New Libyan Constitution to ban alcohol, h0mosexuality and praise of Christianity

ehhh sounds okay. seems like most of the people in that area of the world are islam anyways, so doesn't seem so bad that they're making islam the national religion. banning alcohol, no big deal, banning homosexuality, kind of stupid but if you don't like it then don't live there. same with the banning of christianity.

[QUOTE="conistant"]Good to hear.Stop interfering in the ME is the clear message now.LJS9502_basic

ehhh sounds okay. seems like most of the people in that area of the world are islam anyways, so doesn't seem so bad that they're making islam the national religion. banning alcohol, no big deal, banning homosexuality, kind of stupid but if you don't like it then don't live there. same with the banning of christianity.

needled24-7

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="conistant"]Good to hear.Stop interfering in the ME is the clear message now.conistant

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

ehhh sounds okay. seems like most of the people in that area of the world are islam anyways, so doesn't seem so bad that they're making islam the national religion. banning alcohol, no big deal, banning homosexuality, kind of stupid but if you don't like it then don't live there. same with the banning of christianity.

LJS9502_basic

if that's the way someone wants to run their country, then that's how they're going to do it. the world isn't perfect and there isn't going to be freedom in every nation on earth so we should just stop trying. imo

When countries are going through changes such as Libya is now, it's hard to really predict who will ulitmately come out on top and gain control.

In the case of the Libyan 'rebels'though, remember all the reports about all of the Al Qaeda connections? I'm just curious how all of that will play out.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]

ehhh sounds okay. seems like most of the people in that area of the world are islam anyways, so doesn't seem so bad that they're making islam the national religion. banning alcohol, no big deal, banning homosexuality, kind of stupid but if you don't like it then don't live there. same with the banning of christianity.

needled24-7

if that's the way someone wants to run their country, then that's how they're going to do it. the world isn't perfect and there isn't going to be freedom in every nation on earth so we should just stop trying. imo

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] In other words....a country with no freedom.LJS9502_basic

if that's the way someone wants to run their country, then that's how they're going to do it. the world isn't perfect and there isn't going to be freedom in every nation on earth so we should just stop trying. imo

Christians follow NT teachings......there is no death sentence for homosexuality in the NT. Jesus taught love. LJS9502_basic

Then you don't understand squat about the Bible.

What does Matthew 5:17 mean to you? Because it is pretty clear on this point. It's also pretty simple. Why the heck would the OT be in the Bible if it was just to be ignored in favor of the new and if that was the case then why are Christians so big on putting the 10 commandments up on everything?

With respect to the original article, the implication seems to be an imposition of sharia law. The other source provided as worded would seem to suggest it is a bit less extreme than that (and in many respects sharia is less extreme than often imagined). All the same, those bits of the document are not good things IMO, but what of the rest of it?

If it would be locked in stone that is one thing, but I'd like to see how modifiable their proposed constitution is, in what ways, and what the proposed method of governance is as laid out in there. All of that strikes me as more important in the long-run.

Yeah I doubt something that radical will take over the country.

this will end well...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Christians follow NT teachings......there is no death sentence for homosexuality in the NT. Jesus taught love. Aidenfury19

Then you don't understand squat about the Bible.

What does Matthew 5:17 mean to you? Because it is pretty clear on this point. It's also pretty simple. Why the heck would the OT be in the Bible if it was just to be ignored in favor of the new and if that was the case then why are Christians so big on putting the 10 commandments up on everything?

With respect to the original article, the implication seems to be an imposition of sharia law. The other source provided as worded would seem to suggest it is a bit less extreme than that (and in many respects sharia is less extreme than often imagined). All the same, those bits of the document are not good things IMO, but what of the rest of it?

If it would be locked in stone that is one thing, but I'd like to see how modifiable their proposed constitution is, in what ways, and what the proposed method of governance is as laid out in there. All of that strikes me as more important in the long-run.

Yeah I doubt something that radical will take over the country.

Wasdie

This isn't a religious thread so I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion. I will say that this question was asked not long ago and I answered that...and from a theological reading...not my interpretation. What Matthew 5:17 means is that with Jesus death and resurrection the Mosaic Law will be abolished and a new kingdom on earth begun.

