Random Politics & Religion #00

It's simple give the teachers AK-47's !

Imagine a world without guns there would be no violence whatsoever !

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Nothing wrong with being evil. At least evil people are honest.

I'm more the smuggler/bounty hunter type.

We deal less in absolutes and moral outrage and more in exotic goods and services. In fact, the more ambiguous we are, the safer it is.

My only absolute is absolute privacy for my clients!

This has got to be your funniest response of the year.


Anyways, incoming long response, hopefully the last of its kind to Charlo:

That's just you reading too much into it. I'm not asking you to accept anything, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency on your part for glossing over the laws of the OT while jumping the gun at Islam for having something like the death penalty.

You provided a poor analogy, I pointed that out but you kept insisting that it's sound, so fine, whatever floats your boat.

Irrelevant because the point I was making was not the illogicality of claiming to be both trinitarian and monotheistic (for which you provided more poor analogies), but I was rather pointing to the sudden change in "God's" personality that's in parrallel with the changes of law.

The OT stresses the oneness of God and never mentions the trinity. I'm sure you'd pull something out of context from this translation of translations that was compiled from different sources over centuries way past its supposed original dates, that's been subject to change by scholars and to error by countless scribes, and somehow try to turn it into a relevant reference to Jesus to relieve any dissonance you might feel. Again, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect everyone to buy that.

The analogy of arms and legs was particularly poor. The Trinitarian doctrine states that each "part" is a "person". My arm is part of me, it's not its own "person". I can be me without arms or legs. Unless you can point at your severed (or dead) arm and call it Charlo, which will just make everyone laugh at you.

Hey, I can do this quoting business too:
From Wikipedia

Everyone knows by now that the Trinity was never mentioned in the whole scripture:
Same Wikipedia article

How you subscribe to a faith whose most basic, central tenet is a complete puzzle is beyond me.

If you want to base your beliefs on your "imagination" (and have a little divine family of 3, 7, or 108), that's fine. But don't go attacking other people's faiths when you can't even explain/defend yours properly. Glasshouses and all that.

Good. It's their right. It upsets you? You want that right reserved for Christians only?

Britain isn't a Christian country (well practically speaking), get over it (or move to the US and vote for Trump). And the Muslim population in it are not all immigrants, there are second and third gen citizens who have every right to practice their religion, else their ancestors wouldn't have moved there.

What an Islamophobe.

It's not the Quran, and it's not every law.

We've established that it's not morally reprehensible to you for these punishments to be part of a religion (ergo OT).
In what way does it convict Islam?

Premarital sex and disobeying your parents for example. Not to mention that everything in the OT is pretty much worth a stoning (not just death, stoning). In Islam it's only adultery (extramarital affairs), and it has to be witnessed by at least 4 different individuals seeing the act explicitly. That won't happen unless people start doing it in the streets. And who goes about their affairs publicly or gets caught in the act in this manner exactly? So this punishment virtually never happens, but it's part of the law as a deterrent and indicator of its ugliness. That's why you never hear about stonings in Saudi Arabia (where it's part of the law).



I'm saying that kids never deserve harsher punishments lol. So equating OT harsh laws with a father controlling his children is not a good analogy. More restrictions on kids? Yes! Harsher punishments on kids? Hell no.



So yeah, let's put an end to this crap. Stop attacking and hating. I find it ironic that you're the one who's supposed to be all lovey-dovey and accepting, and perhaps turn the other cheek lol, yet the majority of your posts are about attacking Islam. You've been pretty unchristian-like.

Evil people = honesty? Hmmm, let's test that theory...

Yeah, not so much. I'm pretty sure deceitfulness and evil go hand in hand.

There are Jewish rabbinical courts in America. Some Christian denominations have religious courts as well. I see no apes shitting over either of these.

A quote from the first link

That panorama program had the court telling women suffering domestic abuse to not go to the police. And also asked the women was it her fault for not being pleasing to the husband. Clearly illegal under UK laws. But in line with sharia and quranic teaching.



I don't know if the Christian group has done similar things. Or Jewish courts.
In my opinion ALL should be stopped. I'm amazed it hasn't in the USA given the separation of state and religion law.
If you want advise from a religious member go to your appropriate pastor, imam, etc.

