What religion am I?

AudreyHepburn

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ummmmmmm No they didnt and no it didnt!

bluewolf wrote: »

No we didn't, and no it didn't

I find that ironic from a poster who insists they're a catholic despite sharing nearly no catholic beliefs.

Don't even bother lads, I'm not getting into all that again

d.anthony

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm wondering, d.anthony, on what you base your belief that "the whole thing has been hijacked through the years"?

I just think a lot of it has to added in through the years... I mean, Jesus never said anything about artificial contraception. To me, it seems like a lot of what people believe today, the 'rules' I guess, are based on vague chapters of the bible. An even at that, I'm sceptical if it's even what Jesus taught.

I definitely don't consider myself Catholic but I believe in a God, and I guess I have no basis for that other than blind faith, I base it on the fact that the world we live in is no accident and it HAD to be created, but I just don't think that God is going to be angry with me if I have sex with my girlfriend before marriage. I think it's a completely outdated view.

Also, I really don't care for Festus comparing me to 'Lucifer' and suggesting that I'm going to hell. It's people like that that really put me off organised religion.

By the way, sorry I haven't been on since last night and that I can't reply to everyone who wrote back just now, thanks for your replies and suggestions.

Puck

I won't tell you what religion you are but I will tell you what a Christian is*:

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Annointed One of God who came to seek and to save the lost (us), the one and ony true Son of God who is one with the Father and, together with the Holy Spirit, part of the Holy Trinity. Three Persons, One God.

We believe Jesus lived a life of perfect love for and perfect obedience to God and was crucified and died for our sins, which He took upon Himself to save us. We believe that His sacrifice on the cross has rescued us from our sins, set us free so that we can come home to our Dad, know Him, walk with Him, serve Him and be the people He made us to be for eternity.

We have accepted Jesus Christ as our Saviour, which means we believe that He rescued us from our sins by His death on the cross. We believe that He is also our Lord, which means we strive to obey Him (with the enabling of the Holy Spirit) denying ourselves in order to take up our cross and follow Him - that means obeying Him rather than our own desires, so when He says not to look at a woman lustfully (like I know I am tempted to do) I am called to deny that urge and follow Him, even thought I know how much fun it can be to follow my own desires.

We believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and is alive and always interceding for us with the Father. We believe that He's coming again some day and He will make all things new.

That's a Christian, what are you?





*a very summarised definition will follow and I will probably leave out many defining characteristics of a Christian.

Fanny Cradock

d.anthony wrote: »

I just think a lot of it has to added in through the years... I mean, Jesus never said anything about artificial contraception. To me, it seems like a lot of what people believe today, the 'rules' I guess, are based on vague chapters of the bible. An even at that, I'm sceptical if it's even what Jesus taught.

While I think that there is great value in tradition - if by addition over the years you mean the addition of extra-biblical doctrine then I broadly share your concerns. This is one reason I'm not a Roman Catholic. Perhaps you would enjoy reading Mere Churchianity by Michael Spenser (First chapter available here).

d.anthony wrote: »

I definitely don't consider myself Catholic but I believe in a God, and I guess I have no basis for that other than blind faith, I base it on the fact that the world we live in is no accident and it HAD to be created, but I just don't think that God is going to be angry with me if I have sex with my girlfriend before marriage. I think it's a completely outdated view.

A couple of points. Some will disagree with this first one, of course - but there is more to being a Christian than being Catholic. Secondly, many people around here would not accept that their faith is blind. Rather, most (hopefully) will be able to point out that their faith in Christ is built upon something solid - be it personal experience, researching the Bible and concluding it is a reliable set of documents, philosophical arguments or whatever. With regards to the whole sex before marriage thing, if you have time you might enjoy looking through this thread.

d.anthony wrote: »

Also, I really don't care for Festus comparing me to 'Lucifer' and suggesting that I'm going to hell. It's people like that that really put me off organised religion.

