I kinda feel ashamed, even at work i was really shy when I announced it but I never seen that movieI feel quite silly writing that, but I feel everyone gets my point because there's no way no one hasn't seen Pulp Fiction.
I kinda feel ashamed, even at work i was really shy when I announced it but I never seen that movieI feel quite silly writing that, but I feel everyone gets my point because there's no way no one hasn't seen Pulp Fiction.
I kinda feel ashamed, even at work i was really shy when I announced it but I never seen that movie
Thank you for posting here Scogo. What's your position on people who believe in God but don't recognise Muhammad as his prophet?
Again you didn't think enough before writing this: The fact that most human civilisations for the most part of their existence have viewed homosexual acts as immoral. This proofs my point again about inner Moral truths. Just because western Society changed their minds 30 yrs ago that does nothing against my Point. You are confusing so many Topics but thats the Problem with atheists talking about morality. Your morality is based on what Society tolerates and thinks as a whole, literally your morality depends on what the average Person out there believes, thats just sad. If everyone changes their mind and says burning jews again is good, then that becomes morally OK for you? There is so many Problems with your understanding of morality, like literally morality to you is what feels good to the People.
Yes, I agree civilian deaths can hardly be avoided completely. However I was referring to examples like the conquest of Jerusalem. In 1097 the crusaders basically created a huge bloodbath - it is said in some sources they were literally wading through blood and corpses as hardly anybody's life was spared. It was the complete opposite when Saladin conquered it back some 60 yrs later. It was an extremely peaceful taking over with hardly any civilian calamities, whereafter all the crusader captives were released for free and allowed to go back to their home land. That is the true spirit of islamic conquest I was talking about.Innocents always die in war, this is consistent in history. You know you have to raid the economy to break your enemy. :P
The civilian losses in most wars are around 50%, I doubt it was much different in the Middle Ages.
Turkish campaigns in Hungary caused a huge amount of civilian loss, at the end of the 17th century the part of the country under Ottoman rule became practically empty.
I rather meant that if you deny the existence of objective moral truth then it is hard to set up rules of morality according to which people should act because you basically cut down the branch on which you are standing. Filosophy is talking about morality a huge deal but I don't think there is a satisfying answer for that. I don't claim that I personally have the objective truth but I do believe such truth exists.Well most of philosophy is talking about morality quite extensively. On the other hand, if you have an objective moral truth, there is not really a conversation to be had, since its the irrefutable truth.
I guess you are asking about Islam's position on that, because that is obv. the position I hold.Thank you for posting here Scogo. What's your position on people who believe in God but don't recognise Muhammad as his prophet?
I guess you are asking about Islam's position on that, because that is obv. the position I hold.
In order to answer that, I just have to briefly explain my religion as a whole: The islamic creed is that there is only one God and our purpose is to worship him in this life and thus He shall grant us paradise as reward in the next. God sent all the prophets from Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham and many others till Jesus and finally Prophet Muhammad - all of them came with this same message, which is the core meaning of Islam itself (I.e. submission to the one God). Hence we believe all those prophets were muslims and were sent to the peoples of the earth with different miracles as proof for their prophethood. So it is a core part of Islam to believe in all of the prophets, not just Prophet Muhammad. I.e. if you deny Jesus' prophethood for example, you cannot call yourself a muslim. Now, as we view Islam as the only true religion, believing in God as well as recognising and following Prophet Muhammad and all others are prerequisites to salvation in the hereafter.
According to Islam you are a Christian who is following what in our view is a distorted version of Jesus' teachings, as well as the Bible which in our view has been corrupted by man. We do not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be God, God's literal son or that he wants to be worshipped. Hence you are a nonmuslim and according to our creed shall not attain salvation. For me there is no need for sugar coating anything here.I believe in 1 true God and Jesus is his son.I believe in the bible as the inspired word of God.what's your position regarding the likes of me.According to Islam,what am I?
On the side, one of the issues to me with this discussion is that everyone is working to form what can be called universal evidence. Faith is pretty much personal evidence, but at the same time there must be some element of objectivity, at least to the point where if an athiest was involved he would say, "You know, maybe. Maybe God does exist, but I need something other than that." There would be no universal evidence as far as I am concerned, where it can be shown to every athiest and agnostic and all are in agreement of said religion and or God, definitively.
