The nature of evil.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm sorry ISiddiqui. There seems to me to be an immense difference in saying, on the one hand that a claim, with the emphasis on claim, equating the Muslim deity to the Christian deity is nonsensical and on the other hand saying that Islam is crap. I just don't see revrew making the latter point.

Whether or not Islam is crap doesn't seem to me to have much to do with the claim about the equivalence of the Muslim deity and Christian deity. I interpreted revrew going after that claim and not going after Islam. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I have to separate those two different ideas or I don't see how we can proceed with a civil discussion. To call anyone's religious beliefs crap seems to me to be a recipe for shutting down discussion.

Well, go ahead and tell a Muslim that he worships a false deity or that his relgion is crap. I'll guarentee you he'll have the same level of offense for either statement.

And you are taking the word "nonsensical" out of its context; ie, it is non-sensical because he copied it (that's the whole point of the Carrie Underwood comparison). Basically its a false religion, because its just a copycat, "oh that looks cool, I'll take that" type of thing. Calling a religion a copy of another one seems very strongly to indicate that it is crap. It seems fairly obvious to me.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, go ahead and tell a Muslim that he worships a false deity or that his relgion is crap. I'll guarentee you he'll have the same level of offense for either statement.

Thanks for that response. That is really helpful.

I'll take your word of the guarantee that a Muslim will be offended if someone challenges one of the core tenets of their belief system by saying that Allah is a false deity. So if a Muslim would be offended by having someone say that they worship a false deity, is dialog still possible? Would a Muslim be offended by challenges to some of the other claims of the faith? If one does not believe in the claims of Islam, but wants to discuss these claims with a Muslim, how does one do it without offending? It seems this person is in a catch 22 position. If they affirm the Muslim's claim and agree that Allah is deity but do not themselves believe it, they are either lying (which I would assume, pardon my ignorance, would violate the Koran) or contradicting themselves. If they disagree with the Muslim's claim and say that Allah is a false deity (again violating what the Koran states), the Muslim is offended. What is a person seeking the truth to do?

My apologies if I am generalizing Muslims, but I am just working from the guarantee that a Muslim will be offended if a non-Muslim suggests Allah is a false deity.

[Abe Sargent]

I think there are many things that are evil, and I mean evil in an absolute sense. I believe that materialism is evil, where people define themselves by the acquisition of goods and spend their entire life in getting money, the nice car, the second house, and so forth, instead of contributing to this world and helping others. That ultimate selfishness is evil, to my mind.

I believe the major emphasis on beauty in our society in evil, with the absolute meaning of evil in mind. The slavery to hair styles, fashion clothes, make up, and so forth is a prime example of selfishness taken to the next level. For example, there is a store here in Ann Arbor that is unabashedly called Beauty First. Beauty first, others second. Beauty first, depth of character second. Beauty first, love second. Beauty first, God second. I find that personal overemphasis on the external to be evil.

I find gossip to be evil, and the continuing evolution of electronic gossip through various means has made it worse. Mean, hurtful and spiteful things are said under the cloak of anonymity.

[Drake]

I believe peeps are evil.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Drake

I believe peeps are evil.

Well, sure, once you get to about three months after Easter and they're hard and stale, but that's neither here nor there! Stay on topic!

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I know who you are, and I don't think you are an idiot, nor do I think I treated you like one. I'm just saying that I think it's silly that god is needed to define good or evil, when those concepts exist(ed) in societies that don't believe in your god.

If I were to say that Eros or Siva or whoever is the definition of "good" and everything that follow is "evil", I'd expect lots of people to take offense at that, too.

I am an evangelical minister who believes that Good and Evil exit outside of God. I believe they have to, in order for God is Good to have meaning.

If good is merely what God says it is, then that seems to lead to some significant questions, namely, why should I do good?

Well God created me, and if I don't, he'll send me to Hell (a very quick view, obviously not specific to Christianity or anything, so don;t attack me for not writing the full four spiritual laws here or anything).

Thus, God is Good devolves into a might makes right argument. God is the biggest guy on the block, and if I don;t do what he says, he'll beat me up.

