Tarek Fatah at the Globe and Mail in Toronto warns Canadians that Shari’a is making a creep into their local banking systems (via Michelle Malkin):…

So divorce is like stealing. It’s forbidden. But if you slip and do it, you can be forgiven. Does that mean that like stealing it should be illegal?

So the old testament is the word of G-d, but when it says that commandments are for forever, he didn’t really mean forever, only until Jesus? And when he said don’t make a fire on Sabbath, he really meant do whatever the heck you want?

OK, as long as we’re debating divorce – would Christ think that the Detroit mayor’s wife has grounds for divorce, assuming there was NO physical adultery?

I am no longer debating the issue, corona. I’ve said what needs to be said. lgm asked a question and I answered it.

Oh, so no one ever knew what Christianity was until the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible was published?

Did I say that? No. I didn’t. But there are misconceptions about Christianity that abound – clearly you and lgm have some.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible is a good resource to correct those misconceptions – a rather ecumenical, but thorough, approach to Biblical history, theology, and teaching.

You refuse to look at the facts. Muslim jihadists – led by the Koran and the Hadith – believe they are called to spread Islam throughout the world. By the sword. Since its inception, Islam has waged war after war with non-Muslim civilizations and within its own religion…pitting sect against sect in a frantic effort to establish dominance of Islam over all else.

There is ample evidence to support this claim, as well as *lots* of information and evidence of jihadists and terrorists calling for the fall of Western civilization. Check out some of what Osama bin Laden has said – then tell me there isn’t a motive to take over Europe, America and the rest of the civilized world.

At the same time, you do not hear of someone like the Pope calling for violent war against non-Catholics, and supporting violent policies that advocate the forcible subjugation of non-Catholics to the will of the Church. You. Just. Don’t. See below where I talk about free will and the spreading of the faith. So don’t compare the two because it’s an ignorant, childish argument.

I don’t think Christian fundamentalists are about to take over America, and even less than that is the chance of Muslims taking over.

Funny – because here you said:

I am more worried about conservative Christians imposing religious law in the US than Muslims.

Which is it? Are Christians lying in wait, eager to spring a theocracy on America, or aren’t they? And why do Christians – in your opinion – pose more of a threat than the those who are working to commit acts of terror in the US?

And now to answer your questions. First, I’ll tackle the second one because it ties into the first.

2. Did Jesus explicitly refuse to follow a commandment given by G-d to Moses when he refused to wash his hands in the required way before eating? (Hint: yes)

The Bible is divided into two parts – the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament deals with the history of the religion and the time between the fall of man in the Garden of Eden and Jesus’ birth.

The thing you are casually omitting here is that God sent Jesus – His Son – to establish the new covenant of salvation. The laws of Moses were the “old laws” and worked as a guide for the people until the coming of Christ, at which time Christ established the new teachings – which meant keeping, building on, and refining some of Moses’ laws (e.g. the Ten Commandments) and getting rid of others (e.g., the rules on hand washing).

Your assertion that Jesus’ broke God’s law would render the entirety of the Christian faith invalid because Christians believe Jesus lived and died sinlessly, as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. If Jesus had acted contrary to God’s plan by breaking this one Mosaic law, He would not have remained sinless. In other words, Jesus was doing what God sent Him to do – establish new laws under the new covenant.

The Old Testament, and specifically the first five books, make up the Jewish Torah and they observe the Mosaic laws.

The New Testament deals with Jesus’ life, his teachings, and the New Covenant. The New Testament is the Christian testament, and deals with the founding of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church can trace the lineage of popes all the way back to Biblical times – right to Peter, whom Christ established as the first pope over 2,000 years ago.

1. Does the Christian Bible forbid divorce? If you say it does not, why do Catholics think it does?

Throughout those centuries, the Church teaching on marriage has always been that it is a Sacrament, instituted by Christ, and indissoluble by man. The Church has always forbade divorce because of the sacramental quality of marriage.

The Church also teaches that mankind is endowed with free will, by which they can choose to follow the teaching of the Church, accept God’s grace through the Holy Spirit, and work to live in unity with God and His teachings.

