Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Orange_Crush]

You and OC are the ones insisting people bow a knee for their system of morality, not me.

Ignorant and unfair comment, considering I told you repeatedly that you're free to accept or deny God's system of morality. As a matter of fact, I never even engaged you and only engaged rjd when he postured about Biblical morality and judged it with no valid standard to do so.

Your problem is that you get uncomfortable when your naturalistic wordlview is shown void of the foundations you live by. Your only defense has been to try to accuse the Christian worldview of the same failures, fail to do so, and then you're left to grandstand and posture like you're doing now.

It's sad.

 

[Roustabout]

You and OC are the ones insisting people bow a knee for their system of morality, not me.

Really? That’s your come back?
For the last time, I am NOT a DCT.
Either there is a moral reality or there isn’t. Kant, Hume, etc. It doesn’t matter how we come to our moral reasoning. Evolution, learning, whatever.
You live and most everyone lives, not as a Vulcan, but as if there really is an objective (truly objective) moral reality. That’s a fact. Y’all just spend your time trying to convince yourselves otherwise.

 

[rjd970]

Stupid comment, considering I told you repeatedly that you're free to accept or deny God's system of morality. As a matter of fact, I never even engaged you and only engaged rjd when he postured about Biblical morality and judged it with no valid standard to do so.

Your problem is that you get uncomfortable when your naturalistic wordlview is shown void of the foundations you live by. Your only defense has been to try to accuse the Christian worldview of the same failures, fail to do so, and then you're left to grandstand and posture like you're doing now.

It's sad.

I have my standard. You have yours. You guys haven’t shown ‘ish about voiding foundations. The sum total if your argument with stomp seems to be “because God”. At least we are being honest that we are the source of our moral intuitions.

 

[Roustabout]

I have my standard. You have yours. You guys haven’t shown ‘ish about voiding foundations. The sum total if your argument with stomp seems to be “because God”. At least we are being honest that we are the source of our moral intuitions.

No, what it is, is grounding morality in a transcendent and objective reality.

Which one is arrogant.
-Morality is based in me
-Morality is not based in me

 

[Wafflestomper]

Really? That’s your come back?
For the last time, I am NOT a DCT.
Either there is a moral reality or there isn’t. Kant, Hume, etc. It doesn’t matter how we come to our moral reasoning. Evolution, learning, whatever.
You live and most everyone lives, not as a Vulcan, but as if there really is an objective (truly objective) moral reality. That’s a fact. Y’all just spend your time trying to convince yourselves otherwise.

Aren't you the one who insists that you know what people believe better than they themselves do? That they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness?" Are you suggesting then that we know the truth but that there's no reason we should conform our behavior to it? Seems unlikely.

Also, how do you presume to know that everyone lives as if there is an objective moral truth? Are you saying there are no moral disagreements? This thread alone has plenty.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have my standard. You have yours. You guys haven’t shown ‘ish about voiding foundations. The sum total if your argument with stomp seems to be “because God”. At least we are being honest that we are the source of our moral intuitions.

Haven't shown the voided foundations, huh?

Where's your source of human worth and dignity? Oh yah. You said it was in your imagination.

Thanks for playing.

 

[rjd970]

Haven't shown the voided foundations, huh?

Where's your source of human worth and dignity? Oh yah. You said it was in your imagination.

Thanks for playing.

My source is me. Same as with you. End of story.

 

[rjd970]

No, what it is, is grounding morality in a transcendent and objective reality.

Which one is arrogant.
-Morality is based in me
-Morality is not based in me

The first statement is true for both of us, you just don’t want to admit it. At the end of the day you are choosing your morality, you are just claiming an objective something...but YOU are the one deciding it is objective and what’s right.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No, what it is, is grounding morality in a transcendent and objective reality.

Which one is arrogant.
-Morality is based in me
-Morality is not based in me

To paraphrase Cornelius Van Til, when secularists draw on truths explained only by God's existence, only to use those truths to deny His existence, they are sitting in God's lap only to slap him in the face.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Haven't shown the voided foundations, huh?

Where's your source of human worth and dignity? Oh yah. You said it was in your imagination.

Thanks for playing.

What he's probably asking for is more than simply re-asserting that values can't be derived without an objective source. To my recollection you haven't provided anything like that.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My source is me. Same as with you. End of story.

