Damnit polycarp, answer Celivia and Fractelle's question as it is right at the very core of your entire argument:

"Fractelle said,
"...suitable rooms have been specifically designed for Muslim students and staff, with separate female and male prayer rooms, washing facilities and social spaces. However, RMIT has decreed that outside of Muslim prayer times the rooms could be used by other religions."

I don't think I 'get' what you mean. If Fractelle's statement is true, then what is the problem?"

Precisely. There is no issue, because this is merely another obtuse attack. The only difference is that one is a multi-faith room with a more christian flavour, and one is a multi-faith room with a more Islamic flavour, which naturally, polycarp has issues with, so he's cooked up this slant to continue grinding his axe.

Frankly, I'd like to see all faith rooms removed, be they multi-faith or otherwise, but that's not what you're advocating now is it, polycarp?

Dear TRTL... I did answer the question.

"If others can use the facilities outside of Muslim prayer times, then what is the issue"

THE ISSUE dear TR is this.. 'why' are they STILL protesting? i.e. the Muslims. If the access is available to non Muslims.. why are the Muslims protesting NOW..and about WHAT?

They are protesting wanting EXCLUSIVITY.

They are protesting still, because they want it EXCLUSIVELY for them.......

FOXY :) you are such a warm hearted soul.. if only we had a few hours to spend back and forth eh ... the reason for the difference in our perception of various faith issues is simple.

MY POSITION.

1/"Faith behavior is based on written documents"
2/"Just like the behavior of a phyical thing can be evaluated in terms of the laws of physics which govern it, so too can religious behavior be evaluated in terms of the doctrines which drive it.

YOUR/DAVID'S OTHERS position.

1/ Judge a faith by how it's adherents have acted historically.

Well..that pretty much sums it up.

When I drop an apple..it falls. Reason "Law of Gravity"

When a Muslim fights a non Muslim in a war of establishing Islam.. he is following the Law of Jihad. (9:29)

When a "Christian" goes to south America, slaughters countless Indians and declares them 'Christian' he is NOT repeat NOT repeat again..NOT following anything Jesus commanded or did.

So..the 'Historical' approach to evaluating faiths is simply not valid.

David said "After the fall of the Roman Empire Christianity spread through Europe mainly by the use of military force."

In terms of Historical observation..David is 100% correct (with some reservations) The FORM of Christianity may have spread along with the expanding government, but did 'CHRIST-ianity' spread? Can people be forced to believe something they don't want or can they only be forced to LOOK like they believe it? :) that is the key.

If the latter is true (and it is) then 'Christ-ianity' did not spread by military power, and David's statement is actually false

Polycarp wrote:

"So..the 'Historical' approach to evaluating faiths is simply not valid."

The Bible says, "By their fruits shall thee know them." To the people persecuted, tortured and murdered by Christians those are the fruits. You are what you do.

The Holocaust was applied Christianity. Your evident hatred for Islam is more applied Christianity.

Fortunately there also are Christians of good will like Bishop Spong who are trying to make Christianity more humane and accept those who are not Christians.

Foxy posted a poem, "I know something good about you!" Please show us your loving side. I would like to know something good about you.

Polycarp wrote:

"MY POSITION.

1/"Faith behavior is based on written documents""

The written document that Christianity depends is the Bible.

Bishop Spong has pointed out statements in the Bible including the words of Jesus promoting hate.

The Book of Joshua supports genocide as carrying out the will of God.

Foxy posted a poem, "I know something good about you!" Please show us your loving side. I would like to know something good about you.

Dear Polycarp,

Your arguments can be summarised:

1. WE are good regardless of what WE do.

2. THEY are bad because THEY are not US.

David f, you may have noticed that, broadly, there are two types of Christian. The first are those who believe they should follow in Christ's footsteps and show their devotion by living in gratitude, peace, kindness and acceptance.

Polyboaz, however, is the second kind: those who take the low road to sanctimony by expressing hate and exclusion. It's an easy trick when you know how.

Living as Christ would takes a lot of effort, what with all that turning other cheeks and loving thy neighbours - even when those neighbours are vastly different from oneself. It's much easier to say "these (insert bad guys du jour) are the enemies of my religion. By hating them and hurting them I am being a faithful servant of Christ."

That way, you can express all of your anger, xenophobia, and violent impulses while publicly and proudly stamping God's seal of approval on your behaviour.