|
Post by k on Nov 29, 2004 17:02:53 GMT -5
Suicide bombs. Roadside bombs. Rocket attacks. Beheading. Atacks of savagery. Why aren't the good Arab Muslims condemning such evil behavior from their crazy brethern?
The Arab law codes of the past have advocated cruelty for minor offenses. Hands and fingers get chopped off for theft or speaking out against some mullah.
We have seen 9 11, 3 11 in Madrid Spain, the murder of the Dutchman and other evil stuff. In Baghdad, Riyahd and Damascus, heads will be ripped off when the Muslim guillotine takes care of business.
The Arab Muslim world has a killing problem. I am SICK OF THAT PART OF THE WORLD!!
It is time to kill Bin Laden, Al-Zaraqawi and other devils who would rather kill people than have sex.
You have to put the blame on Mohammed and his followers. Iranian mullahs start their prayers with "Death to America!" They see America as the Great Satan but guess who is behaving in a devilish manner? Those damned Muslims.
In Dante's "Inferno", Muhammed gets a place in Hell. Muahmmed's religion has brainwashed millions enslaving them and creating a spiral of violence that wrecks the region to this day.
|
|
|
Post by HA on Nov 30, 2004 8:59:56 GMT -5
Really, when was the last time YOU had sex k ?
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 1, 2004 10:46:58 GMT -5
Unfortunately, it takes many, many, many more "good" people to offset the damage done by the "bad" people. Islam is vulnerable to interpretation just like every other religion. So, you get the intolerant fundamentalists who make life hell for everyone, and you also have the more tolerant moderates who aren't so hell-bent on humanly forcing their religion on other people. There are many more good Arab Muslims than there are bad ones. In a crowd of people talking normally, one person can yell and be heard across the whole room. That doesn't mean that the poeple talking normally aren't there. The fundamentalists are the yelling poeple. They are radical in their actions, and therefore get more attention than the rest of the people. It's pretty sad when people can only see the destructive fundamentalists. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 2, 2004 11:01:13 GMT -5
What do you mean when you refer to "good" or "bad" people? What is your standard to determine what is "good" or "bad"?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 2, 2004 14:31:26 GMT -5
What do you mean when you refer to "good" or "bad" people? What is your standard to determine what is "good" or "bad"? Robb That is exactly why I put "good" and "bad" in quotes. It is very ambiguous and hard to define. It could mean different things according to the situation. My initial statement is applicable to many things in the general sense. Environmentalists might define gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks as bad, and hybrid/high mpg cars as good. The people who aren't as concerned about the environment and who also love SUVs and trucks might consider environmentalists as bad, and themselves as good. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 3, 2004 7:26:55 GMT -5
So using your logic why shouldn't we consider the fundementalists "good" and people like you "bad"? You are making a value judgement of some sort here Andy. I am still struggling to find out your basis for making such judgements (even in a general sense).
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 3, 2004 14:19:56 GMT -5
I do not claim to have a hard, unshakeable standard. I realize that everything changes as we go through life. Situations change, and we need to review and make necessary changes to our life choices and world view as things change. I do not have something as (amiguously) "concrete" as the bible to fall back on in order to escape my own accountability. I am accountable to the general human "code" that we all live under the same sun, so we should try to live tolerantly of each other and living with nature (not trying to change nature to our needs, but changing our needs to fit in with a sustainable way with nature). Since cultures change, there is no uniform, never-changing set of standards that apply to living constructively with global cultures. Well, I take that back. There is the persistant code of living tolerantly with each other. I do not believe that a set of codes/guidelines set several thousand years ago, under different social and cultural structures, completely apply to today. There's one standard that Jesus did stress that I try to live by: love your neighbor as you love yourself. From that, we can get most other standards. After all, unless we are a masochist, we wouldn't go around purposely treating ourselves badly. That is the standard that I believe should live through all time. But, it is not exclusive only to Judaeism, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam, or Hindu, or Sun worship, or Wicca, etc. So... short winded answer to your confusion over my inconcrete standards: treat others as you want to be treated. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 3, 2004 17:57:56 GMT -5
Do you reject the general "code" of nature that Darwin described... survival of the fittest? If so, on what basis?
