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.

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.

Dr, Sheldon,
God will stop all suffering very shortly when Satan's tiem is up.

Now you're just ignoring the contradiction. A benevolent being would neither cause nor allow suffering let alone create a world with ubiquitous suffering.  An omnipotent being that acted like this could only be considered as deeply malevolent.

Dr, Sheldon,
God can do anything and his main concern at the moment is the protection of those people who are faithful to him he has to deal with both Satan and the humans who are not.

We are not aware of the circumstances and therefore unable to offer comment on God's actions, God will take all the steps necesary under the prevailing circumstances to protect his people the manner in which he does so may appear not to our liking but we are not aware of the circumstances.

You are both claiming to know about your deity and what it wants, and then claiming that this can't be known when the irrationality of those claims are exposed. This is not a cogent, or remotely objective position. A perfect being could reasonably be expected to produce perfect morals, and communicate these perfectly, in one go. This is not at all what we see in either Islamic law or Christian law, which have dated and reflect the human attitudes of the epoch from which they originated.

This then can hardly be a simple coincidence when viewed with other facts such as the human propensity for creating deities that simply don't exist, Thor Zeus Apollo, etc etc etc...

Dr, Sheldon,
The Bible is very clear regarding false religions and says to keep clear of them.

What I believe is what the Bible says, what I do not know is just what Satan is up to at the moment and just what God is having to deal with.

I agree that there are many things we cannot understand in the present day regarding the Bible contents but the point is they were not written for today but for those of the times in many instances.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The Bible is very clear regarding false religions and says to keep clear of them.

Well it would wouldn't it, for goodness sake do you seriously think that a religious tome claiming it's own validity is compelling reasoning? If so why don't you believe it when all other religious tomes claim it?

Polyglide wrote:What I believe is what the Bible says, what I do not know is just what Satan is up to at the moment and just what God is having to deal with.

You seem to believe it, but are you seriously claiming you believe the earth and universe was created in just 6 days? Or that the earth, and days and nights, actually existed before the sun? Anyone who believes such nonsense literally when the best evidenced facts we have utterly refute them is deluded.

Polyglide wrote:I agree that there are many things we cannot understand in the present day regarding the Bible contents but the point is they were not written for today but for those of the times in many instances.

Then given you can't fully understand it how can you claim to be 100% certain about your beliefs? Especially given the obviously erroneous claims in there, or the fact that it isn't the only religious tome claimed to be the inerrant word of a deity, or that it has been subjectively translated multiple times from a language which no one longer speaks and most people have zero knowledge of, with only a few self styled experts claiming some knowledge? If it was created by an omniscient mind then why are the rules and morals dating so quickly and so badly? Why didn't it use a universal language?

Don't you find it remotely ironic that religions that claim divine inspiration always reflect human fallibility, and the prejudices, moral rules, linguistic limitations and superstitions of the people and epoch it was created in? In every single case?? That's beyond coincidence for me, and only the most subjective reasoning can ignore this completely.

Dr, Sheldon,
You must be well aware that a day to God in creation is not 24 hours.

This is just one point that you do not understand among many.

There must be a reason for all the Bible content and it would be easy for those who were responsible for the content to make everything look good with no chance of doubt the fact that it does not, does not make it any the less truthful but the opposite you just have to seek to find the reasons.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                You must be well aware that a day to God in creation is not 24 hours.

Nope I'm 'aware' of no such thing. I'maware that some apologists trot out this risible nonsense. The idea that an omniscient and omnipotent being would  use such erroneous drivel instead of saying 14 billion years is beyond absurd to me.

Polyglide wrote:This is just one point that you do not understand among many.

Au contraire, but is seems this escapes you, quelle surprise.

Polyglide wrote:There must be a reason for all the Bible content and it would be easy for those who were responsible for the content to make everything look good with no chance of doubt the fact that it does not, does not make it any the less truthful but the opposite you just have to seek to find the reasons.

