Re: Religion Thread

by **peugeot407** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 8:10

It's Robert Faber. On more ontopic matters though, I disagree, because I don't believe in something such as a "Christian country" or "Islamic country". A country is made up of hundreds of thousands or in many cases even millions of people, and taking the religion of, say, half of them and basing temporal laws on it is a tremendous act of injustice against the other half. Even a country where 99% of the people follow the same religion wouldn't do good by basing its laws on religious values, because that one percent still represents thousands upon thousands of people. Religion and state should be separated entirely, with the former having absolutely no influence on the latter, and vice versa.

peugeot407

by Gohar Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 8:27

And that's why I said a criminal should be punished depending on what his religion declares is the punishment for the crime and if he has offended someone through a crime then the offended person should have a right to punish the person according to his/her (i.e. the victim's) religion. I'm not stating that a whole country is to be judged by a single law of a single religion or else that would be offensive.
P.s. Nice to know you Robert Smile

Also since you don't play online, could you give me your ESO id through a private message or email (no offense just asking or rather requesting)

by **iliander** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 8:31

peugeot407 wrote:It's Robert Faber. On more ontopic matters though, I disagree, because I don't believe in something such as a "Christian country" or "Islamic country". A country is made up of hundreds of thousands or in many cases even millions of people, and taking the religion of, say, half of them and basing temporal laws on it is a tremendous act of injustice against the other half. Even a country where 99% of the people follow the same religion wouldn't do good by basing its laws on religious values, because that one percent still represents thousands upon thousands of people. Religion and state should be separated entirely, with the former having absolutely no influence on the latter, and vice versa.

peugeot407

there is something such as LOGIC. it is an absolute NECESSITY that these deformed types of intercourse are outlawed and anyone who practices them should stay in a mental hospital while working for the state without earning money. just because they are outlawed in the bible doesn't mean they should be separated from the state together with the belief in God.

by super7700 Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 8:34

I agree that bestiality should be illegal, because technically it amounts to rape (since animals can't give consent as far as I'm aware). However I don't agree that our laws should directly come from a 2000 year old book. Instead, governments need to think for themselves when deciding on a nation's laws, and look at issues from an independent and modern perspective that is not clouded by religious beliefs. Also, as Robert mentioned, laws differ from religion to religion, and there are many different religions being practiced in every country, so it is unfair for the law to come from just one of these religions.

Also Gohar, if I understand you correctly, you are contradicting yourself when you say that everyone must be judged equally, as you then go on to say that the accused should be judged by the law of the victim. Judging people on a religious basis is inequality in its extreme, as the punishment will change depending on the victim. So you might get away with a crime if you target one person, and get stoned to death if you target someone else. This goes against the whole concept of law. And what if I create a religion that states that anyone who offends me is put to death? Can I make myself sacrosanct?

by Gohar Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:10

Well its like "lakum deenukun wa liya deen" (For you, your religion. and for me my religion)
We can't force everyone to follow the laws of the same religion and if one is a victim to a crime then rightfully the assaulter would be punished according to the victim's laws (of course if a person has accepted a religion then that person also accepts its laws of justice). An interesting event however is that when the Jews of Banu Quraiza betrayed the Muslims and broke their treaty, rather than punishing them according to the Islamic law, they were punished according to a prophecy made in their own book (intriguing isn't it? Their book held the prophecy to their own end.)
Also saying that the holy book is invalid just cuz is old is wrong (at least for the Quran) because the Quran despite being more than about 1400 years old stated things that science is still proving. For example the Quran states that the Sun moves around its own axis and it took more than 1000 years for science to prove this fact which the Quran had already told of. Indeed Muslims believe that the original form of the Injeel(bible) is also authentic (but is now unavailable)
Also is the bible and new testament the same thing?

