" sharia patrols " harassing European citizens

[Chris B]

They can be entertaining and he has a few that are done quite nicely out of love.

But if the best available choice is to pick a few appetising bits out of a large stew, it's usually not even a good idea to do that.
I'd agree about entertaining if they weren't also supposed to be taken straight, and seriously.
(They are aren't they?)

 

[TLK Valentine]

During the war in Iraq Fallujah was cleared by soldiers from the United States Marine Corp and the United States Army. 51 US soldiers were killed during Operation Phantom Fury, men whose honor you desecrate. But that doesn't surprise me.

This is after the war, Sistrin... the soldiers' honor does you no good here.

Obama was handed a stable Iraq and willfully handed it back to the insurgents.

He handed it back to government, as per the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.

Now you want to credit Iran with having done more than we did when good men and women, men and women who were willing to go and actually face the threat you gloss over and dismiss with contemptuous pretense, fought and died attempting to preserve the area for those Muslims who would chose to live there in peace.

ISIS, as we know it, didn't exist when those good men and women fought and died. As much as you'd like to trot them out to add emotional support for a factually lacking argument, kindly put them back in their graves until they're relevant.

And spare me your imperialistic dogma. There was never any plan to make Fallujah the capital city of the United States fifty-first state. Even with a SOFA agreement Iraq would have been run by Iraqi's.

And so it was... funny how you were criticizing Obama for bringing that about just a minute ago.

You want to do a victory dance because the United States gained little to nothing from the war in Iraq, all that constitutes is proof that outcome is exactly the outcome the American liberal/progressive/Democrat crowd wanted, and did all they could to achieve. Because in any armed conflict involving the United States, the American left automatically sides with the enemy.

Again, an emotional appeal full of vitriol, but lacking in fact.

Perhaps if you mentioned some soldiers again, it would be a suitable distraction?

I realize your verbiage concerning the Islamic fundamentalist issue threatening the world today springs from the books you have chosen to read and the like-minded political partisans you associate with. But here is one truth you can't dance around. Until you have been over there to operate in one of their dirt-hole sand-boxes and met a few militant Islamist face to face, you know nothing.

And an appeal to authority as the final smokescreen.

Move along, folks; nothing to see here.

 

[Paul K]

If we wait long enough to see the population ratio swing into their favour, we will see more problems. US is lucky, the population ratio of western christians/atheist and whatever beliefs in USA are higher than the muslim currently living in USA and the numbers of immigrants going into USA. But in Sweden, their total population is 5 million, which wouldn't take much immigrants to actually swing things into their favour. The problem is that a lot of justice system in the westernized world is basically based on the biblical idea of moral values set by Moses and Jesus. The muslim world do not like that type of justice, they prefer their own sharia laws over ours. The only difference is that their sharia laws are much more harsher than our justice laws (note:I am Canadian and our laws are very similar to USA)

 

[smaneck]

You want to do a victory dance because the United States gained little to nothing from the war in Iraq, all that constitutes is proof that outcome is exactly the outcome the American liberal/progressive/Democrat crowd wanted, and did all they could to achieve.

Actually most of the liberal/progressive/Democrat crowd had shamelessly supported this war of aggression.

Because in any armed conflict involving the United States, the American left automatically sides with the enemy.

No, I was glad that the Obama Administration was finally able to take Bin Laden down. And I do not disapprove of the killing of al-Awalki. And I have no problem with us destroying ISIS either. What I don't support is us invading countries that have done nothing to us on bogus pretexts.

[QUOTE Until you have been over there to operate in one of their dirt-hole sand-boxes and met a few militant Islamist face to face, you know nothing.[/QUOTE]

I realize that being sent over to kill or be killed gives you a very different perspective.

 

[smaneck]

The problem is that a lot of justice system in the westernized world is basically based on the biblical idea of moral values set by Moses and Jesus.

LOL. If we were following the moral values set by Moses we would be the ones stoning people to death for much more trivial things than the Shariah lays down.

The muslim world do not like that type of justice, they prefer their own sharia laws over ours.

The problem with the Shariah is that it is too much like the Mosaic law. But you are wrong about what most Muslims who come to the West prefer. They would like to apply the shariah in family matters or in civil matters involving one another (and therefore set up their own arbitration panels for that purpose. But hardly any would like to see Hudud punishments applied.

