Sharia law vs. Christian law

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.

The Hebrew Bible is borrowing most of the commandments from earlier civilisations.

There's nothing wrong with that. They are good. We should remember though that they are not unique to the Hebrews as the OT seems to indicate.
The same applies to other things.
The cloud by day and the fire by night. A practise also used by other armies so a large army always knew where the 'head/leading' part of the army was.
Jewish religious ritual and the Ark are reminiscent of Egyptian ways. If Moses was bought up as an Egyptian this is understandable.

I would like to see your list of a hundred things more important to do and not do than these.

Rape
Torture
Pedophilia
Child Abuse
Spousal Abuse
Extortion
Coercion
Assault
Wars of Aggression
Genocide
Ethnic Cleansing
Kidnapping/Involuntary Captivity (not including jail)
Psychological Warfare
Racketeering
Conning/Scamming
Reckless Endangerment
Drug Abuse
Alcohol Abuse
Cheating
Bullying
Slavery
Arson
Pimping
Carjacking
Fraud
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Terrorism
Incest
Abusing Authority
Abusing Trust
Deception

etc. etc. etc.

I'm not going to write out a hundred things, but you get the idea. None of those things are mentioned in the 10 Commandments, and all of them are far worse than, say, coveting your neighbor's donkey or failing to honor your parents (who may not be worthy of such honor).

I think Tosh has the right of it as I agree with what he says.

I would kill to protect myself or another in danger
I would lie to save a life, or tell a white lie to spare someone unneccesary hurt feelings
I would steal to stay alive, but only from those who could afford the loss
I would not honor parents who abused me or told me to commit criminal acts
And we all covet - without coveting, capitalism wouldn't work, and you have repeatedly regaled the greatness of capitalism, Rock

But I would NEVER rape, commit genocide, torture, abuse my spouse or children, own a slave, kidnap, etc.

Shirina, the list you give is proof of the decline in the morals of mankind in becoming a friend of Satan.

There would be none of the things you quote if mankind had not invented them.

It just proves to what extent the depravity of man has reached.

There would be none of the things you quote if mankind had not invented them.

Oh really? Then perhaps you can explain to me why God either commanded, condoned, or personally committed just about every last item on my afore mentioned list.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41094

I would like to see your list of a hundred things more important to do and not do than these.

[Note: Numbers inserted by RockOnBrother]

1. Rape
2. Torture
3. Pedophilia
4. Child Abuse
5. Spousal Abuse
6. Extortion
7. Coercion
8. Assault
9. Wars of Aggression
10. Genocide
11. Ethnic Cleansing
12. Kidnapping/Involuntary Captivity (not including jail)
13. Psychological Warfare
14. Racketeering
15. Conning/Scamming
16. Reckless Endangerment
17. Drug Abuse
18. Alcohol Abuse
19. Cheating
20. Bullying
21. Slavery
22. Arson
23. Pimping
24. Carjacking
25. Fraud
26. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
27. Terrorism
28. Incest
29. Abusing Authority
30. Abusing Trust
31. Deception

 

I said, “I would like to see your list of a hundred things more important to do and not do than these.” One hundred minus thirty-one equals sixty-nine, so your list is a tad bit short.

Hebrew Bible

“You shall not murder.”

“You shall not commit adultery.”

“You shall not steal.”

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Exodus 20:12-17, in part

 

Numbers 9, 10, 11, and 27 in your short list are covered by “You shall not murder”, and are thus on par with Exodus 20:12-17. It would be interesting to see your explanation as to how the remaining twenty-seven items in your list are more important to do and not do than these things mentioned in Exodus 20:12-17, including “You shall not murder.”

Greek Bible

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

 

Notice that the remaining twenty-seven things on your short list are covered by Y’shua’s teaching.

One hundred minus thirty-one equals sixty-nine, so your list is a tad bit short.

I already said that I wasn't going to type out literally a hundred things.

Numbers 9, 10, 11, and 27 in your short list are covered by “You shall not murder”,

The 10 Commandments says, "Thou shalt not KILL" ... not murder.

