Boazy: << It goes without saying that 'Christians believe the Bible' and 'Muslims believe the Quran'.... >>

Quite so. It also goes without saying that the Christians at OLO vilify Muslims and the Muslims respond graciously.

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

Again, quite so.

Not quite, Boaz.

>>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 "issue at odds" is how the followers of a particular faith (Christianity) feel about the texts of someone else's faith (Islam).

If you were solely concerned with the historicity of the Bible, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

Not a word.

It's your Book, you believe it, that's fine by me.

The only reason - let me stress again, the only reason - that I am involved in any of these discussions is because of your anti-Islamic rabble rousing (which I believe I have mentioned before) and its potential to cause damage through inciting hatred in others.

I have, and I think I have mentioned this on more than one occasion also, absolutely no problems with religion itself. It has a long history in society, and even though I believe that it has outlived its usefulness, I still recognize that it brings comfort to many.

What I do have a problem with is people who use religion as a weapon, whether they are Christians, Muslims or Rastafarians.

And I will continue to take issue with you Boaz, when you apply, blatantly and shamelssly, double standards in your assessment of whose book of stories is "right".

So, back to the question.

"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?"

Peracles,

Monetheism is dangerous in that it exclusive and often intolerant. The Egyptians, Grreeks and Romans, seemed to work pantheism and dualities [same god different names] to unify peoples after wars.

AS with Isalm the Zealots wanted to combine Church and State and needed to quashed by the Romans, unfortunately taking several less violent sects with them. Unsure about Jesus, but, it seems as a claimant to the House of David, if he was to be king of terrestial kings, be planned to assimilate the Gentiles and grow the religion organicaally, so in several centuries his descendants would have something like what become the Holy Roman Empire. But His line didn't make it, rather it was cobbled together by Constantine. Even then Constantine may have seen God the Father a duality of Sol Invictus, who is probably remnant linked to the Cult of the Sun God and Monotheism of Akhenaten [Amenhetep IV].

Mimicing the Eygyptian Serapas godhead is also suss.

A key point is that pantheism is less confrontational than monotheism. Oil aside, this is way Iran is a potential danger.

Boazy's fret about Muslims, I think is over stated; but, two monotheist religions with nuclear weapons is a bit scary. A threat best handled by doplomats and intelligence agencies, rather than physical war. A secular humanist democracy would not br in competition with a fundamentalist religion

PERILOUS... your claim that you only enter these discussions because I interpret other peoples holy books has one flaw.

And here it is: That holy book CURSES me and mine, and declares war on all non them..which includes me, you and the rest of us who are non them.

I can put it another way IF..those (un)Holy books did NOT curse me, all Christians, Jews, -if those unholy books did not 'permit' sexual abuse of captives, and promote a man as 'The best of all mankind, and an example to emulate' who by his own testimony and of those around him engaged in horrific self serving acts torture, mutilation, accumulation of women, destruction of communities, assassination of mockers and political opponents by murder, (an example which is emulated to this day as you well know)

IF...none of that existed, you would not hear a peep out of ME either.

You would need to show that:

1/ I have and am wrongly interpreting the passages concerned.

2/ That those passages have not been USED by that faith community in the exact ways which I am interpreting them, which of course is simply the way THEY interpret them when they have the political and military superiority.

You seem to see it as Religion A = Religion B = Religion C = Religion D

But there are differences.

You see.. when Mohammad writes a letter to Heraclious the Byzantine Emperor saying "Embrace Islam and you will be safe, but if you don't, then know this -the world and all that is in it belongs to Allah AND HIS APOSTLE".. well.. all you have to do is read up on the Battle of Yarmuk and bingo, you see that when Mohammad says "belongs to me" he means..belongs to him, and will use military force to get it.

FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS...If religion X says "Fight" all non them for the reason that "They don't believe" and if their people who are in places where that religion rules ALSO say that... then who are 'you' to dispute that understanding?

I mean...really..on what grounds?

You take too much notice of yourself, Boaz.

>>That holy book CURSES me and mine, and declares war on all non them..which includes me, you and the rest of us who are non them... IF...none of that existed, you would not hear a peep out of ME either.<<

The argument is circular.

It is *because* you have interpreted their texts with such an extremely selective and narrow view, that you have allowed yourself to live in fear of it.

If you took a more sanguine view, which is that yes, there are a few terrorist nutters out there who wrap themselves in Islamic extremism in order to justify blowing people up, but quite frankly not enough to make a big difference to the safety of myself and my family, you will have a far more peaceful and rewarding life.

In my world, the sun is out, the skies are blue, there's not a cloud to spoil the view, except for the background threat that I might be blown to smithereens by a religious fanatic with a warped sense of logic and a death-wish.

Having lived for a number of years with the background threat of the IRA doing exactly the same (except they carefully left their bombs under the table in pubs and restaurants - they weren't that keen on blowing themselves up), I can live with it.

As with the IRA, fanatical Islam will eventually rejoin the human race, given the political opportunity to do so. This may sound like Pollyanna to you, but that is only because you see the problem through the warped lens of a competitive religion. Time, and the continuing attraction of the rest-of-the-world's lifestyle, will gradually blunt the desire of these madmen to sacrifice themselves in a pointless cause.

In the meantime, every act of inflammation that you and your cohorts generate will delay this occurrence.

Which is why, Boaz, I count you as part of the problem, not of the solution.

Pericles,

Britain goes out of its way to be sensitive to its Muslim communities, far more so than we have done here. In fact Christians handing out bible excerpts in Birmingham were threatened with arrest under racial vilification laws when they tried to dispense their handouts in a “Muslim area”. Yet nearly 40% of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 would rather live under sharia law. And nearly a third believed in decapitation for apostasy. 13 percent said they admired al Qaeda http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion

Groups like Hizb-ut-Tahir are infiltrating and taking over Muslim student groups and mosques around Britain and they are attempting the same thing here in Australia. Yet many Australians wouldn’t have a clue who they are or what they stand for. To you they might seem like ordinary, hard working muslims. Yet even a cursory look at their propaganda will tell you otherwise

You raise an argument I have heard a number of times from OLO posters. That by trying to identify the extremists we are somehow stirring things up and inflaming the situation. By extension a person holding this opinion will often suggest that the Islamo-fascists who do exist have been created because of our attitudes to Muslims. This line of thinking is totally flawed. The recent rise of Islamic fundamentalism began with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, The wahabis in Saudi Arabia and the Revolution in Iran, all concerned about local issues and a perceived lack of rigour in observance of the faith among Muslims. These groups were founded with a literalist understanding of the Koran and selected Hadith and with pan-Islamic aspirations.

Being nice to people doesn’t cost anything so I don’t really have a problem with you suggesting it, although I don’t imagine you will change any minds either. But to suggest that pointing out or attacking extremist groups, causes the problem is wrong in almost every sense. The British experience should show us all that you cannot deal with extremism by brushing it under the carpet. Tolerating the intolerant is not virtuous and it won’t be successful either
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WKFpak9Mc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyn0ongj0F8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1qmFEujEtk&feature=related