"in your opinion" ect does not quantify your beliefs. Either you recieved your claimed knowledge of god directly and doubtlessly through direct and unmistakeable communication. Reliant of course that that god was able to prove his/its honesty. Or alternatively you have not had such and indepth transferrence of information and so all your beliefs are then mo more than your personal fantasy a fetishisation of occult material such as the bible.

The entire history of religion testifies that religion is a major if not the primary source of conflict between people.

Proverbs,

Westy habitually makes those posts. He will say worse if you converse with him. Your comment about his theoretical bad experience has been made many times before. He never replies to that enquiry.

Westy,

Happy new year. Some things don't change I see. I was wondering how long it would take for you to show up in a forum which mentions Christians.

Thanks for the heads up MJBP

After West's last post I figured that logical discussion was not one of his strong points.

But for your information West I would not continue to be a Christian for 30 years and put up with attacks from people like you if God had not proven himself to be very very real to me

mjpb, you're (deliberately?) misreading my post. Go back and read it again, and maybe you should re-read this one too: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59448

Essentially, I'm not prepared to cross the line which you did in your original post here. You won't find me doing it in any of my posts: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=26885&show=history

Further to my point about how ethnic vilification works, I'd also recommend that you watch SBS at 7:30 PM tonight (Tuesday 30 January):

http://www.sbs.com.au/whatson/index.php3?id=1396
Blue Eyed: Indecently Exposed

Jane Elliot is an inconspicuous little old lady, but her workshops are astounding.

As a taster, check out her list of "typical statements" http://www.janeelliott.com/statements.htm

We need to learn to differenciate between discrimination based on a persons race, gender, height or other characteristics that cannot be changed, and disagreeing with a persons choice of religion, sexual preference or even football team. Having said that, we should allways respect the individual even though we may disagree with their opinion or preference.

I should be free to disagree with with the practice of homosexuals or muslims or collingwood supporters as long as I do not disrespect the individuals involved. I should also be free to disagree with their practises without being subjected to personal attacks.

I do resent negative labels such as Homophobic. Now it seems that Muslims have also taken to labeling anyone who disagrees with them as Islamaphobic. They say that attack is the best form of defence and what better way to attack somebody who disagrees with you than to accuse them of having an irrational and ilogigal fear. What will this come to? Is Kevin Rudd a Liberalaphobic or was Peter Brock a Fordaphobic.

If we are so insecure and unable to inteligently defend our opinions and ideas, using arguments based on fact and without resorting to name calling then maybe we need to review our opinions and ideas

w,

Sometimes picky points can be the hardest to grasp...

Thank you for the information.

You post less frequently than I expected but the topics are usually in accordance with my expectations. I'm still not intending to wade through them. How about I take your word for it at the moment?