It would be interesting to see your explanation as to how the remaining twenty-seven items in your list are more important to do

Are you suggesting that rape is less important than not coveting ... or honoring your parents by doing chores or coming home for curfew?

Notice that the remaining twenty-seven things on your short list are covered by Y’shua’s teaching.

We were talking about the 10 Commandments.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41094

I would kill¹ to protect myself or another in danger
I would lie² to save a life, or tell a white lie² to spare someone unneccesary hurt feelings
I would steal³ to stay alive, but only from those who could afford the loss
I would not honor⁴ parents who abused me or told me to commit criminal acts
And we all covet⁵ - without coveting, capitalism wouldn't work, and you have repeatedly regaled the greatness of capitalism⁶, Rock

 
 

1. To kill for this reason is not murder. The “authorized” KJV mistranslates the commandment; the quoted text accurately translates Hebrew “רָצַח”, ‎ “râtsach” as “murder.” If you and I were at the same place, and someone attempted to cause you great bodily harm or kill you, I would kill that person, and bear the subsequent nightmares, to prevent either of those occurrences.
   
   
2. Neither of these is bearing false witness. In Dallas County, Texas, thirty or more wrongfully convicted innocent persons have been exonerated and released from incarceration by the combined efforts of Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins and The Innocence Project. All of these persons bear the non-erasable scars of having had someone(s) bear false witness against them.
   
   
3. Does that make it right? How can you know who can or cannot afford the loss?
   
   
4. One does not honor one’s parents by submitting to abuse or committing criminal acts. To do so would be to dishonor one’s parents. One honors such parents by taking appropriate action, including reporting abusive parents to child protective services and reporting criminal conspirator parents to law enforcement.
   
   
5. That’s why the commandment is there. I’m a coveting sunuvagun, I gaw-run-tee.
   
   
6. I have not done so.
   
   

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41125

One hundred minus thirty-one equals sixty-nine, so your list is a tad bit short.

I already said that I wasn't going to type out literally a hundred things.

 

You promised “a hundred”, I asked for “a hundred”, and you provided thirty-one. Your list is short by sixty-nine.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41125

Numbers 9, 10, 11, and 27 in your short list are covered by “You shall not murder”,

The 10 Commandments says, "Thou shalt not KILL" ... not murder.

 

Let’s examine the text.

Hebrew Bible

“You shall not murder.”

Exodus 20:12-17, in part

 

The text says “You shall not murder.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41125

It would be interesting to see your explanation as to how the remaining twenty-seven items in your list are more important to do

Are you suggesting that rape is less important than not coveting ... or honoring your parents by doing chores or coming home for curfew?

 

I am stating that it would be interesting to see your explanation as to how the remaining twenty-seven items in your list are more important to do and not do than these things mentioned in Exodus 20:12-17, including “You shall not murder.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p330-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#41125

Notice that the remaining twenty-seven things on your short list are covered by Y’shua’s teaching.

We were talking about the 10 Commandments.

 

I am talking about YHVH Elohim’s Word, including his Word conveyed through Y’shua, of whom the Father has said, “This is my beloved Son, my Chosen One, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote: Christian "law" and Islamic "law" are not even remotely comparable.

They're both based on a fiction? The description of Mohammed as a duplicitous opportunist paedophile is hard to argue against, and the koran has at least may ridiculous and obviously erroneous claims as the bible, hardly surprising since the Koran borrows heavily from both Christian and Judaic scriptures.

Sheldon, IMHO it is impossible to believe that any religion and especially Bible is true,first you only have to ask yourself how old the Earth or the World is, and then when these religions were invented,and when the Bibles were written?
Nobody was around to witness the world being made or the Earth, yet they invent them in their bibles do they not? and form a religion around them.
Then people are so gullible they actually believe it.

stuart torr wrote:Sheldon, IMHO it is impossible to believe that any religion and especially Bible is true,first you only have to ask yourself how old the Earth or the World is, and then when these religions were invented,and when the Bibles were written?
Nobody was around to witness the world being made or the Earth, yet they invent them in their bibles do they not? and form a religion around them.
Then people are so gullible they actually believe it.