   
There is a reason, human consciousness makes us look for answers, in our early impressive but ignorant state we came up with the best explanations that ignorance and a penchant for the superstitious and supernatural could muster. It has become nonsense after just a few hundred years, that hardly sounds like it originated in the mind of an omniscient. The idea that such a being that is also omnipotent would communicate such erroneous nonsense as some sort of test is simply risible. Why aren't you convinced that Mohammed is the one true prophet then? And that he rose to heaven on a winged horse? I'll tell you now that in the vats majority of cases the answer is no more complex than simple geographical accidents of birth.

You never answered or even addressed this:

Don't you find it remotely ironic that religions that claim divine inspiration always reflect human fallibility, and the prejudices, moral rules, linguistic limitations and superstitions of the people and epoch it was created in? In every single case?? That's beyond coincidence for me, and only the most subjective reasoning can ignore this completely.

Reading the thread title it occurs to me that the thread title can't really be answered by subjective appeals to the divinity of one type of religion's 'laws' over another. Laws must surely be judged on the kind of societies they produce, and of course western democracies are post industrialised societies that have largely neutered religions and the power they once held. Thus our laws are ostensibly free to evolve in ways that reflect the collective moral angst of the citizens that live in it.

Small wonder that people who choose to live in such societies that have evolved almost entirely separated for the ones they have left struggle to understand or assimilate to those laws. Especially where their own cultures used divine diktat to produce moral absolutes.

In answer to thread title it's neither, our laws should reflect the rights off the individual over religious beliefs, that way people may choose to believe or not as they wish, without forcing their beliefs on others.

If the subject title is being brought under scrutiny; we have become (perhaps unnecessarily so) aware of the existence of Sharia Law, but can there be said to be a "Christian Law"?

There is Christian belief, and Christian behaviour, but The Law in so-called Christian Countries is what Politicians have decided.

Or have I totally missed the point again?

oftenwrong wrote:If the subject title is being brought under scrutiny; we have become (perhaps unnecessarily so) aware of the existence of Sharia Law, but can there be said to be a "Christian Law"?

There is Christian belief, and Christian behaviour, but The Law in so-called Christian Countries is what Politicians have decided.

Or have I totally missed the point again?  

No, you make a valid point. Some Christian apologists like to claim every moral advance of western society as a derivative of the Christian religion. This of course isn't remotely true, and Christianity itself, though it has and does resist change, has and is evolving, shaped by the societies it exists in.

Your main point is of course true, though the Christian religion still holds way too much unelected political power for my liking in this country. Bishops of the CofE make up a very high percentage of the House of the Lords, something that really needs addressing, but then I'm a republican at heart and would like to see church and state completely separate, and the house of Lords an elected body of representatives.

Here's a quote from the book 'INFIDEL' by Ayman Hirst Ali that seems apropos. 

"I moved from the world of faith to the world of reason-from the world of excision and forced marriage to the world of sexual emancipation. Having made that journey, I know that one of these world is simply better than the other. Not because of its flashy gadgets, but fundamentally, because of its values."

She goes on. ....

"Life is better in Europe than it is in the Muslim world because human relations are better,  and one reason human relations are better is that in the west, life on earth is valued in the here and now, and individuals enjoy rights and freedoms that are recognised and protected by the state."

So it appears we can and have demonstrably improved the lives of the members of our society by enacting laws that protect our rights, rather than reflect archaic superstition. The fact that a minority want to break those laws and have little regard for the rights of others doesn't alter this fact.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote: ....
laws that protect our rights, rather than reflect archaic superstition. The fact that a minority want to break those laws and have little regard for the rights of others doesn't alter this fact.

But neither is the fact thereby altered that multitudes of people seem to derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from archaic superstition.

e.g. The medical profession has ample evidence of what they call the placebo effect. If someone chooses to have absolute faith in a notion, then for that person it is absolutely true - no matter what "everybody else" might think.

[size=50]But neither is the fact thereby altered that multitudes of people seem to derive a great deal of personal satisfaction from [/size]archaic superstition[size=50].[/size]

No indeed, nor would I deprive them of "the opiate of the masses" to paraphrase Marx. The point I was making is that this delusion is not always innocuous, nor is it always beneficial. I am pointing out that these beliefs must never negate the rights of the individual in the here and the now. 

