Pericles.. I have to admire the level of thinking and research which goes into your posts.. specially this one.

All most important questions, and also symptomatic of your basic lack of understanding of what it means to be a "Christian". I don't say that in any way mean spirited.. but it is very clear nevertheless.

SIKH'S/KIRPANS
First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus. In any case I approached them with humility and friendship.. why would I worry if they had one or not? My issue with that.. is nothing to do with personal interaction..it is about the social/legal climate.. which therefore neccessitates it be addressed in the appropriate forum.. i.e... here and to my local member

O.B./E.B The 'O' stands for 'open' rather than 'exclusive'.. sometimes I think we are too open and not exclusive enough in the sense that the EBs are.. we probably tolerate much more than we should in terms of behavior.

THE CORRECT CHURCH.
Most evangelical protestant Churches are already "one" in spirit with the same fundamental beliefs. Some baptize infants, others do not. Some place great importance on 'Believers Baptism'. The Bretho's are more the 'cover the ladies hair' mob, but I doubt you will find more than 2 or 3 in ours doing that.

You see.. to be "Christian" is about grace..not law. Thus, one fellowship might criticize another for some aspect of doctrine "Infant Baptism" is one common point at issue, but they cannot enforce a different form on those they disagree with.

VIOLENCE/TERRORISM.
I note your contribution about the Corporals murders. I'll repeat what I've said ad nauseum "Can you show where Jesus by example or teaching can be used to justify this"?
No..but in Islam..you can....and that is the HUGE difference.

Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so.

Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so.

Because of this fundamental difference..very little 'Christian' terrorism takes place.

Well of course, Boaz.

>>symptomatic of your basic lack of understanding of what it means to be a "Christian"<<

The fundamental, basic, bedrock reason that I am not a Christian is precisely this, that I cannot for one moment identify with the thought processes, the negation of logic, and the sheer mindlessness that seems to be a requirement of the faith.

>>First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus<<

A while ago, you ranted at some length on this forum that we are all in mortal danger, because of these massive weapons carried by Sikhs. No amount of mollification - they are only small, they are invariably hidden, and they sre symbolic only of the faith of their wearer - would dissuade you from your position: that they are a clear and present danger to us all.

So to now tell us that "this was not your focus" speaks volumes.

- you have decided there is no danger after all
- you never really believed there was a danger (my personal favourite)
- you knew that if they didn't carry one, all your arguments fly straight out of the window.

There's a fourth, of course. That those you spoke with were not particularly religious in the first place, and to find they were kirpan-free would deflate the value of your evangelical purpose.

I of course also take issue with your over-simplistic, and highly tendentious, conclusion:

>>Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so<<

But his followers do not necessarily do so

>>Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so.<<

But his followers do not necessarily do so.

What's the point of setting an example, if it is ignored?

>>Because of this fundamental difference..very little 'Christian' terrorism takes place.<<

This is the bit where you have to cross your fingers behind your back, Boaz, because you cannot possibly justify it. The groups that immediately spring to my mind are the IRA, the Provos, the UDF and the UDA.

Christian terrorists, Boaz.

By their deeds shall ye know them.

David has said ad nauseum "Can you show where Jesus by example or teaching can be used to justify this"?

He has also wiggled, ducked and feigned loss of attention when it's been pointed out that there are numerous examples where Jesus's daddy slaughtered and demanded the slaughter of others for reasons which for many of us look no more justified than the excesses of Mohammad. He supposedly killed off the entire human race except for one extended family at one point (top that Mohammad). Jesus is reported to have said "I and the father are one" along with a number of other comments that suggest that he did not disown is murderously violent daddy.

I excpect that David if he is willing to comment at all will cry that that's not the same.

R0bert

" He said "YES.. He gave his life for the benefit of mankind"

So how did Jesus side track the Roman decree of heresy hovering over Judea - millions of his kin could not? I fail to see how not confronting Rome can be viewed as saving humanity! Everything else here is candy coated popcorn sustaining itself only on blatant omissions of the historical reality of this space time. Not confronting Rome is like saying and doing NOTHING.

"I and the father are one"

Let the father speak for himself - this never happened as yet. Huanity still awaits the real thing.

" I cannot for one moment identify with the thought processes, the negation of logic, and the sheer mindlessness that seems to be a requirement of the faith."

Faith may be a cozy feel good comfort for many, even it can be sincere and genuine. But faith via belief - in the absence of factual substance, eventually implodes in time. Here's proof that belief by itself can be untrue.

Consider the two belief systems of Christianity and Islam: both are genuine, powerful and the adherents of these beliefs will put down their lives for it or kill others. Does that mean that belief is true? Nope! Both these beleifs systems cannot ever be true - because they contradict each other - in their beliefs, their doctrines, and their historical dates and names: it means that at least one of those beliefs is not true - this is guaranteed, as opposed to anyone's opinions. It does not matter which is not true - the point being that belief - in the absence of historical and logical facts - CAN be untrue.

It would help if these two belief systems sorted theselves out and came up with some real truths and logic: the problem here is, the truth absolutely negates both of them. Thus they totally do not confront the issue of their chaos unto humanity.

A FALSEHOOD AND THE HOLY ONE CANNOT ABIDE TOGETHER.

"Jesus taught "love your enemies" and did so.

Mohammad taught "Kill my enemies" and did so."

Actually, European Christianity murdered far more than Islam did - even when the last two worst centuries are not included in that equation. Today's radical Muslims are only an emulation of medevial Europe: one invented a host of false claims which took millions of innocent lives, such as deicide [sic], blood libels, the Protocols, etc. Today, Muslims openly teach these falsehoods to its peoples and the Church is silent - even when these falsehoods come from European Christianity!

There is no coherence in 'LOVE THY ENEMY' - nor is it possible. In fact, it is a mandated crime not to confront an enemy wanting to kill or a wild animal attempting to harm a child.

The correct law is thus:

'LOVE THE STRANGER'

And we know for a fact Christianity failed with this one more so than any other group in all recorded history!

BOAZYCARP

<<First you ask about "Did the Sikh's have Kirpans".. I don't have a clue it was not my focus. In any case I approached them with humility and friendship.. why would I worry if they had one or not?>>

1. Pollycracker/Boazypops and humility = an oxymoron. More moron than oxy.

2. Why should you worry about whether your Sihks were carrying a kirpan? Because you told us a couple of months ago, kirpans were going to bring about the end of civilized society as we know it. Have you discovered that was an untruth David? We'll forgive you.