hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
No, you cannot have lamb, goat or chicken with dairy. The Torah says in 3 places not to cook the kid in its mother's milk. Chicken, being no mammal, is a late-comer.
Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution
- Thread starter SteveGrenard
- Start date
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
hgc said:
I wish someone had told me before I spent all that money promoting my idea for an Israeli fast-food chain featuring cheeseburgers made from goat and lamb. Crap, this really sucks!
I said that there was restrictions on what Christians could eat, precisely like Muslims and Jews, and I backed it up. Do read what I post.
Are Christians allowed by their religion to eat human flesh? I'm not talking about the Eucharist, I'm talking about the real act of eating another human being.
How will you do that?
If you are fighting Christian terrorists who believe they have to uphold Lent, would you similarly force-feed them on Lent?
I already did. Now, answer my questions.
What happens when you hit a Muslim that is not Hezbollah? Do you think that other Muslims will appreciate that, even if they are agaist Hezbollah?
You and Steve may think that. It doesn't change the fact that I did answer the question. You may not like the answer, but that's not my problem.
And what edge is that? What, exactly, am I claiming that is so bad?
I wish you would both read what I post.
I always understood that the OT dietary restrictions were lifted very early on in the spread of Christianity in order to make it much more attractive to the non-middle Eastern markets it was trying to reach.
The ongoing relaxation of the dietary rules (Lent, Friday) is just part of this wider marketing effort.
Judaism is not seeking the same level of market penetration as Christianity (seeing itself as much more of a niche religion) so can retain its dietary restrictions. Islam is still expanding nicely so can retain its restrictions though there may be some kind of modification to these rules if Q4 figures aren't up to market expectation.
The ongoing relaxation of the dietary rules (Lent, Friday) is just part of this wider marketing effort.
Judaism is not seeking the same level of market penetration as Christianity (seeing itself as much more of a niche religion) so can retain its dietary restrictions. Islam is still expanding nicely so can retain its restrictions though there may be some kind of modification to these rules if Q4 figures aren't up to market expectation.
Yep - it's all marketing. Which, of course, reduces claims of "Word Of God" from all three religions a wee bit ridiculous.
Unless God is the marketing director, or is in charge of the Creative Agency
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Well, you could always fall back on your original idea of opening that burger joint in India.
Can I get a meeting with him?
Already been done http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/
You'd have to talk to one of His PA's. I believe he got a new one in Rome relatively recently
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
They don't sell burgers. At least the moo kind. They have McCurry though.
Sorry, but I want to see the man himself.
One of the jobs of a PA is to stop the hoi polli getting access to their man.
You'd have had the same problem getting to see Howard Hughes in the 60s and 70s.
Any way, the boss is very busy (apparently He's not very good at delegation)
I just want proof that he exists.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Wow...
Upon opening a thread entitled: "Demand Koran replaces US Consititution" who would expect to discover an argument about whether Christians are allowed to eat pork or not?
Ahem.
In the confines of the debate, what The Bible, or any other religious book for that matter, says is irrelevant. What God himself, in his infinate wisdom (if he exists) believes is likewise, irrelevant.
The objective is to hinder an Islamic terrorist's ability to fight. Nothing more. If pork can be utilised to achieve this objective, so be it.
I fail to see how religious texts of any sort have any bearing on this matter whatsoever, let alone Christians.
-Andrew
Upon opening a thread entitled: "Demand Koran replaces US Consititution" who would expect to discover an argument about whether Christians are allowed to eat pork or not?
Ahem.
In the confines of the debate, what The Bible, or any other religious book for that matter, says is irrelevant. What God himself, in his infinate wisdom (if he exists) believes is likewise, irrelevant.
The objective is to hinder an Islamic terrorist's ability to fight. Nothing more. If pork can be utilised to achieve this objective, so be it.
I fail to see how religious texts of any sort have any bearing on this matter whatsoever, let alone Christians.
-Andrew
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
This was Larsen's feeble atempt to derail and throw a mixture of red herrings into the soup pot. Back on topic:
The strategy of asking the constitution be replaced by the koran is obviously to inflict old testament laws upon the populace.
The muslims in our midst evidently believe that they should not be subject to civil law or the constitution but that they have, and this is where it gets really perverse, the constitutional right to be subject only to god's law which means, in their case the koran and which also means most of the OT which is embodied in the Koran.
In France the muslims demanded that their female children should be allowed to
wear head scarfs in public, secular schools. When this was rejected by the authorities they had demonstrations, screamed religious persecution and demanded some more. The problem with head scarfs is the same as it would be with the food in the soup kitchens. Once they demanded and got the head scarfs, it would be burkas next, beanies and dresses for the boys, prayer carpets, religious instruction five times a day and a guy on the roof calling the kids to prayer. Once the authorities gave in on banning and/or licensing of pork soup, the muslims would demand other dietary changes as well such as all food served in soup kitchens must be slaughtered while being blessed by allah, for example. There would be no end to the demands so why not just simplify the situation and just chuck the constitution and the bill of rights and reduce all law to the koran. This way woman don't have to bother to get up on election day or could stay at home and take care of the house instead of go to work. And the men could spend all day praying and plotting and taking meal breaks for free at the local soup kitchen.