The 'minority' I referred to were law breakers in western democracies, as polyglide seems to think criminality within our society is indicative of a wider moral malaise. Or more accurately that all societies are slipping unaware towards an apocalyptic event where those and only those who share his views and beliefs will be saved. It's the kind of unevidenced hyperbole that some tabloids gleefully indulge when reporting crimes. The fact of course is that we live in some of the safest societies ever, and this is in no small part due to better standards of living and crime detection coupled with laws that enforce our rights. 

The placebo effect is a well evidenced phenomenon. However I don't think it's accurate to portray it as absolute or infallible. So to make the analogous leap that something is absolutely true to someone because they believes it, is not sound reasoning. That strikes me as subjective and circular reasoning tbh.  If it were reasonable to assert this way, then mental patients detained at institutions might reasonably claim they were in fact Napoleon Boneparte.  Absolutely faith that something is true is demonstrably no guarantee that is. 

If this delusion is harmless we tend to to let it be, the problem is that many people hold malevolent beliefs based on religious faith. As Hirsi Ali shows admirably in here book.

It also occurred to me that many theists refuse medical attention in favour of faith, more often than not with tragic rules.  Never more so than when children are involved. Many states in America have laws shielding the credulous from prosecution in such cases. Which again amply demonstrates my point about individual rights being more important than faith.

Do you mean to invalidate "self-belief"?

Invalidate how? My point was that universal rights and freedoms produce fair and just laws and societies. Not laws based on subjective religious beliefs shaped by archaic societies. A person may believe what they wish, this doesn't grant them any licence to disregard the basic liberties and rights of others.

Interesting discussion. I am surprised that the thread started with the claim:
"I find that "Abrahamic laws are pretty societal". Abraham was the deluded gentleman who wanted to murder his own son as a demonstration of his love for his particular deity. And his deluded deity, forgetting he was omniscient, wanted to find out how faithful Abraham was. Obviously the tale is a silly one but it is no surprise that the religions that honour this prophet are imbued with nastiness and violence.
And of course there is much in common between Christian morality and Sharia Law; but thankfully Christianity has stopped killing warty old ladies (so as not to suffer a witch to live), burning apostates and torturing scientists. Islam is still learning which parts of the Koran it should ignore.

My first post - I will, no doubt, be forgiven for any repetition of ideas - time is too short for me to have encompassed all the preceding literature here.

Dr, Sheldon,
The whole problem with peoples rights being that it is people who at the present time decide just what those rights are.

If you take the different countries of the world then you will have numerous different rights directly opposite to those in other countries.

There is not one country that it can be said looks after all it's inhabitants equally.

Everyone tends to lean towards the [initially] fact that the laws applicable in their country are the right ones, however, in our own country you will find a large part of the population that do not agree many of our laws.

It should be apparent that taking everything into consideration mankind has not the intelligence nor the means to have a set of rules or laws that are in the best interests of the whole population.

Not one nation is at complete peace with the world and it never can be addessed or solved by mankind.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, If you take the different countries of the world then you will have numerous different rights directly opposite to those in other countries.

No you don't, you'll have some countries that afford rights universally, or attempt to, and others that deny rights to some that they grant to others. An obvious example would be Islamic countries where women are little more than chattel to husbands and brothers. Or where people are discriminated against based on skin colour, or ethnicity, or sexual or gender orientation. I listed some basic rights that ought to be universal, and linked the ECHR for you. Just for a start everyone should have the right to liberty, to be free from arrest or detention without charge, to freedom of speech and expression, to practice whatever religion they want or none at all. All children should have the right to a free education.  These rights could be universal, but obviously don't themselves grant extra rights to anyone, for instance whilst anyone may believe whatever they like, this does not entitle the believers to discriminate against others. You keep claiming we can't agree on what constitutes universal human rights but we can, it's really not nearly as complex a problem as implementing those rights globally. Obviously there are people and even countries that don't want universal rights granted, but there is no justification of denying a right to some that you grant to others or claim for yourself.

