Should American Muslims be voting for Obama or killing him?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does it say explicitly that the Old Testament doesn't hold true anymore somewhere in the New Testament? If so, why is the Old Testament even there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, both in terms of specific refutations - "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

and

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"

and in generalities

"‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets"

Regardless, the debate over which parts of the Mosaic (Old Testament) Law Jesus was expanding upon and which parts he was doing away with have occupied bored theologians for a thousand years now.

Of course you can use any scripture to justify whatever you want. Hence christian pacifists vs the crusades. Fred Phelps vs Dorothy day. etc.

--

I have come to the conclusion that the more Christians focus on the "death/sacrifice" of Jesus, the more likely they are to be intolerant jerks. The more Christians focus on the life/example of Jesus, the more likely they are to be people I don't mind hanging out with.



[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post, and thanks for listing the specifics of some of that which I recalled yet did not recall the exact quotes nor precisely where to find them.

By the way, I pretty much agree with you about the greater focus on Jesus' life or death being correlated with the types of people I would rather hang out with or not [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Good insight and perspective on that one [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would be the Old Testament (Jewish), not the New Testament (Christian). For Christians, when Jesus Christ came and ushered in the New Covenant, all the old laws were superseded by the teachings, instructions, and the example of Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I went to 12 years of Catholic school and studied scripture every day for those 12 years. You know as well as I do that when xians want to justify some sort of intolerance, there's the Old Testament. when xians want to instead actually, you know, be Christian, as in Christ-like, there's the examples/teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. If fundies weren't pulling crap out of either the Old Testament or the book of Revelation, they'd never have a political point and would be busy loving their neighbors and their enemies, working for social justice, and other things I don't particularly mind.

Besides, the point still holds. How many Jews do you know that still take a significant percentage of the Hebrew Testament teachings about proscribed punishments seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
That is, there is possibly some scriptural basis for it,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Shari'a is not just another cultural preference; it is a legal system which is directly opposed to many of the human rights and civil rights which are most cherished by Westerners.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is Christian Dominionism. What's your point? Fundamentalists of any stripe are ignorant human beings that I don't particular want to associate with and I sure as hell don't want to be governed by.

I'm not arguing for Sharia, I find it a horribly backwards legal system, I'm simply saying that even if Barack Obama was once a Muslim (which he wasn't) and then converted to Christianity, I don't think you'd find many Muslims in the US calling for his death. Now would some fundamentalist wackjob mullah call for his head somewhere? Probably. If those numbers for Britain are accurate, they're pretty damn scary, and I stand corrected.

Like nearly any scripture, you can make the Quaran say whatever you want it to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I essentially agree with your post, and I consider it a tragedy that many Christians use scripture to justify evil deeds.

I suppose my point about Shari'a would include that it is a fairly widely utilized legal system in parts of the world (as opposed to, for instance, Christian Dominionism), and that I think that's both a scary and bad thing. It is also disturbing that fairly robust percentages of Muslims support Shari'a.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose my point about Shari'a would include that it is a fairly widely utilized legal system in parts of the world (as opposed to, for instance, Christian Dominionism), and that I think that's both a scary and bad thing. It is also disturbing that fairly robust percentages of Muslims support Shari'a.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if this has more to do with socioeconomic factors than religious factors.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I suppose my point about Shari'a would include that it is a fairly widely utilized legal system in parts of the world (as opposed to, for instance, Christian Dominionism), and that I think that's both a scary and bad thing. It is also disturbing that fairly robust percentages of Muslims support Shari'a.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if this has more to do with socioeconomic factors than religious factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't doubt that socioeconomic factors might have some influence, but I can't guess of any widespread parallel to Shari'a law that might be found in other similar socioeconomic environments. After all, Islamic jurisprudence is based upon one particular religion, and its inception dates from early Islam.

Here is Wikipedia on Shari'a:

Wikipedia: Sharia Law :

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
What might be needed is for a brilliant, brave scholar or jurist to develop a more moderate interpretation of Islam than Shari'a

[/ QUOTE ]

Tariq Ramadan is your man.
http://www.tariqramadan.com/article....34&lang=en