Although I am christian, I think sharia law would be cool.

[Caravaggio]

That's how we want to do it.

That's a big jump from your individual fascism to an assumed value of collective fascism.

There is 'you' and who else, precisely? Name the guilty participants.

 

[Ban Bot]

We have all had to live with the most rudimentary of tenants at "the God Bless Me Jesus", St. Sarah Palin, Bible College, Alabammy. I feel your pain. I know, they are worse than Scientologists.

But the basic TENETS of the Christian faith are love and forgiveness.

I'm an atheist but I thought you should know that.

If you get nasty with me I will set Moonbeam on you. He knows more about faith, its loss and its renewal, than you will barely comprehend.

Snarkiness is usually why I don't bother posting in these threads.

I would politely say you are deflecting from the issue: RE: the poster's version of Sharia and whether it is tolerant of a person being a Christian.

The other poster's shoehorning of an Islamic "version" of Christianity as a viable version is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worse. This is miss/disinformation at its worse as it propagates a belief, in this case his version of Sharia tolerance of Christianity, when in fact it is anything but tolerant.

Regarding your deflection, I never said that public worship and evangelism were the only core or principle tenets. My statement is that both these items are almost uniformly agreed upon as (some of) the identifying markers of "genuine" Christianity and that to assail them--as the poster did--would be a violation of some of the core, boundary marking, tenets of Christianity.

To say you can have Christianity as Christianity would define itself without these two items is dishonest.

To prop up other tenets as a subtle deflection, somehow validating the Sharia position (?), is a non-starter. Even if you were right and I was wrong, the bunny trail is irrelevant as the two issues I identified remain core to the faith and in direct conflict with the poster's position.

You would be wrong to say Christianity is permissible under that poster's version of Sharia. What that poster is calling "Christianity" is a hollow shell.

Regarding your sticking points, love & forgiveness, it is easy for outsiders such as yourself to overlook that these principles as taught by Jesus (e.g. Matthew chapter 5 and following) are intimately tied to evangelism which were Jesus' last instructions to the disciples in Matthew (chapter 28, verses 18-20).

Disciple making, evangelizing to all people and nations in the teachings of Jesus, is the Great Commission.

To deny the Great Commission, that is overt rebellion against the Lord's teachings and instructions, would show a lack of genuine love and a negligence toward the message of forgiveness Christian's are to charter. Lacking love and forgiveness, too, would be utter failure to perform the responsibilities evangelism entails. It is not an either/or but a both and. Core Christian belief is more than 3 or 4 items such as love, forgiveness, evangelism, etc. But if you pressed there is an unequivocal, singular, core to New Testament theology and praxis:

The Lord Jesus Christ.

And all that those names would entail. You cannot have true love or forgiveness in Christian theology (or proper worship or evangelism, either) without the teachings and praxis being founded upon, and flowing through, him. But typically we don't position essentials against each other to demarcate which has priority. You could argue love is more important than faith or hope (1Co 13) but then turn around and see that love is attached to the Lordship of Jesus and obedience to his teachings/definition of love (e.g. John chapters 14-15). Removing obedience, love, forgiveness, faith, hope, or Jesus (!) from Christianity leaves something other in its place.

Coming full circle, removing evangelism and public worship from Christianity leaves an incomplete and hollow "version" and is anything but tolerant. And a full expressive Christian life is definitely in violation of that poster's view of Sharia.

 

[Caravaggio]

Coming full circle, removing evangelism and public worship from Christianity leaves an incomplete and hollow "version" and is anything but tolerant. And a full expressive Christian life is definitely in violation of that poster's view of Sharia.

That was a most impressive outpouring. You assume that I favour Sharia. Nothing could be further from the truth. You also assume you have a better knowledge of Jesus. That remains to be seen.

I shall reflect on your long reply and get back to you tomorrow. Thanks for your response.

 

[dud]

Come on guys/gals ... the OP fits the profile of the classic troll. Why are we feeding the troll?

Why?

