Reply to Czgibson regarding the nature of morality!

[Jon Paul]

Morality is clearly not universal: just think of all the different moral attitudes that exist in different cultures, and which have done throughout history.

I fully recognise that there have been minor differences within humanity regarding morality. Until the Coming of Christ man had an imperfect knowledge of morality—except the ancient Israelites, whom had the Prophets to guide them—due to the condition of our human nature after the fall from Eden.

This imperfection of course caused the cultural differences regarding moral values. However, I can easily point out examples of universal morality. Murder is a fine example. Show me one culture where murder is morally acceptable. You can't do it because such does not exist.

Taking another humans life has always had attempts to justify it. From the ancient Aztecs to the ancient Celts to the cannibals in Sub-Saharan Africa. They understood taking another humans life to be morally reprehensible so they attempted to justify their human sacrifices the msot common of which was the please the gods for a good harvest etc.

In ancient Greece, homosexuality was considered absolutely normal;

Of course homosexuality existed in Hellas, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in, without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death.

The myth of homosexuality in ancient Greece is just a tool of the politically correct and liberal agenda. A simple google search will show you the facts.

in 7th century Medina it was considered perfectly OK for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to have sex with a nine-year old girl. Obviously, many people wouldn't agree with those views.

Did Mohammed have sexual relations with a prepubescent? Regardless, you prove nothing what so ever with this ? Other than a man sinned and others were to fearful to right his wrongs.

Regards,
JP.

P.S. How does Islam view morality (this is to the general forum)?

[Uthman]

Did Mohammed have sexual relations with a prepubescent?

This has been discussed extensively here.

[aamirsaab]

P.S. How does Islam view morality (this is to the general forum)?

I'm only replying to this part since most of your post is directed to Mr Gibson and brother Uthman has provided a link to your misconception (hopefully, you will read the contents of that thread and gain the actual truth of the matter)

With regards to Islam and morality, I would say to be a follower of Islam, one would have to behave moraly and have morals. Evidence for this comes from one of the core pilars of Islam which is Zakat or Charity - possibly the greatest form of morality there is! There are also several hadith on the matter concerning morality such as the one about not letting one's neigbour go hungry or feeding the poor or visiting the sick etc.

Another concept of morality in Islam is the amount of respect that one should have for all of Allah's creations, whether they are alive or dead or whether they are muslim or not.

[Jon Paul]

I thank you for your replys. Sadly I still havn't figured out how to give reputation points.. anyway. I just want to note I wasn't accusing Mohammed of having sexual relations with a prepubescent. I was simply wondering aloud if that was the case as I was unsure of the particulars.

Regards,
JP.

[جوري]

I thank you for your replys. Sadly I still havn't figured out how to give reputation points.. anyway. I just want to note I wasn't accusing Mohammed of having sexual relations with a prepubescent. I was simply wondering aloud if that was the case as I was unsure of the particulars.

Regards,
JP.

are you sure of the particulars on David's concubine?
Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"

or

OT laws regarding marriage?


What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3 Add a comment
Footnotes

• 1. Talmud Kiddushin 41a.
• 2. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.
• 3. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? | AskMoses.com - Judaism, Ask a Rabbi - Live


or american law for that matter not a at the turn of last century?

American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen


http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/teacher/aoc.htm


don't you think it prudent to check all your sources before throwing around words like 'sin'?

[Jon Paul]

are you sure of the particulars on David's concubine?
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=4][COLOR=#2e2e2e]Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"

or

OT laws regarding marriage?


What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3 Add a comment
Footnotes

• 1. Talmud Kiddushin 41a.
• 2. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.
• 3. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? | AskMoses.com - Judaism, Ask a Rabbi - Live

