coach, can't see any relation to your answer to question 1 and the question. I'm trying to find out why you think it is OK for society to intefer in domestic arrangements between consenting adults for example polygamy. You yourself said that god allows people free choice now and will address things he's unhappy about later so I don't see how you can justify attempts to enforce what you percieve to be his will on others now. Add in that the bible does not speak against polygamy clearly anyway except for church elders and that both David (a man after Gods heart) and Solomon (supposedly one of the wisest men ever to live) both practiced it.

The other questions were to try and show fida mae that her views on christainity are not universal (I suspect that you are more mainstream than her - scary thought).

She suggested that we would have a chance to choose after seeing Jesus. Not the gospel I remember and I think that your answer would be the one given by most active christains.

Both fide mae and you have made a big deal about muslims possibly having a conflict of interest between the Quran and secular law. FH tells us that he has not spotted anything that he considers a conflict in Australia.

It was always my understanding as a christain that Gods law over-rode mans laws where a clear conflict ocurred and that seemed to be fairly mainstream teaching. Not a lot of issue with that in modern Australia but the communist block seemed to raise some cases.

If a theoretical conflict between Islamic laws and Australian law is such a cause for concern then the same applies to christains who believe that Gods law is a higher authority and to those of us who might choose to disobey a law if it went against our values to strongly (Nazi Germany). The issue that fide mae and you are giving FH such a hard time about is one that if push came to shove could apply to most of us.

R0bert

In my example I was generalising a case of comparisons of: whose laws prevail? If the Muslim families were actually devout Muslims and disrespected Australian laws to take advantage of the infidel State and laws so they could practise shari'ah in their own way in a Western society. I believe their view of shari'ah would prevail above Australian laws. Though according to Australian laws they had observed it legally but not adhered to the spirit of the Australian laws.

To examine how shari'ah actually works in reality; I after reading the Qur'an and leading Muslim scholars, I believe the Taliban were actually interpreting both most correctly. Any other variation is merely interpreted for social convenience. In Islam gods laws as prescribed by the Koran must not be changed by any man. This was the problem Mohamet had with the Jews, as they both agreed upon their strict monotheistic views.

______________________

From the demonstration of Jesus attitudes he gave two principles upon which to interpret all laws: Devotion to the Creator, and devoted love to ones neighbour. Unless laws reflect the best wisdom available to demonstrate these principles then we are not moving in the direction of God. There are no eternal absolutes in any laws that govern nations or groups, not even Mosaic, Talmud, Shari'ah or Australian. The only judgment a Christian can make on a law is: does the wisdom and spirit of the law enhance the principles announced by Jesus Christ? Does it provide repentance, forgiveness and full reconciliation so that true love prevails.

To understand the principles as set down by Jesus Christ to interpret divine laws i.e.
1. Love God with all your heart, mind and body
2. Love your neighbour equally as you love yourself

Note he disregarded ritual laws by gathering grain to eat on the Sabbath, healing a sich man on the Sabbath. He did not sanction ritual prayers or fastings as the Judaisers practised as he saw prayers and fasting as a private matter of the heart and not legal ritual or dogma enforced by National religious leaders. It was this attitude that got him into trouble with the Jewish laws. He said render to Caesar what Caesar requires [eg pay your taxes] and to God what is rightfully His [that is the devotion of your life to demonstrate care and service to others]. He taught the government of God is not invested in human laws of governing people but in personal conscience and heart demonstrating devotion to God and others. He said, "The kingdom of God is within your hearts."

Shari'ah as with the Torah laws are not the absolutes of divine law as it violates the capacity of the human mind and spirit with absolute devotion to choose how one serves God. Both are based in religious ritual expected by others and not in personal choice that demonstrates the love of ones heart.

To understand how shari'ah would be applied in Australia we would see the behaviour as demonstrated by Muslims at the Lakemba Mosque as they are the most vocal about their religion. The vocal voice of an opinion is how the followers will be expected to respond in applying shari'ah.

Fellow Human

I understand from my Muslim friends that Shariah law is mostly compatible with Australian law, however I would like to know why it is such an issue. Has it become topical simply because of the current wave of disparaging all things Islam? Or would the majority of Muslims like to see Shariah become the dominant form of law in Australia? I would like to say that there are some aspects about Shariah I think are very good - no interest on loans for example - that would make such a difference to my mortgage!

The reason I raise this as a concern to you, is because Christians are doing exactly that; enforcing their religious-based beliefs as a part of Australian governmental policy. An easy example of this was the TGA versus pollie approval of a medication.

