SHARIA LAW IN A NUTSHELL

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it sometimes be both?

Stephanie wrote:Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it sometimes be both?

Stephanie,
What is the significance of the "Cordoba Initiative" IYHO to the founding of this Muslim Rec Center/Mosque? (Does Cordoba mean anything to a Muslim?)

Stephanie wrote:Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it sometimes be both?

Because it is one way or another. Each and every human being is responsibile for their actions. It makes no difference what one chooses to blame their actions on, ultimately it is their individaul choice that determines the action taken.

Cato wrote:I have a question Ziggy, do I understand you correctly that you say man created supernatural religion? Do I not also understand that you call youself a christian, which means you are a follower of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who proclaimed himself the son of God (a supernatural being). The same Jesus also said he would raise from the dead, a supernatural act. The very same Jesus who later proclaimed he had risen from the dead. If what you say is so regarding supernatural religions, my question is why do you follow someone that by your own beliefs is a liar?

Jesus did not leave a written record of what he said. Most of what we read about Jesus was written decades and sometimes hundreds of years after he died- by, I contend, people with agendas to promote, and which agendas include riches and/or power.

We cast aside the unbelievabale parts of today's print and electronic publications. I believe we should likewise cast aside as inconsistent with modern knowledge the parts of the Gospels that attribute supernatural and immortal character to any human person. There is absolutely no evidence- other than unsubstianted anecdotal accounts- that any actually dead person ever raised from his or her grave, or that any human being ever performed supernatural miracles, or that any God other than nature's God ever did anything.

I want to believe and I do believe that about 2000 years ago a man walked the earth who wanted to show us a new way to live- through love and good works rather than by hatreds and warfare that is destructive of good works. And, like with Elvis Presley, there may have been devoted followers who had delusions of witnessing that Jesus had arisen from the grave and appeared among his former peers. Honest people can want to believe that the spirit of a person lives on.

But the moment the power monger militants and other biblicists attached supernaturality to this man- or to any man- the part of the legend of Jesus that is built on such attachment is absolutely suspect and is unbelievable to those of us who are guided by learned science instead of by faith in myths that extend beyond the natural world.

Keli wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it sometimes be both?

Stephanie,
What is the significance of the "Cordoba Initiative" IYHO to the founding of this Muslim Rec Center/Mosque? (Does Cordoba mean anything to a Muslim?)

IMO, the Muslims involved in building this center chose the name Cordoba because of the many great accomplishments in a wide variety of fields by Muslims associated with the mosque of Cordoba Spain. It is a source of pride for them, as it should be.

Stephanie wrote:Do you think it would be fair for Buddhists to judge Christianity by the likes of The People's Temple? How about if they lumped all Christians together with the Branch Davidians? Should Roman Catholics be all lumped together with members of Opus Dei?

Perhaps closest to home for my Baptist friends, do you think you and your church members should all be viewed the same way as members of the Waynesboro Baptist Church?

Christianity has had, and continues to have, plenty of blood-thirsty, greedy, power-hungry, hate mongers. Before you condemn all of Islam based upon the words and actions of a select few, you'd be well served to keep in mind just how many ways and how many times the "peaceful" Christianity has been and continues to be warped.

Does the plainest reading of the christian scriptures endorse Jim Jones or the creeps in Kansas? I do not believe that it does.

Does the plainest reading of the Koran endorse the most militant among them? I do not know.

Does the plainest reading of the christian scriptures endorse Jim Jones or the creeps in Kansas?

Their followers apparently think / thought so. As long as blind obedience to religious "leaders" with dogmas and doctrines to promote is politically and socially corrrect, it does not matter what the scriptures say.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:I have a question Ziggy, do I understand you correctly that you say man created supernatural religion? Do I not also understand that you call youself a christian, which means you are a follower of Jesus Christ. The same Jesus who proclaimed himself the son of God (a supernatural being). The same Jesus also said he would raise from the dead, a supernatural act. The very same Jesus who later proclaimed he had risen from the dead. If what you say is so regarding supernatural religions, my question is why do you follow someone that by your own beliefs is a liar?

