Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[BigO95]

And actually I try to refrain from sin because of my love for my God and my neighbor. When anyone sins he is sinning against God or his neighbor or both.

 

[Roustabout]

Consequentialism. Isn't is plausible that treating others poorly is a terrible conduit for the advancement of a species and that we've developed this innate morality to survive and flourish? Some of the Scandinavian countries are some of the most secular in the history of Earth, yet they also enjoy some of the lowest levels of violent crime and corruption. How do we reconcile that?

Tell me, is it your contention that the only thing between you and murder (for example) is the fear that you may one day end up in hell?

As I stated, I believe sin is a human construct, ergo religion gets its morality from humans. I think this is where we'll likely not be able to bridge an agreement.



"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death." — Albert Einstein

Should be? According to what?
I think any rational believer would say people ought to do good not based on fear of punishment but because it is the right thing to do.

You have plenty of people attempting to do good because of karma, guilt, self recognition or some other obligation.

So, what defines good and right? I agree that truly selfless motives are virtuous. But why?
When anyone says “should” regarding moral expectation, they are placing on themselves a burden to account for moral ontology. I rarely if ever see it offerned.

 

[Septic]

No sir, I believe once a man is saved, he is eternally secure. I do however believe that God is the rule maker and therefore he decides what right and wrong is.

So if Hitler accepted JC as his savior, that's good enough for you? He's in the club? I find it completely bewildering that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe decided that his sole criteria for living in his everlasting 'kingdom' is belief. Creating a morality system that distinguishes good and bad and then disregards the sins that arise from it by simply becoming a believer? Sounds like a easy way to sell salvation to the sinners humanity, pass the offering plate.

 

[Septic]

Should be? According to what?
I think any rational believer would say people ought to do good not based on fear of punishment but because it is the right thing to do.

You have plenty of people attempting to do good because of karma, guilt, self recognition or some other obligation.

So, what defines good and right? I agree that truly selfless motives are virtuous. But why?
When anyone says “should” regarding moral expectation, they are placing on themselves a burden to account for moral ontology. I rarely if ever see it offerned.

I'm sure Al had a rationale in mind, but I can't speak for him. Perhaps he believed like I do and that it's plausible that right and wrong is innate as an evolutionary process to help advance our species.

I think your rational believer would agree that pure or true altruism doesn't exist, especially if he or she knows it's a virtue that they believe their god values.

 

[BigO95]

So if Hitler accepted JC as his savior, that's good enough for you? He's in the club? I find it completely bewildering that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe decided that his sole criteria for living in his everlasting 'kingdom' is belief. Creating a morality system that distinguishes good and bad and then disregards the sins that arise from it by simply becoming a believer? Sounds like a easy way to sell salvation to the sinners humanity, pass the offering plate.

Do you know what repentance is?

 

[Septic]

Do you know what repentance is?

Apparently it's a get out of jail free card.

I'm waiving off dude, I was just curious about your reconciliation of a few things. No offense but I've heard the buzzwords before, I don't need them regurgitated.

Good luck.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Billy Graham and the Pope said Allah and Yahweh are the same God. I am going to take their word over what you or your Dad say.

 

[NEO]

So if Hitler accepted JC as his savior, that's good enough for you? He's in the club? I find it completely bewildering that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe decided that his sole criteria for living in his everlasting 'kingdom' is belief. Creating a morality system that distinguishes good and bad and then disregards the sins that arise from it by simply becoming a believer? Sounds like a easy way to sell salvation to the sinners humanity, pass the offering plate.

The devil believes in God. The devil knows God. But the devil is not saved.

True salvation is a heart transformation where you realize you are lost without Jesus and you place your life in his hands.

 

[Wafflestomper]

When anyone says “should” regarding moral expectation, they are placing on themselves a burden to account for moral ontology. I rarely if ever see it offerned.

He literally offered it in the post you quoted.

"Isn't is [sic] possible...we've developed this innate morality to survive and flourish?"

 

[Roustabout]

He literally offered it in the post you quoted.

"Isn't is [sic] possible...we've developed this innate morality to survive and flourish?"

Sure, but how we come to our moral reasonings isn’t a moral ontology. Whether we were taught them, programmed for them, or they evolved doesn’t matter. It’s the same issue of confusing moral epistemology and moral ontology.

 

[Roustabout]

So if Hitler accepted JC as his savior, that's good enough for you? He's in the club? I find it completely bewildering that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe decided that his sole criteria for living in his everlasting 'kingdom' is belief. Creating a morality system that distinguishes good and bad and then disregards the sins that arise from it by simply becoming a believer? Sounds like a easy way to sell salvation to the sinners humanity, pass the offering plate.

