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 snowyflake Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm

We just cut out the middleman and use reason alone.

Sounds reasonable. cheers

by polyglide Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:10 pm

Yep, and I suppose animals decide animals rights etc; etc; etc;

Get a life and understand the meaning of what is written.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:15 pm

Yep, and I suppose animals decide animals rights etc; etc; etc;

Nope, humans decide animal rights, animal rights is a human concept, we didn't consult them.

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:16 pm

Get a life and understand the meaning of what is written.

It was understood and rebutted, your turn now...or is that it ?

by Shirina Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:21 pm

Yep, and I suppose animals decide animals rights etc; etc; etc;

How do we know they don't? Many species are very organized.

I know what you're getting it, and it fails. Humans do not decide animal rights for the animal kingdom. Humans decide how other HUMANS are allowed to treat animals. We do NOT decide how animals treat each other.

AND ... it should be pointed out that the only reason why we have to write animal rights laws is because humans muck about with the animal kingdom. It's not as though we're passing laws telling lions that they're only allowed to kill a certain number of gazelles each year because gazelles have rights too!

God, on the other hand, supposedly gives us all of this limitless freedom and then proceeds to hand us hundreds of laws - most of them stupid and pointless - to limit our freedom: What foods to eat, how to dress, how to style our hair, who to have sex with and when, how to treat slaves, etc. etc.

Do we do that to animals?

by Tosh Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:28 pm

His brain works funny.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:22 pm

His brain works funny.

Makes me laugh! Smile

by oftenwrong Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:45 pm

Banana skins can have that effect too.

by polyglide Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:34 pm

Some people get lost in the depths when the answers are in the shallows.

Others would not understand the truth even were a gun held at their head

by Tosh Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:30 pm

Others would not understand the truth even were a gun held at their head

Truth requires proof, you have none.

by polyglide Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:45 pm

Then prove the source of life.

We know there must be life on Mars because you can buy a Mars Bar in many shops.
Your kind of logic.

by Tosh Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:57 pm

Then prove the source of life.

Why do I need to prove how life began polyglide ?

by Shirina Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:29 pm

Then prove the source of life.

Right back at ya.

by polyglide Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:28 pm

Because that is the answer to the thousand dollar question and would enable mankind to become less arrogant, selfish and understand his place in the universe and beyond.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:28 pm

Because that is the answer to the thousand dollar question and would enable mankind to become less arrogant, selfish and understand his place in the universe and beyond.

We are less arrogant and selfish. We are kinder, more understanding, more tolerant and less violent and criminal than we have ever been in history and this is no thanks to religion or belief in invisible magic-Poof Daddies. Sure we still have problems but we far better than before.

That you think otherwise is a testament to your pessimism and negativity about the world. If faith in God makes you hate the world, I'm glad I'm an atheist. You bang on about 'if only people did what God wanted we wouldn't be in such a state'. Well, half the world believes in one or another God and it's clear that it isn't them making the improvements we see across the globe especially in the West. So I think your theory has a fatal flaw, poly. Belief doesn't do anything positive on the wider scale. In fact, we see just the opposite.

by Tosh Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:29 pm

Because that is the answer to the thousand dollar question and would enable mankind to become less arrogant, selfish and understand his place in the universe and beyond.

I think you may be presuming too much for an unknown answer.

by Shirina Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:13 pm

Because that is the answer to the thousand dollar question and would enable mankind to become less arrogant, selfish and understand his place in the universe and beyond.

Apparently, you don't watch the videos I post. There is nothing more arrogant than claiming to know God's will and then inflicting harm on others for not carrying it out. This happens all over the world - every single day.

by ROB Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:31 am

Shirina wrote:
There is nothing more arrogant than claiming to know God's will and then inflicting harm on others for not carrying it out.

There is, however, something as arrogant.

There is nothing more arrogant than claiming that one’s own will is supreme and then inflicting harm on others because others do not carry out your will to your satisfaction. Stalin, an atheist, did it, Pol Pot, an atheist, did it, Adolf Hitler, a closet atheist, did it, Idi Amin Dada, a bastardized “muslim”, probably a polytheist, did it, Papa Doc and Baby Doc, bastardized Roman Catholics, almost certainly polytheists (voodoo), did it, Saddam Hussein, a bastardized “muslim”, a probable atheist (Baath Party), di it, the successive Iranian ayatollahs, bastardized “muslims”, did it and do it, the list goes on and on.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:01 am

Atheists do not kill in the name of atheism. Only believers kill in the name of their God/gods/god believing they are doing his will.

It's all down to interpretation. Bastardised believers still believe they are doing the will of their God/gods/god. Doesn't make them any less faithful.

by ROB Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:56 am

snowyflake wrote:
Atheists do not kill in the name of atheism.

Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the “name” of atheism.

snowyflake wrote:
Only believers kill in the name of their God/gods/god believing they are doing his will.

