Morality of Religions- Discussion thread

[The Bald Eagle]

I guess we come back to the point at which this thread started off. The Quran was definitely a morality that was slightly ahead of it's time. When most of society was accepting of treating slaves like an object you owned like say a table, it was refreshing to see the Quran advocating treating slaves with respect and stating that freeing them was virtuous.

However, today humanity has advanced in it's morality and come to the consensus that owning a slave i.e. owning another human being, irrespective of whether you eventually free them, is deeply immoral. Unfortunately, the Quran doesn't reflect that and fallen behind contemporary morality.

I guess you'll now say you have to see the morality in the context of the time which is the entire point I was making.

It is still ahead of time if one thinks about Interest money lending practices and many other issues. One just need to be sincere in comprehending the Crux of the message bro

 

[Red-Indian]

It is still ahead of time if one thinks about Interest money lending practices and many other issues. One just need to be sincere in comprehending the Crux of the message bro

In your view, sure. I don't agree interest is immoral. I'm trying not to use inflammatory words but I can understand why it may have seemed so to people in those days of usurious practices unconstrained by law or regulations. So yes again, the Quran has fallen behind modern morality where we understand interest as a tool just like profit or salary or rent to get the most utilization out of the underlying resource - in this case, money.

 

[Red-Indian]

id say its a simultaneous failure, some calamity which led to social upheaval must have seemed like god forsaking his people.

id also add to the rabbinic achievement the creation of a nation state without borders, if u dont view judaism as a religion, rather the formalisation of the customs of the people of judah, in a manner that enabled them to keep a nationhood without a nation, it makes sense in a different way.

im not very sure abt buddhism, only buddhism i know is alan watts western zen buddishm, which i always had a soft spot for. i was under the impression buddishm believes in karmic cycles, no end, no begging, no creator and no destroyer. i may be wrong tho.

Agree on your first couple of points.

Most of what you say about Buddhism is true (from my limited understanding) but not the point I was making. I was referring to the fact that living in a time when gods were supposed to be elemental, involved in day to day life etc., they (or he) managed to come up with a god who was monotheistic.. .or pantheistic if you prefer, transferred most rewards to the afterlife and created an external i.e. not day-to-day contract with the god. More or less what the Rabbis managed... very different type of god true but similarly removed from everyday affairs.

 

[rpant_gabba]

In Islam, freeing slaves is a way of expiations of sins. Also Zakat is a compulsory pillar of Islam and even there we find a mention of giving money to those people who were facing slavery. And this is 1400 years before not a recent phenomenon like USA 1861 civil war.

This category of people is defined in surah at-Taubah (9) verse 60:

“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise.” (The Holy Qur’an 9:60).

Zakat is distributed among 8 asnaf (categories) of people, namely:

Fakir – One who has neither material possessions nor means of livelihood.
Miskin – One with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
Amil – One who is appointed to collect zakat.
Muallaf – One who converts to Islam.
Riqab – One who wants to free himself from bondage or the shackles of slavery.
Gharmin – One who is in debt (money borrowed to meet basic, halal expenditure).
Fisabillillah – One who fights for the cause of Allah.
Ibnus Sabil – One who is stranded in journey.

Source: Surah Taubah, Holy Quran

BBC - Religions - Islam: Slavery in Islam

Slavery in Islam

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[rpant_gabba]

In your view, sure. I don't agree interest is immoral. I'm trying not to use inflammatory words but I can understand why it may have seemed so to people in those days of usurious practices unconstrained by law or regulations. So yes again, the Quran has fallen behind modern morality where we understand interest as a tool just like profit or salary or rent to get the most utilization out of the underlying resource - in this case, money.

and every other religious book

 

[rpant_gabba]

The religious scripture isn't based on someone's whims and demands. In order to ascertain how it views a particular situation or phenomenon is to interpret and read it's verses pertaining to that situation.

So, logically with the situation having changed so much since 7th century, quran would be irrelevant to modern times right?

Show me one place in Quran where it says it is compulsory or infact just show where it encourages it.

yup,

Quran took time to explicitly forbade paganism, polytheism, idolatry, apostasy, blasphemy.....

but owning people and trading them as property? No, don't have time to deal with that.

 

[Stewie]

So, logically with the situation having changed so much since 7th century, quran would be irrelevant to modern times right?

yup,

Quran took time to explicitly forbade paganism, polytheism, idolatry, apostasy, blasphemy.....

but owning people and trading them as property? No, don't have time to deal with that.

Quran is clear that every human being is born free. This by default means slavery is immoral and illegal.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Quran is clear that every human being is born free. This by default means slavery is immoral and illegal.

Slavery existed during the time of Holy Prophet too. It was not banned until the West did not find it useful anymore.

Arabs had tons of slaves until 1960's. Ottomans were notorious for slave rides into Europe. Almost all cultures had slaves including East Asian countries like Korea and Japan.

 

[ElRaja]

Agree on your first couple of points.

Most of what you say about Buddhism is true (from my limited understanding) but not the point I was making. I was referring to the fact that living in a time when gods were supposed to be elemental, involved in day to day life etc., they (or he) managed to come up with a god who was monotheistic.. .or pantheistic if you prefer, transferred most rewards to the afterlife and created an external i.e. not day-to-day contract with the god. More or less what the Rabbis managed... very different type of god true but similarly removed from everyday affairs.

got it, yeah, never thought of Buddhism as a religion tho, i think anyone can adopt elements of the practise into their life without necessarily having to commit to any belief system but ur pbly right.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Quran is clear that every human being is born free. This by default means slavery is immoral and illegal.

Not buying it, that is just your ipso facto justification

This reminds of the US declaration independence. All men are created equal and free (except for the slaves)

the fact that Quran goes into specifying polytheism, paganism etc but does seem its worth the time to explicitly forbid owning humans as property.

