Wife beating is now legal in the UAE.

[Katherine Kerensky]

-All Hail Britannia Snip-

Please, Alpha, me, resorting to using nukes?
I use the fleets of Land 'clads to crush everything beneath their treads. The only way to be sure is to be there and know the job is done.
And I'll know that, when a division of Leman Russ Conquerors are assembled upon the remains of the seat of their government.
The population is not the enemy, it is the rulers. Everyone else can be redeemed. Nukes are indiscriminate. Leaves no one to help.

 

[JenSeven]

Oh man, I love threads like this, being an atheist myself.

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:

They can stone people working on the sabbath.
They can stone disobedient children.
They can sell their wives into slavery (or was that their daughters?).

I'll leave it at that since they are much worse than a beating, and until someone more informed than me comes along and can name the bible passages those came from.

You have your information screwed up. There are laws in the bible that are the word of god, there are laws that apply to priests, and there are laws that there the laws of the land at the time. The laws that applied to priests where far more restrictive then the laws that applied to the common people, and nobody except the crazy fundamentalist Christians (same as there are extremists for any group) believe that the common laws of the day should still apply.

Very true, however if the word of God is absolute and the Bible is the word of God, than everything in the Bible is the word of God. Saying that any passage in the Bible is outdated, wrong or open to interpretation would mean it would be true for the entire Bible and so would be true for anything that God is says.

You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

 

[captaincabbage]

Oh see now thats just silly...

True dat.

Also, I can't believe you got put on probation for that post. I read that and it cracked me up.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Please, Alpha, me, resorting to using nukes?
I use the fleets of Land 'clads to crush everything beneath their treads. The only way to be sure is to be there and know the job is done.
And I'll know that, when a division of Leman Russ Conquerors are assembled upon the remains of the seat of their government.
The population is not the enemy, it is the rulers. Everyone else can be redeemed. Nukes are indiscriminate. Leaves no one to help.

Ok, so...

When this new world order comes around, don't let me be put in charge of the nukes. Or napalm. Or artillery. Or any other form of indiscriminate weaponry. I probably wouldn't be able to help myself...

Your idea sounds fairer and better, but my one has pretty explosions. And I like explosions >.>

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

-All Hail Lelouch Snip-

Ok, so...

When this new world order comes around, don't let me be put in charge of the nukes. Or napalm. Or artillery. Or any other form of indiscriminate weaponry. I probably wouldn't be able to help myself...

Your idea sounds fairer and better, but my one has pretty explosions. And I like explosions >.>

Oh, don't worry, the Leman Russ tanks will get to make pretty explosions. After all, no better way to destroy a monument than in a wash of cleansing flame.
The infantry just needs to keep the civvies at bay...
Should be easy enough.
And any indiscriminate weapons will be turned outwards after the world is united under the one-headed eagle standard. No need to kill each other when there are bound to be those out there who would do it for us.
One hand open in an off of peace, the other held back as a fist, ready to strike.
War will be a last resort when the backwards countries are dealt with.

 

[C_sector]

It's a sad interpretation of that passage, unfortunately.

Only upside is, they just implicitly said that wife-beating that causes injury is a legal offense. Might be a minor thing, but it's a step.

How else can it be interpreted?

 

[DemonicVixen]

Erm, thats the same in the UK, although im not sure about the "wife beating" but i know you can hit you kids as long as you dont leave a mark. Shame the parents seem to have so much trouble hitting soft enough NOT to leave a mark. I guess if you dont leave a mark on the woman (or a woman leaving a mark on the guy), then you cant prove that the "beating" occurred in which case it might as well be legal here for that also.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Oh, don't worry, the Leman Russ tanks will get to make pretty explosions. After all, no better way to destroy a monument than in a wash of cleansing flame.
The infantry just needs to keep the civvies at bay...
Should be easy enough.
And any indiscriminate weapons will be turned outwards after the world is united under the one-headed eagle standard. No need to kill each other when there are bound to be those out there who would do it for us.
One hand open in an off of peace, the other held back as a fist, ready to strike.
War will be a last resort when the backwards countries are dealt with.

Well that's a load off. I was worried for a second there that there'd be no pretty explosions or cleansing flame.
The one-headed eagle standard? Any particular reason that the double-headed eagle won't be used for the Imperium of Man?
And sounds like a good idea with the indiscriminate weaponry. Xenos scum that dares to mess with the forces of Earth deserve nothing less than total annihilation from whatever weaponry we have.

...total annihilation. Hmmm, man I wish I still had that game...

 

[manaman]

Oh man, I love threads like this, being an atheist myself.

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:

They can stone people working on the sabbath.
They can stone disobedient children.
They can sell their wives into slavery (or was that their daughters?).

I'll leave it at that since they are much worse than a beating, and until someone more informed than me comes along and can name the bible passages those came from.

