re: Passing a law designating Islam as a political movement

Being a Muslim is strictly a religion, not a race or an ethnicity. A Muslim is a person who follows Islam, believing in one God,( should be god), and the teachings of

quote:

---

the Prophet

---

AI puts in everything it is taught to.

Find a reason/

quote:

---

What you have advocated for is to not allow that denial of entry based on the very thing that keeps them from assimilating: their religion.

You can't have it both ways, you either have to break the First Amendment's protection of religion for this group or they come in and do as they have done everywhere else. This goes back to that "hard truth" that you either completely and blindly follow the First Amendment's freedom of religion protections (which was your initial stance) or you come up with a way to make an exception for a religion whose goal is to use that same freedom against you.

---

You and the false dilemmas.

quote:

---

Because I'm talking mostly with Christians

---

ABOUT MUSLIMS. Sorry for yelling. But, do you see what I mean? It’s like you guys are programmed: “oh look a thread about religion- let me be sure to throw shade on Christianity!”

quote:

---

Christians. If I was talking to Muslims, they'd ask why I'm compelled to talk about the fricked-up parts in their religion.

---

Have you? You should try it. They are everything your typical strawman of a Christian is. Taqiyyah. Look it up. Their religion literally promotes deception to accomplish their goals. If you can get one to engage with logic- they melt. But, they’re smart enough to use your hatred for Christianity as a stepping stone. You will be devoured.

quote:

---

Christianity has done what you are talking about since about 400AD.

---

That’s a bold statement- one that you casually throw out with no support. Lay out a timeline of events and let’s discuss. It’s also worth pointing out that you automatically assume that Islam and Christianity are on equal ground. That’s something you should explain as well.

quote:

---

It's not a direct religious problem i

---

It is with Islam. That’s the point. Christianity says you shouldn’t- Islam says well cut your head off if you do.

quote:

---

When you look at the claims people make about Islam and what Muslims want to do, it is always a mixture of church and state.

---

Because Islam is a political ideology. You’re almost there…

quote:

---

This was an issue the founding fathers knew about and were well aware of. The people who founded this country either fled from Christian nations who forced religions on people and persecuted people who disagreed or were decedents of them.

---

It was christians fleeing from Christians- you are correct. But it was Christians fleeing from Christians, so other Christians could be Christians in America, however they chose to be Christians- which was not the current “range” of Christians that we have today. Much less was this some intended window of opportunity for a completely incompatible religion to overthrow the US government and replace the constitution with sharia law. You really should stop arguing with me and help us get these evil, goat around, child “marrying,” inbreeding retards out of our country. God told us to spread out for a good reason. They have literally nothing to offer, nor do they want anything we have and cherish. Stop it. Get some help. I hope you know I’m just messing with you.

quote:

---

The solution already exists.

---

Correct. Jesus Christ is the solution. The problem with Christianity is Christians. The problem with Muslims is Islam.

quote:

---

The fact our politicians are allowing an invasion of not just Muslims, but many others as well is a completely different problem. It's on purpose and that is what needs to be addressed,

---

In this we 100% agree. But I still say the solution is the same as above. The closer that more people (especially people in power- politically and monetarily) follow the teachings of Christ- the better things are for everyone else that follows the teachings of Christ. FWIW I suck at it. But I try because I see it. It works when you do it. It’s hard. You can’t legislate moral perfection.

quote:

---

not taking away the 1a.

---

But it’s not. That’s what this is all about. Stop calling it a religion. It’s more than that. History and doctrine corroborate that statement.

I think I see your motivation- you’re afraid that this could lead to some state sanctioned religion? Certainly not if the aim is to essentially eliminate a “religion” by (properly- in this case) identifying it as a political ideology (like communism) that is at its core incompatible with the US Constitution.

Again, if speech can be regulated- so can religion. If hate speech is illegal- then hate religion is illegal. If the Vatican starts chanting “death to America” we’ll have this same conversation. But, if your “religion” says death to America, and plainly and openly strives to subvert our constitution, with the stated goal of converting all disbelievers (including you homo atheists) to Islam- I don’t understand why we don’t ALL have a serious problem with that.

How are you going to feel, watching your great granddaughter getting married to a 50 something year old man- all because you were mad at the God you claim not to believe in?

quote:

---

No, you pick and choose which parts you want to apply based on how well it meets your current social biases while using the bible as something you can hide behind to justify it.

---

Not at all. I've studied the Bible and biblical theology for decades. If you want to debate something, just let me know.

quote:

---

How many slaves do you think I should be allowed to own?

