Sharia law vs. Christian law

by Charlatan Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:07 am

First topic message reminder :

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 trevorw2539 Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:57 pm

Shirina Quote.

Even among believers, "truth" varies from individual to individual.

That is what I said.

As Pilate said 'What is Truth'. Went through meanings of certain words when studying the OT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth. is interesting

by Shirina Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:44 pm

That is what I said.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant. It sounded like you were saying that, because believers believe it, it becomes truth. Since the details of what believers believe, and the intensity of it, differs from person to person, it cannot be truth as we know it. A belief that something is the truth is still only a belief.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:52 pm

British Colonial history includes the closing stages of White Rule in Kenya, where the local Mau Mau "Terrorists" or "Freedom Fighters" (You choose) were told by their witch-doctors before going into battle, that bullets could not hurt them.

There are many well-documented accounts of British Army units being overwhelmed in spite of possessing greatly superior fire-power.

by Shirina Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:14 pm

Mau Mau "Terrorists"

The Meow Meow "Terrorists" are even more dangerous.
Sharia law vs. Christian law - Page 6 Machine-gun-kitten--large-prf-1184351722

But yeah that happens even today. It all depends on how you fight. If you go into a situation trying to fight a symmetrical war under asymmetrical conditions, it's going to cost you.

by trevorw2539 Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:54 pm

Shirina wrote:
That is what I said.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant. It sounded like you were saying that, because believers believe it, it becomes truth. Since the details of what believers believe, and the intensity of it, differs from person to person, it cannot be truth as we know it. A belief that something is the truth is still only a belief.

What I was saying to RoC was that each believer believes he has the 'truth'. Therefore his 'truth' is not necessarily anothers 'truth'.

There is no agreed definition of Truth.

Acknowledging my limited education I have been searching for years for the meaning of Truth. Not in specific terms of religion or science, but something I could put my finger on and say 'that is Truth'. Not a Truth. I fear that it is a concept beyond my ability Embarassed

. As Pilate said 'What is Truth'.

I'll stick to my studies, at least I've the ability to do something which is appreciated.

by ROB Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:53 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
… since a Christian who is actually a Christian seeks to submit to God, a Christian is a Muslim. It’s unfortunate that we of the 20th and 21st Centuries have allowed ourselves to slip away from using precisely defined words in the ways in which they are precisely defined.[/color]

trevorw2539 wrote:
I am a Member of a Tennis Club and abide by the rules of the Club. My friend is allowed to play on the Club courts but not enter the Club house unless agreeing to the Club rules. We both submit to the laws of the LTA but are not both club members. A christian submits to God. It does not make him a Muslim 'club' member.

Both you and the nonmember submit to the Tennis Club; thus, you are both muslims in insofar as the Tennis Club is concerned in that you both submit thereto.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Faith - great trust or confidence in something or someone

Religion - the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship

Both Cambridge Online Dictionary

Baha’is would say that you’ve hit the nail on the head. That’s why they call it the Baha’i Faith.

Notice that a religion can be a belief in “a god or gods, or any such system”, which leaves the door open to anything. I started a short-lived religion one evening after hearing Calypso Louis tell lies with such skill that he got a standing ovation. I figured that if he could o it, so could I.

Before my roommate “busted” me, twenty to twenty-five fellow students were crammed into our dormitory room listening to my wise pontifications (all lies) and exhibiting interest in joining my created-on-the-spot religion. Had I been able to “keep my cool” instead of laughing my head off at my roommate’s comments, maybe I would now be on TV raking in the bucks by spouting lies in an oh-so-solemn manner.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Nope. See “c=mv” above

trevorw2539 wrote:
Nope. The result is hypothetical as it didn't happen. Your friend wasn't hit.

c=mv is not hypothetical; it’s a law of physics which precisely predicts the momentum generated by a certain mass traveling at a certain velocity. The fact that the hippie (he was an acquaintance, not my friend) was not hit has nothing to do with the overarching and inescapable truth of c=mv.

trevorw2539 wrote:
You assume that he would have been killed. Agreed that is the likely outcome, but not proven.

I assume nothing. I know that if the hippie had been hit, then whatever portion of the “c” generated by “4,000 pounds times seventy miles per hour” that he might have received (full on, glancing hit, etc.) his body would have absorbed. The effects of a full on hit are routinely catastrophic to the body which absorbs the momentum.

Death is quite common. Recently, two young boys who were dropped by their deranged mother over a bridge railing unto an Interstate highway which was crowed with vehicles traveling sixty miles per hour survived. Death is not certain in this scenario.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Just recently 2 cars collided head on at around 60 MPH each car. Both cars were complete 'right-offs'. The drivers, by some miracle, walked away bruised and battered, but alive.

An example of the improbable, as was the survival of the two boys.

trevorw2539 wrote:
In religion 'truth' is what an individual believes.

c=mv is truth no matter what an individual might believe.

by ROB Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:09 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
What I was saying to RoC was that each believer believes he has the 'truth'. Therefore his 'truth' is not necessarily another’s 'truth'

Truth exists independent of persons’ opinions thereto. No one has the truth. One is governed by truth (gravity), and one may discover truth (Newton), but one can never own truth.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Acknowledging my limited education I have been searching for years for the meaning of Truth. Not in specific terms of religion or science, but something I could put my finger on and say 'that is Truth'. Not a Truth. I fear that it is a concept beyond my ability…

I disagree. You demonstrate your mastery of truth by adhering to its rules every moment of your life. I suspect that, unlike me, you’ve never needed anyone to talk you out of proving that man can fly unaided by being the first person to do so.

by trevorw2539 Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:15 am

RoC.

I am a Member of a Tennis Club and abide by the rules of the Club. My friend is allowed to play on the Club courts but not enter the Club house unless agreeing to the Club rules. We both submit to the laws of the LTA but are not both club members. A christian submits to God. It does not make him a Muslim 'club' member.

Both you and the nonmember submit to the Tennis Club; thus, you are both muslims in insofar as the Tennis Club is concerned in that you both submit thereto.

Perhaps I phrased this badly. My friend cannot enter the Clubhouse as he does not agree with the Club rules. The Lawn Tennis Association is the governing body for tennis, but has no say over the individual Club rules.

RoC quote

c=mv is not hypothetical;

I did not say it was. I said the result of the situation you gave was hypothetical as it did not happen. I agreed on the the most probable, not 100%, outcome. A woman yesterday was hit by a speeding car. I can only guess the speed by the video footage, but it was pretty fast. She had a miraculous escape.

RoC. quote I disagree. You demonstrate your mastery of truth by adhering to its rules every moment of your life. I suspect that, unlike me, you’ve never needed anyone to talk you out of proving that man can fly unaided by being the first person to do so.

I disagree. I demonstrate my mastery of scientific fact/laws by adhering to its/their rules.

If anyone deviates from those scientific facts/laws by indulging in excess alcohol or harmful drugs, they place themselves/bodies beyond the normal laws. In other words they are in an 'unreal' world where 'reality' does not seem to apply.

Unfortunately it does.

These are scientific facts which are 'true'. Until proved wrong.

I now am discontinuing my part in this discussion. It's taking up too much time. I have been requested to provide more OT studies for consideration by a large 'organisation'. This will need my concentration.

I'll still poke my nose in occasionally. Smile

by polyglide Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:04 am

The answer regarding when man had brought himself to the edge, was when Jesus came to point out the position man was in.

I know this only makes sense to those who realise the truth but just take a look at the state the world is in today,anyone who feels we are not on the edge must be blind in a technical sense and not a visual one.

There is no way at all that man will, or can, get himself out of the present situation he finds himself in.

Families in many cases cannot agree, political parties cannot agree, and most certainly nations are beyond reconciliation etc;

We are now in a very similar situation as at the time of Jesus and heaven help us.

by Shirina Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:28 pm

I know this only makes sense to those who realise the truth

A staunch belief in having the one and only "truth" is one of the biggest pitfalls of religion.

anyone who feels we are not on the edge must be blind in a technical sense and not a visual one.

People have been saying this since the fall of Rome. Every generation thinks theirs is the one teetering on the edge, the one that will see the End Times come to pass.

by polyglide Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:21 pm

There has never ever been a situation as the present one.

There has never ever been the nuclear bomb, nor anything like the present distructive capabilities that man has presently at his finger tips and man has never ever failed to use that at his disposal, so it is pure nonsense to say there has ever been a similar situation, the present situation is beyond man's ability to solve, it is just a matter of time.

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:42 pm

One must of course speak for oneself.

There is support for the theory that mankind already self-destructed at some time well in the past, and where we are now is merely delayed recovery. What goes around comes around.

by Shirina Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:07 pm

There has never ever been a situation as the present one.

