Sharia law vs. Christian law

by Charlatan Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:07 am

This is what divides the world. Only in north and south america is this topic not really important, but the rest of the world fights tooth and nail over this. If we could find a happy medium, then there would be nearly global peace! So off we go to find the meeting point...

I find that abrahamic laws are pretty societal. If we take away from them, well we could lose out with divorce or whatever that is, and in the opinion of world peace it is pretty hard to make people worship god. Other than that it must remain, but could we add to it for these countries? I wouldn't be surprised if in London some happy go lucky bomber targets markets or something, so we need to 'get sharia law in' to 'keep it out.' If there are enough sharia law places then there will be no world terror, i figure - well not in these proportions.

What do we know about sharia law? Does it say you must kill? Does it say you must steal? Does it upset society? It does none of these things, so what is wrong with it??? People are fighting in north africa and he middle east, with concern coming from europe and eastern asia. The muslims have spread far and wide, and where they are impoverished they will not sell out on religion to the abrahamic laws only. The best thing to do is get more information on how to give the people this. It happens in iran and saudi arabia at least. Maybe a thing to consider would be why are the poor so willing to fight for what they believe in?

The poor often have little to do with luxury. The more luxury you have the less you fight! You see this in america too, at least, where the republicans are usually the poorer people an are also very religious. Could it be that money breeds sin? Surely not... right?

If we were to look at this from a psychological stand point, we would observe that poor people have less to be happy with, but, have the time to spend with family, strangely. For some reason they have a happy family typically when in the rural areas. Would it be that demolishing all churches would satisfy this need for peace? I hope not, let's get back to the psyche? If the person who has less loves more, then maybe there should be more wealth distribution. This will occupy the minds of all these rural people and then they would be happier, distanced from their loved ones. I understand also that families in the middle class have a lot of love, but time spent with them is less compared to the rural people. What is it about being impoverished that makes people think their lives are not worth anything, and the lives of others are also not worth anything?

Maybe what is needed is a lot of love? Imagine a radio station that is tuned to gospel music all day long? This simple luxury could be what is missing in the lives of the rural people. I know in my country south africa they go madd for gospel in the rural areas, so why not try that in other muslim areas? Al jazeer is still in business, so they must support local stuff. Imagine a muslim radio station that plays muslim worship songs all day long. Think how important the music is to people that go to concerts and watch mtv, buy cds and go to night clubs or trendy restaurants to listen to music? Music must be the way to get to these people and relax and soothe them...

So is it a case of sharia vs. abrahamic laws? Is it that simple, or are the people not exposed to enough of their desire to feel with god at all times? I guarantee you that feeling as if god is with them more they will relax more, dance more, feel better.

But now it is a politcal thing! The west wants to 'domesticate' the east. The problem with that is that there is already a identity that exists out there in the outback, and that it wants to remain there. I am sure with some gospel music there would be great strides forwards.

by astra Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:20 pm

If we could find a happy medium,

Doris Stokes, a Medium and a very happy lady is long dead.

This of "exotic" religions, appears to be something that people (including me) prefer not to think about, putting it on the 'back shelf' till something happens.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:52 pm

Islam is not nor has ever been anything more than a codification of the mores of a brutal pedophile arab warlord....a warlord who figured out that if he claimed to be the prophet of God, morons would say...'Oh, ok...if God says it's ok to kill your daughter for getting raped because it dishonors the family name".

Christian "law" and Islamic "law" are not even remotely comparable.

by Shirina Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:39 pm

Christian "law" and Islamic "law" are not even remotely comparable.

Actually, they are quite comparable. The only real difference between the two is what each culture decides to cherry pick from their holy texts. Fortunately, we in the West have decided not to cherry pick stoning to death rebellious children, but we could have. Point being is that there is a fine line between the two religions, and even now, we cherry pick laws from the OT to condemn homosexuality because it serves a purpose in doing so. Laws above, beneath, and to either side of that same law against homosexuality are conveniently ignored.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:53 pm

I'm quite certain that Christianity and Islam are not even remotely comparable...what you are comparing, Shirina, is Islam and Judaism.

by ROB Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:33 pm

Shirina wrote:
... we in the West have decided not to cherry pick stoning to death rebellious children, but we could have.

