How can Muslims be non-radical?

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

Funny that you claim a straw man where there is none. His request was answered and an example of an even greater violation of the Law than beating a servant was given with an explanation of its explicitly commanded punishment. You are covered with your name.

Wrong. You claimed the following:

"Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man."

He provided you with biblical verses giving man the right to smite his servants so long as they live. Smiting can be used as punishment. Unless you can show how the bible explicitly says that man cannot use smiting as a punishment, you stand refuted.

This rust covered man just successfully showed how you were wrong. Sad.

[EpicurusGeorge]

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

Nor does it say the man has the right to beat his slaves as a punishment, but as a matter of ownership. This law refers to the act of slave-driving, that is, beating a slave not as punishment, but as a driver beats oxen to plow a field. If the owner drives his slaves so cruelly as that they die, he is then subjected to punishment; of which there exists no description. One does not even know what the punishment is, let alone who carries it out.

You fail to realize that the bible is advocating not only slavery, but justifying the abuse of slaves. The slave owner is allowed to act "out on the whim". The whole love thy neighbor thing is completely thrown out the window.

[Hexadecimal]

Originally Posted by EpicurusGeorge

You fail to realize that the bible is advocating not only slavery, but justifying the abuse of slaves. The slave owner is allowed to act "out on the whim". The whole love thy neighbor thing is completely thrown out the window.

Yes, the Bible does condone slavery. For the individual who has no motivation to do anything with his life; not to work, not to dream, not to prosper, the most humane thing to do with that man is to literally force him to do something...anything at all other than rot away in his sloth. If it takes a rod to his back to make him move, so be it. That is not punishment, that is tutelage. How else is a man who makes a burden of work taught to carry himself but by the full infliction of his burden? Sloth's greatest wage is that of slavery: subservience to one who will utilize your body. You think it is done of malice, but its roots are that of love; to give the lost and feeble man a purpose again - to burn hot within his soul the desire and appreciation for freedom and the gift of will.

I don't care if you think I'm evil for seeing slavery as good: history has shown that every society without condoned slavery has a massive bottom rung class that eats away every resource worked for by the other members of society. This class rots in filth, violence, and self-deprecation because it has no will to work nor better itself nor find any purpose and intention to its existence; it suffers cruelly under its own sloth and dies in the same poverty it lives despite mass opportunity to improve its condition. At least a slave has a role to fill and is an integral part of society. Slavery is for the benefit of slave, owner, and society. This is not to say that it has not been practiced poorly in some societies; in the United States, the owners became greedy at the profits they made from slaves, and thus refused education and opportunity to those willing to better their lives - this is not the fault of slavery itself, but the fault of the owners refusing to show the love that is understanding and compassion. Further, in the United States, their slavery rested solely on racial status; condoned for some and not others. It was not based on putting the slothful to work, but upon building a slave economy.

You are blind if you do not see that some men are moved only by the rod. For that man, a beating IS a showing of love. If he ever burns warm enough to desire a better life, he should be given that opportunity. Until then his work is not of his own will, but of his master's. What you see as abuse is the only motivation this degree of sloth will respond to. You see only the action with your intentions placed upon it, because you do not know what love is. You hate God, and thus hate all mankind. You seek to let men die in sloth, to let men empty their souls in self-worship, to let men burn away in lust and its death - you seek to raise the heart of man as a law unto itself, not knowing that you, as every other man, is evil in his heart and knows only how to hate. You trap men with your teaching and they are swallowed by death, all who listen as if you are wise. You, like all our kind, are naught but evil and proud in your heart until the Father breaks it to humble us and bring us to Him; and He then brings new life by a new heart; one of flesh to replace that of stone. Without that breath of His life, you are dead, and all your words and all your thoughts are that of death; seeking to bring all to the grave with it so that all man may suffer in rebellion as you do. For you think that Law can break Law, not understanding it; with your ignorance you speak against it and confess against God those things you do not comprehend for in your heart you know only emptiness; for emptiness is that which thinks it is full, where fullness is that which knows it is empty.

[Hexadecimal]

Originally Posted by Rust

Wrong. You claimed the following:

"Nowhere does the OT state that the punishments are supposed to be carried out at the whim of man."

He provided you with biblical verses giving man the right to smite his servants so long as they live. Smiting can be used as punishment. Unless you can show how the bible explicitly says that man cannot use smiting as a punishment, you stand refuted.

This rust covered man just successfully showed how you were wrong. Sad.

No, actually I don't stand refuted. You're committing a logical fallacy, Rust.

The slave is subject to God's law, yes; but also his owners. You are taking the owner-slave relationship's variation from the God-man relationship and treating them as the same. In the case of owner-slave, the slave is property, and may be beaten for any reason the owner wishes so long as it does not kill the slave - and the slave is also to be given freedom after 6 years of bondage. That is, the slave has only two rights under God's law: life and freedom at seven years. He is given no punishment under God's law for any of His actions, as the slave is under the stewardship of his owner. There do exist, in the Law, examples of the difficulties a harsh master will face, and the eases a soft master will enjoy - but these are not written laws that the owner must obey for a man is given into slavery because his own will fails, as such, he is subjected to the will that does not. Still though, the OT never states that the master should punish his slaves.

I do appreciate him bringing up the subject of slavery though, as it is the one area of the Law that is suggestive only.

[Promethazine]

didn't even read any of this, but

how can christians be non-radical? because most people don't really take it that seriously even if they do attend church and shit, regardless of how binding the bible is to controlling ones daily acts you don't have to- he's not really there.

[krd]

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

Yes, the Bible does condone slavery. For the individual who has no motivation to do anything with his life; not to work, not to dream, not to prosper, the most humane thing to do with that man is to literally force him to do something

So you're saying that according to the bible only lazy people can become slaves?

You hate God, and thus hate all mankind.

No.

You seek to let men die in sloth, to let men empty their souls in self-worship, to let men burn away in lust and its death - you seek to raise the heart of man as a law unto itself, not knowing that you, as every other man, is evil in his heart and knows only how to hate. You trap men with your teaching and they are swallowed by death, all who listen as if you are wise. You, like all our kind, are naught but evil and proud in your heart until the Father breaks it to humble us and bring us to Him; and He then brings new life by a new heart; one of flesh to replace that of stone. Without that breath of His life, you are dead, and all your words and all your thoughts are that of death; seeking to bring all to the grave with it so that all man may suffer in rebellion as you do. For you think that Law can break Law, not understanding it; with your ignorance you speak against it and confess against God those things you do not comprehend for in your heart you know only emptiness; for emptiness is that which thinks it is full, where fullness is that which knows it is empty.

Did you write this on the fly? You certainly have a way with words.
Still, that isn't right, it's not even wrong.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

You are taking the owner-slave relationship's variation from the God-man relationship and treating them as the same.

Wrong. I haven't done anything of the sort. I merely showed how man has been given free reign by god to perform an act. That act can be punishment if used as a penalty, which the OT does not preclude. Thus, that a punishment can be carried out by the "whim of man" stands demonstrated.

My argument doesn't require that "owner-slave relationship is the same as the God-man relationship", nor any other of your accusations. My argument only requires that man be given authority to use an action that can be used as punishment is he so wishes (i.e. if it's man's whim). He has.

[EpicurusGeorge]

Originally Posted by Hexadecimal

I don't care if you think I'm evil for seeing slavery as good: history has shown that every society without condoned slavery has a massive bottom rung class that eats away every resource worked for by the other members of society. This class rots in filth, violence, and self-deprecation because it has no will to work nor better itself nor find any purpose and intention to its existence; it suffers cruelly under its own sloth and dies in the same poverty it lives despite mass opportunity to improve its condition. At least a slave has a role to fill and is an integral part of society. Slavery is for the benefit of slave, owner, and society. This is not to say that it has not been practiced poorly in some societies; in the United States, the owners became greedy at the profits they made from slaves, and thus refused education and opportunity to those willing to better their lives - this is not the fault of slavery itself, but the fault of the owners refusing to show the love that is understanding and compassion. Further, in the United States, their slavery rested solely on racial status; condoned for some and not others. It was not based on putting the slothful to work, but upon building a slave economy.

No, I do not think you're evil for thinking slavery is a good thing. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'm simply saying that the bible does allow man to carry out punishment on the whim. There really is no need for you to write a page on how slavery is justifiable. I just wanted to show you my interpretation of a particular verse. Personally I only see one way the verse can be interpreted, but perhaps I’m mistaken.

[DerDrache]

Bringing this back on topic:

Does anyone know what the consequences are of not following Muslim law? In Christianity, you can ask for forgiveness for sins, since it's established that humans constantly sin. Is the same system in place in Islam?

In other words, when Muslims refuse to kill apostates and oppress women as dictated by the Koran and Hadith, what are the technical consequences?

[Sex Panther]

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Bringing this back on topic:

Does anyone know what the consequences are of not following Muslim law? In Christianity, you can ask for forgiveness for sins, since it's established that humans constantly sin. Is the same system in place in Islam?

In other words, when Muslims refuse to kill apostates and oppress women as dictated by the Koran and Hadith, what are the technical consequences?

Don't say the Koran or the Hadith dictates that you must oppress women. That's bullshit. I'm too lazy, but i'll give you this.

"O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them in order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency; And treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it."[Qur'an 4:19]

"...O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers".

Keep in mind i'm not saying all muslims treat their women fairly. I'm telling you what the koran says.

Anyway, the consequence of not following gods word is obviously winding up in hell. I think the way it works in traditional islam is that all your good deeds and bad deeds are tallied up, then weighed on judgement day. I don't think you need to pray for forgiveness per se, but Allah will supposedly forgive if you if you repent. It's a more personal thing in Islam, you don't need to be forgiven by any kind of religious leader.

They made the analogy that there is an angel on each of your shoulders, and one counts the good deeds, one counts the bad.