Of course there hasn't been a situation quite like the present. That's the nature of history. Things are always changing. Today isn't identical to yesterday any more than 2012 is identical to 1912. When Rome fell and people believed the End Times were upon them, no one had ever seen a situation quite like THEIR present, either.

There has never ever been the nuclear bomb, nor anything like the present distructive capabilities that man has presently at his finger tips and man has never ever failed to use that at his disposal

Nuclear bombs do not change the game as much as people think. Humanity has been quite capable of unleashing genocide and mass killings without nuclear weapons ... or even guns. Over 30 million people were killed in the European theater of WWII without a single nuclear weapon; 11 million of those were killed in a Holocaust that required no guns (only a small percentage of victims were actually shot). All nuclear weapons and modern technology does is allow us to kill more quickly, but that doesn't change the end result. We have always had the capability to murder en masse if such a proclivity overcame our good senses. A man can die by the sword as easily as by a nuclear weapon.

the present situation is beyond man's ability to solve, it is just a matter of time.

And if you look at all the places in the world where there is strife; if you look at all the hotspots that might trigger a global war, you will find religion at the core of it. This position is unassailable.

by polyglide Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:18 am

Many things are done in the name of religion by those who do not actually believe and that is where many problems arise.

Take any religion you want and none will in actual fact include many actions that are done in their name.

It is very easy for those intent on causing as much trouble as possible for their own ends, to misinterprit religious beliefs and many gullible people will be taken in by their actions but that does not mean that the religion is responsible.

by polyglide Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:04 pm

Man can die by many means of that there is no doubt, having to reply to innane ideas can be life threatening.

We now have the potential to destroy the earth, we have never ever had anything near that capability before and with very little effort.

I am not talking about man killing man but destroying the earth, a bow and arrow can kill, gun powder had it's day, we have remote controlled weapons of all types etc; etc; but the nuclear age is an entirely different proposition, nothing has previously had the present potential for destruction not only of man but of material etc;

To try to compare the past with the present capabilities and the possible consequences is idiotic.

by ROB Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:23 pm

During the Cold War, a popular “mantra” was that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could utterly destroy the United States two times over, but the United States could utterly destroy the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics five times over.

In the words of Chris Rock (1996), slightly adulterated, “Five or Two, Two or Five, does it really matter?”

by Shirina Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:58 pm

Many things are done in the name of religion by those who do not actually believe and that is where many problems arise.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -- Steven Weinberg, US Physicist

I think the above quote encapsulates my thoughts on that. And it's true.

It is very easy for those intent on causing as much trouble as possible for their own ends, to misinterprit religious beliefs and many gullible people will be taken in by their actions but that does not mean that the religion is responsible.

What makes religious conflict more dangerous than any other conflict is the rigidity of religion. It is an absolute. Politicians and diplomats can negotiate over land, resources, and power, but there can be no negotiation where religion is concerned. Take Al Qaeda, for example. The leadership of Al Qaeda may or may not be true believers of Islam, but the foot soldiers are not just true believers, they are fanatics, and that fanaticism has been drilled into them since childhood. It is far more difficult to convince a man to leave his family to go fight and die in a war to make the king or president richer or more powerful. What would be in it for the common soldier? Well ... nothing, so why fight? But if you convince the man that his religion, his GOD, is under attack by hedonistic savages, now we're talking determination. Only through religion can a leader raise an army of wild-eyed fanatics willing to blow themselves up in a cafe or bus station or fly planes into buildings filled with men, women, and children. Religion is the best, most effective way to motivate men to fight for you because they feel they are protecting God, and God will reward them with an exalted place in the afterlife.

What's more is that these leaders are not "misinterpreting" their religions. When Christianity says that those who worship other gods should be put to death or when Islam says to behead the infidels ... that stuff exists right there in their respective holy books! With that in mind, going on a killing rampage against those with differing religious beliefs is just as valid as "love they neighbor." The righteousness of their cause is beyond reproach, thus murdering heathens and infidels becomes a divine mandate. There is no "misinterpretation" of religion but rather the emphasis on particular parts of their holy books changes. Nothing more.

by oftenwrong Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:31 pm

There is no "misinterpretation" of religion but rather the emphasis on particular parts of their holy books ....

Conveniently, said "Holy books" are usually based upon the writings of people who have been dead for a few thousand years, so not about to challenge an "interpretation".

by polyglide Tue May 01, 2012 3:54 pm

Nearly ever subject to which you refer is lost in the mist.