Please explain how/why a Christian can cherry pick stoning rebellious children to death.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:06 pm

Please explain how/why a Christian can cherry pick stoning rebellious children to death.

I think it's fair to assume that Shirina is saying that all Christians have chosen not to stone rebellious children to death, yet many have accepted other Old Testament diktats, such as "to lie with a man as with a woman is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

As Richard Dawkins has said, most of us atheists know the Bible better than many Christians - we know what we're rejecting - though I have no doubt that you know the Bible better than I do, Rock!

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:37 pm

Sharia Law includes a probition of lending or borrowing money for gain.
Pity that wasn't operative at Lehmann Brothers et al in the period 2000 to 2008.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:39 pm

Please explain how/why a Christian can cherry pick stoning rebellious children to death.

Yeah, what Ivan said.

by Shirina Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:40 pm

Sharia Law includes a probition of lending or borrowing money for gain.

The Bible also says that usury should not be used on family members or the poor ... but the poor are the ones who get the worst interest rates and the highest monthly payments.

by ROB Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:33 am

The question shouldn't be, but in fact it is a bit of a "trick" question. Perhaps writing it with the emphasis with which I would say it were we communicating verbally will help, preceded by this quotation from Acts:

Greek Bible

But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus… and a large number who believed turned to the Lord. The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas off to Antioch.

Then when he arrived and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began to encourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord, for he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord.

And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers, and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. One of them… stood up and [said] that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world… in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.

And this they did, sending it in charge of Barnabas and Saul to the elders [at Jerusalem].

Acts 11:20-30

The question: “Please explain how/why a CHRISTIAN can cherry pick stoning rebellious children to death.”

Expositing the term “Christian” will remove the unfortunate “trick-ness” from the question. To aid in expositing “Christian”:

Greek Bible

If you love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:15

Greek Bible

… Jesus called them to himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whosoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whosoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

Matthew 20:25-28

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:56 pm

Comparing Christians to Muslims and using the Old Testament as a basis for the comparison shows a profound lack of understanding of the differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

"Christians"...as defined as "followers of the teachings of Christ" are not practitioners of Judaism, per se. Judaism, in fact, holds Christianity as heretical of Judaism. Christianity draws historic references to the religion which spawned it...it doesn't mean they are one and the same.

by ROB Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:42 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
Comparing Christians to Muslims and using the Old Testament as a basis for the comparison shows a profound lack of understanding of the differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

"Christians"...as defined as "followers of the teachings of Christ"...

Please note one of the “teachings of Christ”:

Greek Bible

Think not that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say unto you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall annul one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach others accordingly, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whosoever shall practice and teach these commands, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For I say unto you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you shall certainly not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew Chapter 5 Verses 17-20

Please note that, according to one of the “teachings of Christ”, whosoever thinks that Christ came “to abolish the Law or the Prophets” (the so-called “Old Testament” consists of the Law, the Prophets, and a bit more), and whosever “shall annul one of the least of these commandments”, and whosever “shall teach others accordingly”, that person, according to one of the “teachings of Christ”, “shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:52 pm

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:09 pm

The Judaic ritualism was not fulfilled DURING Christ's life....it was only AFTER His death and resurrection that the laws regarding the atonement for sin were fulfilled. There is a NEW set of rules in place now...Jesus said many things but His teachings can be summed up pretty well as this: Love everyone as I love you, mind your own business and let Me worrry about judging people, give your life to serving others, not yourself and separate yourself from non-believers by your behavior, not your mouth.

by Charlatan Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:25 pm

What is wrong with the law of the prophets? The law of the prophets has led to the laws of the west and east. The thing about sharia law is it adds to the laws of the prophets. The laws of the middle east tend to be more societal than others, as they tell people how to behave regaurding one another than the west. To sum that up we would say that when we behave ourselves regaurding the family, it is obvious, but in the middle east they have stated the obvious.