Given that the slave trade continued in the region well after 7th century can only mean that Islamic scholars and mullahs didn't think it was that big a deal.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Not buying it, that is just your ipso facto justification

This reminds of the US declaration independence. All men are created equal and free (except for the slaves)

the fact that Quran goes into specifying polytheism, paganism etc but does seem its worth the time to explicitly forbid owning humans as property.

Given that the slave trade continued in the region well after 7th century can only mean that Islamic scholars and mullahs didn't think it was that big a deal.

Old world needed slave labor to get by their daily lives. They knew it was immoral deep in their hearts. But for their daily needs they needed slaves and they used their scriptures to justify slavery.

Indian caste system gets criticized for the unequal treatments of Dalits. The criticism is valid. All Hindus must be ashamed of their past treatment of Dalits. But Arabs and Turks still deny they ever did it. They pretend it never happened.
Arab slave trade estimated around 6-10 million Africans. Men were castrated so they could not procreate with Arab women. It was brutal.

Arab slave trade - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.m.wikipedia.org

The Black Sea slave trade involving Eastern Europeans ( Slavs) by Ottomans involved around 2.5 million of them.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is why most Turks don’t even look Asian anymore. They all look like Eastern Europeans.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Old world needed slave labor to get by their daily lives. They knew it was immoral deep in their hearts. But for their daily needs they needed slaves and they used their scriptures to justify slavery.

Indian caste system gets criticized for the unequal treatments of Dalits. The criticism is valid. All Hindus must be ashamed of their past treatment of Dalits. But Arabs and Turks still deny they ever did it. They pretend it never happened.
Arab slave trade estimated around 6-10 million Africans. Men were castrated so they could not procreate with Arab women. It was brutal.

Arab slave trade - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.m.wikipedia.org

The Black Sea slave trade involving Eastern Europeans ( Slavs) by Ottomans involved around 2.5 million of them.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is why most Turks don’t even look Asian anymore. They all look like Eastern Europeans.

But but, they are not true Muslims! We take pride in their conquests, but they are not true Muslims

Did you get that?

Not to be confused with No true Scotsman. That’s entirely separate.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Is this thread about religion vs science or some Flying Spaghetti Monster believers??????

Morality of religions was the topic and you should stick to that.

I take offense to your demeaning tone towards our creator, his holy noodliness. Good thing the punishment for such blasphemy in the Loose Canon is no meatball spaghetti for you for a week.

Open your eyes to the one true path: Venganza

R'Amen

 

[rpant_gabba]

It is still ahead of time if one thinks about Interest money lending practices and many other issues. One just need to be sincere in comprehending the Crux of the message bro

hardly seems like divine message if you all you can say is it ahead of its time.

either the all the holy books are direct messages from god (who is described as omnipotent and ominscient) or they are not.

If they are, why is there lack of consistency between the books?

did god change his mind about morality with time: then he is not omniscient

or jews, xtians and muslims are worshipping to different gods. so whose god is better or teh correct one? you know, monotheism.

how come god allows absolutely awful things things to happen to the most helpless groups? eg. armenian genocide by the turks, WW2 holocaust by the nazi's, current palestinian situation?

 

[BouncerGuy]

I take offense to your demeaning tone towards our creator, his holy noodliness. Good thing the punishment for such blasphemy in the Loose Canon is no meatball spaghetti for you for a week.

Open your eyes to the one true path: Venganza

R'Amen

It was not an offensive tone brother. It was a genuine question. Is this thread about Morality of religion or comparisons with other stuff like Science or FSM??

answer me?

 

[IndoorCricket]

Morality = principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Contemporary religions must be scrutinised based contemporary societal standards.

 

[rpant_gabba]

It was not an offensive tone brother. It was a genuine question. Is this thread about Morality of religion or comparisons with other stuff like Science or FSM??

answer me?

This thread is about morality of religions.

xtians trying to disown old testament while claiming Jesus is son of same old testament god does little to improve things. It also raises the omnipotence and omniscient qualities of god. Xtian teachings are not exactly moral either when christ says follow moses.

Islam does not help the situation by claiming moses and jesus as gods messengers.

The eastern religion comes with own set of baggage.

So IMO, each religions "book" might have been a improvement at the time of its writing, the fact that its strictest advocates don't follow those books in its enitrety and lean on secular values, indicates that either god is immoral or those books were not divine.

 

[Red-Indian]

got it, yeah, never thought of Buddhism as a religion tho, i think anyone can adopt elements of the practise into their life without necessarily having to commit to any belief system but ur pbly right.

You can nowadays but was not always the case.

 

[BouncerGuy]

This thread is about morality of religions.

xtians trying to disown old testament while claiming Jesus is son of same old testament god does little to improve things. It also raises the omnipotence and omniscient qualities of god. Xtian teachings are not exactly moral either when christ says follow moses.

Islam does not help the situation by claiming moses and jesus as gods messengers.

The eastern religion comes with own set of baggage.

So IMO, each religions "book" might have been a improvement at the time of its writing, the fact that its strictest advocates don't follow those books in its enitrety and lean on secular values, indicates that either god is immoral or those books were not divine.

In Islam, it’s a firm belief that the Holy Quran is the final and complete revelation from God, meant to correct and complete previous scriptures.

Muslims believe that Moses and Jesus were indeed messengers of God, and their teachings were true for their times. However, over time, their messages were altered or misunderstood, which is why the Quran was revealed to provide clear guidance. The Quran emphasizes justice, compassion, and moral conduct, and it encourages followers to seek knowledge and understanding.

 

[Stewie]

Slavery existed during the time of Holy Prophet too. It was not banned until the West did not find it useful anymore.

Arabs had tons of slaves until 1960's. Ottomans were notorious for slave rides into Europe. Almost all cultures had slaves including East Asian countries like Korea and Japan.

