Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Thanks for the translation kanelli. I agree with you that death threats are not excusable - let alone actual violence against Ali and Gogh.

I'm not familiar with the submission story, and would be abhored if the rape victim was indeed the one who would be punished in the example you gave.

However, let's be clear - there are fanatics who misuse religion to their ends. Your example is actually quite close to a real-life example from the US where a Church forced a young rape victim who got pregnant to apologise to the congregation for getting pregnant, and then hushed up the crime and protected the rapist:

dubai-politics-talk/raped-girl-forced-apologise-for-pregnancy-t42132.html

Nutters exist in all communities.

Cheers,
Shafique

Exactly. Ultra-conservative patriarchal religious folk of all denominations have done pretty heinous things to women in children in the name of their religion.

Thank you for your views, kanelli.

It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

For, even at the time before Rome became officially Christian and the emperors were mostly Christian and after Rome officially became Christian, abortion was still legally allowed in the empire.

Church fathers during that time espoused ideals which endorsed a separation between Church and State.

Unfortunately, this separation between religion and government is not as apparent in Islam, where religion is a way of life (deen).

Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions. Even Orthodox Judaism is not interested in imposing religious laws (such as prohibiting or restricting pork) on non-Jews.

The differences between Islam and Christianity are countless. But what is important is that Christians throughout history have taken a largely non-literal interpretation of the Bible. Moreover, the Bible is seen as a living book, one where interpretation is welcome. Literal interpretation of the Bible actually began in earnest during and after the Western scientific revolution - where people began to treat the Bible as if it were a science or math book.

Islam has unfortunately shut the gates of interpretation many centuries ago. And even more worryingly, Orthodox Muslim theologians were often flat-footed literalists.

So, proof-texting a bunch of verses in the Bible and exclaiming 'Ah huh! This is what Christians really believe!' is a pretty asinine method to understanding Christianity.

I'm sure our resident Biblical scholar would like to voice his opinion, but let's keep in mind that he doesn't even know who the authors are of the epistles he quotes from. (Actually, he was caught lifting his arguments and Bible verses from a Qadiani missionary website, but that's another story)

And I'm still waiting for our resident Rhodes Scholar to explain the differences in belief and practice between the followers of Stephen and the Christian Pharisees. I'm sure you'll find an answer on google...somewhere.

LoL.

event horizon wrote:It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

It's argued (with reason) that the worst atrocities and human rights violations committed by Europeans took place when there wasn't this separation between Church and State. Even taking the two secular world wars into account, the genocides committed when Christians thought they were following the Bible are enormous. Not just the Crusades, but the inquisition, pogroms and killings of Christians who did not believe whichever version of Christianity was politically strong at the time (i.e. how heretics were dealt with).

Therefore, the separation of Church and State is indeed not 'new' - but it was necessary to curb the violence that occured when it wasn't separated.

Just read 'A letter to a Christian Nation'.

event horizon wrote:Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions.

Loon beliefs surface again - note that Christianity and Judaism are characterised by the 'moderate' wing of each religion, whereas Islam is characterised as not having a moderate wing (despite the empirical fact that he majority aren't extremists). Some call this hypocrisy, others point out that this is the only way loons can make their beliefs credible to themselves.

event horizon wrote: But what is important is that Christians throughout history have taken a largely non-literal interpretation of the Bible.

And many didn't. To this day.

This is also down to the fact that many verses of the Bible have to be rejected as false today. Many verses are acknowledged to be later insertions by 'forgers' (to use a label eh quoted).

But also, throughout Christian history most Christians weren't able to read the Bible. Even today, about 70% of the Bible is effectively censored in the Church - in that these verses aren't read in Church or taught in Sunday school etc. They just sit there in the hope that no one notices, or they are dismissed when pointed out that 'we don't follow these verses any more'.

event horizon wrote: Moreover, the Bible is seen as a living book, one where interpretation is welcome.

By some, yes. By others no. How many of eh's countrymen literally believe that the universe is a few thousands of years old - because the Bible says so?

event horizon wrote:Islam has unfortunately shut the gates of interpretation many centuries ago.

Only in the Loon version of history. They are mistaking the fact that the Quranic verses aren't challenged as forgeries with the notion that metaphorical verses don't exist in the Quran and aren't subject to interpretation.

The loon contingent are aware of what God says in the Quran on this point, but choose to spin their view of interpretation of the Quran for their purposes. God's quite clear: 3v7
He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding

event horizon wrote:So, proof-texting a bunch of verses in the Bible and exclaiming 'Ah huh! This is what Christians really believe!' is a pretty asinine method to understanding Christianity.

Except this is a strawman. No one here has ever said that the verses of the Bible that Christians rightly ignore are what Jesus taught. On the contrary, it's always been argued that these contradictions and extreme verses are proofs that the Bible is indeed a 'living document' (i.e. changes over time) and should indeed not be taken literally.

eh (and loons in general) routinely construct false arguments and project these on others. Hence the frequency of the term 'Straw man' in replies to them.


Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

event horizon wrote:It might surprise you that a separation between Christian teachings and government laws is not a 'new' phenomenon.

It's argued (with reason) that the worst atrocities and human rights violations committed by Europeans took place when there wasn't this separation between Church and State. Even taking the two secular world wars into account, the genocides committed when Christians thought they were following the Bible are enormous. Not just the Crusades, but the inquisition, pogroms and killings of Christians who did not believe whichever version of Christianity was politically strong at the time (i.e. how heretics were dealt with).

Therefore, the separation of Church and State is indeed not 'new' - but it was necessary to curb the violence that occured when it wasn't separated.
[Mod Edit - snipped - no need to quote the whole post again]

Our expert never fails to disappoint!

(Oh, and you typed out the exact same paragraph twice - weird)
[Mod - also deleted the duplicate bits of the post above, thanks for pointing this out.]

Well, I am a big fan of separation of church and government for several reasons, a) Laws can be based on human rights for everyone no matter which groups (religious or otherwise) they can be categorized into b) It prevents violence which can occur if people of other groups are forced to conform to one group's belief systems, c) Religion is essentially a private matter between people and their Gods, so communal government laws should logically remain separate from that.

event horizon wrote:Unfortunately, this separation between religion and government is not as apparent in Islam, where religion is a way of life (deen).

Islam is a highly legalistic religion whereas Christianity and reform Judaism are spiritual religions. Even Orthodox Judaism is not interested in imposing religious laws (such as prohibiting or restricting pork) on non-Jews.

This is an interesting comment and very relevant when talking about the ability for Muslims from Islamic countries to assimilate into non-Islamic countries.

For any Muslims who have lived in non-Islamic countries, was/is it hard to be Muslim there when all the laws are not Islamic laws?

Do you think that Sharia law should be allowed to run parallel to secular legal systems in non-Muslim countries?