LJS9502_basic

So in other words it means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Nice to know that Christians are still just as happy to weasel out of the standing behind the bloodbath that is the Bible as ever.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

This isn't a religious thread so I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion. I will say that this question was asked not long ago and I answered that...and from a theological reading...not my interpretation. What Matthew 5:17 means is that with Jesus death and resurrection the Mosaic Law will be abolished and a new kingdom on earth begun.

Aidenfury19

So in other words it means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Nice to know that Christians are still just as happy to weasel out of the standing behind the bloodbath that is the Bible as ever.

As I clearly stated in my post the meaning was not mine. It's a theological interpretation.:| For the record....Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in how to conduct themselves. These suggestions/rules etc are found in the NT. The OT is the history of the Jewish people. Their laws are listed in the Torah or OT. Sit down and read the two books someday and if you can't see a difference in the message, laws, and regulations then I don't know what to tell you.LJS9502_basic

The Jewish interpretations I've read of these same passages are far less convoluted and need to be far less convoluted because they don't make crap up. As for how starkly the two contrast that is just a further validation of the fact that the whole thing is a bunch of nonsense compiled centuries after the supposed events.

There is no record of the resurrection, no contemporary source for Jesus, no physical proofs of same, and no real likelihood of any of these things ever turning up. At least Muslims have some proof that Muhammad was around on their side.

According to you and those like you we can ignore all of the bloodthirsty, brutal, criminal things that are in the Old Testament because by some incredibly stretched interpretation Jesus saying that he didn't come to destroy the law of the prophets is actually saying the opposite and thus the Old Testament can be ignored. Will you affirmatively state that the Old Testament has no role in Christian law and morality? Because the evangelics and dominionists are doing their ****edest to subject us to their whims on the basis of it.

EDIT: I'm out. People who will readily dismiss injustices their religion imposes on the basis of "Jesus is love" or whatever else tick me off.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]As I clearly stated in my post the meaning was not mine. It's a theological interpretation.:| For the record....Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in how to conduct themselves. These suggestions/rules etc are found in the NT. The OT is the history of the Jewish people. Their laws are listed in the Torah or OT. Sit down and read the two books someday and if you can't see a difference in the message, laws, and regulations then I don't know what to tell you.Aidenfury19

The Jewish interpretations I've read of these same passages are far less convoluted and need to be far less convoluted because they don't make crap up. As for how starkly the two contrast that is just a further validation of the fact that the whole thing is a bunch of nonsense compiled centuries after the supposed events.

There is no record of the resurrection, no contemporary source for Jesus, no physical proofs of same, and no real likelihood of any of these things ever turning up. At least Muslims have some proof that Muhammad was around on their side.

According to you and those like you we can ignore all of the bloodthirsty, brutal, criminal things that are in the Old Testament because by some incredibly stretched interpretation Jesus saying that he didn't come to destroy the law of the prophets is actually saying the opposite and thus the Old Testament can be ignored. Will you affirmatively state that the Old Testament has no role in Christian law and morality? Because the evangelics and dominionists are doing their ****edest to subject us to their whims on the basis of it.

EDIT: I'm out. People who will readily dismiss injustices their religion imposes on the basis of "Jesus is love" or whatever else tick me off.

There are historical sources for Jesus. Whether you wish to believe in divinity or not is entirely different. But the man aspect was mentioned by historians.

I haven't ignored anything in the OT. That is a strawman. I said Christians follow Jesus and his teachings. Which IS what makes them Christians.

I don't care, let them destroy their own country... irrational people.. sigh
I feel sorry for the people living there who will be victim of this new regime though.
Let's hope they can emigrate.

If thats true, that sounds like business as usual for Western policy.. Who cares about human rights as long as the said government stays pro western and pumps us oil.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]If thats true, that sounds like business as usual for Western policy.. Who cares about human rights as long as the said government stays pro western and pumps us oil.LJS9502_basic

No I am merely pointing out that the West doesn't care about human rights or other such things as history has shown.. As long as the oil or economic resources keeps pumping to them and the government stays pro western.. They can do what ever the hell they want in their countries while we militarily supported them... This is the exact same kind of flawed strategy which has led both directly and indireclty to hostile, violent states through the decades.. From Saudi Arabia.. Iran, to Iraq.. Nothing has changed.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]If thats true, that sounds like business as usual for Western policy.. Who cares about human rights as long as the said government stays pro western and pumps us oil.sSubZerOo

