Question For The Non-muslims

[Grace Seeker]

See, that makes all morality relativistic. I happen to think that while many morals are relative, that there are indeed some moral absolutes. And other primary principles that are put into practice in their relative contexts, but still based on guiding principles that don't change.

Further in a relativistic world, if my morals don't match your morals then there is little to appeal to in order to resolve differences. "I'm right, you're wrong" Let the guy with the biggest stick or most friends decide. That hardly seems like genuine morality. Though I fear this is what we practice in our secular societies.

 

[Grace Seeker]

(which brings up the concept of Unjustness...who decides that?) Puritan zelots killing "witches" in England in 1670 for showing their ankles?
Was that just? No It was a slaughter of innocent women and intellectuals by a over zealous Christian faith.
Talibanis, flinging stones at adulterers till they were ripped apart? Same for the Incas of South America, Christians and I beleive that the followers of Japanese God-Emperor Tojo in 1936-45, (the worlds most recent effective deity) did fairly well with following a system of " If Your Not With Us Your Against Us"..And Georgey Bush knows how to say that.

This quote was taken from a different thread, but so applicable here. These were perfectly moral behaviors if one accepts the relativistic view of morality espoused earlier in this thread. So, it morality unjust?

If yes, then is it better to strive for morality or justice?

If no, then is better to strive for morality or justice?

Or perhaps, they were neither moral nor just? But then, we have to allow that morality may also not be so relativistic.

 

[Muezzin]

Justice is balance, and yet inevitably it springs from morality, which is itself relative. Human society is based on such constructs.

I believe that in many cases, rather than an imperfect system, the fault lies with imperfect components (i.e. people) populating that system. Deeply imperfect systems tend to be overthrown or collapse.

 

[Panther]

So. My great-great-great-grandfather who owned my great-great-grandmother on a cotton plantation in southern Tennesse was living his life morally because he was living his life in a suitable manner, according to the moral standards of his community. Further, he too was also living his life by a code that was a recurring theme throughout the majority of mankind's communities in the world -- at least at that time, and is more common today than people like to admit.

Yep. Hate to say it, but although you were likely being sarcastic, you're right.

As man became more civilised, we acknowledged the inherant 'wrong' in slavery and denounced it. Therefore, today we see it as a terrible thing, as we should.

Barney is right in saying that 'morality' is forever changing.

I believe you are also right in saying there should be some moral "absolutes", one of which I've already mentioned.(Do what you want, provided you're not hurting anyone.)

However, these absolutes should be determined on a humanitarian level, and without the influence of any religion.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I believe you are also right in saying there should be some moral "absolutes", one of which I've already mentioned.(Do what you want, provided you're not hurting anyone.)

I think I could live with this one right now. However, that still hasn't solved the problem of my great-great-great grandfather. You see he was doing what he wanted, and he did not believe he was hurting anyone. See, my great-great grandmother wasn't really a person in his eyes; so no harm, no foul.

So, with Barney being right about morality always changing, does one need some sort of knowledge of the future to know whether a choice taken today will still be morally acceptable when we have to live with its consequences down the road? Is it moral for pregnant mothers to drink, given the results that it might have on their baby. Yet we don't really know what the results will be. It could be nothing. It could be terrible. How about the way we produce and consume power? I wonder how moral it actually is. I don't see any harm being done, but others say there is. I don't think that religion answers these questions any better than non-religion does. What religion does is encourage us to ask the question. I would suggest that where religion does not temper social policy that no one cares to ask those questions. I cite the difference between the "christian" USA and the "atheistic" Soviet Bloc with respect to taking care of the environment. And today I sense business becoming global, less influenced by any religious ethic (only the pursuit of $$) and again there seems to be less care for what happens to others as a result.


[And I recognize that Barney is right that the interpretations and pplications of morality do constantly change. I am presently experiencing that in my own church: some feel that the kids selling stuff to raise money for a trip is perfectly appropriate, and others that it is violating the standards Jesus set when he cleansed the temple. You can bet that the differences are generational. But the answer to that comes out of wrestling to understand the context of the situation in which the moral ethic is to be applied so that one can determine appropriateness of applying it and the best way to do so if it is determined to indeed apply.]

 

[Pygoscelis]

I'm sure there are many things we do regularly today, without any moral qualms, that a hundred years from now will be seen as just as horrible as slavery etc. I have no real problem with that. It is just society evolving.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'm sure there are many things we do regularly today, without any moral qualms, that a hundred years from now will be seen as just as horrible as slavery etc. I have no real problem with that. It is just society evolving.

Yes, given that there really is no right or wrong, but todays right or wrong.

But imagine another world in another universe. A universe in which there really did exist some omniscient being that could tell the creatures of that universe what would be the best choice in the long run so as to avoiding hurt and pain, both for themselves and for others. Then, whether one worshipped that omniscient being or not, would it not be wise to at least listen and seek the omniscient being for guidance?

