51% Of American Muslims Want Sharia... (NOT in All Caps Now..)

[turzovka]

Picaro is stupid: not in intellect but that (1) he won't learn and (2) he thinks others are not as smart as is he. He has merely confused terms and periods, as do the ignorant like him.

He simply ignores that’s the great number of members at the Convention were not members of evangelical denominations. They were Quaker, Episcopal Congregational, one Catholic, and a confused John Jay, supposedly an “evangelical” the which no one can prove. He can’t refute the truth of this.

The first great awakening was not evangelical in the 2nd great awakening sense in which he tries to define it. The second began more than a dozen years after the Constitutional Convention. The first awakening was about Christian conversion and organizational realignment, not the 'evangelical awakening' that Picaro incorrectly thinks.

Thomas Jefferson and the Baptists occurred AFTER the Convention, a member of which Jefferson was not. Jefferson was clearly a deist, as his statement of being a Christian in a sect of one. His Jefferson bible cleaned out all the miraculous stuff the Baptists and other evangelicals dearly loved and clearly stated that TJ loved the morals of Jesus. There is no statement of Christian acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Ethan Allan was a deist when not being agnostic.

Benjamin Franklin was a poly-theist when not being a deist.

Madison was a very weak Christian (at best) who held the evangelicals in horror.

If Picaro tried this argument in college, the professor would flunk it immediately and tell Picaro not to speak again until the reading and research were done.
Picaro is stupid: not in intellect but that (1) he won't learn and (2) he thinks others are not as smart as is he. He has merely confused terms and periods, as do the ignorant like him.

He simply ignores that’s the great number of members at the Convention were not members of evangelical denominations. They were Quaker, Episcopal Congregational, one Catholic, and a confused John Jay, supposedly an “evangelical” the which no one can prove. He can’t refute the truth of this.

The first great awakening was not evangelical in the 2nd great awakening sense in which he tries to define it. The second began more than a dozen years after the Constitutional Convention. The first awakening was about Christian conversion and organizational realignment, not the 'evangelical awakening' that Picaro incorrectly thinks.

Thomas Jefferson and the Baptists occurred AFTER the Convention, a member of which Jefferson was not. Jefferson was clearly a deist, as his statement of being a Christian in a sect of one. His Jefferson bible cleaned out all the miraculous stuff the Baptists and other evangelicals dearly loved and clearly stated that TJ loved the morals of Jesus. There is no statement of Christian acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Ethan Allan was a deist when not being agnostic.

Benjamin Franklin was a poly-theist when not being a deist.

Madison was a very weak Christian (at best) who held the evangelicals in horror.

If Picaro tried this argument in college, the professor would flunk it immediately and tell Picaro not to speak again until the reading and research were done.

Why are you not a Christian?

Because you think all modern day revelations and miracles are fake?

That's a bold denial with weak evidence for said position, imo.

 

[Ozone]

a discussion about muslims in america and their desire for sharia law... why should that turn into christians having to defend themselves? what's really going on here? the thing is, most of the time, you give the christians a national law that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and they'll try to come up with ideas on what is the least cruel form of punishment they can possibly think of. the hard line of ''kill all the gays'' is the exception, not the rule. but who would know that? certainly those who only look for the most extreme examples as a ploy to misrepresent christianity would dare accuse christians of implementing some kind of christian version sharia law. so we know who are the dishonest ones here, and without fail the name of jesus christ does very well to get the demons to start popping out of the woodworking, no? the fact is christianity has been very good to america, islam has not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.
Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.

 

[turzovka]

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion.

A two word response like "I am" would generate an apology from me.

(it was merely an educated guess on my part)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion.

A two word response like "I am" would generate an apology from me.

(it was merely an educated guess on my part)

I need no apology from you. Here, I will post the appropriate response, edited, to you again.

Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The three above are clearly a witness to the reasons for having a secular state that protects the individuals right to believe or not, without interference.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Let's look to other Western Civilizations that have let Sharia into their legal system. Is it a success? How can America benefit from that? What if Sharia prevents them from accepting bathrooms for how a gender self identifies? Will Sharia recognize Gay Marriage or Civil Unions? How do Liberals think Sharia can coexist with their agenda? Think the Sharia legal folks are going to respect tolerance of gays? Is it really coexist or simply more appeasement.

Conservatives in this country wouldn't tolerate gays if they weren't forced to by the law of the land.

Carbineer, simple question, in your view, who is more tolerant? American Conservatives or Muslims?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.

I'm not speaking for Christians, I'm explaining Biblical canon to people who don't understand it. Apparently correcting people on facts related to a belief makes me part of a belief, and means I'm attempting to speak for all adherents to that belief? Is this the best you can do, Jake? You didn't even try to refute what I explained.

Also, our laws are based on the Christian Bible: The Bible and Government - Faith Facts
It is, and has been, a guiding construct.

 

[Moonglow]

Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.

I'm not speaking for Christians, I'm explaining Biblical canon to people who don't understand it. Apparently correcting people on facts related to a belief makes me part of a belief, and means I'm attempting to speak for all adherents to that belief? Is this the best you can do, Jake? You didn't even try to refute what I explained.