But if that personal experience where both were involved isn't enough for both to be convicted of God's existence (or hint, trace), what would then be needed that's considered universal evidence to impress nonbeliever's minds?
According to Islam you are a Christian who is following what in our view is a distorted version of Jesus' teachings, as well as the Bible which in our view has been corrupted by man. We do not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be God, God's literal son or that he wants to be worshipped. Hence you are a nonmuslim and according to our creed shall not attain salvation. For me there is no need for sugar coating anything here.
Do you believe that Jesus is God and you have to worship him?
Then you even differ with mainstream catholicism. For all I know at least the catholic teaching is that Jesus literally is God. (yes, I know many find that hard to believe).You don't have to sugar coat anything bro.No I don't think Jesus is God,the bible says multiple times he's God's son.He's the firstborn of creation and had a heavenly life before he came to earth.The trinity is confusing and misleading.
Then you even differ with mainstream catholicism. For all I know at least the catholic teaching is that Jesus literally is God. (yes, I know many find that hard to believe).
The thing is, in our view the Bible has been corrupted.
So you do not worship Jesus? But you believe in the trinity?
Bro, I feel like you should put up some effort and research to try and find out wether your gut feeling is right or wrong.I struggle with this bro. My gut feeling is Islam is false too. But I'm no divine judge either.
Bro, I feel like you should put up some effort and research to try and find out wether your gut feeling is right or wrong.
Since you believe in God already you can also ask Him to show you the straight path. I mean there is no harm in doing so, right? In our religion it says "God hears the supplication of the supplicant whenever he supplicates." It does not restrict this to the muslim's supplication.
Also, maybe you have some misconceptions about Islam. I mean I am here in case you want to find out more about my Religion.
My friend, why are we arguing in a circle here? Tell me, why should it mean anything to me that you personally, subjectively view my views as immoral? I mean, you do understand that I can just say "well I view your views as immoral" full stop, right? Thats why subjective-morality debates are utter senseless, and you agreed earlier that you only have subjective morality so why would I be bothered?. I only care about objective moral truth, I think you should have gotten that by now.
If you care only about "objective moral truth", perhaps you should reflect on what those words actually mean to us - you would realise that objective - moral is an oxymoron to begin with, and there is no such thing.
I rather meant that if you deny the existence of objective moral truth then it is hard to set up rules of morality according to which people should act because you basically cut down the branch on which you are standing. Filosophy is talking about morality a huge deal but I don't think there is a satisfying answer for that. I don't claim that I personally have the objective truth but I do believe such truth exists.
Many problems here: Utilitarianism does not achieve objectivity for a very simple reason: The consequences are always being judged using our own subjective reasoning! For example, if regarding a moral question interests of different entities are to be weighed against each other, who decides which one is to be given preference? The answer is, as long as a human being does, the decision is always going to be subjective.Even a moral doctrine as simple as utilitarianism purports to have objectivity. If the consequences of any action are supposed to maximise happiness / well-being / utility, then it is because these things are objectively good. They are objectively good because everyone agrees that they are (though may disagree about what they consist in) and could not rationally agree otherwise. This is objectivity, it just doesn't rely on any metaphysical notion of morality as something hardwired into the universe
Again huge logical problems in your reasoning: Firstly, your assumptions are not proven ("certain facts about human nature, that, for instance we all (fundamentally) value the same things, desire the same things, that we 'self-evidently' are possessed of certain rights") and those assumptions actually contradict reality.The objectivity in these doctrines and theories is derived from certain facts about human nature, that, for instance we all (fundamentally) value the same things, desire the same things, that we 'self-evidently' are possessed of certain rights or that certain proscriptions are necessary to a functioning community / society.
This is subjective, not objective.If I got that correctly what your trying to say is is that "objective moral" does not make sense linguistically. I do not see why that would be the case but it does not really matter, because it makes sense from the perspective of a religious person.
Because from the religious person's point of view objective just means that the morality is not based on any human being's subjective opinion but rather is derived from an entity that is above the human, i.e. God.
According to Islam you are a Christian who is following what in our view is a distorted version of Jesus' teachings, as well as the Bible which in our view has been corrupted by man. We do not believe that Jesus ever claimed to be God, God's literal son or that he wants to be worshipped. Hence you are a nonmuslim and according to our creed shall not attain salvation. For me there is no need for sugar coating anything here.
Do you believe that Jesus is God and you have to worship him?