[Romeo Rovagnati]

Originally Posted by DemonBrat

Sharia law is for muslims and I am not a muslim


also it is very backwards

You're right, Christians should implement Canon Law.

[MitzaLizalor]

What's its position on idols?

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

What's its position on idols?

The Canon Law does not allow the worship of other Gods, since it violates the 1th Commandament.

[MitzaLizalor]

I was not thinking about worship, but about making the things. Whether you regard figurines as gods or goddesses: the prohibited list of models is comprehensive: whether you call ogling them worship or veneration or adoration or genuflecting, whatever you do with them, all that is irrelevant to the question of making them.

Does canon law have a position on this?

[Vengeance Puriel]

I missed all the fun

[MitzaLizalor]

Idols are never fun. At first stripping off or whatever they do and running around in circles while drums belt out savage rhythms may be stimulating in a worldly sort of way, albeit not any world I'd care to inhabit, but then the food runs out. There were no farmers left after fertility orgies became the new rain. "Doing it" in a field is no substitute for planting seeds, removing weeds and harvesting.

Genesis 26:12-14 Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.

Witches could sort themselves any way they liked: nothing they commanded to sprout would ever grow: no incantation should ever take effect without a demonic impetus driving everything they thought or said or did. God is not a witch. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to provide evidence. Big evidence. Bigger than idols. Bigger than everything.

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

There is no old or new with Christ Jesus, dear. He is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). Does this bother you? And why should it? It is His decision how He will be, and we have the privilege and responsibility to be thankful and glorify Him.

[Vengeance Puriel]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

Idols are never fun. At first stripping off or whatever they do and running around in circles while drums belt out savage rhythms may be stimulating in a worldly sort of way, albeit not any world I'd care to inhabit, but then the food runs out. There were no farmers left after fertility orgies became the new rain. "Doing it" in a field is no substitute for planting seeds, removing weeds and harvesting.

Genesis 26:12-14 Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.

Witches could sort themselves any way they liked: nothing they commanded to sprout would ever grow: no incantation should ever take effect without a demonic impetus driving everything they thought or said or did. God is not a witch. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to provide evidence. Big evidence. Bigger than idols. Bigger than everything.

I was thinking they needed mental health help, but soon noticed they were just trolling.

[DemonBrat]

I'm not back


but I'm here to lead everyone to the outer darkness

[Didymus Much]

So it's a Raëlian now?

[DemonBrat]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

So it's a Raëlian now?

I am not a Raëlian or whatever that is.


pretty sure those people believe that they were created by aliens. I was formed by the abyssal darkness instead.


Also, Raëlians would probably choose blinding light over occluding darkness

[Dennis Lukes]

Originally Posted by DemonBrat

I am not a Raëlian or whatever that is.


pretty sure those people believe that they were created by aliens. I was formed by the abyssal darkness instead.


Also, Raëlians would probably choose blinding light over occluding darkness

Raëlians get points for best logo ever:

[Vengeance Puriel]

Originally Posted by DemonBrat

I'm not back


but I'm here to lead everyone to the outer darkness

You will not succeed here we are only follow Gods laws we are protected from evil by His grace.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Vengeance Puriel

You will not succeed here we are only follow Gods laws we are protected from evil by His grace.

Here is one of His laws. It is from the book discovered during renovations to The Temple which revealed to the king what they were doing wrong.

“Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth”

AN OKAPI

Clearly that includes statues of horses or people. Angels, since they live in Heaven, would be prohibited as would birds, okapi, fish, worms and satyrs. (When gardening it's rare to find a worm in dry soil, they inhabit where there is water beneath the earth; if you find one in dry soil it is probably a snake.) A chair is a “thing” and is found on the earth so carvings of a chair would be prohibited per the “any” adjective. An actual chair though would be OK to make. What about a witch making a 1:1 scale model of a chair to sit in while she cast witch spells in her coven? Sounds idolatrous to me, particularly given its ritual function.

