C.J. if I wanted to make something up to hang a thread on I'd come up with something better.

I reported.. you can decide. Separate confirmation is something you can try yourself. I've googled the issue and there is plenty out there.

Pandering to your cynicism is more a waste of time than I care to consider. *smack* :)

This discussion by BOAZ is disingenuous and flawed. He seems to be proposing that because primitive man was without religion (BOAZ_David chose religion, more specifically, Christianity in the twentieth century as his reference point), it was without any moral code. His evidence is primitive man's actions, those same actions primitive man used to survive in the savage uncertain world but are abhorrent in our twentieth century standards. The clanging of alarm bells should be loud in your ears at this stage: You can't judge primitive (straw) man with 20th century values and then conclude that today, modern humans living now must be without values in their 'natural state', without religion. It's got to be some of the most asinine and outrageous logic...

On the topic of religion more specifically, why should anyone accept an arbitrary religious value system. For one they can leave others such as myself to their own pursuit of liberty and happiness in the first place. Second, they are hypocrites by their own definitions. So few of them follow their own moral values, that it is essentially meaningless to refer to "Christian values." From adultery and their use of divorce and abortion law, to including homosexuality in the church system. Charging that others have a "Christian axe to grind" is ridiculous. The "axe" is being ground without aid by the reality of these people's own hypocrisy and actions. In the specific name of religion, the worst crimes imaginable have been rendered on peaceful groups and individuals. Organised religion is about controlling others and collecting vast amounts of wealth off fools (religion tax). But isn't there a saying about parting fools with their money? However I won't condemn it without acknowledging the positive role it can have when used by good people.

Steel, You observed:

>>It's got to be some of the most asinine and outrageous logic...<<

This is only one example of many, I'm afraid.

Boaz, having failed dismally to report accurately where all this came from, you can hardly be cross with CJ for pointing out that it severely undermines your credibility. Let's face it, it isn't by any means the first time you have mis-read or mis-quoted, so it is well within the bounds of reason that you might have mis-heard.

And as for:

>>...if I wanted to make something up to hang a thread on I'd come up with something better<<

Once again, this is a fairly hollow defence, when you are well known for jumping on fragments and blowing them up out of all proportion.

If you think that anyone has forgotten "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'", think again. It is also highly significant that you didn't consider this outrageous piece of rabble-rousing to be worthy of an apology.

>>Separate confirmation is something you can try yourself. I've googled the issue and there is plenty out there<<

The practice is that you support your assertions with references, if there are any.

Also, your claim that Google retrieves many references on the topic are also a huge stretch of the truth.

They certainly do not support your claims that these paintings show

>>Men having sexual relations with small male and female children.
-Men having sexual relations with men and boys.
-Groups of men having sexual relations with each other in a line. (Australian Aboriginal cave painting)
-Men having sexual relations with goats and donkeys<<

If I am wrong here, once again it is up to you to provide the references from the "plenty out there" that you found.

Admit it, this was just another attempt to stir up support for your narrow-minded and inflexible view of the world.

Steel and Pericles. I realize this thread was hinged on a fairly flimsy foundation... I was simply reacting to what I heard. Pericles, correct..I did not find specific google responses to some items of behavior listed, but I do know what I heard, I was driving between places and had to cut my listening short for a hair cut appointment, so .. I concede that the verifiability of my point is weak. If the ABC was more accessible, I'd have better feedback.

Steel, you said:

"Organised religion is about controlling others and collecting vast amounts of wealth off fools"

I'm not sure how 'organized religion' came into this, but.. its here so I'll respond.
Yes, it sure can be all that you said:

Have you ever considered 'DISorganized religion'? :) What you are referring to is politicized, organized, structured, beaurocratic religion, that we have inherited from the British Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church. There are some other large denominations but none as big as those 2 from my knowledge.
And now see it manifesting of late in World Vision.
(Which Pericles appears to support, including the CEO's salary of $200,000)

To me, the best pattern is small groups of mutually supportive believers meeting in lounge rooms around the Bible. That was how it all began mate. I could happily live with JUST that. Living networks are much better than sterile beaurocracies mate.

We all need support, encouragement, guidance and healing. Those things are found in Christ's "Body" and that body is found whereever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name.

Boazy: " I realize this thread was hinged on a fairly flimsy foundation"

It certainly was, i.e. it was based entirely on the recollection of a person who has been demonstrated time and again to have distorted or fabricated 'facts' in this forum, in order to push his fundamentalist Christian agenda. There is absolutely no way to verify Boazy's outlandish claims about the kinds of activities supposedly depicted in the rock art that he insists he heard on one ABC radio station or another - funny that there's no mention of this story at all on the ABC website or apparently anywhere else, and that nobody else seemed to have heard it.

As the instigator of this thread, I think that it is incumbent upon Boazy to provide the source of his alleged facts - particularly given his demonstrated record of distortions, fabrications and misinterpretations in this forum.

On the other hand, perhaps I've been a bit uncharitable to our prudish tubthumper in this instance - one explanation for his claim could be that he's hearing voices in his head. I understand that this is quite a common phenomenon among the religiously obsessed.