So, when people fight for sharia law, they are fighting for the obvious. There is no need to fight for the obvious, as it comes about naturally. They are fighting for nothing!

by witchfinder Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Common sense coming from Shirina and Ivan - if people decide to argue, disagree and even fight over religion - then you can take all your religions and stick Mohamed, Jesus, Allah and God somewhere where the sun dosent shine.

And I am glad to say that my opinion is a growing attitude to religion, especialy here in Europe, growing numbers of people are fed up of religion and want nothing to do with it.

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:05 pm

What is wrong with the law of the prophets? The law of the prophets has led to the laws of the west and east.

Even leaving religion aside for the moment, one of the more obvious flaws with the laws of the prophets is that they came out of the Bronze Age and will not be updated any time soon. It's been several thousand years and things have changed just a little bit since then. Those who revere holy texts often try to shoehorn existing scriptures into modern social issues by monkeying with interpretation, but those interpretations leave a lot to be desired. Reading the scriptures Catholics use to justify their anti birth control stance is a case in point. I've read each and every one and I'm still left wondering, "Okay, but where does it say birth control is evil?"

As a subset of their age, "prophet law" is geared toward the cultures within which they were written and have little bearing on Western culture. Nor do I believe that we should revert to a Bronze Age Middle Eastern society in the West. This is the trap that several Muslim nations have fallen into, and they are paying a heavy price for their lack of evolution.

The laws of the middle east tend to be more societal than others, as they tell people how to behave regaurding one another than the west.

I would jump off a bridge before I subjected myself to religious law of any kind given that religious law, no matter the prophet, is inherently sexist. Women simply do not count in these cultures. If you want an example, read the Book of Genesis. There are pages and pages and pages of genealogy stretching on for many generations. Essentially it reads: "Tom fathered two sons, Jim and Bob, and three daughters. Jim fathered three sons, Kevin, David, and Jacob, as well as seven daughters; Bob fathered one son, Isaac, and four daughters. Isaac fathered three sons, Daniel, Richard, and William (and oh yeah, not that it matters, but Isaac also fathered four daughters)."

Presumably all of these sons fathered their sons through some bizarre method of asexual reproduction since the mothers - who actually carried these babies - are not even mentioned, and not only are the daughters rarely ever named, they disappear from the historical record. Who cares what happened to them!

From the very first book of the Bible, the wanton sexism asserts itself without question. There is nothing "obvious" about sexism yet "prophet law" teaches precisely that, and therefore it has been an uphill battle for women ever since.

And finally, we return to the highly interpretative nature of these "prophet laws." One of the most hideous examples I can think of right now is how the 'morality police' in Saudi Arabia allowed dozens of teenage girls to die in a fire because the police refused to let them leave the burning building without the proper moral head covering. Is this what Muhammad taught? Did Muhammad really believe that a head covering was more important than the life of the person wearing it? Probably not ... but there's no way to know for sure, and that leaves a lot of wriggle room for interpretation, and interpretation almost always equates to oppression and discrimination under "prophet law."

Laws need to remain secular and belief in the prophets needs to remain private. There are so many "prophet laws" and some even contradict each other; a system of laws is an epic fail when following one law means breaking another.

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:10 pm

To Rock and Oz:

The reason why I haven't made my usual rebuttal to your posts is because to do so would simply start a debate over who is really a Christian, and that is not a road I want to travel down. Therefore, I will continue using my own definition of a "Christian" - someone who believes in the divinity of Christ - and leave it at that. With that definition in mind, my previous arguments still stand.

by Charlatan Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:38 pm

Shirina wrote: Even leaving religion aside for the moment, one of the more obvious flaws with the laws of the prophets is that they came out of the Bronze Age and will not be updated any time soon. It's been several thousand years and things have changed just a little bit since then. Those who revere holy texts often try to shoehorn existing scriptures into modern social issues by monkeying with interpretation, but those interpretations leave a lot to be desired. Reading the scriptures Catholics use to justify their anti birth control stance is a case in point. I've read each and every one and I'm still left wondering, "Okay, but where does it say birth control is evil?"