There's a question though of making statues of things that DON'T exist. There is no such thing as a six-legged coyote for example or a horse with wings. Do you think they would be prohibited TO MAKE? Obviously (whether they exist or not) it's evil to worship them. The same goes for a twenty-four-armed purple elephant. Could you make one of those if you didn't worship it? Your comments would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Deuteronomy 5:8

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Sharia law is a religious law
The Bible also contains religious laws
Biblical laws legal = homosexuals, witches, and heathens killed
Biblical laws legal = me happy

Does that means that Sharia law makes you Baptists happy? Because Sharia law condones all of the above.

[Unfalsifiable]

It's impossible to tell what makes you happy because you change it all the time.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Romeo Rovagnati

Does that means that Sharia law makes you Baptists happy? Because Sharia law condones all of the above.

Sharia law bans abortion. Does that mean that Sharia law makes you Catholics happy?

At the Landover Baptist Church, we are against Sharia law, and we think the US should deport all of its Muslims before they can force the rest of us to live under its dictates at sword point.

However, that does not mean that the Muslims got everything wrong. For example, the treatment of women in Islam is very much in accordance with the way Jesus wants us to behave toward our women. And now that we have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, we expect our country to abandon it's sinful "equality of the sexes" laws and reimpose a Biblical view of the way the sexes should behave. So let's give credit where credit is due, even to our mortal enemies the Muslims, without going overboard by banning pork or praying to the demon Allah.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

However, that does not mean that the Muslims got everything wrong.

Thank you for replying to the idolator. I was reminded of a saying from my childhood, Carrots have legs and potatoes are birds but I prefer the aroma of a good cigar. Not everything in that adage is wrong: I do appreciate the aroma of a good cigar as it happens but no carrot has legs and no bird is a potato. Islam is much the same. Take the Malays for instance. Somewhere in between China and India, they happily followed the traditions of Mahavira¹ (Jainism) and Siddhartha² (Buddhism) with a liberal sprinkling of Confucius³ (Confucianism) from around 600BC. But now, despite the lie of secularism, Sharia courts have the say-so over just about everything whether one worships Mohammed or not.

If for example a Jain wanted to marry a Confucianist, perhaps they could, but neither could convert to the other's religion without approval from this wretched court. Mohammedans arrived in small numbers, “Oh, there's not many of them, they can live over there,” the erstwhile denizens decided, rather than running them through or some other alternative. You know how they'll suddenly start speaking faster with more urgency and a higher pitched voice? That's when they start lying, say just about anything to persuade you to convert to their upstart creed – and clearly that happened and worked out well for the clerics who could dump a tax burden on everyone, a burden currently collected by the Malaysian government to fund the mosques. Almost exactly as you described, and as happened in Egypt, Persia, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, various other -stans, Yemen, Indonesia, Brunei, Morocco – it's a reasonably long list⁴ but you get the idea. Initially small in number, once expanded the outcome has always been as you described.

Mohammed could neither read nor write. His moments of inspiration seem not to have involved language at all. In this passage there appears to be doubt about the species – but none about the vocals.

Sahih Muslim⁵ The Book of Pilgrimage Hadith 1180a

The revelation came to the Messenger of Allah _ and he was covered with a cloth, and Ya'la said: Would that I see revelation coming to the Messenger of Allah _ He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: Would it please you to see the Messenger of Allah _ receiving the revelations? 'Umar lifted a corner of the cloth and I looked at him and he was emitting a sound of snorting. He (the narrator) said: I thought it was the sound of a camel.

I'm sure you can think of other comparisons but whatever mental image you have, the results are a simple matter of observation. That Malaysian tax the government so kindly collects for the clerics? One of the grunts or snorts or whatever they were made things abundantly clear BUT INTERESTINGLY provides a clue to the garbled nonsense, why it's garbled and why some of it (like my adage) occasionally makes sense. How this person wound up in Arabia I don't know but consider the state of his armpits.