Not buying it, that is just your ipso facto justification

This reminds of the US declaration independence. All men are created equal and free (except for the slaves)

the fact that Quran goes into specifying polytheism, paganism etc but does seem its worth the time to explicitly forbid owning humans as property.

Given that the slave trade continued in the region well after 7th century can only mean that Islamic scholars and mullahs didn't think it was that big a deal.

How many instances of Prophet Muhammed and his immediate followers in history can you find owning slaves? There was Bilal who was freed and was treated as equal. We are supposed to follow the actions of the Prophet and I am hard pressed to find any recorded incident in history where he or any of his immediate followers bought or kept slaves.

 

[Champ_Pal]

How many instances of Prophet Muhammed and his immediate followers in history can you find owning slaves? There was Bilal who was freed and was treated as equal. We are supposed to follow the actions of the Prophet and I am hard pressed to find any recorded incident in history where he or any of his immediate followers bought or kept slaves.

Sahih Muslim 1602 - The Book of Musaqah - كتاب المساقاة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

 

[Stewie]

Sahih Muslim 1602 - The Book of Musaqah - كتاب المساقاة - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

What does that prove? He did not get allegiance from any slaves because slavery was legal at the time and unless he had the means to buy a slave and liberate him/her he did not want their allegiance.

I am failing to see the point here. You should look up the case of Bilal ibn Rabah.

When Islam was revealed on the Prophet and he was still in Mecca, he and his followers were still bound by the laws and regulations of the land of the time. They did not win over Mecca until much later.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

hardly seems like divine message if you all you can say is it ahead of its time.

either the all the holy books are direct messages from god (who is described as omnipotent and ominscient) or they are not.

If they are, why is there lack of consistency between the books?

did god change his mind about morality with time: then he is not omniscient

or jews, xtians and muslims are worshipping to different gods. so whose god is better or teh correct one? you know, monotheism.

how come god allows absolutely awful things things to happen to the most helpless groups? eg. armenian genocide by the turks, WW2 holocaust by the nazi's, current palestinian situation?

Thanks for dispelling the impression that you have knowledge of other religions as you are unaware of interpolation and tempering in Old religious scriptures and on things like wrong acts of men they would be punished for that in hereafter. Here they may get punished but in hereafter it is certain .

 

[Red-Indian]

This thread is about morality of religions.

xtians trying to disown old testament while claiming Jesus is son of same old testament god does little to improve things. It also raises the omnipotence and omniscient qualities of god. Xtian teachings are not exactly moral either when christ says follow moses.

Islam does not help the situation by claiming moses and jesus as gods messengers.

The eastern religion comes with own set of baggage.

So IMO, each religions "book" might have been a improvement at the time of its writing, the fact that its strictest advocates don't follow those books in its enitrety and lean on secular values, indicates that either god is immoral or those books were not divine.

You know as well as I do that the simple answer that almost every religious guy will come up with is "god moves in mysterious ways." Every religion including cannibalistic paganism uses the same answer.

Even babies die for a reason and humans cannot and should not expect to be told and to understand that reason. Our job is to simply trust and blindly obey. Those of us who don't want to just trust and want to be told the logic aren't cut out to be religious and are condemned to eternity in hell.

I've made my peace with that long ago and I'm fine with hell. Heaven seems rather boring anyway. Of all the religions, only Islam manages to make it seem somewhat interesting. Every other religion makes it very tedious.

 

[Champ_Pal]

What does that prove? He did not get allegiance from any slaves because slavery was legal at the time and unless he had the means to buy a slave and liberate him/her he did not want their allegiance.

I am failing to see the point here. You should look up the case of Bilal ibn Rabah.

When Islam was revealed on the Prophet and he was still in Mecca, he and his followers were still bound by the laws and regulations of the land of the time. They did not win over Mecca until much later.

You are making an excuse.

The Arab slave was bought in exchange of 2 black slaves. You cannot trade Black slaves unless you already own them.

If you are saying Prophet PBUH was just doing what everyone else at that time were doing, then he is nothing special.

Regarding Bilal, he was a slave even after Prophet's death. There is a Hadith where he clearly was requesting Hazrat Abu Bakar to release him for the sake of Islam. Hazrat Bilal was bought by Hazrat Abu Bakar since Bilal converted to Islam.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Thanks for dispelling the impression that you have knowledge of other religions as you are unaware of interpolation and tempering in Old religious scriptures and on things like wrong acts of men they would be punished for that in hereafter. Here they may get punished but in hereafter it is certain .

you were reduced to saying Quran was doing its best under the circumstances and doing better than any one before. Hardly seems deserving of the reverence to it and the "god" who inspired it.

 

[Stewie]

You are making an excuse.

The Arab slave was bought in exchange of 2 black slaves. You cannot trade Black slaves unless you already own them.

If you are saying Prophet PBUH was just doing what everyone else at that time were doing, then he is nothing special.

Regarding Bilal, he was a slave even after Prophet's death. There is a Hadith where he clearly was requesting Hazrat Abu Bakar to release him for the sake of Islam. Hazrat Bilal was bought by Hazrat Abu Bakar since Bilal converted to Islam.

That is not correct. He was freed before the Prophet’s death. This is well documented.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

you were reduced to saying Quran was doing its best under the circumstances and doing better than any one before. Hardly seems deserving of the reverence to it and the "god" who inspired it.

If you can't understand it then that's not my problem

 

[Stewie]

you were reduced to saying Quran was doing its best under the circumstances and doing better than any one before. Hardly seems deserving of the reverence to it and the "god" who inspired it.

We are talking about history of man where there is no central banking, in most cases no central government and laws as such and no credit system, etc.

I am led to believe in case of bad debt, you had to work your way out. This was the concept of slavery. It may or may not involve the indentured service model that Africans were subjected to in America. But it was heavily ingrained in human society of the time.

There is plenty of evidence in the Quran and Hadith that refers to Muslim slaves being freed. I realize that treatment was not reserved for all.

