Christian terrorist attack in Pakistan kills 57.....

[calitennis127]

Everyone has their version. Alcohol is banned, but you go to Turkey and enjoy your Raki 24/7, nobody says a word. Turkey is %95 Muslim. I am sure ISIS sees it differently.

Sure, but what does that prove about Islam? That is more of a comment on how human beings respond to moral standards in general.

And ISIS is far from the whole Islamic government that is strict. The Saudi regime is based on Wahhabism, which is actually a more stringent form of Islam than you will find anywhere in the world.

Uhm, it proves what I always say: It is all negotiable, and open to interpretation, for all religions.

No, Murat, the fact that there are different interpretations doesn't mean there aren't extremely different contents in the texts. The lives of Muhammad and Christ were very different.

As far as your previous comments about Christianity being more civilized, well, it had 650 years head start, you know. Even then if you look at the older Islamic life, the libraries, the scientists and mathematicians like Al Khwarizmi (algebra) or Ibn al-Haytham, they had rich culture and civilization.

Murat, how can anyone rationally argue that the achievements of Islamic civilization are even remotely comparable to the achievements of Christian civilization?

There is a reason Middle Eastern people want to emigrate to Europe, but there is no interest on the part of Europeans in settling the other way.

 

[calitennis127]

The abolition of slavery is a product of the evolution of civilization. I don't blame people at the time because it was considered the "norm" and they were conditioned to think so.

I don't think human base instincts have changed, but what they are conditioned to believe is acceptable definitely has.

Well said, Britbox. The issue of slavery's history and abolition over the centuries is a far more complex matter than the infantile dichotomy Murat is propping up.

 

[calitennis127]

Now, STOP putting your own garbage words in my mind and answer the effin question: Why is your timeless, all knowing all powerful GOD is not putting ONE word against slavery in his books, when he has the time to put words against murder, stealing, disrespecting your elders, suicide, homosexuality etc...? WHY?

Excellent question Murat, because maybe it will prompt you to stop thinking outside the box of the egalitarian post-1960 straightjacket.

There are two possible answers to your question:
1) (This is your answer) The person of Jesus Christ may have been morally exemplary, but he was also morally inadequate, because he didn't condemn the heinous institution of slavery, or
2) The institution of slavery may be something that civilization has eliminated over time due to vile abuses, racist exploitation, and evolving economic/technological/social circumstances, but which is not an intrinsically evil institution; therefore, Christ did not condemn it per se.

The correct answer is #2. It is supported by history and a balanced view of all cultures and religions involved in the process of slavery's history and eventual eradication.

As I have made clear to you, if we take the puerile and irrational route of equating slavery with concentration camps, then we have to define numerous civilizations as the equivalent of genocidal regimes, starting with the Egyptians and going up through the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Arabs, and Hindus. This is utterly stupid and it does not take into account economic realities or social circumstances of different eras at all.

It made sense for King Tut to enlist thousands to build a pyramid. He couldn't have them apply online and then get fingerprinted beforehand.

 

[calitennis127]

If we define "slavery" as evil per se, irrespective of any sort of social considerations of time and place, then we have to characterize numerous civilizations as fundamentally evil and many philosophers over the ages as warped and sick, from Aristotle to Cicero to Confucius to Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

If we define "slavery" as evil per se, irrespective of any sort of social considerations of time and place, then we have to characterize numerous civilizations as fundamentally evil and many philosophers over the ages as warped and sick, from Aristotle to Cicero to Confucius to Thomas Jefferson.

Cali, this is all proof of what I am saying all along. Morality evolves as mankind evolves. In the past , we had slavery, which was not explicitly opposed by any religion. Now, we don't have slavery, and most would think it is wrong to treat people as property, am I right? What changed? Religion did not...What changed is the evolution of morality in people, DESPITE religion. Bible was very fond of stoning for example...disrespecting your parents was punishable by death. It is not now...IN SPITE of religion. Human beings evolve and religion is just not a part of it.

As for Islamic contributions to civilization versus Christian, I cannot really argue about those, because in both religions, most contributions were made DESPITE the respective religions.

More later, I have to work at some point

 

[Kieran]

No, Murat, morality didn't evolve "despite religion." Western society and behaviour was utterly affected by the spread of the Gospel. Notice how morality is a different thing in different places. Local religion has certainly had an effect on morality, and in the west, this is mostly due to the influence of the Church.

