Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

Luke T. said:
Let me put it this way. Do you think America has a problem with counting a black man as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in Congress?
Click to expand...
Ehh....no.

You are not equating a democracy (well, the American version of a democracy) to religious dogma, are you?
 
BPSCG said:
Oh, goody, another CFL thread where we get to debate why there's nothing in a hole, how a road can run both ways, and how high you have to go before you're in the sky.
Click to expand...

Define hole, road, high and sky.

A simple yes or no please.
 
CFLarsen said:
Ehh....no.
Click to expand...

And yet there it is, right there in the U.S. Constitution.

You are not equating a democracy (well, the American version of a democracy) to religious dogma, are you?
Click to expand...

I was trying to find an example you could understand. Blacks are 3/5 of a person. It's right there in the Constitution. Yet somehow today we don't count blacks as 3/5. Gee, how is that possible? We must be ignoring our constitutional duty...
 
HarryKeogh said:
Define hole, road, high and sky.

A simple yes or no please.
Click to expand...
I defined them for you earlier in the marriage debate. If you can't be bothered to look them up, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
 
HarryKeogh said:
Liar.

But if that's your way out of the debate then fine.
Click to expand...
I defined them for you earlier in the marriage debate. If you can't be bothered to look them up, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

This is fun!
 
BPSCG said:
I defined them for you earlier in the marriage debate. If you can't be bothered to look them up, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

This is fun!
Click to expand...

Liar.

How low will you stoop in your campaign to smear non-pork eating Christians?
 
Luke T. said:
And yet there it is, right there in the U.S. Constitution.



I was trying to find an example you could understand. Blacks are 3/5 of a person. It's right there in the Constitution. Yet somehow today we don't count blacks as 3/5. Gee, how is that possible? We must be ignoring our constitutional duty...
Click to expand...

You are completely not getting what I am saying.

A document declaring the political rights of people is always up for not just interpretation but also for change. That's the nature of politics - it changes, over time, to reflect - as accurately as is possible - the wishes of the people. It is to be expected, it is accepted, it is desired.

Religious dogma, on the other hand, is by definition not up for discussion. You don't argue with God, you don't strike deals, you don't even question the authority of God.

The moment you start treating religious dogma the way you treat a political idea, that's the moment when you (should) realize that the religious dogma is worthless.

That's why it makes no sense to criticize Judaism and Islam for not wanting to deal with pork, because Christianity also demanded that from the Christians. Why is it not so today with Christians? Because people - not God - has interpreted it this way.

If you want to argue that people decide what God says, then you are not arguing a religious argument anymore.
 
Rob Lister said:
Because dog meat is priorly banned for reasons not religious but instead cultural (right or wrong). Were it not, I would have no problem with it either. It's all about disclosure.
Click to expand...
Religion is a subset of culture. I don't see why culture in general can be enforced through laws, but religion can't.
 
CF Larsen wrote:
That's why it makes no sense to criticize Judaism and Islam for not wanting to deal with pork, because Christianity also demanded that from the Christians. Why is it not so today with Christians? Because people - not God - has interpreted it this way.
Click to expand...

I really must insist that you demonstrate where anyone critcized Jews or Muslims for not dealing with pork.


It was pointed out how this allegedly god-given directive (for muslims and jews) could be a possible and non-lethal weapon against extremist fanatical muslim terrorists.

Christians have clearly moved beyond the admonition about eating pork or following other dietary restrictions. Good muslims and jews, followers of the way, the people of the book ...cannot eat lobster, shrimp, clams, oysters, insects, catfish (well any "bottom feeders" in theory), most other invertebrates. They are also not allowed to eat/drink milk, butter, cheese, pizza with meatballs or beef sausage, yoghurt, some kinds of smoothies, milk shakes, or ice cream at the same meal as they would eat meat (beef, lamb or chicken); their households require separate plates and utensils for dairy versus meat products and separate storage ... in modern times that means refrigerators. And what's more, their meat must be ritually slaughtered under the supervision of a holy person and Muslims require that whoever does the slaughter says the name of allah out loud at time he is killing the animal. So its a lot more than just a pork issue. If you are suggesting that modern Christians are violating the word of god because they don't observe ALL these things, I think you've got a tough case on your hands.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Religious dogma, on the other hand, is by definition not up for discussion. You don't argue with God, you don't strike deals, you don't even question the authority of God.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Exodus, Chapter 32. Moses not only questions God's authority, but actually convinces God to change his mind!