While attempting to defend Festus' post - I don't like the implication that God is some type of top down bully, for example - I'm not sure that this is an accurate summation of what he said. (I'm talking about post 41, btw)

Puck

d.anthony wrote: »

I just don't think that God is going to be angry with me if I have sex with my girlfriend before marriage. I think it's a completely outdated view.

When people say that a belief or morality is "outdated" what they often mean is that it has been "out-voted", i.e. it is no longer popular. The thing is, morality does not have an expiry date - if something is wrong then it is wrong no matter what the majority of people think about it; likewise if it is right then it is right no matter what people think. We do not define what is good and what is bad, God does. It's not like sex suddenly became pleasurable or desirable in the last 100 years, the command to save sex for a life-long committed relationship in marriage has always gone against our physical desires as human beings.

I happen to have a bloody gorgeous fiancée, so believe me when I say that denying myself on this one and carrying my cross to follow Jesus gets a bit bloody heavy sometimes, but I would rather follow Jesus than walk away from Him to go after sex.

If you meet God and you find that He agrees with you on everything and demands no changes be made, then you haven't me the perfect God, you're simply talking to yourself.

Fanny Cradock

Just to add to Puck's excellent post (no 54), I thought that this talk given by Tom Wright entitled Why Does Jesus' Resurrection Matter? might be of interest. Q&A here.

It would be interesting to hear you thoughts on this. Is Wright, I wonder, offering you a vision of Christianity that is more subversive and challenging - but also far richer and more rewarding than whatever it is you are sort of rejecting?

Festus

d.anthony wrote: »

Also, I really don't care for Festus comparing me to 'Lucifer' and suggesting that I'm going to hell. It's people like that that really put me off organised religion.

a. I did not compare yu to Lucifer. I present Lucifer as a case in point of someone who did not like the rules and prefered dsibedience.
I can't help it if you see a similarity where there is none. For a start Lucifer was an angel with perfect knowledge and had seen God. Your knowledge, like mine is imperfect and neither of us has seen God. We rely on Faith. Lucifer had no such need and knew what would happen him. As did the third of the angels he took with him.
However our Faith tells us that if we die in a state of sin, or not in a state of grace, hell is a distinct possibility. It is not me who is suggesting you are going to hell - that would involve me judging you and I cannot and will not do that - if anything it is your faith that is suggesting it to you, or may be your guardian angle

The problem I think is yu have too much pride and think you know better. Life your life how you see fit if you want. You have free will and there is no need for you to justify your lifestyle to us.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

While attempting to defend Festus' post - I don't like the implication that God is some type of top down bully, for example - I'm not sure that this is an accurate summation of what he said. (I'm talking about post 41, btw)

Are you suggesting that I implied that God is a top down bully? The bible is quite clear on the actions God takes when some one offends him.
Lucifer cast out of heaven like lightening according to Jesus. Need I mention Adam and Eve?

If one wants to be Christian, and not in name only, there are rules to be followed. d.anthony seems to be of the opinion that fornication is acceptable, for him anyway if not his girlfriend or friends. The bible is quite clear on matters like firnication - not allowed. At all.
However, we are human, we are sinners and God allows for that. Go to confession, confess your sins and promise not to do it again. Failure is howevre an option and so are repeat trips to confession. However sincerity is expected.
Is that bullying?

If you still feel I implied a bully god please substantiate. on a side note, I'm not keen on back-handed defence. You are correct that d.athonies interpretation of my post is inaccurate however you r interpretation re bullying is equally inaccurate. and offensive.

kelly1

Hello d.anthony, following on from the point raised by Fanny, I think it's very important that you challenge you own view that the bible has been altered over the years. Is this based on hearsay or do you have solid evidence for believing so?

Scholars have discovered that when different ancient copies of the New Testament are compared that there is a very strong agreement between them which goes to show that very little alteration took place.

On the subject of sex before marriage, I would point out that fornication is condemned in the Old Testament also. The important think to realize is that God laws don't change over time and that what we believe to be right or wrong doesn't necessarily correspond with the will of God. We are flawed creatures and we have a terrible habit of justifying sin for our own selfish reasons.

God bless,
Noel.