Polyglide wrote: There is not one country that it can be said looks after all it's inhabitants equally.

There are however some that aspire to this and work towards it, LINK whilst others openly discriminate and deny large sections of their population even the most basic rights. LINK, LINK, LINK, LINK.

Polyglide wrote:Everyone tends to lean towards the [initially]  fact that the laws applicable in their country are the right ones, however, in our own country you will find a large part of the population that do not agree many of our laws.

Which rights that are enshrined in the ECHR which Britain has signed up to do you think are wrong, and why? LINK You can't keep making claims but no try to evidence them. Disagreeing with taxation laws for example or even criminal laws is not the same as disagreeing with laws that universally protect human rights.

Polyglide wrote:It should be apparent that taking everything into consideration mankind has not the intelligence nor the means to have a set of rules or laws that are in the best interests of the whole population.

Don't be silly.

Polyglide wrote:Not one nation is at complete peace with the world and it never can be addessed or solved by mankind.

I disagree, and that is precisely the point, granting basic and universal rights would take a large step in precisely that direction. It might be a reasonable assertion that many people through self interest or national interests oppose this, but it is not a reasonable assertion that it can never be addressed. The ability to address problems is not nearly the same thing as the will to address them.                

marcolucco wrote:Interesting discussion. I am surprised that the thread started with the claim:
"I find that "Abrahamic laws are pretty societal".  Abraham was the deluded gentleman who wanted to murder his own son as a demonstration of his love for his particular deity.  And his deluded deity, forgetting he was omniscient, wanted to find out how faithful Abraham was. Obviously the tale is a silly one but it is no surprise that the religions that honour this prophet are imbued with nastiness and violence.
And of course there is much in common between Christian morality and Sharia Law; but thankfully Christianity has stopped killing warty old ladies (so as not to suffer a witch to live), burning apostates and torturing scientists. Islam is still learning which parts of the Koran it should ignore.

My first post - I will, no doubt, be forgiven for any repetition of ideas - time is too short for me to have encompassed all the preceding literature here.

Welcome, and it's a very good first post actually, as it makes some valid points. Basing any moral outlook on bronze age morals is never going to provide a just or fair system in the 21st century. People have to get past what is actually written in their holy texts and accept that some of it has and is simply causing enormous harm and suffering. I like your point about an omniscient deity requiring a demonstration of faith from Abraham as well, most people miss this point, and of course what kind of God would desire a worshipper to be prepared to commit cold blooded infanticide. Not a very moral lesson at all when it is scrutinised. As the late Christopher Hitchens pointed out, one wonders what kind of impression was left on the young Isaac, by being tied hand & foot and placed on a funeral pyre by his own father, and a knife being drawn to slit his throat, and only staying his hand when the voices in his (Abraham's) head changed their mind, and told him to stop?

Thank you for your welcome DSC. Abraham has replaced the semi-gods of other civilisations, being honoured by Islam, Judaism and of course Christianity. Through the tale of Abraham and Isaac we get an inkling of the mind of the earthly creator: he paints for us a picture of a god so intent on being adored that he supplied a hapless sheep to be slaughtered, pointlessly. The old nomads who gave us the OT saw heaven as a great oasis with healthy camels running around it. The Koran amusingly has hell full of dirty water whereas heaven has fine springs and a lot of the fruit typical of the Middle East. Amazing. And since tired old nomad would like nothing better than a compliant virgin, these are supplied in copious quantities, waiting on green couches for the revivified corpse to copulate - heaven-blessed fornication. One rule for the living and another for the dead! The example that the Abraham story gives to future readers is pretty bad, too. Someone in the States, hearing voices, might have their delusions reinforced by this biblical text. There is a case for saying that Abraham's influence is as bad as Hitler's, though of course Hitler had the saving grace of never attributing his nastiness to the encouragement of a deity.