Fanatics who claim religion as their reason for their actions are just using it as an excuse.

There is no religion Iam aware of that actually says that members should go out and kill non believers.

Many do say they should encourage others to adopt their ways.

But it is the evil people who have no real religion but use it as an excuse for their actions that cause all the problems.

We are now at a stage where very soon the whole world will be under threat.

At no time previously has there been the present potential for destruction and every weapon so far devised has eventually come into the wrong hands.

From the bow and arrow we had the machine gun and the rifle that could kill at over a mile.

Today we have the atom bomb and having lived in Japan for over two years I am well aware of it's destructive powers but this cannot be compared with the nuclear weapons it is like compairing the bow and arrow with the machine gun.

Present day weapons do not only destroy people or buildings etc; they destroy matter and the atom bomb is only like an hand grenade in comparison.

Anyone who cannot see the possibilities in this scenario is sadly lacking in all the desirable qualities.

by Shirina Tue May 01, 2012 9:41 pm

Nearly ever subject to which you refer is lost in the mist.

They are mists of your own creation. Everyone else here seems to understand my points.

Fanatics who claim religion as their reason for their actions are just using it as an excuse.

No, they are NOT using it as an "excuse." Like I said before: Those who give the orders, like Osama bin Laden, may use it as an excuse, but those who actually do the killing truly BELIEVE in their religions. Do you think the tens of thousands who marched halfway around the world - on foot - during the Crusades did so because they merely believed in a king? Do you think the *children* who marched in the Children's Crusade did so because they simply wanted to loot the Holy Land? No, Polyglide, they were gripped by religious fanatacism and the sanctimonious belief that heathens occupied the birthplace of their religion. If the Crusades had been merely about conquest, they would have conquered every nation, city, and tribe they came across, but they made a beeline for Jerusalem instead.

There is no religion Iam aware of that actually says that members should go out and kill non believers.

Then maybe you should become more familiar with your religions:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

So we have the three main faiths - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam commanding that unbelievers be murdered.

We are now at a stage where very soon the whole world will be under threat.

I can almost guarantee you that nuclear weapons will never be used by a nation-state against another nation-state. It would be suicide and everyone knows it. Up until the advent of nuclear weapons, every 20-50 years saw the rise of a tyrant who had dreams of ruling the world. From Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler; from Alexander the Great to Napoleon Bonaparte; from Joseph Stalin to Saladin. These warlords, and their more minor counterparts, have kept the world in a perpetual state of war for thousands of years. Europe, especially, was constantly fighting from the Russian steppes to the coasts of Portugal ... someone was always fighting.

Sure, we still have wars today, but the are tiny in comparison with past wars. Nuclear weapons have changed the game, and the dream of world conquest is no longer a possibility for any nation. I'm not saying "hooray for nukes" but if one analyzes the situation properly, the existence of nukes has saved more lives than they ever took ... or will take. Without them, Britain and the US would almost certainly have gone to war with the Soviets in 1945; Pakistan and India would have launched into a full-fledged conflict that would have seen tens of millions dead. Without the backing of America's nuclear arsenal, North Korea would have invaded South Korea a decade ago; China would have snatched up Japan if the Soviets hadn't taken it first. Israel would most likely no longer exist.

The only real threat we have in terms of nukes is a sect of religious fanatics acquiring one and using it covertly in a major Western city. That's right ... religious fanatics. With today's global interconnectivity, use of nuclear weapons by a nation-state would achieve nothing. Today, nukes are merely expensive bargaining chips used by lesser powers like North Korea to get what it wants from potential hostile powers. "Give me this, allow me to do that, or I'll build nukes." Tyrants, dictators, and authoritarian governments want to stay in power more than anything else; letting loose a nuke would ensure that their power would come to an end. Only fanatics with nothing to lose would ever press that button, fanatics who earnestly believe that doing so will net them an exalted place in heaven for eternity. While I cannot guarantee that a nuke will never go off inside a major city, what I can guarantee is that, if it happens, religion will be behind it.

by oftenwrong Tue May 01, 2012 11:08 pm

While we are blithely issuing guarantees, I would nevertheless feel sure that " fanatics who earnestly believe" do not see themselves as in any way fanatic. They tell it as they see it, and we're entitled to disagree.

by Shirina Wed May 02, 2012 5:27 am

While we are blithely issuing guarantees, I would nevertheless feel sure that " fanatics who earnestly believe" do not see themselves as in any way fanatic. They tell it as they see it, and we're entitled to disagree.