---

It depends what kind of "slave" you are referring to. You can have indentured servants who willingly work for you. You have no right to kidnap a person and own them as chattel, though. That was always the case for even OT Israel.

quote:

---

Should I use flock cameras to monitor my neighbors planting habits, and is it ok if I use AI to kill him if he doesn't do it properly?

---

You can monitor your neighbor as much or little as you please, in accordance with your local laws. But no, you have no right to kill your neighbor because you don't like what they are doing with their yard.

quote:

---

If I can no longer afford one of my concubines, do you believe I should be allowed to sell her into slavery, or must she be set free?

---

Marriage should only be dissolved for adultery or desertion. If you have a wife, you must remain married.

quote:

---

In what way are you acting like him? This just sounds like a way for you to excuse yourself.

---

Excuse myself from what, exactly? I gave you the charge of telling me if I'm not acting Christ-like, so why are you throwing that back to me to assume guilt rather than innocence?

And I believe I'm acting Christ-like by loving God's law and loving my neighbor enough to not want them to die and go to Hell. I'm also attempting to be very patient with you, even though you have abandoned attempts to support your claims at this point, and have resorted to name-calling.

Like I said before, I'm not perfect, but I'm sincere in my obedience. Where I sin, I repent. If I'm in sin, let me know specifically.

quote:

---

Meanwhile you want laws to punish others even when there is no harm done to others.

---

Half of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with harming your neighbor. Where you got this exclusive "no harm" policy, I don't know, but that's only a portion of what is moral according to God. I also care about God's holiness.

quote:

---

Jesus was like let him without sin throw the first stone, you're like let me go first and then you just saw "well I try to be like Jesus but I'm not good enough".

---

This is a typical misunderstanding. The civil law required the witnesses to sin to cast the first stones (Deut. 17:7). It was clear in the scenario that was brought before Jesus that those "witnesses" were not in a position to do that. They were also supposed to stone both the man and the woman (Lev. 20:10), but they only brought the woman to Jesus, so they were not obeying the law.

But again, if you have a particular sin you want to accuse me of, please let me know so I can repent of it if it's true.

quote:

---

Yes, those are all the reasons why I equate you to being like a Pharisee. And that is also what they claimed to be seeking while acting in the same manner as you.

---

You keep accusing me of something without really accusing me. You need to charge me with a specific sin if you think I've committed it. What have I done to be a "Pharisee", other than you just saying I'm acting like one?

quote:

---

Sounds like you worship a collection of books.

---

I don't, but the Bible is God's communication to us, so we need to take it seriously.

quote:

---

In this thread alone you wanted to change the entire basis of our countries founded to declare "Christ is King".

---

Entire basis? Like I said before, the Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed with our creator with inalienable rights. I want to define exactly who that creator is and acknowledge that He is also Lord over that creation. That doesn't have to change anything by itself, and it certainly doesn't change "the entire basis" of country's founding.

quote:

---

Yet Jesus himself wanted nothing to do with such things and would be completely against such things.

---

Seriously? In Matt. 28, Jesus said all authority in Heaven and on Earth had been given to Him. He reigns in Heaven right now and is called "King of kings" and "Lord of lords". Do you really think he would be against being called King? He already is referred to as such and rules as King right now. You'll need to justify your position on this, because it doesn't seem to align with what the Bible teaches about Jesus.

quote:

---

You want to make laws to punish people for social crimes, Jesus never did such things.

---

Did He, now? Perhaps you should re-read the sermon on the mount, starting in Matthew chapter 5. He not only upheld "victimless crimes", but He expanded them. He commanded not to be sinfully angry with others or to lust in your heart after someone who isn't your spouse. He condemned "victimless" sins like those, and He upheld the entire OT law, which included "victimless" sins/crimes. I really think you need to study the Bible some before you make claims like these.

quote:

---

What did Jesus force on people, or preach and tell people should be forced? That's what the pharisees did, constantly condemning people - even Jesus for not doing as they saw fit due to the scriptures etc.

---

Again, Jesus did a lot of condemning. He did a lot of "sin no more". He condemned the Pharisees regularly. He called people to obedience and holiness. I don't know where you got your theology from, but it sounds more like a caricature than true biblical teaching.

quote:

---

Sure, I'll ask AI for you

---

Come on bro. You just admitted you have no idea what you’re talking about. Good night.

quote:

---

I've read your debates on here with other Christians. In your own words you are just focused on what you see as a bigger threat currently. Remove that threat and the Muslims will become your biggest threat and you've already demonstrated how you think such things should be handled.