My source is external to me. You are mistaken. If you ask me the source of my morality, I've told you where it comes from, and it's not me. Now, you may claim that the source is in my imagination, and that's fine. But it's a much different claim to say that my source of morality is external and objective, thus I have the philosophical foundation to say that something is either moral or immoral than it is to say that the very concept of objective morality doesn't exist, yet you are "morally corrupt" and should be embarrassed for disagreeing with me. (As you have done here.)

Similarly, it is a far different claim that humans are made in the image of God and so are a different class of creation with inherent human value and dignity than it is to say that human value and dignity are products of my personal imagination, so it's morally corrupt to own slaves.

Again, you may claim that my source for human value and dignity is in my own imagination, but they are two far different claims with two far different metaphysical repercussions.

Worldview tests are there to explain what we experience as reality. You and I both intuitively perceive and live as though an objective moral standard exists. You've been incapable of treating m,e as though your morality isn't objective. I've pointed it out. In action, we agree that morality is objective.

Yet it's my worldview that explains this without having to explain it away.

You and I agree that humanity has intrinsic value and worth outside of your imagination. But you have to deny that while living as though you believe it. My worldview can explain that and yours has to explain it away.

So, if you and I both looked at a mathematical answer, came to the conclusion that 2+2=4, and yet I was the only one that affirmed that math exists outside of your imagination, it would be an obviously different claim for you to point out that math is only in our imagination and my belief in math is only in my imagination. Whether you think math is only your imagination, it doesn't change the formula. If you believe that my belief in math is only in my imagination, it doesn't affect the existence of math or its affect on the formula.

At the end of the day, feel free to deny the source I reference. It's between you and God. But stop with the silly equivalency pursuits between your claims and mine. Mine answers questions that yours can't, which shows the philosophical differences between them.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What he's probably asking for is more than simply re-asserting that values can't be derived without an objective source. To my recollection you haven't provided anything like that.

There's a reason ya'll haven't tried. And there's a huge difference between values and transcendent values. Your equivocation does little to change the pursuits of hundreds of years of naturalistic philosophy that's tried to ground transcendent worth, value, meaning and morality in humanity without the source material of God. As a matter of fact, I would say that's been the primary struggle of philosophy for hundreds of years.

And you and RJD solved it. Volnation is a happening place of movers and shakers, it seems.

ETA:

"We have gradually dissolved--deconstructed--the human being into a bundle of reflexes, impulses, neuroses, nerve endings. The great religious heresy used to be making man the measure of all things; but we have come close to making man the measure of nothing." Henry Grunwald

 

[superdave1984]

*thousands of years old text

I hope you will forgive my error and address the part where I said it views pre-marital sex as the same level of offense (sin) as murder.

Sure thing. At the time the law was given, the death penalty was very common. In fact there are 16 different "crimes" which would get you the death penalty. Murder, kidnapping, striking or cursing your parents, extreme rebelliousness of a kid, sacrificing to false gods, violating the Sabbath, blasphemy, being a false prophet, human sacrifice, divination, adultery, bestiality, incest, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and rape. The underlying purpose was to exterminate the criminal and their behavior. And to keep it from becoming the norm. To eliminate from society those elements that persist in destructive behavior. It served both as a deterrent AND a consequence. How many of these are considered normal now? Or at least accepted. What would our society, and the world, look if none of those 16 things existed anymore? Has they been eradicated a few thousand years ago, I suspect our world would not currently be in turmoil.

Bottom line, the law of Moses was strict. It sought to eliminate all immoral behavior in one way or another. Premarital sex, while we see it as benign, was taboo in that time. Sex was intended for procreation. Imagine if we had no healthcare, no birth control, no system to care for orphans....what would our society look like? No meds for STD.... how does that look to you? No birth control... how does that look? I am betting you would have a different outlook on sex outside of marriage. The law was given to ensure the continued life of the Jewish people. It was given to promote clean living.

You seem to be attempting to fit the law of Moses to modern society. And you can't. Society has become so corrupt that morality almost doesn't exist. Yes, in the OT and even in the NT, the punishment for murder was the same as for adultery. God saw the bigger picture and the lingering consequences of both. You clearly do not. While the immediate result of adultery and murder are quite different, the lasting impact can be identical.

 

[MercyPercy]

So, after jesus/the new testament, sin is no longer equal? Since when? I'm not even sure how that response is relevant to my question, which is, does it make sense to you from a moral perspective that pre-marital sex is the same level of moral offense, in the eyes of God, as murder?