And of course you would then need to create a special branch of the police called the religious police who would patrol the streets making sure that no one is violating any rule in the koran.
They would need to be highly trained and familiar with this document as would the religious judges and courts who decide the fate of violators.
A paradise on earth.
And you are correct gumboot: Christian dietary restrictions against not eating meat or fasting on certain days of the year is irrelevant to the argument that jews and muslims are not allowed to eat pork at any time. It is also irrelevant as towhether a pork based technology can lead to a pork or ham based weapons system.
Perhaps taking a leaf from the bioweapons arena a pork based aerosol dispersal bomb could be developed. After all pork would technically be a bioweapon.
The strategy of asking the constitution be replaced by the koran is obviously to inflict old testament laws upon the populace.
The muslims in our midst evidently believe that they should not be subject to civil law or the constitution but that they have, and this is where it gets really perverse, the constitutional right to be subject only to god's law which means, in their case the koran and which also means most of the OT which is embodied in the Koran.
In France the muslims demanded that their female children should be allowed to
wear head scarfs in public, secular schools. When this was rejected by the authorities they had demonstrations, screamed religious persecution and demanded some more. The problem with head scarfs is the same as it would be with the food in the soup kitchens. Once they demanded and got the head scarfs, it would be burkas next, beanies and dresses for the boys, prayer carpets, religious instruction five times a day and a guy on the roof calling the kids to prayer. Once the authorities gave in on banning and/or licensing of pork soup, the muslims would demand other dietary changes as well such as all food served in soup kitchens must be slaughtered while being blessed by allah, for example. There would be no end to the demands so why not just simplify the situation and just chuck the constitution and the bill of rights and reduce all law to the koran. This way woman don't have to bother to get up on election day or could stay at home and take care of the house instead of go to work. And the men could spend all day praying and plotting and taking meal breaks for free at the local soup kitchen.
And of course you would then need to create a special branch of the police called the religious police who would patrol the streets making sure that no one is violating any rule in the koran.
They would need to be highly trained and familiar with this document as would the religious judges and courts who decide the fate of violators.
A paradise on earth.
And you are correct gumboot: Christian dietary restrictions against not eating meat or fasting on certain days of the year is irrelevant to the argument that jews and muslims are not allowed to eat pork at any time. It is also irrelevant as towhether a pork based technology can lead to a pork or ham based weapons system.
Perhaps taking a leaf from the bioweapons arena a pork based aerosol dispersal bomb could be developed. After all pork would technically be a bioweapon.
Last edited:
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
And Claus, just because atheists, christians and other assorted non-muslims don't want to be subjected to muslim/koranic law doesn't translate into criticizing their beliefs. Muslims and jews are or should be free to worship and believe and follow any rules they want to so long as they don't infringe on our freedom in the process. Unfortunately they don't see the difference and either, apparently, do you.
Again, I ask you where anyone here has criticized either muslims or jews for not wanting to deal with pork.
Again, I ask you where anyone here has criticized either muslims or jews for not wanting to deal with pork.
Actually, not all muslims feel this way. Of the small group (nine) I've spoken to recently, only one wants to impose Sharia law in the UK on all UK. Of the remaining eight, three wished to live under Sharia law in the UK, but not impose it on non-Muslims. The other five expressed a preference for UK laws
Of course you could claim that they aren't proper muslims because they don't absolutely follow the Koran. It may surprise you that not many "normal" muslims do follow all of the elements of the Koran (in the same way that most Christians work on an interpreted version of the Bible).
The one who wishes all of us to live under Sharia law does so because he is concerned that the laxness of Western society is dangerous to us. He is concerned for the safety of his wife and daughters in a society which objectifies women and publishes pictures of women.
Only some Muslims called for the headscarf. Again on my straw poll of Muslims, none of them supported the burkha though most of them preferred women to dress (or to dress themselves for the women) modestly.
Your strawman argument is weak
By demonising all aspects of Islam and by portraying all Muslims as wild-eyed fanatics simply itching to overthrow our society you are guilty of the same kind of propoganda which has been directed against the Jews for centuries (although the rhetoric in their case is sometimes different)
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Steve, whenever you mention a group make sure you put "some" before them. As in "some Muslims" "some democrats" "some whatever" or else some people will assume you mean all of them and dismiss your argument.
(though in my opinion the notion of porkifying ammunition is ridiculous. It would either result in producing more enemies than you're taking out or the group you're attacking would go to one of their clerics and get a dispensation. Religions change their rules for special situations all the time)
(though in my opinion the notion of porkifying ammunition is ridiculous. It would either result in producing more enemies than you're taking out or the group you're attacking would go to one of their clerics and get a dispensation. Religions change their rules for special situations all the time)