|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Christians are largely ignorant of what the Bible says, and instead work on the assumption that whatever it is, it must be in accordance with their prejudices. Tell the religious right that their God has no problem with abortion but favors the death penalty for working on Saturdays and they'd just stare at you blankly. Of course their God isn't like that, they should know, they made him in their image.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Christianity - it's the only one that actually promotes personal liberty. "Slaves, obey your masters in all things." - Colossians 3:22 "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does." - 1 Corinthians 7:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." - Romans 13:1-2 "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." - 1 Peter 2:13 "If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods [...] you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock." Deuteronomy 13:12-15 "Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death." - Leviticus 24:16 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death." - Leviticus 20:13 "If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother [...] then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you." - Deuteronomy 21:18 Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It's no worse than the secular version of liberty, that came from the likes of Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro and the Iranian mullas. That's gotta be the first time I've ever heard anyone complaining about how darn secular the Iranian mullahs are. It seems that you are one of the very very few people whose criticism of the Iranian regime is that it's not theocratic enough for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's just that they tend to drift way from their own theocracy ... No, they're enforcing it.
... and rape and attack their own citizens as they do everything they can to maintain themselves in power. Well that would be the first duty of the theocrat. That's not opposed to theocracy, that's a corollary of it. If the most important thing is to enforce God's laws, then it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the people who want to enforce God's laws are in a position to do the enforcing. In a theocracy, killing dissidents isn't secular. It's theocratic. In case you missed it, here's Deuteronomy 13:12-15 again: "If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, Let us go and worship other gods [...] you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock." Not particularly secular, is it?
... and fear no god (like the other atheist leaders that I referred to) ... Er, you know Hitler was a theist, right? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I'm only going to address two of these cherry picks Cherry picks? My dear marc, the whole darn Bible's a cherry pie smothered in cherry sauce and topped with cherries. This is a book that regulates what sort of clothes people can wear, what crops they can plant in their own fields, what sort of meat they can eat, how they can shave their beards, and whether they can plow with an ox and a donkey in the same yoke, and forbids the breeding of mules. It's not exactly a manifesto for individual liberty. And you're only going to address two of my quotations? Er ... so that would be ... um ... what sort of fruit would you say you were picking there?
I don't have the time or interest in taking on an entire atheist website that you undoubtedly copy/pasted these from. Wait, so I'm cherry-picking, and there's so much of this stuff that you wouldn't be able to find the time to answer it all?
... an entire atheist website that you undoubtedly copy/pasted these from. Like so many things that you don't doubt, that is completely untrue. Maybe you should doubt more things. Especially, y'know, things you make up in your head on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
1 Corinthians 7:1 actually says this; My bad, 7:4. Thank you.
The NIV puts it like this; - "The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Not the inequality that you were dishonestly trying to portray, is it? I never mentioned inequality, we were discussing liberty. If you really want, we can discuss whether the Bible makes women equal to men. Otherwise maybe it would be better if you kept quiet about that subject, instead of bringing it up and pretending that I was discussing it.
If you knew much at all about how the entire Bible addresses authority, you'd know more about how to interpret Romans 13. Isaiah 13, Revelation 13, the books of the Kings, and several Old Testament prophets are quite negative concerning "governing authorities". Well, I never claimed that the Bible was consistent. However, Romans 13 says "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The United States doesn't have a King. But it did, didn't it? If the Founding Fathers had obeyed the clear commands of the Bible, they wouldn't have been the Founding Fathers, they'd have been loyal subjects of George III. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." If you can find an inch of wiggle room in that passage, then you should turn your hermeneutic skills to the Book of Genesis instead and see if you can quit with the creationism. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't trust individual humans, who may actually be tyrants, to dictate how the planet should be saved. What do you mean "may be tyrants"? It's not actually difficult to find out whether someone is a tyrant or not. You look for little signs like where he bans elections and has the opposition shot. So, I agree, let's ignore those people and their views on "how the planet should be saved". Let's ask someone else who isn't a tyrant but is a subject-matter expert.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Some would say liberty stopped in 1913 when individuals started being taxed. Is there some sort of zoo where we can look at these people, maybe feed them peanuts?
Or the separation of church and state that happened in 1948. 1791.
I personally think the governance of me and my co-religionists ended in 1963 when prayer in schools was outlawed. No it wasn't.
As one example, did you know that there was a school bus accident in Kentucky in 1958 that killed 26 school students, and no lawsuits were filed? Unless that's because there used to be a law against filing lawsuits, what in the world does that have to do with anything?
Killing, stealing, those sorts of things. Like early U.S. history, there wouldn't be any state lotteries, public gambling ... Ah yes, the good old days.
Benjamin Franklin organized a lottery to raise money to purchase cannon for the defense of Philadelphia. Several of these lotteries offered prizes in the form of "Pieces of Eight." George Washington's Mountain Road Lottery in 1768 was unsuccessful, but these rare lottery tickets bearing Washington's signature became collectors' items; one example sold for about $15,000 in 2007. Washington was also a manager for Col. Bernard Moore's "Slave Lottery" in 1769, which advertised land and slaves as prizes in the Virginia Gazette. At the outset of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress used lotteries to raise money to support the Colonial Army. Alexander Hamilton wrote that lotteries should be kept simple, and that "Everybody ... will be willing to hazard a trifling sum for the chance of considerable gain ... and would prefer a small chance of winning a great deal to a great chance of winning little." Taxes had never been accepted as a way to raise public funding for projects, and this led to the popular belief that lotteries were a form of hidden tax. At the end of the Revolutionary War the various states had to resort to lotteries to raise funds for numerous public projects. ... ambulance-chasing lawyers advertising on television. I'll give you that one. During the whole of the eighteenth century, not one single lawyer advertised on television. Or chased an ambulance, for that matter. But I guess now that they do advertise on television, we should pass laws forbidding them to do so ... er ... for liberty! Can we ban other groups from advertising too? I can think of a few people who annoy me. But perhaps you feel that the First Amendment should protect the people I don't like.
Again, examples of any commands would be present in early U.S. history. I can't think of many, other than avoiding intruding on other people's liberties. I think there was also one saying you had to give back any escaped slaves that took refuge with you. Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Actually it is ... A book which tells you how to trim your beard and what clothes to wear, which criminalizes freedom of speech and of religion, and which urges complete submission of subjects to kings and slaves to masters, is a manifesto for individual liberty? If you want me to believe that, you'll have to do more than just say so.
... you just don't understand it ... If so, then I seem to be in good company. You know who else didn't understand it? The Jews. When they read all that stuff about stoning unbelievers and annihilating entire towns for religious unorthodoxy, they didn't rush out and pass a bill of rights enshrining freedom of religion. The apostles, also, may have had the gifts of tongues, of healing, and of prophecy, but they couldn't understand the Bible like you did, or they'd have drafted an early version of the U.S. Constitution. The Protestant reformers, too, seem to have overlooked the message of the Bible in this respect --- how fortunate you are that your Biblical scholarship is better than theirs.
The U.S. founders referred to it more than anything else as they put together the U.S. Constitution. But without referring to it in the U.S. Constitution. Funny that, isn't it? It's almost as if you're ... wrong.
It's atheism and science that are not manifestos for personal liberty, if you disagree, then maybe you could supply proof that they are. I never said they were. However, at least atheism doesn't tell us that there's a God who wants complete submission of slaves to masters and subject to kings. So it's got that going for it.
The anti-moving-the-goalposts fruit of atheist gangs on scientific message boards. I'm surprised there are only 3 of you - usually it's 5 or more that demand more and more detail from a single opponent, so they can overwhelm their time constraints, then mock and jeer and slap each other on the back for their scientific victory. If you don't like being debated, you could stop posting on forums devoted to debate; if you don't like being proved wrong, you could try acquiring some opinions that aren't wrong; and if you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means, you could stop using the phrase. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There was no law against filing lawsuits, but in that era's morality and tradition, the jackpot mentality that's been common since the mid seventies didn't exist, and society was far better (more free) because of it. Glossing "better" as "(more free)" doesn't actually make them synonymous.
