Do you believe in Sharia?

Ok wiseguy can you tell me - if a woman's life expectancy was 30 to 35 years of age- then at what age should they start rearing children? 25???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The reason the AVERAGE life expectancy was so low in ancient times was because of high rates of infant mortality. People weren't dying of old age at 35. If you had five kids, and on average, only two survived childhood, it brought down the AVERAGE life expectancy. Even in Biblical times, a significant percentage of people grew to be old.

The Bible refers to three score and ten (seventy years) as the length of a man's life.

10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Psalms 90:10

So let me get this right...you guys are blaming current Muslims, based upon practices that were spelled out in the Koran, 1400 years ago.

You want some messed up stuff...go look at Bible....and I wonder how Christians justify the barbaric morality and social order in their Bible. Which among others, promotes instances of slavery, violence vs. homosexuality & prostitution and wiping out of nations (i.e. Egypt & 1st born male)

Without question, Muslims today who support a literal translation are off their rocker, and yes are dangerous.

But do you clowns actually believe that the roughly 1.6 billion Muslims (23% of world) either practice or approve a literal lifestyle based upon words that were written hundreds of years ago???

So let me get this right...you guys are blaming current Muslims, based upon practices that were spelled out in the Koran, 1400 years ago.

You want some messed up stuff...go look at Bible....and I wonder how Christians justify the barbaric morality and social order in their Bible. Which among others, promotes instances of slavery, violence vs. homosexuality & prostitution and wiping out of nations (i.e. Egypt & 1st born male)

Without question, Muslims today who support a literal translation are off their rocker, and yes are dangerous.

But do you clowns actually believe that the roughly 1.6 billion Muslims (23% of world) either practice or approve a literal lifestyle based upon words that were written hundreds of years ago??? Originally Posted by vkmaster

Bingo. That's the heart of the problem. If only ten percent believe in a literal translation of the Koran, that's one hundred and sixty million potential terrorists. If only one percent believe in a literal translation that's, sixteen million potential terrorists. If it's one in a thousand, thats 1.6 million potential terrorists. It only took a few to take down the World Trade Center.

Christians believe that the Bible is the INSPIRED word of God. Muslims believe that the Koran is the LITERAL word of God. Christianity has undergone a reformation. Christians don't stone adulterers any more; the Muslims still do. Islam needs a reformation.

Interesting analysis...other than pulling it out of your ass, where is the back up for it.

Yea it took just a few to bring down the Twin Towers...horribly sad event in US history. But that was over a decade ago. Without question US intelliengce and military action in Afgan (which now should have been long over and our troops home) played a big part in that. But do you really think that 16 million or 1.6 million "potential" terrorist existed, that there would have not been further action.

And please, don't confuse the political or anti-foreign policy reactions that we have seen...such as Lybia embassy killing (which the vast majority of Muslim Lybians did NOT support) as some sort of religious, kill the Christians movement. When we you guys understand...right or wrong...most of the Muslims problems are NOT based upon our
religion, but are based upon our foreign policies. I am not saying you need to agree with those positions, not all all. But understand where their hatred (not saying accept it) is coming from....in far majority of cases it really is not a religious war, for gosh sakes.

I gotta believe you are smarter than that...please don't disappoint me

BTW, there are plenty of Christian related wars that exist , not only in history, but in modern times as well....don't fool yourself. Heck we even have some nut cases locally who killed an abortion doc and pick-it military funerals, with signs that say stuff like "God hates fags, that is why your soldier boy is dead".

There are wacko cases with all religions

Interesting analysis...other than pulling it out of your ass, where is the back up for it.

Yea it took just a few to bring down the Twin Towers...horribly sad event in US history. But that was over a decade ago. Without question US intelliengce and military action in Afgan (which now should have been long over and our troops home) played a big part in that. But do you really think that 16 million or 1.6 million "potential" terrorist existed, that there would have not been further action.

And please, don't confuse the political or anti-foreign policy reactions that we have seen...such as Lybia embassy killing (which the vast majority of Muslim Lybians did NOT support) as some sort of religious, kill the Christians movement.

I gotta believe you are smarter than that...please don't disappoint me Originally Posted by vkmaster

The point I'm trying to make, is that, it only takes a small percentage of Muslims to be a problem. Surely, you can understand that simple point; please don't dissapoint me.

Damm, wish I did not have to head off to the boats, to make my casino contribution.

But at least we are having, what appears to be a civil conversation

Hopefully we can pick up later....but first define what you mean as a problem. If it is invading another soverign nation and causing death and destruction....I mean come on, the US certainly has some blood on its hands....and I'm not saying "hate USA". But if by problem you mean meddling not only in other countries affairs and causing death and desturction....welll

And please, don't confuse the political or anti-foreign policy reactions that we have seen...such as Lybia embassy killing (which the vast majority of Muslim Lybians did NOT support) as some sort of religious, kill the Christians movement. When we you guys understand...right or wrong...most of the Muslims problems are NOT based upon our
religion, but are based upon our foreign policies. Originally Posted by vkmaster

VK, you are making a distinction between politics and religion that does not exist in the Islamic world.

Mainstream Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state"; the scholars function as both jurists and theologians. In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Government

The wiki article denotes a citation is needed. An almost verbatim quote can be found on page x of Thomas W. Lippman's, Understanding Islam: An Introduction To The Moslem World. Let Lippman serve as a source should you question the wiki article's veracity on this point.

Damm, wish I did not have to head off to the boats, to make my casino contribution.