People choose to reject or ignore those teachings on a daily basis. Why? Because mankind is not perfect. We are flawed, we make mistakes, and we fall. Repeatedly. The Church recognizes this and offers the Sacrament of Reconciliation to forgive one’s sins. This sacrament can be repeated as necessary.

As I said above, the Pope calls for a renewal of the faith by using our free will to accept God’s grace and the teachings of Jesus and the Church. Not by force or threat of violence. Free will. See the difference?

Despite the fact there are Christians and Catholics who divorce it does not mean the Church’s teachings are null and void. Any Catholic who thinks the Church and/or the Bible does not forbid divorce is poorly catechized and *chooses* to ignore those teachings (annulment is another matter for another discussion). Catholics can be civilly divorced, and not live together. The Church still recognizes that marriage until one partner dies or the marriage is annulled. Which means, according to Church teaching, a civilly divorced Catholic cannot enter another serious relationship or valid Church marriage unless they receive that annulment or their former spouse dies.

To say that because Christians and Catholics get divorced when the Bible forbids it makes the Biblical teaching null and void is like saying the thousands of murders that take place in America make laws against murder null and void.

Hope that answers your questions.

If I say I’m more likely to be killed by lightning than by a meteor, that doesn’t mean I think I’m about to be struck.

I don’t think Christian fundamentalists are about to take over America, and even less than that is the chance of Muslims taking over.

Questions for you:

1. Does the Christian Bible forbid divorce? If you say it does not, why do Catholics think it does?

2. Did Jesus explicitly refuse to follow a commandment given by G-d to Moses when he refused to wash his hands in the required way before eating? (Hint: yes)

I said they are more likely than Muslims to take over.

Prove it. Show hard examples of *how* they are going to “take over”. Please show me where Christians are proclaiming a jihad against the west and a desire to create a Christian caliphate over non-Christians.

Please cite where Huckabee said what you’re claiming. And how you know that he’ll win the election – right now, he’s one candidate in a pool of many.

Jesus forbade divorce, we do it all the time. He told his followers to ignore the laws of Moses.

Your ignorance of Christian teaching is glaring here.

Talk to me sometime and I’ll show you what Jesus taught. Or, better yet, read the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible.

That will set the record straight.

Where is this taking place where Christians are taking over?

I didn’t say “Christians are taking over”. I said they are more likely than Muslims to take over. Mainstream candidate Huckabee says he wants to rewrite the US constitution to be more Christian. No main stream candidate wants it to be more Muslim.

Which commandment did Jesus say that you don’t agree on?

Jesus forbade divorce, we do it all the time. He told his followers to ignore the laws of Moses.

I am more worried about conservative Christians imposing religious law in the US than Muslims. There are plenty of them who don’t think women should not hold office. Prohibition was not a Muslim movement.

People – this is what is known as Manning’s Corollary:

In any online conversation about an incident of violence perpetrated by adherents of Islamic fundamentalism, the conversation will inevitably devolve into claims that Christians commit the same type and degree of violent acts, regardless of how demonstrably false that is; further, the claim will be made that past historical violence involving Christians means that present-day Christians are morally incapable of denouncing current violence involving Muslims.

It also applies to any discussion of Islamic teaching, wherein someone will claim Christian teaching is equally as bad.

Newsflash for you, lgm. Neither was it a Catholic movement, nor did it have the backing of all Christian denominations.

In fact – one of today’s more liberal denominations, the Methodists, the largest driving forces behind prohibition.

The Catholic Church declared prohibition an “unjust law” and Catholics did not have to abide by it. And if you went into any speakeasy, you were likely to find Christians of many stripes breaking this stupid law. So don’t try to feed us the notion that the only people drinking in the 1920s were non-Christians.

You’d think, given the liberals love of Nannies who want to control what we eat, what we drive, and at what temperature we set our thermostat…prohibition would be a loved movement.

So before you throw around stupid, ignorant claims like that, know your facts.

Also, just so you’re aware, drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden under Islam. I guess you’re eager for a second, more permanent go-round on that prohibition thing, huh?

Bottom line: making sharia mortgages available to Muslims in Canada does not put anyone’s daughter in danger of being stoned to death for dancing in public. Find something real to worry about.

As far as lgm’s last comment well that is just plain nuts.