The Gospel message was subversive, buddy, especially the phrases I mentioned above, warning against riches and supporting the dignity of the poor...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Now, STOP putting your own garbage words in my mind and answer the effin question: Why is your timeless, all knowing all powerful GOD is not putting ONE word against slavery in his books, when he has the time to put words against murder, stealing, disrespecting your elders, suicide, homosexuality etc...? WHY?

Excellent question Murat, because maybe it will prompt you to stop thinking outside the box of the egalitarian post-1960 straightjacket.

There are two possible answers to your question:
1) (This is your answer) The person of Jesus Christ may have been morally exemplary, but he was also morally inadequate, because he didn't condemn the heinous institution of slavery, or
2) The institution of slavery may be something that civilization has eliminated over time due to vile abuses, racist exploitation, and evolving economic/technological/social circumstances, but which is not an intrinsically evil institution; therefore, Christ did not condemn it per se.

The correct answer is #2. It is supported by history and a balanced view of all cultures and religions involved in the process of slavery's history and eventual eradication.

As I have made clear to you, if we take the puerile and irrational route of equating slavery with concentration camps, then we have to define numerous civilizations as the equivalent of genocidal regimes, starting with the Egyptians and going up through the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Arabs, and Hindus. This is utterly stupid and it does not take into account economic realities or social circumstances of different eras at all.

It made sense for King Tut to enlist thousands to build a pyramid. He couldn't have them apply online and then get fingerprinted beforehand.

Cali I am not really sure you understand what slavery is...A slave is not a butler or a hired hand or help for money. He cannot leave when he wishes. He gets bought and sold, whipped when the owner feels like it. So, no matter what time and culture, it is wrong. I am pretty sure that slave owners from a thousand years ago new in their hearts it was wrong. BUT...those were the times...zeitgeist, whatever you want to call it...so we had slavery. BUT your OMNISCIENT GOD, who is supposed know these things, was quiet about the whole thing. THAT"s my beef.

 

[calitennis127]

If we define "slavery" as evil per se, irrespective of any sort of social considerations of time and place, then we have to characterize numerous civilizations as fundamentally evil and many philosophers over the ages as warped and sick, from Aristotle to Cicero to Confucius to Thomas Jefferson.

Cali, this is all proof of what I am saying all along. Morality evolves as mankind evolves. In the past , we had slavery, which was not explicitly opposed by any religion. Now, we don't have slavery, and most would think it is wrong to treat people as property, am I right? What changed? Religion did not...What changed is the evolution of morality in people, DESPITE religion. Bible was very fond of stoning for example...disrespecting your parents was punishable by death. It is not now...IN SPITE of religion. Human beings evolve and religion is just not a part of it.

As for Islamic contributions to civilization versus Christian, I cannot really argue about those, because in both religions, most contributions were made DESPITE the respective religions.

Murat, how would Western legal systems, Western universities, European urban architecture, the music of Mozart and Bach, and Western science and literature possibly have been what they have been without Christianity?

Did you know that the "university" itself was invented in the Christian Middle Ages?

 

[calitennis127]

Cali I am not really sure you understand what slavery is...A slave is not a butler or a hired hand or help for money. He cannot leave when he wishes. He gets bought and sold, whipped when the owner feels like it..

Murat, this right here shows that your understanding of slavery as a matter of history is so distorted and shallow. You think that "slavery" = Uncle Tom's Cabin, and you are showing no regard for historical or social circumstances whatsoever. Well, first of all, not every slave in human history was whipped 10,000 times, and secondly, slavery was not as simple as being "bought and sold".

You are making slavery out to be as patently horrible as rape or murder. If that is the case, then we can't think much of Thomas Jefferson, among others, for standing idly by while they watched tens of thousands of people being legally raped.

So, no matter what time and culture, it is wrong.

Okay, then let's take Christianity out of this. If slavery was so transparently wrong and repugnant to any rational/humane person of any age and was basically on the level of rape (as you are implying), then how come Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Thomas Jefferson did not object to it?

Why would the broadest ethical mind who ever lived (Aristotle) not realize how objectionable it was? He saw it around him every day. Was he just a sick person? Was his entire society of ancient Athens morally sick and rotten?

I am pretty sure that slave owners from a thousand years ago new in their hearts it was wrong.

You utter a statement like this and then you criticize people of religion for blindly believing things?

You may be right about some individuals, but this statement is not evidence of anything.

BUT...those were the times...zeitgeist, whatever you want to call it...so we had slavery. BUT your OMNISCIENT GOD, who is supposed know these things, was quiet about the whole thing. THAT"s my beef.

