Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

Closing abortion clinics (by law) is a religious position which is being implemented in several states. Fortunately it is already protected by Federal Law and every one of those state laws will be struck down by the SCOTUS. Look at Utah and its religiously restrictive laws. Religion is pervasive in our society and many state laws are not secular in nature. Even insurance companies have a (legal) clause that "acts of God" are exempt from insurance liability. "In God we trust" is on our currency. We open Congress with a prayer. And today especially one cannot get elected to public office if you are a known atheist. Just look at the hate speech against Obama calling him a Muslim, or Communist (atheist). In fact religion is used in politics everywhere, either to endorse or condemn. Religious laws and practices not being promoted and enforced (in certain states) is a false statement. How many constitutional amendments with religious implications have been introduced? The term " under God" did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance but was added later at the insistence of religious people. By definition that would make an atheist unable to become a citizen if he/she refused to recite it verbatim.
They try to tweak sure but have yet to try for the good laws. Like stoning fornicators and unruly children. Regards DL
I see your view of Christians but if they do become Christ-like, they would denounce their own religion as it is based on human sacrifice and the notion that it is somehow just to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. If Jesus returned, Christian is the last label he would take.
You are right that in Christianity the penalty for sin is death and Jesus, being a righteous man, took that penalty for the sins of the guilty. In Christianity that's called love. "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." The best part came when death couldn't hold him because of his righteousness and he defeated death's hold for all mankind. But hey, if you'd rather face justice for your sins than to accept his gift of forgiveness, that's your choice and no one has the right to stand in your way. Indeed. As scriptures say, we are all responsible for our own sins. Strange that you did not cheery pick those scriptures but do with the immoral ones. I like that quote but you do not seem to recognize that the enemy that Jesus sacrificed his life to was his own father who demanded it as a ransom. That is insane. Right? It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin. 1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. This indicates that Jesus had no choice. If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate? God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan. This then begs the question. What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to? Only an insane God. That’s who. The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality. One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related In reality, if God did demand such a barbaric sacrifice, he would be sinning. He would know that barbaric human sacrifice is immoral. You do too. Right? Those with good morals will know that no noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence. When you die, Satan will ask you; How was your ticket to heaven purchased? With innocent blood? When you say yes, you become his. Regards DL
Lily, with respect, I would urge you to read the "Skeptics Annotated Bible" to get an idea of "confounded language" in all 3 Abrahamic religions. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Okay, I went to the web site. You didn't specify anything, so I started in Romans 1. They mostly asked questions which I had no problem answering. Then I came to this: (2:11) "There is no respect of persons with God." Does God respect anyone? Perhaps another translation will clarify: Rom 2:11 "For God does not show favoritism." I suggest that the individual who is trying to critique the bible on this web site try an easier translation than that written in King James English. He also seems to have a difficult time trying to figure out if salvation is by faith or works. Seriously, this is basic stuff that he doesn't understand. What makes you think he has any ability to understand those things which are more complex? Is there anything specific you would like an answer to? Do you see anything that looks like Christianity set up a legal system with earthly judges and punishments? Perhaps it isn't the bible that is confounded. Perhaps the reader on this site lacks understanding. How can God not show favoritism when there is both a heaven and a hell? Regards DL

IMHO, whatever Causal Agent exists MUST be absolutely neutral and implacable. That is the only possible way to explain both life and death.
In the course of time, things are born, things die.

IMHO, whatever Causal Agent exists MUST be absolutely neutral and implacable. That is the only possible way to explain both life and death. .
Sure. Nature is like that. Regards DL

Judge orders parents to change baby’s name]

