things.

Dear Keysar... I'm sorry you understand robust criticism of your faith as 'self consuming hatred'...

Something you might do well to understand also, is that as soon as you mention "Mohammad" in connection with 'good/blessed/nice/beloved'.. the FIRST thing which comes to the mind of we who are familiar with your source holy books is a 100 reasons why it is not true. You know them all I'm sure.. but I wonder.. don't you ever ask yourself "Why is the first thing I have to do in my work "defend" Mohammad?

I saw the footsteps in the sand...and I followed them, observing the blood trail left by Kalid bin Al Waleed, "You did not learn such of Christ"

I invite you in the name of the Father, by the Spirit to Him who said "I am the way, the truth and the life"

K Trad wrote: "Stickman, read “why I don’t believe in atheists” by Chris Hedges, a New York Times journalist for a few concerns about people like Sam Harris."

Sorry Keysar, I never replied to this. I followed up on the information that you posted. The Amazon blurb tells me that:

"Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School" .. super start that.. the "study" of the undemonstrable and the evidence-less. What do they say? Garbage in, garbage out?

And this from the first chapter "The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists; it comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species. Those who insist we are morally advancing as a species are deluding themselves."

Well of course those of a religious (certainly Christian) bent don't believe we are progressing - how can we, with the stain of original sin? As we are so inherently flawed? That extract perfectly encapsulates the inherently negative worldview of religious folk.. and explains why you won't find me prostrating myself at the feet of an imaginary sky-daddy.

Of course we can't perfect the human species.. but if you think you aren't better off being alive today and that people (in secular, democratic societies at least) are not treated far better, with better access to due process and less chance of being rolled by an oligarchy/theocracy/monarchy/corrupt state official, then YOU are deluded. So I call that moral progress.

The full link here:
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Believe-Atheists-Chris-Hedges/dp/141656795X

KT - needless to say I won't be wasting my $US16.50, even at current exchange rates ;)

Facts are not facts simply because you assert them, Boaz.

>>Some Facts. (based on our foundation documents, the same thing I use/refer to when criticizing Islam i.e. 'theirs')<<

But before you can base anything on your "foundation documents" it might be useful to assess their quality.

After all, if they are historical quicksand, it would be foolish to place any weight on them, wouldn't it?

So how about answering the key question first.

It was addressed to G Z, but I'm sure you can handle it.

"Given that there is not one contemporary account that supports the deeds, actions and speeches of Jesus of Nazareth, could the New Testament not logically be described as 'the foundation of a false religion' also?"

Please understand that I ascribe no greater credence to any other so-called "foundation document", insofar as they claim to contain the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Which disqualifies me from following up this one:

>>if you don't know by now the difference between 'that' and the early history of Mohammad and Islam, I urgently recommend that you do some reading.<<

But this is simply nonsensical:

>>The ONE important point you miss, is that Islam IS.. 'a State'..in waiting and watching and working. I happen to know where that can lead. Thus, I speak to the social and political reality as a citizen.<<

It is also a clear admission that your intention is to continue to act as some kind of religious vigilante.

You may live in fear of Islam, Boaz, but I'm sorry, you will not convince me that I should also.

Pericles.. I see the 'interpretation' thread is overflowing here :)

You said:

<<But before you can base anything on your "foundation documents" it might be useful to assess their quality.>>

Not....quite. The issue at odds here is how the followers of a particular faith (be it Christianity or Islam) FEEL or believe.. about their texts, not how reliable they are. The 'reliability' issue is one for textual critics scholars and archeologists.

It goes without saying that 'Christians believe the Bible' and 'Muslims believe the Quran'....

It is also apparent and true, that "historical, archeological and textual research will shed light on the accuracy, reliability and truthfulness of those documents.

2 separate issues.

Now..you have observed the interaction between Keysar and myself.
It should be clear to you that no matter how much information is placed on the table about how cruel Mohammad was, that Keysar will still call him 'My beloved prophet' and a host of other adjectives which seek to portray him as a superlative "best of all mankind".

Aside from that being irrational in the light of the facts, 'as they stand'..without even the slightest bit of 'interpretation'....just taking the words at face value, it suggests that one of the qualities of the 'best' of mankind is that they hack off the body parts of living prisoners and let them die slowly.

Now..if you don't find some difficulties with that, then .. maybe you need some counselling...I joke not.