Because the code of morality which we have in the Old Testament was inspired by God and imposed by Him on His people, it follows that there is nothing in it that is immoral or wrong. It was indeed imperfect, if it be compared with the higher morality of the Gospel, but, for all that, it contained nothing that is blameworthy. It was suited to the low stage of civilization to which the Israelites had at the time attained; the severe punishments which it prescribed for transgressors were necessary to bend the stiff necks of a rude people; the temporal rewards held out to those who observed the law were adapted to an unspiritual and carnal race. Still its imperfections must not be exaggerated. In its treatment of the poor, of strangers, of slaves, and of enemies, it was vastly superior to the civilly more advanced Code of Hammurabi and other celebrated codes of ancient law. It did not aim merely at regulating the external acts of the people of God, it curbed also licentious thoughts and covetous desires. The love of God and of one's neighbour was the great precept of the Law, its summary and abridgment, that on which the whole Law and the Prophets depended. In spite of the undeniable superiority in this respect of the Mosaic Law to the other codes of antiquity, it has not escaped the adverse criticism of heretics in all ages and of Rationalists in our own day. To meet this adverse criticism it will be sufficient to indicate a few general principles that should not be lost sight of, and then to treat a few points in greater detail.

It has always been freely admitted by Christians that the Mosaic Law is an imperfect institution; still Christ came not to destroy it but to fulfil and perfect it. We must bear in mind that God, the Creator and Lord of all things, and the Supreme Judge of the world, can do and command things which man the creature is not authorized to do or command. On this principle we may account for and defend the command given by God to exterminate certain nations, and the permission given by Him to the Israelites to spoil the Egyptians. The tribes of Chanaan richly deserved the fate to which they were condemned by God; and if there were innocent people among the guilty, God is the absolute Lord of life and death, and He commits no injustice when He takes away what He has given. Besides, He can make up by gifts of a higher order in another life for sufferings which have been patiently endured in this life. A great want of historical perspective is shown by those, critics who judge the Mosaic Law by the humanitarian and sentimental canons of the twentieth century. A recent writer (Keane, "The Moral Argument against the Inspiration of the Old Testament" in the Hibbert Journal, October, 1905, p. 155) professes to be very much shocked by what is prescribed in Exodus 21:5-6. It is there laid down that if a Hebrew slave who has a wife and children prefers to remain with his master rather than go out free when the sabbatical year comes round, he is to be taken to the door-post and have his ear bored through with an awl, and then he is to remain a slave for life. It was a sign and mark by which he was known to be a lifelong slave. The practice was doubtless already familiar to the Israelites of the time, as it was to their neighbours. The slave himself probably thought no more of the operation than does a South African beauty, when her lip or ear is pierced for the lip-ring and the ear-ring, which in her estimation are to add to her charms. It is really too much when a staid professor makes such a prescription the ground for a grave charge of inhumanity against the law of Moses. Nor should the institution of slavery be made a ground of attack against the Mosaic legislation. It existed everywhere and although in practice it is apt to lead to many abuses, still, in the mild form in which it was allowed among the Jews, and with the safeguards prescribed by the Law, it cannot be said with truth to be contrary to sound morality.

Polygamy and divorce, though less insisted on by Rationalist critics, in reality constitute a more serious difficulty against the holiness of the Mosaic Law than any of those which have just been mentioned. The difficulty is one which has engaged the attention of the Fathers and theologians of the Church from the beginning. To answer it they take their stand on the teaching of the Master in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew and the parallel passages of Holy Scripture. What is there said of divorce is applicable to plurality of wives. The strict law of marriage was made known to our first parents in Paradise: "They shall be two in one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). When the sacred text says two it excludes polygamy, when it says one flesh it excludes divorce. Amid the general laxity with regard to marriage which existed among the Semitic tribes, it would have been difficult to preserve the strict law. The importance of a rapid increase among the chosen people of God so as to enable them to defend themselves from their neighbours, and to fulfil their appointed destiny, seemed to favour relaxation. The example of some of the chief of the ancient Patriarchs was taken by their descendants as being a sufficient indication of the dispensation granted by God. With special safeguards annexed to it Moses adopted the Divine dispensation on account of the hardness of heart of the Jewish people. Neither polygamy nor divorce can be said to be contrary to the primary precepts of nature. The primary end of marriage is compatible with both. But at least they are against the secondary precepts of the natural law: contrary, that is, to what is required for the well-ordering of human life. In these secondary precepts, however, God can dispense for good reason if He sees fit to do so. In so doing He uses His sovereign authority to diminish the right of absolute equality which naturally exists between man and woman with reference to marriage. In this way, without suffering any stain on His holiness, God could permit and sanction polygamy and divorce in the Old Law.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm

don't you think it prudent to check all your sources before throwing around words like 'sin'?

