According to a news report, a survey among Austrian Muslims found that
46% believed that they should obey Muslim law - presumably sharia law - rather than Austrian law. This is touted as evidence that Muslims are
not assimilating.
The problem is that Christians also believe that their law takes
precedence over national laws: "We ought to obey God rather than man".
It seems to me, therefore, that both Muslims and Christians have the
same attitude towards Divine v. human laws.
The difficulty lies in the fact that Muslim law is so wide-ranging,
covering everything from divorce to diet. In that respect it is similar
to the laws in the Old Testament, which are similarly wide-ranging. Christians, however, recognise that the majority of Old Testament laws
were intended for when Israel was a self-governing nation and are not applicable to a church, which is primarily a religious organisation and
does not - or should not - concern itself with cultural or national
matters.
Thus 46% of Austrian Muslims are, presumably, hankering after seeing
thieves have their hands cut off whereas Christians have no problem with adhering to whatever punishment is imposed by the society in which they live.
Of course there is still debate in Christian circles about exactly what counts as secular. The government can pass what laws it likes but a
large proportion - if not a majority - of Christians still hold that homosexuality is a perversion and is contrary to God's will. Other areas
of debate include abortion, divorce, trans-gender issues and Sabbath
working (whichever day you observe).
Like the Jews, who still adhere to the Old Testament laws, so long as we
are allowed to adhere to Christian principles, we have no desire to
impose our mores upon the secular world. Muslims, however, do want to
impose their laws upon the world about them, using violence to achieve
that aim if necessary.
According to a news report, a survey among Austrian Muslims found that
46% believed that they should obey Muslim law - presumably sharia law - rather than Austrian law. This is touted as evidence that Muslims are
not assimilating.
On 13/05/2026 06:01, Kendall K. Down wrote:
According to a news report, a survey among Austrian Muslims found that
46% believed that they should obey Muslim law - presumably sharia law
- rather than Austrian law. This is touted as evidence that Muslims
are not assimilating.
As with all surveys, you need to know the precise question asked. I
strongly suspect that the "rather than" above is your interpretation,
and the question is different.
If Islam is like Jewish law, there's precious little conflict in
practice. Generally, Jewish law says that Jews must follow the law of
the land we live in.
There are a few potential problem areas, eg if idolatry were compulsory.
I imagine that you'd have trouble with that, too.
Was Israel a self governing nation when Jesus was on the Earth?-a I do
seem to recall Him saying, not one jot or tittle.
Homosexuality is around 4% of the population, even less I would guess a percentage of the Christian population. Nowhere do any of the bible
writers say homosexuality is a perversion.
Abortion isn't condemned in the bible.
Christians are told not to divorce unless their partner has been
unfaithful, yet divorce is as common in Christian circles as it is in secular ones.
Transgender - same as homosexual but 0.7%
Sabbath rest. A good thing if you're a Christian (Saturday or Sunday)
but hardly a seculalar debate.
Christians Nationalists would disagree that they don't want "Christian" rule.-a Muslims have been in our country now for well over 50 years, IThere are such in America, I have not encontered any here in Britain.
see little evidence that they want to impose Islamic law on us.
If Islam is like Jewish law, there's precious little conflict in
practice. Generally, Jewish law says that Jews must follow the law of
the land we live in.
There are a few potential problem areas, eg if idolatry were compulsory.Which is the point of my posting: that the Muslim attitude which was
I imagine that you'd have trouble with that, too.
On 13/05/2026 18:04, GB wrote:
If Islam is like Jewish law, there's precious little conflict in
practice. Generally, Jewish law says that Jews must follow the law of
the land we live in.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a verse in the Bible which
says that.
There are a few potential problem areas, eg if idolatry wereWhich is the point of my posting: that the Muslim attitude which was condemned by the news report is not fundamentally different from the attitude of both Christians and Jews - that divine laws take precedence
compulsory. I imagine that you'd have trouble with that, too.
over secular ones.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 13/05/2026 10:25, John wrote:
Was Israel a self governing nation when Jesus was on the Earth?-a I do
seem to recall Him saying, not one jot or tittle.
As Israel - ancient Israel - ended in AD 70 and as, in any case, I am
not a Jew, I am not unduly concerned over the fact that men and women
are no longer stoned for adultery. Modern Israel is a secular state
which makes no pretension of continuing with the Mosaic law.
Homosexuality is around 4% of the population, even less I would guess
a percentage of the Christian population. Nowhere do any of the bible
writers say homosexuality is a perversion.
They just say that homosexuals should be put to death if they engage in homosexual sex.
Abortion isn't condemned in the bible.
That is true, probably because it wasn't a problem back then. For
example, while I won't claim to be an expert on the matter, I don't
recall any recipes for abortion in the extant Egyptian medical
literature. The closest is the rule that if two men are fighting and
injure a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, they are held responsible.
Christians are told not to divorce unless their partner has been
unfaithful, yet divorce is as common in Christian circles as it is in
secular ones.
Actually, I have a feeling that it is fractionally more common!
Transgender - same as homosexual but 0.7%
Mind you, what is the relevance of this figure and that for homosexuals?
Is morality determined by populatin proportions? What is the figure for paedophiles? If it is more than 4%, would you be advocating for
paedophilia to be legalised?
Sabbath rest. A good thing if you're a Christian (Saturday or Sunday)
but hardly a seculalar debate.
Have you forgotten all the hoo-ha over Sunday Trading?
Christians Nationalists would disagree that they don't want
"Christian" rule.-a Muslims have been in our country now for well over
50 years, I see little evidence that they want to impose Islamic law
on us.