Just as surely as the insane man believes he really is Napoleon ... and not Joe Smith the former plumber from Racine, Wisconsin. If you were to ask Joe Smith, he would tell you he's Napoleon because "that's how he sees it." However, that does not change the fact that the man is insane and that he is not, in fact, Napoleon. Just because someone *believes* in the rightness of his cause does not make the cause right.

by oftenwrong Wed May 02, 2012 10:00 am

But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.

Bob Dylan

by polyglide Wed May 02, 2012 10:57 am

Nor does those who oppose ones views make them right.

by polyglide Wed May 02, 2012 12:03 pm

When considering quotes etc; the first consideration is the times and situations involved.

Many stements were made not in a literal sense but to show the gravity of the matter in hand.

As I have stated previously the Old Testament is realy a history book and shows the manner to which the people of the time had decended into depravity etc;

What we should concentrate on is that which followed and not make the same mistakes that resulted in those of the Old Testament days.

We were given the warning of what could happen and a way out, unfortunately, we are well on the way to matching the state when Jesus
arrived to give us a second chance, it just shows how the Devil has a grip on the gullible.

by Shirina Wed May 02, 2012 9:40 pm

Things are quite a bit better than they were then. Things that we would find deplorable now were commonplace then. Everything from rampant misogyny to public, torturous executions have been eliminated or drastically reduced. The measure of our society is not what a few people do in the name of evil but whether or not our society as a whole accepts it. The problem is that we rarely hear about the good things people do, only the bad. As the saying goes in the media, "If it bleeds, it leads."

One has to remember that the 24 hour media circus, as well as the internet, has made our society hyper-aware of every little transgression, and that is leading to an inflated apprehension in regards to where the world is heading. The reality is that the world has changed for the better, but there is no way to know this ... but we DO know all about the bad things. Here are two examples:

First, there was a story on MSNBC about a teacher bullying a student. One of the posters there said, "Things like this never happened in my day." Except they did. He just didn't know about it. Why? Because back in his day, the only news we received was a half-hour of local news and a half-hour of world news. In addition to the local paper, that was it! There was absolutely no way to know about a teacher bullying a child in some small town in Missouri ... unless you lived there. He didn't have the internet or 24 hour news coverage "back in his day" so the world seemed relatively at peace. Now, however, we can get online, do a quick search, and find every article in every paper across the world outlining a teacher charged with misconduct. All of the sudden, it seems like teachers everywhere are going nuts ... but does that mean this is a new problem? Of course not. The only difference is that we *know* each incident no matter how far away it occurred.

The second example is this: My mother and I stumbled across a pack of stray dogs, probably around 10 or 11 of them. They were little more than puppies but they were malnourished with matted fur and were starving for attention. My mother managed to capture all of the dogs but two. Thing is, she was here in North Carolina 600 miles away from where she lived. So she took the dogs she had back to Pennsylvania and managed to find homes for all of them. But ... then she drove the 600 miles *back* to North Carolina (a 1200 mile round trip) just to get the last few dogs, which she did, and found them homes, as well. In total, she drove 2400 miles to save those dogs ... and to me, that's newsworthy. But you'll never hear about acts of kindness like that because it doesn't sell papers or get ratings on the cable news networks.

This fear and paranoia about the impending destruction of our civilization due to evil people and their evil ways is hyped-up sensationalism ... because that's all we ever hear about. It is natural to believe that the world is going to hell in a handbasket when all you ever hear about is murders, acts of cruelty, terrorism, people stealing from each other, etc.

by polyglide Thu May 03, 2012 12:00 pm

You do not have to be even half awake to realise the state the world is in at the present time.

One of the predictions regarding the end of the world as we know it, was that all Natiions would turn against the Jews.

One chance to have a go at what will happen when Israel decide to bomb Iran.

There has never ever been such a threat to humanity as there is now and all the nonsense regarding the past is now totally irrelevant, it is the present situation that counts and nothing else, the past will play no part other than affecting the actions that is taken by the existing.

by Shirina Thu May 03, 2012 3:25 pm

You do not have to be even half awake to realise the state the world is in at the present time.

You're right, you don't. I'm half asleep plenty of times while surfing the net to find news reports of every horrible thing that has happened in the world. You know, something that no one could do just 15 years ago.

One of the predictions regarding the end of the world as we know it, was that all Natiions would turn against the Jews.