If Mohammed had sexual relations with a prepubescent girl, then yes, he sinned. If he only married the girl, and waited for her to grow and mature, he did not sin. I am not concerned about the age at which she married Mohammed, I am concerned about the age at which she had sex with him.

Regards,
JP.

[جوري]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm



If Mohammed had sexual relations with a prepubescent girl, then yes, he sinned. If he only married the girl, and waited for her to grow and mature, he did not sin. I am not concerned about the age at which she married Mohammed, I am concerned about the age at which she had sex with him.

Regards,
JP.

I am not sure the point of that very long post.. does it counteract the fact of the matter? that David took a concubine at age 70 and on his death bed, or that Lut slept with his two daughters, or that you can be betrothed at 3 as per Mosaic law? or that the age of consent at the turn of last century was seven regardless of any religious laws?

In fact Prophet Mohammed Didn't marry a prepubescent girl. and Aisha'a (RA) was engaged to another before him. So, again I'd get my facts straight. .. further.. the whole 'age of consent' is a man made invention, if you've bothered check the link given you above, you'd see that what is statutory rape in England is of legal age in Spain.. thus rendering your definitions useless, a sin is defined as an estrangement from God. And since God defined the laws rendered puberty as the age to embark upon marriage.. you don't get to define it otherwise and out of whim.. especially when you label yourself as a christian and fail to reconcile or address the riddles that permeate it with the above mentioned few as an example.


all the best!

[Uthman]

Sister Gossamer, are you employed to make the moderators' job more difficult? That's not the topic of this thread. No more discussion of that here.

[czgibson]

Greetings Jon Paul,

Thank you for honouring me by putting my name in your thread title. I feel like I'm famous or something.

I fully recognise that there have been minor differences within humanity regarding morality. Until the Coming of Christ man had an imperfect knowledge of morality—except the ancient Israelites, whom had the Prophets to guide them—due to the condition of our human nature after the fall from Eden.

I think I see where our difference of opinion stems from. You think that there exists a perfect morality, in accordance with your religious beliefs. I think that morality is in flux, as all the different attitudes that exist or have existed round the world demonstrate. The only reason anyone could have for agreeing with you is if they shared your religious beliefs.

This imperfection of course caused the cultural differences regarding moral values. However, I can easily point out examples of universal morality. Murder is a fine example. Show me one culture where murder is morally acceptable. You can't do it because such does not exist.

What about the Mafia?

To be frank, since murder is, by definition, unlawful killing, there are obviously not going to be societies that sanction murder by law, so your question is basically redundant.

Of course homosexuality existed in Hellas, just as it has existed, and will continue to exist, everywhere and at all times in human history. However, while it did exist, it was never legally sanctioned, thought to be a cultural norm, or engaged in, without risk of serious punishment, including exile and death.

This is copy and pasted, possibly from here. It's normally best to provide a source if you use someone else's words, otherwise people might think they are your own.

The myth of homosexuality in ancient Greece is just a tool of the politically correct and liberal agenda. A simple google search will show you the facts.

A simple google search actually just confirmed what I already knew. Have you got anything other than one essay by one homophobe to back up your claims?

Far from not being "legally sanctioned", homosexuality was pretty much institutionalised as part of a young boy's education.

Education and Pederasty in Ancient Greece

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

Greek Homosexuality

Did Mohammed have sexual relations with a prepubescent? Regardless, you prove nothing what so ever with this ? Other than a man sinned and others were to fearful to right his wrongs.

I am attempting to show that different moral attitudes have existed and do exist around the world. You call it sin, but as far as I know, nobody around Muhammad (pbuh) at the time considered what he did to be sinful.

Pace Uthman, I think sister Gossamer Skye is actually on-topic with her examples about different ages of consent (albeit in a rather roundabout way). Surely her examples clearly demonstrate that morality is not universal?

Peace

[Uthman]

Pace Uthman, I think sister Gossamer Skye is actually on-topic with her examples about different ages of consent (albeit in a rather roundabout way). Surely her examples clearly demonstrate that morality is not universal?

Granted. But that's only because I like you.

I see what you mean, but let us then be careful to keep the discussion within the context of the nature of morality and not about the specific details of Muhammad's marriage to Aa'isha (May Allah be pleased with her) and David's concubine.