9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Click to expand...

And the New Testament is full of stories of Jesus Christ questioning the dogma of the Pharisees.

That's why it makes no sense to criticize Judaism and Islam for not wanting to deal with pork, because Christianity also demanded that from the Christians.
Click to expand...

Once again, at no time did Christianity demand Christians not eat pork. Read, again (?) the part from Romans I quoted above.
 
Rob Lister said:
That's because Clause joined it.
Click to expand...

If Steve builds it, Claus will come.

If Steve started a topic on how yummy chocolate cake is, Claus would insist that whales can't stand chocolate cake. Therefore, it is NOT yummy, dammit!
 
Art Vandelay said:
Religion is a subset of culture. I don't see why culture in general can be enforced through laws, but religion can't.
Click to expand...
There's nothing from on-high that says it can't. It's just that that's how they wanted to put it together then they wrote the constitution. And for the most part, we as a society have decided to continue to make a special distinction for religion, not making an overtly religious basis for civil society.

Of course, there are plenty of people who aren't happy with this arrangement, and would like to interpret the 1st amendment differently. I will fight them all the way.
 
Luke T. said:
Wrong again.

Exodus, Chapter 32. Moses not only questions God's authority, but actually convinces God to change his mind!

And the New Testament is full of stories of Jesus Christ questioning the dogma of the Pharisees.
Click to expand...

I repeat, I am not talking about what (supposedly) happened. I am talking about the very concept of religious belief. You do not treat the word of God as a constitution that can be amended by public vote. Thus, the theory goes.

That the Bible is self-contradictory is no surprise, given its origins as a long compromise of men, and not the true word of God. But the point is that Christians do - and are expected to - treat the Bible as the true word of God.

The moment you interpret the word of God, you throw out the idea of religion. Religion is dogma, it is not a constitution that can be amended, depending on what people think. Again, thus the theory goes.

Luke T. said:
Once again, at no time did Christianity demand Christians not eat pork. Read, again (?) the part from Romans I quoted above.
Click to expand...

Whoa. Why do you ignore Deutoronomy? People who believed in God then were not Christians?
 
CFLarsen said:
I repeat, I am not talking about what (supposedly) happened. I am talking about the very concept of religious belief. You do not treat the word of God as a constitution that can be amended by public vote. Thus, the theory goes.

That the Bible is self-contradictory is no surprise, given its origins as a long compromise of men, and not the true word of God. But the point is that Christians do - and are expected to - treat the Bible as the true word of God.

The moment you interpret the word of God, you throw out the idea of religion. Religion is dogma, it is not a constitution that can be amended, depending on what people think. Again, thus the theory goes.



Whoa. Why do you ignore Deutoronomy? People who believed in God then were not Christians?
Click to expand...
The crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus gave the perfect pretext to revise and update the sacred text, particularly all those annoying Deutoronomic rules and regs. Christians are perfectly well versed in how their updated text supercedes the original, and says that certain rituals and laws are washed away with the blood of Jesus. Latest is greatest.
 
SteveGrenard said:
I really must insist that you demonstrate where anyone critcized Jews or Muslims for not eating pork.


It was pointed out how this allegedly god-given directive (for muslims and jews) could be a possible and non-lethal weapon against extremist fanatical muslim terrorists.
Click to expand...

Could be, or would be? Would you use pork, and in what manner? You seem most reluctant to give a straight answer.

SteveGrenard said:
Christians have clearly moved beyond the admonition about eating pork or following other dietary restrictions. Good muslims and jews, followers of the way, the people of the book ...cannot eat lobster, shrimp, clams, oysters, insects, catfish (well any "bottom feeders" in theory), most other invertebrates. They are also not allowed to eat/drink milk, butter, cheese, pizza with meatballs or beef sausage, yoghurt, some kinds of smoothies, milk shakes, or ice cream at the same meal as they would eat meat (beef, lamb or chicken); their households require separate plates and utensils for dairy versus meat products and separate storage ... in modern times that means refrigerators. And what's more, their meat must be ritually slaughtered under the supervision of a holy person and Muslims require that whoever does the slaughter says the name of allah out loud at time he is killing the animal. So its a lot more than just a pork issue. If you are suggesting that modern Christians are violating the word of god because they don't observe ALL these things, I think you've got a tough case on your hands.
Click to expand...

Are there any restrictions on what Christians can eat, even at certain times?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom