Sharia law vs. Christian law

by Charlatan Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:07 am

First topic message reminder :

This is what divides the world. Only in north and south america is this topic not really important, but the rest of the world fights tooth and nail over this. If we could find a happy medium, then there would be nearly global peace! So off we go to find the meeting point...

I find that abrahamic laws are pretty societal. If we take away from them, well we could lose out with divorce or whatever that is, and in the opinion of world peace it is pretty hard to make people worship god. Other than that it must remain, but could we add to it for these countries? I wouldn't be surprised if in London some happy go lucky bomber targets markets or something, so we need to 'get sharia law in' to 'keep it out.' If there are enough sharia law places then there will be no world terror, i figure - well not in these proportions.

What do we know about sharia law? Does it say you must kill? Does it say you must steal? Does it upset society? It does none of these things, so what is wrong with it??? People are fighting in north africa and he middle east, with concern coming from europe and eastern asia. The muslims have spread far and wide, and where they are impoverished they will not sell out on religion to the abrahamic laws only. The best thing to do is get more information on how to give the people this. It happens in iran and saudi arabia at least. Maybe a thing to consider would be why are the poor so willing to fight for what they believe in?

The poor often have little to do with luxury. The more luxury you have the less you fight! You see this in america too, at least, where the republicans are usually the poorer people an are also very religious. Could it be that money breeds sin? Surely not... right?

If we were to look at this from a psychological stand point, we would observe that poor people have less to be happy with, but, have the time to spend with family, strangely. For some reason they have a happy family typically when in the rural areas. Would it be that demolishing all churches would satisfy this need for peace? I hope not, let's get back to the psyche? If the person who has less loves more, then maybe there should be more wealth distribution. This will occupy the minds of all these rural people and then they would be happier, distanced from their loved ones. I understand also that families in the middle class have a lot of love, but time spent with them is less compared to the rural people. What is it about being impoverished that makes people think their lives are not worth anything, and the lives of others are also not worth anything?

Maybe what is needed is a lot of love? Imagine a radio station that is tuned to gospel music all day long? This simple luxury could be what is missing in the lives of the rural people. I know in my country south africa they go madd for gospel in the rural areas, so why not try that in other muslim areas? Al jazeer is still in business, so they must support local stuff. Imagine a muslim radio station that plays muslim worship songs all day long. Think how important the music is to people that go to concerts and watch mtv, buy cds and go to night clubs or trendy restaurants to listen to music? Music must be the way to get to these people and relax and soothe them...

So is it a case of sharia vs. abrahamic laws? Is it that simple, or are the people not exposed to enough of their desire to feel with god at all times? I guarantee you that feeling as if god is with them more they will relax more, dance more, feel better.

But now it is a politcal thing! The west wants to 'domesticate' the east. The problem with that is that there is already a identity that exists out there in the outback, and that it wants to remain there. I am sure with some gospel music there would be great strides forwards.

by oftenwrong Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:38 pm

A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.

"Fascism" is normally understood to apply to Politics, but of course it is easy to elide from Political to Religious since both refer to different but similar Control mechanisms.

It has always been in the interest of current "Leaders" to have a bogey-man, and followers of a different belief provide an easy hate-figure.

by kentdougal Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:24 pm

slam is not the threat, and they do not have even close to the majority needed to elect a Muslim president, not even in 20 years (as the article claimed). The enemy in our case is creeping fascism, not creeping Sharia. Even now, the right-wing media is busy propagandizing American citizens against Muslims, against atheists, against liberals, against gays, against the poor, against socialists, and against intellectuals. Funny how that list mirrors almost precisely the list Hitler used to determine who ended up in the camps. Replace Muslims with Jews and you have an identical match. Their propaganda would have made Josef Goebbels proud.

]color=black]It may well be that it's not a threat in the US I don't live there but there is no doubt that it is an emerging threat in the UK with liberal minded politically correct idiots in the chattering classes beginning to seriously consider it the name of (failed) multiculturalism. This is surprising and rather bizarre as the same lot are chanting equality and women's rights

by Shirina Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:17 pm

Britain, being a much smaller nation than the US (60 million vs. 320 million), it takes far fewer radical Muslims, numerically speaking, to truly affect the political and cultural landscape there. A drop in the bucket to us could be a rather sizable and considerably more annoying puddle to the UK. I have done a little bit of research on this topic - I'm not an expert by any stretch - but from what I have seen, I really do believe there is a smoldering undercurrent of Muslim extremism in the UK. I hope the authorities there can get a handle on it, for I would hate to see the UK become the next great battlefield for radical Islam.

