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.

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.

Dr, Sheldon,
I cannot see how one can argue about the relative merits of Cristianity and Sharia Law.

Without a doubt Muslim countries have laws that are strick and punishable by henious means and I can see no sense or reason in them.

Christianity has no laws as such that are punishable through the laws of the land.

Christianity demands only that a Christian follows the teaching of the Bible and latterly the faith that Jesus came to save God's people.

The laws that we have to abide by are man made and have no possible comparison to the Muslim laws.

I've no idea what that's about and don't particular care. On forums such as this it behoves everyone to address the topic, honestly and refrain from ad hominem as this usually indicates the user has no valid argument.

The Christian law referred to is biblical,  obviously. As Shirina pointed out, the bible has as many barbaric, homophobic, mysogynist, and immoral laws in it as the Koran. Sharina's post neatly outlines what I had also shown, that the thread question is a misnomer as it implies we are limited to two choices. Secular western post industrialised societies have long since written laws based on protection individual rights and liberties,  rather than bronze age doctrine.

Dr, Sheldon,
It is obvious you prefer not to be reasonable, so anyone can take from that what they wish.

Christianity has no laws that are applicable as punishment all Cristian laws are optional and give humans the chance to have a good life.

If you choose to dispute Christian laws then that is a personal matter, Muslims have no choice and are punished for not obeying them, so there is no comparison whatsoever.

The mere fact that you can in fact dispute what Christians believe proves there is no possible way in which the two can be compared, just go to a Muslim country and say the same about their religion as you do about Cristianity and get some head protection.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  It is obvious you prefer not to be reasonable, so anyone can take from that what they wish.

Whatever, I see your pretence of an apology lasted just one post, even managing to lay the blame for your unpleasant ad hominem attacks on me at the door of a poster who recently died from cancer, and isn't here to defend himself. I think anyone can take from that what they wish, but I'll continue to view it as evidence that you are a fairly nasty and deeply unpleasant individual, who has neither the temperament nor intellect for debate, and throws nasty tantrums when his religious proselytizing is rejected or questioned.

Polyglide wrote:Christianity has no laws that are applicable as punishment

Er, yes it does....perhaps you ought to read the bible?

Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death. Exodus 19:13

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:16

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10

Ho hum....

Polyglide wrote:If you choose to dispute Christian laws then that is a personal matter, Muslims have no choice and are punished for not obeying them, so there is no comparison whatsoever.

Complete nonsense, as we can see, and those are just a small example.

Polyglide wrote:The mere fact that you can in fact dispute what Christians believe proves there is no possible way in which the two can be compared,

No it doesn't, at all, don't be absurd, I explained in my post that the phrase Christian law refers to scripture, the fact I can freely criticise Christianity in this way is due to the rights and freedoms post industrialised western democracies bestow on individuals, and those same laws allow me to criticise all religions equally. The fact that some theists still think their beliefs entitle them to ignore such rights is irrelevant, and again your inability to read and understand the simplest sentence has you making the completely irrelevant non-sequitur that the abhorrent amoral parts of Christian doctrine and dogma aren't as repulsive as the Koranic ones because western democracies long ago neutered the power of the Christian church to act out such laws as they chose to.... burn witches, and stone women for adultery, or who had been raped and didn't scream loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), or murder anyone even family members who rejected their beliefs. Just as a few examples....

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”


― Christopher Hitchens

Dr, Sheldon,
I made no reference to who informed me of your personality and I was unaware of the death of the person you menetion, however, it would appear that the person who did inform me was correct.

All the Bible references you refer to are not Laws they are testament to what the punishments would be applicable which is entirely different.

You're an unpleasant and compulsive liar, and dragging in the name  (again) of a poster who recently died of cancer to lie about him and insult me just shows what an unchristian skunk you really are. Grow up, if you are able, I fear your idiocy is beyond help. Seriously you really are a scumbag to defame someone who died recently of cancer and isn't here to defend himself.

The biblical references destroy your absurd claim utterly, unfortunately you're as illiterate as you are dishonest. Rest assured your unpleasant bombast is fooling absolutely no one.

Dr, Sheldon,
I feel that you have breached any form of decency and are beyond help, you are incapable of accepting the truth, make unfounded assumptions and should be dealt with Ivan.

I have mentioned no name and not in any way lied about anything, it is your guilty concience that is at work and I feel very sorry for you.

Just explain exactly how I have lied about anything or not given anyone the chance to respond, I felt sure that in the end you would reveal your self as a sanctimoniuos hypocrite and I was right.

Isn't it odd how your obnoxious ad hominem has you crying for Ivan when after multiple warnings I've responded in kind. No name needed be mentioned, that's as pathetic as your claim was objectionable.  Why insult me in the first place let alone defame another poster who is no longer here to defend himself or offer context. 

