Because as Tarheel mentioned, stoning people has NEVER been a part of Christianity. Again, you know so little about the topic of Christianity, you either might want to stop posting about it or do some real research and educate yourself.
Sharia Law is the same for all Muslims? How is stating something that exists in the Bible denigrating?
So I misinterpreted something about your religion based on something I read in the Bible?Because as Tarheel mentioned, stoning people has NEVER been a part of Christianity. Again, you know so little about the topic of Christianity, you either might want to stop posting about it or do some real research and educate yourself.
I'm just trying to be a jerk to Paxx. I know it's not a Christian philosophy, and that references to it on the Old Testament are not decrees of Law and punishment. I'm just trying to make it clear that Sharia Law is interpreted in different ways, and alluding to extremes in ancient texts or even to a specific modern interpretation is not an accurate way to depict all modern religious philosophy of that religion or even all practices as they exist in that religion today.
I said there are different interpretations of Sharia Law and Paxx chooses to claim I'm defending Sharia Law. If a snake handler Christian chooses to let himself die from a bite, that's his/her choice. No violation of our constitution, IMO. As long as that person was not forced to abide by their law. If he/she was forced to abide by their denominations laws, then I imagine their are plenty of places in the US to flee.
From the little I know about them, the Shafi'i book of Sharia Law seems the most adapted to modern ideals of equality, respect and forgiveness. But again, I could easily throw myself into the discussion like I know about the laws and tenants of a religion because of something I read (even from the Quran), however as you so viciously pointed out Paxx, that doesn't make me by any means able to proclaim I know."I said there are (I think) different interpretations of Sharia law....if I was to defend one, I'd first have to know which interpretation I'm defending. Otherwise it'd be kinda foolish, don't you think?"
Then tell us which "version" are you prepared to defend?