Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Behr]

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?

Most of you guys are more knowledgeable on this stuff than I am and that's why I don't post in these threads, but I'll give you my personal opinion on this.

If everyone were to wait until they were married and only had sex with their spouse, the way he intended, this would be a different world. I mean, think of the abortions alone...

So in his his eyes, yes, I can see it on the same level.

Obviously if you look at it just as single acts, yes, a single act of murder is quit a bit more serious than a single act of premarital sex, but pretty sure God looks at it in a much bigger picture than that.

And according to my understanding, they are both sins and a sin is a sin, but you can be forgiven for both. So just for this conversation sake, what does it matter if one is worse than the other? He said don't do either, but if you do either go to him and genuinely ask for forgiveness and don't do it again. To me its like telling your kids not to lie and that some are bigger than others, but a lie is a lie and if they lie to you, no TV for a week. I know that's not a perfect analogy, but you should get my point.

And I know that opens a whole other can of worms, but thats my belief on the question you asked.

Just thought you might appreciate a simple mans opinion.

 

[rjd970]

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.

I have mine to critique yours with, and they are both on equal footing that boils down to our opinions of what’s right and wrong. I’m glad you believe there is a moral reality that transcends human opinion, but you are in fact human and have your opinion. Your opinion is that if theism providing your framework for you. YOU are still making that decision, as am I to rely on myself to make that framework. You are being no more objective than me.

 

[MercyPercy]

Thanks for your thoughts, Behr. I will address them after my run on meetings coming up.

 

[McDad]

Most of you guys are more knowledgeable on this stuff than I am and that's why I don't post in these threads, but I'll give you my personal opinion on this.

If everyone were to wait until they were married and only had sex with their spouse, the way he intended, this would be a different world. I mean, think of the abortions alone...

So in his his eyes, yes, I can see it on the same level.

Obviously if you look at it just as single acts, yes, a single act of murder is quit a bit more serious than a single act of premarital sex, but pretty sure God looks at it in a much bigger picture than that.

And according to my understanding, they are both sins and a sin is a sin, but you can be forgiven for both. So just for this conversation sake, what does it matter if one is worse than the other? He said don't do either, but if you do either go to him and genuinely ask for forgiveness and don't do it again. To me its like telling your kids not to lie and that some are bigger than others, but a lie is a lie and if they lie to you, no TV for a week. I know that's not a perfect analogy, but you should get my point.

And I know that opens a whole other can of worms, but thats my belief on the question you asked.

Just thought you might appreciate a simple mans opinion.

I enjoy interacting with you in the FF. You should post over here more ofter, Behr.

 

[n_huffhines]

 

[Roustabout]

I have mine to critique yours with, and they are both on equal footing that boils down to our opinions of what’s right and wrong. I’m glad you believe there is a moral reality that transcends human opinion, but you are in fact human and have your opinion. Your opinion is that if theism providing your framework for you. YOU are still making that decision, as am I to rely on myself to make that framework. You are being no more objective than me.

I think you need a lesson in ontology.
Sure, we both have opinions. That isnt the issue and the fact that you keep trying to reduce it to this shows you are either dishonest or not too bright.

You absolutely believe that morals are objective or as I’ve said, you’d have no grounds on which to criticize any others. It would be akin to saying someone is wrong for preferring Jazz to Blues.

 

[n_huffhines]

.

 

[rjd970]

I think you need a lesson in ontology.
Sure, we both have opinions. That isnt the issue and the fact that you keep trying to reduce it to this shows you are either dishonest or not too bright.

You absolutely believe that morals are objective or as I’ve said, you’d have no grounds on which to criticize any others. It would be akin to saying someone is wrong for preferring Jazz to Blues.

I think blues are better than Jazz is my opinion. That the biblical moral code on slavery is disgusting, and anybody defending it is disgusting is my opinion. The grounding I’m using is my own.

The grounding you are using is your own. At the end of the day it is still your choice and your opinion to believe it. It’s not anymore objective than my statements. Claiming it is more objective and based on a transcendent morality make you feel better but it isn’t the case. Ontology doesn’t change that. You are just as human as me and have opinions like me. You and any other theists are not special just because you have decided to trust ancient Middle East philosophies over yourself and the 1000’s of years of progress we can avail ourselves with since.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think blues are better than Jazz is my opinion. That the biblical moral code on slavery is disgusting, and anybody defending it is disgusting is my opinion. The grounding I’m using is my own.

The grounding you are using is your own. At the end of the day it is still your choice and your opinion to believe it. It’s not anymore objective than my statements. Claiming it is more objective and based on a transcendent morality make you feel better but it isn’t the case. Ontology doesn’t change that. You are just as human as me and have opinions like me. You and any other theists are not special just because you have decided to trust ancient Middle East philosophies over yourself and the 1000’s of years of progress we can avail ourselves with since.

lol

 

[rjd970]

lol

Congrats on your transcendence. I think your justifications on slavery are reprehensible and morality of homosexuality is based on the writings of a people for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Congrats on your transcendence. I think your justifications on slavery are reprehensible and morality of homosexuality is based on the writings of a people for whom the wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.