A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
In reality the KKK was started by the Democrat Party after the Civil War and targeted Republicans, both black and white. Over three thousand blacks were lynched, while over one thousand white Republicans were lynched by this creation of the Democrat Party for political reasons. They are credited with opposing and eventually ending the efforts of the Radical Republicans that were calling for equal rights for black, including the right to vote. Because of their efforts, equal rights for blacks had to wait for decades. And please don’t tell me today’s Democrats are yesterday’s Republicans. That always makes me laugh.
Here you go again promoting revisionist history and generalizations Lilly. NO, the Klan had nothing to do with the Democratic party Post Bellum. What began as an ex Confederate officer's club founded by Gen'l Nathan B. Forrest (a former slave trader) grew to become a reactionary group to keep African-Americans in their place socially and politically. It was only one of several all white ex Confederate run organizations with the same goal in mind. President Grant officially outlawed it after the passage of the Force Acts. Historically there were two Klans, the one I mentioned and the second formed at Stone Mountain Ga. In 1919. You're probably referring to that one. It formed as a knee jerk movement opposing not only African-Americans but immigrants as well. This sparked a series of race riots beginning in Memphis and spreading to Detroit. But once again it had nothing to do with the leadership of the Democratic party although it did have influence in state and local elections, at least until the late 20's when it began to die out. And yes,the Dem. party in the South at least WAS conservative. The flip from conservative to moderate and liberal happened during the Roosevelt era. But, even then each party had political wings. Even the Republicans pre and post War had a conservative faction. So it wasn't all as cut and dried as it is today. At least you're right about one thing though. Today's Dems. Are nothing like the Republicans of the post War era. Most Republicans then were just as prejudiced as their Dem. counterparts. "Radical Republicans" we're only radical in one respect, slavery. Most believed in it's abolition for economic reasons and not as a moral issue. The "radicals" wouldn't have been able to pass any legislation without the moderate Republican vote (see Thaddeus Stevens'efforts). Cap't Jack
Christians are citizens of this country and have the right according to the secular law of the US to take part in the political process and influence the laws we all live by. They have the right to vote in people who represent them at all levels of government—just like everyone else. Atheists aren’t the only ones with rights in this country, and they aren’t the only ones who have the right to push their agendas and influence laws. They do seem to be most vocal in trying to take away the rights of those they disagree with, as if no one else has a right to vote and have an opinion. Why are atheists so dictatorial? Why can’t they allow others to have an opinion and exercise their right to vote? This is not based on Christian law of any kind. This is because of the secular law we live by in the US put into place by a majority Christian society.
I'm in total agreement with your first statement. Xtians do have that right, as do we all to vote in individuals who mirror our philosophies and beliefs so long as it doesn't infringe on the Constututional rights of others but the neoconservatives have since the early 90's been pushing their reactionary agenda, clearly composed of White, evangelical, mainly Protestant, and socially conservative views on those of us who aren't and we are a growing majority. For example, most voters favor Roe v. Wade but neocons who push the xtian social agenda are finding ways to push back by arbitrarily closing abortion clinics, thus taking away a woman's right to control her own body (a guaranteed right under the 14th Amendment). How many Atheist governors are pushing their agenda to close down churches or another church affiliated organization? None. How many rights have xtians had stripped from them by Atheists who gerrymandered districts to retain control of their local legislatures and push their Atheist agendas? None. how many atheists political leaders are dictating your right to vote or hold public office? None. And now I'm confused by your last statements; but the xtian leaders in the South, you know the ones who burned crosses and wore hoods actively tried to prevent people from voting! And we've already dispelled the myth concerning the founding fathers, and those whom you consider xtians post Rev War had no resemblence to xtian fundamentalists today. Secular means NOT religious. You can't have it both ways. Cap't Jack
Judge orders parents to change baby's name]
A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL
Judge orders parents to change baby's name]
A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion. Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child's future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it's up to them. Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18, he can legally change his name. If he's younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests. It doesn't have to be a parent. I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional. Kids always shorten names. I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out. Lois

On an interview with the mother today on public radio, the comment was made that the judge’s opinion was based on, as he said, “There is only one messiah - Jesus Christ”. Nice that he understood the separation of church and state. :coolgrin:
As an aside, from the mother’s conversation, I’d guess she probably made it to the second grade. (Love that southern hill-folk twang).
Occam