But I also realize that nobody else can take the high road in this case. Because all religions and faiths and countries engaged in it or allowed it including ancient India.

 

[Justcrazy]

Krishna is never portrayed as a virtuous person. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Mahabharata will admit this.

Hell, the purpose of his existence was to get humans to kill each other.

marriage is a late stage societal construct. This is evident from Tamil literature, where protagonists are referred to as "thalaivan" and "thaliavi" and not as husband and wife.

The concept of marriage had to be brought about becos, for lack of a better description. Then there were flawed solutions such as the whole village weddings, childhood marriages etc etc

Yes if we look into Puranas , the stories related to Krishna are not good morally.

Yes , i agree there were various kinds of marriage at that time , but i do not think Krishna was married in any of those ways with radha. Radha and Krishna are portrayed as lovers or consorts in Hinduism.

 

[Justcrazy]

Yet, he sat on his hands watching millions marched into gas chambers.

Oh, wait you belong in the category of holocaust deniers

This almighty seems to have a good old time watching the Palestinians getting pummeled non-stop.

The omnipotent, moral, merciful one.

I do not think you understand the concept of God properly according to islam. That is the reason why you are asking such questions. I am referring to several points that you have raised.

First of all if you want to know , you have to tell me whether you believe in any God or not.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I do not think you understand the concept of God properly according to islam. That is the reason why you are asking such questions. I am referring to several points that you have raised.

First of all if you want to know , you have to tell me whether you believe in any God or not.

No offense, but it seems actually he doesn't know what he believes

 

[rpant_gabba]

Yes if we look into Puranas , the stories related to Krishna are not good morally.

Yes , i agree there were various kinds of marriage at that time , but i do not think Krishna was married in any of those ways with radha. Radha and Krishna are portrayed as lovers or consorts in Hinduism.

now you are leaning towards objective morality and nature of personal relationships?

I can ask you very blunt question and shut you down very quickly. you know exactly where I'm going. Think you and the mods ready to that blunt? do you have the stomach?

 

[rpant_gabba]

I do not think you understand the concept of God properly according to islam. That is the reason why you are asking such questions. I am referring to several points that you have raised.

First of all if you want to know , you have to tell me whether you believe in any God or not.

Jeez luiz, thought this would be obvious by now.

I'm an atheist and have nothing but contempt for religions

 

[RexRex]

Yes, exactly like Monotheistic prescribed slavery which lasted till 1865 and church supported apartheid which lasted till 1990's

• BTW, Have you decided if exodus, deuteronomy etc are given by the "rule giver" to moses? are those reflection of "rule givers" morality? > Yes, jews & christians believe they were given by God to the israelites.

• how come Xtians don't follow Christ's advice to implement moses's god given laws > They don't have to. It's called the New Covenant, which began with the death of Jesus.

• Why do you feel holocaust carried out by the Nazi as bad thing, when Nazi are a xtian army and they were follow gods model of genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns > Nazis had contempt for Christianity, certainly Hitler did.

• How do you feel about he morality of the self proclaimed last prophet marrying a 9 year old when he was in his 50's? > That's a question for those who consider him a prophet, ask them.

PS: In case you haven't figured it out, james and robert are a lot more forgiving of a#$%%e i$%&s than I'm. > They were far more intelligent with their questions.

Answers in bold.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Both theists and atheists are of same kind. Both believe something which they don't know.

Belief makes one feel secure. One should try to explore possibilities of life. May be there is a possibility of God.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Both theists and atheists are of same kind. Both believe something which they don't know.

Belief makes one feel secure. One should try to explore possibilities of life. May be there is a possibility of God.

This is one of the stupidest thing I have heard.

Its the equivalent of not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hairstyle, transparency is a color

 

[Stewie]

This is one of the stupidest thing I have heard.

Its the equivalent of not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hairstyle, transparency is a color

Isn't atheism a belief? Don't you believe there is no God or gods?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Isn't atheism a belief? Don't you believe there is no God or gods?

Sorry Stewie but you are not going to get answer anytime soon. Lol

 

[IndoorCricket]

This is one of the stupidest thing I have heard.

Its the equivalent of not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hairstyle, transparency is a color

Stamps, hairstyle and colors are objectively real. Absence of it also real. No one knows if God(aka creator) is real or not. They are just beliefs

Do you believe god doesn't exist or do you know God doesn't exist?

 

[IndoorCricket]

Sorry Stewie but you are not going to get answer anytime soon. Lol

What's wrong is in it? We group people into groups for societal functions. Plumber, priest, engineer, lawyer, solider and so on.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Thanks had quoted the wrong statement now have corrected that, plz revisit that post.

What's wrong is in it? We group people into groups for societal functions. Plumber, priest, engineer, lawyer, solider and so on.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Isn't atheism a belief? Don't you believe there is no God or gods?

This is a tactic by theist to shift the bruden of proof

Is lack of belief a belief? you tell me.

Do you believe there is no tooth fairies or unicorns or flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Stewie]

This is a tactic by theist to shift the bruden of proof

Is lack of belief a belief? you tell me.

Do you believe there is no tooth fairies or unicorns or flying spaghetti monster?

That is not my angle here. All I am saying is you do have a belief. I’m not like you. I’m not talking about the burden of proof at all. The thing with faith is … well it’s faith. You don’t need to prove it or have someone else prove it to you.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Stamps, hairstyle and colors are objectively real. Absence of it also real. No one knows if God(aka creator) is real or not. They are just beliefs

Do you believe god doesn't exist or do you know God doesn't exist?

This is the usual theist dance. Theism claims a being which created material things and had to invent new "covenants" aka fairytales to dodge the burden of proof.

How about your give your firm definition of "god". We will go from there.

 

[IndoorCricket]

This is the usual theist dance. Theism claims a being which created material things and had to invent new "covenants" aka fairytales to dodge the burden of proof.