Stalin and Pol Pot, believers not in “God/gods/god”, could not have killed in the name of that in which they did not believed. Stalin and Pol Pot believed in Karl Marx and his Marxism ideology, of which atheism is a necessary core component and inviolate tenet; Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of that in which they believed.

by Tosh Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:36 am

Stalin and Pol Pot believed in Karl Marx and his Marxism ideology, of which atheism is a necessary core component and inviolate tenet; Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of that in which they believed.

Oh I am sure there are more necessary core components and inviolate tenets in Marxism than atheism, I can think of a few, like economic and political equality.

But we will just ignore the important goals of Marxism and focus on atheism because you are a scholar.

by snowyflake Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:02 pm

Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of that in which they believed.

Yes, Marxism.

by ROB Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:34 am

snowyflake wrote:
Stalin and Pol Pot killed in the name of that in which they believed.
Yes, Marxism.

Opium of the people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German economist Karl Marx. It was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often referred to as "religion is the opiate of the masses." The quotation originates from the introduction of his proposed work A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; this work was never written, but the introduction (written in 1843) was published in 1844 in Marx's own journal Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a collaboration with Arnold Ruge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Karl Marx on Religion
Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Religion… is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm

Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of anti-religious atheism.

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:33 am

Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of anti-religious atheism.

The deaths for atheism (assuming you're correct, which you aren't) stopped when the madmen died. However people all over the world are STILL being killed and tortured due to religion.

by polyglide Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:22 am

People are being killed all over the world for oil,along with other material things.

What has religion to do with all the wars presently being fought?.

Three teenage children guilty of murder, parents killing six of their children, mother killing three of her children and then herself, children killing their parents for the inheritance, all in the matter of a few weeks.

Syria, thousands of children along with adults being killed on a daily basis nothing to do with religion.

There has never been a more volatile situation in the world than at the present time and never with the potential for destruction.

Just one nuclear bomb could kill more people at one time than all the people killed in all the other wars.

Maybe be not directly but over a period of time due to the after effects that could last for centuries.

Get real and smell the truth instead of attempting to sidetrack using infantile replies.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:20 pm

Syria, thousands of children along with adults being killed on a daily basis nothing to do with religion.

It has everything to do with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

by Shirina Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:51 pm

What has religion to do with all the wars presently being fought?.

You need to brush up on your current events, polyglide. I have posted at least half a dozen videos showing you exactly how religion plays a role in so much killing in today's world. It isn't my fault if you refused to watch them because, perhaps, you were afraid to see what's REALLY going on out there. Even the war in Afghanistan - the only "official" war taking place in the world right now - was a result of religion. Osama bin Laden directed the 9/11 attacks because of a) Osama couldn't stomach infidel troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia where Mecca is located and b) because of America's support for Israel and Judaism. This attack caused America to invade Afghanistan. It had everything to do with religion.

Even the Arab Spring, which we in the West hoped would bring democracy to many Arab states turned out to be little more than fundamentalist, conservative Islam trying to impose its will on the people. The bombings in places like Pakistan, India, and even Russia, are the result of fanatical religious belief. Africans are butchering children by the tens of thousands due to evangelical preachers telling mothers that their kids are witches. I mean, SERIOUSLY, polyglide, you're very much out of touch with world events.

Syria, thousands of children along with adults being killed on a daily basis nothing to do with religion.

LOL! See what I said above about the so-called Arab Spring.

Just one nuclear bomb could kill more people at one time than all the people killed in all the other wars.

Even if one nuke was dropped on the largest city in the world, and even if everyone in that city were killed, it still would not equal the death toll of all other wars, much less that visited upon humanity due to religion.

Get real and smell the truth instead of attempting to sidetrack using infantile replies.

Savor the irony. Twisted Evil

by ROB Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:43 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Opium of the people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German economist Karl Marx. It was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often referred to as "religion is the opiate of the masses." The quotation originates from the introduction of his proposed work A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; this work was never written, but the introduction (written in 1843) was published in 1844 in Marx's own journal Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a collaboration with Arnold Ruge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people
Karl Marx on Religion
Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Religion… is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm
Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
… (assuming you're correct, which you aren't)…

Anti-religious atheism is a necessary core component of Marxism.

Opium of the people
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Religion is the opium of the people" is one of the most frequently paraphrased statements of German economist Karl Marx. It was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often referred to as "religion is the opiate of the masses." The quotation originates from the introduction of his proposed work A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; this work was never written, but the introduction (written in 1843) was published in 1844 in Marx's own journal Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, a collaboration with Arnold Ruge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Karl Marx on Religion
Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Religion… is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm

Pol Pot and Stalin were Marxists. Anti-religious atheism is a necessary core component of Marxism. Pol Pot and Stalin were anti-religious atheists. Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of Marxism. Pol Pot and Stalin killed in the name of anti-religious atheism.