 

[Wafflestomper]

There's a reason ya'll haven't tried. And there's a huge difference between values and transcendent values. Your equivocation does little to change the pursuits of hundreds of years of naturalistic philosophy that's tried to ground transcendent worth, value, meaning and morality in humanity without the source material of God. As a matter of fact, I would say that's been the primary struggle of philosophy for hundreds of years.

And you and RJD solved it. Volnation is a happening place of movers and shakers, it seems.

ETA:

Where did I agree that transcendent values exist? I think I've more or less said the opposite actually. There is no equivocation on my part as a result of question begging on yours.

Stop acting like yours is the majority opinion as well. Most philosophers disagree with your opinions on morality as a result of the thousands of years of dialogue on the subject. The fact that you and other theologians disagree is not concerning to me.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where did I agree that transcendent values exist? I think I've more or less said the opposite actually. There is no equivocation on my part as a result of question begging on yours.

Stop acting like yours is the majority opinion as well. Most philosophers disagree with your opinions on morality as a result of the thousands of years of dialogue on the subject. The fact that you and other theologians disagree is not concerning to me.

RJD postured with moral grandstanding against Christian morality and the Bible. I asked him what foundation he has for doing so. He replied that its mere personal opinion. You entered the fray, tried to convict Christian morality of the same accusations that RJD readily admitted without providing anything except to eventually accuse me of fallacious logic that isn't fallacious, leave the conversation, wake up and grandstand to the audience.

And you seem incredibly concerned. Concerned enough to appeal to arguments that you won't make and admittedly don't believe.

 

[rjd970]

So, after jesus/the new testament, sin is no longer equal? Since when? I'm not even sure how that response is relevant to my question, which is, does it make sense to you from a moral perspective that pre-marital sex is the same level of moral offense, in the eyes of God, as murder?

Don't question it I guess...because God. That really seems to be the end sum here and whether it makes sense is besides the point. All that matters is perceived objectivity about it all.

Personally, I think what consenting adults do behind closed doors isn't in the same conversation as murder. But that is not objective so it clearly carries less weight and validity.

 

[Roustabout]

Aren't you the one who insists that you know what people believe better than they themselves do? That they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness?" Are you suggesting then that we know the truth but that there's no reason we should conform our behavior to it? Seems unlikely.

Also, how do you presume to know that everyone lives as if there is an objective moral truth? Are you saying there are no moral disagreements? This thread alone has plenty.

I simply point out when people smuggle, hijack and trespass on another worldview.

 

[Roustabout]

The first statement is true for both of us, you just don’t want to admit it. At the end of the day you are choosing your morality, you are just claiming an objective something...but YOU are the one deciding it is objective and what’s right.

I think you got this backwards. I have an ontology. You have your opinion. If you REALLY believed that then you wouldn’t be having this discussion. You’d have no grounds by which to make any mora claims. Everyone just has their view. But that isn’t what you’re saying.

 

[rjd970]

I think you got this backwards. I have an ontology. You have your opinion. If you REALLY believed that then you wouldn’t be having this discussion. You’d have no grounds by which to make any mora claims. Everyone just has their view. But that isn’t what you’re saying.

I can go on about how I define morality in terms of victimization, happiness, and suffering and my experiences and reality and how that creates a worldview. But because it is "my worldview" you are going to call it an opinion. However, because you are relying on somebody else's worldview to formulate your own it is now "ontology" and "objective". That doesn't make it so and I'm not impressed and you can call it whatever you want. At the end of the day you are still making that decision to follow it and it is still your decision and opinion on how you relate to morality, whether you admit it or not.

 

[superdave1984]

So, after jesus/the new testament, sin is no longer equal? Since when? I'm not even sure how that response is relevant to my question, which is, does it make sense to you from a moral perspective that pre-marital sex is the same level of moral offense, in the eyes of God, as murder?