And I completely understand that (I'm not sure that Kieran has though). So what I am telling you to consider is maybe that you should question whether the premise of "slavery" = Aushwitz is sane or rational. You have yet to show me that you are making any attempt at that.

Slavery was abolished over time because of the evolution in economic and social conditions throughout the world, and especially because of growing international consciousness about racist exploitation and the abuses of slavery. Christianity had a great deal to do with slavery eventually being abolished.

In fact, the Christian West has led the way in abolishing slavery throughout the world. That should tell you something.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Cali, I would like to know what you think slavery is.

Also, you say "The Christian West has led the way in abolishing slavery throughout the world."

Why? You seem to think it was alright, so why do you think the " Christian West" had the need to abolish it, if it was acceptable?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Did you know that the "university" itself was invented in the Christian Middle Ages?

If you follow the link I am sending you, you will find not everyone agrees. Just bother to read. please.



http://lostislamichistory.com/5-muslim-inventions-that-changed-the-world/

Subject #3

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

No, Murat, morality didn't evolve "despite religion." Western society and behaviour was utterly affected by the spread of the Gospel. Notice how morality is a different thing in different places. Local religion has certainly had an effect on morality, and in the west, this is mostly due to the influence of the Church.

The Gospel message was subversive, buddy, especially the phrases I mentioned above, warning against riches and supporting the dignity of the poor...

Dear Kieran,

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." says the book.

Do we do that today in the civilized world? Nope...I am sure some wish we did, but most sane people would rather NOT worry about what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms, no? That is morale evolution despite religion.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." says the good book...

Do we really do that anymore? Did I miss some cool stonings? Nope. We don't . Morality evolved again, despite religion.

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death." says the book.

Uhm...nope, we try not to do that anymore either.

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18) . Good book again...BUT,

Nope...adultery means something different to most people these days. A second marriage is very common. Most people are comfortable with the idea of a divorce...


"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

I am sure , today, most would agree that having testicular cancer should not prevent some good samaritan from going to "heaven".

"A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2) says the good book...

ditto...


Way too many examples man. We have evolved, despite religion. We don't stone gays anymore , a divorced woman is not automatically a prostitute, we rebel against our parents without being dragged into the town square...

Morality evolves, as we do, with or without religion. I AGREE there have been positives too, from religion. I am not crazy. But so many times it has acted as a hand break.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Murat, how would Western legal systems, Western universities, European urban architecture, the music of Mozart and Bach, and Western science and literature possibly have been what they have been without Christianity?

I have always claimed the only good thing that came out of religion was music.

HOWEVER, let's not forget Brahms, Debussy and Verdi and many more others who were either atheist or borderline. Ravel is a favorite of mine. I love Bolero. Ravel was an atheist.

I can name countless scientist who were atheists , ditto with authors. They have contributed to civilization as much as any believer. From Kafka to Asimov to Miller to Rushdie to Shaw to...whatever you get the point.

As for scientists...well, so many of them were atheists I don't know where to start. Just because someone is living in a Christian geography, (By the way, as I said before, %95 of religion is a geographical coincidence), doesn't mean those guys were Christian, such as Bohr, Feynman, Oppenheimer, Nash....

Also, so many of the scientists in this world had to fight the church or the mosque to help mankind better itself. How long did it take for Jean Paul II to say evolution was " "more than a hypothesis"?
Ask poor Giordano Bruno how it felt fighting the Church...

 

[Kieran]

No, Murat, morality didn't evolve "despite religion." Western society and behaviour was utterly affected by the spread of the Gospel. Notice how morality is a different thing in different places. Local religion has certainly had an effect on morality, and in the west, this is mostly due to the influence of the Church.

The Gospel message was subversive, buddy, especially the phrases I mentioned above, warning against riches and supporting the dignity of the poor...

Dear Kieran,

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." says the book.

Do we do that today in the civilized world? Nope...I am sure some wish we did, but most sane people would rather NOT worry about what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms, no? That is morale evolution despite religion.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear." says the good book...

Do we really do that anymore? Did I miss some cool stonings? Nope. We don't . Morality evolved again, despite religion.

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death." says the book.

Uhm...nope, we try not to do that anymore either.

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18) . Good book again...BUT,

Nope...adultery means something different to most people these days. A second marriage is very common. Most people are comfortable with the idea of a divorce...


"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1)

I am sure , today, most would agree that having testicular cancer should not prevent some good samaritan from going to "heaven".

"A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2) says the good book...

ditto...


