Kansas governor signs bill banning Islamic law

[Rainsford]

Only if none of the gods of the religions are real. If one of them is real, we would all be better off following said god's rules.

Heh, that's definitely true. I get the feeling that if there really is a supreme being though, chances are good that he doesn't resemble any of the major religions. It's hard for me to reconcile the idea of a supreme being, creator of the universe, who acts the way depicted in the various God-based religions. But that's just me

The big difference between Islam and Christianity is that Jesus said not to seek worldly power (not in those exact terms, but that was the gist of what He said) but Islam says to seek worldly power. An Islamic Theocracy is actually following their holy book, but a Christian Theocracy is violating it. The only Christian who is allowed to run a Theocracy is The Messiah when he sets it up in the end times.

Basically, for Islam to move forward it must move backward. It must return to following the rules of Islam in the Quran - which is to not slaughter people who only want peace with you.

I'm not expert enough to say whether or not your interpretation of the differences is right, but I still think embracing religion as a way to run a government is a problem no matter what religion it is. You can argue that the Christian governments of the past were interpreting their religion wrong, but the fact is that history doesn't offer any better examples of Christian governments than Islamic ones (in fact one could argue the opposite is true). Even today, Jesus' arguments against seeking worldly power seem to be falling on quite a few deaf ears, at least in the US. Maybe nobody is setting up a theocracy, but they're certainly after more worldly power than I suspect Jesus had in mind...

The problem with religion is that you can often use it to support anything you want, and fanatical belief makes it easy to justify almost anything. If, tomorrow, every single Muslim in the middle east became a Christian, I suspect leaders of countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia would end up justifying their religious zealotry without too many problems...just as Christian countries have in the past.

 

[kylebisme]

Jesus said not to seek worldly power (not in those exact terms, but that was the gist of what He said)

Book, chapter, and verse(s)? If you are referring to Matthew 5:5, that's a prophetic statement, not a command.

The only Christian who is allowed to run a Theocracy is The Messiah when he sets it up in the end times.

According to Romans 13:1 all authorities are established by God, which inherently includes theocracies, both Christian and otherwise.

 

[dank69]

Only if none of the gods of the religions are real. If one of them is real, we would all be better off following said god's rules.
...

Eff that. If god is real, he can get off his lazy omnipotent ass and show me face to face that he is real. If he expects me to just believe because some words were written in a book a long time ago, I will be happily dissappointing him. A lot of words were written in a lot of old books and they've all made their way to me through translations by men. Homey don't play dat. If he chooses to punish me for not blindly believing, he is a coward and a fool.

 

[cybrsage]

Eff that. If god is real, he can get off his lazy omnipotent ass and show me face to face that he is real. If he expects me to just believe because some words were written in a book a long time ago, I will be happily dissappointing him. A lot of words were written in a lot of old books and they've all made their way to me through translations by men. Homey don't play dat. If he chooses to punish me for not blindly believing, he is a coward and a fool.

He already did that once, many people did not believe Him. It would be no different now.

You are doing it wrong. If you decide to violate the rules, it is your own fault you receive punishment. I know you understand this, since the laws of man work the same way.

Here is a real world example:

You are driving down the road when you see a man standing there holding a sign that says "I was told by the authorities the bridge is out, change your path now or you will perish". You know there is a bridge up ahead. You now have the choice to listen to the random stranger and change your path or ignore him and keep driving towards the bridge. You have no way of knowing if he is telling the truth or not.

Whose fault is it if he is correct but you ignore him and drive off the broken bridge to your death? Is it his fault for warning you? Is it the authority's fault for having him warn you? Or is it your fault for ignoring the warning?

As it is, you blame the authority and the guy who is warning you when you should blame yourself for your own actions.

 

[cybrsage]

Book, chapter, and verse(s)? If you are referring to Matthew 5:5, that's a prophetic statement, not a command.

Luke 9:25 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

Matthew 6:19-21 19 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other; you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

...or both God and run a government...


Basically, it is not explicitly stated, but given the responses of Jesus to Pilate when asked about Earthly Kingdoms, Jesus responded only about the importance of Heavenly Kingdoms.

ng to Romans 13:1 all authorities are established by God, which inherently includes theocracies, both Christian and otherwise.

They are, but to create a Christian Theocracy is to seek worldly power instead of Heavenly power. You cannot serve two masters. Each time this has been done, the serving of the world has always won out over the serving of God.

 

[cybrsage]

The problem with religion is that you can often use it to support anything you want, and fanatical belief makes it easy to justify almost anything. If, tomorrow, every single Muslim in the middle east became a Christian, I suspect leaders of countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia would end up justifying their religious zealotry without too many problems...just as Christian countries have in the past.

This is definately true. Those in power will always seek to pervert religion to their own personal gain.

 

[RightIsWrong]

He already did that once, many people did not believe Him. It would be no different now.

You are doing it wrong. If you decide to violate the rules, it is your own fault you receive punishment. I know you understand this, since the laws of man work the same way.

Here is a real world example:

You are driving down the road when you see a man standing there holding a sign that says "I was told by the authorities the bridge is out, change your path now or you will perish". You know there is a bridge up ahead. You now have the choice to listen to the random stranger and change your path or ignore him and keep driving towards the bridge. You have no way of knowing if he is telling the truth or not.

Whose fault is it if he is correct but you ignore him and drive off the broken bridge to your death? Is it his fault for warning you? Is it the authority's fault for having him warn you? Or is it your fault for ignoring the warning?

As it is, you blame the authority and the guy who is warning you when you should blame yourself for your own actions.

When/how did he do this?

You are taking very loosely translated and antiquated parables by sheephearders and religious leaders with a very selfish agenda in mind with very little education in the absolute best case scenario and most likely absolutely no understanding of the world around them and proclaiming it to be absolute. Why? Because they said so?

In your strawman hypothetical scenario, at least I have concrete proof that the authorities do, in fact exist. Whether or not they told this particular "disciple" that the bridge is indeed out is irrelevlant. Their existence is completely unrelated to this "prophet's" declaration that his message is imperical evidence that the authorities are real.

Prove that god exists with more than "because my ancestry and church leaders told me he does" because, quite frankly I don't believe the he (in any incarnation/name) exists without the professing of ancient people scaring the ignorant and uneducated into believing that he does.

 

[cybrsage]

When/how did he do this?

Approx 2000 years go, in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.

You are taking very loosely translated and antiquated parables by sheephearders and religious leaders with a very selfish agenda in mind with very little education in the absolute best case scenario and most likely absolutely no understanding of the world around them and proclaiming it to be absolute. Why? Because they said so?

If what you said was true, then the result would be true. However, since your initial premise is false, the result is false as well.

In your strawman hypothetical scenario, at least I have concrete proof that the authorities do, in fact exist. Whether or not they told this particular "disciple" that the bridge is indeed out is irrelevlant. Their existence is completely unrelated to this "prophet's" declaration that his message is imperical evidence that the authorities are real.

No, you do not. You have the word of a random stranger that he was told by the authorities...of course, he never actually NAMES these authorities.

I also notice you have no clue what a strawman is. You really should learn the term prior to using it to stop from looking foolish. It is too late for you in this thread, but you can prevent looking foolish in the future if you do.

Prove that god exists with more than "because my ancestry and church leaders told me he does" because, quite frankly I don't believe the he (in any incarnation/name) exists without the professing of ancient people scaring the ignorant and uneducated into believing that he does.

You ignore the context of the post, which makes you look silly. Try again, this time using the context of the post. You know, the item I quoted when I replied. It is in the post you then quoted and "forgot" the context of.