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.

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

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

Dr, Sheldon,
You realy are one l of a fella thanks for the spelling lesson.
Please explain the difference between the Bible not promoting them and the Bible promoted them?.

God used many things for many reasons and did not ever instruct mankind as a whole to indulge in any of the matters stated, only when circumstances warranted would God allow anything seemingly wrong to us.

You asked this:

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

and I answered with these examples from the bible

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.

I suggest you read them, as your denials are asinine given anyone can read them for themselves, and see that Ivan's post was entirely correct. For the record slavery, rapine, and misogyny are NEVER warranted, and anyone who thinks they are is a pretty shitty human being.

Dr, Sheldon,
I disagree that something or anything is never warranted.

Having just gone over The Gospel According To, St. Matthew, the conclusion as with all the New Testament is that Jesus was giving his up to date instructions for the betterment of mankind and the result of not doing so.

It is obvious that some of the wording is to be taken as showing the significance and obvious detriment of undertaking certain actions and not following what they were told was in the best interests of mankind.

The most significant as far as I am concerned being; Every kingdom devided against itself is brought to desolation and every city or house divided gainst itself shall not stand.

I have stated previously that were my children threatened by anyone I would take whatever action was needed to protect them, God would be less than human if he would not do the same for his believers.

Not sure what you're talking about tbh, but you need to address this:

You asked this:

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

[size][size]

and I answered with these examples from the bible

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.

I suggest you read them, as your denials are asinine given anyone can read them for themselves, and see that Ivan's post was entirely correct. For the record slavery, rapine, and misogyny are NEVER warranted, and anyone who thinks they are is a pretty shitty human being.[/size][/size]

Dr, Shedlon,
As I have explained elsewhere God does what is necessay under the prevailing circumstances and has no need or reason to explain the reasons because those who believe in him will know that all he does is for the best interests of his people.

You specifically asked..

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

I supplied the evidence with biblical references;

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.

Your responses since have not even acknowledged that these biblical references support the claims in the caption Ivan used, why is that? Why do you ask for evidence then pointedly refuse to acknowledge that it's been given? That's very dishonest, it's not like I've offered subjective opinion as you always do, I've quoted directly from your own bible.

Dr, Sheldon,
All the above does is show the consequences of not doing the correct thing, every one would be as a result of disobedience and we all should realise that there are consequences for wrong doing.

You asked Ivan to evidence where the Bible advocated misogyny and rapine, those quotes are a few that do so, you're dancing around in your own froth to avoid the embarrassing acknowledgement that your rash demand for evidence has been completely satisfied.  

WHY?

by polyglide on Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:32 pm
I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

For the record it's spelled misogyny, and here is where the bible promotes rapine, slavery, and misogyny:

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.

Your ball.....

Dr, Sheldon,
There would be no need for any of the things quoted if mankind just followed what God instructed mankind to do.

All evil has come about through mankinds own doing.

Of course there must be consequences for wrong doing and God explained some of the consequences.

[size=38]by polyglide on Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:32 pm
I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.[/size]

Since you asked here is where the bible promotes rapine, slavery, and misogyny:

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.

Your ball, or do you think we won't notice you've asked for evidence and are now ignoring it?.... 

Dr, Sheldon,
In not one case does God promote anything, all he does is explain the consequences.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, In not one case does God promote anything, all he does is explain the consequences.

That's a lie, several of those quotes show God unequivocally promotes misogyny, by encouraging the Israelites to take slaves, and commit rape. Though of course Ivan's captioned photograph didn't claim God promoted this but that the bible did, as I have already corrected you more than once, so a double lie from you. This was your request for Ivan to show where the bible promotes these behaviours:

by polyglide on Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:32 pm
I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

I gave several references showing where the bible promotes rape, slavery, and misogyny. Here they are again as you are determined to ignore them and lie about what was claimed to try and avoid accepting the truth.

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.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained that God will only do what is necessary to protect his people and he rather than you will know what is the best way.

You may not understand this as you appear not to understand many things., because we both look at things in a different manner, I believe in God, you do not., were we both to believe then the matter would be diffrent.

This has nothing to do with belief, you asked Ivan to evidence where the bible advocated rapine and misogyny. I gave several passages evidencing this:

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.

I really don't care that you want to make the most asinine and absurd excuses for such behaviours by your god in the bible, as that's not remotely the point anyway. You asked for evidence, and I have given them, of course you haven;t the integrity to even acknowledge what they say. So you make these petty and puerile slurs on my understanding, as stupid a claim as it transparently dishonest to obfuscate and avoid honestly addressing the evidence you yourself asked for.

Dr, Sheldon,
I asked for examples of God promoting the items listed
none of hwich do so.

They are instances that were relevant to the circumstances of the time.

The Ten Commandments are the basis of what God said was in the best interests of mankind, other matters are relevant to man not following them and as a result of mans actions God, as loving father, protected his children as any benevolent parent would.

Polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
I asked for examples of God promoting the items listed
none of hwich do so.

No you didn't, you asked Ivan to show where the bible advocated those behaviours, and here is your post from the previous page , with the time and date, YET AGAIN, since you keep lying about what you claimed.

Polyglide wrote: by polyglide on Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:32 pm
I would like Ivan to explain where the Bible states that rape, slavery and mysogyny are promoted.

Once again here are the texts from the bible advocating precisely those behaviours:

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.

Once again the epoch they occurred is not relevant, Ivan posted a caption, you asked for evidence where the bible did this, and I have posted it. Making excuses for it doesn't alter the fact it is there, and you ought to at least have the integrity to acknowledge that your request for evidence has been answered.

The last sentence of your post has no relevance to what you asked, and is of course just your own subjective opinion. Blaming everyone who doesn't share your beliefs for what is advocated in the bible long before humans had even created your religion strikes me as irrational though. That said there is nothing in the ten commandments that specifically forbids rapine or misogyny, so your claim doesn't make any sense, since Ivan's caption pointed out that both the bible and the Koran advocate these behaviours.

Dr, Sheldon,
Advocate: urge by argument, recommend publicly.

None of the quoted does so.

All were seperate instances to deal with a particular problem and not recommended for future use.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Advocate: urge by argument, recommend publicly. None of the quoted does so. All were seperate instances to deal with a particular problem and not recommended for future use.

You aksed for evidence of the bible advocating rapine and misogyny, I have given them. The fact you think you can justify such actions, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, is deeply worrying. Any claims you have made to moral ascendancy are evaporating right here. There is no justification for such behaviours, ever. What's more having asked for the evidence and tried repeatedly to ignore it you're now actually trying to justify both behaviours yourself. Astonishing and utterly amoral.

Dr, Sheldon,
Did you read the definition of advocating?.

I can justify God doing anything because as a benevolent God he will only do what is necessary to protect his people, as any father would do.

Only someone devoid of any kind of moral rectitude would even try and justify rape, genocide, slavery and misogyny. 

You asked for where the bible advocated such behaviour and I have posted examples. Your semantics are laughable as you yourself are trying to justify the behaviours.  What a truly sickening display.

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not know if you have children, however, if you have then please tell me the limit you would put on protecting them.

None of the examples you have given advocate anything, they just give an account of an event.

You yourself are justifying the actions. You've done so repeatedly.  It's morally repulsive and more than a little worrying that anyone would even try to justify things like rape slavery genocide and misogyny.  It's bafflingly stupid, and equally repugnant to claim those actions can be justified to keep children safe. The mind boggles as to your thought process here. 

That aside you asked where the bible advocated these behaviours and I gave examples,  the attempts to excuse them are as amoral as they are irrelevant. 

To suggest a being with limitless power and benevolence would commit such atrocities is demonstrably false. Your posts are becoming more and more irrational, if that's even possible.

Dr, Sheldon,
You evaded the question.

Benevolence has limits and circumstances decide those limits you could well digest that before replying with matters that are not relevant.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                You evaded the question.

No I didn't, you didn't ask a question, a question has a question mark at the end of it. Your post I responded to had none.

by polyglide Today at 4:44 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I do not know if you have children, however, if you have then please tell me the limit you would put on protecting them. None of the examples you have given advocate anything, they just give an account of an event.

There's no question in there.

Polyglide wrote:Benevolence has limits

So you don't share the traditional Christian view that your deity is omni-benevolent then? You see these arbitrary changes you introduce to Christianity have to be clarified by you else how will anyone be expected to know.

Polyglide wrote:and circumstances decide those limits you could well digest that before replying with matters that are not relevant.

I can hardly be expected to predict what loopy dumb arbitrary subjective claim you'll next present as Christianity when it doesn't conform to the traditional and general beliefs of that religion. Calling any being benevolent AT ALL, when it commits acts like genocide, or advocates rapine, or infanticide, is howl the moon crazy,  and you might digest that. You might also digest since you've been told often enough that you don't decide what is and is not relevant on these threads, good news as well since your thought process is often harder to grasp than a greasy eel.

So just to clarify this, do you think rapine, genocide, slavery, and misogyny are morally inexcusable UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?

That's a yes no question by the way, though I somehow doubt we'll get a candid answer, but you never now.