As a subset of their age, "prophet law" is geared toward the cultures within which they were written and have little bearing on Western culture. Nor do I believe that we should revert to a Bronze Age Middle Eastern society in the West. This is the trap that several Muslim nations have fallen into, and they are paying a heavy price for their lack of evolution.

I would jump off a bridge before I subjected myself to religious law of any kind given that religious law, no matter the prophet, is inherently sexist. Women simply do not count in these cultures. If you want an example, read the Book of Genesis. There are pages and pages and pages of genealogy stretching on for many generations. Essentially it reads: "Tom fathered two sons, Jim and Bob, and three daughters. Jim fathered three sons, Kevin, David, and Jacob, as well as seven daughters; Bob fathered one son, Isaac, and four daughters. Isaac fathered three sons, Daniel, Richard, and William (and oh yeah, not that it matters, but Isaac also fathered four daughters)."

Presumably all of these sons fathered their sons through some bizarre method of asexual reproduction since the mothers - who actually carried these babies - are not even mentioned, and not only are the daughters rarely ever named, they disappear from the historical record. Who cares what happened to them!

From the very first book of the Bible, the wanton sexism asserts itself without question. There is nothing "obvious" about sexism yet "prophet law" teaches precisely that, and therefore it has been an uphill battle for women ever since.

And finally, we return to the highly interpretative nature of these "prophet laws." One of the most hideous examples I can think of right now is how the 'morality police' in Saudi Arabia allowed dozens of teenage girls to die in a fire because the police refused to let them leave the burning building without the proper moral head covering. Is this what Muhammad taught? Did Muhammad really believe that a head covering was more important than the life of the person wearing it? Probably not ... but there's no way to know for sure, and that leaves a lot of wriggle room for interpretation, and interpretation almost always equates to oppression and discrimination under "prophet law."

Laws need to remain secular and belief in the prophets needs to remain private. There are so many "prophet laws" and some even contradict each other; a system of laws is an epic fail when following one law means breaking another.

The 'pages of sexism' become apparnt because the men carry the family name into marriage. The male is more thought of as the breadwinner, because the children are supposed to spend time in the care of the mother. This happens in the animal kingdom too, so is a instinctive thing amoung mammals, cold blooded reptiles and everything else. This was the law of the family back then, but nobody challenged it. It has been challenged because nowadays women don't have as many kids and work, and because they work they demand rights. That is why women have rights now, because they have been allowed them. I bet that a lot of women themselves would have held back their peers for the sake of the family values, but look at the values of the family in the west and compare them to the near east... There is such a 'disgusting' side on the west in the eyes of the near east that they will probably never change, so good luck for the rights of women there.

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:04 pm

The 'pages of sexism' become apparnt because the men carry the family name into marriage. The male is more thought of as the breadwinner, because the children are supposed to spend time in the care of the mother.

But who decided that? Why, the men, of course! You can see the results of cultures where women are only valued for the number of male babies she produces - the overpopulation and subsequent famines in Africa. There is no immutable law, no physical boundary, that requires the male to carry the family name into marriage. That is a contrived social construct that has been around for so long that we have only recently begun to question it. The idea of male inheritance has caused the female population in China to fall off precipitously as population controls make having a female baby wholly undesirable. Then there are the horrific practices all around the world that make women's lives a living hell - from foot hobbling in the Orient to female genital mutilation in Africa to the wearing of the hijab in the Middle East to wage discrimination and the over-sexualization of women in the West.

This is not some "natural order," it was constructed by patriarchal societies, and the prophets were just as patriarchal as the best of them. Muhammad's bride Aisha was only 6 years old when he proposed to her, and she was only 9 when he "consummated" the marriage. Muhammad was 52! Now, in today's society, that's pretty twisted and Muhammad would be cooling his heels behind a big set of iron bars if he pulled that stunt in today's world - and rightfully so. We all know a child cannot consent to a marriage, and Aisha could not consent - nor did she consent. But because girls and women are essentially owned by their fathers, what the father wants is more important (by far) than what the woman wants. What's more, this kind of pedophilia still goes on regularly even today in some Islamic nations! No thank you, charlatan, I think I'll keep my rights.