Wouldn't the goal for any religion be the dominance of its beliefs over that of others?

It looks appalling to a unreligious person such as myself. Last night on the 7.30 Report the emotional abuse meted out by a sub-group of the Presbyterian Church in Camberwell called the "Fellowship" was brought to light. Apparently any members who had the temerity to question anything that the Fellowship had to say about their interpretation of the bible were ostracised and told that they must be followers of satan. Primitive stuff.

Look at the phenomenal abuse I receive when I criticise Christians and defend the right of religious belief of Muslims.

The real shame is that as a society we could pick the best aspects from both Shariah and Christianity - discarding the bad.

Boaz David

- when you ask me for a response and I find the time & courtesy to reply. I would appreciate some kind of answer. If you were merely being rhetorical, please indicate such, so that I do not waste my valuable time on you!

Philo,

U wrote: "...other variation...merely interpreted for social convenience."

Yes, I've always believed Talibans are TRUE adherents of Islam. FH and many are mere 'idol-worshippers' in Islam, here to enjoy good livings under secular laws.
.

Fellow_Human,

Your lies are getting bigger and more blazon by the days.

U wrote: "The Quran states there is no compulsion in religion...."
U wrote: "The death penalty is...in direct conflict with the Quran..."

Now go to http://www.islam-qa.com/
Then select English... then search for Question# 34830 (Ruling on physical jihad)
(Here's the link http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&QR=34830 )

Quote_1: "Physical jihad is the pinnacle of Islam"

Quote_2: "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do"

Quote_3: "...some of the Muslims are embarrassed to quote the verses and ahaadeeth on jihad in front of their kaafir friends. Their faces turn red because they are too shy to mention the rulings on the jizyah, slavery and killing prisoners of war. They wish that they could erase these verses and ahaadeeth from the Qur'aan and Sunnah so that they would not be criticized by this world with its backward principles despite its claims to be civilized. If they cannot erase them then they try to misinterpret them and distort their meanings so that they suit the whims and desires of their masters....the enemies of Islam."

Note the words MISINTERPRET and DISTORT.

FH, when you exercise 'common sense' and 'reason' in Islam, what you do is MISINTERPRET and DISTORT the verses to DECEIVE us. Because you are too shy to mention the rulings on killing in Islam.

(Does your face turn red each time you lie to us on this forum?)
.

R0bert,

U wrote: "...Gods law is a higher authority..."

I gather you didn't appreciate Fide Mae's post. I quote in part: "Christians do not have laws....Christ came to write the law on our hearts...without...idea of religious law"

BD-We must both like bones**sigh**:

1.I think that's your translation BD. 'More prone to'-a nice way of softening the blow.

I wouldn't compare Women's and men's sex drives--men on average are definitely more wanton. Also physiologically women's sex drives decrease when their children are young. Add to that, even in this culture where sex isn't taboo-the opposite, I know many (not all!) young sole mothers who have given up sex for the sake of their children. No other 'young and virile' group has a greater tendency to this--how much more in a society where it was taboo.

Being alone makes them more vulnerable-but not just to sex outside marriage,in most cases their number one focus is on their children--if they believe having a new father for them is a good solution, are they wrong?

2.Either way, young widows being 'more prone to' is given as the reason **the christian fellowship is not to support them**, you say 'of course they will' when Paul says 'no don't'-all young widows-no exceptions. If your church is different it doesn't follow Paul's advice. I commend them for that.

3.Paul condemns them if they remarry: 'having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge' then tells them to remarry. What hypocrisy. They need support, their children need support. At the time of their greatest hardship and greatest grief all Paul can talk about is 'wanton' 'idle-gossips' and 'don't give them any money' and 'they are bad people if they remarry'.

Point 2&3 I've brought up before, you haven't addressed them properly.

GZTan-paragraph breakdown:

1.Humorous joke(Good)
2.Blatant abuse(abuse)
3.Hijacking-ignoring what FH says was in answer to another post on that *issue*.(abuse)
4.Statement and straw man/hijack
5.Fact if referring to solely Australian law and thereby enforceability.(okay)
6.Insult(abuse)
7.Has happened with the individual only-gross generalisation(abuse). The 'ie' is fact.
8.Fact. Nonfact, not recognised under our law. Gross generalisation-not all moslems.(abuse)
9.Bigotted, Anglo-Saxons/others also abuse Centrelink with serial monogamy&bigamy--leaving unsupported children.(abuse)
10.Vague statement
11.Straw man facts-answering your own questions.
12.Partial truth.
13.Quote
14.One fact among vague statements and some insults.

cont...