[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If someone wants to migrate to a radically different culture/climate, I have to wonder why. For example, I would never have let Lixy into Sweden because he’s young and wants to move to a radically different place and culture. Why?
If we prevent 100 innocent people from entering but in so doing exclude a mad bomber who would kill hundreds or thousands, then I’m all for it.[/quote]
I assume you’re also for a nation wide gun ban then? Because, of course, if we can stop one madman from shooting up his school, it is worth denying everyone there right to bear arms, yes?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why do you defend Islam? Don’t you understand that “moderate” Islamic charities are funding terrorism?
[/quote]
I’m not so much defending Islam as I am laughing at the fact that you think it isn’t reformable, and should be deemed a dangerous cult and wiped from the face of the Earth.
The existence of a religious organization gives those who crave power for powers sake a chance to grab and use that power. They bring no irreplaceable benefit that I can see in the modern era.
I believe anyone and everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they want. You say Sharia law is being used in Great Britain. I agree that that is total and complete bull shit. Replace Sharia Law with Bible, and it is JUST AS BAD. Replace that with the ANYTHING but British law, and it is going to almost as bad.
Why can’t we concentrate on striking down the ridiculous bull shit we let the religious jack asses get away with? Giving into those kinds of demands only worsen the problem.
You’re suggesting that nations should close borders to those of a particular religion. I suggest we stop letting anyone and everyone circumvent the law for religious purposes.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why do you defend Islam? Don’t you understand that “moderate” Islamic charities are funding terrorism?
I’m not so much defending Islam as I am laughing at the fact that you think it isn’t reformable, and should be deemed a dangerous cult and wiped from the face of the Earth.
[/quote]
Where did I say that?
We need to recognize the problem and deal with it. Part of the way to deal with it is to limit immigration from dangerous areas.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If someone wants to migrate to a radically different culture/climate, I have to wonder why. For example, I would never have let Lixy into Sweden because he’s young and wants to move to a radically different place and culture. Why?
If we prevent 100 innocent people from entering but in so doing exclude a mad bomber who would kill hundreds or thousands, then I’m all for it.
I assume you’re also for a nation wide gun ban then? Because, of course, if we can stop one madman from shooting up his school, it is worth denying everyone there right to bear arms, yes?[/quote]
not allowing immigrants into the country, and the restriction of firearms amoung law abiding citizens are totally different things. I don’t think we should let unneducated non-refugees in. Not letting someone in your house is a lot different then taking rights away, when you have no right (consitutionally) to do so.
are you serious?
As evidenced by this statement, you don’t even know what shari’ah law is and haven’t studied either Islam or the Bible. You’re just making absurd, unsubstantiated statements at this point.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
not allowing immigrants into the country, and the restriction of firearms amoung law abiding citizens are totally different things. I don’t think we should let unneducated non-refugees in. Not letting someone in your house is a lot different then taking rights away, when you have no right (consitutionally) to do so.
are you serious?[/quote]
I agree and I agree. It was a hyperbole. But to deny a RELIIGION entrance to the nation based on their RELIGION does go against the Constitution. Not necessarily in a legal sense, but in a ethical one.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Replace Sharia Law with Bible, and it is JUST AS BAD.
As evidenced by this statement, you don’t even know what shari’ah law is and haven’t studied either Islam or the Bible. You’re just making absurd, unsubstantiated statements at this point. [/quote]
It was a comment on how using any legal standard other than the law of the land is absurd. It had nothing to do with comparing the two.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Replace Sharia Law with Bible, and it is JUST AS BAD.
As evidenced by this statement, you don’t even know what shari’ah law is and haven’t studied either Islam or the Bible. You’re just making absurd, unsubstantiated statements at this point.
It was a comment on how using any legal standard other than the law of the land is absurd. It had nothing to do with comparing the two.[/quote]
The Bible doesn’t provide legal rules for governing. That’s the job of Caesar.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Where did I say that?
We need to recognize the problem and deal with it. Part of the way to deal with it is to limit immigration from dangerous areas.
[/quote]
You’ve implied that Islam is inherently evil yes? What other way to you propose we finally end the Islamic Problem besides genocide? Don’t we have to treat the root of the problem, Islam itself?
So you’re proposing absolute containment then? If we ever decided to do so, would you also be in favor of large scale trade embargoes? No trading with any country that has a Muslim-run government?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
The Bible doesn’t provide legal rules for governing. That’s the job of Caesar. [/quote]
What does that have to do with anything?
Using any document other than British Law to govern Great Britain is a ridiculous concept. Period.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The Bible doesn’t provide legal rules for governing. That’s the job of Caesar.
What does that have to do with anything?
Using any document other than British Law to govern Great Britain is a ridiculous concept. Period.[/quote]
I guess we’re in agreement, then. You mentioned the Bible alongside shari’ah law. The Bible’s only analog to that is the laws the Israelites had to obey. Christians don’t believe we have to obey those unless re-iterated in the New Testament.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where did I say that?
We need to recognize the problem and deal with it. Part of the way to deal with it is to limit immigration from dangerous areas.
You’ve implied that Islam is inherently evil yes? What other way to you propose we finally end the Islamic Problem besides genocide? Don’t we have to treat the root of the problem, Islam itself?
So you’re proposing absolute containment then? If we ever decided to do so, would you also be in favor of large scale trade embargoes? No trading with any country that has a Muslim-run government?[/quote]
Quite a strech you are making here but I do favor trade sanctions against any hostile nation.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where did I say that?
We need to recognize the problem and deal with it. Part of the way to deal with it is to limit immigration from dangerous areas.