There is such a 'disgusting' side on the west in the eyes of the near east that they will probably never change, so good luck for the rights of women there.

Yes, some of the Muslims believe a female wearing a miniskirt is far more evil than a 52 year-old man having sex with a 9 year-old child, but then again, that's why we need to stay away from Sharia Law and "prophet law" altogether.

by ROB Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:42 pm

Shirina wrote:To Rock…

The reason why I haven't made my usual rebuttal to your posts is because to do so would simply start a debate over who is really a Christian, and that is not a road I want to travel down. Therefore, I will continue using my own definition of a "Christian" - someone who believes in the divinity of Christ - and leave it at that. With that definition in mind, my previous arguments still stand.

That’s a private definition, to which you are entitled no matter how erroneous it might be. My question to you still stands, and I would appreciate an honest answer, in order to facilitate discussion and discourse.

I debate neither God nor Jesus, and have refrained from doing so for several decades. Conversely, I welcome communication and interaction with others which is focused upon God and Jesus, including communication and interaction with folks with whom I disagree.

by ROB Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:04 pm

Charlatan wrote:
The thing about sharia law is it adds to the laws of the prophets. The laws of the middle east tend to be more societal than others…

Good point, Charlatan. When one adds to the Law and the Prophets as one sees fit, one no longer has the Law and the Prophets; one has oneself.

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:16 pm

The question: “Please explain how/why a CHRISTIAN can cherry pick stoning rebellious children to death.”

Again, trying to answer this question would result in a debate over who is really a Christian. There's a million and one ways to make that determination, but it requires far too much presumption, assumption, and hubris to even make the attempt. There are also a million and one ways to be a Christian, and your way is merely one of them. It only stands to reason that you believe your definition is the right one because you fall within its parameters, but someone else could (and would) just as easily point to you and claim you aren't really a Christian. It's just not the kind of finger-pointing game I want to play.

But no matter how they believe in Jesus, the one thing they all have in common is that they believe in the divinity of Christ. I suppose I should ask you, Rock: Do you believe in the divinity of Christ?

The fact remains is that, long ago, Christians could have decided that stoning rebellious children is acceptable - even required - according to the Bible. If they had, then even today we might see our society in full acceptance of this practice and undertake it with shocking regularity. Fortunately, nowhere in the Western world is the murder of your children acceptable despite what the Bible says. This goes back to the original topic concerning Sharia Law vs. Christian Law. We look at Sharia law here in the West and see a lot of barbarism. To them, they are simply carrying out the edicts of their religion, and at some time in their history, they decided that female head coverings and women being unaccompanied in the presence of non-related males were important enough to maintain even today. We in the West could have easily plucked passages out of the Bible to classify as "important." We could have laws prohibiting women from cutting their hair short or men from growing it long. We don't - because our culture never found that law important. Just like we could have laws allowing a town to turn out and stone a rebellious child, but we don't. I still maintain that the Bible and the Koran are not so different from each other, and the biggest separation between us is what each culture decided to cherry pick out of their holy texts.

Now, you can claim none of them are Christians because they don't meet your definition, but that doesn't change the fact that we still could have easily ended up with a society just as "barbarous" as the Islamic extremists' societies - if we used only holy texts with which to govern ourselves.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:35 pm

Shirina wrote:To Rock and Oz:

The reason why I haven't made my usual rebuttal to your posts is because to do so would simply start a debate over who is really a Christian, and that is not a road I want to travel down. Therefore, I will continue using my own definition of a "Christian" - someone who believes in the divinity of Christ - and leave it at that. With that definition in mind, my previous arguments still stand.

It's always easiest to win when you play by your own rules.

