|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > A Clash Of Civilizations |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: I don't know. Maybe one day when I fall down the stairs and hit my head hard I will think Loving God had issued instructions on how to kill people and your family if they didn't think certain things or believe the same religion as others. I prefer you with all your philosophical warts intact, Frank. I never have to doubt your honesty which is refreshing. I hope you will never doubt mine and we can continue to call each other irrational sons of bitches for a long time to come. Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Popeyesays wrote: 24HourNut wrote:I don't know. Maybe one day when I fall down the stairs and hit my head hard I will think Loving God had issued instructions on how to kill people and your family if they didn't think certain things or believe the same religion as others.  I love you, dude. 
 The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member  Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He actually married Aisha when she was six, but the marriage was not consumated until after she was "of age" by the standards of the culture--had gone through menarche when she was nine. This was also the standard of age measure in France, England, the Papal States, The Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and Visigothic Spain as well. Are the Visigoths the standard measure of morality we should all be following?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aethelred wrote: He actually married Aisha when she was six, but the marriage was not consumated until after she was "of age" by the standards of the culture--had gone through menarche when she was nine. This was also the standard of age measure in France, England, the Papal States, The Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and Visigothic Spain as well. We should be following the social and moral guidelines of this day and age. That's a human condition which is just as true now as it was in the mid-7th century AD. In what way was a legal dynastic marriage of 650 AD bound by the legal definition of age of maturity in the twenty-first century AD. You say, you're an historian. Where's your professional distance? Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First, I make no claim to being a historian, I study history as a hobby. I believe that what is moral and what is not is, in general, fixed and does not change except where time specific circumstance dictate such a change. As such it was not moral for Muhammed or the Visigoths to marry a 6 year old then, just as it would not be moral for a 56 year old man to marry a 6 year old today. In some ancient cultures children were sacrificed (ancient Carthage for example). Would you consider that custom moral for it's time and place?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Your argument in Muhammed's favor seems to be "the Visigoths did it, so it was o.k. for Muhammed." In my view that is a weak argument. One would expect a person sent by God (as Muhammed claimed he was) to uphold a standard a little higher than the Visigoths. Muhammed strikes me as a person ruled by his own lusts. Lusts for women, little girls, power, wealth, control over others et cetera. Hardly the sort of person God would be expected to use in my humble opinion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"As such it was not moral for Muhammed or the Visigoths to marry a 6 year old then, just as it would not be moral for a 56 year old man to marry a 6 year old today." That's exactly the point you make that is most outlandish. Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Everything seems to be excused by some if it was AOK to do it for many at that time and place. So, killing a child could be AOK if the majority did it. Or something like that. I don't buy it.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Everything seems to be excused by some if it was AOK to do it for many at that time and place. So, killing a child could be AOK if the majority did it. Or something like that. I don't buy it. In Victorian England it was the custom to hang criminals publicly. Some of those victims were eight, nine, ten years old. They were duly senteneced to death in a court of law and such sentence was carried out. They considered it right and proper to do so. It's another thing altogether to sip a cold one in front of a computer on the internet and decide they were just barbarians. Civilizaqtion and human society has moved on to a higher plane, largely as a result of religious ethics demanding individuals do so. How does modern human ethics defend the rights of folks who have long since passed to dust? It can't. So moaning and groaning and pointing fingers of shame at people who were acting according to their social and ethical guidelines is a waste of effort, tiome, sympathy and public wailing and gnashing of teeth. It's whining and posturing about how advanced we are today above those poor primitive savages. Hypocrisy, plain and simple. You cannot understand what they did in their day to day lives by insisting they act like the hero in some Mexican soap opera. Those individuals did not have the advantage of television to shape their motivations. Neither do wee really, because wee do not shape our motives by such crap, media is a reflection of us trying to understand ourselves and is as often a failure as it is a success. God does not make monsters out of humans. We do it all for ourselves with gusto and zeal. The funny thing is that Aisha NEVER showed the slightest bit of suffering at the hands of her marriage to a man so much her senior. In fact we have the public record of her joy in her husband through the al-Bukhari Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet). She is the credited source for more than 25% of those extensive memories of the life of the Prophet. She had plenty of chance to show any resentment she might have felt. Her widowhood was certainly long enough. Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't care which societies sacrificed babies to the goat gods, or which societies killed people for believing a different religion. It was wrong. Some things, Scott, can't and shouldn't be excused by relativism and making excuses. Just because a majority did something does NOT make it OK. Just because some or many in a society did something, does not make it OK, divine, holy, or good. Slavery faded gradually, and it was wrong in all the places it was in and fading, over those centuries. In addition to your faulty reasoning and immoral excuse-making, please throw in how you assume that there aren't universal and timeless principles or morals that divinity would and should uphold.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: I don't care which societies sacrificed babies to the goat gods, or which societies killed people for believing a different religion. It was wrong. Some things, Scott, can't and shouldn't be excused by relativism and making excuses. Just because a majority did something does NOT make it OK. Just because some or many in a society did something, does not make it OK, divine, holy, or good. Slavery faded gradually, and it was wrong in all the places it was in and fading, over those centuries. In addition to your faulty reasoning and immoral excuse-making, please throw in how you assume that there aren't universal and timeless principles or morals that divinity would and should uphold. What God upholds as timeless is not available to me. There is no such thing as a human absolute truth. And slavery died because human society developed beyond it. Development is a journey and every step on that journey is RELATIVE to the other steps. The starting point is irrelevant and the end is mythical at best. Whining about there SHOULD be UNIVERSAL truth won't make it so, Frank. Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Like I said, you have no authority or valid way to claim what someone did was AOK to God or in general because some or many did it at that time and place. LOTS of things were done in times and places by many, even the majority, that were wrong. Killing kids to please the goat gods, or enslaving kids because they are of a certain race, is not divine and is wrong. I know you are afraid to come out and acknowledge that, or to stop pretending that what people like Muhammed or those who obeyed the Old Testament did was wrong because their "culture" allowed it - but your emotional need to comply with your religous feelings is not only not my problem, but not a valid source of truth. Now I am not saying I am a valid source of truth, but what I am saying is let's stop pretending that what a mob or majority did in a certain time or place automatically excuses immorality or unholy activities. It does NOT. You can be a smart ass and say I am "whining" about my position, but you know what you can go do with that sentiment.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Like I said, you have no authority or valid way to claim what someone did was AOK to God or in general because some or many did it at that time and place. LOTS of things were done in times and places by many, even the majority, that were wrong. Killing kids to please the goat gods, or enslaving kids because they are of a certain race, is not divine and is wrong. I know you are afraid to come out and acknowledge that, or to stop pretending that what people like Muhammed or those who obeyed the Old Testament did was wrong because their "culture" allowed it - but your emotional need to comply with your religous feelings is not only not my problem, but not a valid source of truth. Now I am not saying I am a valid source of truth, but what I am saying is let's stop pretending that what a mob or majority did in a certain time or place automatically excuses immorality or unholy activities. It does NOT. Social law is a contract between me and the people I live with. It is ephemeral and it is bound to change as the exigencies between me and other people with whom I live change. Marriage is one of those social laws/ Inheritance is another, diet is another, what constitutes theft, batteryh, arson, etc., etc.. They change with time and can never be universal and eternal. " The second classification or division comprises social laws and regulations applicable to human conduct. This is not the essential spiritual quality of religion. It is subject to change and transformation according to the exigencies and requirements of time and place. For instance in the time of Noah certain requirements made it necessary that all sea foods be allowable or lawful. During the time of the Abrahamic prophethood it was considered allowable because of a certain exigency that a man should marry his aunt, even as Sarah was the sister of Abraham's mother. During the cycle of Adam it was lawful and expedient for a man to marry his own sister, even as Abel, Cain and Seth the sons of Adam married their sisters. But in the law of the Pentateuch revealed by Moses these marriages were forbidden and their custom and sanction abrogated. Other laws formerly valid were annulled during the time of Moses. For example, it was lawful in Abraham's cycle to eat the flesh of the camel, but during the time of Jacob this was prohibited. Such changes and transformations in the teaching of religion are applicable to the ordinary conditions of life but they are not important or essential. His Holiness Moses lived in the wilderness of Sinai where crime necessitated direct punishment. There were no penitentiaries or penalties of imprisonment. Therefore according to the exigency of the time and place it was a law of God that an eye should be given for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It would not be practicable to enforce this law at the present time; for instance to blind a man who accidentally blinded you. In the Torah there are many commands concerning the punishment of a murderer. It would not be allowable or possible to carry out these ordinances today. Human conditions and exigencies are such that even the question of capital punishment,--the one penalty which most nations have continued to enforce for murder,--is now under discussion by wise men who are debating its advisability. In fact, laws for the ordinary conditions of life are only valid temporarily. The exigencies of the time of Moses justified cutting off a man's hand for theft but such a penalty is not allowable now. Time changes conditions, and laws change to suit conditions. We must remember that these changing laws are not the essentials; they are the accidentals of religion. The essential ordinances established by a Manifestation of God are spiritual; they concern moralities, the ethical development of man and faith in God. They are ideal and necessarily permanent; expressions of the one foundation and not amenable to change or transformation. Therefore the fundamental basis of the revealed religion of God is immutable, unchanging throughout the centuries, not subject to the varying conditions of the human world. " Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just because something is a social law, a law, a contract, or a culture, does not make it necessarily moral and divine. YET, you act like it does. You also act like you somehow know there aren't universal or timeless moral standards that apply. That is evidence of your personal religious agenda. For example, I don't believe God ever wanted kids skinned alive, enslaved, or thrown over cliffs to the animal gods, regardless of "social contracts."
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Popeyesays Guardian1000© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: Just because something is a social law, a law, a contract, or a culture, does not make it necessarily moral and divine. YET, you act like it does. You also act like you somehow know there aren't universal or timeless moral standards that apply. That is evidence of an agenda. I don't believe God ever wanted kids skinned alive or thrown over cliffs to the gods, regardless of social contracts. An agenda other than yours, of course. We would not be here if we had no agenda at all, Frank, now would we?I don't believe that God ever wished to have children skinned or thrown over cliffs either. But that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is your demand that God has set the legal age of maturity as eighteen years old. That is what is ludicrous. Slavery, child-sacrifice, public hangings, speed limits, and parking meters are not the issue. The issue is what is the age at which a couple may marry unjder law conteporary to that marriage. You think God carved it in stone. That's nonsense. Human law, and very modern law at that fixes it as eighteen years--fine. THat has no bearing on the social propriety of a marriage which took place within all social constraints more than 1400 years ago. To think that God insists on both parties being eighteen, or even monogamous is just plain silly. I'm sorry you have put yourself in an embarrassing intellectual position, but hey, that's where you wanna be, that's fine with me. Regards, Scott
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > A Clash Of Civilizations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez