Islam

[Sportello]

#423 & #453
It has nothing to do with the thread unless you want to relate morality with Islam. I was responding to what had been brought up.



No doubt about it.

You got to link that, bro. Ain’t nobody got time to look that up.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

You got to link that, bro. Ain’t nobody got time to look that up.

He is a needy person ... always asking others to do something for him.

 

[BrownFlush]

You got to link that, bro. Ain’t nobody got time to look that up.

Sorry.. I've tried..cant get it to take.. maybe soon

 

[BrownArmy]

Sorry.. I've tried..cant get it to take.. maybe soon

...where do you think ‘morality’ comes from?

How is it possible that peoples across different nations and religions and continents somehow seem to generally get along?

Does their morality come from their religion?

Does their morality come from their government?

Please answer.

ANSWER ME, ANSWER ME, ANSWER ME!

 

[BrownFlush]

Wrong.

I gave my two cents, but you were already posting your existential questions.

OK guy, where do you think ‘morality’ comes from?

How is it possible that peoples across different nations and religions and continents somehow seem to generally get along?

Does their morality come from their religion?

Does their morality come from their government?

Please answer.

Right.. look again .

Morality (good & bad ) come from law ( a standard of law(s)) If there is law, there must be a lawgiver. Morality does not evolve, the person evolves,conforming to the law(s) they appeal to. How well they do that is the measure of good & bad.
There are and have been different lawgivers in the form of religion and government.What makes a good Christian will not make a good and dedicated Muslim. Two different laws and lawgivers.
What makes a good law abiding American will put you in a work camp in North Korea.
Be careful which law and lawgiver you make as your standard of morality to measure whether your good or bad. No matter how "good" you are, the law and lawgiver maybe corrupt to begin with.

 

[BrownFlush]

You got to link that, bro. Ain’t nobody got time to look that up.

Do you believe that morality evolved ( developed over time )... YES or NO

Do you believe there is a document ( a standard of morality ) that we appeal to.. YES or NO

Where did this universal law come from that you speak of? And why do you accept it as law? Do you accept it all or the etc. part can go either way?

 

[BrownArmy]

Right.. look again .

Morality (good & bad ) come from law ( a standard of law(s)) If there is law, there must be a lawgiver. Morality does not evolve, the person evolves,conforming to the law(s) they appeal to. How well they do that is the measure of good & bad.
There are and have been different lawgivers in the form of religion and government.What makes a good Christian will not make a good and dedicated Muslim. Two different laws and lawgivers.
What makes a good law abiding American will put you in a work camp in North Korea.
Be careful which law and lawgiver you make as your standard of morality to measure whether your good or bad. No matter how "good" you are, the law and lawgiver maybe corrupt to begin with.

Where did the law come from?

Kewl, just messing with you...



Everything you just posted is your opinion.

I agree with you that you have a certain point of view that you believe is correct.

After that, we part ways...

 

[BrownFlush]

He’ll answer with more questions.

If he’s true to his beliefs, he wouldn’t need validation through trolling us with SO MANY QUESTIONS.

He knows what his morality is, he’s just trying to shift us to his point of view.

You want something to drink with your crow?

 

[BrownArmy]

No kiddin'.

Uh..ok

Usually when people have different opinions, discussion follows but, whatever you want.

We've already had the discussion.

You reject the possibility that 'morality' is a natural 'set-point' of human behavior when populations reach a certain threshold.

It's okay, you don't have to agree, but stop asking us for conversation when we've given it to you and you've rejected it.

The meeting is over, you're the guy banging your fists on the table after everyone else left.

Crow?

Please.

 

[BrownFlush]

You reject the possibility that 'morality' is a natural 'set-point' of human behavior when populations reach a certain threshold.

You're right. I believe it is not natural.
Thanks for giving me permission that I don't have to agree.
But ,I never seen the conversation or discussion you speak of where you or anyone else was stating the natural position as opposed to the law position and giving reasons for your position, for me to reject.

The meeting never got started. You're the person who bangs their head on the table when you hear something that requires thought .

 

[Old Man Jingles]

You're right. I believe it is not natural.
Thanks for giving me permission that I don't have to agree.
But ,I never seen the conversation or discussion you speak of where you or anyone else was stating the natural position as opposed to the law position and giving reasons for your position, for me to reject.

The meeting never got started. You're the person who bangs their head on the table when you hear something that requires thought .

Maybe if you laid out your thoughts, instead of asking quixotic open-ended questions, people might be inclined to engage you in a discussion.

 

[DriveInDriѵeOut]

agree or disagree

Waiting for you to make a solid comment.

you refuse to answer.

What is your answer ?

You deflect.

Hast thou not the testicles to answer ?

YES or NO

Didn't get any answer(s) from you again

Do you agree or disagree please tell me

Not hearin' any answers.

please tell me

 

[BrownArmy]

You're right. I believe it is not natural. Thanks for giving me permission that I don't have to agree.
But ,I never seen the conversation or discussion you speak of where you or anyone else was stating the natural position as opposed to the law position and giving reasons for your position, for me to reject.

You're bringing up terms like 'natural' and 'law', and I don't know if we even agree what those terms mean.

Semiotics, syntactics, etc., you're asking fundamentally basic questions about nature and language and interpretation.

Going to bed now, we can get philosophical later on.

 

[vantexan]

Maybe if you laid out your thoughts, instead of asking quixotic open-ended questions, people might be inclined to engage you in a discussion.

And if he does you'll blast him as ignorant, etc.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

And if he does you'll blast him as ignorant, etc.

I had to determine which forum I’m in and “Yes” this is Current Events.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

I had to determine which forum I’m in and “Yes” this is Current Events.

I try to not doing that to people who are not familiar my sense of humor coupled with cynical outlook and a penchant for sarcasm.

And if he does you'll blast him as ignorant, etc.

 

[Serf]

Are you concerned about ‘Feds’ ?

Simply trying to figure out who and what it is that you curry favor for. You're neither hot nor cold on most of what is flung around in this forum.

 

[BrownFlush]

View attachment 208477

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[BrownFlush]

You're bringing up terms like 'natural' and 'law', and I don't know if we even agree what those terms mean.

Semiotics, syntactics, etc., you're asking fundamentally basic questions about nature and language and interpretation.

Going to bed now, we can get philosophical later on.

Yes .. terms like natural and law.. heavy stuff.

Get soppyical with DIDO. Fundamental basic questions guaranteed.

 

[newfie]

You got to link that, bro. Ain’t nobody got time to look that up.

google it lazy