How about your give your firm definition of "god". We will go from there.

My definition of God aligns with Albert Einstein's. Aka Spinoza's god.

Spinoza on the Nature of God. As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature. He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself.

 

[rpant_gabba]

That is not my angle here. All I am saying is you do have a belief. I’m not like you. I’m not talking about the burden of proof at all. The thing with faith is … well it’s faith. You don’t need to prove it or have someone else prove it to you.

Fair enough.

The block for is that, I'm yet to get a tangible definition of what god is.

To me, it come thro' as do you believe in gobly goop or goobly gop.

Let's start with a definition of god. to make it simpler, lets start with the definition of this monotheistic god that jews, xtians and muslims adhere to.

 

[Stewie]

Fair enough.

The block for is that, I'm yet to get a tangible definition of what god is.

To me, it come thro' as do you believe in gobly goop or goobly gop.

Let's start with a definition of god. to make it simpler, lets start with the definition of this monotheistic god that jews, xtians and muslims adhere to.

I think the one underlying theme is that He is the creator of everything. If you really want to break it down to the most common and basic denominator that would be it. In Islam we have Asma-al-hasna, 99 names of God that describe his qualities. Another most common phrase in Islam is Allah the most merciful and benevolent.

Once again, you always have a new angle with your reasoning so I’m not sure if this answer addresses it or not. Quite honestly there are plenty of resources online you can refer to if you care so much about monotheism and how to describe the monotheistic God. Asking such questions here simply the sake of asking is a colossal waste of everyone’s time.

 

[rpant_gabba]

My definition of God aligns with Albert Einstein's. Aka Spinoza's god.

I'm afraid you have ventured into deism rather than theism.

description of deity I have come across is an uninvolving creator. He/She/It is unexaminable materially and have no defining qualities.

Never really given much thought to it.

 

[IndoorCricket]

I'm afraid you have ventured into deism rather than theism.

description of deity I have come across is an uninvolving creator. He/She/It is unexaminable materially and have no defining qualities.

Never really given much thought to it.

Whatever "ism" it is, its about God. Confining God through Abrahamic religious beliefs is a narrow view.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think the one underlying theme is that He is the creator of everything. If you really want to break it down to the most common and basic denominator that would be it. In Islam we have Asma-al-hasna, 99 names of God that describe his qualities. Another most common phrase in Islam is Allah the most merciful and benevolent.

Once again, you always have a new angle with your reasoning so I’m not sure if this answer addresses it or not. Quite honestly there are plenty of resources online you can refer to if you care so much about monotheism and how to describe the monotheistic God. Asking such questions here simply the sake of asking is a colossal waste of everyone’s time.

It is taking away from the goal of the thread. However I was trying to answer a question that was put to me

 

[rpant_gabba]

Whatever "ism" it is, its about God. Confining God through Abrahamic religious beliefs is a narrow view.

you have taken 18th century definition of "god" becos "god" of every other definition has been shredded to bits at that point.

It is what athiests had to resort to, to not get lynched. Yes, I'd categorize as an athiest.

 

[Stewie]

It is taking away from the goal of the thread. However I was trying to answer a question that was put to me

The goal of the thread is to question the morality of religion and not to question the authenticity of monotheistic beliefs…

Or did I miss something here? Over the last so many pages it seems we are being asked to defend monotheistic/abrahamic faiths and there is little to no discussion about the morality of humanity with or without the guidance provided by religion over the history of mankind.. which I believe was supposed to be the topic of the thread.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The goal of the thread is to question the morality of religion and not to question the authenticity of monotheistic beliefs…

Yup. on point.

Or did I miss something here? Over the last so many pages it seems we are being asked to defend monotheistic/abrahamic faiths

hard not to happen when the story is that morality is derived one god which all three adhere to

and there is little to no discussion about the morality of humanity with or without the guidance provided by religion over the history of mankind.. which I believe was supposed to be the topic of the thread.

will address this in a later post

 

[Stewie]

Yup. on point.

hard not to happen when the story is that morality is derived one god which all three adhere to

will address this in a later post

Morality is definitely derived from
One God but His message has transformed and changed over the years and that includes other faiths not directly related to the Abrahamic faiths. So why are we focusing only on the Abrahamic faiths? Why are polytheistic deities somehow protected from this topic of discussion? If you want to be fair to all perhaps we should dedicate equal time to Greek gods, Roman gods, other pagan religions, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddha and any others I may have missed. Why are we strictly shining the spotlight on the morality taught by Abraham?

If you wanted this discussion to solely focus on Abraham, perhaps you should have put that in the subject.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Morality is definitely derived from
One God but His message has transformed and changed over the years and that includes other faiths not directly related to the Abrahamic faiths. So why are we focusing only on the Abrahamic faiths? Why are polytheistic deities somehow protected from this topic of discussion? If you want to be fair to all perhaps we should dedicate equal time to Greek gods, Roman gods, other pagan religions, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddha and any others I may have missed. Why are we strictly shining the spotlight on the morality taught by Abraham?

If you wanted this discussion to solely focus on Abraham, perhaps you should have put that in the subject.

I think this was was addressed in my first post. Talked about the main polytheistic religion in practice, hinduism and its outdated teachings.

no one is currently worshipping greek gods romans gods etc etc currently

If you think I'm making an exception for other religions you are seriously mistaken.

The big 3 and the hinduism are ones with the biggest bullhorns currenly and seek to control public life. So they are going to get extra attention.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Whatever "ism" it is, its about God. Confining God through Abrahamic religious beliefs is a narrow view.

Here is more opinion that Spinoza was inventing a new god becos it was less dangerous than being an athiest in his time.

Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist? | Issue 151 | Philosophy Now

Kenneth Novis says the case hinges on how you define ‘God’.

philosophynow.org

>>>
n his lifetime Spinoza published only two books: the Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. The Ethics and several other shorter works, such as the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, were all discovered and published after his death by his followers. Of the two works published during his own life, only the first was printed in Spinoza’s own name. Despite this, authorship of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was quickly traced to him, and he thereafter acquired the reputation of being a dangerous atheist, especially among those who had deigned to read the work. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), a contemporary of Spinoza, described the book with the Latin ‘ male’, meaning ‘evil’.

Spinoza was very wary of religious persecution. He opted to publish the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus anonymously largely because of his previous experiences of it, not only at the hands of the Sephardic community that expelled him, but also as it was wreaked upon his friend Adriaan Koerbagh in 1668 for espousing similar views. In light of this knowledge, sense can be made of what philosopher André Tosel refers to as “the operation of ‘ sive’”. The Latin ‘ sive’, at use in Spinoza’s epigram ‘ Deus sive Natura’, plays the rhetorical function, Tosel argues, of forming an esoteric register whose purpose was to deceive censors and religious detractors. The disappearance of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ naturalism in the later Ethics, and the reappearance there of the distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata, would on this reading, be to hoodwink theist readers, under the cipher of the ‘ sive’. But in Spinoza’s ‘God, or Nature’, nature plays the determining role. Why then was it necessary to introduce the name of ‘God’ at all? Perhaps it was just to speak his message in words which would be listened to by his contemporaries. This message – deduced by Leibniz – was only ever that “there is no happiness other than the tranquillity of a life here below content with its own lot” (Two Sects of Naturalists, 1680).

For Spinoza, speaking the language of theism was overall the only available route towards obtaining an audience; and what the most vigilant among this audience heard, piercing as they did through Spinoza’s merely nominal references to God, was the deepest of all atheisms. It was an atheism which sought to argue not only for the non-existence of a personal God, but for the fault of statesmen in having made a world where belief in God was necessary for human happiness.<<

 

[rpant_gabba]

Answers in bold.

bit if a PITA to respond when you post like this. Anyway. my response in italics

• >>BTW, Have you decided if exodus, deuteronomy etc are given by the "rule giver" to moses? are those reflection of "rule givers" morality? > Yes, jews & christians believe they were given by God to the israelites.<<<

So genocide, slavery and murder are moral when prescribed by your god. got it.

• >>how come Xtians don't follow Christ's advice to implement moses's god given laws > They don't have to. It's called the New Covenant, which began with the death of Jesus.<<<

Essentially Calvinball. Make stuff up to suit your convenience. Like a soap opera writer.

• >>>Why do you feel holocaust carried out by the Nazi as bad thing, when Nazi are a xtian army and they were follow gods model of genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns > Nazis had contempt for Christianity, certainly Hitler did.<<<

Sure. Thats why Catholic church conducted public prayers for Nazis and arrange the rat train for them to escape to south america.

As usual, you still didn't address the genocide of you moral god.

• >>>How do you feel about he morality of the self proclaimed last prophet marrying a 9 year old when he was in his 50's? > That's a question for those who consider him a prophet, ask them.<<

Guess you are scared of having opinion there. Understable and consutent with your intellectual cowardice

>>>PS: In case you haven't figured it out, james and robert are a lot more forgiving of a#$%%e i$%&s than I'm. > They were far more intelligent with their questions.<<<

If all you can do is make stuff up, ignore and dodge the not so intelligence questions, what does it say about your intelligence?

 

[Stewie]

Here is more opinion that Spinoza was inventing a new god becos it was less dangerous than being an athiest in his time.

Was Spinoza Actually An Atheist? | Issue 151 | Philosophy Now

Kenneth Novis says the case hinges on how you define ‘God’.

philosophynow.org

>>>
n his lifetime Spinoza published only two books: the Principles of Cartesian Philosophy and the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. The Ethics and several other shorter works, such as the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, were all discovered and published after his death by his followers. Of the two works published during his own life, only the first was printed in Spinoza’s own name. Despite this, authorship of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus was quickly traced to him, and he thereafter acquired the reputation of being a dangerous atheist, especially among those who had deigned to read the work. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), a contemporary of Spinoza, described the book with the Latin ‘ male’, meaning ‘evil’.

Spinoza was very wary of religious persecution. He opted to publish the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus anonymously largely because of his previous experiences of it, not only at the hands of the Sephardic community that expelled him, but also as it was wreaked upon his friend Adriaan Koerbagh in 1668 for espousing similar views. In light of this knowledge, sense can be made of what philosopher André Tosel refers to as “the operation of ‘ sive’”. The Latin ‘ sive’, at use in Spinoza’s epigram ‘ Deus sive Natura’, plays the rhetorical function, Tosel argues, of forming an esoteric register whose purpose was to deceive censors and religious detractors. The disappearance of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus’ naturalism in the later Ethics, and the reappearance there of the distinction between natura naturans and natura naturata, would on this reading, be to hoodwink theist readers, under the cipher of the ‘ sive’. But in Spinoza’s ‘God, or Nature’, nature plays the determining role. Why then was it necessary to introduce the name of ‘God’ at all? Perhaps it was just to speak his message in words which would be listened to by his contemporaries. This message – deduced by Leibniz – was only ever that “there is no happiness other than the tranquillity of a life here below content with its own lot” (Two Sects of Naturalists, 1680).

For Spinoza, speaking the language of theism was overall the only available route towards obtaining an audience; and what the most vigilant among this audience heard, piercing as they did through Spinoza’s merely nominal references to God, was the deepest of all atheisms. It was an atheism which sought to argue not only for the non-existence of a personal God, but for the fault of statesmen in having made a world where belief in God was necessary for human happiness.<<

…. Once again the point is ???

 

[rpant_gabba]

…. Once again the point is ???

I realize it should be separate topic. I was responding to Indoorcricket and his shifting definitions of god with appeal to authority.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Try to stay on topic. Not to prove or ask for proofs if GOD exists it not.

