Islamic justice

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
{me, a Christian, climbing upon the Blarney Stone with a pebble and hurling it toward ti Irish Sea...}

It's not very common that christians do that. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
did i say it was right to stone someone? did i say it was right to put anyone to death? I can justify it if you like, but i am a Christian, it belongs to a different epoch of time, we have a new set of laws, if you are unhappy about the practice, then why are you asking me, i did not put the ordinances and prohibitions in place, did I? If i did not ...[text shortened]... m spared their futility.

what you post has to do with the opening post, i cannot readily say.

"Lastly i am not criticising the Islamists for wishing to put to death a person who may or may not have..."

this is what you said, yes you are right, you didn't say you condone it 😀 but you don't criticize it. why is that? either you are lazy and you are to tired to bother or you actually agree that some people should be stoned if found guilty. but say clearly you don't condone it and i should be happy to welcome you back among the nice christians. well, you would be out of the murderous sadistic pile of christians at any rate.


you attack whitey (i assume you mean twhitehead, say his proper name) and not his argument. just because he is an atheist doesn't mean his point is invalid. this is one of the mistakes you make. "to understand and accept the bible, one must be a christian and accept the bible". it is circular, makes no sense. address the points he made, offer counter-arguments and we will listen. otherwise, you hold no value as a debater. another mistake you make is the fact you only make claims, you don't offer the "whys".


here is another mistake you make. you consider god to be beyond human understanding, and i would mostly agree. however here is where we encounter a small contradiction. killing babies is wrong for humans to do it. god says so. it is a law he set forth. but why break it himself? why engage in something so evil.
you say because he has a plan. i have a better solution. the dudes who wrote that particular passage in the bible were barbarian freaks who lied.
and voila! god is no longer a baby killer, god is a supreme being who has a plan beyond our understanding and who neglected to punish the liars and rectifiy that passage in the bible. who knows why? god works in mysterious ways.

isn't my solution better? God works in mysterious ways by allowing gruesome lies to be spread about him, in order to test the true believers and NOT works in mysterious ways by personally butchering people so a handful of jews be given the "promised land".
i personally like my solution better. it has ... i don't know, NOT a hypocritical murderous fickle god.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Lastly i am not criticising the Islamists for wishing to put to death a person who may or may not have..."

this is what you said, yes you are right, you didn't say you condone it 😀 but you don't criticize it. why is that? either you are lazy and you are to tired to bother or you actually agree that some people should be stoned if found guilty. but say ...[text shortened]... olution better. it has ... i don't know, NOT a hypocritical murderous fickle god.

wel well so now you are able to render judgement upon God, my goodness next you'll be in the running for title of emperor of the universe.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So we can rule out the OT fom the christian religion. At last. Good to hear.

Then we can assume that hating homosexual acts is obsolete too? And the genesis, and flooding and prophecies and the rest of OT?

Sorry, but I think the christian community want to hold on of OT, even if Jesus says otherwise.

Can I read or cannot I read "eye for an eye, ...[text shortened]... OP has to accuse a religion. Perhaps it would be better to stop accusing religions altogether?

the bible was written by men, who had human agendas. i do believe at times it was influenced by god. i do believe that the word of god was sometimes padded to suit interests. and i do believe even god didn't actually mean some of the stories.

i have examples.
the jewish tribes were shepherds, knowing to count as 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3 sheep, many sheep, more sheep, a lot sheep, thank you god i have a zillion sheep. telling them the world was created in several billion years, and explaining the exact way in which fusion started in the sun and so on, might have been a tad beyond their reach. so the metaphor that is the creation story was created which basically can be summed up as "i [god] created you and the earth, i am awesome, you figure out thousands of years later exactly how i did it"

the noah flood can be basically summed up as "you people are freaking jerks, i can and will punish you so behave".

then comes the whole chosen people part of the OT which is basically god conducting an experiment on a small population before moving on to the christianity project.
god may have been responsible for some of the things in this part but much more likely, the jewish leaders wanted to conquest a bunch of lands and didn't want to go through the hassle of peacefully converting the population and so they justified the genocide as "god wanted it". genocide which most likely didn't even take place in the degree portrayed in the bible.

and there are more stories. job teaches patience in the face of hardships and a certain philosophy (with which i don't entirely agree). jonah teaches courage. and a bunch of other passages are supposed to be a form of recorded history.

not even the NT is devoid of questionable stuff. god preaches love and compassion to all. but then comes paul and says the woman should stay in the kitchen and be submissive to the husband. that may have been ok then for that society. but it is wrong now. jesus himself discarded old teachings in favor of new ones, doesn't that mean he is open to change? the fundies would have you believe he is the son of god, and so has the right to change god's laws. which begs the question, will we be dependent on god to direct every insignificant aspect of our lives until the end of time? or will we start thinking for ourselves as god intended us?

my conclusion is this: you CAN be a good christian without stoning your daughter for not losing her virginity. you CAN be a good christian and allow your wife to have a career. and you CAN be a good christian and still think evolution has some merits at the very least.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wel well so now you are able to render judgement upon God, my goodness next you'll be in the running for title of emperor of the universe.

didn't you listen? i am not rendering judgement on to god, i am calling some of the guys who wrote the bible liars with their own agendas.

i might question god why did he allow those liars to spread falsehoods about him but who am i to judge him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11923701

The thread title ought to be 'Pakistani justice'. A debate could then ensue as to whether the Pakistani law is consonant with 'Islamic justice' (to be defined), developing into a discussion on the political co-option of religious principles.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the bible was written by men, who had human agendas. i do believe at times it was influenced by god. i do believe that the word of god was sometimes padded to suit interests. and i do believe even god didn't actually mean some of the stories.

i have examples.
the jewish tribes were shepherds, knowing to count as 1 sheep, 2 sheep, 3 sheep, many sheep, m ...[text shortened]... CAN be a good christian and still think evolution has some merits at the very least.

I think you and I agree more than not in this case.

Some christians chose the parts of the bible, and especially the OT, what to believe in and what not. Some think that it is okay to harass homosexuals because it says so in the bible. A few verses beyond it is a deadly sin to wear clothes with different kind of threads in them, but that is mosaic law, so that is not relevant. Some think that snakes can talk as in the first chapter of genesis, because the bible doesn't lie, some thinks not, and it is symbolic, because in another part it says so. Despite that fact, they cannot believe in evolution, because in the very same chapter it says that the whole universe, with talking snakes, apples, and floodings, and unicorns and all, was created more or less simultaneously.

For me the bible is flawless, and everything is true, because the bible is of an direct inspiration from god. Or it is not flawless, and it is written by men with an agenda. There isn't anything in between.

Your explanation is sound. I agree with it. (Perhaps not in detail, but in large.)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
willing to turn a blind eye as i am, indeed, so now i am responsible for the actions of the ancient Hebrews more that three thousand years ago, is that really what you are saying Agers, if not then why are you making me personally responsible as if I am, simply because it is recorded in the Bible? Simply because i refuse to comment upon them. Indeed ...[text shortened]... aid voluntary work because I wanted to pursue a career and make lots of money? which one is it?

Didn't claim you were responsible for the actions of ancient people following the laws they believe were set down by your god Robbie; I claim you nod your head and endorse it (or don't care either way - you certainly don't condemn it; nor do you condemn the god that set down these laws) - there is a big difference there.

Your comment about Jesus is not valid, since he was later kllled (supposedly) to appease your god's thirst for blood.

As for condemnation of the act; I visited the site you referenced but it is mostly a video, and I don't get enough internet allowance per month to watch these - that said; the way in which I refer to such acts (as an atrocity) should be sufficient to demonstrate I condemn the (subcollection) of Muslims who would support the murder - moreover you can regard that as an explicit condemnation on my part.

One final point is that in just the same way you nod your head in endorsement of twisted Bible god (as implied by your interpretation of scripture as flawless), these muslims nod their head in endorsement of twisted Qu-ran god; indeed, none of these have actually killed that woman yet.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are equally millions who do not.

So why do you pick and choose these ones as representatives of Islamic justice?

Originally posted by Palynka
So why do you pick and choose these ones as representatives of Islamic justice?

because the law is enshrined in the laws of an entire state, that being the Islamic republic of Pakistan, a government representative of an entire Islamic community, that is why! If it is not representative of Islamic justice, then what is it doing in the statute books of an Islamic state, enforced and enacted upon by Muslims?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The thread title ought to be 'Pakistani justice'. A debate could then ensue as to whether the Pakistani law is consonant with 'Islamic justice' (to be defined), developing into a discussion on the political co-option of religious principles.

Yes, this is good, but as i have explained to Plynkna, as it stands, it is a law, enshrined in the Laws of state. How it came to be there is an entirely different matter, as is the coexistence of religious/political principles.

Islam as a religion is only 1400 yrs old, Christianity has had 600yrs longer with which to evolve. Were people being executed for blasphemy in the UK 1400yrs into Christianity? Yes, the death penalty for blasphemy was only abolished in the UK in 1676. So if Islam plots the same course as Christianity, we can expect to see the death penalty for blasphemy eradicated from Islam sometime into the 24th Century.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No, nothing direct like that. Rather they would like to wear women down and make sure they know their places in the grand scheme of things as interpretted by their elders, who, as I understand are inherintly sexist.
Please correct me if I am wrong here Rob, G-75.

Well that might be true or might not but pick the lesser of two evils!! Total suppression or chance for thought to flourish? Hanging or a chance for a women to fight?




Manny

I will criticize it!! it's barbaric to say the least and if any Christian group is doing the same then they are also barbarians !!





Manny

Fundamentalists of any religion are not representative for the religion in quetsion.

I say that fundamenalists, no matter of religion, is more alike eachother, than religious people within a religion.

It is among the fundametalists terrorists are recruited. The mainstream religious peopl are the loving, forgiving, pleasant ones. Not the fundamentalists.

To think the fundamentalists of islam define islam is as wrong as saying that the fundamentalists of christianity define christianity. It is simply not so.