Yet the vast majority of people believe in some sort off deity, though I suspect most of them don't over analyse it, and simply have a notion of what the word god means that is so malleable it can mean anything they please, and thus they can pick and choose facts in the most subjective manner when it pleases them. To an outside critical eye obviously this seems so subjective as to be mendacious, but of course I doubt they see it like that. The human capacity for self delusion is a demonstrable fact, couple that with how subjective and superstitious humans are, and the complete lack of any tangible testable evidence to support any theism and it's a no brainer for me.

This is why scientific empiricism is such a thorn in the side of religious beliefs and religions, the ability that the scientific method has to objectively analyse and test evidence and the conclusions it makes removes the subjectivity that theism relies on, and disproves in the most spectacular way previously held truths, even core beliefs. Science never stops, and never rests on it's laurels, as unlike religion it deals in tangible testable evidence and no fact no matter how firmly evidenced is beyond continuous scrutiny and therefore subject to revision or even to be discarded if the evidence ever requires it, furthermore science rewards those who disprove hypothesis and theories as much as those who confirm them. Which is why when creationists make the absurd claim that there is scientific evidence that refutes Darwinian (species) evolution it a demonstrable lie. Or as Polyglide tries to claim that evolution is a fact but subject to his own personal interpretation based his own subjective experiences of "bird breeding". This is also why Polyglide is being so deliberately dishonest when he makes this claim, yet repeatedly ignores my demand that he link the scientific evidence that would of course have to be peer reviewed as the evidence that has established evolution as a fact is, and to name the scientists who falsified it who would of course be world famous because of it, and have been Nobel prize winners at least as famous as Darwin himself to reverse a scientific fact as firmly established as evolution.

Anyone who could make such a claim repeatedly and yet ignore these facts is being deliberately duplicitous, and since he also claims to be well aware of the scientific process he must know that he's lying, and even if he were as I suspect, and his posts suggest,  entirely ignorant of the scientific process, then my posts pointing out the basic requirements that science would demand of such evidence are also being ignored and would still indicate rank dishonesty.

I actually sympathise a little as if he is 80 years old and has based his entire life on a religious belief that he can't maintain faith in without denying the fact of evolution then obviously it'd be silly to think he'd just throw his hands in the air and accept the truth. My sympathy is a little diluted of course as he so often turns to nasty and childish ad hominem and some fairly dishonest misrepresentations of the posts of others, myself included. This is why I so strongly object to the indoctrination of children with the mumbo jumbo of religious beliefs when they are too young to defend themselves. The Jesuits used to make a chilling boast about their ability to indoctrinate children in such a way that it could never be reversed during their life. Of course what they meant is no amount of evidence or facts could reverse it as we see with many of polyglide's views expressed on here.

Case proved on behalf of atheists I do believe.

stuart torr wrote:Case proved on behalf of atheists I do believe.

Not really proved stu, only theists like Polyglide believe absolute proof is possible. Knowledge by definition is always tentative, it's no less compelling for that, as science shows us, the process is robust precisely because facts like evolution though put beyond refute by the evidence are still open to scrutiny and therefore subject to revision or rejection, BUT ONLY IF proper evidence is found.

What creationists just like Polyglide fail to understand, perhaps deliberately, is that there are rigid criteria for what constitutes evidence and for how it is validated, and that if such evidence existed and had been validated to refute evolution we'd all already know this. It's like claiming the moon exploded years ago and no one noticed, it's so absurd only someone entirely ignorant of the scientific process or utterly without integrity would even try to convince anyone of such an absurd lie, let alone with something as idiotic as vague references to online creationist blogs, and think any educated person would fall for it, or uneducated come to that, as my own education as i I have stated previously was fairly mediocre by any standards. You see even a brief research will highlight that Polyglide's claims are as dishonest as they are untrue.

Well proved awaiting further evidence then.

stuart torr wrote:Well proved awaiting further evidence then.