This is, perhaps, the ONLY time when America's unusual religiosity will help rather than hinder us. It is that religiosity that would never allow Muslim extremism to take root in the US. Our free speech laws have limits, and the police nor the courts would ever allow an unruly mob of Muslims to scream, "Nuke the USA, nuke Denmark" or "We will invade you and take your wives as war booty," and whatnot. I am amazed that the British (or the Danes? I can't remember where that protest took place) actually allowed that to continue.

by Shirina Thu Dec 15, 2011 4:28 pm

by ROB Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:26 am

Shirina wrote:
(60 million vs. 320 million)

Details, details, how-some-ever… its more like sixty-two million and change vs. three hundred ten million and change, using census stats as chronologically close as I could muster when searching the Internet diligently for same, almost exactly a one to five ratio. Depending on the exact stats I used, the UK’s population cam in 19.9 plus to 20.0 plus percent of the US’s population.

Shirina wrote:
America's unusual religiosity... would never allow Muslim extremism to take root in the US. Our free speech laws have limits, and the police nor the courts would ever allow an unruly mob of Muslims to scream, "Nuke the USA, nuke Denmark" or "We will invade you and take your wives as war booty," and whatnot. I am amazed that the British (or the Danes? I can't remember where that protest took place) actually allowed that to continue.

[Please carefully view and hear video]

As a matter of fact, American Muslims include folks who are never viewed in this context. Can one even imagine these four American Muslims saying such trash?

Hakeem Abdul “Olaju-Monster” Olajuwon;
Ahmad Rashad;
Jamaal Wilkes;
Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

I’d hock my house and bet a dollar to a dime that all four are loyal Americans. As a matter of fact, despite serious persecution of my ancestors (many of whom have survived into the 21st Century with memories intact of personal conversations and interactions with ex-slave ancestors), I’ve never not been a loyal American. As the “ol’ boys” down on the Houston docks said in 1979 about the American held hostage by the Iranian tyranny, “If the Marines can’t get ‘em out, send a few Texans. We’re ready to roll right now.”

by Shirina Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:00 am

As a matter of fact, American Muslims include folks who are never viewed in this context.

You're absolutely right, Rock. When that Danish cartoon came out, there were no ... none ... radical Muslims storming the Danish embassy in the USA shouting incitements to violence, murder, and nuclear Armageddon. If any American Muslims protested at all, they did so quietly and peacefully.

I knew the advent of political correctness was the beginning of a major problem, but I thought we were all smart enough not to let it be used as a suicide pact.

by ROB Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:37 am

Shirina wrote:

As a matter of fact, American Muslims include folks who are never viewed in this context.
You're absolutely right, Rock. When that Danish cartoon came out, there were no ... none ... radical Muslims storming the Danish embassy in the USA shouting incitements to violence, murder, and nuclear Armageddon. If any American Muslims protested at all, they did so quietly and peacefully.

I knew the advent of political correctness was the beginning of a major problem, but I thought we were all smart enough not to let it be used as a suicide pact.

Starting on the side note, yet another reason the UK ought to do a one eighty, leave continental Europe “a-lone”, and re-embrace both its own roots (John Locke was an Englishman) and its historic ties to the core Commonwealth, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, perhaps smaller nations such as the Bahamas and Belize, and to the United States.

Main point, “political correctness” is essentially political convenience, which has no relationship whatsoever with fundamental truth. Our nation was founded upon an idea, a core principle of which is “We hold these truths to be self evident.” When one bends one’s immediate political policies to lies in pursuit of “politically correct” convenience, one
S penny-wisdom portends extreme pound-foolishness and the dire consequences thereof down the line.

The US is also guilty of this myopia. We were so anti-communist that we embraced the neo-Nazi-Islamofascist wing of the mujahedeen during the 1980s and got the Taliban and its joined at the hip fellow beasts al qaida back in our faces in New York (1st attempt), Kenya, Yemen, New York (2nd successful attempt), Washington DC, and a field in Pennsylvania. We’ve awakened, and, in May 2011, a Democrat President announced to the world that one key beast was killed in Pakistan.

