Skip to comments.
Islam's God: The Origin of Allah the Moon God
souldevice.org ^
| unknown
| anonymous for safety
Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 541-551 next last
To: Technogeeb
Very interesting, thanks for the info, taking note of it for further reference.
441
posted on
11/11/2003 12:31:02 PM PST
by
agrace
To: freedomson
Easy enough for a scholar such as yourself to conclude but what about people of very low intelligence, or dullards and simpletons who possess moral imperatives without any reflection? A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.
That is why we afford stewardship to these individuals.
442
posted on
11/11/2003 12:32:42 PM PST
by
OWK
To: AppyPappy
I don't see why you can't rationalize that your well-being trumps the well-being of all others. You could wrongly rationalize just about anything.
But to claim freedom of peaceful action as a moral imperative... as rightful.. as just.. you must afford it to others.
To fail to do so, invalidates the claim for self.
443
posted on
11/11/2003 12:35:08 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
As opposed to an invisible cloud-walking boogerman?Let's say you are walking along the beach and you see a wristwatch in the dunes. Would you pick it up and say,
"Look, a collection of silicate molecules from the sand and various metallic atoms in the ocean formed this thing that looks just like a watch. And it's ticking to boot!"
444
posted on
11/11/2003 12:39:12 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: freedomson
Let's say you are walking along the beach and you see a wristwatch in the dunes. Would you pick it up and say, "Look, a collection of silicate molecules from the sand and various metallic atoms in the ocean formed this thing that looks just like a watch. And it's ticking to boot!" No.
I'd hold it up to the sky and say.. "God.. you dropped your watch".
445
posted on
11/11/2003 12:41:44 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
But to claim freedom of peaceful action as a moral imperative... as rightful.. as just.. you must afford it to others.But others do not have to afford it to you.
446
posted on
11/11/2003 12:43:23 PM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Pittsburgh beat Virginia Tech 31-28. Panthers rule!!".)
To: OWK
A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.This is not true. I've know profoundly retarded people who have innate sense of morality and yet aren't able to read or write beyond a first grade level.
447
posted on
11/11/2003 12:46:45 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: AppyPappy
But others do not have to afford it to you. Indeed they do, if they wish to rationally claim it as a moral imnperative for themselves.
Those who are willing to initiate force against otherwise peaceful men, rationally preclude any claim they might make to such a moral imperative.
Have many done so anyway?
Sure.
But their actions cannot be rationally defended or sustained consistent with the notion of morality.
Hence, they act immorally.
448
posted on
11/11/2003 12:47:27 PM PST
by
OWK
To: freedomson
This is not true. I've know profoundly retarded people who have innate sense of morality and yet aren't able to read or write beyond a first grade level. What part of "who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality" didn't you get?
449
posted on
11/11/2003 12:48:51 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
I'd hold it up to the sky and say.. "God.. you dropped your watch".LOL! You believe now!
450
posted on
11/11/2003 12:48:55 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: OWK
who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard.What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.
451
posted on
11/11/2003 12:53:21 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: OWK
who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard.What don't you get? They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension.
452
posted on
11/11/2003 12:53:50 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: nosofar
Instead of fundamentalist Bhuddist, 'extremist' would be a better word and the Aum Shinrikyo comes to mind. (sarin gas in Japanese subways)
453
posted on
11/11/2003 12:58:20 PM PST
by
scan58
To: OWK
Indeed they do, if they wish to rationally claim it as a moral imnperative for themselves. No they don't. They can rationalize anything they wish. It's only YOUR morality that compels them to follow your rule. They can simply live by "Let the buyer beware".
454
posted on
11/11/2003 1:02:48 PM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Pittsburgh beat Virginia Tech 31-28. Panthers rule!!".)
To: freedomson
They are able to restrain their behavior and yet do not possess the necessary faculties of comprehension. I stated... (and I quote)
A simpleton, dullard, child, vegetative human being, etc.. who does not possess the faculties of comprehension necessary to restrain his own behavior consistent with morality, cannot be held to a moral standard. Their actions are effectively amoral.
Clearly, I am speaking about people who DO NOT possess the necessary faculties.
You seem to be trying to rebutt my point, by suggesting that there are borderline functional people who DO possess the necessary faculties.
But if they possess the necessary faculties, then I clearly wasn't talking about them.
What part don't you get?
455
posted on
11/11/2003 1:05:56 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
When two parties argue a point, isn't the purpose to bring the other party around to your point of view for some purpose?
If I bring you around I would be overjoyed that your life would improve by truly coming to understand God and His purpose and His purpose for you and that quite possibly down the road you would come to a saving faith and I could some day embrace you as a brother in heaven.
If you bring me around, and I reject the notion of a creator and I say, 'It's all hogwash!! OWK was right!' would I be better off? Would my life improve some way? Would you take any joy in opening my eyes?
456
posted on
11/11/2003 1:06:22 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: AppyPappy
People can "rationalize" damn near anything.
"Rationalization" is being used as equivalent to sophistry.
We're talking about objectively defensible and demonstrable reason, which is another thing altogether.
Reason demands that a moral code (a system defining good and evil among humankind) applies to all humans equally.
If it does not, then it fails the first test, and is hence irrational. (whether some clown "rationalizes" it, or not)
457
posted on
11/11/2003 1:09:30 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
Reason demands that a moral code (a system defining good and evil among humankind) applies to all humans equally. Imposing morality, that is.
458
posted on
11/11/2003 1:13:17 PM PST
by
AppyPappy
(Pittsburgh beat Virginia Tech 31-28. Panthers rule!!".)
To: AppyPappy
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Judges 21:25
459
posted on
11/11/2003 1:14:28 PM PST
by
freedomson
(Baruch haba b'shem Adonai!)
To: freedomson
If you bring me around, and I reject the notion of a creator and I say, 'It's all hogwash!! OWK was right!' would I be better off? Would my life improve some way? Would you take any joy in opening my eyes? Your faith is yours to evaluate, and to accept or reject on it's merits.
I share my thoughts.
Take what value you will from them.
Would I consider your life improved, for having forsaken fairly tales in favor of reason?
I think I would perhaps.. yes..
But the decision is yours, and I take even greater pleasure in this.
460
posted on
11/11/2003 1:16:08 PM PST
by
OWK
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 541-551 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson