Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 61 of 112 (704367)
08-09-2013 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ringo
08-08-2013 12:32 PM


Re: Misquoting Proves Nothing
If you can't figure it out by looking at the picture on the box, you probably shouldn't be messing with it.
Normally I would agree but in this case there is nothing in the box apart from instructions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 08-08-2013 12:32 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 112 (704371)
08-09-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
08-02-2013 7:53 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:47 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 63 of 112 (704409)
08-09-2013 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
08-04-2013 10:56 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
My version of liberty--
To begin with, it would be based on rationality, not superstition and old tribal myths.
But who determines what's rational? Some people would say that all morals are irrational. Most secular, science worshipers believe anything the EPA wants to do is rational. My area had "auto emissions testing" for cars and light trucks from 2000 to 2006. During the Bush administration, but it was a time-lag thing from the Clinton administration. It took those 6 years for it to be ended by the Bush administration. An all-encompassing search, something clearly prohibited by the fourth amendment. A waste of millions of dollars, and a breach of personal liberty unlike anything done by a religious group in the U.S.
And it would involve leaving other people alone and expecting them to leave me alone. Just because you believe in rubbing blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays doesn't mean I have to do so, or that I have to respect that practice. And I will resist any attempts to make me do so.
Can you name any attempts by the religious to make you do anything like that? I've named something the secular environmentalists required me to do. Name yours, and we'll compare.
This discussion centers around ridding government of the ability to promote or coerce any and all religious beliefs.
Any and all worldviews. The first amendment isn't only about religion. Proof of that is the fact that courts have routinely ruled in atheists favor concerning discrimination.
Once we get done with that topic we can discuss what manner of secular government we would prefer. That's a whole different thread.
As a minority, (a conservative atheist) do you expect the majority,(liberal atheists) to give you more personal liberty than the current U.S. establishment, with some religion involved?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2013 10:56 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2013 4:00 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 08-09-2013 4:22 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 64 of 112 (704411)
08-09-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2013 11:33 PM


marc9000 writes:
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.
But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution followed what the Declaration said. 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? It's almost as if you're...a troll.
marc9000 writes:
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,
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.
you could stop posting on forums devoted to debate;
Atheists seldom show much passion for free speech, do they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2013 11:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:11 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2013 5:23 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 65 of 112 (704412)
08-09-2013 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2013 12:28 AM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
So you're trying to say that the U.S. isn't more litigious today than it was a few decades ago?
None of your many examples of fundraisers are the same thing that I was referring to, the forgiveness that went on between opposing victims in an accident. Including your last one - the forgiving one knew the accident was his family's fault.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2013 12:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 66 of 112 (704413)
08-09-2013 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by onifre
08-05-2013 11:23 AM


Re: Rise of the Nerds
marc9000 writes:
When religion is suppressed to the point where there are no morals, where scientific leaders become rulers in government bureaucracies.
Then you have the wrong understanding of what "secular" means. You're describing some kind of science fiction political government.
Not science fiction, it's what I see slowly happening in the U.S. right now.
Secular just means religious ideologies don't govern political decisions and law making. Which is what you want when it comes to things like Sharia Law.
But secular can and does mean environmental, scientific ideologies, that can be just as dangerous as religious ones.
What if it was a Christian/Muslim/Buddist/Hindu who was a liberal, environmentalist, who wants to redistribute the wealth? Would that change your opinion just because they were religious?
No, I wouldn't!
marc900 writes:
Including the scientific community's worship of themselves and the earth.
Do you make sense to yourself? Because I can't really take you serious when you say ridiculous shit like this.
So you don't believe that Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg said this;
quote:
"Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion, should be done and may, in fact, in the end, be our greatest contribution to civilization."
with plenty of winks and nods from much of the scientific community.
YOU seem to associate scientific knowledge with big government. I imagine there are others like you who also believe ridiculous things like that as well.
Because statistics back it up - the scientific community leans towards the Democrat party much more heavily than the general population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by onifre, posted 08-05-2013 11:23 AM onifre has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 67 of 112 (704415)
08-09-2013 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by onifre
08-05-2013 11:34 AM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
What a great moral government that enslaved and segregated certain individuals because of their skin color.
An unfortunate inherited characteristic that was later corrected. The bad things going on at that time don't automatically mean that some other things going on were bad also.
Allowed for them to be brutally killed with little to no consequences.
An exaggeration.
Same government didn't let certain religious groups hold political positions. Same government didn't allow women to vote, and pretty much treated minorities like second class citizens.
DIDN'T ALLOW WOMEN TO VOTE!! How terrible! If some of the men of the 1800's could be brought back to life to see the jokes we currently have for Congress and the president, they just might say that enough of a percentage of women, HOWEVER SMALL, just may only vote for good lookin dudes rather than men who have enough brains to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States, and that small women percentage vote could be enough to tip the scales to produce leaders who aren't very good leaders. I WOULD NEVER SAY THAT, but those pig slave owners and brutal killers might have!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by onifre, posted 08-05-2013 11:34 AM onifre has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 112 (704417)
08-09-2013 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
08-09-2013 3:03 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
But who determines what's rational? Some people would say that all morals are irrational. Most secular, science worshipers believe anything the EPA wants to do is rational.
We are speaking of religious beliefs, not secular matters. But concerning religious beliefs and rationality, here is one opinion:
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
marc writes:
Coyote writes:
And it would involve leaving other people alone and expecting them to leave me alone. Just because you believe in rubbing blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays doesn't mean I have to do so, or that I have to respect that practice. And I will resist any attempts to make me do so.
Can you name any attempts by the religious to make you do anything like that? I've named something the secular environmentalists required me to do. Name yours, and we'll compare.
Blue laws.
From Wiki:
Bergen County in New Jersey is notable for their blue laws banning the sale of clothing, shoes, furniture, home supplies and appliances on Sundays kept thru county-wide referendum. Paramus in New Jersey have their own blue laws even more strict than the county itself has banning any type of worldly employment on Sundays except necessity items such as food and gasoline.
In Texas, for example, blue laws prohibited selling housewares such as pots, pans, and washing machines on Sunday until 1985. In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Maryland permits Sunday automobile sales only in the counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, and Howard; similarly, Michigan restricts Sunday sales to only those counties with a population of less than 130,000. Texas and Utah prohibit car dealerships from operating over consecutive weekend days. In some cases these laws were created or retained with the support of those whom they affected, to allow them a day off each week without fear of their competitors still being open.
Any time a religious group gets to be near a majority they feel they can force their beliefs on everyone else.
Look at the Texas schoolbook controversy, where creationists keep stacking the board that approves new texts so they can force their religious beliefs on everyone else.
Also, in Kansas and some southern states the legislatures keep addressing teaching creationism in schools. Thankfully those bills are rarely passed any longer. But it took litigation to get the Dover School Board to stop promoting creationism in the school system.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:04 PM Coyote has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 69 of 112 (704418)
08-09-2013 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by marc9000
08-09-2013 3:24 PM