 

[IndoorCricket]

you have taken 18th century definition of "god" becos "god" of every other definition has been shredded to bits at that point.

It is what athiests had to resort to, to not get lynched. Yes, I'd categorize as an athiest.

You came to this conclusion based on what? An opinion!!
Even Albert Einstein was about to get Lynched in 1930's right?

I am not sure If you have encountered Advaita Vedanta which is 3000 years old. Its teachings also aligns with Spinoza's God.
Its better not to draw conclusions on something or someone if you truly don't know about them(it). This is a typical trait of an Atheist, to draw conclusions without knowing something. They believe there is no God (Not just lack of belief in God) even when they don't know if a God exits or not.

BTW I am not a theist or atheist. I used to be a hardcore rationalist and atheist until few years back.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Try to stay on topic. Not to prove or ask for proofs if GOD exists it not.

You came to this conclusion based on what? An opinion!!
Even Albert Einstein was about to get Lynched in 1930's right?

I am not sure If you have encountered Advaita Vedanta which is 3000 years old. Its teachings also aligns with Spinoza's God.
Its better not to draw conclusions on something or someone if you truly don't know about them(it). This is a typical trait of an Atheist, to draw conclusions without knowing something. They believe there is no God (Not just lack of belief in God) even when they don't know if a God exits or not.

BTW I am not a theist or atheist. I used to be a hardcore rationalist and atheist until few years back.

Would love to continue this. lets move to a new thread if mods allow it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes if we look into Puranas , the stories related to Krishna are not good morally.

Yes , i agree there were various kinds of marriage at that time , but i do not think Krishna was married in any of those ways with radha. Radha and Krishna are portrayed as lovers or consorts in Hinduism.

Krishna should not be taken as a good moral example. He had his flaws.

In Hinduism Ram is considered as a good moral example. I don’t think even he was perfect.

 

[Justcrazy]

Krishna should not be taken as a good moral example. He had his flaws.

In Hinduism Ram is considered as a good moral example. I don’t think even he was perfect.

I agree with you here.

 

[Justcrazy]

now you are leaning towards objective morality and nature of personal relationships?

I can ask you very blunt question and shut you down very quickly. you know exactly where I'm going. Think you and the mods ready to that blunt? do you have the stomach?

Its not my objective morality , I am talking about Hindu morality. Does hindu society approve of that or not ? If they approve of that then I am fine.

 

[Justcrazy]

Jeez luiz, thought this would be obvious by now.

I'm an atheist and have nothing but contempt for religions

Its better to ask a person believe , before responding.
So since you are an atheist and do not believe in any god or scriptures , I would like to know from where do you derive your morality from?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Its better to ask a person believe , before responding.
So since you are an atheist and do not believe in any god or scriptures , I would like to know from where do you derive your morality from?

Humanism.

Live and let live. Do not do things to others that you do not want to happen to you. Simple laws of life.

For civil laws, we already have modern Western laws that are excellent in general.

 

[Justcrazy]

Humanism.

Live and let live. Do not do things to others that you do not want to happen to you. Simple laws of life.

For civil laws, we already have modern Western laws that are excellent in general.

I do not want to comment here , because It was directed at a certain poster with a certain context. I would wait for him to reply , then I will comment. If his reply is same as yours , then you can follow and see my response.

 

[RexRex]

So genocide, slavery and murder are moral when prescribed by your god. got it. > I addressed Slavery with you earlier. Genocide and murder are events described in the Bible at some point in history. Why does that upset you ? They are not part of Christian doctrine in any way.

Essentially Calvinball. Make stuff up to suit your convenience. Like a soap opera writer. > Go and ask a theologian if you don't believe me. This has been the position of Christianity for 2000 years.

Sure. Thats why Catholic church conducted public prayers for Nazis and arrange the rat train for them to escape to south america. > That is a moral failing of the church aka human beings, not ideology. For instance, there were many scandalous, sex-crazed Popes in the 14th century. Is that an indictment of the Pope himself as a human or do you blame his religion ?

Guess you are scared of having opinion there. Understable and consutent with your intellectual cowardice > Where is the cowardice ? I told you already, I don't consider Muhammad a prophet. For me, he was a man who read the Bible and made his own religion, then went on to conquer middle eastern territory.

If all you can do is make stuff up, ignore and dodge the not so intelligence questions, what does it say about your intelligence? > Which is this 'stuff' that I made up ? Your tiny athiest brain is unable to compute these answers for some reason. You are too emotional and it clouds your thinking.

Answers in bold.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Its better to ask a person believe , before responding.
So since you are an atheist and do not believe in any god or scriptures , I would like to know from where do you derive your morality from?

It started with what my parents told being moral was and they claimed it came from their version of the religious practice.

As I got older I grew out of it and defined my own by my experiences.

Best explanation of how my morals evolved

 

[rpant_gabba]

Answers in bold.

>>>>So genocide, slavery and murder are moral when prescribed by your god. got it. > I addressed Slavery with you earlier. Genocide and murder are events described in the Bible at some point in history. Why does that upset you ? They are not part of Christian doctrine in any way.<<<<

1) those are not events. Those are your gods teachings and commands
2) It is part of the xtian doctrine as stated in Ephesians.

Not sure why you think I'm upset.

>>>>Essentially Calvinball. Make stuff up to suit your convenience. Like a soap opera writer. > Go and ask a theologian if you don't believe me. This has been the position of Christianity for 2000 years.<<

Appeal to authority. classic.

Christian logic: We are followers of Christ but will not follow his teachings and make stuff up as we go along. But we know he is son of god.