Shirina wrote:
The deaths for atheism… stopped when the madmen died.

Pol Pot and Stalin were anti-religious atheists, and Pol Pot and Stalin were madmen; this, Pol Pot and Stalin were anti-religious atheist madmen. The deaths for anti-religious atheism stopped when the anti-religious atheist madmen died.

Shirina wrote:
However people all over the world are STILL being killed and tortured due to religion.

People all over the world are still being killed and tortured by madmen.

by Tosh Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:11 pm

The fact that communism is against religion in no way proves any of the genocide was due to atheism or anti-religious beliefs. There is voluminous evidence that most deaths were done in the name of political and economic equality, but hey you don't do evidence do you crazy man ?

Its amazing how this man's conclusions can be huge extrapolations when it suits him, but show him a fossil and its just bones in dust.

I am telling you, this man has a malfunctioning brain.

by Tosh Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:14 pm

People all over the world are still being killed and tortured by madmen.

Religious madmen whose religion and theism is a necessary core element of their philosophy.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:44 pm

I think religion and belief in God is, in itself, a form of madness. Most humans succumb to delusion at some point in their lives, but the delusion of belief and the complete and utter denial of evidence, no matter what, is a form of insanity.

Why do adults need to believe in magic? Are some humans so weak minded that they cannot face up to their eventual demise?

Delusion is lying to yourself. It is not 'truth'. Believing in God and eternal life and a pointless human sacrifice for some ancient sin is one of the saddest and most ludicrous stories to burden mankind. The unnecessary suffering of people over the centuries due to this one story of Jesus would shock you. The wars, the inquistions, the crusades, the paedophile priests, the greed of the churches, the abuse. What good is there in belief.

Absolutely nothing.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:48 pm

I think religion and belief in God is, in itself, a form of madness. Most humans succumb to delusion at some point in their lives, but the delusion of belief and the complete and utter denial of evidence, no matter what, is a form of insanity.

The ego demands purpose and significance, God gives extra meaning to their lives, self righteousness makes them feel special and chosen. Psychologically the leap from literal creationism to atheistic naturalism is emotionally impossible, their well being is built around fundamental beliefs.

We are born to ask the question " why ", we are hard wired to seek answers and some questions and answers are just too difficult for creationists to fathom. They cannot create their own purpose, significance and meaning, personal philosophy requires too much thinking, they are not capable of building their own worldview.

They cannot accept the answer that we are part of nature, they want to be excluded from its anonymity.

by Tosh Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:11 pm

What I do not understand is why people cannot separate the message from the myth, why must they share the mythological beliefs of the messenger ?

There have been many inspirational figures in history, I am quite capable of appreciating their contributions to humanity without accepting the source of their inspiration.

Jesus did not invent the aspirations of goodness and kindness, but he became an inspirational martyr to these values. I can even overlook the fact that Jesus was actually intending to kill all transgressors in an apocalypse.

Jesus had a limit to forgiveness and believed in eugenics.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:36 pm

Jesus had not and has not any limit to forgiveness.

His promise is that all those who believe in him and repent will be saved.

by polyglide Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:38 pm

There si no burden on present mankind for the sins of others, read what Jesus promised and get your facts right.

by Shirina Mon Apr 22, 2013 4:17 pm

Jesus had not and has not any limit to forgiveness.

Oh, so you're saying that if atheists happen to be wrong and they find themselves being judged, Jesus will forgive them for their non-belief and allow them into Heaven?

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 22, 2013 5:28 pm

"....allow them into Heaven...."

Hard to think of anything less likely to please a genuine atheist.

by Tosh Mon Apr 22, 2013 6:17 pm

Jesus had not and has not any limit to forgiveness.

Mark 3:28-30: "Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven all their sins and all the blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Matthew 12:30-32: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy. But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Luke 12:8-10: "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

read what Jesus promised and get your facts right.

by snowyflake Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:35 pm

Jesus had not and has not any limit to forgiveness.

His promise is that all those who believe in him and repent will be saved.

What about anyone who believes in God but doesn't subscribe to Jesus? What happens to them? What about buddhists, muslims, hindus, sikhs, mormons etc etc etc?

Hard to think of anything less likely to please a genuine atheist.

I can't think of anything more boring and soul sucking than endless praise of God for all eternity....I think I'd rather be dead.

by oftenwrong Mon Apr 22, 2013 7:40 pm

But if that's what it takes to put bread on the table ........ The Lord be Praised!
Ask anyone at a Caritas soup-kitchen.

by polyglide Tue Apr 23, 2013 2:41 pm

For heavens sake Shirina, GET A LIFE.

Jesus said those who believe in him and repent.

Not those who do not believe in him prior to judgement day and realise as no doubt you will. too late.

by Sponsored content