Investigations were done, but it's clear that their purpose was to simply find out what happened, to learn from it. Little question that the accident was the bus driver's mistake, yet parents of the dead children voted to share the insurance money with his family. The owner of another damaged vehicle gave his insurance money to the victims families. A thing called compassion, something practically unheard of in public accidents today. Event held to support victim of spinal cord injury Kansas Inmates Raise Money For Boston Bombing Victims Brunswick boosters hold fundraiser for crash victims Fundraiser for victims in fatal Schaghticoke crash Youngstown News, Fundraiser planned for accident victim Raising Money for Crash Victim Dropkick Murphys Raise Over $300,000 For Boston Marathon Bombing Victims Community Supports Local Tornado Victims Runners hit trail to raise money for Boston Marathon bombing victims Local group raises money for Boston marathon victims Community raised money to help children of young couple who was shot and killed on McFaddin Beach Gambrills dance troupes help raise money for hurricane victims Shelton and J.C. Penney raising money for tornado victims Fundraiser at Mongolian BBQ raises funds for OK tornado victims Byrd students raise money for injured classmate Wallingford fifth-graders come to aid of tornado victims Local Children's Lemonade Stand Helps Community answers call for Oklahoma tornado victims relief Tourney aids victim of boating accident Fundraiser collects money for Orange deputy Indian Valley Middle School helps Oklahoma victims "Miracle on the Hudson" survivor gives back Frigid dip raises money for Stony Point Sandy victims 'Crowdfunding' sites pay medical bills, raise hopes New fundraising goal for bus crash victims already met Austin shoppers raise money for wildfire victims 26.4.26 Foundation to Deliver $30K From Marathon to Sandy Hook Corvallis residents rallying around GAN victims Crash victim's father delighted by memorial cruise response Raising money, hope and spirits: Events to aid victims bring in millions of dollars Fundraiser held for victim killed in gas explosion Kids pitch in to help superstorm Sandy victims across Long Island 2 burn survivors join Ohio State 5K to help victims Newtown students come together to help Oklahoma tornado victims Charlotte Helps Children of Couple Killed in Accident Yeah, where'd all the compassion go? And why are these two suing each other ... Son of victim comforts driver in crash ... oh, wait.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Once we get done with that topic we can discuss what manner of secular government we would prefer. Blasphemer! There can only be one secular government! It must be in accordance with the word of not-God, as revealed to his not-prophets and codified in the non-Bible. The not-Pope was very clear about this in his latest not-an-encyclical, and if you don't believe me you should consult your not-pastor. If you commit the non-sin of conservatism, you risk you not-immortal non-soul, not to mention not-excommunication from the non-church. That's what you get for joining a monolithic non-religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence ... No.
Do you really believe that if something isn't directly referred to by a document, then that document can't possibly have a thing to do with it? Do you really believe that the U.S. founders really didn't refer to the Bible at all? Here's a hint. You can find out what I really believe by reading what I really say, rather than by making up shit in your head for no reason. I have never denied that the Founding Fathers referred to the Bible from time to time. For example, Thomas Jefferson referred to the Bible when he wrote that he considered the Book of Revelation "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams" and added "I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being".
I never said I don't like being debated. I just find the "shout down" tactics of the same collegiate atheist mindset that came up with all the "logical fallacies" lists to be quite amusing. If the imaginary things in your head didn't amuse you, they would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Atheists seldom show much passion for free speech, do they? What a peculiar lie. And a peculiarly random lie at that. Why did you choose to tell that particular lie at that particular juncture? I'm intrigued. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And so far, no one can make the case that it's good for society. (1) Freedom is good.(2) Giving gay people the freedom to marry makes them more free. (3) Society includes gay people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've come across winteryknight before, and know him to be a fraud using bogus statistics. Don't pass on anything he says without looking at the primary source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
This has been gone over many times before, these aren't necessarily a forcing of religion, they're intended to be a balance for the current atheism that's established in schools. That's yet another problem that happens in a secular society, an establishment of atheism in science education. Tell you what, you can balance the imaginary establishment of atheism with an imaginary establishment of religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Exactly. Under the U.S. Constitution, a homosexual should have the same access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just the same as anyone else. His private life in his own home with his partner is no one else's business. But he shouldn't have the right to the public institution of marriage, if the majority sees it as a public burden. The majority doesn't. And isn't getting married part of the "pursuit of happiness" (see below)?
I don't think they need a contract for anything - single people don't have a contract. Need, schmeed. That's not the criterion for whether you can make a thing illegal. People don't need donuts or wallpaper or cable television, but that's not a reason to arbitrarily ban things. If people have a right to the pursuit of happiness, as you admit, then unless there's a really compelling reason to ban something which makes someone happy, we shouldn't.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024