|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land. Are these truly the only options of which you can conceive? And your OP is truly flawed in other ways. Have you even noticed the efforts of some religious people in the US to enshrine their personal beliefs and practices into law. Do you know, for example, what 'Blue Laws' are? Perhaps it turns out that despite being religious, people value the benefits of secular law. Perhaps it turns out that getting along with other people is more important than excluding them by enshrining stuff into law. Perhaps it turns out that in non-homogeneous societies it is practically impossible to get religious laws enacted regardless of your religious zeal. Perhaps you should think these things through before posting them. I noticed that your threads seem to gather a dozen responses or so before you lose interest in responding. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
By the word law, I assume you mean the 10 commandments. I think it's pretty clear that the ten commandments do not characterize what most people would think of as Christian Law. The ten commands are a short list of items mostly covering ground which is equally well covered in the Koran. I am not going to do any work to demonstrate that, but you can evaluate my statement yourself. Here is a suggested link. Or two Comparing the Ten Commandments with verses from the Qur'an http://www.islam101.com/...gions/TenCommandments/tcQuran.htm More importantly though, the ten commandments are just a short list of do's and don'ts. If we want to compare Christian law to Sharia law, surely it is not the simple list that is the glaring difference. The more important issues are how justice is served, fairness, what are the penalties, and what is the level of observance. None of those things are covered in any way in the ten commandments. A more apt comparison might be between Sharia law, and the rules in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Torah.
Old Testament history is just that, history, not promotion. Seriously. How can it be that when that "history" serves a desired outcome (e.g. Adam and Eve is the way God intended marriage to be) then it is okay to treat that as if it were promotional. Bottom line, if the Supreme in all of the universe approved, or condoned, commanded, or even performed an action, then that activity is promoted. In any event, the idea that Christians do not promote Christian law and society is ridiculous on its face. Surely someone here remembers Faith's recent thread in which she tried to find a legal way to establish a state within the US in which people who did not share her religious views would be banned from participating in state government. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
marc9000 writes: 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. Dr. Adequate writes: Glossing "better" as "(more free)" doesn't actually make them synonymous. I have to give marc9000 a nod for having the sac to address this question, because it is indeed a quagmire. There is no question that women, minorities, and pretty much everybody except rich, WASP males was not more free in the fifties than in the seventies or eighties. Most of the posters who come here, and who express a longing for the good old days have enough savvy not to fall into the trap of specifying the exact period they are nostalgic for. I can recall, for example Buzsaw ducking this question repeatedly. I have to presume that those who express a preference for the 50's and even for the early nineteenth century as some commentators on American Family Radio are wont to do, have a very crabbed view of what freedom means. It is certainly not a view that requires any respect whatsoever. But more to the point, the absence of law suits for major causing major casualty and injury makes you free to do what? Be absolutely reckless and careless with the life and limb of others with impunity? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
nonukes writes: Seriously. How can it be that when that "history" serves a desired outcome (e.g. Adam and Eve is the way God intended marriage to be) then it is okay to treat that as if it were promotional. Bottom line, if the Supreme in all of the universe approved, or condoned, commanded, or even performed an action, then that activity is promoted. marc9000 writes: Promoted for humans to perform? Billions of us, as opposed to one of him? Who among humans is authorized to determine who is on the giving end of such actions, and who is on the receiving end of them? Answer, no one. So I have to disagree with you on that one. So you disagree specifically with the proposition that the joining of Adam and Eve means one man/one woman marriages for the rest of us? I don't disagree with that. I assumed, though, that you would. Obviously many people do make that argument.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I've made the case that a secular government can be more oppressive than a religious one Marc9000, I hope you understand that this statement illustrates exactly how poor a showing you've made here. Yes there are some particularly bad secular governments that are worse than one particular religious ones. What point does that make? Anyone can easily cite a counter example. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
marc9000 writes: But no one seems to be anxious to do it. Maybe because there are no actual serious threats to liberty by religion in the U.S. and there are plenty of serious threats to liberty in the U.S. by secular science. The real reason not to argue with you is that you are oblivious. People have indeed cited examples of threats to liberty by religion in the US, but you pretend not to have seen them or to take them seriously. I generally avoid exchanging more than a message or two with you on any topic for exactly that reason. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024