My point is that proved indicates a linear progression where a point is attained that is absolute. Science doesn't work in that way, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to Polyglide. A scientific theory is as high a degree of evidence as you can get, that's what Polyglide doesn't seem to understand, and it's such a basic scientific fact that it does rather make all his grandiloquent claims to be fully aware of the latest scientific developments look fairly absurd. A 12 year old science class covers things like peer review process, and falsification, and of course the definition of a scientific theory and how it is fundamentally different from the definition of the word theory used alone in any other context.

Scientific theories are not facts, rather they explain facts. Nor does the level of evidence increase from a theory on to a law, another popular lie creationists use unashamedly.

A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a mathematical equation. They explain what will occur in a given circumstance.

Scientific Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. They explain facts and, sometimes, laws.

A fairly concise and simple explanation of the differences between hypothesis, theories, and laws in this link, and it covers Polyglide's favourite creationist cliché that evolution is "just a theory".

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Have you noticed one thing over the last 6 or 7 days Sheldon? give you one guess at it first,

stuart torr wrote:Have you noticed one thing over the last 6 or 7 days Sheldon? give you one guess at it first,

I hit my target weight of 11st 7lb?

Only took 20 weeks to shed 22lbs, I'm also training 3-4 nights a week.

Or maybe Polyglide was hit by a bus on the way to the library?

I really do not know if the last one was true Sheldon, but he has not posted has he?

Shirina,
Please give an example of how God actually either performed, agreed with or sanctioned the list you quoted.

You will find God gave advice on what to do and what not to do and the consequences of not doing so.

If you are told not to put your finger in the fire and you do and get burnt ???????? etc;

Polyglide I do not know if Shirina is well enough at the moment to answer any posts as the poor lady was ill the best person to ask about that would be Ivan ok.

Polyglide wrote: You will find God gave advice on what to do and what not to do and the consequences of not doing so

Which god? If an omnipotent deity exists it's doing a remarkable job of hiding its existence. When you've evidenced which god you can evidence which version you think has offered these "rules" that have most certainly been outgrown and improved upon in many instances by human morality. Of course the few that remain valid predate the creation of your god/religion so it's nonsense to assign them to it.

stuart torr wrote:Polyglide I do not know if Shirina is well enough at the moment to answer any posts as the poor lady was ill the best person to ask about that would be Ivan ok.

Sorry to hear this. If she ever reads this forum or anyone is in touch with her please give her my best wishes. I always enjoyed Shirina's posts. Intelligent and erudite.

Stu,
I was unaware that Shirina was ill and of course offer my best wishes and prayers for her recovery.

regards.

I am sure that when she browses the forum Polyglide they will be appreciated, very kind of you.Stu.

Tosh wrote:

TOSH. PERSONAL INSULTS ARE NOT TOLERATED ON THIS FORUM. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DOING SO. THANK YOU.

I was led to believe personal insults were tolerated as long as they were under 14-15 lines.

I will put your comments in my code of conduct spread sheet.

How did I miss this? I think I just squeezed out a little piss. I have the greatest regard for forum moderators who do an unenviable job at the best of times, but this is such a funny comeback I just had to laugh out loud.

I'll apologise now.......

polyglide wrote:What I see in the posts are examples of wasted education.To accept everything that some scientist  says and continually use it as a condition of your support for any subject, shows you have no real ideas or thoughts of your own.

So you invented Christianity yourself then? All the different types as well?

There are an awful lot you know.

Dr, Shedlon,
You have stated many times that science is an on going process and yet put all your faith in matters that will one day in all probability be disputed and offer nothing of your own.

You say nothing is certain yet claim many things are, very strange.

No one invented Christianity, God provided the means for mankind to live a very fruitful and happy life, just look at what peole like you who disbelieve and take no notice have done to the earth and it's inhabitants.

Ok I'll knock these lies over one at a time then. 

1.  Science does not require faith.
2. My confidence in science is based on its quantifiable successes and it's testable objective methods. Unlike religious faith.
3. It is extremely rare for scientific facts or the theories that explain them to be reversed.  
4. Claiming that scientific facts will in all propability be changed is an asinine meaningless unevidenced piece of subjective bs.
5. I have never claimed anything is 100% certain, I have stated the opposite.  Even in my previous post so you're a shameless liar.