Way too many examples man. We have evolved, despite religion. We don't stone gays anymore , a divorced woman is not automatically a prostitute, we rebel against our parents without being dragged into the town square...

Morality evolves, as we do, with or without religion. I AGREE there have been positives too, from religion. I am not crazy. But so many times it has acted as a hand break.

That's a very strange reply, brother, very odd. One of the charges laid against Catholicism is that it's too restrictive and moralistic. Nobody would notice this if we evolved our own morality "despite" religion.

Of course, the Ten Commandments have been an ethical and moral basis for communities since Charlton Heston first stepped out of the burning bushes in a revealing loincloth. And in response to your slavery query, I've shown you where the Gospel and NT have opened people's eyes to the slavery of sin, greed and riches. These things have been revolutionary. As I said above, when Jesus told the rich man who wanted to be his follower, give away everything to the poor, this would have been revolutionary and life changing. In fact, the Gospel is life changing and it changed whole societies, not just spiritually, but morally.

As for divorce, it's not acceptable to Catholics, and many struggle with their conscience on this when their marriages break down. Only an atheist could decide that religious people's morality isn't actually shaped by their religion, when it must be, because their conscience is shaped by their religion, and their relationship with Jesus Christ. Only a person who doesn't know what the spiritual life consists of could decide that it doesn't affect us. You think it has no effect on a religious person that Our Lord said that as you do to the least of these, you do to Me?

And do you think this had no effect on opening people's eyes to how they treat their neighbours - and their slaves?

Brother, the whole of western culture and society is permeated at every level by religion, and this includes morality above all. In fact, it's the breakdown of religious life in the west has meant that certain horrors such as abortion etc have become commonplace. Morality is no longer what it was, promiscuousness is rife and marriage has come under assault because people no longer believe - and not because people still hold true to the faith, but their morality has evolved "despite" it.

I'm surprised you're in denial on this one, to be honest...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Dear Kieran,:hug
I have never killed anyone, raped anyone. I have never cheated on my wife. I give to charity whenever I can. I used to help my landlady take out her garbage because she had a bad back . And I hate religion and I do not believe in a big guy sitting upon the clouds looking down at us. How did that happen? Why don't I feel the need of a higher being to do the things that I do? Could it be because human being evolve regardless of a higher being and the good or the bad are inside all of us regardless of a higher power?

If it was proven, without the shadow of a doubt, that there was no God or religion, would otherwise good people go on a raping spree just because the risk of hell fire is no more? Would you?

Can a deed be truly good if it is being done because you expect a reward for it? (heaven). Can love for something can truly be honest because you are afraid of punishment? (hell) .

Religion might have been necessary at some point, but I think it has reached his expiry date long time ago. With or without it, there will be good folk, there will be bad folk.


I think you misunderstood my point in the previous post. It was more geared towards the PUNISHMENT side of things, not the acts themselves. We, as a society, do not like stoning people any more. We ask questions now. Like, why would someone want a divorce? Is she in an abusive relationship? Is her life in danger? Did anyone question these things 1000 years ago? NOpe. We do now. Because divorce, Catholic or otherwise, is a complex thing. People know now you cannot blanketly say divorce is a sin and you just can't have it. There is the health and mental issues of the kids involved. We dig deeper now.

 

[Kieran]

My dear Murat :hug

In the Middle East, did their morality evolve because of religion - or despite it?

Dear Kieran,:hug
I have never killed anyone, raped anyone. I have never cheated on my wife. I give to charity whenever I can. I used to help my landlady take out her garbage because she had a bad back . And I hate religion and I do not believe in a big guy sitting upon the clouds looking down at us. How did that happen? Why don't I feel the need of a higher being to do the things that I do? Could it be because human being evolve regardless of a higher being and the good or the bad are inside all of us regardless of a higher power?

Could it be that the human being grew up in a society that was historically shaped by Christian values?

Can a deed be truly good if it is being done because you expect a reward for it? (heaven). Can love for something can truly be honest because you are afraid of punishment? (hell) .

This is a misunderstanding of why people of faith do good things. You ever think that some of us do it because we love God, and our neighbour, because we were transformed by the Good News?

I think you misunderstood my point in the previous post. It was more geared towards the PUNISHMENT side of things, not the acts themselves. We, as a society, do not like stoning people any more. We ask questions now. Like, why would someone want a divorce? Is she in an abusive relationship? Is her life in danger? Did anyone question these things 1000 years ago? NOpe. We do now. Because divorce, Catholic or otherwise, is a complex thing. People know now you cannot blanketly say divorce is a sin and you just can't have it. There is the health and mental issues of the kids involved. We dig deeper now.