The only difference is that their sharia laws are much more harsher than our justice laws (note:I am Canadian and our laws are very similar to USA)

I don't know that cutting off the hand of a three-time loser is any harsher than the life-imprisonment sentences we are handing out in the US.

 

[NightHawkeye]

LOL. If we were following the moral values set by Moses we would be the ones stoning people to death for much more trivial things than the Shariah lays down.

But we're not following the old Mosaic laws are we.

The problem with the Shariah is that it is too much like the Mosaic law.

Incorrect. The problem is that it is barbaric and sexist.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

LOL. If we were following the moral values set by Moses we would be the ones stoning people to death for much more trivial things than the Shariah lays down.

The problem with the Shariah is that it is too much like the Mosaic law.

The original Law of the Old Testament was just the Ten Commandments. But God added more to it as a punishment for the ancient Israelites because of their sin of worshiping the golden calf. The Christian religion is based on Jesus who fulfills the law and who restores the light yoke of the original Law of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in Leviticus 19:18.

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him [Jesus], 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?' This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.' And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'" - John 8:3-11​

Muhammad, who started his religion hundreds of years later, would have told them to stone the woman.

I don't know that cutting off the hand of a three-time loser is any harsher than the life-imprisonment sentences we are handing out in the US.

People who were sentenced to "life" in prison are sometimes eventually released. But a hand doesn't grow back if it is later discovered that the person was innocent.

 

[redleghunter]

But if the best available choice is to pick a few appetising bits out of a large stew, it's usually not even a good idea to do that.
I'd agree about entertaining if they weren't also supposed to be taken straight, and seriously.
(They are aren't they?)

Jack Chick is a recluse. His tracts reflect a recluse.

He is also an artist and they usually want their 'art' to be captivating up front and early and grab their 'viewer.'

So I assess him based on those traits.

 

[smaneck]

But we're not following the old Mosaic laws are we.

For the most part, no. Which is why it is nonsense to talk about the West following the moral values of Moses.

Incorrect. The problem is that it is barbaric and sexist.

I'm sure you would love to believe this. It contributes to the 'othering' process.

 

[Butterfly99]

Too long of a thread but from another thread I thought the "sharia patrol" was just a prank of lame guys wearing vests they'd made & harassing ppl for drinking & stuff.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm sure you would love to believe this. It contributes to the 'othering' process.

Just the truth.

According to Shariah, a women's word in court is "half" that of a man's. That's a real problem ... even in the Shariah courts which ostensibly restrict themselves to domestic issues.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If we wait long enough to see the population ratio swing into their favour, we will see more problems. US is lucky, the population ratio of western christians/atheist and whatever beliefs in USA are higher than the muslim currently living in USA and the numbers of immigrants going into USA. But in Sweden, their total population is 5 million, which wouldn't take much immigrants to actually swing things into their favour. The problem is that a lot of justice system in the westernized world is basically based on the biblical idea of moral values set by Moses and Jesus. The muslim world do not like that type of justice, they prefer their own sharia laws over ours. The only difference is that their sharia laws are much more harsher than our justice laws (note:I am Canadian and our laws are very similar to USA)

Sounds like you see the problem as the ratio of the Muslim population to the non-Muslim population... does that mean the Solution is to somehow control the Muslim population?

 

[smaneck]

The original Law of the Old Testament was just the Ten Commandments.]But God added more to it as a punishment for the ancient Israelites because of their sin of worshiping the golden calf.

Evidence? I doubt very much if the Pslamist who wrote "How I love thy Law, it is my meditation the whole day" believed that.

The Christian religion is based on Jesus who fulfills the law and who restores the light yoke of the original Law of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in Leviticus 19:18.

Evidence that Jesus was talking about the Ten Commandments when He said His Yoke was light? Leviticus 19:18 is not the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule was first articulated by the founder of the Pharisees.

Muhammad, who started his religion hundreds of years later, would have told them to stone the woman.

Probably not. Stoning is found nowhere in the Qur'an. There is a hadith which states that there was a Qur'anic verse that called for this but that a goat ate it. Yeah, sure.

People who were sentenced to "life" in prison are sometimes eventually released. But a hand doesn't grow back if it is later discovered that the person was innocent.