Seaneh

dlofnep wrote: »

Um, it was written in 50AD.

Where are the exact copies of it from 50AD being held?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, this isn't quite true. The earliest known piece of the Bible is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 fragment which is dated sometime around the turn to the mid part of the second century. If you want to read the oldest complete copy of the NT approx (1600 yrs old) the British Library have made the Codex Sinaiticus available online.

I'm wondering, d.anthony, on what you base your belief that "the whole thing has been hijacked through the years"?

I actually thought I'd put the 1 in front of the 50.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Allah is not God. Going further Allah is a false god.

How do you work that one out? Allah is the creator of this world and everything in it. Allah created Adam and Eve, and sent us all the prophets, Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Mohammed. Do you know Christians who speak arabic use the word Allah, not God? Do you know arabic bible uses the word Allah, not God?

Festus wrote: »

There is much in the Koran that advises the followers of Allah to lead what we would, sorry - what Christians, would not consider to be a good life. There is much in the Koran that teaches hatred for example, specifically hatred of enemies. This conflicts directly with the teachings of Christ.
There is much in the Koran that teaches that what is paradise for a man who dies a martyr involves the infliction of hell upon women for eternity.

Completely false.

Festus wrote: »

The assumption would suggest that for them to live a good life would be rather difficult. It might be a good life by their standards but not by Christian standards.

What you say is untrue. I'd advise the OP to look into Islam himself if he is so inclined and not to rely on what you are telling him which is completely false.

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

Completely false.

Really? Where in the Qur'an does it teach Muslims to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and to consider ones owe sin before throwing stones at defensceless women?

been to any good stonings lately?

This may be progoganda and if so feel free to refute.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Really? Where in the Qur'an does it teach Muslims to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and to consider ones owe sin before throwing stones at defensceless women?

been to any good stonings lately?

This may be progoganda and if so feel free to refute.

Where in the Qur'an does it tell Muslims to stone anyone? Go on, try to find it.

antiskeptic

irishconvert wrote: »

Where in the Qur'an does it tell Muslims to stone anyone? Go on, try to find it.

So, why do Muslims of some persuasions stone people/chop of limbs/etc?

Festus

Muslims have strange laws, not all based on Qur'anic writings

link

Hadith

There are many hadith that outline capital punishment as a penalty for adultery, including two of the following:
Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: I am pregnant as a result of Zina. Prophet Muhammad said: "Go back, and come to me after the birth of the child". After giving birth, the woman came back to prophet Muhammad, saying: "please purify me now". Next,prophet Muhammad said, "Go and suckle your child, and come after the period of suckling is over." She came after the period of weaning and brought a piece of bread with her. She fed the child the piece of bread and said, "Oh Allah's Apostle, the child has been weaned." At that prophet Muhammad pronounced judgment about her and she was stoned to death.

Herbal Deity

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think that a lot of people have a hard time accepting that you can be religious yet able to think critically and for yourself.

Stop repeating this. This is not the attitude of anyone on that thread in A&A.

It's as simple as you can't call yourself a member of X religion and not believe in fundamental parts of X religion - especially when there are many variations on X religion which do comply much more with your own beliefs. Nothing to do with not being able to think critically and be religious. One's religion (or lack of) should be the product of critical thinking, not a separate thing.

OP, you're currently a non-denominational Christian. If/when you discover a Christian religion which suits your beliefs, then you can call yourself a member of that religion.

EDIT: Actually, you're probably more of a Deist - you believe in some kind of divine creator, but not one that enforces morality or intervenes in the world.

AudreyHepburn

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Stop repeating this. This is not the attitude of anyone on that thread in A&A.

Yes Mother :rolleyes:

It's as simple as you can't call yourself a member of X religion and not believe in fundamental parts of X religion - especially when there are many variations on X religion which do comply much more with your own beliefs. Nothing to do with not being able to think critically and be religious. One's religion (or lack of) should be the product of critical thinking, not a separate thing.

People are free to lable themselves exactly as they want, there's no law against it, at least not as far as I am aware.