Good. But WHY do you follow this standard? Why not survial of the fittest? After all you don't have a "hard, unshakable standard" do you?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by A possibility on Dec 5, 2004 10:25:39 GMT -5
Do you reject the general "code" of nature that Darwin described... survival of the fittest? If so, on what basis? Good. But WHY do you follow this standard? Why not survial of the fittest? After all you don't have a "hard, unshakable standard" do you? Robb Perhaps living and treating people as we wish to be treated is the survival of the fittest. Wh will survive the longest - a person who can co-exist with others or one who feels the need to dominate to survice. Perhaps Andy's decision to follow the Golden Rule is the best way to survive. The real test of the fitness of an organism is not the number of things it can kill but rather the number of its kind that survive to continue the species. As a species, to survive we need to stop killing our own kind.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 5, 2004 15:38:06 GMT -5
Actually, the evolutionists argure that it is a good thing when the weak die... it improves the gene pool and is a vital part of the evolutionary process.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 6, 2004 10:55:33 GMT -5
No, I do not reject the idea of 'survival of the fittest'. Humans are not playing survival of the fittest (in evolutionary/biological terms) by killing each other directly. Rather, it seems to be culturally, socially, intellectually, economically, educationally, etc. The result may be killing others off, but it is not the physically weak that are being killed, as you would suggest, Robb. As humans, we have the ability to act humanely toward one another, and not turn a cold shoulder. If your children had leukemia, would you tell them, "tough luck, you're on your own... the weak must die."? andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 6, 2004 12:41:07 GMT -5
Of course not. I believe in the Christian ethic where the strong give their lives for the weak...where we are commanded to care for the young, poor, sick and afflicted, etc.
However, if you are going to be consistant about your statement , you might have to say "tough luck, you're on your own... the weak must die" in response to your own example.
Yes Andy we do have the ability to act humanely as well as inhumanely toward one another. But on what basis would you suggest that humans ought to act humanely toward one another? What basis would you use to suggest what humane treatment is or is not. I have indentified the basis for my ethic, but are you going to suggest a "hard, unshakeable standard" of morality too? And if you do... on what standard will you rely? And if not... how can you condemn such things as murder?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 6, 2004 13:24:07 GMT -5
Robb, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at, besides that you are at odds with my non-christian viewpoints. andy
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Dec 6, 2004 14:43:00 GMT -5
Robb, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to get at, besides that you are at odds with my non-christian viewpoints. andy Andy, If I am not mistaken, Robb is bringing out the old saw about atheists not having any moral rudder and lacking ethics because they do not have something as concrete as a supreme being, and the many writings he has delivered through men (and perhaps some women) over the millennium, to use as a base for their behavior. Although actual studies have shown over and over that there is little difference in the behavior of those who consider religion to be essential in their lives and those who do not there are those who still cling to their preconceived notions. Of course if you define morality as obedience to God, by definition atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. Some feel the need to validate their position with some authority. There are, throughout the world, cultures that do not have the christian concept of a god yet they have ethical standards. History is filled with examples of theists who committed terrible deeds against humanity as well as those who were atheists and lived very moral lives. And, of course, the opposite is also true. apples
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 6, 2004 17:50:42 GMT -5
Yes, and the old saw will never go away because post modern thinkers simply cannot logically identify any sort of moral "rudder" that transcends themselves. The problem is that most logically minded people rightfully have a problem with a lack of moral absolutes that atheists absolutly proport.
Well, atheists don't follow God, but they certainly follow some god. It might be themselves, so called "enlightenment", science, culture, etc. The only question remains... which of these "gods" does an athesit put his faith in?
Apples, could you help Andy by offerning an answer to this question that I posed: "Yes Andy we do have the ability to act humanely as well as inhumanely toward one another. But on what basis would you suggest that humans ought to act humanely toward one another? What basis would you use to suggest what humane treatment is or is not. I have indentified the basis for my ethic, but are you going to suggest a "hard, unshakeable standard" of morality too? And if you do... on what standard will you rely? And if not... how can you condemn such things as murder?"
Robb
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Dec 6, 2004 21:34:28 GMT -5
Yes, and the old saw will never go away because post modern thinkers simply cannot logically identify any sort of moral "rudder" that transcends themselves. From where I sit you can not do so either. You have based your morality on written documents. You believe they are composed by a supreme being but that is not a universally accepted premise nor is it verifiable. Moral absolutes. Absolute is a difficult thing. It requires a degree of verification that has yet to be demonstrated as far as supreme beings are concerned. That is, of course using a single word, albeit with a variation on capitalization, with two definitions. Your God is that of an infinite being who is supremely good, created the world, knows all and can do all, is transcendent over and immanent in the world, and one that loves humanity. And you are comparing that to a study or discipline of learning. I think that his statement saying that the basis that his actions are determined by treating others as he would like to be treated is as sound as your statement that you follow what has been recorded in the collection of stories and histories that are collectivly known as the Bible. I can condemn murder on the basis that I do not wish to be murdered so I will not murder another. While I respect your belief that there is a supreme being and his/her will and laws are recorded in the bible that does not constitute proof that your belief system is any more "unshakable" than the writings of Buddah, Gandhi, Muhammad or even the belief that Andy has regarding the basis of his moral convictions, i.e., the golden rule. apples
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 7, 2004 8:15:23 GMT -5
Since we are created beings there are things which cannot be verified by us. This is where faith comes in. Since you are faced with the same unverifiable things as me...what is your faith in?