No I am merely pointing out that the West doesn't care about human rights or other such things as history has shown.. As long as the oil or economic resources keeps pumping to them and the government stays pro western.. They can do what ever the hell they want in their countries while we militarily supported them... This is the exact same kind of flawed strategy which has led both directly and indireclty to hostile, violent states through the decades.. From Saudi Arabia.. Iran, to Iraq.. Nothing has changed.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So you favor the west enforcing governments on countries?LJS9502_basic

No I am merely pointing out that the West doesn't care about human rights or other such things as history has shown.. As long as the oil or economic resources keeps pumping to them and the government stays pro western.. They can do what ever the hell they want in their countries while we militarily supported them... This is the exact same kind of flawed strategy which has led both directly and indireclty to hostile, violent states through the decades.. From Saudi Arabia.. Iran, to Iraq.. Nothing has changed.

What kind of logic is that? Sure you can, you can decide which regimes you support based on standards like not being extreme or violating human rights.. Its quite simple really, this isn'ta black or white issue..

Who says this thing will even pass? I highly doubt it, considering the people want a free and democratic contry. Its just one proposal.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

No I am merely pointing out that the West doesn't care about human rights or other such things as history has shown.. As long as the oil or economic resources keeps pumping to them and the government stays pro western.. They can do what ever the hell they want in their countries while we militarily supported them... This is the exact same kind of flawed strategy which has led both directly and indireclty to hostile, violent states through the decades.. From Saudi Arabia.. Iran, to Iraq.. Nothing has changed.

sSubZerOo

What kind of logic is that? Sure you can, you can decide which regimes you support based on standards like not being extreme or violating human rights.. Its quite simple really, this isn'ta black or white issue..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] LJS9502_basic

Imagine how irrelevant extremist states would be without oil. They have no other resources and contribute nothing technologically or scientifically.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Planet_Pluto

Not speaking specifically about anyone in here, but I think the bigger inconsistencies come from people's politics. Take Libya for example. I can't help but think if a Republican had gotten us involved there, you'd have groups like Code Pink having anti-war protests and demonstrations all over the place. But since it's a Democrat who made the move, it's something we should have done.

Planet_Pluto

Code Pink has been vocal against the war in Libya...

http://codepink.org/article.php?id=5846

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Harisemo"] They're not extremists, they're just doing what Islam tells them.

Harisemo

homosexuals should be punished according to Islam.

From one crappy regime to another...I Feel sorry for those unlucky enough to be born in Libya.

[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]Not speaking specifically about anyone in here, but I think the bigger inconsistencies come from people's politics. Take Libya for example. I can't help but think if a Republican had gotten us involved there, you'd have groups like Code Pink having anti-war protests and demonstrations all over the place. But since it's a Democrat who made the move, it's something we should have done.

-Sun_Tzu-

Code Pink has been vocal against the war in Libya...

http://codepink.org/article.php?id=5846

Out with one tyrant, in with another.Crunchy_Nuts

That's the problem with the middle-east. The people are really no better than the dictators. At least a tyrant can keep some relative order. The people will just run things based on their backward, dark age ideologies.

The only middle-eastern country that deserves Western support is Israel, since it's the only nation there that strives to be both socially and technologically progressive.

That's the problem with the middle-east. The people are really no better than the dictators. At least a tyrant can keep some relative order. The people will just run things based on their backward, dark age ideologies.

The only middle-eastern country that deserves Western support is Israel, since it's the only nation there that strives to be both socially and technologically progressive.

Blaze787

You're going to need this

[QUOTE="Blaze787"]

That's the problem with the middle-east. The people are really no better than the dictators. At least a tyrant can keep some relative order. The people will just run things based on their backward, dark age ideologies.

The only middle-eastern country that deserves Western support is Israel, since it's the only nation there that strives to be both socially and technologically progressive.

UnknownSniper65

You're going to need this

That is way cool :lol:

This is great news. We need more constitutions like this everywhere!IslamicRadical

How did you get hold of my alt account?

suddenly helping them out didn't seem like such a great idea after all...

That's the problem with the middle-east. The people are really no better than the dictators. At least a tyrant can keep some relative order. The people will just run things based on their backward, dark age ideologies.

The only middle-eastern country that deserves Western support is Israel, since it's the only nation there that strives to be both socially and technologically progressive.