What have I done to the earth or anyone in it? What a truly nasty moronic puerile thing to say.

Christianity was created by humans, step by step. There is no evidence any of it is divinely inspired anymore than all the other religions humans have created. What's more the scripture it's based on is contradictory,  erroneous, and morally repugnant.

Dr, Sheldon,
Science only requires a person who thinks he/she can explain something to have a go at doing so, usually ending in something else that needs explaining. Surely a scientist must have faith in the work in hand.

Some scientific findings can be accepted as being realistically probable, however, many have been proven to be false.

Many first attempts through science have been either changed or dismissed throughout history and will continue to be the same.

There are things that are cetain, without oxygen we could not breath the breath of life.

My point being that the world would be a far better place if people with no faith had been true Christians, nothing personal a general observation.

Christianity was created by Jesus as far as I am concerned, everything prior is of no reverlance to the people of today.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Science only requires a person who thinks he/she can explain something to have a go at doing so, usually ending in something else that needs explaining. Surely a scientist must have faith in the work in hand.

Science does not require faith, science requires evidence, and that evidence has to be testable and tested, and all claims and conclusions must be falsifiable. At the end of the process the whole of the research, its methods, evidence, and conclusions must be submitted to be peer reviewed by the foremost experts in that field throughout the world. This never ever stops, and unlike religion, scientific facts are never immutable but always tentative and open to scrutiny.  If falsified they are discarded, this is anathema to faith, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Religion is based on faith and nothing more, science is not based on, and does not require, faith. Confidence in it's methods is based on tangible provable and quantifiable successes. I'll end with a quote from Christopher Hitchens.

"Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake."

Polyglide wrote:Some scientific findings can be accepted as being realistically probable, however, many have been proven to be false.

Accepted by who? You're making silly sweeping and false claims about science again. You have shown repeatedly that you are scientifically illiterate I'm afraid, unaware of of basic scientific methods, definitions, and processes.

Polyglide wrote:Many first attempts through science have been either changed or dismissed throughout history and will continue to be the same.

 

So what? A method for seeking for knowledge would be worthless if it couldn't revise it's findings as it made new discoveries. That's why science has been so successful and continues to be so, whilst religion has taught us nothing in thousands of years, and had many of its "immutable truths" thoroughly disproved by scientific advances.              

Polyglide wrote:There are things that are cetain, without oxygen we could not breath the breath of life.

   
I've no idea what you mean by "the breath of life", and I have no idea what point you're making here beyond our physiology requiring oxygen, is there a point? It was science that taught us this anyway, not religion that's for sure.           

Polyglide wrote:My point being that the world would be a far better place if people with no faith had been true Christians, nothing personal a general observation.

   

I disagree, but since you again offer nothing but hubris, and a bare subjective claim then discussion is again negated. Hitchen's razor applies, so your claim is rejected. However I think since we're using The late Hitch's epistemological razor a quote from him would be apropos, I wonder if you'll even answer.
       
"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer?"

Polyglide wrote: Christianity was created by Jesus as far as I am concerned,

 
Then you need to read a little more, Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus was alleged to have died. Jesus was Jewish, did you really not know this? That aside if Jesus existed he was a man, no?

Polyglide wrote:everything prior is of no reverlance to the people of today.

The relevance of history is tantamount to us understanding who and what we are and where we came from, if you want to ignore facts and historical evidences that's your call, but no knowledge is irrelevant for any reasoning, intelligent, and inquisitive mind, nor should it be.

Dr, Shedlon,
Your lack of understanding the written word is no longer a mystery to me it is just an obvious fact.

Two points, Christianity, as I clearly stated, was through the birth of Jesus, had he not been born then he could not have fullfilled God's wishes by leading a pure life and dying to save mankind, the fact that he was a Jew has nothing to do with the matter.

Secondly, the relevance of history in the case of Christianity is of no importance to me, you nor anyone else can be sure of all the circumstances relative to the Bible or the times prior to the birth of Jesus, no one knows to what extent Satan has played a part, you do not believe in Satan and are therefore unable to look at matters in the same way as those that do.