You really are the most unchristian person I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. You lie without compunction, use constant ad hominem insults, even sinking so low as to defame someone who recently died of cancer to justify your insult to me. Now you contemptably and cowardly cry for a moderator and try to use the fact you didn't offer that posters names as some sort of excuse. Good god man show some sense of decency.

Dr, Sheldon,
If you actually know the meaning of sense and decency, which I doubt, you would not be devoid of both.

Just explain in simple terms how I have defamed anyone and why you are so adamant that a certain person is responsible, me thinks guilty concience, I do not have to give any name the informantion was given in confidence, look it up and were the person to be now awaiting God's jugement I would be of the same tyope of person you appear to be and Heaven forbid.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,  If you actually know the meaning of sense and decency, which I doubt, you would not be devoid of both.

I was responding to this from you:

by polyglide on Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:44 am
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.

Now I don't pretend to know what relevance an ad hominem insult like that dressed up as an apology has to do with the discussion, but here's my response.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:01 pm
I've no idea what that's about and don't particular care. On forums such as this it behoves everyone to address the topic, honestly and refrain from ad hominem as this usually indicates the user has no valid argument.

To which you made the insulting and bizarre reply:

by polyglide on Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:22 pm
Dr, Sheldon, It is obvious you prefer not to be reasonable, so anyone can take from that what they wish.

An odd reply by any standard, but having put up with just this sort of nasty ad hominem for far too long and warned you repeatedly you'd be getting it back if you continued I replied in kind, as claiming a poster I was friendly with made a nasty insulting remark about me which you claim to agree with is both childish, and contemptible, especially as we both know who you are talking about, and he had recently died of cancer and is not here to defend himself. You then repeated your appalling and obnoxious claim.

by polyglide on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:49 am
Dr, Sheldon, I made no reference to who informed me of your personality (a lie)and I was unaware of the death of the person you menetion, (unlikely indeed)however, it would appear that the person who did inform me was correct. (so your apology was in fact nothing of the sort)

I again responded in kind, and you start crying for Ivan to step in:

by polyglide Today at 3:16 pm
Dr, Sheldon, I feel that you have breached any form of decency and are beyond help, you are incapable of accepting the truth, make unfounded assumptions and should be dealt with Ivan. I have mentioned no name and not in any way lied about anything, it is your guilty concience that is at work and I feel very sorry for you. Just explain exactly how I have lied about anything or not given anyone the chance to respond, I felt sure that in the end you would reveal your self as a sanctimoniuos hypocrite and I was right.

This was your lie:

by polyglide on Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:49 am
Dr, Sheldon,
I made no reference to who informed me of your personality and I was unaware of the death of the person you menetion,

We can all see quite clearly that you referred to the poster as "a so called friend of yours". In what way is that not a reference to who made the claim. So a lie and a further repetition of the ad hominem insult that started this exchange. The way in which you have given him no chance to respond is because is he recently died, and made it public on here as well, so a double lie from you as you absolutely were aware of his terminal illness. To resort to petty insult is bad enough. though it's what I've come to expect from you, but to make this claim using him as a scapegoat is beneath contempt.

Polyglide wrote:Just explain in simple terms how I have defamed anyone and why you are so adamant that a certain person is responsible, me thinks guilty concience,

Done, and I am not adamant about anything, you referred specifically to him as "a so called friend of yours", what on earth warped theory you are now concocting that you think I have to feel guilty about I don't know. Rest assured this is a new low for a man who whose posts rarely are far from ad hominem insults, and who genuinely appears to not know the difference between an attack on a post or an argument and ad hominem. This has been utterly contemptible from you, it really has. If you can't discuss your beliefs without taking offence every-time someone disagrees with them and resorting to this sort of crap then why bring them into a public forum at all.

Polyglide wrote:I do not have to give any name the informantion was given in confidence,

And only an obnoxious scumbug, devoid of any decency would breach such a confidence, most especially when that person is not around to defend themselves.

You end with this astonishing gibberish:

Polyglide wrote:look it up and were the person to be now awaiting God's jugement I would be of the same tyope of person you appear to be and Heaven forbid.

Contemptible stuff, you really have no shame....

Dr, Sheldon,
You spurious inaccuracies are self evident to anyone aware of the circumstances and deserve no more than a scornful get a life.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                You spurious inaccuracies are self evident to anyone aware of the circumstances and deserve no more than a scornful get a life.

So your obnoxious lies and insults exposed you have no answer but another insult. Well I'm happy for anyone reading this to decide for themselves, given your puerile and petulant name calling in so many threads, and to so many different posters, whether your latest tantrum speaks for itself. Especially as I've shown you were indulging in this childish ad hominem before I even joined this forum. For shame for bringing someone else who recently died of cancer into your infantile childish insults though, a new low even by the standards your posts set.