I think what we are seeing now with Islam is what in financial circles is called a “dead cat bounce”.

A lot of the losers & loonies who in previous times would filtered into the Red Brigades or Baader-Meinhof or a monastery are finding a home in Al-Qaeda-copycats.They look more potent than they are because they are aided and abetted by cheerleaders in the loopy left in the west who parrot their propaganda.

While acknowledge that some aforementioned LLs are highly educated . In the long run –barring a major world reversion to an earlier more primitive stage--I cannot see Islam or any other such creed holding out ,for long, against the spread of education & technology .

Even the Saudi royals – despite their ritualistic show of adherence to the most conservative of Islams -- are beginning to use the western-liberal equations & mores , describing the fundamentalists as seeking to return things to the “dark age” .

And, if the whiz-bang super-duper university they have on the drawing boards comes through, it will set in motion some pretty powerful modernizing currents in Islams heartland

Dear AG,

Thank You for referring me to the New Testament.
I've read it.
I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins at the moment.
His book, "The God Delusion," is one I can recommend
you read. Especially the chapter on the New
Testament.

Dawkins says:

"There's no denying that, from a moral point of view,
Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of
the Old Testament... The Sermon on the Mount is way
ahead of its time. His "turn the other cheek"
anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two
thousand years..."

However Dawkins criticizes Jesus' family values.
"He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with
his own mother, and he encouraged his disciples to
abandon their families to follow him. "If any man
come to me and hate not his father and mother,
and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Dawkins asks:
"Isn't that what cults do? Get you to reject your
family in order to inculcate you?"

Dawkins then says:

" Notwithstanding his somewhat dodgy family values,
Jesus ethical teachings were - least by comparison
with the ethical disaster area that is the Old
Testament - admirable." ; However, according to Dawkins
" there are other teachings in the New Testament
that no good person should support." He refers
especially to the central doctrine of Christianity:
that of "atonement" for "original sin."
Dawkins says us that "this teaching which lies
at the heart of New Testament theology, is almost
as morally obnoxious as the story of Abraham setting
out to barbeque Isaac..." The Christian focus is
overwhelmingly on sin, sin, sin, sin. According to
Dawkins, "What a nasty little preoccupation to have
dominating your life..."

I won't go into any further detail.

I am pleased that you also found Randall Terry
frightening. And I have to admit that I can't help
but wonder whether you are BOAZ_David?

Are you?

Dear Foxy

you stated:

However Dawkins criticizes Jesus' family values.
"He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with
his own mother, and he encouraged his disciples to
abandon their families to follow him. "If any man
come to me and hate not his father and mother,
and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters,
yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

I should have added in my original referral to the NT .. "and some in depth knowledge of ancient middle eastern Jewish modes of communication"

That passage Dawkins cited is just one of a number which is often misunderstood, and is taken 'literally' when it was not mean't to be.

Another example is "If your eye sins, gouge it out".. Jesus also said that.
It was a method of speaking which got the message across by using extremely colorful language.

Dawkins is RIGHT.. 'cults' DO use such tactics, gee..I wouldnt be surprised if they even use that passage from the Bible.

However, Jesus made other claims which kind of set him apart from the 'cult' thing. "I am the light of the world" wow :) that ought to raise Him to the 'loony nutter' level no ?

If you believe Jesus was starting a 'cult' in the way we understand the term.. well.. perhaps less of Dawkins and more of Jesus would be my prescription. Plus!- a nice walk in the Dandenongs.

Dear Foxy
with all due respect and consideration for your question.. let me just say that the rules of the forum are that a contributor cannot have more than one identity at the one time.... so..if they choose to delete old accounts and begin a new one.. is that not their right ?

I am ..who I am.. the real life person. But online..I am who I choose to be. Just like you are not 'foxy' but someone with a real name and life. My online persona should not be of concern to anyone. But of course, feel free to speculate :) that is also everyones right.

There seems to be a lot of undue attention paid to this kind of thing, for reasons I am not yet sure of. If Proxy is Herman is KMG ? I don't know and I don't care.. however..I DO care about what he says and whether he backs up his claims with evidence which I can independantly verify.

Privacy is a good thing. Who knows?.. the real "ME" might end up the thorn in the Liberal and Labor and Green side in the next election :)
But 'ALGOREisRICH' is who I am for now..and next I might be 'MSisCORRUPT' or DELUDEDgreen or.. LABOURthug or.. BNPwarrior .. or WATERMELON (green on the outside..red in the middle) I rather like that one actually. Each persona might have a specific social or political purpose. You may be assured of one thing though, OLO is just one of many avenues for a person to engage with others and in the process refine arguments, style and ideas, even when mocked or riduculed..it's all good.

Ain't life grand *smile*

Horus,
I find your theory the more realistic. I wonder though if we'lll ever manage to subdue religious superstition & beliefs to a stage where people actually think for themselves ? I mean this nonsense has been going on for a couple of thousand years now & even longer in a more primitive form. I think as long as people take notice of this crap the world isn't going to improve. A demise of religion would undoubtedly result in a demise of mayhem & suffering. As for those names well, they're a true reflection of the mentality of those we have to tolerate until natural selection takes its course.

We've had this discussions so many times before, Boaz. And therefore I know ahead of time what your excuse will be, but I'll ask it anyway.

You write:

>>That passage Dawkins cited is just one of a number which is often misunderstood, and is taken 'literally' when it was not mean't to be.
Another example is "If your eye sins, gouge it out".. Jesus also said that. It was a method of speaking which got the message across by using extremely colorful language.<<

If you ever get back into your old habit of quoting passages from the Qur'an, please will you remember what you have written here about your own holy book?

In fact, why don't you print it out, laminate it, and stick it on the keyboard of your machine, where you can constantly refer to it?.