I understood that. I was pointing out that yyy’s main argument revolves around a question in the survey that, IMO, deliberately included the word “aspects” to enable just such an argument.
This reminds me a bit of that ‘political spectrum’ thread from a couple of days back. I wonder if those guys aren’t exactly answering the question because the question is badly-framed?
What they might be suggesting, for example, is that UK law is royally fucked. It doesn’t work. They might simply be expressing a view that if, for example, the family down the road are terrorizing the entire neighbourhood, it’s not much use giving them a community service order and telling them to smarten up and be nice. They might not actually want them hauled out for a public beheading, if push came to shove, but they perhaps want to see some sort of justice - any justice - meted out.
yeah, different waves of immigration from different regions and strata of society. Also US has a smaller percentage of Muslims than major European countries
For sure.One question could be “What do those surveyed perceive as Sharia law?”
I don’t feel, though, that you would see anything like these kinds of figures calling for religious laws to be introduced if you surveyed the general public. Yes, a few Christian extremists, but hardly any. Perhaps more in the USA.
I would just ignore those unnecessarily long whataboutery posts. They just derail conversations and offer little of value
Clearly, I should limit myself to 140 characters. Or is it 280 now? 
Andrew, I’m still waiting for you to explain your “one flesh” doctrine. Maybe once you’ve done that I’ll give you a serious reply. Try to make it more detailed than this, okay?
Cool deflection.
You seem to have no issues digging for the minuscule percentage of Christians that believe they still need to follow mosaic law completely ignoring the apostle Paul writing a letter that clearly says no. I’m sure you got enough time to read pretty clear interpretations.
It’s gettint old you keep arguing using my religious beliefs instead of the issue.
The what about that 5 people who believe in this. What about this guy saying this that’s clearly not a mainstream view of any sect. Lame lame lame.
If you want to make a thread about why you don’t like Christianity go ahead. None of your points have to do with Islam’s problem or even none problems. You seem to just want to go after Christians instead of why there’s clearly a issue with Islam.
You just like to argue stupid none productive points. If you feel Islam isn’t a problem and like it make your case. If you do, say it. Trying to ask me about mosaic law lol. Unless I’m a rabbi, I don’t know any past maybe some of the 10 commandments off the top of my head. Christians are not bound to it. When I point this out you had to double down and bring what about this tiny minuscule percentage of Christians that do. You love to bring up like the 10 people that do believe in something that don’t matter all the time.
2 Likes
It depends how you frame the question. One thing I remember very vividly from Psychology classes was the module on constructing questionnaires. It is very, very difficult to get right, and you’re supposed to go through some complicated testing procedures to make sure you’re measuring what you believe you are measuring. Most questionnaires are so badly-written as to be useless, because they’re written by amateurs who have no idea what they’re doing. Even the professional ones are wrong 90% of the time. A single question, in particular, conveys no information without further context.
I remember “Yes, Minister” did a sketch around exactly this point, where Humphrey was coaching the Minister on how to frame plebiscites to get the desired response.
If you asked the general public:
- Would you support mandatory capital punishment for murder?
- Would you support corporal punishment for repeated burglary?
- Would you support castration for violent rapists?
You’d get at least 20% positives. In other words, they’d support Sharia Law or something like it*. Just not by that name.
*(at least at the moment they’re answering the questions - in real life, different story)
EDIT: it’s actually higher than 20%: 50 years on, Capital punishment still favoured | YouGov. The correlations table at the bottom of the article is amusing.
1 Like
That’s a missed opportunity not to have a profile of opponents of capital punishment. I’d like to see that.
1 Like
quorn and beanburgers feature heavily in the favourite foods list, I imagine.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
For the record, despite being (apparently) a far-right reactionary, I don’t support capital punishment; not because I think some people don’t deserve it, but because I don’t want agents of the government having that sort of power. That’s the sort of subtlety that gets lost in questionnaires.
1 Like
we could always privatize it!
Oh yeah, very cool. Totally unlike your “screaming Jesus is the lord when they blow themselves up” post. 
What is the point of a post like that? Help me out here. Could it be…
A) There are no non-Muslim terrorists in the world?
B) Terrorists who use non-suicidal methods are somehow less of a problem? 
C) The difficulty in finding cultural equivalents of allahu akbar somehow makes every point I raise irrelevant? 