I'm presuming by this logic you oppose the death penalty? In any case, I said three time losers for a reason. If you are sentenced to life as a three time loser, you cannot be paroled. And in the few Muslim countries that do chop off hands, you have to be a three time loser before this sentence is carried out. But it might be interesting to give three time losers a choice, life in prison or lose your hand. I'm betting most of them will go for amputation.

 

[smaneck]

According to Shariah, a women's word in court is "half" that of a man's. That's a real problem ... even in the Shariah courts which ostensibly restrict themselves to domestic issues.

Yes, that would be a problem if the Shariah mediation courts operate that way. But the way these meditations work in West is that both parties have to agree to it. So if a woman doesn't not think she will get a fair shake in a Shariah court she is perfectly free to appeal to a secular court.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Evidence? I doubt very much if the Pslamist who wrote "How I love thy Law, it is my meditation the whole day" believed that.

I was telling you about the Christian belief about the Law.

My sources include the New Testament and the writings of the early Church.

The book I'm currently looking at is this one: Exodus by Scott Hahn

See the Didascalia Apostolorum quote on page 69 and the other quotes of the early Church.

 

[smaneck]

I was telling you about the Christian belief about the Law.

My sources include the New Testament and the writings of the early Church.

I was once a Christian and I've read the New Testament many times. Never saw anything along the lines of what you stated. My understanding is that it is Paul who shaped the Christian understanding of the Law and he said nothing whatsoever about Christ reducing the 613 laws of the Torah down to ten. Jesus never said anything about it whatsoever. I realize that as a Catholic you recognize other sources of authority, but if you are going to say Jesus did something you are going to have to produce evidence from Jesus' own words and deeds that he did indeed do this.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I was once a Christian and I've read the New Testament many times. Never saw anything along the lines of what you stated. My understanding is that it is Paul who shaped the Christian understanding of the Law and he said nothing whatsoever about Christ reducing the 613 laws of the Torah down to ten. Jesus never said anything about it whatsoever. I realize that as a Catholic you recognize other sources of authority, but if you are going to say Jesus did something you are going to have to produce evidence from Jesus' own words and deeds that he did indeed do this.

What I said is not something unique to Catholicism. I've never heard of a Christian who believes that they have to follow the 613 laws of the Torah. You are confusing Christianity with modern Judaism. Actually, even with modern Judaism, only the Orthodox Jews believe that they have to follow the 613 laws of the Torah. And out of the very tiny percentage of the worlds population that are Jews, the Orthodox Jews are only 10% . And never did Jesus say that the only things his followers are to believe and accept are the words that came directly from his lips. You are trying very hard to set up a straw man.

 

[smaneck]

What I said is not something unique to Catholicism. I've never heard of a Christian who believes that they have to follow the 613 laws of the Torah.

I didn't say they did. Most Christians don't even follow the Ten Commandments as they don't keep the Sabbath. What I'm challenging is your assertion that the 613 laws of the Torah were a response to Israel's sin. The Bible doesn't say that. I'm also challenging your assertion that Jesus reduced the laws of the Torah to Ten. Jesus doesn't say that either. What Paul taught is that no one is saved by works of the Law period, not by 613 laws, not by ten.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I didn't say they did. Most Christians don't even follow the Ten Commandments as they don't keep the Sabbath. What I'm challenging is your assertion that the 613 laws of the Torah were a response to Israel's sin. The Bible doesn't say that. I'm also challenging your assertion that Jesus reduced the laws of the Torah to Ten. Jesus doesn't say that either. What Paul taught is that no one is saved by works of the Law period, not by 613 laws, not by ten.

It didn't have to come directly from the lips of Jesus for it to be Christian doctrine. You are forcing a non-Christian or heterodox Christian litmus test onto Christianity. If you are going to insist on narrowing your judgment of Christianity down to the heterodox Christians then say so. It'd be like if I judged Islam based on Nation of Islam.

 

[smaneck]

You are forcing a non-Christian or heterodox Christian litmus test onto Christianity. If you are going to insist on narrowing your judgment of Christianity down to the heterodox Christians then say so. It'd be like if I judged Islam based on Nation of Islam.

We are talking about the standard Protestant understanding, not Mormons or anything weird. That would be more like Shi'ism to Sunni Islam, not the NOI.