Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[82_VOL_83]

I've already corrected you and given a reason murder is wrong. I've also posted in depth, more than once, in this thread, why stating your opinion with no external standard is actually making non-moral statements. Since Aristotle and Plato, the philosophical necessity of the Unmoved Mover has been established. You're just trying to claim that if that standard exists, it's the same as if there is no standard.

It's a logical absurdity.

One of you is talking ethics, the other morals. You guys can decide which is which.

 

[Weezer]

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

In yet another of the countless examples of why Israel has no “partner for peace” when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian Arab negotiations, a 19-year-old Palestinian terrorist stabbed a 19-year-old Israeli soldier to death Sunday, stole his gun, shot a father of 12 children to death, and was eventually killed by Israeli Defense forces in a firefight. Fatah, which has close ties with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, lauded the terrorist as a martyr and “pure.” On March 10, Abbas, who has been a member of Fatah, appointed Mohammad Shtayyeh, a member of the Fatah Central Committee, as prime minister.

Omar Abu Leila started his bloody, murderous day on Sunday by stabbing Staff Sgt. Gal Keidan, 19, to death at the Ariel Junction; Keidan hailed from the town of Beersheba. After murdering Keidan, the terrorist stole his rifle. The BBC reportedthat according to Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col Jonathan Conricus, the terrorist fired at three vehicles, one of which was driven by Rabbi Ahiad Ettinger, 47, a father of 12 children and the head of the Oz and Emunah yeshiva in the Neve Sha'anan neighborhood of southern Tel Aviv. Ynet reported that Ettinger's family said he prevented further atrocities by the terrorist by opening fire at him before he was shot to death.

So how did Fatah describe the terrorist on its Facebook page? A Google translate version goes like this: “The people of the martyr Umar Abu Leila and the Fatah movement accept the condolences in the town of Zawia in Burhan Al Salakhi Hall starting from this day at 10 am for three days. May Allah have mercy on the heroic martyr, knowing that his pure body remains in the grip of the criminal occupation army."

Terrorist Kills Israeli Father of 12 And Teenage Israeli Soldier. Palestinians Celebrate Him As 'Pure.'

This is tragic and sad, but why do we not hear the same outrage when Israel kills innocent Muslims caught in the crossfire? Tragedy exists on both sides, not one.

 

[Weezer]

How many live next to you or in your neighborhood. I just asked you a hypothetical question.

And I responded with a relevant question. Most Islamic violence isn't fueled by a desire to convert anyone.

 

[rjd970]

I've already corrected you and given a reason murder is wrong. I've also posted in depth, more than once, in this thread, why stating your opinion with no external standard is actually making non-moral statements. Since Aristotle and Plato, the philosophical necessity of the Unmoved Mover has been established. You're just trying to claim that if that standard exists, it's the same as if there is no standard.

It's a logical absurdity.

If you say so.

 

[Weezer]

Speaking of conversion or death, what justification did Christians use when settling the "New World"? As I remember, the Spanish especially were notorious for this. Do any of our historians know the answer?

 

[Orange_Crush]

One of you is talking ethics, the other morals. You guys can decide which is which.

Trash Pandas. I'm literally lol.

 

[82_VOL_83]

And I responded with a relevant question. Most Islamic violence isn't fueled by a desire to convert anyone.

You made a statement about living in peace, I asked what if that weren't an option. You literally can't answer a straight up question on Islam can you?

 

[82_VOL_83]

Trash Pandas. I'm literally lol.

ROFL.....

The Official Site of the Rocket City Trash Pandas

 

[82_VOL_83]

And I responded with a relevant question. Most Islamic violence isn't fueled by a desire to convert anyone.

Straight up ********. This is what they use as an excuse. Kill the infidel. If the infidel converts, he doesn't have to die. You have a really naive view on the world today. I live under no assumptions. If you are peaceful to me, I am peaceful to you. You **** with me, prepare to be ****ed with.

My motto: Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t.

 

[Weezer]

Straight up ********. This is what they use as an excuse. Kill the infidel. If the infidel converts, he doesn't have to die. You have a really naive view on the world today. I live under no assumptions. If you are peaceful to me, I am peaceful to you. You **** with me, prepare to be ****ed with.

My motto: Don't start no sh*t, won't be no sh*t.

View attachment 198648

And that's pretty much the same reasoning Muslims use. They're not attempting to convert anyone. The truth is, the United States started interfering in ME politics well before terrorist attacks started happening. We started it. If we're being honest, it's the stockpile of oil that these countries sit on that got our interest. In our haste to get it, we trampled over the people. Not only that, but the reformation of Israel after WWII is still a sticky point for them as well. It's not about conversion.

 

[Weezer]

You made a statement about living in peace, I asked what if that weren't an option. You literally can't answer a straight up question on Islam can you?

Which question do you want me to answer? No, there are no Muslims in my neighborhood that I'm aware of, but if there were, I would not be afraid of them. When I was in school, I knew several Muslims, none of who ever tried to convert me. So how many times have you had a Muslim try to convert you?

 

[Roustabout]

And that's pretty much the same reasoning Muslims use. They're not attempting to convert anyone. The truth is, the United States started interfering in ME politics well before terrorist attacks started happening. We started it. If we're being honest, it's the stockpile of oil that these countries sit on that got our interest. In our haste to get it, we trampled over the people. Not only that, but the reformation of Israel after WWII is still a sticky point for them as well. It's not about conversion.

No, you just have a very distorted view of Islam. The atrocities and war mongering of Islam start with Mohammed. Proselytizing isn’t a big deal because Islam is spread by the sword and enforcing Sharia law. If I started posting Islamic crimes against non Muslims, one at a time, I could literally never stop posting. Forget Christians and the western world. Look at how they treat people of the Baha’i.