The nomads wanted their god to be red blooded - why they didn't make him as interesting as Jupiter is both a mystery and a great pity. Christianity used to burn folk alive; ISIS does it now. Religion inspires atrocities - it can do little else since it often equates love with death. God so loved the human race that he had his own "son" tortured and crucified. What love!

Go well.

Good post, it's also worth noting that we are in no way limited to just the two choices here, either Christian or Islamic law. Far from it actually, and since both have the same flaw of being based on subjective beliefs rather than rational logical reasoning, the safest course would be to use secular laws to protect a person's right to believe what they wish, or nothing at all, and of course to protect the basic rights and freedoms of the individual.

The Christian and Islam obsessions with suffering is so obvious and deeply unpleasant, it always astonishes me the credulous seem almost unaware of it, let alone of how dangerous such an obsession is. Polyglide seems utterly obsessed with some apocalyptic end to the world, even saying that there is nothing we can do about it as it is inevitable, and he has of course denied the scientific evidence for global warming, whilst blaming human actions and even science for every calamity that befalls this planet. An odd conclusion for someone who believes there is a being with limitless power and knowledge behind the whole thing. The mental gymnastic used to rationalise these claims is something to behold, especially when compared to the simplest explanation of all that humans have simply created all gods and religions to soothe their anxieties and try and explain what they can't understand.

I have also tried many times to point out that the prejudices and ignorances in the bible and Koran perfectly reflect those of the people and epoch that produced these tomes. Also that this, along with the human propensity for creating deities that mirror their own characters, and the societies and eras that produced them, is fairly compelling evidence that they're all simply creations of the human imagination. I usually get vague dialogues that acknowledge the bible should be interpreted subjectively and not taken literally, with it seems no real awareness of what that implies.  

How often have I read theists make claim after claim about what their deity wants based on subjective interpretations of this kind, only to immediately claim it is impossible to know god when any errancy, or anything illogical or spurious is highlighted. The irony seems lost..

Dr, Sheldon,
I have said many times that the Bible was written over a prolonged period that covers many changes in human behaviour the actual circumstances of which we are unable to understand, you are inclined to ridicule events dipicted in the Bible on grounds that exist at the present time.

Go back 1,000 years and anyone at that time told that mankind would send a man to the moon and explore the universe would think you mad and yet we accept it as normal.

So how can you or anyone else say that the miracles and events in the Bible are not true when we are unaware of all the prevailing circumstances at that time?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have said many times that the Bible was written over a prolonged period that covers many changes in human behaviour the actual circumstances of which we are unable to understand, you are inclined to ridicule events dipicted in the Bible on grounds that exist at the present time.

No I'm not, why you must lie like this I don't know, all very un-Christian of you. I ridicule the claim that these myths have omniscient omnipotent origin, for obvious reasons that your own post shows quite neatly, the fact that they reflect human ideas of the epoch from which they originate, and reflect the ignorances, prejudices, fallible morals, and bigotries of those people. Nothing in them indicates their origins are anything other than human, that's my point and always has been, and why you insist on repeatedly misrepresenting me only you can know. You seem to think the fact that we have accrued knowledge through science makes our rejection of these fantasies unreasonable, I'm afraid I don't see this at all, quite the opposite. The texts are touted as a message from an omniscient after all.

Polyglide wrote:Go back 1,000 years and anyone at that time told that mankind would send a man to the moon and explore the universe would think you mad and yet we accept it as normal.

Indeed, but then this is precisely my point, as I have said repeatedly you would not expect a message from an  omniscient and omnipotent deity to reflect such human ignorance, yet do we get instructions on how to build a flushing toilet, or divine help in understanding the role germs play in spreading disease, or how to make and use antibiotics, no indeed we get puerile myths that you yourself are showing here are nothing more than bronze age ignorance, do try and join the dots and see what this logically implies. I seriously doubt you have any trouble laughing at the idea that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse after all.

Polyglide wrote:So how can you or anyone else say that the miracles and events in the Bible are not true when we are unaware of all the prevailing circumstances at that time?.