In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion. Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them. Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18, he can legally change his name. If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests. It doesn’t have to be a parent.
I wonder how the judge would react to Frank Zappa naming his kids dweezle and moon unit? :lol: Cap't Jack
On an interview with the mother today on public radio, the comment was made that the judge's opinion was based on, as he said, "There is only one messiah - Jesus Christ". Nice that he understood the separation of church and state. :coolgrin: As an aside, from the mother's conversation, I'd guess she probably made it to the second grade. (Love that southern hill-folk twang). Occam
Second grade! Do you,think she went that far? Looks like the kid has more than one strike against him. Lois
In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion. Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child’s future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it’s up to them. Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18, he can legally change his name. If he’s younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests. It doesn’t have to be a parent.
I wonder how the judge would react to Frank Zappa naming his kids dweezle and moon unit? :lol: Cap't Jack
Rock stars and celebrities in general get a pass.
Judge orders parents to change baby's name]
A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion. Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child's future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it's up to them. Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18, he can legally change his name. If he's younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests. It doesn't have to be a parent. I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional. Kids always shorten names. I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out. Lois I like your thinking. Those two names fit men to a T. So my wife would say. Except for Women's bath room. Then she would apply it to women. Regards DL

The other day I was channel surfing and came across a sermon by John Hagee, the pastor of one of those Texas megachurches. He was telling his congregation that they did not have to obey laws that were not based on the Bible. He went on to say that anyone who proposes a law not based on the Bible was either ignorant or a Satan-worshipper, in which case Christians didn’t have to listen to a thing he said. It was pretty clear he was talking about “Obamacare”.

Judge orders parents to change baby's name]
A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL I think it should be noted that this is a news sources. Not an academics one. Now granted, that doesn't mean the story is false. It just means we need to be careful about it. With regards to the "one messiah arguement", messiah means "annointed one". There were many annointed people in history. I wonder if catholicism would even prohibit that name anyway.
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries.
Actually, its not that simple Phillip Giraldi (former CIA agent) has written Promoting fear of Shariah law is essentially a red herring. There are more than 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world, and, while most have elements of Shariah in their civil and family law, only two have it as their criminal codes. ... The countries that do not have Shariah as their criminal codes have modeled their laws on European and American models, some borrowing from Roman law and others from British common law. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/04/03/the-islamophobia-excuse/ At best, one can look the crime rates of ""shariah-crime-policy"" countries. Yet, since shariah isn't implemented in other aspects of life, judging the country as a whole will be extremely difficult. Here is also an interesting documentary in this regards. http://vimeo.com/14121737
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries. I know of no country that uses Christian or biblical law and have not heard of any Christian effort to have their law accepted in their nation. This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land. Meanwhile, the vast majority of nations have rejected both sets of religious laws for a more secular approach to law and governance. Briefly --- Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why? Regards DL
Noetics The questions to ponder in this regard are: 1. Is Koran a Religious or political txt or both? 2. Has there been any Nation other than the Nation of Israel of the Old Testament (OT) under the Divine Signature of the Shekinah? 3. Is it valid or legal to apply the Old Testament as the Law of any Land without that visible Signature or its equivalent? 4. Is the Muslim zeal to establish Sharia Law in the West a reaction to the perceived notion that the West is run by the Talmudic Laws? For example: No Fault Divorce, Rule by Stare Decisis not by the Constitution [ similar to Not the Tanakh (OT) but the Talmud which is Rabbinical INTERPRETATION of the OT], justification of every human aberration by Rabbinical Interpretations etc..] 5. Islam's high recognition of the Prophet Jesus vis-à-vis Talmud's explicit (and a few obscene) hostility and hellish condemnation of Jesus and the followers of Jesus adds more zeal for the Sharia. Noetics
Judge orders parents to change baby's name]
A judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.
So much for Christians not promoting their law.
A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL In my opinion, it was an invalid opinion. Parents should be able to name their children anything they want to name them. Of course they may be harming the child's future by giving him or her a ridiculous name, but it's up to them. Forcing people to choose only certain names is a strong component in Christianity,especially Catholic Christianity. When the child reaches 18, he can legally change his name. If he's younger he can still petition the court for a name change with an adult to represent his interests. It doesn't have to be a parent. I expect this ridiculous decision to be overturned soon. It has to be unconstitutional. Kids always shorten names. I wonder if this child would be called Mess or Messy. That should certainly help him out. Lois I like your thinking. Those two names fit men to a T. So my wife would say. Except for Women's bath room. Then she would apply it to women. Regards DL Yes, well, in this day and age, a female could be named Messiah, too.;) Lois