It's not for us or anyone else to tell the OP what he or she is.....it's up to them to decide.

antiskeptic

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

People are free to lable themselves exactly as they want, there's no law against it, at least not as far as I am aware.

It's not for us or anyone else to tell the OP what he or she is.....it's up to them to decide.

The OP asked what he was. It is for us to tell him.

There might not be a law against it but an atheist who considers some of Christs teachings worth following .. and calling himself a Christian in the process ... could be reasonably be expected to be pointed at in the street.

'Freedom' exercised so is inane.

Herbal Deity

You're free to do it, it just doesn't make any sense.

I eat meat, I don't believe eating meat is wrong, I'm free to label myself a vegetarian if I wish, but it doesn't make any sense to do so. Even if I only ate fish, it would still make no sense to label myself a vegetarian, as even though I wouldn't be eating most meats, I still would be eating fish. However, labeling myself a pescetarian would make perfect sense.

The same applies to religion. It is perfectly legal to label yourself what you like, but it makes no sense to give yourself hypocritical labels.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Muslims have strange laws, not all based on Qur'anic writings

link

Hadith

There are many hadith that outline capital punishment as a penalty for adultery, including two of the following:
Imran b. Husain reported that a woman from Juhaina came to and she had become pregnant because of adultery. She said: I am pregnant as a result of Zina. Prophet Muhammad said: "Go back, and come to me after the birth of the child". After giving birth, the woman came back to prophet Muhammad, saying: "please purify me now". Next,prophet Muhammad said, "Go and suckle your child, and come after the period of suckling is over." She came after the period of weaning and brought a piece of bread with her. She fed the child the piece of bread and said, "Oh Allah's Apostle, the child has been weaned." At that prophet Muhammad pronounced judgment about her and she was stoned to death.

So you are backing down on your assertation that the Qur'an calls for stoning of women? Well done.

For anyone who doesn't know, the hadith are basically eye witness accounts, often second and third hand, of what Muhammed said and done. Not all hadith are reliable. Some call for stoning of married people (both the man and woman) who commit adultry. A minority of Muslims follow this hadith and carry out this punishment. It should be noted that to be convicted of adultry there must be FOUR reliable witnesses who saw the actual sex act take place. The witnesses must be of upstanding character and trusted by the entire community. So in practise nobody should ever be punished in this way. It acts as a deterrant. People who commit adultry will be dealt with God in the afterlife.

In any case you are dragging this off topic with your extremely ignorant accusations about Islam. If you want to start a separate thread entitled "Festus's complete ignorance of Islam, let me accuse and you educate me" I will gladly respond.

Have a nice day :-)

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

In any case you are dragging this off topic with your extremely ignorant accusations about Islam. If you want to start a separate thread entitled "Festus's complete ignorance of Islam, let me accuse and you educate me" I will gladly respond.

Have a nice day :-)

Let me know where the next stoning you plan to attend is at and we can discuss over a couple of beers or something stronger if you will.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Cover up" would imply the bishops knew priests were abusing but didn't report the crime to the police. That is what occurred.

According to evidence given it occurred in the case of eleven priests by one or two bishops (i.e. with their knowledge of at least one case actual abuse admitted by the abuser to the Bishop). Whether it was a crime at the time, whether the gardai colluded or acted independently on their own to cover up or whether the DPP ( a non church office) woul d actually prosecute also comews into the mix.

So two bishops , eleven abusers , 320 possible cases. Several thousand clergy not abusing and not even aware of the abuse. And hundreds of thousands of clergy world wide not abusing and not aware of abuse.

Now how many other people in dublin were abused by non clergy in the 1940-2004 period?

Furthermore, they also decided to respond by moving offending priests to other parishes where those priests continued to abuse.

Which was entirely wrong.
How many cases of this for the several thousand clergy?
How many cases happened for non clergy over the same period?

This isn't a cover up but is inarguably more abominable than a cover up - effectively aiding and abetting child molestation.

Not if they wrongly thought it was actually preventing it.