Andrew, I’m not here to tell you that your religious beliefs – or anyone’s – are right or wrong. I am here to tell you, since you made an unusual claim and presented it as “Christian doctrine”, that at least one of your beliefs is extremely unorthodox. You’re entitled to your own beliefs, and you’re entitled to identify as a Christian, no matter how much you disagree with other people who identify as Christians. But it’s important to recognize that Christianity is vast and varied, whether you like it or not, and your “one flesh” doctrine is actually a fine example of that. (If you want, I can go and look up when and how it was banned.) So is the Resurrection, as we discussed in another thread.
Oh, and so is this:
You’re not bound by the 10 Commandments? Fascinating. That puts you in an even tinier percentage than you were already in thanks to the one flesh thing. A minority of a minority. 
I’m not in the habit of asking every Christian I meet about the 10 C’s, but all the ones I grew up around (Catholic and Protestant) believed the they were utterly binding, even if they didn’t agree about how to interpret them. Most churches you’ve heard of also teach this.
As for the abrogation of the Old Covenant, I know perfectly well that Christians in general do not accept Mosaic law wholesale. I never claimed the majority of Christians want your gay friends to die. Yet Christians in general have different explanations for how the abrogation occurred and what it covered, and Christians in general do accept parts of Mosaic law (whether they think of it that way or not), including, at the very least, the 10 Commandments.
That is the point of the comparison: of course a significant percentage of Muslims accept “aspects” or “provisions” of Sharia law. That doesn’t mean Muslims in general want your gay friends to die (or that they don’t have their own disagreements about abrogation and interpretation), yet hanging out in the echo chamber, you get a lot of noise like that, and then you come and echo it here. I don’t want your friends (or mine) to die, but I don’t see how that kind of echo is supposed to help defuse any of the tension in the world today.
Who says I don’t like Christianity? Oh, right, I forgot: “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
I associate that line with that old cokehead/alcoholic, W. According to @rowland though, it means you’re on the Jesus path. 
I already told you, I don’t disagree with everything you say. Apparently I can’t disagree with you at all though, or else – poof! – I’m suddenly a Muslim.
Why do you think I mostly ignore repetitive rants about 9/11 and truck drivers and so on? Of course those things are problems, but we’ve all heard about them already. When you go through the laundry list like that, you’re not saying anything new. It’s as tedious as Hillary reciting her resume a million times in 2016. 
You seem to want to play “my religion vs. yours”. I’m not a missionary, so whatever my religion/denomination is (if I have one), I’m not going to play that game with you. I care about the big picture at least as much as you do, and I’m telling you, if you care to listen, that you’ll never understand the world you live in, or even your own mind, by thinking in black and white terms.
Anyway, I think I’m done here. I don’t get paid for this, and I do have more interesting things to do.
Wishing you a pleasant day of unorthodox married bliss… 
1 Like
I’m perfectly aware of of different interpretations.
But again, mosaic laws like the 10 commandments were given to the nation of Israel. These were both moral and civil laws for them. It was given to gentiles/non Jews. When I say it’s not binding I do not mean it’s ok to kill or any of the lists of laws. Just simply they still hold true morally, but unlike the previous covenant with the Jews. They are not obligatory for salvation and they are not made to be civil laws for none Jews.
Im curious on which sects of Christians you encountered that said they were binding? Binding in which way?
I’m saying this if youi don’t believe Islam is compatible with modern civilization on a large scale.
As I said, Catholic and Protestant. Some examples from the Wiki article:
1 Like
None of these are Protestants.
Come on LDS… I understand there are different interpretations, but they are wayyyyy out there.
Presbyterians fall under Protestantism.
The C of E is not P? 
Coming from someone who thinks X percent of self-identified Christians are not actually Christians because they don’t agree with your interpretation of the Resurrection, I suppose that’s not a surprising claim.
And Methodists too (the Wesley quotation).
C of E isn’t generally considered Protestant. Influenced, yes. Also close in timeline.
From a Catholics standpoint, probably yes. Anyone who “protest” against Catholicism would generally be Protestant.
And the Methodist is saying what I’m saying. Moral codes to follow, not obligatory for the concept of Christian salvation.
I think that’s the simple answer. It’s more easily to put them under the umbrella of Protestant. But from a church history stand point, they arguably are not. They reformed, merged and separated many times. And lastly influenced by Calvin.
Yes and no. But the simple answer would be yes, they are close enough and mostly merged into it.