But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution followed what the Declaration said.
What the fuck does that mean?
The Declaration was a document proclaiming the severing of ties. It is not a document of the USA it is pre-USA. It has nothing to do with the foundation of a new governing system. The Constitution was the founding document of the new country. Previous documents are not part of USA. If that were true we would look to the Articles of Confederation for guidance too.
That being said the Declaration says nothing about the bible or christianity.
It's almost as if you're...a troll.
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.
Well I guess if you dont understand why something is a logical fallacy you should just call people names and make ad hominem attacks.
Atheists seldom show much passion for free speech, do they?
Yeah cause following some sort of biblical law would be the epitome of freedom.
Oh and there we go another personal attack. Stay classy bud.
It burns.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:24 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:30 PM Theodoric has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 70 of 112 (704419)
08-09-2013 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
08-05-2013 4:11 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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.
"No question" that women weren't more free in the 50's than they are today? I know some elderly ladies who were around in the 1950's who would question that.
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.
Most who long for the good old days are selective about what was good - they tend to remember the good and forget the bad, and of course there have been improvements. What clouds comparisons of different eras is increases in technology, and adjustments in costs of goods and services due to inflation. But all things considered, I'll take the 1950's any old day.
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.
In the same way, I have to presume that those with a disdain of yester-years small government and fiscal responsibility, who currently bow down to EPA mandates, also have a crabbed view of what freedom means.
But more to the point, the absence of law suits for major causing major casualty and injury makes you free to do what?
Free to keep more of your own money, instead of such a large percentage of it going to rich lawyers, and increased costs in products that today, often have safety features that aren't worth the cost.
Be absolutely reckless and careless with the life and limb of others with impunity?
There has to be a balance. Today, suing a large corporation whose product happened to be involved in an accident doesn't automatically mean they were careless. If the 1958 accident would have happened today, the bus manufacturer would have been sued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2013 4:11 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 71 of 112 (704420)
08-09-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
08-09-2013 3:03 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
The first amendment isn't only about religion. Proof of that is the fact that courts have routinely ruled in atheists favor concerning discrimination.
Well, if that routinely happens, I'm quite sure you can find and present a few examples of it, yes?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:03 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:32 PM subbie has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 72 of 112 (704421)
08-09-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Theodoric
08-09-2013 4:11 PM


marc900 writes:
But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution followed what the Declaration said.
What the fuck does that mean?
It means what many consider to be the most important statement in the Declaration; "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." - the constitution was largely about the preservation of those rights. The constitution followed that statement.
The Declaration was a document proclaiming the severing of ties. It is not a document of the USA it is pre-USA. It has nothing to do with the foundation of a new governing system. The Constitution was the founding document of the new country. Previous documents are not part of USA. If that were true we would look to the Articles of Confederation for guidance too.
So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.?
That being said the Declaration says nothing about the bible or christianity.
It mentions a creator.
Well I guess if you dont understand why something is a logical fallacy you should just call people names and make ad hominem attacks.
Nah, vulgar 4 letter words work better, don't they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:11 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:40 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 73 of 112 (704422)
08-09-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by subbie
08-09-2013 4:22 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
Well, if that routinely happens, I'm quite sure you can find and present a few examples of it, yes?
No, goalpost runner. You're a new member of the big gang, so if you don't believe it, I'm afraid I can't help you today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 08-09-2013 4:22 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 08-09-2013 5:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 74 of 112 (704423)
08-09-2013 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:30 PM


It means what many consider to be the most important statement in the Declaration; "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." - the constitution was largely about the preservation of those rights. The constitution followed that statement.
No the Constitution laid out the formation of the government. The Bill of rights added individual rights. You still have failed to show where the Constitution mentions the christian god or the bible, or the Declaration for that matter.
So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.?
Did I say that or are you still trolling? Nice strawman.
It mentions a creator.
So you agree. It does not mention the bible or the christian god. Glad to see we agree on something patently obvious.
Nah, vulgar 4 letter words work better, don't they?
The word fuck bothers you? Tough shit. Will you now stop the personal attacks and debate instead of being a dick?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:30 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:56 PM Theodoric has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 75 of 112 (704424)
08-09-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
08-09-2013 9:30 AM


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?
Yes, since 1 Corinthians 7:1 says; "It is good for a man not to marry". Contradictory? If one believes that all men are completely equal robots, with the same interests, same looks, height, weight, life expectancy, etc. it could be taken as contradictory. If the Bible was one set of instructions for everyone to follow. But it takes into account that people are different, with different skills, interests, personalities. It's up to us to apply what the Bible says to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Some are best to be married (one man/one woman) some are best to stay single. But no one can really make the case that the Bible condones gay marriage, if that's what you mean. And so far, no one can make the case that it's good for society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 08-09-2013 9:30 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:51 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 08-10-2013 12:35 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2013 5:26 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024