Ah hah, the ole if Hitler got saved!!!
Come on, come up with something new. Geez

 

[Septic]

Ah hah, the ole if Hitler got saved!!!
Come on, come up with something new. Geez

Nope.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Sure, but how we come to our moral reasonings isn’t a moral ontology. Whether we were taught them, programmed for them, or they evolved doesn’t matter. It’s the same issue of confusing moral epistemology and moral ontology.

I feel like there is a very narrow interpretation of moral ontology often utilized by theists in these arguments as a rhetorical trick to create a moving target that can never be hit by skeptics. Sure, if you ignore the context in which it was stated, you could sort of (I guess) interpret what he said as involving how we come to know moral facts, since its existence and how we know it are related questions. But if you read his whole statement it has nothing to do with how we come to know anything, but rather morality being innate--i.e., natural--in humans. This might entail it being reducible to natural and/or non-natural facts that have nothing to do with God. I don't know what else you're looking for with regard to a jumping off point for moral ontology.

 

[Purple Tiger]

View attachment 277725

What's wrong with Billy Graham and the Pope? Are you against them?

 

[Purple Tiger]

What is your basis? What if people have a different opinion on what is right and wrong? Which is right?

The primary basis for society is civil and criminal law. People have differing opinions on what is right or wrong.

 

[Purple Tiger]

The devil believes in God. The devil knows God. But the devil is not saved.

True salvation is a heart transformation where you realize you are lost without Jesus and you place your life in his hands.

What you describe is technically not salvation but conviction. Read John 3:16 - that is Jesus' definition of salvation.

 

[Purple Tiger]

So if Hitler accepted JC as his savior, that's good enough for you? He's in the club? I find it completely bewildering that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe decided that his sole criteria for living in his everlasting 'kingdom' is belief. Creating a morality system that distinguishes good and bad and then disregards the sins that arise from it by simply becoming a believer? Sounds like a easy way to sell salvation to the sinners humanity, pass the offering plate.

Septic, you bring up an interesting argument about the concept of God's grace. If Hitler was a Christian (he was at one time) and was insane (which most agree he was), could God's grace be sufficient to forgive Hitler's sociopathic sins and still allow him into Heaven? The answer to that is way above my pay grade.

Incidentally, a young British or German historian, whose name I cannot remember, has made the claim that Hitler took communion every day of the war.

 

[Roustabout]

I feel like there is a very narrow interpretation of moral ontology often utilized by theists in these arguments as a rhetorical trick to create a moving target that can never be hit by skeptics. Sure, if you ignore the context in which it was stated, you could sort of (I guess) interpret what he said as involving how we come to know moral facts, since its existence and how we know it are related questions. But if you read his whole statement it has nothing to do with how we come to know anything, but rather morality being innate--i.e., natural--in humans. This might entail it being reducible to natural and/or non-natural facts that have nothing to do with God. I don't know what else you're looking for with regard to a jumping off point for moral ontology.

Of course it’s narrow. Personal incredulity. Saying morality (ontology) is innate creates its on set of problems. You are speaking to abstract, immaterial concepts. Virtue, vice. Love, hate. That means, another set of natural criteria results in a different moral reality. Thus, morality is arbitrary. It could have been different or change. Further, if I t’s just us fizzing to our DNA then so what?

someone ignoring or blurring the distinctions of ontology and epistemology is not providing grounding.

 

[Septic]

The devil believes in God. The devil knows God. But the devil is not saved.

True salvation is a heart transformation where you realize you are lost without Jesus and you place your life in his hands.

@Purple Tiger addressed this, I'd like to add how categorically absurd and unconvincing the argument for the need for 'eternal salvation' is - beyond the bizzare need by a universal creators egotistical need to be worshiped by a a few folks one a chunk of rock floating in an endless cosmos of rocks.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Of course it’s narrow. Personal incredulity. Saying morality (ontology) is innate creates its on set of problems. You are speaking to abstract, immaterial concepts. Virtue, vice. Love, hate. That means, another set of natural criteria results in a different moral reality. Thus, morality is arbitrary. It could have been different or change. Further, if I t’s just us fizzing to our DNA then so what?

It's narrow because you're only willing to consider your position, or ones very similar, as constituting moral ontology. However, if moral ontology is concerned with what makes something a moral fact, and a person provides you with that explanation, e.g., that there are self-evident axioms which are objectively true that we can know a priori by virtue of being human, then this explanation constitutes a form of moral ontology, regardless of whether you think it's true.