Jesus did not leave a written record of what he said. Most of what we read about Jesus was written decades and sometimes hundreds of years after he died- by, I contend, people with agendas to promote, and which agendas include riches and/or power.

We cast aside the unbelievabale parts of today's print and electronic publications. I believe we should likewise cast aside as inconsistent with modern knowledge the parts of the Gospels that attribute supernatural and immortal character to any human person. There is absolutely no evidence- other than unsubstianted anecdotal accounts- that any actually dead person ever raised from his or her grave, or that any human being ever performed supernatural miracles, or that any God other than nature's God ever did anything.

I want to believe and I do believe that about 2000 years ago a man walked the earth who wanted to show us a new way to live- through love and good works rather than by hatreds and warfare that is destructive of good works. And, like with Elvis Presley, there may have been devoted followers who had delusions of witnessing that Jesus had arisen from the grave and appeared among his former peers. Honest people can want to believe that the spirit of a person lives on.

But the moment the power monger militants and other biblicists attached supernaturality to this man- or to any man- the part of the legend of Jesus that is built on such attachment is absolutely suspect and is unbelievable to those of us who are guided by learned science instead of by faith in myths that extend beyond the natural world.

First you say we really don't know what Jesus said, i.e. he didn't leave a written record. You then go on to tell us that Jesus wanted to show us a new way to live through love and good works. How then do you know what he said or what he did? How do you seperate what he said and did from what you see to be fiction?

You also state that it was corruptable man that created supernatural religions, the very same corruptable man that produces the "learned sciences" you so heavily rely on today. To me this doesn't make sence.

How then do you know what he said or what he did? How do you seperate what he said and did from what you see to be fiction?

By reading here, without all the hocus-pocus of supernaturalism:

THE Jefferson Bible
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels
Compiled by Thomas Jefferson

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

I do not consider the Jefferson Bible to be in any sense holy, sacred, nor inerrant. It is a work of a man- based on the works of other men centuries before him. But I do consider it a worthy improvement over the Constantine Bible.

You also state that it was corruptable man that created supernatural religions, the very same corruptable man that produces the "learned sciences" you so heavily rely on today. To me this doesn't make sence.

Yes, mankind is corrupt. And neither theologians nor scientists are magically exempt from human corruptions.

That is a fact of life we have to try to learn how to live with. Whether courting a potential spouse, buying a car or house, or finding medical advice we (most of us) do our best to work with honest people- to the degree we can determine honesty- and to bypass the corrupt people.

A thoelogical pronouncement is neither right nor wrong just because some preacher says it is. Likewise a scientific theory is neither right nor wrong just because some scientist says it is. We try to discern the good spiritual guidance from the bad, and the good science from the bad. And that includes learning, as best we can, what seems rational based on observable data and what we determine to be reliable accounts. But we will fail at both religious spirituality and understanding the natural world if we blindly follow the doctrines of preachers and equally blindly ignore scientific thoeries and discoveries.

ziggy wrote:

How then do you know what he said or what he did? How do you seperate what he said and did from what you see to be fiction?

By reading here, without all the hocus-pocus of supernaturalism:

THE Jefferson Bible
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth
Extracted Textually from the Gospels
Compiled by Thomas Jefferson

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

I do not consider the Jefferson Bible to be in any sense holy, sacred, nor inerrant. It is a work of a man- based on the works of other men centuries before him. But I do consider it a worthy improvement over the Constantine Bible.

Aren't you just picking and choosing what you disire to believe because it meets your preceived ideas? The works of Flavious Josephous, Tertilliun, John Marytr, and other ancient writers, do they not have validity also? Do you then also deny the witness of the apostles? What I mean by that is they died for their beleifs. Yea, I know people do that, however, these were the people that were with Jesus and knew what took place, they were witnesses. While I know of people who die for what they believe to be true, I know of very darn few that will die for what they know to be a lie. Is the witness of the apostles just a myth? If you say it is then how do you know with 100% assurity that it is so?