If Europe continues its mad dash to political correctness, God help them, because those they protect in the name of political correctness are certainly bent upon helping them to their destruction. France and Belgium are so on target, doing all they can to target helpless women for prosecution while aiding the marked increase in rapes within their jurisdictions. Penny-wise, pound foolish.

by oftenwrong Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:22 am

Such philosophical explanations are unnecessarily complicated, since Man's instincts have always been tribal.

Them or us. Politicians like to have a bogey-man with which to frighten the populace, and it doesn't much matter which hate-figure they choose at any given moment.

by Charlatan Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:34 am

To find extremists we need to set up a fake militant group. This group should comprise of volunteers and preach radical islam - like any other militant would expect of such a body, then gather the people together.

Once the body is in the works they should try to isolate leaders and problem starters and arrest them on grounds of treason.

To get into the fold they should sell weapons and offer to finance the war. They could use cover of a relative in the eu as to where they got the money from. If that doesn't work then they could try to actually enlist some radical clerics from university, where they are always delusionally into causes and stuff. Maybe they could try to use children to play a fun game of 'cops and robbers' to get into the fold of what is going on, planting listening devices of wearing wires while they 'infiltrate' the groups of people that gather in suspicious places?

by oftenwrong Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:22 am

Then they could make it compulsory for everybody to wear nightgowns, turbans and beards so nobody could tell the difference.

by gurthbruins Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:38 am

True Blue wrote:

Quite frankly... a better argument would be that the male of the human species is the root of all evil.

A very good point. But the male only becomes evil when the hormones start kicking in at about 13 - before, he can be quite angelic, " such" as are "of the kingdom of heaven."

Yes, man is a natural being, and as such, killing, competition and other forms of "evil" are all natural to him.

The whole concept of evil is a futile, subjective judgement that holds no water. There is in fact nothing objectively evil; as Somerset Maugham said: do exactly as you please with due regard to the policeman around the corner. Killing is just fine, as long as you can get away with it. And even if you can't, you have my praise for trying.

Killing is nature's way of dealing with excess population: even plants will push one another aside, trample them to death, in their need for space.

The religions (inquisition and others) are great on killing, and even more unappetising modes of destruction. They'll even pursue you after you are dead and continue to roast you in the fires of hell, not satisfied for a million years before letting you take a breather.

by oftenwrong Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:50 pm

How do you square all that with free will; the Chinese concept of Ying/Yang, and increasing acceptance that death is final.

by gurthbruins Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:42 am

Free will, if it exists at all (yes, it's a matter of degree) exists in the divine, in the totality of being. Our own will is free only to the extent that it is part of the divine will.

In other words you are free to do whatever you like, as long as it's part of God's will. If not, you might imagine that you are free to do a crime, but in fact you are not and you cannot possibly do it.

Yin/Yang emphasises the changing nature of the universe. Good is forever becoming evil, and vice-versa. These are really just fleeting appearances, without substance. The play of darkness and light. Leela (see Deepak Chopra)

I didn't know that acceptance of death as final is on the rise. If so, good. It's patently absurd to demonise the brilliant invention of death (poor bacteria are mostly forced to go on living forever!), beautiful death which allows for emphatic renewal, creator of new space and fresh start.

by Talwar_Punjabi Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:27 am

[quote="Shirina"]

Even now, the right-wing media is busy propagandizing American citizens against Muslims, against atheists, against liberals, against gays, against the poor, against socialists, and against intellectuals. Funny how that list mirrors almost precisely the list Hitler used to determine who ended up in the camps. Replace Muslims with Jews and you have an identical match. Their propaganda would have made Josef Goebbels proud.

Godwin's Law strikes again.

I was following your posts; I take issue with the above sentiment. Goebbels and co killed over 6 million Jews and an unknown amount of Gypsies and disabled people. In some Islamic countries the Holocaust is denied.