While you conceive of that as pure fiction, some of us believe it to be reality. And if it is real, does it not make sense for something akin to religion to have developed in response to the teachings of that being. You see it as rigid. But they are rigid, as the Muslims on this board like to say, becaues Allah knows best.

 

[Keltoi]

You also have to consider that there were people opposed to slavery while it was still legal and popular.

 

[cali dude]

salaam,

From my experiences with non-Muslims, most of them usually have one or two main reasons why the aren't Muslim. Surprisingly, these reasons can be misconceptions sometimes.

So my question is, what are the reason(s) that you have not accepted Islam?

I seriously believe that what I believe in is better than what I have learned from some of the Muslim people, even here on this site.

So I think we should play a game. We should ask the Muslims why they agree with Islam says other than they think it came from God. Then we will see if non-Muslims have a reason to disagree with it or even have a better way to live their lives...

 

[cali dude]

Well folks, as far as morality goes, no, it does not change.

If lying was wrong then, it will always be wrong for the same reason...

But at the same time though, parts of religions have been proven wrong as well. We can not say that all religions are the absolute truth

 

[جوري]

lol-- I actually rather find the changing morality to suit the times a bit amusing... the limits will keep being pushed until G-D knows what will be allowed next?.. first homosexuality.. then pedophilia.. then incest... In fact there was a brother/sister team in Germany who had several kids with one another... they jailed the brother for a few year... the sister went with another man.. then they were appealing the case... stating "who are we really to define what a family unit should be" ---
Morals which were mandated by religion are there to keep us from living like animals... They are a constant not an evolving art project....

peace!

 

[cali dude]

first homosexuality.. then pedophilia.. then incest...

Homosexuality: Do you actually think someone should be imprisoned for being homosexual? It would make sense only if favored imprisoning people for pre-marital sex.

pedophilia: Of course, these people deserve one of the worse punishment in the world. But then how is this any different than marrying a child?

incest: Of course this is wrong but it isn't much more wrong than marrying first cousin...

 

[جوري]

1-I think the punishment should fit the crime-- if they are caught in a lewd act in public the punishment should be as mandated by religious law... the same way traitors of the united states have death penalty imposed to what other people think is a rather trivial offense!

2-Depends what you mean by marrying a child... the age of consent has been and should be at the start of menarche...and is actually still to modern day-- the choice lies ultimately with she who is to be betrothed...http://womhist.binghamton.edu/teacher/aoc.htm here is an article about the age of consent just in the last two centuries in the civilized U.S-- ,"Age of consent" referred to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls who had not reached the age of consent could be criminally prosecuted. 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---an ever changing thing it seems as recent as 1845 to 1920... amusing.....


I fail to see how marriage and incest equate, but then I havn't seen much of an argument worth while from you since you have come on board...

peace!

 

[mkh4JC]

salaam,

From my experiences with non-Muslims, most of them usually have one or two main reasons why the aren't Muslim. Surprisingly, these reasons can be misconceptions sometimes.

So my question is, what are the reason(s) that you have not accepted Islam?

Well, I would say that one of my primary reasons for not accepting Islam is that I don't believe an almighty God would begin to reveal himself to man in the Old Testament and allow parts of it to become corrupted, as if he doesn't have the power to stop it. I will also point out the nature of salvation in both Islam and Christianity as two differing extremes based on what I have heard coming from people who have converted to Islam itself and based on what I know from my own experiences as a Christian and the people I know to be Christian.

Islam stresses that we are simply to do our best, using our own inherent will power, to avoid sinning, whereas in Christianity upon accepting Jesus Christ he gives you power over sin and your previous lifestyle, so you can live without practicing the vices that you were bound withl. So in a way Islam doesn't really address the people who are bound with vices like homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophillia, because there is no provision provided for these kinds of people, because you are told to simply do your best.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You also have to consider that there were people opposed to slavery while it was still legal and popular.

And, you also have to consider that religious folk now scorned (like our overused slavery example) were once supported and justified via religion. It isn't nearly as rigid as some may believe. It changes over the ages too.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I interrupt this dialog to happily note that we have actually been having a serious discussion on a sensitive area for a couple of pages without anyone making any inflammatory remarks. Good Job!!

I now return you to the discussion currently in progress.

 

[Keltoi]

I interrupt this dialog to happily note that we have actually been having a serious discussion on a sensitive area for a couple of pages without anyone making any inflammatory remarks. Good Job!!

I now return you to the discussion currently in progress.

You just jinxed it.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Yup. The thread is dead now. May as well close it.

 

[Cachao]

I refuse to belong to ANY religion that has grown through violent conquest and forced conversion. Now this is not meant as a criticism of Islam alone. It has been the way for millennia.

 

[Panther]

first homosexuality.. then pedophilia.. then incest...

Hey now! How do you equate homosexuality with pedophilia and incest?
I find that highly offensive, and dearly hope I'm misunderstanding you.