 

[Roustabout]

There you have it. He knew a couple. Therefore, o problem.

I knew a couple of Nazis in my neighborhood. Great folks, wife made a wonderful casserole.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Just to be clear, Islam is both a religion and an authoritarian political ideology whose command is to take over the world by force.









Much like Marxism.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The initial argument was that because his character is necessary morality based on him isn't arbitrary. You're now talking about the content of his character, which is another matter.

His attributes are presented as being axiomatic, but given all the arguments against them, including ones I've presented on this forum, that isn't the case in a strict sense.

The argument is that because it's based in His character, it isn't arbitrary. You and rjd have equivocated the definition of arbitrary to disallow the existence of an absolute moral standard altogether with the fallacious logic that it can't be moral unless you and rjd agree with the reason behind its morality. As described in this thread, morality works just the opposite. If it's not absolute and independent of personal opinion, it's not morality.

It's obvious that we've reached the point that your agenda is arguing on your behalf, so I'll leave you with that.

Thanks again for your time and demand that I refine my position and argument. It's been extremely valuable.

 

[Wafflestomper]

The argument is that because it's based in His character, it isn't arbitrary.

Well, like I said, there's not really any particular reason why God's character is the way that it is (i.e., nothing caused it to be that way). This seems to me to fit the definition of arbitrary. However, and as I originally replied, I don't think the conclusion follows anyway. My character or nature isn't arbitrary but I'm still capable of making arbitrary decisions or commands, right?

You and rjd have equivocated the definition of arbitrary to disallow the existence of an absolute moral standard altogether with the fallacious logic that it can't be moral unless you and rjd agree with the reason behind its morality.

Where have I said that?

As described in this thread, morality works just the opposite. If it's not absolute and independent of personal opinion, it's not morality.

That's just not true. Where are you getting this from?

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's just not true. Where are you getting this from?

That is absolutely true. Morality is:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

With no external standard, you have no way to make any true distinction between good/evil, right wrong. That's been shown repeatedly in this thread. All you can do is list preferences and admit that there's no actual "better" between preferences. You can't call Nazism actually wrong. All you can say is that you don't prefer it. You can't actually says that torturing babies for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't think people should do it.

Again, that's not a definition of right and wrong. Without a moral standard to measure the claims against, there is no actual definition of good/evil, right/wrong. Thus, if morality is the definition of and distinction between right/wrong, there is no moral statement without an external, absolute standard.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

This is tragic and sad, but why do we not hear the same outrage when Israel kills innocent Muslims caught in the crossfire? Tragedy exists on both sides, not one.

Can you give me an example of Israelis openly celebrating the one who does the killing? Especially if it is collateral damage? Not arguing that tragedy doesn't exist on both sides, but killers are more openly celebrated on the one side, ESPECIALLY when they kill themselves in the process.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can you give me an example of Israelis openly celebrating the one who does the killing? Especially if it is collateral damage? Not arguing that tragedy doesn't exist on both sides, but killers are more openly celebrated on the one side, ESPECIALLY when they kill themselves in the process.

And was the young soldier killed by a missile because he was hiding in a school while attacking Palestine? Or was he brutally stabbed right before some old dude was?

 

[1972 Grad]

Which question do you want me to answer? No, there are no Muslims in my neighborhood that I'm aware of, but if there were, I would not be afraid of them. When I was in school, I knew several Muslims, none of who ever tried to convert me. So how many times have you had a Muslim try to convert you?

I have had them try to convert me. Wait...………...……...……………………….maybe those guys were Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

 

[Roustabout]

Well, like I said, there's not really any particular reason why God's character is the way that it is (i.e., nothing caused it to be that way). This seems to me to fit the definition of arbitrary. However, and as I originally replied, I don't think the conclusion follows anyway. My character or nature isn't arbitrary but I'm still capable of making arbitrary decisions or commands, right?



Where have I said that?



That's just not true. Where are you getting this from?

Fundamental failure to consider or acknowledge classical theology.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I have always known that the mormons are a cult...and had strayed from Gods word when they added their own entire book in addition yo the Bible..lizard men, magic plates, all kinds of crazy stuff. Recently learned that they believe that God is not eternal, He was once a man on a different planet. So they are completely out of their minds, and sadly have been lead astray by the words of a modern "prophet".

My dad was stationed at Hill AFB for 4 years, and i spent summers on salt lake city so i have been immersed in their society, they go to different wards (churches) based on which block they live. Wards are simply numbered, and do not have names. The people are devout, crime is rare, and quality of life is very high. It is very sad that all of those people have been misled.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That is absolutely true. Morality is:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

So you're saying that other systems of morality don't endeavor to do this? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they do.

With no external standard, you have no way to make any true distinction between good/evil, right wrong. That's been shown repeatedly in this thread. All you can do is list preferences and admit that there's no actual "better" between preferences. You can't call Nazism actually wrong. All you can say is that you don't prefer it. You can't actually says that torturing babies for fun is wrong. All you can say is that you don't think people should do it.

Sure you can.

Again, that's not a definition of right and wrong. Without a moral standard to measure the claims against, there is no actual definition of good/evil, right/wrong. Thus, if morality is the definition of and distinction between right/wrong, there is no moral statement without an external, absolute standard.

So start with first principles such as treating people as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end, and never acting except in such a way that one could also will that a maxim should become a universal law. This way what is right and wrong are accessible to reason. I see no need for an external source from this method.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Fundamental failure to consider or acknowledge classical theology.

Hard to call it a failure when I wasn't attempting to do so.