I thought I made it clear that I wasn't suggesting you argue for the sake of arguiing, or that you argue about religion. In fact, that is why I said about religion that not much can be argued except (only the weak and fallacious arguments can truly be addressed). . What I am saying is that if you don't want to argue an issue, referring to the "masses" is not a good reason.
First of all, it is not just any religion that causes these conflicts today. It is violent, hateful zealots, which around the world frankly have been mostly extremist Muslims. And bin Laden and other extremists don't simply hate us "because we support Israel." They hate us because we live and demonstrate a way of life that they abhor and that threatens their beliefs, especially since few would CHOOSE to live the way they insist their people do. Moreover, these people openly say that they want to force their view and system on everyone around the world. They even want to overthrow moderate Muslim regimes, which is also why they hate us so, because we support many of them.
Why can't I have a moral code governed by a system of ethics formulated through reasoning and a conscious? You begin with the Golden Rule, then you consider such philosophies as the Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, and the flaws of feminist ethical relativism, and so on, and you reason out a just moral code.
I have to agree with you that religion played a big part in Sept 11. But religion didn't create hate, it just gives a bizarre way for those who thrive on hate to channel it. The irony is a core doctrine at the root of all the religions involved in the current conflict is peace/love. It makes me come to the conclusion that some aren't living their religion. If people would live their respective religions the world would be a much better place, even for those who don't care for religion.
It could be argued that those muslims were indeed living their religion, being true to it, and waging war against the infidels, as their bible tells them to do. Unlike christians who DONT attempt to stone me on the street and therefore pick and choose from their bible. STILL WAITING FOR THUNDERBOLTS RESPONSE peace axeman
If I understand the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict it is a little of both land and religion, mixed in with brotherly rivalry, but the story is interesting. Abraham was given the land of Caanan (Israel) as an eternal inheritance. Abraham had no son so he took his wife's handmaid and had a son Ishmael (the eldest) who as I understand is the progenitor of the Palestinian people. Abraham finally had a son, Isaac (though not the eldest son, he was the first son of Abraham's first wife and thus had rights to the birthright or in other words the land inheritance) who is the progenitor of the Jews (as well as the other 11 tribes of Israel). Isaac's son Jacob (also known as Israel and who had 12 sons, each a tribe of Israel) lived at a time of famine. Jacob and his sons left Israel and went to Egypt where Jacob's son Joseph saved them from famine. A new Pharoh ultimately puts the children of Israel into bondage in Egypt. They are later freed by Moses. Meanwhile who has come in and taken over the land of Israel??? -- the descendants of Ishmael or the Palestinians. When the children of Israel finally come back and takes Israel (the land) back by force the Palestinians feel they have not only been robbed of their land but their birthright. And so it goes.
Just to get the story straight: First off it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that it was an apple tree, and it was not the tree of life, it was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they were not to partake of. Thus Adam and Eve were in total innocence, not knowing good from evil. Actually they were given 2 seemingly conflicting commandments in the Garden of Eden, multiply and replenish the earth, and don't partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After they ate the forbidden fruit they were fallen, or in other words they were separated or cast out from God's presence, yet they were only then able to fulfil the first commandment, multiply and replenish the earth. Let me just say briefly that I fully reject the doctrine of original sin and believe that we are accountable for our own actions according to the law we are given, and not for the sins of someone else.
if you are religious, how can you selectively follow what the bible says? shouldn't you have to follow it as stated? where does it say you can reject original sin if you want? what makes you think you can reject parts of the bible when your god didn't say you could? how can you not follow it all and still claim you are following your religion? for example, it is being debated whether trading is a sin or not. if it is, you are sinning by trading. you can't just say i don't like that. you can, but if you do, you're going to hell! the same goes for kill the infidels in the koran. you can say the religion is about love and peace, but if it says kill the infidels, why would followers of the religion not kill the infidels? as axeman said, what rules are the people to follow? the rules of their god or man?
Gordon. I am not a religious person. I do not refer to the bible to determine how to live my life. But I understand (as you should) that the bible has been studied for a long time. It is openly debated. And certainly open to interpretation. What is so hard about this to understand? There are too many contradictions to follow the bible in a literal sense. It is all about how one perceives the meaning of the teachings. Which is how it must have been intended. The bible was not written by one hand. One must pick and choose after study to understand in a personal way. Same with the Koran. Ever heard of the Crusades? Know anything about the Moors? The Inquisition? The Mongol invasion of India and the Middle East? Study a little history before you judge others. Before you judge religion. And especially before you judge the beliefs of others. Nothing is as simple as you like to believe. Tripack has accurately condensed the story of how Islam and Judaism came to be in conflict originally over the land of Canaan. Or at least that is the traditional interpretation. Take a lesson from Tripack. Use a little knowledge instead of just baseless opinion. Thunderbolt makes no sense. But your arguments are (almost) as baseless as his. Fanaticism can work both ways. Of course you may have started something new. Radical Extremist Atheism Get to work and give me a good thought out logical post. I know you are smart enough. But so far you have been just lazy. rs7
I could answer concerning the sex life of Adam and Eve family.[Actually it's not as good as Song of Solomon!!!] Will not because; [1]Don't want to get in the middle of NITRO's wise warning of ''lions,hyena''[spelling?] --------------------------[2]''Don't confuse infallibility with a high probability'' Darryl Guppy.