Dr, Sheldon,
Having been unable for health reasons to keep up with the posts I have spent part of the time going over parts of the Bible.

If God feels that anything is appropriate it is alright with me.

We do not know all the circumstances involved in many of the Bible events, we do not know the whys and wherefores so are able to decide only on what humans think appropriatewe have no idea of all the implications of not doing or doing.

If God thinks something appropriate it is alright with me choose what is involved because God is the only one aware of all the consequences.

Polyglide wrote:If God feels that anything is appropriate it is alright with me.

Is it? Really? So much for moral absolutes then, this seems to contradict your previous stance somewhat. You're now saying that nothing is immoral if your god chooses to do it, or even allow it, do you see the implications of that for your claims that moral absolutes exist? This means, for instance, rape and murder are fine, as long as your god says so, or if your god does it, just in fact as I have pointed out repeatedly the bible shows.

This also of course makes me wonder why you went to such astonishing lengths to deny biblical claims that showed your god committing demonstrably immoral acts, like the passage where the bible claimed your deity tortured and murdered a baby to punish the parents for their adultery? If anything it does is ok by you then why go to the ludicrous lengths you did of trying to deny the unequivocal wording of your own  bible?

Any attempt to base morality, let alone claim moral ascendancy, that is made by someone who can justify atrocities, is ultimately absurd and irrational. How can someone lecture humans on morality then simultaneously say any act no matter how violent, depraved, or immoral is ok if a being with limitless choice does it, or wills it? This I'm afraid is precisely what religious fascists and terrorists like ISIS do. It's not just amoral and repugnant, it is rank hypocrisy.

Since the thread title is also a bit of a loaded or subjective misnomer, as it isn't simply a choice between two types of religious law, perhaps examining some secular ideals might aid the debate at this point. Especially after the astonishing claim that anything is ok if god feels it's appropriate.

Here are some ideals I think neatly encapsulate many of my own views for a better more moral world, taken from the BHA or British Humanist Society's web page.

1. Think for themselves about what is right and wrong, based on reason and respect for others.
2. Find meaning, beauty, and joy in the one life we have, without the need for an afterlife.
3. Look to science instead of religion as the best way to discover and understand the world.
4. Believe people can use empathy and compassion to make the world a better place for everyone.

I think those aims stack pretty well against "I'm okay with anything if god is", but to be fair I would, I wonder what others think?

Those four principles work just fine for me

boatlady wrote:Those four principles work just fine for me  

Thank you, I worried it was too loaded a question.

Time for a little more hubris then

Christian law 0
Sharia law 0
Secular humanism 1

Dr, Sheldon,
As I have tried to explain, we as humans think as humans and our abilities are limited.

God understands everything, when he acts in a manner that appears either unjustified or immoral or anything else, we do not understand the implications.

You mention killing of babies, to us this is beyond our understanding but God may do so and with no harm whatsoever or suffering as we know it to the child involved but God using a method he knows will bring it home good and proper to those who need teaching right from wrong.

There is not nor ever has been a method of where humans have been able to live in peace and harmony and until the only ones left are obedient to the wishes of God, there never will be.

Cristian Law, the only law.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  As I have tried to explain, we as humans think as humans and our abilities are limited.

Not your's apparently, your abilities seem to know what God thinks and wants?

God understands everything,

Polyglide wrote:You mention killing of babies, to us this is beyond our understanding but God may do so and with no harm whatsoever or suffering

So your bible lied? It quite specifically says god made David's baby suffer. Then how do you know what is true in it, because you just breeze through un-evidenced claims without appearing to trouble yourself that they are amoral, irrational, illogical, absurd, un-evidenced, or even directly contradicted by the evidence?

Polyglide wrote:**Irrelevant proselytising removed**

Polyglide wrote:There is not nor ever has been a method of where humans have been able to live in peace and harmony and until the only ones left are obedient to the wishes of God, there never will be.

The first claim doesn't in any way evidence the second, and since your religion has had 2000 years and has produced over 40000 different Christian sects according to Christian theologians, your hubris seems oddly misplaced.  

Polyglide wrote: Cristian Law, the only law.

   

It isn't the only law, very far from it, nor have it's morals proved any better than human secular law, again quite the opposite, the list of atrocities and amoral behaviours it has allowed and endorsed is endless, from the crusades and the inquisition to slavery and the virulent anti-Semitism that fuelled the holocaust . I'll just repeat the quote from the BHA:

Here are some ideals I think neatly encapsulate many of my own views for a better more moral world, taken from the BHA or British Humanist Society's web page. Humanists....

