[quote]Chushin wrote:
I just started my own religion yesterday.
Since it’s only one day old, I guess I can justify all kinds of bad shit that I want to do.[/quote]
People can already do all kinds of bad shit that they want to do. If you can really put it together well, try using your justifications to get OTHER people to do what they hadn’t (previously) wanted/dared to do.
If it was said that any actions were justified since any particular religion was used as justification, I must have missed it.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I just started my own religion yesterday.
Since it’s only one day old, I guess I can justify all kinds of bad shit that I want to do.[/quote]
People can already do all kinds of bad shit that they want to do. If you can really put it together well, try using your justifications to get OTHER people to do what they hadn’t (previously) wanted/dared to do.
[/quote]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Incidentally, the Roman Catholic Church finally admitted that the earth moved around the sun in 1822, 190 years after Galileo had told them so (it would, of course, be another 170 years before Pope John Paul II apologised posthumously to Galileo about the mix-up)…
[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
By 1822 “the Church” had a few different meanings.
[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up.
Interesting that you should insist on the clarification, by the way. It took the Catholics 170 years to accept that the earth went 'round the sun, even though it was pretty much common knowledge among laymen by then. Before that, since the 1700s, even after the heliocentric model was nearly universally accepted by astronomers, many of the Protestants still insisted that both the heliocentric and the geocentric models be taught in schools.
Teach the controversy, you know.
And indeed, there were Protestant holdouts for a geocentric model even after the Catholics caved. Still are, if the Flat Earth Society is any indication.
Okay, so it looks like we have Push NOT giving the Christians of Alexandria a pass for murdering Hypatia, based on perfectly rational reasons that I heartily applaud, and then we have GKhan excusing their actions because Christianity was destined to have an enlightenment in about 1200 years. Is that pretty much the size of it?
Re-read my post. I was talking about the Nigeria mass murder of 2000, and I regress, I posted a comment myself that one iman in Nigeria called for a united Muslim/Christian alliance to stamp out Boko Haram. So I was wrong. 1 iman did stand up to them.
[/quote]
Sorry. Thought you were talking about the Paris murders. My mistake.
Just because you personally haven’t heard any Muslim condemnation of Boko Haram doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Then again, I guess how would you, if you get your news only from American sources? Why aren't Muslim leaders being heard?
The word is imam. With an “m”. “Iman” is the Arabic word for “faith”, and the name of the beautiful Somali model who is married to David Bowie.
Interesting that you should insist on the clarification, by the way. It took the Catholics 170 years to accept that the earth went 'round the sun, even though it was pretty much common knowledge among laymen by then.
[/quote]
That was the first mistake. Never admit to being wrong. Never apologise. It’s a sign of weakness.
And rightly so. We can’t have the masses thinking about all sorts of things that just confuse them and often lead them on the wrong path.
[quote]
Teach the controversy, you know.
And indeed, there were Protestant holdouts for a geocentric model even after the Catholics caved. Still are, if the Flat Earth Society is any indication.
(EDITED for clarity)[/quote]
Yes, the Flat Earth Society has always been a favourite of mine. The ultimate in reactionary metaphysics. I’d like to get a little Flat Earth Society bumper sticker to put on my car. Do they sell those? I’m going to find out right now.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, so it looks like we have Push NOT giving the Christians of Alexandria a pass for murdering Hypatia, based on perfectly rational reasons that I heartily applaud, and then we have GKhan excusing their actions because Christianity was destined to have an enlightenment in about 1200 years. Is that pretty much the size of it?[/quote]
I don’t know if it was destined, but it happened. I’m not excusing anything, I’m saying the religion changed over time. Meanwhile another causing terrorism in the name of their religion today has not.
Just because you personally haven’t heard any Muslim condemnation of Boko Haram doesn’t mean there isn’t any. Then again, I guess how would you, if you get your news only from American sources? Why aren't Muslim leaders being heard?
[/quote]
I said I did. There was an ImaM in Nigeria who called for an alliance of Christians and Muslims to stamp out Boko Haram. I guess I’m not the only one who doesn’t comprehend people’s posts.
Regardless, 12 people killed and the world reacts, 2000 people killed and no one reacts. That’s the difference. If the Muslims were concerned about this (MASS MURDER done in Islam’s name) where’s all the rallies against Boko Haram, where’s the Islamic leaders speaking out against them? I see them speaking out against Israel and the US all the time. I see them rallying against Charlie Hebdo over there in Pakistan.
No rallies or outcries against Nigeria, no outcries against Christians killed in Iraq. That’s what I’m talking about Varq.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Again hat tip to Pat, but… I’d have to say the first step in determining if something is moral or not is answering the question: Is there a victim?
