... it appears that (as usual in matters of religion) there is little point in continuing the substantive discussion, as I will not convince you nor vice versa.

Nevertheless, I do have some further questions and observations:

>> It was LONG! and .. filled with many of it's own errors ...

"Errors" implies factual mistakes rather than opinions with which you disagree. No need to state (or restate) the latter, but I'd be interested in seeing which of the former (factual mistakes) you found in my post. I checked the facts pretty closely before posting and have no reason to believe that any of them are in error.

>> ... but the real point here is that Al's statement lumped ALL Christians into a stereotype ....

I just re-read Al's posts and he made a point of referring (several times) to "conservative Christians" rather than "all Christians". I think most readers can recognize the point he was making.

>> I have a right to respond ...

Absolutely and I'd be the last person to tell you that you don't.

>> ... because it is not true.

As I said, I don't think he made the broad assertion that you read into his posts.

>> I'm used to people such as yourself, who be-little and "shame"
>> Christians from living out the gospel message.

Where did I do either of those things? I made a point of acknowledging that the problem I see with religious dogmatism is not exclusively a "Christian" problem and I acknowledged that Christians are as likely to be the victims of religious atrocities as the perpetrators. I was not "belittling" anyone, though I am resistant to your perceived "obligation" to "share the love and salvation of God with" me or anyone else. Nor do I care to "shame" you or anyone else from "living out" the gospel message, except to the extent that your right to do so ends at my right not to be proselytized. Live any way you like -- in fact, I'll say without equivocation that if everyone really lived to true Christian standards, this would be a much better world. Of course, that would also be true if everyone lived to true Muslim standards, as well ... or true Buddhist standards ... or the true standards of virtually any other mainstream religion.

>> I guess you feel that you have some really good evidence to prove your point,
>> but all of your information is at the very least, self-serving in my opinion.

In the context of this discussion, I'm not even sure what "self-serving" means, inasmuch as I have no vested interest one way or the other in the religious beliefs or actions of anyone else. I have absolutely nothing to gain personally from stating my views on this subject.

>> There is all sorts of anti-Christian sentiment in the world today ...

Ever wonder why that might be so??

>> I honestly am not offended at your post and can tell you that a true follower
>> of Christ would never take up arms against beliefs such as you state.

Well, there's something on which we agree 100%. In fact, I think I said something very much like that in my previous post. That, of course, does not explain two millenia of bloodshed (both by and against Christians).

>> Many atrocities have been done in the name of religion that is true,
>> but let's not leave out the rest of the story. Just as many have been
>> done in the name of evil and hate apart from organized religion.

Absolutely correct on both counts, Brien. And there was nothing in my post to suggest that I thought all atrocities in world history were based on organized religion. Of course, much evil has been done for non-religious reasons and/or by non-religious people. In and of itself, that doesn't excuse the atrocities which have been committed in the name of religion.

>> There will come a day when you will know the reality of what you now claim to be true.

Not sure what that means, either, Brien. Everything I said in my post was a discussion of past events, so I already know them to be true. There wasn't anything in my post which describes what I expect to happen when I die.

>> I wouldn't want to base my eternal existence on the evidence you supplied.

As I said, the evidence in my post has everything to do with the past and absolutely nothing to do with the future, much less eternity. And I wasn't asking you or anyone else to base his "eternal existence" on anything I said. One of my points, however, was that I would just as soon that you not ask me to base my eternal existence on such beliefs as you might be "obligated to share" with me. Beliefs, BTW, for which there is precious little "evidence".

Have you read either of Lee Strobel's books "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for Faith". He makes a great effort to provide "evidence" in support of Christian faith. But, in the end comes up with nothing more than we've ever had -- it is just that, a matter of faith and nothing more.

Which is pretty much what can be said about all religion and religious faiths. And I neither fault nor criticize anyone who has such beliefs and truly acts on them. On the other hand, I take offense at hypocrisy that passes for religious conviction and do not appreciate being proselytized (though -- obviously -- I'm more than happy to debate the issues raised).

----- jim o\-S