Ziggy wrote:

Yes, mankind is corrupt. And neither theologians nor scientists are magically exempt from human corruptions.

That is a fact of life we have to try to learn how to live with. Whether courting a potential spouse, buying a car or house, or finding medical advice we (most of us) do our best to work with honest people- to the degree we can determine honesty- and to bypass the corrupt people.

A thoelogical pronouncement is neither right nor wrong just because some preacher says it is. Likewise a scientific theory is neither right nor wrong just because some scientist says it is. We try to discern the good spiritual guidance from the bad, and the good science from the bad. And that includes learning, as best we can, what seems rational based on observable data and what we determine to be reliable accounts. But we will fail at both religious spirituality and understanding the natural world if we blindly follow the doctrines of preachers and equally blindly ignore scientific thoeries and discoveries.

True, and the scriptures prove your point. In Acts 17 it is recorded that the Bearens were considered more noble than the Thessalicans because they searched the scriptures to see if what was being said was so or not. There are alot of religious edics floating around in the world that have no real value or are flat wrong. Again the scriptures comes into play. Jesus stated in Matthew 15 when he was chastizing the pharisees and scribes reqarding their replacing God's doctrine with the commandments of men. Just because some man comes up with a religious edic doesn't make it so, neither does it make christainity bad.

I have talked alot about standards and been poo-pooed by many right here on this board. To know something is so or not requires going to the standard and comparing what is spoken or being presented compares to the standard. That's true in science, in christainity, and in life.

I have talked alot about standards and been poo-pooed by many right here on this board. To know something is so or not requires going to the standard and comparing what is spoken or being presented compares to the standard. That's true in science, in christainity, and in life.

What determines "the standard"? Is the "standard" the average of what the many members of society think about something? If so, then "the standard" is but a stastic, because almost no one is average. The standard for each person is whatever "standard" that person sets for him or her self.

Or is "the standard" what a majority of the members of society think about something? If so, then it is a standard for only those members of society who think that. The minority will have some other "standards".

All of which means that "the standards" are largely meaningless- unless they are enforced on everyone as a part of the the law of the land.

Aren't you just picking and choosing what you disire to believe because it meets your preceived ideas?

Sure. And we all do it that way. We pick and choose based our percieved ideas- our existing beliefs. And if you believe every verse of the King James Bible it is because you choose to. That is what freedom and freedom of religion is about- about "picking and chosing" based on our percieved understandings of the world around us.

The works of Flavious Josephous, Tertilliun, John Marytr, and other ancient writers, do they not have validity also?

Parts of them may have validity. But I am not giving out guarantees of their validity as the unchallengable gospel. They have to be able to stand on their own in the light of other knowledge.

Do you then also deny the witness of the apostles?

Not necessarily. But again, their credibility must stand the test of reasonable truth. It is not necessarily truth just because someone- apostle or not- said it. The apostles were just people. And what they said and what someone else wrote that they said may or may not be the same things. How do we know?

What I mean by that is they died for their beleifs. Yea, I know people do that, however, these were the people that were with Jesus and knew what took place, they were witnesses.

Were they here today, they might be witnesses. But the many hands through which the accounts of their words have passed through over the centuries renders it to mostly 2nd, 3rd, or 4th or 10th hand accounts. Can you vouch for the full veracity for what the apostles reportedly said?

While I know of people who die for what they believe to be true, I know of very darn few that will die for what they know to be a lie.

That they believe it to be true does not make it so. That they believed it to be a lie does not make it so.

Is the witness of the apostles just a myth? If you say it is then how do you know with 100% assurity that it is so?

I know almost nothing- maybe nothing- with 100 percent assurity. That is the crux of the issue at hand- that we don't know. All we have is almost 2000 year old accounts of accounts of accounts infinitum.