I repeat. lol

"There is no objective standard for morality and it's nothing more than opinions. Let's discuss the progress made since that disgusting morality from thousands of years ago."

What is progress but the measurement of something against a standard? As opposed to regress? Or your best guess?

Yah. I think that's what you meant. Not "progress". You meant your "best guess".

 

[rjd970]

I repeat. lol

"There is no objective standard for morality and it's nothing more than opinions. Let's discuss the progress made since that disgusting morality from thousands of years ago."

What is progress but the measurement of something against a standard? As opposed to regress? Or your best guess?

Yah. I think that's what you meant. Not "progress". You meant your "best guess".

Try again. Progress is the onward movement towards a goal or destination. That destination doesn't have to be a static state. Regress is backward movement towards that same destination. It is measured against nothing other than its previous state. For instance, we can progress and regress towards perfection but never achieve it and that definition of what perfection is can be fluid.

Nevertheless, the standard, if we are calling it that, is the sum total of what I've come to believe. Same as you, but I'm not arguing immutability in place of honesty.

We get...because God. If that is the end game of your arguments then I don't know why you bother with the ontology to begin with. Congrats on your objective morality, the rest of us live in the 21st century.

 

[Weezer]

If you compared the number of times a predominantly Christian country interfered with a predominantly Muslim country in modern times, as compared vice versa, who do you think interferes with the other more?

When it comes to religion, I know what I believe. I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with my beliefs. I think we all have differences of opinion ranging from extremely minor to extremely major. I also think we won't know who's right until we're dead and gone. That said, I believe in peaceful discussion, where everyone respects the belief of others, but that's rarely what you get. I don't really understand the need to dismiss or vilify a religion in what seems an attempt to bolster my own. Again, I know what I believe. Faith being personal, others don't have to agree for me to treat them in a civil manner.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Try again. Progress is the onward movement towards a goal or destination. That destination doesn't have to be a static state. Regress is backward movement towards that same destination. It is measured against nothing other than its previous state. For instance, we can progress and regress towards perfection but never achieve it and that definition of what perfection is can be fluid.

Nevertheless, the standard, if we are calling it that, is the sum total of what I've come to believe. Same as you, but I'm not arguing immutability in place of honesty.

We get...because God. If that is the end game of your arguments then I don't know why you bother with the ontology to begin with. Congrats on your objective morality, the rest of us live in the 21st century.

So, progress is the measurement toward a goal, as I said. You are the standard, as I said. So the better verbiage would have been your "best guess", as I said.

OK. Thanks.

 

[rjd970]

So, progress is the measurement toward a goal, as I said. You are the standard, as I said. So the better verbiage would have been your "best guess", as I said.

OK. Thanks.

Wrong again. If I get in my car and head north I am making progress north. If going north is the standard then I’ve achieved it. When all else fails argue semantics.

You’re welcome.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wrong again. If I get in my car and head north I am making progress north. If going north is the standard then I’ve achieved it. When all else fails argue semantics.

You’re welcome.

Nothing had failed except the fact that you've kept treating morality as objective. You can't help it. It's the ontological issue roust referenced.

 

[Behr]

I enjoy interacting with you in the FF. You should post over here more ofter, Behr.

Thanks McDadio, but I'm fine just poking my head in every once in a while. I'm actually a loyal reader, just don't feel I can add much most of the time. Like the conversation OC and rjd are having right now, I have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[superdave1984]

Slavery still exists today. In the US. And in every other country in the world. And, furthermore, nothing is, was, or ever will be done about it. Biblical slavery was allowed for a purpose. Crush nailed that a page back.

Slavery as it was done during the formation of the US is not something I am ever going to defend.

 

[Wafflestomper]

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.

Special pleading is still fallacious. Claiming that God can move from is to ought doesn't obviate the problem. It's no better than claiming that naturalists can without explanation.

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

I already told you why I bring those arguments up. You want me to copy and paste it again?

You're treating these arguments as if they don't even exist, when in reality they've existed for hundreds of years. I'm not trying to convince you that they're true; only that they exist and you've no grounds for making the claims that you have regarding secular morality without further argumentation.

 

[superdave1984]

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.

I am talking about a bigger picture. I don't know how to state that any plainer. In the overall picture, both murder and adultery cause an equal amount of damage. Murder is direct while adultery is typically indirect and delayed damage. But the damage of adultery is just as real. You do not agree with me, and that is fine. You don't have to.

Also, how did we get into this in a thread about whether or not Islam is peaceful?

 

[Wafflestomper]

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

Don't bother addressing anything I've said. Just repeat the same things over and over again. Sometimes I wonder if you and OC are the same person.

 

[MercyPercy]

Most of you guys are more knowledgeable on this stuff than I am and that's why I don't post in these threads, but I'll give you my personal opinion on this.