This isn't a good representation either, because you're admitting that morality was previously shaped by religion, and now things have been changed by the new "religion" of secularism, and then if things evolve again due to a sudden upsurge in religion, will you say that their contemporary morality has evolved despite this upsurge - or because of it?

The fact is, morally, we behave no better than people ever did. We don't stone people anymore (though they do in the Middle East), but instead we destroy them in huge numbers in the womb, and bring in all sorts of acts of the European parliament (as example) whereby life can be ended when it's no longer expedient to care for it. Have we developed? Have we evolved, morally, since we gave up on religion?

:nono

I think it's inaccurate to say that morality evolves "despite religion" because morality has always evolved according to the prevailing culture, and in religious societies, the morality is certainly evolved and developed by the prevailing religion...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Dear Kieran,:hug
I have never killed anyone, raped anyone. I have never cheated on my wife. I give to charity whenever I can. I used to help my landlady take out her garbage because she had a bad back . And I hate religion and I do not believe in a big guy sitting upon the clouds looking down at us. How did that happen? Why don't I feel the need of a higher being to do the things that I do? Could it be because human being evolve regardless of a higher being and the good or the bad are inside all of us regardless of a higher power?

Could it be that the human being grew up in a society that was historically shaped by Christian values?

But I grew up in a society that has been %95 Muslim for centuries. Never had the stomach for beheadings, stonings, etc....What is wrong with me? Never craved for the 72 virgins... Ain't nobody got time for that !

 

[Kieran]

Dear Kieran,:hug
I have never killed anyone, raped anyone. I have never cheated on my wife. I give to charity whenever I can. I used to help my landlady take out her garbage because she had a bad back . And I hate religion and I do not believe in a big guy sitting upon the clouds looking down at us. How did that happen? Why don't I feel the need of a higher being to do the things that I do? Could it be because human being evolve regardless of a higher being and the good or the bad are inside all of us regardless of a higher power?

Could it be that the human being grew up in a society that was historically shaped by Christian values?

But I grew up in a society that has been %95 Muslim for centuries. Never had the stomach for beheadings, stonings, etc....What is wrong with me? never craved for the 72 virgins? Ain't nobody got time for that !

If you never craved for the 72 virgins, then brother, you got no morals at all! :eyepop

 

[calitennis127]

Murat, before I get to responding to your latest comments, I have to get this conversation back on track so you can stop pushing it off the rails. You claim to be an individualist who does not follow what the masses think. Well then, start behaving like one. You are accepting the nonsensical historical narrative of your leftist socialist enemies whose political-economic system you claim to detest. You are willing to question the Bible, but you can't question the historical nonsense of socialists? Some rational mind.

Now, I am politely asking you to stop being such a baby and to answer the following questions directly. Stop skirting them and falling back on fashionable cliches. If you are a rational individualist, then live up to it please.

So let me repeat......

You are making slavery out to be as patently horrible as rape or murder. If that is the case, then we can't think much of Thomas Jefferson, among others, for standing idly by while they watched tens of thousands of people being legally raped. (As an addendum to that prior quote, let me add this: slavery is an economic and political INSTITUTION, not an ACTION. You cannot "slavery" someone.)

If slavery was so transparently wrong and repugnant to any rational/humane person of any age and was basically on the level of rape (as you are implying), then how come Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, and Thomas Jefferson did not object to it?

Why would the broadest ethical mind who ever lived (Aristotle) not realize how objectionable it was? He saw it around him every day. Was he just a sick person? Was his entire society of ancient Athens morally sick and rotten?

Please answer these questions directly, and then we can move forward with the rest of the conversation. You are avoiding them like a White House Press Secretary of the Bush or Obama administrations.

 

[calitennis127]

I think you misunderstood my point in the previous post. It was more geared towards the PUNISHMENT side of things, not the acts themselves. We, as a society, do not like stoning people any more. We ask questions now. Like, why would someone want a divorce? Is she in an abusive relationship? Is her life in danger? Did anyone question these things 1000 years ago? NOpe. We do now. Because divorce, Catholic or otherwise, is a complex thing. People know now you cannot blanketly say divorce is a sin and you just can't have it. There is the health and mental issues of the kids involved. We dig deeper now.

Okay, I can't resist responding. This is one of the most ridiculous things I have read.

The Church has had annulments for precisely this reason. It wasn't anti-Christian revolutionaries in 1965 who were the first to realize that marriage has its complications and challenges.

Good grief Murat.