You have your information screwed up. There are laws in the bible that are the word of god, there are laws that apply to priests, and there are laws that there the laws of the land at the time. The laws that applied to priests where far more restrictive then the laws that applied to the common people, and nobody except the crazy fundamentalist Christians (same as there are extremists for any group) believe that the common laws of the day should still apply.

Very true, however if the word of God is absolute and the Bible is the word of God, than everything in the Bible is the word of God. Saying that any passage in the Bible is outdated, wrong or open to interpretation would mean it would be true for the entire Bible and so would be true for anything that God is says.

You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

You can say that every passage of the bible is open to interpretation. From the creation story, to the gospels. The idea that the entirety of the bible is the absolute word of god is found nowhere in the bible or related works. Specific parts of the bible are said to be a direct message from god, but the whole thing isn't.

The idea behind the belief that the bible is the absolute truth, comes from a belief that the work is divinely inspired, and there are no claims to that in the bible or any related works - aside from a few small parts.

It gets confusing trying to separate recent beliefs (within the last few hundred years) with common beliefs of the day. Everyone of the day probably fully understood which where holy laws, and which where common laws. You are also missing much of the cultural context of the stories as well. The lines just got blurred as time passed and nobody was there to separate them. Then about 400 years ago someone got the idea in their heads that the entirety of the bible was solely the word of god written by inspired men.

 

[SamsaStanfield]

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:



You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

My understanding is that there's several reasons why the practices of the OT are regarded as outdated:

- Jesus rejects those laws, not their importance or lessons but their practice (this is further explained by Paul in Ephesians and Galatians IIRC)

- Jesus also commands that Christians follow the laws of the land/age, that is, they must abide by the new laws for where they live (I'd imagine there'd be some exception in countries like this that are predominantly Islamic, of course)

- Those laws in the OT were specifically and explicitly given to the Israelites alone and the reason why they seem so arbitrary and hardcore is because it was absolutely imperative that Israelites and the Canaanites they were ordered to destroy did not assimilate. Heh, so much for that...

 

[JenSeven]

Oh man, I love threads like this, being an atheist myself.

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:

They can stone people working on the sabbath.
They can stone disobedient children.
They can sell their wives into slavery (or was that their daughters?).

I'll leave it at that since they are much worse than a beating, and until someone more informed than me comes along and can name the bible passages those came from.

You have your information screwed up. There are laws in the bible that are the word of god, there are laws that apply to priests, and there are laws that there the laws of the land at the time. The laws that applied to priests where far more restrictive then the laws that applied to the common people, and nobody except the crazy fundamentalist Christians (same as there are extremists for any group) believe that the common laws of the day should still apply.

Very true, however if the word of God is absolute and the Bible is the word of God, than everything in the Bible is the word of God. Saying that any passage in the Bible is outdated, wrong or open to interpretation would mean it would be true for the entire Bible and so would be true for anything that God is says.

You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

You can say that every passage of the bible is open to interpretation. From the creation story, to the gospels. The idea that the entirety bible is the absolute word of god is found nowhere in the bible or related works. Specific parts of the bible are said to be a direct message from god, but the whole thing isn't.

The idea behind the belief that the bible is the absolute truth comes from a believe that the entirety of the work is divinely inspired, and there are no claims to that in the bible or any related works - aside from a few small parts.

It gets confusing trying to separate recent (within the last few hundred years) with common beliefs of the day to get a better understanding. Everyone of the day probably fully understood which where holy laws, and which where common laws. You are also missing much of the cultural context of the stories as well. The lines just got blurred as time passed and nobody was there to separate them. Then about 400 years ago someone got the idea in their heads that the entirety of the bible was solely the word of god written by inspired men.

Exactly, you get my point!!
If only more people could understand this, then we'd atleast be rid of Christian Fanaticism and people can actually put their faith into something reasonable, like science and things that can be proven.
And naturally, we'd also need to teach them that a "theory", like the "theory of relativity" and "theory of evolution", means something entirely different from what they think it means.

And maybe we can give everyone fully functional solar cars at the same time.

 

[JenSeven]

(Sorry for this is a double post, the forum is somewhat bugging out on me it seems)

 

[ClassicJokester]

I'm gonna get crucified for this, but I'm not even sure why anyone needs a law about this sort of thing. In no way do I advocate beatings of any kind, but frankly, it's none of the government's business. Charge them with assault if you want.

 

[manaman]

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:



You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

My understanding is that there's several reasons why the practices of the OT are regarded as outdated:

- Jesus rejects those laws, not their importance or lessons but their practice (this is further explained by Paul in Ephesians and Galatians IIRC)

- Jesus also commands that Christians follow the laws of the land/age, that is, they must abide by the new laws for where they live (I'd imagine there'd be some exception in countries like this that are predominantly Islamic, of course)

- Those laws in the OT were specifically and explicitly given to the Israelites alone and the reason why they seem so arbitrary and hardcore is because it was absolutely imperative that Israelites and the Canaanites they were ordered to destroy did not assimilate. Heh, so much for that...