You think the fact these myths about miracles were written by ignorant superstitious humans makes them more plausible? I'm not sure you are thinking this through objectively. Not have I necessarily said they are untrue, you're misrepresenting me again, I have said there is no compelling evidence, and many of the myths make claims for supernatural causation, for which there is not one shred of evidence.

A book called "Enquire Within Upon Everything" was a how-to book for domestic life, first published in 1856 by Houlston and Sons of Paternoster Square in London, and could be found in almost every middle-class home.

It contained no references whatever to religious belief. So not quite "Everything", which actually may be what the majority are most comfortable with.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I have said many times that the Bible was written over a prolonged period

Much of it plagiarised from earlier religions, and subjectively edited by early Christians, and much whose authorship is dubious at best, making claims about events that occurred long before they were born. I'm not sure how this adds to it's veracity.

Dr, Sheldon,
I think you will find that many of the people you refer to as ignorant etc; were in fact very well educated for the times they lived in and would not be fooled as easily as you appear to think.

I have no interest in any other religion other than Christianity so flying horses etc; hold no interest nor do I worry about anything other than the wishes of the Christian faith.

You know these people were educated how exactly? Mass education is a very recent event, even a cursory knowledge of history would suffice for you to know this. 

Whether you do or don't have is any interest in other religions isn't really my point. Read my post and try and grasp what I was asking. Blind faith in the text doesn't validate it all, quite the opposite I'd say....

If you really have no interest in any other religions why are you entering a debate about two different religious moral codes? Church is the place to preach.

Dr, Sheldon,
Either you are being puposely obtuse or are realy not on this planet.

No Christian as far as I am aware has blind faith.

Christians believe the Bible and God's word, I do not know what you mean by Christian Law, I am aware that Muslims have Laws but as far as I am aware our Laws are made by people
and only by the few.

I do not know of anyone who is actually bound by anything other than by the teaching of the Bible with reference to Christianity so in fact the subject has no relevance as it is on a personal basis and not enforceable so is not a Law.

Polyglide wrote:I think you will find that many of the people you refer to as ignorant etc; were in fact very well educated 

Actually this was what you implied...

PolyglidePolyglide wrote: wrote:Go back 1,000 years and anyone at that time told that mankind would send a man to the moon and explore the universe would think you mad and yet we accept it as normal.

If they were so well educated in biblical times why don't their writings reflect this knowledge? Though this wasn't nearly my point. As usual you misunderstand. The bible is touted as the innerrant word of an omniscient, yet doesn't reflect this at all. Rather it reflects the level of human knowledge from the epoch it originates.  Hardly credible for this to be a coincidence.

Dr, Shedlon,
The Bible states many prophercies and the many miracles that were performed at the time of Jesus arriving on earth.

The prophercies were needed to assure those who were faithfull to God that he was indeed God and the miracles etc; at the arrival of Jesus for the same reason.

Once the prophercies started being fullfilled they were no londer needed to reassure the faithfull and after the death of Jesus miracles became less as other prophercies became fullfilled.

Since that time one only has to consider the Bibles information regarding the end of the present system to realise that the world is very close to fullfilling God's word.

Not sure what any of that has to do with thread OP, but firstly it's prophecy, there is no r, secondly not one prophecy has ever been evidenced, ever. These claims amount to no more than the worst kind of subjective anecdotal testimony based on wishful thinking at best, or outright mendacity at worst.

Polyglide wrote:Since that time one only has to consider the Bibles information regarding the end of the present system to realise that the world is very close to fullfilling God's word.

You keep repeating this mantra of yours, but it isn't even remotely evidenced, and there is nothing about anything occurring now that remotely validates the existence of a deity. You just see your beliefs confirmed everywhere because that is what you want to see, you may be utterly convinced, but that is no doubt because you can't be more closed minded than being 100% certain about anything. If there is no room for doubt then no amount of evidence will change your mind.