[alcurad]

^that wold make the discussion too sterile no ?

but either way, we don't have just morality, we have religion, and they are separate. both are universal in that every society has them, but they are not universal since not all societies developed under the same conditions, however that point might not be so relevant-in abstraction-given globalization/anti-globalization and so on.

[جوري]

^that wold make the discussion too sterile no ?

but either way, we don't have just morality, we have religion, and they are separate. both are universal in that every society has them, but they are not universal since not all societies developed under the same conditions, however that point might not be so relevant-in abstraction-given globalization/anti-globalization and so on.

It was actually never a question of morality, but I tire of justifying myself.. in fact, if I had a dollar for each post deleted ...

for some reason folks can't distinguish a religious injunction and an allowance or societal differences a century ago, two centuries ago or millenniums ago, geopolitical and economic conditions etc etc as well reconcile them with their own history and their own beliefs!

The layers are missing and that is what makes for sterility not the simple derangement of a topic, albeit I don't view it as such, since I wasn't the one who introduced the topic of sin and marriage to begin with!

[alcurad]

but history is mostly myth, no? I mean the I agree that oversimplification is the main reason, but 'reconcile' is active creation, not passive observation given that history is in the past. i say too much sometimes =_=

[جوري]

I think we can create myths out of history, but not the other way around. Everything builds upon something else if you didn't have that history then you couldn't sustain yourself in the present. You can't for instance succeed in calculus not having done some remedial math course, and how will you do in the second is to a level contingent on how you sustained yourself in the first...

[MSalman]

P.S. How does Islam view morality (this is to the general forum)?

that the source of moral values should only be Islam since it is truth from the Creator

^that wold make the discussion too sterile no ?

but either way, we don't have just morality, we have religion, and they are separate. both are universal in that every society has them, but they are not universal since not all societies developed under the same conditions, however that point might not be so relevant-in abstraction-given globalization/anti-globalization and so on.

bro, care to elaborate on how religion and morality are two different things when, clearly, morality is sub-part of religion. Let us just talk about from Islamic perspective.

[alcurad]

what does morality mean in the first place? as a construct separate from religion it could mean 'fitrah', or the natural conscience endowed to any person who is brought up under normal conditions, religion thus can be seen as fundamentally separate from it.

from our perspective, there are two types of religion, those ordained by God, and those that naturally developed, meaning they don't have much to do with him, such as certain branches of the Eastern religions and ways of life particularity.

natural religions develop without any obvious 'divine' intervention, nor do they require much miracle and prophecy, rather sages and wise men.
divine religions on the other hand are strongly associated with a God figure, have prophets and such. while both are in the end 'religions', they are different.

Islam is neither, it is a hybrid of both, or rather it fits both worldviews, firstly the need for a clergy/prophets/awesome miracles is non existent, thus it isn't so similar to the other two divine religions we know much about, Christianity and Judaism, but it does consider prophets and humanity in general to be connected to God, and God is indeed central to it, thus it isn't so similar to the natural religons either, the ones that don't have God-figures at least.

both types of religion have slightly different bases for moralities, divine religions mostly make it an order from God to follow even if you don't understand and so on, natural religions make it part of human nature and discard the notion of needing god to be moral.

Islam, in it's own followers view at least calls for an entirely different paradigm, that divine command fits human nature, and that there is no contradiction between following God's commands and following fundamental human nature.

morals and religion do exist separately, many religious people have no morals, many moral people have no religion, it could be argued that those people were not exposed to the right conditions thus developed that way, which is I think is what Skye meant:

"for some reason folks can't distinguish a religious injunction and an allowance or societal differences a century ago, two centuries ago or millenniums ago, geopolitical and economic conditions etc etc as well reconcile them with their own history and their own beliefs!"

and I agree, but also I do believe that they can be separated, IMO except for the Islamic concept of fitrah, ie. divine command that corresponds to human nature, they Are separate.

[alcurad]

sister Skye, yes but most history is inseparable from myth, rather it is our job to create myths that fit our world views, seeing that most scribes and historians were never free from biases and inaccuracy. wasn't speaking of personal history and achievements that are measurable to some degree, rather to historical accounts and such, and calculus is indeed hard without a strong basis =_=

[Azy]

czgibson, can I have your autograph?