Whilst two wrongs don't make a right the American "right-wing" media is behaving in exactly the same way as the right wing Islamo fascists in Islamic countries are behaving. All of the things listed above have no place in those countries either except there is the added element of religious laws over and above what hatred the press spews out; not only that but the penalty for some of those is death. The American press won't kill you if you happen to be gay or an atheist but terrible torture and/or death can be your reward in say Saudi or any other tin pot fascist dictatorship which hides behind the banner of Islam. Take for instance the blasphemy laws in some of those countries, you can stand and laugh at Christianity and make a joke about Jesus without being punished by death in the West and any Muslim can do that too. Such barbaric laws have been used to settle old scores by ordinary people and thanks to Sharia some have even lost their lives as a result in countries which scream for freedom of expression when in the West but deny it to anyone when at home.

Interestingly you mention socialists and liberals; other than maybe Turkey, point to one Islamic country which would or does embrace Democracy or Socialism; I would suggest there are none because Socialism or Democracy can not exist side by side with Islam just as free speech cant exist. Pakistan has had no fewer than ten democratically elected governments overthrown since birth, each time the military did the deed and then used Islam as a tool of justification. It even created the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan and the poor people of Pakistan are now paying the price. Talking of paying a price just ask the women of Afghanistan what price they have paid as a result of the barbaric rule of the Taliban who practice Sharia.

In any case the majority in the West will come out and denounce the minority loonies from the extreme right (an example of this is the fascist BNP in the UK and the NF before them took a good hiding from the indigenous people of this country) Hand on heart I can not say the same for the majority of good Muslims as they, being a majority, have never come out as a majority in a counter demonstration against the idiotic minority of extremists. I have seen many "demonstrations" by Islamic fundies here in the UK shouting all sorts of obscenities and not once have I seen a larger group of the good Muslims opposing them. Not once have I seen a larger group telling them you do not represent us. As far as i am concerned no political or religious movement is above the law or above criticism. Incidentally, I will defend their right to say what ever they want even though they might be talking rubbish.

But getting back to Sharia Law, to me some of it is probably not too different to common law of many a land (or even common sense law, for want of a better expression). However, certain punishments are barbaric and, in my view, have no place in a modern society. No matter how much you compare what Christians could have done or "cherry picked" the point is that law of the land prevails and the religious mumbo jumbo is booted out. Suffice to say I am against sharia as much as I am against capital and corporal punishment.

Finally, the above is my own view and it does not purport to represent anyone else and is written without prejudice.

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:57 am

Sharia Law is a moral and religious code, recorded in the Qu'ran. And interpreted by religious leaders. In all but name we would have a 'Theocracy'.

Much of the Qu'ran has been 'adapted' from the OT, which in turn 'adapted' much from ancient civilisations. Monotheism being the exception. Christianity has moved in a new direction.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:35 am

What would be the likely effect of having our Law interpreted by a Priesthood instead of by the Judiciary?

Would anyone notice the change?

by Shirina Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:41 am

Greetings, Talwar:

Godwin's Law strikes again.

Godwin's Law doesn't apply for two reasons. First, I made no comparisons to Hitler. Instead, I compared the right-wing ideology in the US to the ideology of National Socialism. Secondly, and most importantly, Godwin's Law only applies when the comparison is inappropriate. I can offer up a mountain of evidence to show you that the comparison is not only appropriate, but entirely accurate.

As to the rest of your post, I think we agree on a great many things.

by Talwar_Punjabi Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:02 am

Ahhhhhhhh, but by simply bringing Hitler into the debate you are sewing seeds of comparison; mountains or no mountains. But hey, semantics.

I am more interested in what you don't agree with regarding the rest of my post.

by Shirina Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:32 am

Ahhhhhhhh, but by simply bringing Hitler into the debate you are sewing seeds of comparison; mountains or no mountains. But hey, semantics.

Perhaps, but if the shoe fits. Remember that Godwin's Law specifically states that it only applies when the comparison is inappropriate. But, yes, semantics indeed.

I am more interested in what you don't agree with regarding the rest of my post.

I had to read back somewhat to understand what it was you were taking issue with. I think I know, but before I go running down the wrong path, let me ask: Do you think that Christian fascists are less of a threat to America than Islamic terrorists? I'm guessing that you disagree with my contention that the right-wing fascists here at home, the indigenous ones, are the greater threat?

by ROB Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:26 am

Talwar,

I’ve a bit of a different perspective on the items you’ve mentioned in your post.