Perhaps this is why you're simply endlessly repeating your beliefs, and ignoring my question as to why nothing in the bible indicates omniscience was required, quite the opposite it reflects the ignorances and superstitions and prejudices of the people and epoch in which it originated. No cure for cancer, no nuclear fission, nothing on how to create a flushing toilet or the role germs play in spreading illness and disease, just badly dated moral codes and claim after claim refuted by human science.

Dr, Sheldon,
I feel that the problem mankind has regarding God and his abilities can be compared with an ant attempting to understand the universe.

Everything is relative to the conditions and abilities involved when one is attempting to find either a solution or a cause.

You talk about omnipotence and omniscience, however, both are beyond our understanding.

You cannot understand many events in the Bible which you appear to think are ungodly.

I have attempted to explain that we have not the information regarding many of God's actions and as an example of you saying God did this and God did that I gave you the following example.

Your son is standing on a railway line fastened to the track.

In a ther is a sidings down whic any approachiong train could go to avoid your son.

A train is approaching at speed towards your son, the train is full of criminals and their families.

You could save your son by changing the points so that the train would go into the sidings but all the occupants would be killed but your son would be saved?????.

"Why does the bible content reflect fallible human ideas, errancies,  prejudices of the epoch,  and nothing at all to indicate its origins are omniscient? 

Your analogy is silly as it limits me to just two choices when you never tire of claiming your deity has limitless choice.

Link

Prison chaplain forced to resign after giving homophobic sermon on christian law. I must say I'm not sympathetic, why do people in the 21st century still think it's ok to discriminate against those who are gay?

Dr, Sheldon,
As long as a homosexual behaves in a proper manner relative to any situation he should be treated exactly as anyone else.

The fact is that at the present time homosexuals want treating [not all but some] better than anyone else.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, As long as a homosexual behaves in a proper manner relative to any situation he should be treated exactly as anyone else. The fact is that at the present time homosexuals want treating [not all but some] better than anyone else.

No they don't, you just made that up. The Chaplin in the link made bigoted homophobic remarks that exhibited the worst kind of prejudice, and he did this from a position of trust, and in a job he was paid for. Gay people have the right not be defamed with prejudiced remarks, just the same as everyone else, no matter what religious beliefs you have it doesn't mean you can make prejudiced remarks with impunity. Free speech is and should be an inalienable right, but despite what some people think it is not always without consequences, nor should it be.

You 'STILL' have not responded responded to this:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Yesterday at 1:16 pm
"Why does the bible content reflect fallible human ideas, errancies,  prejudices of the epoch,  and nothing at all to indicate its origins are omniscient?  Your analogy is silly as it limits me to just two mutually exclusive choices, when you keep claiming your deity literally has limitless choices because it's omnipotent.

Shirina wrote:

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

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

I think that Shirina has isolated the thread question right to it's core here. Since both Islamic and Christian 'laws' are based on bronze age religious tomes, only the most blinded religious fanatic would consider it rational to use either as the core of a societies morals. Both contain morally repugnant invocations to buy, own, and beat slaves, rape women, sex trafficking, commit murder, commit genocide, use children as human sacrifice (even your own, especially your own), condone global genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, a yearning for an apocalyptic ending of the world, the worst kind of homophobic bigotry involving discrimination, violence including murder, and then  without a hint of irony claim these ideas are the will and message of an omni-benevolent deity, and for our own good.

Such nefarious delusional ideas must surely be resisted by all sane rational people in the 21st century, with the best weapons we have at our disposal, which are clearly intelligence and education. I f religion survives this part of it's evolution it must surely only be because it has evolved beyond all recognition and so 'may' deserve to carry on it's parasitic existence with it's symbiotic human hosts, or it will kill us all, and thus itself, a mirror of other evolved symbiots and parasites. The main difference here is that we have also evolved the option to choose whether to save our species or destroy it.

Dr, Sheldon,
Before anything else I apologise for believing you to be a snob and a self opinionated person, this was but should not have been, based on a personal message I recieved originally from a so called friend of yours.

Subsequently my replies were somewhat biased and should not have been.

I will henceforth keep to any subject in question.