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:42 pm

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
Shirina wrote:To Rock and Oz:

The reason why I haven't made my usual rebuttal to your posts is because to do so would simply start a debate over who is really a Christian, and that is not a road I want to travel down. Therefore, I will continue using my own definition of a "Christian" - someone who believes in the divinity of Christ - and leave it at that. With that definition in mind, my previous arguments still stand.

It's always easiest to win when you play by your own rules.

Should I handicap myself and play by yours?

by astra Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:43 pm

It's always easiest to win when you play by your own rules

Which is ALWAYS a Ladie's Perogative.

I happen to agree with Shirina on most of her points.

The baddest sons of B's in my village were the sons of the 2 local ministers!

by Shirina Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:39 pm

If the reminder of your post is an honest answer (you tell me), then I’ll discuss it with you.

Tsk, tsk, Rock. All of my answers are honest answers. I hurt when I type, so typing BS is a big waste of time!

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:45 am

"Should I handicap myself and play by yours?" ~ Shirina

Your definition would encompass people like Fred Phelps...who most certainly is not a follower of the teachings of Christ, regardless of his self-descriptions. Saying that anyone who acknowledges the divinity of Jesus is a "Christian" is just obtuse. A "Christian", is a practitioner of the teachings of Christ...a person who behaves contrary to those teachings is NOT a "Christian" regardless of whether you or they claim that they are. It's like labeling someone a vegetarian while they're sitting there eating a steak...patently non-sensical.

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:25 am

A "Christian", is a practitioner of the teachings of Christ

What makes your definition more accurate than mine? In fact, I would (and can) argue that your definition is less accurate. Take myself, for instance. I probably live more by Christ's teachings than most Christians, but I'm not a "Christian." I do not crack open a Bible when I need guidance or read scripture to figure out what to do. I'm not awaiting Christ's return, I don't worship Christ, pray to him, love him more than my family, put Christ first in my life .. nor do I believe there will be a rapture, that there is such a thing as being "saved," nor do I think there is going to be a big reunion with Jesus and God at the end of our journey. I do not believe in Christ's divinity, I don't believe the Bible is true, I don't believe in the resurrection, that Christ performed miracles, or that he was the messiah.

All one has to do in order to be a Christian is to believe in Christ's divinity, being the Son of God. According to Christian doctrine, you can wave around all the "God hates fags" signs you want to as long as you believe, as long as you repent, and as long as you love Jesus/God. Going strictly by the rules, I'm not going to Heaven because I don't believe ... and following Christ's teachings won't get me there (aside from his teachings about getting to Heaven, which I don't follow).

It's the belief part that makes one a Christian. That isn't me being obtuse. That is me telling you how it is, and that's how most people will define it.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:47 am

"All one has to do in order to be a Christian is to believe in Christ's divinity, being the Son of God. According to Christian doctrine, you can wave around all the "God hates fags" signs you want to as long as you believe, as long as you repent, and as long as you love Jesus/God. Going strictly by the rules, I'm not going to Heaven because I don't believe ... and following Christ's teachings won't get me there (aside from his teachings about getting to Heaven, which I don't follow).

It's the belief part that makes one a Christian. That isn't me being obtuse. That is me telling you how it is, and that's how most people will define it." ~
Shirina

Jesus Himself said that people who claim to be "Christians" will be turned away as "workers of iniquity"...even those who claim to have done great things in Jesus name. It's not just a belief that Jesus exists and that He is the Savior...it's acting according to his teachings that makes one a "Christian".

Your presumption is false. Clinging to it only demostrates your prejudice. Mislabeling persons deliberately only shows an intellectual dishonesty.

As an atheist, I'm not inclined to believe in the Divinity of Jesus....that does not preclude me from understanding the difference between those who do and those who CLAIM to.

by gurthbruins Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:03 am

Religions are mostly bad, a collection of nonsense on the one hand, and a whole lot of "laws" that have nothing to do with God.
The result is that people of intelligence naturally discard religion as a lot of trash. The religions in fact are the most responsible for promoting atheism.

Most atheists are much more moral than most "believers". Of the "believers", the minority are real believers, and the rest are simply hypocrites.