Talwar_Punjabi wrote:
… other than maybe Turkey, point to one Islamic country which would or does embrace Democracy or Socialism…

Here I agree,

As a matter of fact, Turkey’s version of democracy is not what we expect in countries with “Locke-ian” governments, including in alphabetical order Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For instance, in these five countries, and perhaps a few more such as the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, and Barbados, we expect to enjoy, as guaranteed rights, free exercise of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of the press, equal protection under the law, due process in all judicial and quasi-judicial administrative proceedings, and a host of other normally unspoken but always understood unalienable rights.

I spoke with a missionary that was in danger of being arrested in Turkey because he openly spoke of and taught the teachings of Y’shua bar Yosef. He survived interrogation by, he supposed, Turkish secret police (“black suits” suddenly surrounded him and “encouraged” him to enter a coffee shop and drink strong Turkish coffee with them) only because he represented no “party.” Upon repeatedly being asked “What party do you represent”, and repeatedly answering, “I represent no party, I am a follower and teacher of Y’shua bar Yosef and teacher of Y’shua bar Yosef’s teachings”, he finally got from them a response indicating that they could not detain him because he followed and taught a prophet of whom the Qur’an speaks with profound respect.

According to his first person account, had this missionary answered “Roman Catholic”, “Baptist”, “Methodist”, or even just “Christian”, he might have remained in custody and been carted off to some unknown spot where he would have remained incommunicado for an indeterminate period of time.

Talwar_Punjabi wrote:
… I would suggest there are none because Socialism or Democracy can not exist side by side with Islam just as free speech cannot exist.

Here I would disagree. The five Muslim brothers with whom I studied weekly for a year, along with Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Ahmad Rashad, Hakeem Abdul “Olaju-Monster” Olajuwon, Walis Jones, and Jamal Wilkes, among others. Seem to exist within democracy and free speech quite amicably.

I would suggest that it’s not Islam, it’s the adulterated bastardization of Islam preached by the cowards who send others to die whilst exterminating precious human souls whilst they obscenely say “Praise God” while watching the carnage on television from the safety of a UAE hotel room that cannot exist alongside democracy and free speech.

By the way, did you know that Osama bin Laden tried to hide behind a woman, his wife, when confronted by SEAL Team Six?

Talwar_Punjabi wrote:
Pakistan has had no fewer than ten democratically elected governments overthrown since birth, each time the military did the deed and then used Islam as a tool of justification.

This is old information to some who’ve heard it before, but I believe it will be new to you.

In May of 1989, my Pakistani friend returned to Pakistan in order to extricate his wife and children. He wanted his family to know true democracy as he had experienced it during his stay in the United States of America. He particularly wanted them to know and enjoy the free expression of religion he and I practiced in our twice weekly studies, conducted as we walked alongside the min-lake shore directly across a street from the location in which we were co-workers.

He told me that, within a month, either he would be back in the USA with his family or he would be dead, executed by Pakistani authorities for teaching from the Qur’an that Muslims are required to treat People of the Book (Jews, Christians, and by implication, Baha’is) with dignity, honor, respect, and deference.

He did not return; I have mourned him now for twenty-two years ten months.

I have no respect whatsoever for Pakistani government, military, and intelligence officials.

Talwar_Punjabi wrote:
It even created the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan…

This is new information to me. I am interested in, and would appreciate, hearing as many details of this as you care to share.

Talwar_Punjabi wrote:
Talking of paying a price just ask the women of Afghanistan what price they have paid as a result of the barbaric rule of the Taliban who practice Sharia.

I pray that those who implicitly or explicitly support the taliban come to know this and come to an understanding of the bestiality of taliban terrorists. For information only, I quite intentionally type “taliban” with a lowercase initial consonant.

by Talwar_Punjabi Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:24 pm

Shirina

I had to read back somewhat to understand what it was you were taking issue with. I think I know, but before I go running down the wrong path, let me ask: Do you think that Christian fascists are less of a threat to America than Islamic terrorists? I'm guessing that you disagree with my contention that the right-wing fascists here at home, the indigenous ones, are the greater threat?

First of all a fascist is quite different from a terrorist but I accept they can act and share similar mentality even though their causes can indeed be different. Secondly I don’t live in the US and can’t comment about US security. However, in Europe we don’t have fascist organisations armed to the teeth like white supremacists in the States. Besides, what kind of fascist is better than another fascist, is an Islamic one better than a White Supremacist? Which one would you have; I am sure you would rather have none of them. In any case a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what background or cause he/she is killing for and should be tried and sentenced under the law by way of a fair trial.

by Shirina Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:55 pm

Talwar,

First of all a fascist is quite different from a terrorist but I accept they can act and share similar mentality even though their causes can indeed be different. Secondly I don’t live in the US and can’t comment about US security.

