Artful Dodger: Wrong. Any honest Christian knows that other Christians do use the OT as a means to justify their beliefs. Eg .... Genesis. The Ten Commandments, commentaries on sexuality ... and as such the writings proclaiming the coming of a Messiah. It is also the same God that as written told the Jews to kill, maim and slaughter who is our God.

"However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression."

It's the history of the formation and wars that came about from other tribes... Just like in the OT re the Israelites.

FYI the guys killing the early Muslims had no rules.

Al Qaeda is an Islamic organization. Al Qaeda attacked the United States killing nealry 3000 people. Therefore an Islamic organization killed nearly 3000 people.

The logic is simple and there is no way Al Qaeda can weasel its way out of that one.

Iran is an Islamic country. Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group. Therefore an Islamic country supports a terrorist group.

Again, the logic simple and there is no way Iran can weasel its way out of that one.

On the other hand ...

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Vietnam killing 6 million people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war killing 6 million people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people. Therefore a Christian nation went to war in Iraq based on false intellegence, and killed 400,000 people.

The United States is a Christian Nation. The United States has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world. Therefore a Christian nation has supported, funded and armed brutal fascist dictators around the world.

Now, people will have no problem accepting the first two about Al Qaeda and Iran. But the ones about the US will be unacceptable. Right wing evangelical Christians in the US insist that the US is a Christian nation founded on the principles of Christianity. Now, considering the wars that the US has been involved in, we can say that a Christian nation has gone to war, as much as an Islamic nation has supported terrorism. Can the US weasel its way out of that one without making lame excuses?

Artful Dodger:

> The big flaw in your thesis is that in Islam, the evil is in the teachings. In Christianity, you won't find that same kind of teaching in any measure. Christianity does not promote, advocate, or encourage evil in any way shape or form. Islam does.

The flaw with your thesis is that you assume that people are defined by their ideology, but that is wrong. People are defined by their actions. I can go and say that I am a great Christian, then cheer when my country goes to war for oil. that is hardly a good Christian but a hypocrite. Then when people ask me why I supported the war, I will say that it was the other side that was to blame and in doing so I will have washed my hands of the simple fact that I condoned violence. Hypocrysy at its best. Christianity has been like that through its history. Christians suffer from a "victim" complex, always blaming others when in reality it is their own greed and selfishness that has driven them to war.

> You're an atheist. More people have been killed in the world by godless people than have by those professing faith in Jesus.

Is that so? Christians sent an estimated 60 million natives in the Americas to their deaths. Entire cultures were massacred, violated and enslaved. So great was the killing that Europeans had to start importin African slaves to work the plantations after they ran out of natives to abuse. Not even a madman like Joseph Stalin can compare to that.


> The New Testament clearly teaches killing is wrong. No amount of complaining by you will change that.

And ALL Christians REALLY follow that?

> Early in the 1600's, when different countries were vying for control of the New World, Protestants and Catholics were at war. The Catholic French were killing en mass the Protestant immigrants. The opposite was true as well. It was a Territorial war as much as it was about religion. Each side believed they were doing what God wanted. How they could possibly kill in the name of God is strange to those living in the 21st century. Clearly, there is no NT teaching to support such things.

Again you insisit in dovorcing people's actions from their ideology. The teachings are great, and people's actions don't count. It is the lame excuse of those who refuse to accept that Cristians are hypocrytes in spite of the good teachings they received from Jesus. A Moslem could very well argue that the violent tone fo the Koran is a reflection of the politics of the times. Mohammad had to fight against the powerful men in Mecca and Medina. Hence the the tone is violent, but it had nothing to with the "true" teachings of Islam. Blah blah, it would be the same empty excuse of divorcing actions from ideology.

Christians are defined by their actions. In the end is God not judging people's actions? Christianity has been brutal in its history, and Christians close their eyes and deny it because accepting the truth is too painful.

> But these facts say nothing about Christianity. You can't get these ideas from the Bible. They aren't there. Further, any intelligent student of the Bible understands that the Old Testament isn't a guidebook for the New Testament believer. So appeals to the OT are moot.

So Christians are worse then because at least Moslems have an excuse. The Koran says I should go to war, so i did. But Christians are a lot worse. The Bible says I should be peaceful, but instead I disregard my teachings and I go to war. Moslems have an excuse, what excuse do Christians have?

> However, the Koran is full of such teachings of hate and killing. As are the other authoritative writings in Islam. And Muhammad's life, as an example, clearly shows a history of violence, war, and aggression. He taught his followers to do the same.

Like I said, Islam has an excuse on accounts of their violent ideology. What is Christianity's then?

Artful Dodger: he is a TWIT...how can you have someone in charge of a country like the US ofA that is so obviously incompetant....don't you feel glad AD that you didn't vote him in?

Let's cut it with the name calling. It has been deleted, and all references back to it have been deleted. Thank you

Bernice:


"I do all my bargaining face to face."

I do both. Online and face to face. But that the same item can vary (eg pool) by about £35 shows the reliance some shops on people being lazy with money. And that is not generally part of the British psyche. I've noticed that there are seasons to the prices on some items, which suggests that at 'peak' season time... we are being ripped off. Especially after the bank situation...