Not at all. I claim an absoulute, solid, unchanging foundation that comes from our Creator. You and Andy reject such a foundation (on the basis of faith, like me) which leaves you with no real basis outside of yourself. Further, by rejecting absolutes, you doom your argument because you must admit that your opinion has no more relevance or truth that any other mans opinion.
What makes the "golden rule" more legitimate than "survival of the fittest"? or anarchy? Would you codemn a person who murders, but would not mind being murdered himself? Would you wish to have been aborted? Do you condemn abortion?
I understand. I too respect people who put their faith in a higher being even though the other religions generally put their faith in a so called "prophets". Christianitys claims to an incarnate Savior set it apart from other major religions. This notwithstanding, I admit that Muslims recognise a supreme being and I respect them for it. However, I have difficulty respecting the illogical claims of post modern/atheistic thinking which basically puts its faith in the absolute fact that there are no absolutes.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 7, 2004 11:39:08 GMT -5
I believe have already answered this, Robb. But, to rephrase what I have already stated: I do not have any one text on which I can fall back on and claim as "The Standard". My standards come from multiple sources -- from various classes I've taken, from friends, from family, from conversations, from books and articles I've read, from life itself. Since life is not static, I cannot claim any one infallible standard other than the "golden rule". As apples stated (and I have felt this way for several years now), morality is not exclusive to religion. And, even if it was, to which religion? No, morality is not a religious concept, but a common human concept. andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on Dec 7, 2004 12:00:21 GMT -5
Faith? I'll humor you and let you know what my "faith" lies in. I believe we are on the earth -- we live, and we die. Would it be interesting to know the origins of life? Hell yeah! But, I'm here now, and hopefully for a while in the future. Why are we here? Because we are. Why are there Metasequoia glyptostroboides? Why are there Deschampsia antarctica? Why are there mosquitos? Why did wooly mammoths live and die off? Very simple. Thus is the way of life... species evolve, give rise to new species which live for a while, and then die off as other species evolve to be better adapted than the relatively older species to the changing environments. M. glyptostroboides was thought to be extinct for a long time, until it was found in Asia recently. Now, it has made a comeback as a tree commonly sold in garden centers. D. antarctica is one of only two species of flowering plants found on Antarctica. In the past there were many more species of flowering plants on Antarctica when it was a part of GONDWANA. As continents drift apart, their climates change, allowing specific species that are better adapted to the changing environment to thrive over the struggling species. Humans will some day be replaced by another species which will be better adapted to the ever changing global environment. Dogs will someday disappear. So will cardinals, blue jays, and so will the bald eagle. Insects, too. Whales. The list goes on. Some species appear, others disappear. Is the foundation from your creator really all that unchanging? Coming from a supreme being who claims to be unchanging, but yet has changed his mind on things several times in the bible? andy
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 7, 2004 12:53:42 GMT -5
Andy,
Nicely said.
Those who think there can be no right or wrong without an ancient document to point it out have experienced a phenomenon known as indoctrination. Very difficult to reason through.
Nice little Owsley Bear. I met Owsley once, July 4th 1984 at a show in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He tried to hit on me and I ran away!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 7, 2004 13:37:50 GMT -5
Really... a human concept derived from what?
Maybe if I were more enlightened I would understand.
And your faith in this happening is ultimatly based upon your presupposition that there is no God. You and those who think like you, attempt to fit the things that we have observed into your presuppositions despite lack of actual evidence such as transitional forms in the fossil record which could actually prove what you now only believe by faith. You and I both have a belief in what has happened and will happen based upon our faith. We interpret facts based upon our presuppositions. Thats why the fossil record shows me proof of Noahs flood while it shows you proof of no God.
The core fundimentals have never changed Andy, despite the different dispensations that we see. Changes in applications or forms during different time periods do not change the principles found in Scripture. Futher, while there are things that we might percieve as fundimental changes or contradictions in Scripture, this only points to our fallen nature and lack of understanding. A basic study of hermenutics will help you further with this concept.