Well, my original point wasn't deciding which fascist and/or terrorist was better but rather to explain which is the greater threat to my own nation, the United States. I don't believe Islamic terrorism is much of a threat and certainly not on the level of their Christian counterparts here at home. I mentioned in another post that right-wing militia membership has grown by over 700% in the last year over fears of Obama being re-elected, and these groups are, by and large, Christian.

In many respects, Americans are a very spoiled people. We have never had a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini ... nor have we ever had one living next door wielding an army capable of defeating us. We simply don't know what tyranny really is and thus we are incapable of recognizing it, especially if that tyranny speaks the same language, believes in the same God, wears the same clothes, and salutes the same flag. The American people will never willingly accept Islam no matter how many skyscrapers the terrorists bring down, but the American people could easily and naively vote in a fascistic Christian government without ever seeing the tyranny embedded therein. The right-wing propaganda in this country is staggering; their spin doctors are so emboldened now that they don't even bother telling anything that resembles truth and tens of millions of Americans are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Remember that Hitler was elected, too, despite the fact that all of his plans were laid bare in Mein Kampf. Given enough flag waving, propaganda, and fear of outside threats, Satan himself could be elected just as long as he pretended to be "one of us." Islam does not pretend to be "one of us" and would have Americans - and the West - adopt a religion, a culture, and a government totally foreign and alien to us. That will never work, and Muslims represent less than 1% of the US population. Christians, however, represent over 80% of the US population. Therefore, does an Islamic fascist or a Christian fascist have the greatest chance of introducing Americans to tyranny?

by polyglide Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:34 pm

You can have any Law any Religion and no matter what, man will never ever be able to find a solution to all the people of the world living togeth in harmony.

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:47 pm

"Americans are a very spoiled people. We have never had a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mussolini ...."

Though some have come close: Jimmy Hoffer, Tammany Hall officers, J Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph MacCarthy to name but a few home-grown Control Freaks. Hoover apparently encouraged the Klan, who were parallel to Hitler's Storm Troopers.

by polyglide Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:32 pm

You can attempt top compare any religion with another or a set of laws with another set of laws and it is impossible to find any that will fit the bill of all being in agreement with any.

Just take a married couple, they may disagree on numerous subjects, their children on even more and that is just in a tight knit unit.

Take any political party, they differ from other such parties and in many instances have directly opposing views and they all have followers.

You have the different religions who all think they are right and would not change their stance for what they believe to be right.

But most of all you have the selfish who turn up in many guises and the only thing they would compromise on is if all the laws suited them.

So I am afraid there will never be a solution, man made, that served the whole world population in a fair and proper manner, so however clever we think we are we need the proper guidance from the creator who gave us the chance to lead a proper life for all and which we declined.

by Shirina Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:21 pm

need the proper guidance from the creator who gave us the chance to lead a proper life for all and which we declined.

The majority of humans worship a creator that is far worse than any human to have ever lived. The atrocities committed by "god" are simply unfathomable, and those are just the ones admitted to in the various holy texts.

If you count the unproven ones - such as God supposedly destroying Haiti with an earthquake a few years back because the Haitians made a pact with Satan, or Katrina destroying New Orleans as punishment for the big Gay Pride event scheduled for the next day - then God seems to be committing these atrocities even as we speak. I can only imagine what the poor Japanese did to anger our loving creator when the tsunami wiped out close to 100,000 people. Or the Indonesians, for that matter, who lost over a quarter million.

One cannot have "guidance" from an invisible, intangible creator without a religion, and with religion often comes bone-grinding oppression and persecution. If people wish to seek their own personal guidance from their own personal creator, then they can have at it. Of course, that only leads to the same problems as before. Even among a tight-knit family, everyone will have a different idea of what this creator wants. If you unify these beliefs into a religion, then you have oppression, discrimination, and theological fascism.

It's a no-win situation no matter how you dissect it.

by ROB Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:35 pm

Shirina wrote:
The majority of humans worship a creator that is far worse than any human to have ever lived.

Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is worship The Creator (not “a creator”) who is no such thing. Whether Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is represent a majority or a minority of the world’s population is open to conjecture, particularly since no one has any idea how many Christians in China worship The Creator in secret.

by Shirina Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:42 pm

Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is worship The Creator (not “a creator”) who is no such thing.

To me, it's just "a creator" since I don't believe in any God or god above any other God or god. Jehovah has the same legitimacy as Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thus the creator will remain "a creator." One among 3,000 or so other possibilities, including no creator at all.

by oftenwrong Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:46 pm

Or to put it another way, we are all in danger from Extremists.

by ROB Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:43 am

Shirina wrote:
Jehovah has the same legitimacy as Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thus the creator will remain "a creator." One among 3,000 or so other possibilities, including no creator at all.

There is no “Jehovah.” You were not created by “Zeus”, “the Flying Spaghetti Monster” “a creator”, or “3,000 or so other possibilities.” You were created by YHVH Elohim (Hebrew to Roman characters transliteration), the Creator, Owner, Author, and Sovereign of all that is, was, and ever will be, worshipped by Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Baha’is, who may or may not be the majority of the world’s population..

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:39 am

You were created by YHVH Elohim

YHVH has no more validity or legitimacy than Jehovah, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. YHVH just brings the grand total to 3001 possible choices.

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:12 pm

YHVH Elohim created you.

Yet if I were to ask the Dogon tribe of Mali, they would tell me that the god Oannes from Sirius created me.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:07 pm

Shirina wrote:
YHVH Elohim created you.
Yet if I were to ask the Dogon tribe of Mali, they would tell me that the god Oannes from Sirius created me.

That's interesting. Ea, or Oannes (Greek) goes back to the dawn of civilisation. The Sumerians 7000 years ago recognised 'it/him'. Half fish, half man. Didn't know about Mali though. Thanks.

by Shirina Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:13 pm

From what I understand, there are some cultural connections between the Dogon and Egypt ... and Egypt obviously has connections to just about everyone else. What's interesting about the Dogon is their knowledge of Sirius's companion star, Sirius B, which wasn't discovered until the 19th Century. The Dogon claim that "fish people" called Nommos came down from the sky in a spinning ark and gave them knowledge. These Nommos also appear in Accadian, Babylonian, and Sumerian myths. Fascinating stuff.

by trevorw2539 Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:13 pm

Shirina wrote:From what I understand, there are some cultural connections between the Dogon and Egypt ... and Egypt obviously has connections to just about everyone else. What's interesting about the Dogon is their knowledge of Sirius's companion star, Sirius B, which wasn't discovered until the 19th Century. The Dogon claim that "fish people" called Nommos came down from the sky in a spinning ark and gave them knowledge. These Nommos also appear in Accadian, Babylonian, and Sumerian myths. Fascinating stuff.

It is fascinating. The bible picks up on previous 'accounts' and records interesting facts about other stars, Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades etc. most of which have been explained by modern astronomy, but how did the ancients know.

We don't know the origins of the Dogon, only that they came to where they are now to escape Islam.

The Babylonians say Oannes came out of the sea. The 'Philistines' in the Bible had a fish/man god called Dagon. And round we go in circles.

My interest has been ancient Mesopotamia. Oh for another 50 years then I could 'travel' through ancient North Africa:(

No. I don't want to be re-incarnated as a camel, thank you. Laughing

by bambu Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:47 pm

Charlatan wrote: This is what divides the world.

#####

100% correct Smile

Charlatan wrote: 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...

There's no meeting point to find...there's either one or the other...or 'takeover' by Sharia law worshipping Muslims...100 Sharia law courts in Britain already...allowed and appeased by the 'cultural Marxists'.

Not important in America?
Wouldn't be too sure about that.

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

Sharia law, also Islamic law, is the moral code and religious law of Islam.

#####

70% + of Americans didn't want the 'Ground Zero Mosque'...it was 'built' anyway.

US doctors had basically capitulated and were going to start doing FGM on Muslim girls in America.

etc

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:07 pm

It was not until 1924 that general agreement was reached on the currently accepted version of the Koran.

by ROB Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:29 am

oftenwrong wrote:
It was not until 1924 that general agreement was reached on the currently accepted version of the Koran.