Also, our laws are based on the Christian Bible: The Bible and Government - Faith Facts
It is, and has been, a guiding construct.

It's has more basis in the Judean Bible..

 

[turzovka]

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion.

A two word response like "I am" would generate an apology from me.

(it was merely an educated guess on my part)

I need no apology from you. Here, I will post the appropriate response, edited, to you again.

Pumpkin thinks she speaks for all Christians: she doesn’t.

Picare does not know American religious history.

Turzovka opens with a fallacy of unsupported assertion and accuses me of her own inner fears that terrify her. Turzovka is clearly not a mature Christian.

Hundreds of millions are fine Christians without having to agree with Pumpkin, Picaro, or Turzovka.

They are why the Bible cannot be the guiding construct for American law, because they all disagree what it means. They sound like Muslims quarreling about Islam and Jews about Judaism.

So you are not a Christian. Ok. No offense.

As far as you becoming upended because Christian voices are not kept silent and do not always agree --- why is that so unsettling? How does that upset the major tenets of the Christian faith? How does any of that disprove God and life after death? After all, the purpose of existence is not about temporal change to our economy or our social engineering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because most American Muslims and most American conservatives are not willing to support the civil liberties of others, their candidates for office must be vetted very, very carefully.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mateen wasn't a 'true' Muslim. He drank and didn't have a beard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Turzovka reveals her ignorance with several more fallacies of false assertion.

That is funny because her posts indicate she is not a Christian.

No Christian would bear false witness and that is clearly what she is doing by attacking me with absolutely no evidence to suggest her assertion.

She is mad that we disagree and that I make her look silly, and of those charges I plead guilty.

 

[turzovka]

Because most American Muslims and most American conservatives are not willing to support the civil liberties of others, their candidates for office must be vetted very, very carefully.

Maybe.
But we Christians are willing to exercise our vote --- as are those who oppose Christians --- and elect representatives to pass laws or remove laws that we believe are harming the common good. Does that make us criminals or our acts illegal? Why do you deny our voices or opinions because you do not agree with them? It almost all cases, majority rules --- except when it resembles Christian beliefs, apparently.

 

[Redfish]

Mateen wasn't a 'true' Muslim. He drank and didn't have a beard.[/QUOTE

Turzovka reveals her ignorance with several more fallacies of false assertion.

That is funny because her posts indicate she is not a Christian.

No Christian would bear false witness and that is clearly what she is doing by attacking me with absolutely no evidence to suggest her assertion.

She is mad that we disagree and that I make her look silly, and of those charges I plead guilty.

the only person that you make look silly is yourself

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you, Turzovka, engage in a fallacy of false assertions and continue out right false witnesses. You have every right to propose laws, but they must fit with the Constitution. Your foes, most of whom are Christian, tell you that you cannot rule by the Bible. Majority rules when it is Constitutional. That is your issue: we live in a republic not a democracy.

Redfish is hooked again and gasping for air.

 

[kaz]

BS, the Koran calls for the elimination of non muslim infidels. sharia is the law of the Koran, you run along, boy

Do you know what is sharia?

The Bible called for genocide.

I thought you were a Christian, you don't know the difference between the old and new Testament and what that's supposed to mean to Christians, Jake? I'm not a Christian and I know that.

Anyway, we have Millions of Muslims doing that today and no Christians. And you don't see the difference?

I am not concerned what a shallow thinker like you perceives, other than to make sure your shallowness is noted.

I read the writings of Father Abraham in the three great religions regularly. I understand them; they are no mystery.

That you don’t get it is obvious.

It's funny how you repeatedly can't address the points made by a "shallow thinker" like me. But a good question to ask in church this week would be the difference between the old and new testaments. Hint, they aren't the same to Christians ...

I thought is was all god's word, no?

So what you are saying then is that the old testament is bullshit to be ignored by christians --- even though it MAY BE god's word --- and the new testament is the real stuff?

That would be a crude but misleading version of what they think. But I'm not interested in explaining Christianity to you. Maybe you could learn the basics on your own before starting to ask questions like that

 

[JakeStarkey]

A number of you clearly do not know the development of Christian theological themes on the "Bible" and "literalism."

Please do some reading and thinking.

Begin thinking about this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And when you are quarreling with me, let this be your guide.

 

[flacaltenn]

Couple of random observations here.

1) God has not ordered the killing of ANY Amalikites in over 2400 years. In fact -- he's apparently out of that business if the religion bashers haven't noticed.

2) If there were to be ANY place on the Planet likely to be incorporating OTestament "commands and pronouncements" into Civil code --- it would be Israel.. With over an 80% ORTHODOX Jewish populace. But yet --- religion bashers take note --- Israel is a BASTION of gay rights and secular fun in an area dominated by other OT cultures that KILL gays and stone adulterers.

3) Making accomodations for backward cultures in the US is dumb. We should NOT repeat the mistakes of the Euros in allowing Sharia to be an alternate legal system without guidelines on limiting the SCOPE of the things to be handled. That said -- the immigration problem is NOT that they are Muslim -- but that they have only known a culture that's a 1000 years behind open modern societies.