I dont believe Christianity is true, but I know it's an example of a religion. See what I mean?

 

[Purple Tiger]

@Purple Tiger addressed this, I'd like to add how categorically absurd and unconvincing the argument for the need for 'eternal salvation' is - beyond the bizzare need by a universal creators egotistical need to be worshiped by a a few folks one a chunk of rock floating in an endless cosmos of rocks.

I don't think a thoughtful Christian would say that Heaven is for God's benefit. It is a reward for believers but not exactly a permanent one, given that God is supposed to destroy heaven and Earth at the end of time. Eternal life is certainly reassuring to people, so it is a good thing to peddle if you are a religion. I don't know for certain what lies ahead. Is it a place like Sheol - a dimly lit place of rest? Is it total darkness and peace? Is there a literal heaven and hell? Can we work out our $hit in Purgatory? Who knows? If we do experience the Christian way, the afterlife will be busy.

 

[Roustabout]

It's narrow because you're only willing to consider your position, or ones very similar, as constituting moral ontology. However, if moral ontology is concerned with what makes something a moral fact, and a person provides you with that explanation, e.g., that there are self-evident axioms which are objectively true that we can know a priori by virtue of being human, then this explanation constitutes a form of moral ontology, regardless of whether you think it's true.

I dont believe Christianity is true, but I know it's an example of a religion. See what I mean?

It's narrow because you're only willing to consider your position, or ones very similar, as constituting moral ontology.

Prejudicial. You don't know what I'm willing to consider. I've considered far more developed arguments on non-theistic objective morality than this. I do know your complaint was nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

I'm open to discuss and consider, what is your best example of a self-evident moral axiom that is objectively true?

However, if moral ontology is concerned with what makes something a moral fact, and a person provides you with that explanation, e.g., that there are self-evident axioms which are objectively true that we can know a priori by virtue of being human, then this explanation constitutes a form of moral ontology, regardless of whether you think it's true.

I don't think that has been established at all. I thinking you are reading for more into his statement. What was stated cannot escape the issue I ALREADY pointed out. If we are talking about moral ontology and objectivity. Objective means that such facts would exist independently from personal or collective beliefs. If moral facts are the RESULT of human evolution, then as already stated, they are arbitrary, and subjective. They could be different given this or that, or they may change in the future. That is not objective. That is as subjective as you get. But moral facts make societies work and result in human flourishing. Ok, so why is that objectively good? If there are no humans, is a statement on human virtue valid and true?

He's barking about the consequences of Hell. That applies both ways. What about the fact that murdering and rape really aren't wrong, they just aren't the most productive for human flourishing. Or, our brains are wired to think that murder and rape are contrary to human flourishing. So, it's not that we don't do these things because we really are embracing virtue, but because we are avoiding unwanted consequences?

We are speaking of a moral framework that isn't based on the SUBJECT. That virtue really is BETTER than vice. That honesty really is BETTER than lying. That compassion really is BETTER than greed. If it's only because it was genetically favored then it isn't objective, it's subjective to our survival, which doesn't have objective value either. Whether it's self-evident is irrelevant. That only shows that we are wired to recognize moral reality (epistemology). It doesn't account for moral truth. It accounts for a subject that can interpret moral truth. But if the subject is the source of moral truth, then it isn't objective. Even if we all agree, and humans flourish, it doesn't establish that human flourishing is an objectively good thing. For example we've seen some thoughts emerging that Corona is a good thing because it is reducing the human population, and that human flourishing is harming the planet.

I dont believe Christianity is true, but I know it's an example of a religion. See what I mean?

Kudos to you.

 

[NEO]

@Purple Tiger addressed this, I'd like to add how categorically absurd and unconvincing the argument for the need for 'eternal salvation' is - beyond the bizzare need by a universal creators egotistical need to be worshiped by a a few folks one a chunk of rock floating in an endless cosmos of rocks.

Yet here we are.

On a huge chunk of rock.

Floating through space.

Billions of light years of empty space except for just us.

 

[NEO]

What you describe is technically not salvation but conviction. Read John 3:16 - that is Jesus' definition of salvation.

John 3:16 was by all accounts put in much later by someone else.

It also takes the word believe and simplifies it.

But that's a theological debate I will be staying out of on here.

 

[BigO95]

The primary basis for society is civil and criminal law. People have differing opinions on what is right or wrong.

And unless morality comes from God, all it is, is opinion.