I don’t know how true that is, but this is definite according to at least six pretty decent (in two ways) Muslims scholars: The Qur’an is written (and I presume spoken) in Arabic, and anything written or said in any language other than Arabic is not the Qur’an.

That may not be such a bad thing.

by polyglide Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:07 pm

You only have to consider all the varying views expressed on this site to realise that there is little or no possibility of there ever being agreement on enough points to establish an ideal world.

by bambu Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:21 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
oftenwrong wrote:
It was not until 1924 that general agreement was reached on the currently accepted version of the Koran.

I don’t know how true that is, but this is definite according to at least six pretty decent (in two ways) Muslims scholars: The Qur’an is written (and I presume spoken) in Arabic, and anything written or said in any language other than Arabic is not the Qur’an.

That may not be such a bad thing. There are numerous errors in perception and understanding of teachings from the Hebrew and Greek Bibles that directly result from mistranslation and inadequate translation, the latter often resulting from a paucity of English words that are nonetheless pressed into service to describe emotions, ideas, and concepts that are easily described in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

John Chapter 14 Verse 1 and following, “In my Father’s house there are many…” Many what? There is no English word for it.

William Tyndale did an excellent job of conveying the emotion, the concept, by rendering these words spoken by Y’shua bar Yosef, spoken in Aramaic and recorded in Greek, as (starting from the beginning of John 14) as “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions, if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”

20th Century attempts to translate this word exactly have resulted in many people never grasping the meaning of Y’shua’s words.

Most things today can be quite accurately translated, and there's no more hiding behind the old "an error in translation" for Arabic speaking Islamic clerics;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/edited-transcript-of-sheik-hilalis-speech/story-e6frg6nf-1111112425808

Oct 2006

Edited transcript of Sheik Hilali's speech

"Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast?

"Where will they end up? In hell. And not part-time. For eternity. They are the worst in God's creation.

##### #####

Ooooo!

A Muslim patriot is reported to have released to the media audio of the speech given deep in the bowels of the mosque by the Mufti.

It all started in 2000, the war.

There were gang rapes;

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

Then sentences for the guilty;

http://www.australian-news.com.au/Leb_rapists.htm

___________________________________________________________________________
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Mufti's speech continued:

It is she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then it's a look, then a smile, then a conversation, a greeting, then a conversation, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay jail. (laughs).

"Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.

"If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.

"If the meat was covered, the cats wouldn't roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won't get it.

"If the meat was in the fridge and it (the cat) smelled it, it can bang its head as much as it wants, but it's no use.

"If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she's wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don't happen.

##### #####

The feminist patriots and their supporters screamed in outrage.
They were going to hold a bikini parade past the mosque on Friday prayers day. [they were talked out of it].
All this coming almost 12 months after the 'Cronulla riots'.

The fear of 'Under new management', and the fear of having to live under Sharia law, saw 5000 patriots hold a protest march at a beach "to reclaim the beach, the flag, and our society".
Sun, alcohol, anger, saw about 100 of the protesters cause a riot.
A few were sentenced to jail terms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr2X9N6__p4
Under new management!

The weekend before the 'Cronulla riots' two teen lifeguards were bashed at the beach, one sustaining a fracture eye socket.
The last straw.

http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYiAAxZWyys
Nine Sunday Cover story 2006 cronulla riot

by bambu Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:48 pm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096

Muslim group wants sharia law in Australia

May 17, 2011 21:49:00

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law.

In a submission to the Federal Parliament's Committee on Multicultural Affairs, the Federation has asked for the change.

It argues that all Australians would benefit if Islamic laws were adopted as mainstream legislation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992

Sharia law at work in Australia

SHARIA law has become a shadow legal system within Australia, endorsing polygamous and underage marriages that are outlawed under the Marriage Act.

A system of "legal pluralism" based on sharia law "abounds" in Australia, according to new research by legal academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq.

They have found that Australian Muslims have long been complying with the shadow system of religious law as well as mainstream law.

But in family law, not all Muslims were registering their marriages and some were relying on religious ceremonies to validate unions that breached the Marriage Act.

....... marriages", in which a man takes multiple wives, and marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age.

Their research, which will be published on Monday in the University of NSW Law Journal, says that the wider community has been "oblivious to the legal pluralism that abounds in this country".

#####

They just do as they please, and the 'cultural Marxists' in govt 'let' them.

by Sponsored content