Andy, I appreciate your willingness to engage me on this subject. I hope that you understand that I am not attacking you, but rather the irrational worldview that you have somehow been indoctrinated into.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 7, 2004 13:42:34 GMT -5
Now I am confused. What now makes the "golden rule" infallible? Is there ultimate truth and can we know it or not?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Dec 7, 2004 13:55:38 GMT -5
Your statement would be more true if you modified it like so..."those who think there can be no right or wrong have experienced a phenomenon known as indoctrination. Very difficult to reason through. Btw, a person can know right from wrong apart from an ancient document (Adam and Eve for example). The point is that if there is right and wrong it must come from a higher source. Do you believe in right and wrong Meg? If so, where does right and wrong come from if not from God? This is the question that cannot be logically answered from a post modern/atheistic worldview. Did you get indoctrinated before or after you ran away. Robb
|
|
Dawn
Senior Member
Posts: 785
|
Post by Dawn on Dec 7, 2004 13:56:13 GMT -5
Really... a human concept derived from what? Derived from humanity. Just like those ancient documents are from humanity, in an obvious attempt to define and document their morality. [quote And your faith in this happening is ultimatly based upon your presupposition that there is no God. You and those who think like you, attempt to fit the things that we have observed into your presuppositions despite lack of actual evidence such as transitional forms in the fossil record which could actually prove what you now only believe by faith. You and I both have a belief in what has happened and will happen based upon our faith. We interpret facts based upon our presuppositions. Thats why the fossil record shows me proof of Noahs flood while it shows you proof of no God.[/quote] You assume that any scientific theory presupposes no God. Darwin was a good Christian, and his theories were to him just theories, but did not conflict with his faith. Incidentally, during Darwin's lifetime DNA was only theory. Now that we know of its existence we can easily prove evolution. This does not disprove God.
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Dec 7, 2004 15:54:46 GMT -5
Since we are created beings there are things which cannot be verified by us. This is where faith comes in. Since you are faced with the same unverifiable things as me...what is your faith in? There are things that cannot be verified (theories) and there are things that can be verified (facts). I am partial to things that can be quantified. As you have so clearly pointed out, you accept your absolute, solid, unchanging foundation without proof but rather on faith. It is no more solid and unchanging than any other premise that is postulated and left unproven. That is indeed thye truth. My opinion has no more, nor any less, validity than yours. They are not exclusive. The fittest, who will be the ones to survive, may survive by adhering to the golden rule. As far as being legitimate - if the idea of a supreme being is removed, the bible is no more valid or solid as a fountation than Walden or the writings of Buddah. I am not much of a condemner. I live my life in a way that I believe is ethical. Other people have the right to live their life as they see fit. Since we live in a society, the right to do as you wish ends when it infringes upon another. I would have never known it if I had been aborted just as the millions of fertilized eggs that are spontaneously aborted were never cognizant of the fact that they did not implant in the womb or that they ever existed. No I do not. I will never have to make that choice but I do believe that a woman should be able to decide. I would like to see some restriction placed on late term abortions, i.e., when the fetus can survive without the mother. Given I am not concerned with the idea of a soul, the decision point, I believe, is when the fetus is able to be an independent living being. There are a number of religions that make unique claims that sets them apart frm other religions, Does a unique claim make a religion better or worse? That is something that everyone has to deal with. As knowledge of how things work is explored it becomes more and more obvious that absolutes are difficult to find. apples
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Dec 7, 2004 16:10:01 GMT -5
Hey, MrApples! It's good to see you again.
Clay
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Dec 7, 2004 16:21:48 GMT -5
You and those who think like you, attempt to fit the things that we have observed into your presuppositions despite lack of actual evidence such as transitional forms in the fossil record which could actually prove what you now only believe by faith. There are transitional fossils to be seen. Therapsids -- these are creatures that share features of both reptiles and mammals, but are neither mammal nor reptile entirely -- they are in-between both.
Ichtyosetigids -- creatures that have both fish and amphibian features, but are neither. They are universally accepted by paleontologists as intermediates between fish and amphibians.
Seymoromorphs -- creatures that have both reptilian and amphibian features, but cannot be classified as either or or the other. However, the lack of evidence does not disprove a theory. Finding facts that cannot be explained by the theory require a rethinking of the theory and the development of a new theory that can incorporate the new discoveries. The Ptolemaic view of the universe worked well until those damn facts showed it to be in error. We should never fear saying we do not know or be unwilling to change our thinking as new data becomes available. apples
|
|
Apples
Junior Member
Posts: 153
|
Post by Apples on Dec 7, 2004 16:29:35 GMT -5
Hey, MrApples! It's good to see you again. Clay Good to see you as well. You must be a full fledged man of medicine by now. So I am sure you have lots and lots of free time! Time constraints prevent a lot of posting although I do try to keep up with some posts on Common Ground. apples
|
|