We are all just giving our personal opinion here.. despite what some folks would have you believe.

If everyone were to wait until they were married and only had sex with their spouse, the way he intended, this would be a different world. I mean, think of the abortions alone...

So in his his eyes, yes, I can see it on the same level.

Married folks still get abortions. I'm not sure the coat hangers of history ever minded one way or another.

Would it be a different world? Probably. Would it be a "better world"? Maybe in some ways, maybe not in others, for various reasons. Reduced overpopulation, reduction of a welfare state mentality, kids growing up with both parents more often, less spread of STDs. I can acknowledge that. There would also probably be negatives, like more mass shootings by young guys. I'm telling you, not getting laid is a super common thing amonst those nuts. However, this goes along the same lines of things that we know are bad for us, and hurt us as a society in similar ways. Alcohol, fast food, cigarettes, vice.. these can also cause societal problems. Yet murder is illegal, and pre-marital sex and cigarettes are legal. Do you think you would support a ban on pre-marital sex if it came up in our country, since it's just as damaging to society as murder, in the eyes of God? What about cigarettes, alcohol, soda?

Obviously if you look at it just as single acts, yes, a single act of murder is quit a bit more serious than a single act of premarital sex, but pretty sure God looks at it in a much bigger picture than that.

I don't agree with this statement. If, in the eyes of God, sin is sin and one is no more damaging or morally reprehensible than the other, you can't say one is more serious. That's a contradiction.

And according to my understanding, they are both sins and a sin is a sin, but you can be forgiven for both. So just for this conversation sake, what does it matter if one is worse than the other? He said don't do either, but if you do either go to him and genuinely ask for forgiveness and don't do it again. To me its like telling your kids not to lie and that some are bigger than others, but a lie is a lie and if they lie to you, no TV for a week. I know that's not a perfect analogy, but you should get my point.

And I know that opens a whole other can of worms, but thats my belief on the question you asked.

Just thought you might appreciate a simple mans opinion.

It matters because I am personally trying to compare morality ad I understand it with the morality of the bible, and I just don't see how you can equivocate pre-marital sex and murder. That's the type of antiquated belief system that leads to muzzies stoning women in the sand pits. I understand the kids lying analogy, but when comparing murder and pre-marital sex, I don't think it carries much significance. Apples to oranges.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Special pleading is still fallacious. Claiming that God can move from is to ought doesn't obviate the problem. It's no better than claiming that naturalists can without explanation.



I already told you why I bring those arguments up. You want me to copy and paste it again?

You are making an error in classification.

Like i said, rjd made moral comparisons and moral statements. I asked him his foundation for doing so and engaged him on his answers.

You know damn well none of those philosophies show transcendent, inherent morality or human value, which is the subject at hand. And again, if you want to argue them, argue them. But they're not even strong enough for you to believe them.

 

[Roustabout]

Try again. Progress is the onward movement towards a goal or destination. That destination doesn't have to be a static state. Regress is backward movement towards that same destination. It is measured against nothing other than its previous state. For instance, we can progress and regress towards perfection but never achieve it and that definition of what perfection is can be fluid.

Nevertheless, the standard, if we are calling it that, is the sum total of what I've come to believe. Same as you, but I'm not arguing immutability in place of honesty.

We get...because God. If that is the end game of your arguments then I don't know why you bother with the ontology to begin with. Congrats on your objective morality, the rest of us live in the 21st century.

So, what is the goal? Where does it exist and how do you know you've arrived?
You realize that makes no sense. You can't use the term progress unless we have some standard by which to measure. This is why you are being challenged and called out for trespassing and smuggling in terms. If the definition is fluid then it isn't defined. Talk about moving the goalposts.

The moral argument is not a "because god," argument.

 

[Roustabout]

Wrong again. If I get in my car and head north I am making progress north. If going north is the standard then I’ve achieved it. When all else fails argue semantics.

You’re welcome.

This would be sad if it were not so comical. North is an OBJECTIVE reality by which we can train our compass. Imagine if North varied and the pilot said well, i got you where you wanted to go. The compass says so. I seriously doubt you'd accept that, yet you are asking us to accept that in the moral sense. It's absurd. And, your answer has basically been to cross your arms, pout and say, "it's just your opinon, but god, blah, blah."

Let me paint it out using YOUR example. You, and your moral capacity are the compass. So, what is north? This is the ENTIRE gist of what OC has been trying to communicate. If north is you, or in you, then it means nothing ultimately. Because that could vary from individual and culture. And, it's completely dependent on the factors that brought us to where we are today, whether that be evolution of experience. If moral north varies then nothing you could determine today, could or should be expected tomorrow. Progress would mean nothing, and it's arbitrary and not fixed. It's essentially shooting the arrow and then moving the target to where it landed.

Your response has been nothing more than personal incredulity. "It's just y'alls opinion, 'because God......"