But at least we are having, what appears to be a civil conversation

Hopefully we can pick up later....but first define what you mean as a problem. If it is invading another soverign nation and causing death and destruction....I mean come on, the US certainly has some blood on its hands....and I'm not saying "hate USA". But if by problem you mean meddling not only in other countries affairs and causing death and desturction....welll Originally Posted by vkmaster

How about Islamic terrorism? I'm pretty sure that's a problem. It's happening all over the world. You may have heard about it; it's been in the news lately.

If you're going to equate America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the moral equivalent of terrorism, I don't think we're going to have a civil conversation. Please don't disapoint me.

Damm, wish I did not have to head off to the boats, to make my casino contribution.

But at least we are having, what appears to be a civil conversation

Hopefully we can pick up later....but first define what you mean as a problem. If it is invading another soverign nation and causing death and destruction....I mean come on, the US certainly has some blood on its hands....and I'm not saying "hate USA". But if by problem you mean meddling not only in other countries affairs and causing death and desturction....welll Originally Posted by vkmaster

You can certainly make the claim you have, but you're ignoring the other things they hate you, and other Americans, for: e.g., "Beverly Hills Housewives", Jack Daniels, Pepsi, McDonalds, Rap videos and the occasional blasphemous film, book or cartoon that might happen to find its way into notoriety: ask Hillary!

So Joe blo....4500 american lives, 1 Trillion dollars, thousands of Iraqi lifes...and assuming you are Christian, those lives matter as well.....for what????

Protection of American security, here at home.....I would hope even the right, would agree, that was a horrible decision.

Now would I call it, an act of terrorism on our part.....of course not. But would Muslims in the Mid-east call it an act of terrorism, well of course they would. Iraq never posed an immediate risk to US security.

My point here, is not to debate your feelings on Iraq war...although I would hope even a reasonable right winger would not say it was not a reaction to an US homeland security issue.

My point is, that is where a lot of the anti-US hatred comes from our foreign policy...and I'm not asking you to disagree with this example.....for the purpose of these postings.....but for you to open your mind to hatred based upon non-religious grounds.

I B Hank....I know we disagree on politics, but I have always respected your presentation. But please, you honestly think that stuff like Iraq war or our support of Israel (and I am not expecting you to agree with me on these issues, in terms of support) does not inflame anger in Mid East that goes way beyond religious issues???

I B Hank....I know we disagree on politics, but I have always respected your presentation. But please, you honestly think that stuff like Iraq war or our support of Israel (and I am not expecting you to agree with me on these issues, in terms of support) does not inflame anger in Mid East that goes way beyond religious issues??? Originally Posted by vkmaster

No, your point is valid. I am just saying it's too narrowly focused. The real conflict is a cultural conflict and goes beyond the U.S. physical presence in Islamic countries. Notice that the Taliban has slaughtered hundreds of school-aged children in Afghanistan to circumvent American attempts to provide schools for and educate school-aged girls in Afghanistan. Islamic Fundamentalist want to continue to subjugate women. They see Western music, fashion, TV, etc., as a Western ploy to erode the control Muslim men have over women in Islamic society.

Another example, Salmon Rushdie has been forced to live much of his life as a social recluse because of his book. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard is similarly living under a death threat, and multiple attempts have been made on his life. More recently, the Islamic world has been demanding that the U.S. abrogate the 1st Amendment and impose penalties on those who blasphemy Mohammed. These last three examples, and there are more, serve to illustrate that there are those in the Islamic world who rabidly object to the freedoms enjoyed by the West, and they would do so even if the U.S. wasn't in or never had been in Afghanistan or Iraq.

More recently, the Islamic world has been demanding that the U.S. abrogate the 1st Amendment and impose penalties on those who blasphemy Mohammed. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

*blaspheme*

Never argue religion or politics with an idiot or a fool. We have both occurring simultaneously among all of our TeaParrotriot bretheren.

Don't worry, they've got their minds made up. It's OK - like they have any real impact on what's going on anyway.

So let me get this right...you guys are blaming current Muslims, based upon practices that were spelled out in the Koran, 1400 years ago.

You want some messed up stuff...go look at Bible....and I wonder how Christians justify the barbaric morality and social order in their Bible. Which among others, promotes instances of slavery, violence vs. homosexuality & prostitution and wiping out of nations (i.e. Egypt & 1st born male)

Without question, Muslims today who support a literal translation are off their rocker, and yes are dangerous.

But do you clowns actually believe that the roughly 1.6 billion Muslims (23% of world) either practice or approve a literal lifestyle based upon words that were written hundreds of years ago??? Originally Posted by vkmaster

Hey dumbass, answers these questions..........


Why don't we hear moderate muslim voices condemning the radicals?

Why did we watch so many muslims celebrating in the streets on 9/11/01?

Why are so many radical muslim running muslim countries?

Why is World conquest in muslim doctrine?

Why is there a holocaust of Christians going on in the Middle East?

Why are the muslims so uneducated throughout the World?

Why do the muslim always get into wars when they bump into other religions throughout the world?

Why do you think muslims believe every human being should submit to their religion or die?

Hey dumbass, answers these questions..........


Why don't we hear moderate muslim voices condemning the radicals?

Why did we watch so many muslims celebrating in the streets on 9/11/01?

Why are so many radical muslim running muslim countries?

Why is World conquest is muslim doctrine?

Why is there a holocaust of Christians going on in the Middle East?

Why are the muslims so uneducated throughout the World?

Why do the muslim always get into wars when they bump into other religions throughout the world?

Why do you think muslims believe every human being should submit to their religion or die? Originally Posted by ChoomCzar

Hmmmm, could it be because if there were any such things published, they would be published by the "lamestream media" and you wouldn't pay any attention to them anyhow and just call them "lies." As usual, your counterpunch is sort of limp in the wrist.