Dont you know by now? Everyone fails in war.
If you wanted girls to be allowed into schools you shouldnt have armed the taliban against the Russians.
Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread
- Thread starter kks
- Start date
Dont you know by now? Everyone fails in war.
If you wanted girls to be allowed into schools you shouldnt have armed the taliban against the Russians.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
You have to think through this logically. The US invaded Afghanistan unilaterally and without trying diplomacy. Furthermore they relied on Northern Alliance leaders who are known warlords, drug-dealers, and represent only a minority of Afghanis. Majority of Afghanis are Pukhtoon (Pathan), hence unless they are treated with justice and equality, there is no way for peace in Afghanistan. The US has used the same failed strategy which was used in iraq, namely arming rival groups to fight 'unfriendly groups'. In Iraq it was arming Shia militias who massacred Sunnis, and in Afghanistan it was arming Tajiks who massacred Pukhtoons. Is it any surprise that the majoirt of the resistance to US dominance in Iraq is Sunni, and in Afghanistan is Pukhtoon?
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
So according to you, humans created a better form of governance than God can provide?
You see the problem with this view. It limits the power and influence of God. If He cannot provide a proper system of governance, then His guidance is not perfect according to this view. This inevitable leads to the prevalence of atheism and the decay of morality in society, and both those are related.
Also, I appreciate the straight answer. This is how a proper debate should be handled, rather than simply repeating same nonsense over and over.
Diplomacy with whom? Who was the leader of all of the people of Afghanistan?
Giving arms to people does not force them to use those arms to kill their own people. The people killed the people, not the guns!!
If I give you a gun, does that somehow force you to kill someone?
Baron Max
No, not a "better" form, but a more uniform system ...FOR ALL PEOPLE. As you might be aware, some people interprete god's laws and rules differently. Without human governments and human laws and human enforcements, we're all left to make up our own rules .....just like people like Osama bin Laden has done. Osama thinks his way is the right way ...others don't think so.
Without uniformity in laws and rules, humans are nothing but an endless series of vigilante groups making up their own laws and carrying out their own brand of justice. ...just like the Taliban do or Osama does.
No, it uses god's laws in order to make those laws and rules UNIFORM for all people. It's a proper and necessary interpretation of god's laws and influence. Otherwise, anyone can interpret the god's laws however he wishes ....like the Taliban or Osama. Is that what you want?
Baron Max
There isn't a parallel, nor could there ever be.
Like here for example?
Islam and the US Constitution
And here?
Sharia vs US Constitution
Nonetheless, in another thread it was asserted that all babies are born Muslim. Using this Islamic interpretation, it would be hypocritical for not allowing everyone on the planet to interpret Islam as they see fit. Apparently, I have as much right to do so as you.
Let's hear it then.
Lets hear it? Pretty simple: The constituion can be reinterpreted without rewriting it from scratch. Various laws that are now in effect in the US are exactly through such a reinterpretation of the Constitution and various other documents. Its the same thing with other types of law, religious law for example. It can be reinterpreted without rewriting it from scratch. So it is possible. Nothing too hard
Lets be honest here, is there such a thing as religious law? Aside from following certain guidelines that would not normally be adhered to like not eating a specific thing or some other rule. Like those cult members who followed the space ship and wore purple, that may be considered a religious law i suppose, but i dont know what else.
Thats just the thing: religious law consists of only handful of instructions. The rest is just interpretation and reinterpretation. Meanwhile, modern law consists of 100 and 1000s of statutes, acts and caselaw which affect us every single day. Arguing that we become robots because of religious law is BS.
So what? Humans are very complex.
Exactly. We are. That means we ca handle complex tasks and live in complex societies with complex laws without becoming robots. If we can live in a society with that many laws directing our every day existence, and punish us when we cross the boundaries, without becoming robots, then whose to say that religious law will make us robots as well?
Robots? It depends, cults do this though. The only difference between some countries is the separation of church and state.
What i meant in the other post is that i dont know of any actual religious laws or what that even means. On an individual level i dont see a problem with it if a person believes that some God told someone to tell everyone else not to do this or not to do that.
What is a religious law?
What i meant in the other post is that i dont know of any actual religious laws or what that even means. On an individual level i dont see a problem with it if a person believes that some God told someone to tell everyone else not to do this or not to do that.
What is a religious law?
It has nothing to do with that principle except the consistent failure to recognize it in others, and those others drawing the obvious conclusion.SAM said:
Is that why you don't lie, murder, etc, as much as you want - because God would judge you?diamond said:
- - -
In no way do I wish to endorse accusations of lying and intemperate hyperbole from whatever lettered source. However:
But those things {that follow} do not in fact govern the daily lives of any great number of people, impose obligations and intrusions of any frequency or severity. And they are not "believed in" - they no more make robots of people than the guide wire in the floor makes a robot of a robot.arsalan said:
Well, "robot" is not the right word, but we can ride with it: The main articles and pillars of your faith would be (in practice) the closest to robot-making of anything in that list, with some kind of conditioning according to Marx that you are not receiving at school a hypothetical second place possibility, and the TV garbage worthy of honorable mention. (How do you come to regard a sparse and inadequate introduction to a carefully selected few aspects of Marx's theories as "conditioning" ?).arsalan said:
That's one of the major reasons why theocracy is a problem. It creates and justifies a powerful few almost automatically.SAM said:
Social progress threatens theocracy directly. Self determination threatens theocracy directly.SAM said:
It is you who claim that God can only work through certain clergy and believers and so forth. Other people, with more powerful and less limited Gods, believe that God works through all things - including the US Army, which God occaisonally uses to provide the godless and heathen with proper governance.diamond said:
These quarrels between various God - created forms of governance seldom turn out well.
The Constitution can also be amended - not just interpreted, but changed.arsalan said:
My bet is you will see the US Constitution amended - as it has been dozens of times in the past - within the decade. My bet is you will not see the Koran amended in your lifetime.Arsaloan said:
He already has, by that argument. It's just a different interpretation.SAM said:
Then it's quite clear from your rationale of the comparison that both constitutional and religious laws are written by men, hence they can easily be reinterpreted to suit the agenda.
In that regard, there certainly is a parallel.
Of course, you can no longer claim your god exists by following that rationale.
I don't need to embrace a religion in order to interpret it, and it will be as credible as anybody else.