But Islam and Christianity differ vastly in this respect: in Islam the proportion of those who believe is much higher, and they take religion much more seriously than most Christians.

In their important essence, if they have any, all the religions are identical. Yoga: union with God is the aim. Islam: submission to God. Christianity: "thy will be done". Judaism: the psalms speak of the close obedience to God, to his laws, and the adoration of same.

The identical thread is what Aldous Huxley calls the Perennial Philosophy. The true essence of all religions is Mysticism. The only rational basis for belief is personal experience. Debate and logic are pointless in the absence of direct personal experience of God. God is for mystics, the elite minority who have been given this gift.

Once having experienced God, love of and obedience to God come naturally to the subject.

Anything that we do not understand can be called delusion, but the word carries little persuasive weight, for naturally enough, those we think deluded think it is we who are deluded! Pot and kettle can go on calling each other belittling names, but the exercise is infantile.

by ROB Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:40 pm

gurthbruins wrote:
... people of intelligence naturally discard religion as a lot of trash

Oh, I dunno. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:55 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
gurthbruins wrote:
... people of intelligence naturally discard religion as a lot of trash

Oh, I dunno. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

The fall must have affected your memory Rock, could it have been the day before.

We should all follow the preachings of John Lennon, IMAGINE, and Give Peace Chance. Religion is the root of all evil. If you are a Christian you fall out and slay your brothers just because they follow a different branch or interpretation of Christianity. The followers of Islam are the same, Shia against Sunny, and visa versa. If they are not killing each other they are killing people of different religions.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:59 pm

https://youtu.be/2xB4dbdNSXY

by Shirina Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:11 pm

We should all follow the preachings of John Lennon

Uh ... John Lennon wanted to empty all the jails and set all the prisoners free.

No thanks.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:18 pm

jackthelad wrote:We should all follow the preachings of John Lennon, IMAGINE, and Give Peace Chance.

That is so sweet... completely erroneous... but so very, very sweet nonetheless.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Humanity is the root of violence. Not one day has gone by in all the history and pre history of man that has not seen violence enacted by Humans against Humans irrespective of race, colour or... and this is the important one... creed.

Such a pity that people don't read history prior to their writing the sentimental 'shoulds' of sweet nothing.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:30 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
gurthbruins wrote:
... people of intelligence naturally discard religion as a lot of trash

Oh, I dunno. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

So Galileo Galilei was an idiot... I knew it... I just knew it! Lennox, the Mathematician from Oxford Uni, is a moron too I guess.

by jackthelad Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:41 pm

True Blue wrote:
jackthelad wrote:We should all follow the preachings of John Lennon, IMAGINE, and Give Peace Chance.

That is so sweet... completely erroneous... but so very, very sweet nonetheless.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Humanity is the root of violence. Not one day has gone by in all the history and pre history of man that has not seen violence enacted by Humans against Humans irrespective of race, colour or... and this is the important one... creed.

Such a pity that people don't read history prior to their writing the sentimental 'shoulds' of sweet nothing.

Humanity means Human, and humans have always been a supersticious animal. Chistianity is only a recent religion, Islam came even later, the Incas, Astecs, ancient Britons, Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, i could go on and on. They all had sacrifices to there gods, numerouse gods, in most cases the sacrifices were human. If they were going to fight the next tribe, they would have a sacrifice to put their so called gods in a good mood. Every thing they did they sought the blessing of their gods. Has i said, religion is the root of all evil, whether the god was of the earth, sun or sky, or has now, an unknown, unseen being.

by True Blue Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:04 pm

jackthelad wrote:Has i said, religion is the root of all evil, whether the god was of the earth, sun or sky, or has now, an unknown, unseen being.

Has you? Yes! You has said that. However... and this is where it gets a bit tricky so it's ok if you don't know the answer... Who created Religion? Because who ever created that... is the root of all 'man made' evil... don't you think?

I put it to you that Humans created Religion and therefore Humanity is the root of all 'man made' evil... Has I said even. Very Happy

by Sponsored content