It is therefore futile for you to come up with matters that have nothing to do with what Christians realy think when you obviously have no idea just what they take into consideration when looking at the choice between creation and evolution.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                Your lack of understanding the written word is no longer a mystery to me it is just an obvious fact.

Coming from someone who thinks my username is Shedlon, and after that capital y you've used after a comma I think this is hilarious. Unfortunately your posts show you have a very poor level of literacy, and can't grasp the most basic sentences even after it's been explained multiple times, so there is no mystery here; and just to prove the point:

Polyglide wrote:Two points, Christianity, as I clearly stated, was through the birth of Jesus,

You didn't claim that, but in fact claimed Jesus created Christianity:

by polyglide Yesterday at 6:41 pm
Christianity was created by Jesus as far as I am concerned,

After I had pointed out that:

Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus was alleged to have died. Jesus was Jewish,

so a perfect example showing you are simply illiterate, and prefer to blame everyone else rather than learn to read a simple sentence. As I said Jesus was Jewish, Christianity was created after his death, by humans.  

Polygllide wrote:had he not been born then he could not have fullfilled God's wishes by leading a pure life and dying to save mankind, the fact that he was a Jew has nothing to do with the matter.

Ah, the lesser known spelling of fulfilled again, and after your arrogant opener about my ability to understand what is written I'm sure no one will mind if I take a little schadenfreude here. Again you can't understand even the simplest sentence, you repudiated my claim that humans had created Christianity after Jesus's death. The fact that he was Jewish therefore is obviously significant to anyone who can read, and why it's significant is equally obvious. I hold little hope you'll grasp it though.

Polyglide wrote:Secondly, the relevance of history in the case of Christianity is of no importance to me,

So you said, and I showed why this is a ludicrously absurd claim, it seems yet again that you think bare repetition is somehow compelling polemic, it isn't. So I'll reiterate, "The relevance of history is tantamount to us understanding who and what we are and where we came from, if you want to ignore facts and historical evidences that's your call, but no knowledge is irrelevant for any reasoning, intelligent, and inquisitive mind, nor should it be."

Polyglide wrote:you nor anyone else can be sure of all the circumstances relative to the Bible or the times prior to the birth of Jesus,

This is hardly helping your cause is it, but I couldn't agree more. In fact lets tell the whole truth, the bible is roundly contradictory, filled with egregious immoral atrocities, both committed by and encouraged by God, and is replete with errant nonsense that has been refuted by science yet is touted as immutable truths, it has no basis in historical fact that can be properly evidenced either, which I suspect is why you've gone from your ludicrous claim that many of it's myths are evidenced by science, (you could produce none) to history being irrelevant. It seems you can't see the irony of two such incongruous statements, but rest assured everyone else can.

Polyglide wrote:no one knows to what extent Satan has played a part, you do not believe in Satan and are therefore unable to look at matters in the same way as those that do.

I'm not prepared to believe in something that is wildly implausible and for which there isn't a shred of credible evidence, if that's what you mean. I certainly wouldn't want any of our laws based on such risible and pernicious fantasies, though others may believe this hokum if that makes them happy, but it seems very close to a harmful paranoid delusion bordering on a persecution complex to me. Lets not forget that this particular fantasy was central to the atrocities and genocides committed by the Christian inquisition.

Polyglide wrote:It is therefore futile for you to come up with matters that have nothing to do with what Christians realy think

So after your pompous opener about my understanding of what is written we have yet another outing of your lesser known spelling of really with only one l, just how many times you need to be told it really has two l's is a bit of a mystery. Beyond that, this is another bare claim that you don't  attempt to evidence, you'd look a little more erudite and less petulant if you attempted to show where I had done this, learned to spell, and left the arrogant derogations of my understanding of English alone, especially since you still insist on capitalising words after a comma, unaware of the hilarity of it all.

Polyglide wrote:when you obviously have no idea just what they take into consideration when looking at the choice between creation and evolution.