by **peugeot407** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:15

And there comes our Kiwi saviour again. Razz

Honestly though, I couldn't disagree more with you on the point you raise, Gohar. If people are to be punished by religious law rather than temporal law, that raises the obvious point of inequality, as super7700 pointed out, not to mention it creates some problems with religions that do not come with their own book of law (or moral code, as far as I'm aware only Islam has actual religious laws, due to its unique early history), and even bigger problems with atheists, as such a system would mean they are exempt from any law. I could see the point in having a system where religious law steps in where temporal law does not speak out against a certain act, but that would just end up meaning that everyone could start their own religion and exert justice themselves. Even judging people by their own religion's moral code wouldn't work, partly because of the atheism issue, but also because that would again result in a society where people can just take justice into their own hands, which always goes wrong and ends up in a cycle of revenge. The only way to avoid this is for justice to be served by an independent third party according to common laws that apply to everyone equally, regardless of religion.

As for you, ili, I agree absolutely that laws should be based on a certain amount of logic. After all, it's for purely logical reasons that things such as murder are outlawed, and I think we're both glad about that. Logic though, in this case, would refer to communal logic, as it were. One man's logic is not another man's logic, and when there is no broad consensus on whether something should be outlawed or not, it's best not to outlaw it.

peugeot407

by super7700 Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:22

Yes Gohar, we can't force everyone to follow the laws of the same religion, so wouldn't it be better for the state to have a set of independent laws that can apply to everyone? As I said it is very unfair if you are judged differently based on the victim, as it could be the difference between no punishment and being executed. I think Robert put it very well in saying how people could exploit this.

I didn't intend say that the holy books are invalid, because for many people they most certainly aren't. What I meant is that they are outdated, as society has developed so much since then that there are many things that these books don't cover. Also, the views of most people on morality have vastly changed. While back when these texts were written people might be killed for committing crimes such as homosexuality, capital punishment is seen as wrong by many people now. Furthermore, there are some ridiculous and oudated laws in these books. For instance, the bible bans oysters and 'clothes of mixed fibres'. Do you really think people deserve to be punished over such trivial matters? I'm sure if you ignored the fact that this was in the bible, you would agree that this is silly.

by **AOE_Fan** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:32

As much as I want to keep the discussion open around here, I had no other option than to warn iliander. Referring people who are having gay intercourse as mentally diseased is rather insulting, regardless of one's personal opinions.

by **peugeot407** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:37

The key thing, I think, when it comes to holy scriptures, is to take their intended purpose into account. I know, for instance, that the Bible contains errors when it comes to history. It gets the names of historical leaders mixed up, and puts one thing in front of the other despite them happening the other way round in history. Equally, there are numerous errors when it comes to descriptions of scientific things, notably in the biology department. Does this mean the Bible is unreliable? No, it doesn't, because the Bible wasn't written as a history book or a science book, it was written as a religious book, and where religion is concerned, it doesn't matter if historical events are written down in a slightly wonky fashion, not unless those historical events have a significant impact on the system of beliefs associated with Christianity, anyway. Thing is though, that also applies the other way round. Holy scriptures were written, as we've established, as religious books, not history books or science books, or indeed as judicial books. When they are used this way, things get hopelessly messed up, with people claiming the Earth is only 6000 years old because it says so in the Bible (it doesn't directly say so in the Bible by the way, it takes aforementioned historical irregularities plus a lot of assumptions and guesswork to come to such an obviously faulty answer, but some people believe it nonetheless), or that we should outlaw homosexuality, because some people are described as being punished for it in the Bible (which I still think is a misinterpretation, but you get my point). Holy scriptures were written as a foundation of a religion, not as scientific factbooks, accurate historical overviews or comprehensive ever-appliable books of law.

