Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

To be fair, Jesus did stop the mob from stoning the woman who committd adultery. The qualification is, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," so nobody is technically allowed to do it.

marc9000 states: Wow, what a howler.The 1st rule in becoming a Christian is to give yourself up to Christ. So right away your complete entirety of your personal liberty has been nipped in the bud. Any religion will have certain acolytes among them who swear they have been "liberated" by giving up such a piece of their personal liberty. This is the falseness of all religions.Basic Atheism, which isn't even a religion by definition, definitely promotes personal liberty. How could it not?Please consult a dictionary, dude.

Fair enough.- Oni

MESSAGE 13 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. There was also a lot of help from U.S. foundings, which proclaim that unalienable rights come from God and not from men, whether those men are muslim leaders or scientific community leaders.------------------------------MESSAGE 14 Noted - Good points. 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. I can't comment on Faith's thread, because I don't know where it is - you didn't link it. But there's no evidence that any Christian organization is anywhere close to establishing a Christian government to the extent that Islamist organization have in other countries, or secular science organization is in many places throughout the world, the U.S. included.________________________________MESSAGE 15 When religion is suppressed to the point where there are no morals, where scientific leaders become rulers in government bureaucracies. Not all, a lot of us don't want atheist liberals in charge of politics, with all its associated environmentalism, redistribution of wealth, and big government. Including the scientific community's worship of themselves and the earth. A small government - that's the only way it can stay neutral. Only a few, but there are a lot of them that would like their religion to offset the increasing establishment of atheism through science education, and the associated big government that goes along with it.____________________________MESSAGE 17 Sure, if your idea of personal liberty includes becoming a thief, a rapist, a murderer, etc. Not a giving up of liberty, just a realization of what is right and what is wrong. There's the howler of the thread, atheism promotes science/evolution, which often goes a long way in restricting liberty through big government, save-the-planet/ redistribute-the-wealth laws and regulations.

"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 21:18Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

Could you please specify in some detail what would be the nature of the "liberty" we would enjoy under the governance of you and your co-religionists?What would the general populace be forbidden to do?Commanded to do?Who would decide, and on what basis?

Thank you marc9000 for replying.I disagree with all of your opinions, but you did answer in your own way.You say: I will promote science because it is only a modest attempt to see reality without the foolery of religious blinders. As for the second part of your ridiculous views as stated, you leap to Big Government in a most non-sequitor manner. Save-the-planet somehow intruded itself into your laundry list of typical right-wing nonsense. You don't want to save the planet? Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it looks like you don't give a fuck.

Whatever it is, I'm guessing they wouldn't be able to do it on Sunday.

I'm only going to address two of these cherry picks - I don't have the time or interest in taking on an entire atheist website that you undoubtedly copy/pasted these from. 1 Corinthians 7:1 actually says this;

quote:

---

Now concerning the things wherof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (KJV) (not to marry - NIV)

---

1 Corinthians 7:4 says this;

quote:

---

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (KJV)

---

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? 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".The United States doesn't have a King. The basic U.S. governing authority doesn't rest with any one person or any group of persons. The governing authority is the U.S. Constitution. So Romans 13: 1-2 could be understood this way;Let every person in the U.S. be subject to the U.S. Constitution. For there is no Constitution except from God, and those guidelines in it have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the Constitution resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.I'm not saying that Romans 13 is a complete approval for rebellion against appointed, or elected authority. An ungodly governing authority can also be a "minister" of God, because he serves God's purposes. In the interest of the Christian principles of peace / patience / tolerance, many Christians think Romans 13 means it should be resisted, to a point. It was resisted only to a point many times in the Bible.

It's just that they tend to drift way from their own theocracy, and fear no god (like the other atheist leaders that I referred to) as they shoot peaceful demonstrators, and rape and attack their own citizens as they do everything they can to maintain themselves in power.

Sure, just look over the history of the United States from 1789 to......oh you could pick out any number of dates in the 20th century as a cut-off point. Some would say liberty stopped in 1913 when individuals started being taxed. Others would say it was all good until the reign of FDR in the 1930's. Or the separation of church and state that happened in 1948. I personally think the governance of me and my co-religionists ended in 1963 when prayer in schools was outlawed. I can't say that this alone led to the amazing social changes in the U.S. that happened from about 63 to 73 or not, but it happened. President Johnson's "great society" seemed to coincide with a new entitlement mentality. This was combined with all the anger involving Vietnam and Watergate. The legal profession and the scientific community both gained major political footholds during this time as well. It's hard to explain just how all this caused the U.S. to take on such a different personality, but living in this country in the 50's as opposed to...the Carter administration on up to today was 180 degrees different. 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? Killing, stealing, those sorts of things. Like early U.S. history, there wouldn't be any state lotteries, public gambling, ambulance-chasing lawyers advertising on television, dishonest government greed, etc. You know, morality. 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. The traditional U.S. system of government, practiced until...1948.

It doesn't look very modest to many people, as its leaders (and some followers) attempt to "weaken the hold of religion", and subsequently gain political power for themselves. "Non-sequitor" means "it does not follow". You wondered how atheism, a lack of supernatural belief, could not promote personal liberty, and I answered that question by showing it to be a promotion of some humanistic beliefs, so it followed perfectly. I don't trust individual humans, who may actually be tyrants, to dictate how the planet should be saved.

No, they're enforcing it. 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? Er, you know Hitler was a theist, right?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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? 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? 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. My bad, 7:4. Thank you. 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. 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." 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.