Since the largest Christian church with billions of followers accepts the scientific fact of species evolution that claim is hilarious and idiotic in equal measure. However I'll happily clarify the choice right here, on the one hand we have unassailable scientific evidence that spans 150 years of scientific study and rigorous scrutiny, and each year amasses more and more evidence ALL OF WHICH supports shared ancestry and species evolution, and the other hand we have blind faith in bronze age superstition coupled with the most imbecilic denials, and perfidious use of pseudo-science. I freely admit that whilst the evidence is all pointing one way it's a "no-brainer" for me, but then I don't second guess scientific facts, cherry picking the ones I accept based on hokum superstitions.  

You never actually addressed this at all: "Science does not require faith, science requires evidence, and that evidence has to be testable and tested, and all claims and conclusions must be falsifiable. At the end of the process the whole of the research, its methods, evidence, and conclusions must be submitted to be peer reviewed by the foremost experts in that field throughout the world. This never ever stops, and unlike religion, scientific facts are never immutable but always tentative and open to scrutiny.  If falsified they are discarded, this is anathema to faith, the two positions are mutually exclusive. Religion is based on faith and nothing more, science is not based on, and does not require, faith. Confidence in it's methods is based on tangible provable and quantifiable successes." Though again I'm not surprised, as hit & run bare claims are all you seem interested in, and not proper debate.

Is that why you never answered this either:

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer?"

One last point, I offered to leave your pitiful spelling and grammar alone some time back if you would desist from this puerile, idiotic, childish and of course false, attacks on my understanding of English. You have since returned to type and are now making this absurd lie in almost every post, so your childlike spelling and grammar are fair game, If you desist then I will, your call champ..

PS - I meant no derogation to attach itself to the literacy of any child in that last sentence.

Succinctly and accurately stated.  I cannot but concur.

Worth reiterating here that my initial point was a refutation of Polyglide's repeated claim that "God would intervene only when every human had been taught about Christianity.  Also that this was soon to be true."

I pointed out that since humans had existed for the better part of 200000 years and his religion was barely 2000 years old, his claim was demonstrably false. Unless he's claiming all the humans that lived and died before Christianity existed somehow had access to christian dogma and doctrine?

Dr, Sheldon,
I thought we were beyond using typing errors as spelling mistakes, I sould have pointed out several of yours in recent posts.

Once again you miss the whole point.

The reference to God taking over the running of the world is in respect of the time Satan has had his chance to turn everyone against God and by that time everyone will have heard his word through the Bible.

All people living at that time.

God has intervened on a number of occasions when Satan has attempted, through foul means, to wipe out all Christians.

This has included what to many would seem not the actions of a benevolent being, however, if as a loving father my children were theatened by a mob of mad people, even were children or anything else involved I would wipe them all out to save my children.

I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

An ethical statement can be made by anyone.

Science has only partly explained many of the things God created, not one scientist can actually explain the origin of life.

Of course things evolve, however, this just proves that as man and nature changes habitats and food sources animals and plants will either adapt or die out.

Many species have been lost and many on the brink, this is all due to what we call natural events when in fact Satan is playing a major part.

No monkey has ever been anything else but a monkey no plant has ever been anything else than at present or having changed through matters stated above, slight changes in every aspect of a species may and do occur but only when their habitats etc; are changed.

Science can only partly explain what already exists it cannot explain the why and whrefores etc;

Anything that exists must have an explanation and from start to finish, scientists have not got to base one.

any spelling mistakes apologised for, I dare not go over the post because it often disapears and I have to start again.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I thought we were beyond using typing errors as spelling mistakes,

I explained this in my post:

One last point, I offered to leave your pitiful spelling and grammar alone some time back if you would desist from this puerile, idiotic, childish and of course false, attacks on my understanding of English. You have since returned to type and are now making this absurd lie in almost every post, so your childlike spelling and grammar are fair game, If you desist then I will, your call champ..

Polyglide wrote:Once again you miss the whole point.

Once again you're missing the point more like, and are using this puerile lie to avoid honestly answering my post.

Polyglide wrote:The reference to God taking over the running of the world is in respect of the time Satan has had his chance to turn everyone against God and by that time everyone will have heard his word through the Bible. All people living at that time.

So not what you claimed then, and I hadn't missed the point at all, it was your execrable literacy that made a claim that wasn't what you had intended. Apology accepted.... That aside your claim is still demonstrably false as no where near everyone in the world learned about the Christian religion, many of it's adherents are remarkably ignorant of it's doctrine and dogma.

Polyglide wrote:I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

You really can't read at all can you? Ivan's caption didn't claim the bible stated that those things were promoted, it claimed the bible and Koran actually promoted them, which they do. No surprise you don't even know this after all your bombast about the bible explaining everything you haven't even read it all.

Judges 21:10-24Rapine
Numbers 31:25-40Rapine, slavery, and human sacrifice.
Timothy 2:11-14 Misogyny
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Misogyny and murder.
Leviticus 26:21-22 Infanticide.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Misogyny and torture.
I Corinthians 14:34-35 Misogyny.
Leviticus 25:44-46 Slavery.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT Slavery.
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT Slavery and rapine.

There's more of course, but Ivan's point is well proved.

Polyglide wrote:An ethical statement can be made by anyone.

So no religious beliefs are required for a person to be moral and ethical, I agree.

Polyglide wrote: Science has only partly explained many of the things God created, not one scientist can actually explain the origin of life.

Repeating this mantra won't make it true, nothing science has explained indicates the existence of a deity, and much of it roundly refutes religions claims. Not being able to explain something proves nothing, that's argumentum ad ignorantiam, you do love your "god of the gaps" polemic, but is logically fallacious no matter how many times you recite it.

Polyglide wrote:No monkey has ever been anything else but a monkey no plant has ever been anything else than at present or having changed through matters stated above, slight changes in every aspect of a species may and do occur but only when their habitats etc; are changed.

Species evolution is a fact, and your laughable grasp of evolution is embarrassing here again.

Polyglide wrote: Science can only partly explain what already exists it cannot explain the why and whrefores etc;

 

God of the gaps, again. Science has enlarged the human store of knowledge exponentially in a very short time, religion has taught us nothing about the world or the universe, not one fact uncovered in thousands of years of navel gazing.              

Polyglide wrote:Anything that exists must have an explanation and from start to finish, scientists have not got to base one.

   
Yet you claim repeatedly that God is beyond explanation, another own goal it appears. You know squat about science so forgive me if I take your bombastic and idiotic claims at face value.  Wherever science eventually takes us it has already discovered a vast amount, and religion by comparison has taught us nothing, it clings doggedly to bronze age superstition and dogma, trying to rationalise the absurd myths it contains.

Dr, Shedlon,
I have never said that God is beyond explanation, what I have said it is beyond us to explain.

God of the gaps, I knew you realy believed in God.

God of the gaps is the contemporary name given to religious apologetics that use argumentum ad ignorantiam.  I've explained this definition and linked it enough times for any intelligent objective poster interested in reasoned discussion to understand it. You still don't and that leaves very few explanations. 

You claimed there was an explanation for everything. Then claimed we couldn't explain your chosen deity. Wriggle all you like that hilarious contradiction is just one of a multitude you keep making trying to rationalise beliefs that defy rational explanation.

Are you ignoring this answer to your question for the obvious reason?

Polyglide wrote:I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

You really can't read at all can you? Ivan's caption didn't claim the bible stated that those things were promoted, it claimed the bible and Koran actually promoted them, which they do. No surprise you don't even know this after all your bombast about the bible explaining everything you haven't even read it all. 

Judges 21:10-24Rapine 
Numbers 31:25-40Rapine, slavery, and human sacrifice. 
Timothy 2:11-14 Misogyny
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Misogyny and murder.
Leviticus 26:21-22 Infanticide.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 Misogyny and torture.
I Corinthians 14:34-35 Misogyny.
Leviticus 25:44-46 Slavery.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT Slavery.
Exodus 21:7-11 NLT Slavery and rapine.

polyglide wrote:God of the gaps, I knew you realy believed in God.

I really don't, and really still has two l's.