>>>>>Sure. Thats why Catholic church conducted public prayers for Nazis and arrange the rat train for them to escape to south america. > That is a moral failing of the church aka human beings, not ideology. For instance, there were many scandalous, sex-crazed Popes in the 14th century. Is that an indictment of the Pope himself as a human or do you blame his religion ?<<<

Maybe becos they are follwing the logic of the new covenant? you know make stuff up and claim its gods will. If 14 century priest can make stuff and have moral failings,, how sure are about the morality of those who wrote gospels?

Were gospels divinely inspired? was old testament divinely inspired?

>>>Guess you are scared of having opinion there. Understable and consutent with your intellectual cowardice > Where is the cowardice ? I told you already, I don't consider Muhammad a prophet. For me, he was a man who read the Bible and made his own religion, then went on to conquer middle eastern territory.<<

50+ year old man marries a 9 year old. Where does it fit in your moral spectrum?

>>>If all you can do is make stuff up, ignore and dodge the not so intelligence questions, what does it say about your intelligence? > Which is this 'stuff' that I made up ? Your tiny athiest brain is unable to compute these answers for some reason. You are too emotional and it clouds your thinking.<<

Again, you keep appealing to authority and dancing around instead of giving straight answers. I think I have seen amoeba under microscope show more thought processes than you do with your answers

 

[BouncerGuy]

Please do not mock or troll anyone here. Stay on topic. No personal attacks on anyone or any religion.

 

[RexRex]

1) those are not events. Those are your gods teachings and commands > They were commands at that point in history in that land; they aren't teachings of morals for today. It's a description of events that happened.

2) It is part of the xtian doctrine as stated in Ephesians. > Christian doctrine is decided by the church. The church was started by Peter, a disciple of Jesus. So the church is an unbroken line of christian doctrine straight from Jesus to now i.e 2000 years. But I'm sure you know better sitting in your basement of what is and isn't doctrine.

Appeal to authority. classic. > Umm yes the church, along with the bible, is the authority for christians lol. Always has been

Maybe becos they are follwing the logic of the new covenant? you know make stuff up and claim its gods will. If 14 century priest can make stuff and have moral failings,, how sure are about the morality of those who wrote gospels? > That's why it is called faith. On some level, this knowledge was passed down by generations and you are choosing to believe what your ancestors have believed because they were allegedly witness to the resurrection of jesus.


50+ year old man marries a 9 year old. Where does it fit in your moral spectrum? > I think it is wrong for a 50 yr old man to marry a 9 yr old. But then again, I'm judging by the our modern sense of morality. Who knows what the appropriate ages were in medieval times ? It was a different wicked world back then.

Again, you keep appealing to authority and dancing around instead of giving straight answers. I think I have seen amoeba under microscope show more thought processes than you do with your answers > You should stop reading silly Dawkins, he appeals to emotion rather than logic. I recommend Alex O Connor (CosmicSkeptic) on youtube. Super smart and razor sharp in his arguments.

Answer in bold.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Old Testament has slavery in it and ancient Israelites owned slaves. We can argue about how those slaves were treated and how humane Jews were towards their slaves. But the fact is, they still owned slaves.

Jesus abolished the old law. But he still preached the love of the same God that allowed Slavery to happen. Did Lord Yahweh had a change of heart after allowing Jews to have slaves for 600 years?

Bottom line is that Christians will have to carry the burden of their God’s deeds in Old Testament.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Answer in bold.

This is going nowhere.

>Christian doctrine is decided by the church. The church was started by Peter, a disciple of Jesus. So the church is an unbroken line of christian doctrine straight from Jesus to now i.e 2000 years. But I'm sure you know better sitting in your basement of what is and isn't doctrine.<<

This just about sums up the confusion that is religion and xtianity.

On hand you claim

1. church doctrine is straight from Jesus
2. Jesus said I came enforce to laws of Moses not change them.
3. you claim laws of moses doesn't apply becos of some humans decided it to be so after jesus death. the conclusion form this is that Xtians have decided to ignore god and jesus.

No amount of sharpness of arguments will resolve this contradiction.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Old Testament has slavery in it and ancient Israelites owned slaves. We can argue about how those slaves were treated and how humane Jews were towards their slaves. But the fact is, they still owned slaves.

Jesus abolished the old law. But he still preached the love of the same God that allowed Slavery to happen. Did Lord Yahweh had a change of heart after allowing Jews to have slaves for 600 years?

Bottom line is that Christians will have to carry the burden of their God’s deeds in Old Testament.

Where? at every opportunity, he declared he came to enforce laws of moses. no change them

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pas | King James Version (KJV) | Down

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pas

www.bible.com

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Justcrazy]

It started with what my parents told being moral was and they claimed it came from their version of the religious practice.

As I got older I grew out of it and defined my own by my experiences.

Best explanation of how my morals evolved

It does not answer my question , I asked from where do you get your morality from. What he is saying in the video is all people agreeing to certain moral values, but that is impractical.

So , he is basically saying that morality will be determined by what majority of people deem right in a particular area? So do you believe in that?

 

[Justcrazy]

Old Testament has slavery in it and ancient Israelites owned slaves. We can argue about how those slaves were treated and how humane Jews were towards their slaves. But the fact is, they still owned slaves.

Jesus abolished the old law. But he still preached the love of the same God that allowed Slavery to happen. Did Lord Yahweh had a change of heart after allowing Jews to have slaves for 600 years?

Bottom line is that Christians will have to carry the burden of their God’s deeds in Old Testament.

I doubt that there are any Christians here who will respond to that , as far as Muslims are they do not consider Bible authentic , so they will not find it important to touch this.

 

[rpant_gabba]

It does not answer my question , I asked from where do you get your morality from. What he is saying in the video is all people agreeing to certain moral values, but that is impractical.

So , he is basically saying that morality will be determined by what majority of people deem right in a particular area? So do you believe in that?

My morality is not a monolithic set. It evolved as I grew. With increased knowledge, information and experience, I'd like think that it has evolved for the better.

The starting point is the surroundings I grew up in.