Cato wrote: Aren't you just picking and choosing what you disire to believe because it meets your preceived ideas? Do you then also deny the witness of the apostles? What I mean by that is ............ these were the people that were with Jesus and knew what took place, they were witnesses. Is the witness of the apostles just a myth? If you say it is then how do you know with 100% assurity that it is so?

Well now, one can't very well deny that the apostles were witnesses to various events without also denying the very existence of the apostles themselves.

But now, as far as the "witness of the apostles", meaning "their personal account of", that are contained in the Gospels of their names that were included in the Bible, .... then "Yes", …. all those witness accounts are technically a myth, or in actuality, all are heresy information.

The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is thought to be the oldest of all the Gospels and was probably written about 150 AD.

Three (3) other recently rediscovered gospels are the Gospel of (Simon) Peter, the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), and the Gospel of Judas (Iscariot).

Of course, the above four (4) of the at least twenty (20) Gospels that are known to have existed but were not included in the bible, are all considered by the Church to be apocryphal Gospels (unknown authors or of questionable content). And questionable content would have been anything that Constantine and/or the Christian Bishops, etc. at the Council of Nicaea deemed to be unorthodox, heretical and/or contrary to what they thought should be included in the Bible.

But then, the actual authors of the Gospels that were included in the Bible are also unknown. Parts of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have been identified by certain characteristics which indicate they were copied from other writings that are older. And if they were copied from other writings then they are not actual witness accounts.

Other ancient manuscripts and scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls and those newly found four (4) Lost Gospels have started “shedding new light” on the literal truths of Biblical content/context.

One's adament and/or passionate desire to believe in something often overshadows the actual truth and reality of the object of their belief.

For a more in-dept read about the Lost Gospels and Biblical authors, to wit:
http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/lost-gospels.html

Sam and Ziggy,

We've had the argument a dozen times and all we've managed to do is waste electrons, sending posts back and forth when we aren't going to get anywhere. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Cato

Cato wrote:Sam and Ziggy,

We've had the argument a dozen times and all we've managed to do is waste electrons, sending posts back and forth when we aren't going to get anywhere. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Cato

That is probably one of the most accurate statements that any of us have posted in a long time here.

Cato wrote:Sam and Ziggy,

We've had the argument a dozen times and all we've managed to do is waste electrons, sending posts back and forth when we aren't going to get anywhere. You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Cato

Willy, I was not trying to, nor could I if I wanted to, change your mind. Only you can do that whether it be voluntarily on the part of your conscious thinking or involuntarily on the part of your subconscious mind as a result of experiencing a traumatic environmental stimuli.

Of course that excludes the potential that you might succomb to a biological problem (CRS, Alzheimer’s, senility, etc.) or that me or someone else could possibly slip you some form of mind altering drug or rapping you on the head with a blunt instrument with sufficient enough force to alter the thinking of your mind.

Willy, I can't actually make anyone do anything. All I am capable of doing is to offer them advice, knowledge, experiences, opportunities and/or factual information and it is their decision as to whether or not they want to accept my offer.

Thus, my above post was strictly and literally "an offer of factual information" and if you or anyone else chooses to avert your eyes and/or your minds to it then so be it.

I detest the perpetuation of ignorance throughout the populace via the propagation of untruths, misinformation, non-facts and/or outright lies and thus I consider it my duty and obligation to society to try to prevent the aforesaid from exacerbating.

Cheers, Sam C

Where's my wading boots, it's getting deep in here.

I detest the perpetuation of ignorance throughout the populace via the propagation of untruths, misinformation, non-facts and/or outright lies and thus I consider it my duty and obligation to society to try to prevent the aforesaid from exacerbating.

Cheers, Sam C

Sam condones no perpetuation of ignorance via the propagation of untruths, misinformation, non-facts and/or outright lies other than his own.