 

[Exophase]

Come on Inachu, you are too smart for that 'eye for an eye' primitive stuff.

An eye for an eye would be stealing some property of the thief's that's of equal value.

Cutting their limbs off usually goes way beyond that.

Putting aside the obvious questions of fairness and compassion, another reason why this is a bad idea is because it makes that person less able to meaningfully contribute to society. And people who have a hard time contributing (and being compensated for it) tend to slip further into crime out of desperation; while the punishment will serve as a deterrent (the person won't want to lose a second hand or worse) at some point it'll be worth it under the belief that it'll be possible to evade capture. Plus, without enough over the top punishments people will eventually refuse to stand for it, not just the punished but their loved ones or others who are hurt by their punishment, and revolts will follow. I have a feeling that the reason Sharia Law isn't revolted against that much is because those under it actually believe it's divinely dictated.

 

[inf1nity]

So you like to be beheaded? Because under Sharia law you'd probably qualify as an infidel.

 

[Dessicant]

Snarkiness is usually why I don't bother posting in these threads.

I would politely say you are deflecting from the issue: RE: the poster's version of Sharia and whether it is tolerant of a person being a Christian.

The other poster's shoehorning of an Islamic "version" of Christianity as a viable version is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worse. This is miss/disinformation at its worse as it propagates a belief, in this case his version of Sharia tolerance of Christianity, when in fact it is anything but tolerant.

Regarding your deflection, I never said that public worship and evangelism were the only core or principle tenets. My statement is that both these items are almost uniformly agreed upon as (some of) the identifying markers of "genuine" Christianity and that to assail them--as the poster did--would be a violation of some of the core, boundary marking, tenets of Christianity.

To say you can have Christianity as Christianity would define itself without these two items is dishonest.

To prop up other tenets as a subtle deflection, somehow validating the Sharia position (?), is a non-starter. Even if you were right and I was wrong, the bunny trail is irrelevant as the two issues I identified remain core to the faith and in direct conflict with the poster's position.

You would be wrong to say Christianity is permissible under that poster's version of Sharia. What that poster is calling "Christianity" is a hollow shell.

Regarding your sticking points, love & forgiveness, it is easy for outsiders such as yourself to overlook that these principles as taught by Jesus (e.g. Matthew chapter 5 and following) are intimately tied to evangelism which were Jesus' last instructions to the disciples in Matthew (chapter 28, verses 18-20).

Disciple making, evangelizing to all people and nations in the teachings of Jesus, is the Great Commission.

To deny the Great Commission, that is overt rebellion against the Lord's teachings and instructions, would show a lack of genuine love and a negligence toward the message of forgiveness Christian's are to charter. Lacking love and forgiveness, too, would be utter failure to perform the responsibilities evangelism entails. It is not an either/or but a both and. Core Christian belief is more than 3 or 4 items such as love, forgiveness, evangelism, etc. But if you pressed there is an unequivocal, singular, core to New Testament theology and praxis:

The Lord Jesus Christ.

And all that those names would entail. You cannot have true love or forgiveness in Christian theology (or proper worship or evangelism, either) without the teachings and praxis being founded upon, and flowing through, him. But typically we don't position essentials against each other to demarcate which has priority. You could argue love is more important than faith or hope (1Co 13) but then turn around and see that love is attached to the Lordship of Jesus and obedience to his teachings/definition of love (e.g. John chapters 14-15). Removing obedience, love, forgiveness, faith, hope, or Jesus (!) from Christianity leaves something other in its place.

Coming full circle, removing evangelism and public worship from Christianity leaves an incomplete and hollow "version" and is anything but tolerant. And a full expressive Christian life is definitely in violation of that poster's view of Sharia.

A full expressive Christian life is equivalent to Sharia Islam. The insanity and the irrationality and the divorce from reality are the same, the particular laws and edicts are footnotes. I wouldn't bother comparing them, it is like comparing the different malignant cells in a cancer. One can notice small and random differences, but the Identity remains the same.

In fact the only difference between a Sharia Islam and a Fundamentalist Christian is that the Islamic follows through on the irrational principles with more consistency. Fundamentalists are evil and insane, but they are holding back a bit. Sharia Islam doesn't hold back, it embraces its irrationality and takes it to its logical extreme. Christianity is throttled insanity. Islam is what happens when you press the gas pedal closer to the floor.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Vaguely assenting to Christian tenants or principles is not the same as "being a Christian."

"Being a Christian" historically and based on the most rudimentary tenants almost all denominations agree to involves regular public worship as well as evangelizing non-believers with the objective of bringing them into the Christian fold. So going back to your summary:

"Being a Christian" involved regular public worship.

Evangelism is a principle pillar of the Church.

Conversion is the objective of Evangelism. Muslims are not considered remotely "orthodox" by any relevant Christian standard and therefore would be those evangelized with the purpose of conversion.

Talk about a lot of half truths. The version of a "Christian" you are saying Islam allows is not too dissimilar to how other oppressive regimes (think Nazis, or even at times the Catholic Church for that matter) dictate others must practice a faith under their terms, not the actual terms of the religion itself.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "No true Scotsman".

Of course, none of that matters unless you believe that any moment a Christian spends not proselytizing is a moment where they are no longer a Christian. Is that the case?

Because if it's not, then you're simply incorrect. Being Christian being illegal is not the equivalent of proselytizing being illegal. The crucial difference is that a Christian who is not proselyting at the moment is still committing a crime in the former, but not the latter.

This is a difference with rather important practical concerns, as if being Christian were truly illegal, then a Christian quietly riding a bus through a Sharia state would be committing a crime in the case where being Christian were illegal. This is not the case.

 

[Ban Bot]

Of course, none of that matters unless you believe that any moment a Christian spends not proselytizing is a moment where they are no longer a Christian. Is that the case?

Because if it's not, then you're simply incorrect. Being Christian being illegal is not the equivalent of proselytizing being illegal. The crucial difference is that a Christian who is not proselyting at the moment is still committing a crime in the former, but not the latter.

Sorry, you are incorrect because you have constructed a false syllogism. You presented my position as such:

Your Major Premise: True Christians will proselytize at every moment.
Your Minor Premise: Jimmy isn't proselytizing every moment.
Your Conclusion: Jimmy isn't a Christian.

Of course that isn't what I said.

My Major Premise: True Christianity supports evangelism as a core belief and practice.
My Minor Premise: Your Sharia outlaws a number of activities related to evangelism.
My Conclusion: Sharia is not compatible with True Christianity.

You have constructed a straw man position (every moment) and changed the emphasis to proselytizing from evangelism. Evangelism (gospel) is more than "conversion" but also discipling (the reason I cited Matthew 28). Furthermore it is fairly basic doctrine (1 Corinthians 12) that the "body of Christ" is composed of many gifts, abilities, and offices. Not all are apostles, teachers, or administrators.

The idea that every part of the body must be engaged in every subset of every activity, at all times, is a silly debate not worth engaging.

That neither detracts or undermines the essential Christian doctrine that the Christian church, and therefore Christians, are evangelical in nature. Outlawing Christian evangelism, including converting the unbeliever, is absolutely oppositional to the Christian charter of Jesus.

Being Christian being illegal is not the equivalent of proselytizing being illegal. The crucial difference is that a Christian who is not proselyting at the moment is still committing a crime in the former, but not the latter.

A car that cannot drive may still be a car but it is not legitimate transportation and is in general a failure to serve its designed purpose.

Let's call it as it is and cut to the chase: Sharia law persecutes Christians by outlawing them from engaging in basic Christian activities that Jesus himself instructed. You can only be the sort of Christian that Sharia allows, which is in conflict with core doctrine and practice.

You can own a car to get to work, but if you drive it we kill you...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Sharia law says those who leave Islam must be killed. There is a liberal-empowered-Saudi woman that I work with who believes this is the proper course of action.