peugeot407

by Gohar Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:47

Well Robert and super7700, honestly I see much sense in your statements, but I was just giving my opinions cuz there are many such laws in Islam.
In fact if Islam is properly followed, it has within it the entire method to run a country through a truely fair type of democracy (Khilafat). In fact Hazrat Umar (RA) who was the second Khalifa of Islam, was the person who invented the first organized bank called the Diwaan (and since Islam forbids interest, it was a purely non-interest bank). He invented many other departments such as the department of security (It was made to stop crime like the police does now), the department of finance (to ensure that money is fairly collected and distributed for the improvement of the state, amongst the poor and the workers).
He even devised a more fair version of what is an equivalent to the mordern parliaments. He basically had a Majlis-e-Shura consisting of people from the State (especially the people who had been the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) and scholars, this body was consulted on all matters. Then there was a Majlis-e-Aam which consisted of all members of the Majlis-e-Shura as well as leaders of various tribes, this body was consulted on all important matters.
He also was the first to introduce the system of giving money from the government to the parents according to their children for the up-bringing and education of their children.
Furthermore, he used to roam the streets to check on the conditions of his people. He never dressed or lived like a King or a President but rather like a common man. He did not take money from the state but rather did his own work to earn money while governing the state. He even helped his people like once he carried sacks of grain on his back and distributed them to the poor people free of cost.
He set up a system in which the state was made int provinces (each had a governer to manage affairs and also a Qazi who worked independant of the governor and administered justice in the province). Then each province was separated into districts governed by "Amils". All the people had to submit their assets to ensure that the did not cheat on the people and try to amass wealth and loyal spies ensured that these governors did not cheat. Once in a year (during pilgrimage season), all governers were called, assessed and judged. The Khalifa even listened to the requests of the common people and passed justice according to Islamic laws.
All of Hazrat Umar's (RA) laws and government are derived from or based on Islamic laws.

by super7700 Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 9:50

Actually Robert I'm pretty sure the Bible explicitly states in Leviticus that homosexuality is wrong. But I agree that in other instances it is really just a misinterpretation. For instance, it might seem that Sodom was destroyed because the men there wanted to have gay sex with the angels visiting Lot. However my interpretation (and I'm sure others have this interpretation as well) is that the offense committed by these men was not homosexuality, but rather attempting to rape a guest to the town. Funnily enough, Lot even offers his young daughters to the mob in order to protect the angels, but it isn't portrayed as something wrong on his part.

That's a really interesting system Gohar, I didn't know such a thing existed back then. I've always just assumed that the early Islamic states were autocratic.

by Gohar Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 10:22

Autocracy and dictatorship are actually not allowed in Islam. People mistake a Khalifa for a King like figure because later Khalifa, like many Khalifa's of the Ottomans did not follow the actual system of Islam.
A Khalifa must work hard for his people, Hazrat Umar (RA) said "Even if a dog dies on the bank of the Euphrates, Umar shall be held responsible". A Khalifa was chosen by a group of pious people after consulting and taking opinions from the common people. Also, if the people are unhappy with the Khalifa and tell of what wrong the khalifa has done, then if the khalifa does not correct and make up for his wrong doings and is proven guilty, then the Khalifa must step down and a new Khalifa is selected (sorry I phrased the sentence strangely, hope you get my point).
Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) who was the first Khalifa of Islam said ""I have been elected your Ameer (leader), although I am no better than you. Help me if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong; obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet; when I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not."
Trust me, although modern Muslims are probably one of the worst people out there, IMO Islam is the best religion (this is my own opinion I do not mean to label anyone's religion as wrong or inferior in any way)

by **peugeot407** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 15:58

This isn't exactly the Politics Thread, but it's interesting to mention that a "king like figure" as you describe was pretty much bound by the same rules as the Caliphs in every historical monarchy. Obviously elective monarchies take the crown where responsibility is concerned, but this modern idea that all absolute monarchs were cruel dictators is based on absolutely nothing but what I can only presume to be republican propaganda of the 1920s. The vast majority of absolute and limited monarchs in history were very much concerned with the wellbeing of the country they ruled, rather than just themselves.

