Rob...not a bad summary mate. Glad you caught most of it.

Pericles you said:

"Unfortunately, the arguments you put forward in support of these statements are riddled with errors of logic, observation and fact."

That's a nice soundbite, but unfortunately its not quite right.
A casual observation of most of my posts will reveal considerable effort has been expended in determining the actual facts on which to base my premises.

I've demonstrated over and over that I am YES being selective, but not taking things out of context.

Quran 9:30 is a prime example.
So, in this example. (probably the single most important) I see no errors of
-Logic
-Observation
-Fact.

if you see any, please outline them to 'finally destroy' my credibility :)

Today I offer another angle on false religions. The common theme usually present is 'What is in it for ME' but then, if we simply blathered on about the 'me' factor people might get wise and see it as one of those things which "if it seems too good 2 b true is probably is" so, you have to give a balance of the 'alluring' with the 'responsible'.

Here is a classic example from the Hadith collection called
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishkat_al-Masabih

Notice which hadith is selected for headline inclusion in the Wiki article?

"He is not a perfect believer, who goes to bed full and knows that his neighbour is hungry. [Mishkat Al-Masabih 2/424]"

yep.. has a good ring to it.

In the SAME book there is this:

"The Holy Prophet (Mohammad) said:The believer will be given tremendous strength in paradise for sexual intercourse. It was questioned "Oh Prophet of Allah, can he do that?" He said "He will be given the strength of 100 persons" 4:42:24 2536

I'm not able to verify personally that last one. It is not out of character with verifiable hadith of a higher rank where Mohammad himself is described as having the 'sexual strength of 30 men'.

Bottom line, when the 'root' is about sex, we should not be surprised if the fruit has a certain flavor.

Oh c'mon boaz
If you be a good christian, and ask for forgivenes, as soon as you turn up your toes , zap straight upstairs, if thats not about ME! what is may I ask?.
You keep ranting about fact , truth and evidence there is not one religon that can produce any of these three,
even Moses tablets you lost, yeah right,the only concrete (pun intended) bit of evidence you ever had and you lost it, likewise the ark of the covenant, seems like a lot of carelessness going on here.
All religons are based on faith and faith alone,you follow and you get your reward in heaven, nirvana , afterlife, whatever, its all about ME superfically, what its really about is power and money, don't worry about this life , thats your lot, your reward is in the next life, what a con.
Concise Oxford Dictionary
Faith = spiritual apprehension of divine truth APART from PROOF.

Belly,

"America is not the only country in the world continuing mans habit of manufacturing Gods."

Very true in time as well as space. H.G. Wells, as an historian, refers to ancient Alexandia as a "god factory". There are at least five in the Christian bible alone. Moreover, cargo cults have existing since the times of exploration not only to the commonly cited New Guinea example.

Over the past six months in several threads [Sellick] I have tried draw religionists attention to the Archetecture of Theocrasia in the ancient Middle East, the cults, the various interpretations and the interreligion borrowings: A creation story, a message from a god, laws/lessons, consequences for non-believers and sacafices are typically highlighted. I have made little impression.

Moreover, the way a religion progresses from an idea to a group of cults, standardisation of the cults and the formation of an institutionalised religion [creed and doctrine, is often avoided by a priesthood with a stake in worshipers "indweling" Polanyi in a performance, rather than study religious content in a forensic manner, as might an anthropologist ask is Homer's Troy, VI or VIIa?
This approach could certainly be adopted for the debates leading to Nicaea. Herein, claims about divinity and godheads etcetera need to be revisited.

Religion has been a huge business from the days of Ur (Sumer) to US, Al Sharpton. That is, managing the Land on behalf of God (Sumer) until Rolex watches and corporate jets and bishops' palaces. In the US, today, it is also interesting how the Religious Empire is handed to the eldest son, suggesting their some special about familalism and having testicles, when it comes to teaching religion. Not a fisherman's shoe to be seen.

BD, you really do make this difficult :( .

When you bought your pear tree why did you choose one with the wild rootstck and the tame trunk grafted on rather than looking for one with a tame rootstock and a wild trunk grafted on (might be hard to find one of those)?

R0bert

Boaz, you offer an interesting challenge...

>>A casual observation of most of my posts will reveal considerable effort has been expended in determining the actual facts on which to base my premises<<

The first thing I notice is that you are already firmly on the defensive.

You invite only a "casual" observation, for example.

This is understandable caution on your part. As we have consistently found, if you so much as scrape the surface of your bluster, it falls immediately apart.

And as soon as this becomes obvious, you make dismissive remarks such as "don't spend toooo much time on the intricate details of everything I say...", and walk away.

Also, you invite scrutiny of only "most of my posts..."

That presumably ensures that any evidence that comes to light that shows your casual disregard of logic, observation and fact, will be categorized as coming from sources outside the term "most"

Ingenious.

Taking the nearest example - "My main thesis is: 'You can tell false religions by their fruit'", what does this tell us about your adherence to logic, observation and fact?

The logic, as I pointed out earlier, falls at the first fence. You are simply using a version of the old fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

Observation? As you readily admit, you only see what you want to see... "I've demonstrated over and over that I am YES being selective..." So you choose to include the evil you see in Islam, but reject that which also occurs in Christianity.

Fact? Having selected a fact - say, the existence of a couple of verses of a scripture - you proceed to draw your own inferences from them, and describe those as facts too.

There is no factual content in "You can tell false religions by their fruit", only your unique mixture of flawed logic and skewed observation.

Your obsession is that you see evil in Islam everywhere you look, predominantly because it is not Christianity. This blinds you to the fact that your comments here are pure, one-eyed, inflammatory rabble-rousing, unadulterated with logic, clear observation or verifiable fact.

alanpoi,

--Rocks of Ages--

The story of Moses is about the Law being received by Moses from a tribal volcano god of the Council of El [aside: Psalm 82 is an intersting read. Different godhead to Nicaea]. The idea was copied from earlier Middle Eastern myth [just a stone throw away]. Way before Moses, the Epic Poem, the Righteous Suffer notes, Shamash [a sun cum wisdom god] felt it only fair that Laws were required, if, the gods were to deal justly with men. [seems fair to me] Consequently, Shamash gave Hammurabi his divine Laws. [Frankfort in McNeill)

I will let you in on a secret... There is an Eleventh Commandment, "Thou Shall Not Commit Plagiary". Moses hid that one. Hence, we find theocrasiac borrowings throughout the OT and NT and into the current era.

God's/Gods' laws, carved in stone, or, religionist lapidary