You’ve implied that Islam is inherently evil yes? What other way to you propose we finally end the Islamic Problem besides genocide? Don’t we have to treat the root of the problem, Islam itself?
So you’re proposing absolute containment then? If we ever decided to do so, would you also be in favor of large scale trade embargoes? No trading with any country that has a Muslim-run government?
Quite a strech you are making here but I do favor trade sanctions against any hostile nation.[/quote]
And, as Islam is inherently evil, any nation with a Muslim leader must be hostile, am I correct? Muslim’s must Jihad, right? Therefore, they’re all “hostile”.
I can’t believe I’m about to do this, but I think I’ll take a page out of HH’s rule book. — Are you for or against being hostile or at least unfriendly with someone/thing before it has committed any action you find repugnant, just because it might (essentially, do you believe there is some legitimacy to thoughtcrime?) ?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The Bible doesn’t provide legal rules for governing. That’s the job of Caesar.
What does that have to do with anything?
Using any document other than British Law to govern Great Britain is a ridiculous concept. Period.
I guess we’re in agreement, then. You mentioned the Bible alongside shari’ah law. The Bible’s only analog to that is the laws the Israelites had to obey. Christians don’t believe we have to obey those unless re-iterated in the New Testament. [/quote]
…Exactly. If the Ten Commandments were used to govern Britain, it would be a travesty. Glad we could agree.
waitwat
…
Could you tell me which rules were re-iterated? I’m genuinely curious. (Or point me to a link or something, preferably summarized 
).
Sure.
We believe Jesus filled all of the moral, ceremonial, and civil (as in laws pertaining to the governance of Israel) requirements of the Law. Remember that with the 10 commandments (Decalogue) came a bunch of other civil and ceremonial laws. Jesus and the apostles re-iterated the moral commandments (have no other gods before me, do not kill, etc.), but not the ceremonial or civil aspects.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Could you tell me which rules were re-iterated? I’m genuinely curious. (Or point me to a link or something, preferably summarized ).
Sure.
We believe Jesus filled all of the moral, ceremonial, and civil (as in laws pertaining to the governance of Israel) requirements of the Law. Remember that with the 10 commandments (Decalogue) came a bunch of other civil and ceremonial laws. Jesus and the apostles re-iterated the moral commandments (have no other gods before me, do not kill, etc.), but not the ceremonial or civil aspects. [/quote]
So… you can not go to Church and still get into heaven? Eat meat on Fridays?
Where did post-Christ rituals (Lent/Easter/Christmas) come from then? Should they in any way be considered “truly Christian”?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Where did I say that?
We need to recognize the problem and deal with it. Part of the way to deal with it is to limit immigration from dangerous areas.
You’ve implied that Islam is inherently evil yes? What other way to you propose we finally end the Islamic Problem besides genocide? Don’t we have to treat the root of the problem, Islam itself?
So you’re proposing absolute containment then? If we ever decided to do so, would you also be in favor of large scale trade embargoes? No trading with any country that has a Muslim-run government?
Quite a strech you are making here but I do favor trade sanctions against any hostile nation.
And, as Islam is inherently evil, any nation with a Muslim leader must be hostile, am I correct? Muslim’s must Jihad, right? Therefore, they’re all “hostile”.
I can’t believe I’m about to do this, but I think I’ll take a page out of HH’s rule book. — Are you for or against being hostile or at least unfriendly with someone/thing before it has committed any action you find repugnant, just because it might (essentially, do you believe there is some legitimacy to thoughtcrime?) ?
[/quote]
Most people that were born into Islam do not really practice the whole thing, just what is convenient.
Is your Muslim leader a “true believer”? If so, we are going to have problems with him.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Could you tell me which rules were re-iterated? I’m genuinely curious. (Or point me to a link or something, preferably summarized ).
Sure.
We believe Jesus filled all of the moral, ceremonial, and civil (as in laws pertaining to the governance of Israel) requirements of the Law. Remember that with the 10 commandments (Decalogue) came a bunch of other civil and ceremonial laws. Jesus and the apostles re-iterated the moral commandments (have no other gods before me, do not kill, etc.), but not the ceremonial or civil aspects.
So… you can not go to Church and still get into heaven? Eat meat on Fridays?
[/quote]
We believed that salvation under the old covenant (Old Testament) is the same as under the New except that in the New Testament we have what was foreshadowed in teh Old - Jesus. We don’t believe that observance of any of the moral commandments gets one into heaven because no one can observe all of them (or even really any of them) properly, therefore we are all guilty.
The Old Testament saints believed in the promises regarding a coming Redeemer (Genesis 3:15, 12:2,3, 15, and too many more to list here), and were “credited as righteous” as Abraham was in Genesis 15. Also note that Adam named his wife “Eve,” meaning “life” after he was told by God that she would be “mother of all the living” in Genesis 3 and also referencing verse 15, indicating that he too believed in a coming Redeemer necessitated by the Fall.
In the New Testament, we have what the Old TEstament pointed to, namely Jesus, so we believe in him. It’s not about what we do to get to heaven because there isn’t anything we can do.
I think they came from the Roman catholic church. The Roman Catholic church believes in both Scripture and Tradition. The latter I don’t agree with and can’t defend, but Luther and Calvin had a lot more to say about those things.
So you’re a fatalist then? That is, you believe in predetermination?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Most people that were born into Islam do not really practice the whole thing, just what is convenient.
Is your Muslim leader a “true believer”? If so, we are going to have problems with him.[/quote]
Ah, the whole “true believer” bit. What if he declares himself a “true believer” than. He believes he must spread Islam across the globe. And he says he shall do it through trade and scholarship. What then? Or is he not a “true believer”? If he’s not, who the fuck decides what is “true” to a religion?