Anyway, this is exactly what I meant when I said Islam had a unique early history; it's difficult to separate the Islamic religion from the societies that sprung up around it. Islam's early religious leaders weren't particularly worldshy, and were very capable leaders in temporal matters as well, which was brilliant news in the 7th century, but does present, I should imagine, a bit of an issue for modern Muslims, because how would you know which "rules", as it were, originate in the actual beliefs of Islam, and which are simply traditions associated with Islam because they featured heavily in the early Caliphates?

peugeot407

by Gohar Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 19:47

And there comes our Kiwi saviour again. <= What does that mean and who is it for?
Does Christianity not have laws that tell how to rule/govern a country?
Clearly all the things taught in the Quran and Ahadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) and the Prophet's (pbuh) Sunnah (All the actions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)) are the actual laws and beliefs of Islam.

by **iliander** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 23:28

AOE_Fan wrote:As much as I want to keep the discussion open around here, I had no other option than to warn iliander. Referring people who are having gay intercourse as mentally diseased is rather insulting, regardless of one's personal opinions.

Not that I give a shit about this warning, but this is just getting ridiculous.

1. banned from wotta for homophobia
2. thread deleted and mod negged on bodybuilding.com for "evil gay agenda" thread (the thread gave me more reps than negs though)
3. "warned" on this forum for disagreeing with gay intercourse

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

We're not allowed to disagree with homosexuality anymore, and before you know it this will be the same for pedophilia, bestiality, and any other form of DEFORMED sexual intercourse. You're all being PROGRAMMED by society to "defend the poor gay people from hateful homophobic extremists" who are just stating facts and protecting the natural family structure. This "all hate is evil" is a massive lie, instead you're supposed to hate what is bad and love what is good. Satan tries to make you hate what is good and love what is bad. What's the easiest way to achieve this? By making all of these retards think that "hate is bad", so nothing bad will be criticized and it gets the opportunity to grow and eventually draw people away from what is good.

Homosexuality being a mental disease is a FACT. If you are born with a penis, putting it in a vagina is THE RIGHT WAY. Homosexuality is completely AGAINST procreation and the natural function of the human body. What else could possibly be more of a mental disease?

If you get offended by this you should learn to accept the damn facts and stop preventing people from saying their opinion. There will always be someone getting offended whatever the hell you say.

by **AOE_Fan** Thu 5 Dec 2013 - 23:54

Banned iliander for constant violation of forum rules:

The Rules wrote:Discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, sexual preference or any other intimately personal qualities

I do accept disagreeing about sexual minorities but this type of insulting isn't allowed here. The rest of the world agreed about gayness not being a mental disorder in 1973 and it's about the time for you to accept the fact too.

by Gohar Fri 6 Dec 2013 - 1:48

My post was completely ignored in that argument, can someone answer it. Also what would two men do together, I don't get it? Sword fighting? (no offense, just joking but srsly two men and two women can't do it together)

by **peugeot407** Fri 6 Dec 2013 - 3:57

Depends on what you mean by "doing it". Vaginal intercourse is indeed not possible (though lesbians can of course use specially designed implements), but that's hardly the only kind of sex available...

As for your questions:

No, Christianity does not come with a set of temporal laws, because Christianity never was a state religion. Well, not until the Roman emperor Constantine anyway. Christianity also has a very heavy emphasis on the individual rather than society as a whole, which might have its origins in the early days of Christianity, when Christians were always a minority wherever they were. Even the great cities of early Christianity, Jerusalem and Antioch, didn't have a Christian majority until hundreds of years after the death of Jesus.

As for the other thing, "Kiwi" is a colloquial term for somebody from New Zealand, which is where super7700 is from. It's got nothing to do with the fruit or the bird of the same name.

peugeot407

by ACN45trooper Fri 6 Dec 2013 - 8:27

Bye bye, iliander!

by **Pepp** Fri 6 Dec 2013 - 22:16

Stop spamming around, you trooper.

And no, Christian Bible doesn't come along with rules to govern a country or laws, as it is focused to how a man should life. It is telling people to love God, everyone, yourself, and your enemy.

by super7700 Sat 7 Dec 2013 - 7:26

I'm pretty sure that the bible does have laws, if you look at Leviticus. That's the part of the bible that says homosexuality is punishable by death as well as describing other similar rules.

by **peugeot407** Sat 7 Dec 2013 - 10:44

Religious laws, or guidelines, or obsolete laws, rather depending on your outlook on the Old Testament, aren't quite the same as temporal laws though.

peugeot407

by Sponsored content