ISAW

irishconvert wrote: »

In any case you are dragging this off topic with your extremely ignorant accusations about Islam. If you want to start a separate thread entitled "Festus's complete ignorance of Islam, let me accuse and you educate me" I will gladly respond.

Ill start a thread about that . Where? here or in Islam forum? I wanted to ask about the hadith on Aisha the six year old wife of Mohammad.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Really? Where in the Qur'an does it teach Muslims to love their enemies, turn the other cheek and to consider ones owe sin before throwing stones at defensceless women?

been to any good stonings lately?
.

Festus wrote: »

Let me know where the next stoning you plan to attend is at and we can discuss over a couple of beers or something stronger if you will.

Are you always this hostile? Perhaps you should put into practise that "turn the other cheek and to consider ones owe sin" you were telling me about :rolleyes:

irishconvert

ISAW wrote: »

Ill start a thread about that . Where? here or in Islam forum? I wanted to ask about the hadith on Aisha the six year old wife of Mohammad.

She was not six, more like closer to 19. Been done already though, I'll dig up the thread for you.

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

Are you always this hostile? Perhaps you should put into practise that "turn the other cheek and to consider ones owe sin" you were telling me about :rolleyes:

Nah, just think a stoning is a good place to have a dicussion on womens rights in Islam. Following Jesus example with the Jews and their practice of the law.

Whatdya recommend - points or flats. Gravel is not much use since hte construction industry collapsed here.

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

She was not six, more like closer to 19. Been done already though, I'll dig up the thread for you.

9 I think you'll find.

Married at 6

marriage consumated at 9

EDIT: source

Ghost Buster

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Don't even bother lads, I'm not getting into all that again

Oh but i think you are:rolleyes:
Signed
Mohammid Ali
The professional boxer.
I dont like boxing, actually I've never done any boxing at all. Indeed Im quite unfit. Further more Im skinny, white and my real name is Ciaran Mc Morrow. Im a pacifist... but is there a law against me having any label i like.. stop telling me what i do and dont believe and what I can and cant call myself.. I AM THE GREATEST!!!!!!!!;)

Canis Lupus

Festus wrote: »

Nah, just think a stoning is a good place to have a dicussion on womens rights in Islam. Following Jesus example with the Jews and their practice of the law.

Whatdya recommend - points or flats. Gravel is not much use since hte construction industry collapsed here.

Perhaps you could have a meet up next time you kill someone for not honouring the sabbath cos travelling to the middle east or further afield is a bit time consuming.

Festus

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Perhaps you could have a meet up next time you kill someone for not honouring the sabbath cos travelling to the middle east or further afield is a bit time consuming.

We don't kill people for not keeping the commandments.

Canis Lupus

Festus wrote: »

We don't kill people for not keeping the commandments.

Well Leviticus says otherwise.

Seaneh

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Well Leviticus says otherwise.

That's nice. How does that affect Christians?

Festus

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Well Leviticus says otherwise.

maybe but that would be Jewish law. It is an interesting discussion point but for Jews not Christians.
The text says that offenders shall be put to death. It does not say "ye shall put them to death" as it does for the beast in bestiality, but that "they shall be put to death".
Contrast 20:15 with the other verses and it is clear that the reality of Leviticus is that it is God who decides if they be put to death. Jesus clarified this later by describing the actions of stonings carried out by Jews as a corruption of the law.

As I already said, we do not kill people for breaking or not keeping the Commandments.

Jesus taught love of neighbour, love of enemy and forgiveness of sins.

What did Jesus do at the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? He rebuked her accusers and forgave her her sins.

Canis Lupus

Seaneh wrote: »

That's nice. How does that affect Christians?

Not at all because the bible is just pick n mix to most christians. Thread is being derailed as well so no more from me.

Seaneh

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Not at all because the bible is just pick n mix to most christians. Thread is being derailed as well so no more from me.

I love when people who don't know what they are talking about come in here and spout rubbish. Makes my day.

Cheers Canis.

Canis Lupus

Seaneh wrote: »

I love when people who don't know what they are talking about come in here and spout rubbish. Makes my day.

Cheers Canis.