---

I care about truth. Arguing against Muslims might be a hot topic right now, but I argue against all false religions. However, I don't think that all false religions need to be entirely shut down by the state. Islam is in a pretty unique situation there, as it isn't merely a religion, but a political ideology, as has been said by myself and others already.

quote:

---

No, I understand it right and you keep saying the same thing. Make no laws about religion into a declaration that a single religions deity is king.

---

Your understanding is clearly incorrect, because it flies in the face of history. Those same founders who supported the 1st amendment and many who followed after were also fine with calling for days of religious fasting and prayer for the entire country, and acknowledging their Creator in public statements in their official offices. They were not religiously neutral and equal-opportunists when it came to religion.

quote:

---

Let me be the first of many to tell you to go frick yourself. You are the reason for the 1st amendment and that is the reason you want to change it. You can sit around like the devil and twist the meanings all you want, but I see you for the demon you really are.

---

Again, if you have an argument to make, then make it. This, here, isn't an argument, but an ad hominem attack against me personally. You haven't even supported the personal attacks against me.

quote:

---

You literally want to change the constitution to declare "Christ is King" in the exact same spot that previously declared no laws should be made towards religion.

And you lie and try to claim otherwise.

---

It may be a technicality, but I didn't actually say that I would replace the 1st amendment with "Christ is King". I said I would be in favor of adding an acknowledgment of Christ in the preamble. I would also support the particular establishment clause, but I didn't say that it needed to be removed, only interpreted in light of Christ as King.

If you are going to accuse me of lying, you really need to support your claim. But, as I'm noticing, this seems to be par for the course with you. It's all hot air and no substance.

quote:

---

Concubines had legal rights as wives, though to a lesser degree than primary wives. They were typically slaves that were elevated, and they had protections that non-wives did not have in the household.

---

The correct answer was they should be set free.

I noticed you think polygamy should be illegal.

quote:

---

Got nothing else to say about the other things I highlighted? I spent quite a bit of time responding to your false accusations and misunderstandings. You aren't even going to acknowledge those?

---

No. I don't find much use in your posts. You twist things and are generally dishonest. For example, you claimed Jesus telling people to repent is the same for wanting to punish them for it.

quote:

---

The correct answer was they should be set free.

---

If you're following the ancient Israeli model, then she is your wife and you should not set her free at all. Jesus explained this: Moses (the civil law) allowed for divorce for lesser offenses due to the hardness of the people's hearts, but it was not intended to be that way. That's why Jesus said that adultery was the only justification, and then allowed for desertion by the Spirit speaking through Paul.

quote:

---

I noticed you think polygamy should be illegal.

---

I do. Polygamy was tolerated a long time ago for the propagation of the human race and for the hardness of man's heart, but the biblical example shows that polygamy almost always led to problems. It's why a monogamous marriage (Adam and Eve) was always intended.

quote:

---

No. I don't find much use in your posts.

---

Use? We're having a discussion or debate. The "use" is in the finding of truth.

quote:

---

You twist things and are generally dishonest. For example, you claimed Jesus telling people to repent is the same for wanting to punish them for it.

---

All sin is punished, though, either in the person, or in Jesus on the cross. Jesus condemned sin and commanded repentance, with the end result being everlasting torment in Hell for those that do not repent and believe in Him. That's a worse punishment than the death penalty on earth. Not sure what else you want.

And no, I'm not twisting things. I'm arguing in good faith. If you disagree, so be it, but I'm not being dishonest. If you think I'm lying, call me out for it, but so far you haven't really been able to do that. I'm glad you attempted to give an example, but the example you just gave doesn't really meet the criteria. I didn't twist Jesus' words and I didn't lie about the situation. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the Bible, which leads you to think I'm twisting it, when in actuality, you just don't know much about it but what you've heard as common tropes used against Christians, like "judge not lest you be judged", and "you who are without sin, cast the first stone".

quote:

---

You and the false dilemmas.

---

If it's a false dilemma, prove it false. All you have to do is show where your third option has ever worked. Up to this point, all you've done is make a baseless claim.

The floor is yours.

quote:

---

So because the constitution doesn't come with a dictionary, we get to pretend they mean whatever we as a way of bypassing the constitution to take away the rights of people?

And you don't see or have a problem with that?

Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are worried how other people may choose to use theirs? You'll give yours up just so they can't have it?

I want no part of it.

---

Did SFP dictate that as you typed?