There are such in America, I have not encontered any here in Britain. However all your comments are totally missing the point of my post,
which is that Christians and Muslims both believe that God's laws take precedence over secular laws.
They just say that homosexuals should be put to death if they engage
in homosexual sex.
They don't say that either.
Just to clarify, I have no personal objection to divorce, whatever the reasons, if that's the best thing for both parties, I'm just going by
what the good book says.
I'm saying you demonise less tha 5% of society
Non Christians are not bound by resting one day a week, so I don't understand why the established church got it's knickers in a twist over
it in the first place. It didn't stop them having a day of rest still.
And if you believe God's laws take precedence over God's laws, whyBecause I'm a Christian and the church has no authority to punish
aren't you out stoning those homosexuals and transgender folk you absoolutely detest.
We have Rabbinic law, as well. I know you think it's nonsense, but it's
part of the religion.
On 15/05/2026 13:29, John wrote:
They just say that homosexuals should be put to death if they engage
in homosexual sex.
They don't say that either.
Monumental ignorance or astounding stupidity. Not sure which.
Just to clarify, I have no personal objection to divorce, whatever the
reasons, if that's the best thing for both parties, I'm just going by
what the good book says.
You are going by what *part* of the Good Book says. I take the whole of
it into account.
I'm saying you demonise less tha 5% of society
Which has nothing to do with the point I was making in my post.
Non Christians are not bound by resting one day a week, so I don't
understand why the established church got it's knickers in a twist
over it in the first place. It didn't stop them having a day of rest
still.
They were before the Sunday Trading law came into effect. And it has had
an effect on Christians. For example, if you are a shop worker,
previously there was no problem about Sunday-keeping. After the Sunday trading laws, however, you might find yourself scheduled to man the
tills just when you wanted to be in church.
And if you believe God's laws take precedence over God's laws, why
aren't you out stoning those homosexuals and transgender folk you
absoolutely detest.
Because I'm a Christian and the church has no authority to punish
offenders - unlike the Jewish nation.
Would you like to point to more than one biblical writer who said homosexuals should be put to death if they engage in homosexual sex.
God allowed it in the OT, but ruled it out in the NT, which do you
believe Christians should obey?
You may not like homosexuality, you may not like transgenderism, but as
long as the person involved isn't a child, they are doing no harm to
others.
You were allowed to refuse on religious grounds.
In that case none of the Jewish laws apply to Christians, so Paul's
teaching on divorce (no exceptions) should definitely apply.
On 16/05/2026 16:25, John wrote:
Would you like to point to more than one biblical writer who said
homosexuals should be put to death if they engage in homosexual sex.
So you now admit that what I said was true but you are shifting the goal posts and demanding more than one author.
God allowed it in the OT, but ruled it out in the NT, which do you
believe Christians should obey?
Both. Even in the Old Testament God said, "I hate divorce". And I firmly believe that Christians should never divorce, but like St Paul, if a non-Christian desires divorce, I do not put the Christian under bondage.
Let him (or her) depart.
You may not like homosexuality, you may not like transgenderism, but
as long as the person involved isn't a child, they are doing no harm
to others.
Certainly, I have no objection to whatever non-Christians[1] get up to.
They are going to hell anyway, so might as well go for a sheep as a lamb.
However if they affect me, then I do object. In my younger days I have
been propositioned by homosexuals. Some years ago my wife encountered a
man in the women's toilets. So I am not sure how you can say that they
do no harm to others.
You were allowed to refuse on religious grounds.
Certainly, but there was no law that your employer had to keep giving
you shifts if you refused to work on Sunday.
In that case none of the Jewish laws apply to Christians, so Paul's
teaching on divorce (no exceptions) should definitely apply.
I refer you to the 39 Articles. And Paul does allow exceptions. You
really ought to read the Bible sometime. You might be surprised at what
you discover.
Note 1: By "non-Christians" I mean anyone who is not a believer in God.
I am not rejecting the idea that Muslims or Hindus or whatever can be
saved.
You said they, so I assumed you meant more than one.
That's where one isn't a Christian, and I think the text is ambiguous as
to whether it's seperation or actual divorce, but if it is, then it
would be for the non Christian to initiate divorce, not the Christian.
(see below)
Be thankful you're not a woman, they get hit on all the time by lustful
men.
It hasn't made me scared of homosexuals.
A biological female relative of one of my best mates has become transgender.-a If said person grows a beard should they use a mans toilet
or a womans?
Now you're being silly, or have you not heard of employment contracts?
The employer would still have had to pay them their contracted hours.
1 Corinthians 7:10-16.-a I would argue this means seperation, not
divorce. If it does, it seems a tad unfair that the wife can initiate divorce and not the husband. Who knew womens lib was a thing back then!!
On 18/05/2026 12:13, John wrote:
You said they, so I assumed you meant more than one.
You could, if you wish, add in St Paul, who not only condemned
homosexuals but stated that they were being judged by God.
It hasn't made me scared of homosexuals.
Nor me. But neither has it predisposed me in their favour.
Now you're being silly, or have you not heard of employment contracts?
The employer would still have had to pay them their contracted hours.
And you haven't heard of zero hours contracts?
1 Corinthians 7:10-16.-a I would argue this means seperation, not
divorce. If it does, it seems a tad unfair that the wife can initiate
divorce and not the husband. Who knew womens lib was a thing back then!!
Why you think that, when the text explicitly mentions "put away" - a
single word in Greek that is a synonym for divorce, you will have to explain.
Roman women - and to a lesser extent Greek women - were not the doormats
you suppose. A long way from "women's lib", but upper class women could initiate divorce.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 16:01:19 |
| Calls: | 863 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
11 files (21,614K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,788 |