It solves the “murder” issues too. Is defending your life using deadly force against an aggressor murder?[/quote]
Is it moral to murder a man who wanted to steal your hat?[/quote]
Do I know he is simply trying to take my hat, or is it reasonable to assume he’d kill me for said hat if he had to?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m not aware of any verses in Christian or Jewish religious texts that call for the subjugation of non-Christians or non-Jews. Not saying there isn’t any, just that I’m not aware of them. Continuing with that line of thought, I think the same can be said of the treatment of women (this could be expanded simply as “other”), special taxes on “other”, theocratic institutes, etc.[/quote]
Anything in there supporting slavery?[/quote]
I went through
And all I read was how to treat slaves, not to enslave.
I may have missed the passage about this.
Continuing under the assumption that the Bible (and/or Jewish texts???) {I’m not familiar with their names } are in favour of slavery, both Christian and Jewish societies eg Western Civilization, have moved on from enslaving people while many Islamic countries haven’t. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery
America (and other countries to a much lesser degree) has/have been at war for quite some time now in the Middle East, and the spoils don’t end up being sex slaves or trafficked. When that kind of behavior is caught, they are rightly punished.
Now that we can see that sex trafficking is a major concern in predominately Muslim countries, what is the result of their continued immigration into non-Muslim countries? I’m sure you know the answer.
Here’s a particularly disgusting event. A group in Edmonton tried to advocate for women and girls that were subject to Islamic honour killings. What happened? Muslims said it was racist, and stifled any discussion. I suggest you go through this page to fully appreciate it.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I’m not aware of any verses in Christian or Jewish religious texts that call for the subjugation of non-Christians or non-Jews. Not saying there isn’t any, just that I’m not aware of them. Continuing with that line of thought, I think the same can be said of the treatment of women (this could be expanded simply as “other”), special taxes on “other”, theocratic institutes, etc.[/quote]
Anything in there supporting slavery?[/quote]
I went through
And all I read was how to treat slaves, not to enslave.
I may have missed the passage about this.
Continuing under the assumption that the Bible (and/or Jewish texts???) {I’m not familiar with their names } are in favour of slavery, both Christian and Jewish societies eg Western Civilization, have moved on from enslaving people while many Islamic countries haven’t. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery
America (and other countries to a much lesser degree) has/have been at war for quite some time now in the Middle East, and the spoils don’t end up being sex slaves or trafficked. When that kind of behavior is caught, they are rightly punished.
Now that we can see that sex trafficking is a major concern in predominately Muslim countries, what is the result of their continued immigration into non-Muslim countries? I’m sure you know the answer.
Here’s a particularly disgusting event. A group in Edmonton tried to advocate for women and girls that were subject to Islamic honour killings. What happened? Muslims said it was racist, and stifled any discussion. I suggest you go through this page to fully appreciate it.
[/quote]
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
Who says slavery is wrong?
If all morality comes from God, and he’s okay with it, then it must be okay.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
Who says slavery is wrong?
If all morality comes from God, and he’s okay with it, then it must be okay.[/quote]
Back then, can you tell me what the difference between slave and employee was?
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
That doesn’t make sense to me. That god would teach how to treat slaves while not supporting it. Why not just say that slavery is wrong.[/quote]
Who says slavery is wrong?
If all morality comes from God, and he’s okay with it, then it must be okay.[/quote]
Back then, can you tell me what the difference between slave and employee was?
[/quote]
[quote]magick wrote:
Is it moral to murder a man who wanted to steal your hat?[/quote]
Do I know he is simply trying to take my hat, or is it reasonable to assume he’d kill me for said hat if he had to?[/quote]
Therein lies my issue with using “is there a victim”? as the starting point of deciding morals.[/quote]
I’m thinking you’re confusing “severity of punishment for wrongs” with “is it moral”, but please elaborate.
Clarification is necessary in everything in life. You asked a complex question. Am I being attacked? Or is dude taking it off a park bench 50 yards away. The moral response to the two is different.
If your question was: “Man is eating a yellow lollypop and yellow pops offend you due to your religion, is it moral to kill the offender?” The answer would be no, as hurt feelings do not a lethal “defense” situation make.
Now if it was: “Man begins to stab you repeatedly with said lollypop and you legitimately fear for your life, is it moral to kill the man with the yellow pop?” My response would be nothing more than “yes”.
You avoided the necessary details. I doubt it was to intentionally frame the argument so that your position was the winning one, but you did frame it void of necessary details to decide.
Well… with the possible exception of the leaders of Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as Turkey, and Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni organisation … but they’re probably not sincere.
[/quote]
Out of all those countries, how many of them still do public executions?
The ones that no longer do, what year was their last public execution?
} are in favour of slavery, both Christian and Jewish societies eg Western Civilization, have moved on from enslaving people while many Islamic countries haven’t.