Of course, because that explains why wars have been waged by women also.

I don't pretend to hold the illusion that there is a single cause for the world's wars. I recognize that the complexity of the issue of war begs the acknowledgment of their numerous complex causes and conditions. I was merely saying that religion has been a major source of these contentions among humanity, especially in terms of the romantic thinking of the middle ages.

Just don't yourself hold the illusion that religion is the innocent one in all this. Even though war is usually a complex issue, there have been wars, antagonisms, inquisitions, and purges based primarily on religious grounds all throughout humanity. Any decent medieval historian will recognize the complexity of the crusades and their numerous causes, but they will also tell you that religion was the primary source underlying this conflict. They will also tell you that religion was nearly the only justification leaders gave to their subjects for such a conflict, and that religion was the means by which they divided man.

I'm not positing anything, I'm just recognizing the incompatibility between doctrines. It may be noble to attempt to find some kind of underlying similarity among all religious communities, but by their very essences, there are distinct and incompatible differences that are and have been serving as sources of contention among humans.

I mean the exercise you're taking yourself on is simply ridiculous. The truth isn't always soft and flowery. People's religions are their source of faith. Do you truly understand the capacity of that word? That means they blindly accept a reality given to them out of trust and for whatever purposes that they deemed necessary (usually it's comfort, a sense of security, and comfort in the idea of our mortality). This posit is a truth value, not mere opinion or subjective reality. Anyone that's truly faithful won't say that their religion is opinion; but it's the nature of the universe. Religions differ greatly in the causes, purposes, and nature of our very existences and how we are 'supposed' to conduct our lives. This is just common sense; and for a person that has studied different religions I would have hoped you would recognize this instead of blindly accepting the 'faith' that somehow humanity will all come together and find unity in their diverse religious beliefs.

Here alone represents a distinct religious difference. The Bible and numerous other Christian sects (well, I would say that as a rule all of them [in order to be considered "Christian"]), one must accept Christ as their savior and son of God, or else face damnation. Of course there are some exceptions like people who are ignorant to the word of God, but the general consensus among Christianity is that if one is exposed to the teachings of Christ, that one must accept Christ to attain salvation. This is a basic tenet of Christianity, and for you to suggest otherwise I think would cause a contention among yourself and other Christians right here on this board!

Hmmm, well there was really no basic tenet of Christianity that says that religion is 'compulsory' either; hence free will. But I mean that's pretty short-sided. One can choose the deny Christ (and therefore there's no compulsion), but according to teachings, if one does so, one receives eternal damnation. Even though many religious people as yourself like to dance around the idea that 'oh well, Jesus or Muhammed never said their faith was compulsory', you're ignoring the fact that they're threatening people with eternal damnation; which has been a source of compulsion. And incidentally, I mean you can pick and choose, but there are also passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an that basically teach the idea of a harsh evangelism (such as certain passages talking about the death and stoning of people who did not believe in God or believed in other gods or were witches, etc.).

Then, my exalted one, perhaps you could explain your metaphor in the context of your superior frame of thought to my undoubtedly inferior mind incapable of abstract thought which is held in ignorance.

My own narrow-mindedness? Or maybe I'm just honest? The truth of the matter is that no one ultimately knows 'God' or some ultimate truth of reality. Religion not only presupposes that there is ultimate truth, but also that man is capable of knowing the ultimate truth and that they hold the ultimate truth of our existences. It's only honest to recognize the complete ridiculousness of these assertions. Hence the essence of religion is a delusion that they know ultimate truth.

I would not say lies as Hev does, but delusion because as I have said, the teachers of religion believe in the same delusion the followers believe as truth.