I want this book:

Graham is out.

Graham ends his campaign vanity run for the White House
CNN

Edits by yours truly.

He is the only candidate that wants boots on the ground in Syria, so no idea where he gets the idea that the other candidates support his plan, Ted Cruz went on the record on the debate stage in supporting Obama's current strategy.

Zeig,I give you props for going through the trouble of explaining and typing that all out. You're a better man than me.

I know his type. The erratic posts that are all over the place, arguments all over the place; stretching and reaching for anything that will stick. It isn't the mindset that is willing to even consider anything that undermines what they were told by X-source or justifies their prejudice. Its an internal conversation that this type has to have with themselves before you or me or anyone can have any kind of discourse with.

Here's a going away present for your Charlo:
I'm half British.
My British family are Wilkinsons.
My 4 uncles and 3 Aunts converted to Islam in the 60's.
All 22 of my cousins were raised Muslim. 3 of them girls, and all their husbands who are white brits, converted to Islam to marry them.
All of their children ranging from 5 years old to mid 20's are all muslim.
They're all white, blond and blue eyed .
One of my uncles is in the SAS, and the eldest one is ex-SAS.


Bend your head around this one Charlo, more and more of us are looking just like you probably look. Or what you consider "English/British". oooooh spooky... boogyman coming to get you.

rofl - in 5 years (not 20) you're going to start seeing people you personally know convert.
In 10 years probably 1/4th of the people you interact with will be muslim.
in 20 years, you won't be able to have a day pass without having a conversation with one.

Here's to the future buddy. Please, look forward to it.

I foolishly watched football instead of the dem debate, in retrospect I should have recorded it, as it was a boring weekend all around. did I miss anything funny?

GTS bro -GTS

Edit: Here
Spoilers: Sanders is the only one who can meet trump or cruz and win. Hilary and the other guy, whatshisname, are too much of fluffers and politicians. nothing they say sounds genuine, just politics as usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laHBJuPWJp8

So how do they work then? Just like Sharia huh? They mutilate minor offenders. Hands cut off. Whippings. Stoning. Right?

We need more Hammurabi code!

They have no legal standing in the US.

Who doesn't?

I mean that those religious courts have no legal standing. In other words, whatever those courts decide, it doesn't affect the person in a legal standpoint, they are unbound by the rulings made. If the court determines that they have to pay restitution, the person they found in fault doesn't have to at all (is what I'm saying).

If the persons involved are under contractual obligation with those religious courts to use specific private arbitration, then yes, the religious courts have legal standing (as long as their methods and punishments don't violate any state or federal laws).

Law journal article: Faith based arbitration: friend or foe? An evaluation of religious arbitration systems and their interactions with secular court

New York Times article

If there is no signed contract between them, then I absolutely agree, the ruling has no legal standing.

That's different. Contractual arbitration is different than having a outside court system, religious or otherwise. You don't need to have a religious court system to have a contractual arbitrator and you don't need a arbitrator to have a religious (or otherwise) court system.

Comparing the two is paramount of comparing grapes to pineapples.

What on earth does that have to do with what you asked?
It really isn't common to denote the religious beliefs of the perpetrator. Statistically speaking, the linked incident was likely caused by a Christian. Hence being linked in response to your question.

So they don't cut off limbs? No public whippings? No women stoned to death? Y'all made it sound like we do the same thing as Sharia crimes against humanity..... hopefully the rest of the EU is taking notice cuz this is the future converting to Islam offers you. Death to Human Rights. Death to Freedom. That's not even counting apostasy. Which is also death.

I'm pretty sure that any civilized nation would prevent said events from occurring, even if it's from a "religious" court.

Ok, maybe you missed the preceeding dialogue from the previous page.

Because that is what is being discussed. Since those are the laws the sharia system Charlo is upset about are under

I'm not sure we are all having the same conversation here.

That was supposed to be part of my response.

You worded it better anyways. Thank you.

It's why I went on the offensive. Let him get busy defending instead of the all-you-can-attack fest he seemed to be only interested in.