Sahih al-Bukhari⁶ Oaths and Vows Hadith 6636

Allah's Messenger _ employed an employee (to collect Zakat). The employee returned after completing his job and said, "O Allah's Messenger _ This (amount of Zakat) is for you, and this (other amount) was given to me as a present." The Prophet _ said to him, "Why didn't you stay at your father's or mother's house and see if you would be given presents or not?". . . [LATER] . . . he said, "Now then! What about an employee whom we employ and then he comes and says, 'This amount (of Zakat) is for you, and this (amount) was given to me as a present'? Why didn't he stay at the house of his father and mother to see if he would be given presents or not? By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, none of you will steal anything of it (i.e. Zakat) but will bring it by carrying it over his neck on the Day of Resurrection. If it has been a camel, he will bring it (over his neck) while it will be grunting, and if it has been a cow, he will bring it (over his neck), while it will be mooing; and if it has been a sheep, he will bring it (over his neck) while it will be bleeding." The Prophet _ added, "I have preached you (Allah's Message)." Abu Humaid said, "Then Allah's Messenger _ raised his hands so high that we saw the whiteness of his armpits."

That is a man not used to the 120˚ Arabian sun. Wherever he came from (and I'm guessing central Europe) people are white. Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox creeds abound so whether he could read or not, he'd hear plenty of traditions all jumbled up and without the discipline of reading there'd be no way to order them in his brain. After a good snorting episode what came out of the mouth would be jumbled twaddle at best – but one or two phrases recalled during the episode might make sense. Yet even after centuries of commentary and dubious reminiscence, all we've got is gibberish. Nevertheless, he was able to appreciate that he'd found an audience and knew how to exploit it, despite (or perhaps because of) his being a foreigner.

Makes me dizzy to be honest.



^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/history/mahavira.shtml

2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/history/history.shtml

3. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180525-the-book-of-songs-poems-that-helped-shape-chinese-thought

4. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/muslim-majority-countries

5. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1180a

6. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6636

[DemonBrat]

why was my post deletded


is the adiministertion believe that the angels are cool

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by DemonBrat

why was my post deletded

Proverbs 30:8
Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

And, as expected, Jesus provided!




Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by DemonBrat

I feel like I've stepped into a time portal to where old beliefs are acceptable.

There would be no reason for correct beliefs to change. “What is a tree?” will always have the same correct answer. It's a tree. It will never be a frog. In light of Prof. White's citing Proverbs:

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Proverbs 30:8
Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

it's worth considering some of the differences between Truth and falsehood. In one sense they're the same of course; the statement that a tree is a frog will always be false and in that respect is unchanging. Similarly, however one defines a tree, whether as a botanist or according to the values of a carpenter or a wood-boring insect, whether in simple terms or reducing the plant down to its atomic configuration in several weighty tomes, the fact of its being a tree remains true and unchanging. What has this to do with Proverbs?

God refers to food convenient for me. When Peter pondered the question, he thought back to a specific time when certain foods had to be avoided. It would always be true in that place and time – but Peter was in a different place at a different time and God spelled it out Acts 10:13-15; 11:8-10 because He loves us. Now if one were a cannibal, the convenient thing would be to pop next door with one's machete and prepare a meal disregarding God completely. If visiting, would Peter be able to enjoy the resulting casserole? After all, in such places, the meat would be available to buy in accordance with I Corinthians 10:25 and is even sold in restaurants along with lion, rat and viper.

Although humans do not have hooves and the question of whether the hoof is cloven doesn't arise, long pork was considered unclean (or at least prohibited) by implication because it fell outside the list of approved species. Did God's declaration apply to human meat and what would be the position for cannibals? They are not Christians and are therefore blind to God's revelation, albeit in a different way from heretics who have actually read The Bible and know God's demands but then do the opposite. In this way God links His unchanging Truth to the emergence of new ideas in a way Christians will understand but cannibals, who follow the tenets of animism and fetish species presented to them in dreams, will not.

The answer is to accept Christ, no time portal required, as highlighted in the Proverbs quote: Remove far from me vanity and lies.