You know I never knew that Leviticus was directed to the Jews. Learn something new everyday. Glad I made your day.

Seaneh

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You know I never knew that Leviticus was directed to the Jews. Learn something new everyday. Glad I made your day.

Old Testament, old covenant, contains "The Law" Jews are told to live by the Law.

New Testament, new covenant, "The Law" is obsolete, teaches that the only way to the Father is through Christ.


This is pretty basic stuff.

Herbal Deity

Err... Matthew 5:

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Seaneh

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Our salvation is not based on the Law.

liamw

Seaneh wrote: »

I love when people who don't know what they are talking about come in here and spout rubbish. Makes my day.

Cheers Canis.

Pot Kettle Black...

Seaneh

liamw wrote: »

Pot Kettle Black...

Not really. I haven't said anything in here that is wrong.

claiming that Christian live according to old testament law is wrong.

ISAW

irishconvert wrote: »

She was not six, more like closer to 19. Been done already though, I'll dig up the thread for you.

thanks for that. Sorry for the off topic.

Heres what I found:http://www.muslimhope.com/AishaNine.htm
He claims Married at six consummated at nine.

Fanny Cradock

I'm coming to this late in the day. Please go here if you want to discuss Islam.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm coming to this late in the day. Please go here if you want to discuss Islam.

According to Rule #1 that wouldn't be the right place either :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

If the intent is to attack Islam then I don't imagine it is the right place.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Jesus taught love of neighbour, love of enemy and forgiveness of sins.

I'm not feeling much love from you Festus.

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

I'm not feeling much love from you Festus.

Did I say anything about you? Did I attack you personally? No on both accounts. So why do you say you don't feel the love?

Are you annoyed at my stoning references? I haven't heard you say you disagree with it. You said it shouldn't happen and should be a deterrent but that is not the same as saying it is wrong.

Is stoning wrong?
Is beheading wrong?
Is chopping off limbs wrong?
Is hanging wrong?

You make the mistake of assuming that I don't like you and that I don't have love for you because I have a particular position on Islam.

I love Muslims but I do not love Islam, in the same way as I love protestants and mormons but not protestantism or mormonism.

Homosexuals, thieves, prostitutes, tax collectors, politicians, lawyers, fill in whatever you like, nazis, skinheads, atheists, whatever - are all to be loved. Muslims, Jews, non-Catholics equally. It doesn't matter who you are.

Because I disagree with you and your faith does not mean I do not love you and pray that one day you will find the Truth.

irishconvert

Festus wrote: »

Did I say anything about you? Did I attack you personally? No on both accounts. So why do you say you don't feel the love?

Are you annoyed at my stoning references? I haven't heard you say you disagree with it. You said it shouldn't happen and should be a deterrent but that is not the same as saying it is wrong.

Is stoning wrong?
Is beheading wrong?
Is chopping off limbs wrong?
Is hanging wrong?

You make the mistake of assuming that I don't like you and that I don't have love for you because I have a particular position on Islam.

I love Muslims but I do not love Islam, in the same way as I love protestants and mormons but not protestantism or mormonism.

Homosexuals, thieves, prostitutes, tax collectors, politicians, lawyers, fill in whatever you like, nazis, skinheads, atheists, whatever - are all to be loved. Muslims, Jews, non-Catholics equally. It doesn't matter who you are.

Because I disagree with you and your faith does not mean I do not love you and pray that one day you will find the Truth.

Your childish repeating of "have you been to any hangings lately" ad nauseum does not seem to be in the Christian ideology you are preaching.

The moderator requested us not to discuss Islam anymore so I cannot answer any of your questions.

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

Your childish repeating of "have you been to any hangings lately" ad nauseum does not seem to be in the Christian ideology you are preaching.

I think you'll find that was stonings

Festus

irishconvert wrote: »

The moderator requested us not to discuss Islam anymore so I cannot answer any of your questions.

Ok then do you think the death sentence for crime is wrong?

That has nothing to do with Islam.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Ok then do you think the death sentence for crime is wrong?

When the Christian God is the judge, jury and executioner, no.