1. Think for themselves about what is right and wrong, based on reason and respect for others.
2. Find meaning, beauty, and joy in the one life we have, without the need for an afterlife.
3. Look to science instead of religion as the best way to discover and understand the world.
4. Believe people can use empathy and compassion to make the world a better place for everyone.

I think those aims stack pretty well when compared to Polyglide's "I'm okay with anything if god is", including of course global genocide which he claims was in human's best interests. The mind truly boggles at such a 'thought process' it really does.

Dr, Sheldon,
I never said God did not make anyone or anything not suffer, I said he was capable of taking the life of children and the children not open to suffering just as he could do the opposite.

You have to take all God's actions relative to the case in point.

The Bible gives numerous examples of God taking revenge by allowing the killing of those intent on killing his own people and I see nothing wrong when considering that Satan is using ever trick in the book to decieve.

The aims you quote are well beyond mankinds outlook.

Just look at the children who are dying at the rate of five per second [ as stated on the television today] because of the lack of the things that are both available and distributable if the people who could impliment that which is required got their fingers out instead of the I'm Alrright Jack attitude.

Those in a position of privelige in the so called civilised world would be better doing something rather than posing as those interested in fairness etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I never said God did not make anyone or anything not suffer,

You certainly did say precisely that when I quoted the Biblical passage that stated god tortured and murdered David's baby boy as a punishment on the parents for their adultery.

Polyglide wrote: You have to take all God's actions relative to the case in point. The Bible gives numerous examples of God taking revenge by allowing the killing of those intent on killing his own people and I see nothing wrong when considering that Satan is using ever trick in the book to decieve.

I don't have to do any such thing, if your deity was real and omnipotent then I have to make no allowances for it's actions at all, that's axiomatic. Neither God nor Satan exist of course, but if it did and has limitless choice, and Satan does not then it clearly doesn't need to allow suffering, let alone indulge in sadistic acts of genocide.

Polyglide wrote:The aims you quote are well beyond mankinds outlook. Just look at the children who are dying at the rate of five per second [ as  stated on the television today] because of the lack of the things that are both available and distributable if the people who could impliment that which is required got their fingers out instead of the I'm Alrright Jack attitude.

Humans are fallible mammals that evolved, hence expecting perfection is rather silly and pointless, if a deity that possessed omniscience and omnipotence and omni-benevolence existed however then it would be perfectly reasonable to expect it to stop suffering, and certainly for it not to indulge in sadistic genocide, or to torture and murder babies because the parents committed adultery. We'd not tolerate such barbarity from a fallible human, so we we should expect better morals from such a deity - IF IT EXISTED.

Polyglide wrote:Those in a position of privelige in the so called civilised world would be better doing something rather than posing as those interested in fairness etc;

One of the richest organisations on the planet is the largest and oldest Christian church you don't see the irony obviously. Many people in the west do a great deal to help, as do western governments, all very laudable, and there are plenty of secular charities as well who try to help others worse off.

Dr, Sheldon,
Your only mistake is not understanding the part Satan is playing and as a heathen I can understand your inability to grasp what I believe and what I say.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Your only mistake is not understanding the part Satan is playing and as a heathen I can understand your inability to grasp what I believe and what I say.

Not at all, are you claiming your deity can't stop Satan, or won't? Are you claiming it is allowing Satan to do evil through choice, or that it `has no choice? If it's the former then it's malevolent as in your story it has the choice to stop Satan/evil/suffering, if it's the latter then it's not omnipotent. Simple as, now which is it? You can't remove the choice without removing omnipotence from your deity, as an omnipotent being has limitless choice, can do literally anything, you have ranted about this enough times as if it is me who doesn't grasp the meaning. If it has that choice because it is omnipotent then that means it is malevolent, as such a being could easily stop it, but CHOOSES NOT TO.

Which is it, does it allow suffering/Satan by choice(malevolent), or has no choice and is not omnipotent at all.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained the position several times, please get someone to go through it with you step by step.

Your explanations are subjective waffle. I asked a simple question: Does your god adhere to this deal you claim he has with Satan, which allows untold suffering, out of choice?  If so he's malevolent. Or are 'his hands tied' as you claimed ? In which case he's not omnipotent.  

Which is it, as you are trying to claim both and they're mutually exclusive?

Dr, Sheldon.
I claim that God is both benevolent and omnipotent and nothing you suggest goes towards proving otherwise when the Bible contents are taken into account.

If your god is benevolent and omnipotent then why has it created a world with ubiquitous suffering it could easily stop? Again you're going around in circles,  and now you'll trot out Satan to try and shift the blame. You don't seem to undestand that it would still require such a deity to choose to allow suffering,  and that's quite obviously not benevolent,  in fact it would be extremely malevolent.