The United States isn't going to turn against the Jews any time soon.

One chance to have a go at what will happen when Israel decide to bomb Iran.

Ah, well ... guess what. Turning against Israel does NOT mean turning against the Jews. Israel is a nation-state not a religion. Turning against the Jews means ALL Jews, including those that don't live in Israel. And there are more Jews in NYC and its suburbs than there are in Israel. Is America going to institute a second Holocaust, do you think? Wake me up when that happens ... I suspect I'll get a very good night's rest.

it is the present situation that counts and nothing else, the past will play no part other than affecting the actions that is taken by the existing.

The past is very relevant as a comparison to the present. Without it, there is no way to know whether today is worse than yesterday. Without the past, it would be like having a society with Alzheimer's. I'm trying to point out that things have been A LOT worse in the past, especially on a moral level. If religion wasn't so preoccupied with sexuality, people would see that. Instead, they think short skirts and sex on TV is the end of the world. But they forget that fathers no longer put their sons on their shoulders to see a heretic tortured and disemboweled in the town square. We've come a long way, but of course people are more fascinated with evil than they are good.

by polyglide Fri May 04, 2012 12:24 pm

You may compare the past with the present but I do not think the past has anything to do with what man will do with the possibilities he presently has at his disposal or why is he making so many mistakes and not learning from all the past ones?

I do not find the majority of people are preoccupied with sexuality but it would appear you are and I begin to wonder why.

Most people I know just enjoy sex as they should do and the things they are most concerned about is the immoral and criminal world we find ourselves in today and fear for the future of our children and the world in general.

As I have said previously, I see God's work and all his wonderful creations every day but, unfortunately I see far more of the Devil's work and often coming from the mouths of babes.

by Tosh Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:39 pm

You may compare the past with the present but I do not think the past has anything to do with what man will do with the possibilities he presently has at his disposal or why is he making so many mistakes and not learning from all the past ones?

We have had religion for 4-5000 years and as a vehicle for moral behaviour it has been proven to be unfit for purpose, our morality has increased as our religiosity has diminished.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:25 pm

We have had religion for 4-5000 years and as a vehicle for moral behaviour it has been proven to be unfit for purpose, our morality has increased as our religiosity has diminished.

Yep. Religion as an institution and personal belief has done nothing to improve the world. In fact, it has been a hindrance to progression of human potential. And I don't mean technologically or scientifically, I mean as accepting that every person born into this world has the right to live their life as they see fit within the context of their own human rights and respecting the human rights of others.

by Tosh Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:18 pm

The world would have developed further and faster under classical ethical reasoning, but no, we wanted immortality.

by polyglide Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:27 am

Yes and who do you think should determine human rights?

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:03 pm

Yes and who do you think should determine human rights?

Humans using human reason, lets start with the Golden Rule, seems reasonable.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:12 pm

Yes and who do you think should determine human rights?

Oooooooooooooookayyyyyyy........Let me think for minute..................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OH OH, I KNOW!!!..........................................Since it's human rights, yeah? Maybe like HUMANS could like determine HUMAN rights!!!

I'm a genius. Smile

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:21 pm

I'm a genius.

Only if you can say " show me the money " in ancient Hebrew using no vowels.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:15 pm

.... and the relevant Notes from Wikipedia.

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:24 pm

.... and the relevant Notes from Wikipedia.

by Shirina Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:31 pm

Since it's human rights, yeah? Maybe like HUMANS could like determine HUMAN rights!!!

No, no ... I think GOD should give us our rights. And since God never said a word about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by our peers, cruel and unusual punishment, how to elect a representative democratic government, how many terms a president is allowed to serve, who can vote, or gun ownership, we'll have to throw out the entire US Constitution.

Oh wait, that's what Dominionists already want to do.

Yes, Snowy, I WANT my rights to be dictated by Bronze Age desert nomads, rights handed down over thousands of years in the form of a badly translated book that is incomplete, and heavily censored by medieval priests. Oh yes, absolutely!

Now then ... where did I put my rocks? I noticed Gladys down the street was sick last week and now she's better, so I'm convinced some sort of witchcraft was used ....

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:46 pm

If God exists and he created laws for us to live by then it is logical to assume he used some form of reasoning to establish right from wrong, we can therefore conclude that reasoning is an adequate method of establishing good from evil.

We just cut out the middleman and use reason alone.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm

We just cut out the middleman and use reason alone.

Sounds reasonable. cheers

by Sponsored content