I object to that.

Artful Dodger: A percentage to give depth to "some" would be better.

As to Islam being evil. If that is based on acts, then what is good? We sided with them against the Russians and called them 'freedom fighters'. Then they were the 'good guys'.

don't really have to as money isnt a problem when I want something...If I cant afford it I save until I do. I do all my bargaining face to face.

Google and I aren't friends.....we are mere aquaintances, so Im not a *fibber*

Artful Dodger:

> SOME individual Muslims are ok. Islam is evil. Completely evil. Yes.

I think some religious people are OK, but in esence religion is evil, completely evil. We look at the millions who have died in religious wars and that convinces me that the problem is not just Islam but all religion. Christianity is no better because Christians have been as war like and destructive as other religions. If Islam is evil, so is Christianity and its zeal to convert others, willingly or forcibly. Those who doubt it have to look at the Inquisition, the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas, and the brutal support of Christianity for fascist dictators.

Artful Dodger:

> You're right. Women are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Let's get the government involved.

I don't see where Al Gore said that. He is talking about educating women. Nowhere does he say that the state should impose on women how many children they should have. Well, as always, people read something quoted out of context by somebody else. It is normal these days.

For edification purposes, I found the Games for Change Convention website:

http://www.gamesforchange.org/

According to their website:

"Founded in 2004, Games for Change is the leading global advocate for supporting and making games for social impact. We bring together organizations and individuals from the social impact sector, government, media, academia, the gaming industry and the arts to grow the field, incubate new projects and provide an open platform for the exchange of ideas and resources."

They make games that try to educate about socially important issues. For example, they have a game called EnerCities in which the player is supposed to try to balance people, the planet's environment and profit.

At the event Al Gore gave the opening keynote speech about how digital games can have a positive social impact. His speech was never about women or the government.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35310/G4C_Al_Gore_Says_Games_Have_Clearly_Arrived_As_A_Mass_Medium.php

If the issue of women's education arose, it would have been during the Q&A period after his speech, and then at no point in time did he intimate that the state should control women's choices.

I think that when you read your blogs, you have to remember that those who blog are self-appointed experts. They give their own interpretation (good or bad) of something else.

I do agree with Al Gore. Women have to be educated and empowered and it is a woman's right to have control over her reproductive abilities. It is the only way to ensure sustainable population growth. Of course, those who criticize indiscrimantely won't see that.

Artful Dodger: Really.

"The main reason for Wilders's acquittal lies in his choice of words and oratory skills rather than his motives. The court held that Wilders's statements (including the movie Fitna) were about Islam (a religion, or, as Wilders has it, an ideology) and not Muslims (as individuals or as a group) and, hence, these remarks are not discriminatory or insulting. Nor did they incite hatred. It is about facts – what has been said. Motives are less relevant to the question of guilt. A strict interpretation of selected facts seems to justify the verdict. So it is OK to rant and rave against Islam, even though the subtext suggests that the ranting and raving is geared towards Muslims. As subtexts have no place in law it is back to politics again: there, subtext and intention is all that matters. But how best to resist Wilders and the populist mob?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/23/geert-wilders-acquitted-incitement-hatred

Now... He got off for saying Muslims are ok as individuals, and Islam is eViL as an ideology.

So.. you are agreeing that Muslims are ok?

Artful Dodger: I'm sure you can find more details on him on the web... rather than the neo con website you read.

But hey... in the end how you perceive him is a matter of choice. To the average UK resident.. he's just another Nick Griffin.

Tuesday: Price differences can vary so much. The rip-offs that some shops try and get away with is shocking!!

Artful Dodger: He's not for free speech, he's not even a free speech advocate. He's just another neo con wanting his 15 minutes.

Tuesday: Is very handy for little vids demonstrating how to do things that you've never done.... or forgotten how to do

Bernice: ??? You mean you don't check out things!!

Not even for on-line price comparison!!! O .... M .... G

Artful Dodger:

Maybe I am too thick but I see nothing wrong in what Al Gore said there. Educate women, give them a choice on how many children to have, etc. I imagine that is what a modern, intelligent society would do.

I make no assumptions, but "you have to educate girls and empower women" sounds to me like a reasonable suggestion.

I suppose we could educate women to have as many kids as the Bible says, then when those kids are hungry and poor we can have churches sell their land, building and assets to feed the poor.

My name isn't Jules...google and I aren't really good friends.

thanks AD...mesmerizing? not really....it just take some longer than others I guess.

As of 2010, seven countries have converted fully to polymer banknotes: Australia, Bermuda, Brunei, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Romania, and Vietnam. Other countries and regions with notes printed on Guardian polymer in circulation include: Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Hong Kong (for a 2-year trial), Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Singapore, Solomon Islands (no longer issued), Sri Lanka, Thailand, Samoa and Zambia. Countries and regions that have issued commemorative banknotes (which are not in circulation) on Guardian polymer include: China, Taiwan, Kuwait, Northern Ireland1 and Singapore

wiki

Bernice: I'll bet you've been waiting decades to say that

Australia's first plastic money was 1988 and all money was plastic by the mid-late 1990's....nothing new...

**In this frankly mesmerizing video, above,** ???