Where did I say that Jesus created different levels of sin? I did answer your question. Perhaps Slice can give a better answer from a Jewish perspective regarding the law. But the law was put in place to maintain order and maintain a clean way of life for the people of Israel. Again, if there were no meds for that STD or no condoms to help prevent it would you be promiscuous? If there was no birth control? I doubt it. You think the food laws were arbitrary too? They had a purpose as well. I don't expect you to understand. I respect what you are saying about murder and adultery. I am just telling you that in the eyes of God, there is no difference. Disobedience is disobedience.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where did I say that Jesus created different levels of sin? I did answer your question. Perhaps Slice can give a better answer from a Jewish perspective regarding the law. But the law was put in place to maintain order and maintain a clean way of life for the people of Israel. Again, if there were no meds for that STD or no condoms to help prevent it would you be promiscuous? If there was no birth control? I doubt it. You think the food laws were arbitrary too? They had a purpose as well. I don't expect you to understand. I respect what you are saying about murder and adultery. I am just telling you that in the eyes of God, there is no difference. Disobedience is disobedience.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

People seem to be missing the fact that God has a special mission and purpose for Israel ("Be holy as I am holy"). He told Abraham that he wouldn't judge the nations around him until (Israel) had had several hundred years to display His glory to them. So, His mission for Israel was to be holy as He is holy--to display His glory as a sort of gospel message. (A large part of that mission was also to continue the worship/sacrifice system and then produce the Messiah.)

So, with a special mission, God made them a theocracy and established religious laws as national law to enforce culture and mission. That's why he gave them laws that He didn't give anyone else at the time, or since.

Further, per the law, Jesus said on more than one occasion that the law was given, not as God divine and perfect plan, but as a permissive plan to limit the evils of fallen humanity's selfish and sinful nature. His sermon on the mount taught this. It's what the whole "You have heard (in the law)... but I say..." parts.

The law says an eye for an eye and you think it entitles you to a pound of flesh. But I meant it as a safeguard to at least make the punishment fit the crime when you demand punishment. I prefer you forgive one another in love.

They asked him about divorce and He said the plan was one man and one woman forever in mutual respect and submission. But to protect wives, God's permissive law was for divorce.

Similarly, I'm sure God's plan would have been for mutual voluntary support of the poor and needy, but knowing the selfishness of fallen humanity, he knew provisions would be needed, so he allowed "slavery" (which was far different than chattel slavery) for people to work off debts. He established a jubilee year where all debts were forgiven all land went back to its original owners/family, and all slaves were freed along with the debts that put them there.

He established a legal system that you almost had to try to fall into generational poverty and the rights of slaves were protected.

Again... This was all permissive laws to protect people's dignity as much as possible at a savage time among sinful, selfish people (everyone). It's not as though God set out with the desire to see slavery any more than He wanted to see divorce. It was a permissive law as the lesser of evils at the time.

 

[Roustabout]

I can go on about how I define morality in terms of victimization, happiness, and suffering and my experiences and reality and how that creates a worldview. But because it is "my worldview" you are going to call it an opinion. However, because you are relying on somebody else's worldview to formulate your own it is now "ontology" and "objective". That doesn't make it so and I'm not impressed and you can call it whatever you want. At the end of the day you are still making that decision to follow it and it is still your decision and opinion on how you relate to morality, whether you admit it or not.

That is hardly the grounds for my moral ontology. But, let’s juts suppose for a moment it were. What grounds do you have to critique my moral reasoning?

The fact that I’m a theist simply means I’m consistent. I believe that there is a moral reality that transcends human opinion and is genuinely objective. Im glad you live as if that is the case as well.

 

[MercyPercy]

Dude. I'm not talking about not eating shrimp, or not wearing mixed fabrics (though we can address that silliness later if you like). If you want to argue those old mandates were just for the old Jews, fine. But you can't categorize pre-marital sex with those, christians still preach pre-marital sex is a sin, and as far as I know, sin is sin. According to the bible, pre-marital sex is just as morally reprehensible as murder, whether it's 2000 years ago or today. It sounds like you are sticking to the idea that they are both equally morally reprehensible. I think that is an uncivilized, antiquated and barbaric equivocation.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Dude. I'm not talking about not eating shrimp, or not wearing mixed fabrics (though we can address that silliness later if you like). If you want to argue those old mandates were just for the old Jews, fine. But you can't categorize pre-marital sex with those, christians still preach pre-marital sex is a sin, and as far as I know, sin is sin. According to the bible, pre-marital sex is just as morally reprehensible as murder, whether it's 2000 years ago or today. It sounds like you are sticking to the idea that they are both equally morally reprehensible. I think that is an uncivilized, antiquated and barbaric equivocation.

OK. And?