For some reason the argument that the old covenant was broken by the new covenant as described on the New Testament doesn't seem to float well with people when I tell them about that.

I find no problems with Christianity in itself. It's a shame it's become fashionable among the pseudo intellectual elitists to bash the religion, it inflames the more extreme followers of the faith, and they raise their voice to shout the loudest not thinking for a second they just feeds the bias in the minds of those they shout at.

 

[Bearjing]

I might just be weird, but I get the feeling people are just going by the thread title instead of reading the post he linked.

What I took from that article is that they are restricting what a man can do to his family instead of, what some people seem to be saying, adding a law to allow men to now beat their family. I mean sure it isn't perfect, but at least it is progress.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Yes, let's get on our high horses and rejoice in the obvious and universal superiority of our culture.

A silly ruling, but it is their ruling.

Now, while we are seated on our steeds of pretend superiority, let's ride off into the sunset and look at the obvious wrongs our own fucking culture needs righted, shall we?

This is the most reasoned response in this thread, so far.

 

[Enerfor]

That's taken way out of context.

The original ruling was that a man is allowed to discipline his family members, so long as he doesn't actually harm them.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!

 

[SamsaStanfield]

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:



You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

My understanding is that there's several reasons why the practices of the OT are regarded as outdated:

- Jesus rejects those laws, not their importance or lessons but their practice (this is further explained by Paul in Ephesians and Galatians IIRC)

- Jesus also commands that Christians follow the laws of the land/age, that is, they must abide by the new laws for where they live (I'd imagine there'd be some exception in countries like this that are predominantly Islamic, of course)

- Those laws in the OT were specifically and explicitly given to the Israelites alone and the reason why they seem so arbitrary and hardcore is because it was absolutely imperative that Israelites and the Canaanites they were ordered to destroy did not assimilate. Heh, so much for that...

For some reason the argument that the old covenant was broken by the new covenant as described on the New Testament doesn't seem to float well with people when I tell them about that.

I find no problems with Christianity in itself. It's a shame it's become fashionable among the pseudo intellectual elitists to bash the religion, it inflames the more extreme followers of the faith, and they raise their voice to shout the loudest not thinking for a second they just feeds the bias in the minds of those they shout at.

Agreed, on all accounts.

What's more is that the pseudo-intellectuals seem to know less about religion than those who are accepting of religion, even if they are not religious.

It'd be nice if we could all get along. People can have reasons for believing what they believe but a lot of them could stand to be a bit more friendly.

 

[hightide]

So pulling your wife's hair out is still legal?

Edit: Grats to manaman and Hislegsareburning for being voices of reason

 

[Funkysandwich]

Oh man, I love threads like this, being an atheist myself.

Let's look at Christianity, since I know a few things about that, and not much about Muslims, but I'm sure someone can fill me in on that later on in this thread.

Let's see what the bible allows a Christian to do:

They can stone people working on the sabbath.
They can stone disobedient children.
They can sell their wives into slavery (or was that their daughters?).

I'll leave it at that since they are much worse than a beating, and until someone more informed than me comes along and can name the bible passages those came from.

You have your information screwed up. There are laws in the bible that are the word of god, there are laws that apply to priests, and there are laws that there the laws of the land at the time. The laws that applied to priests where far more restrictive then the laws that applied to the common people, and nobody except the crazy fundamentalist Christians (same as there are extremists for any group) believe that the common laws of the day should still apply.

Very true, however if the word of God is absolute and the Bible is the word of God, than everything in the Bible is the word of God. Saying that any passage in the Bible is outdated, wrong or open to interpretation would mean it would be true for the entire Bible and so would be true for anything that God is says.

You cannot say that one part of the Bible should be taken with bit of salt and then say that other parts are the indisputable truth. If the Bible is the word of God than the entire Bible must be uphold otherwise you're questioning the words of God and making incredibly flawed arguments.

You can say that every passage of the bible is open to interpretation. From the creation story, to the gospels. The idea that the entirety of the bible is the absolute word of god is found nowhere in the bible or related works. Specific parts of the bible are said to be a direct message from god, but the whole thing isn't.

The idea behind the belief that the bible is the absolute truth, comes from a belief that the work is divinely inspired, and there are no claims to that in the bible or any related works - aside from a few small parts.

It gets confusing trying to separate recent beliefs (within the last few hundred years) with common beliefs of the day. Everyone of the day probably fully understood which where holy laws, and which where common laws. You are also missing much of the cultural context of the stories as well. The lines just got blurred as time passed and nobody was there to separate them. Then about 400 years ago someone got the idea in their heads that the entirety of the bible was solely the word of god written by inspired men.

Also remember the bible has been translated, retranslated and mistranslated so many times that there is no guarantee that the version we have today looks anything like the version they had 2000 or more years ago.