Suppose that I were to create a set of laws, called Abelaw. And I said, you should always adhere to Abelaw. Abelaw is the right way to life. Abe is fully complient with Abelaw, and you should be too. Does that have meaning? Of course not, Abelaw is meaningless.

Thus, for the Goodness of God to have meaning, the concept of good must have meaning outside of God. I believe that the principles of morality (Do Not Kill, Do Not Rape, Helps Those Less Fortunate, etc) exist (technical term coming up) necessarily (which is a term of art in philosophy). In essence, like the laws of logic and math, the laws of morality are an essential part of our universe and were uncreated. Just like God is beholden to the laws of logic, (he cannot make a frog both exist and not-exist at the same time, for instance), he is also beholden and subject to the laws of morality.

Hence, the statement that God is Good has actual meaning. He does not determine what is right and wrong, instead he tells us what is right and wrong, in the same way a math teacher tells us that 1+1=2.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And you are taking the word "nonsensical" out of its context; ie, it is non-sensical because he copied it (that's the whole point of the Carrie Underwood comparison). Basically its a false religion, because its just a copycat, "oh that looks cool, I'll take that" type of thing. Calling a religion a copy of another one seems very strongly to indicate that it is crap. It seems fairly obvious to me.

A note of clarification about the Carrie Underwood illustration, which must have been less clear than I intended:

If one agrees with Islam's claim simply on faith that Allah and Jehovah are the same God, then the Underwood illustrations doesn't apply.

But from a purely secular historical analysis position, the claim that Muhammad accurately represented the nature of the Jewish God in the Koran, just because he was claiming to talk about the same God, does not automatically follow. In fact, it's highly unlikely that a nomadic, illiterate man of one culture would be able to write a book (Koran) that would accurately represent the god of another culture, just based on overhearing the stories of Jehovah around the campfire (which is the commonly advocated, purely secular theory to explain of the references to Jehovah in the Koran). As unlikely as me accurately representing Miss Underwood.

Again, if you accept that Allah supernaturally gifted Muhammad with a perfect revelation of himself and Jehovah as one, then you are discarding the secular analysis in favor of a faith-based doctrine.

My contention later was that the gross disparities between the nature of the Koran's Allah and the Bible's God make the supernatural explanation of perfect representation highly unlikely, and are better explained by the secular analysis. It seems more likely that Muhammad adapted the stories of Jehovah to fit his image of Allah than the disparities between the deities can be rectified to claim they are one and the same.

I know this is considered blasphemy and insult by some Muslims who will not tolerate their god or Prophet being spoken of without due reverence, but I believe their religion's founder to be wrong. I am, I suppose, and infidel, and nothing I could say would NOT be offensive.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by revrew

A note of clarification about the Carrie Underwood illustration, which must have been less clear than I intended:

If one agrees with Islam's claim simply on faith that Allah and Jehovah are the same God, then the Underwood illustrations doesn't apply.

But from a purely secular historical analysis position, the claim that Muhammad accurately represented the nature of the Jewish God in the Koran, just because he was claiming to talk about the same God, does not automatically follow. In fact, it's highly unlikely that a nomadic, illiterate man of one culture would be able to write a book (Koran) that would accurately represent the god of another culture, just based on overhearing the stories of Jehovah around the campfire (which is the commonly advocated, purely secular theory to explain of the references to Jehovah in the Koran). As unlikely as me accurately representing Miss Underwood.

Again, if you accept that Allah supernaturally gifted Muhammad with a perfect revelation of himself and Jehovah as one, then you are discarding the secular analysis in favor of a faith-based doctrine.

My contention later was that the gross disparities between the nature of the Koran's Allah and the Bible's God make the supernatural explanation of perfect representation highly unlikely, and are better explained by the secular analysis. It seems more likely that Muhammad adapted the stories of Jehovah to fit his image of Allah than the disparities between the deities can be rectified to claim they are one and the same.

I know this is considered blasphemy and insult by some Muslims who will not tolerate their god or Prophet being spoken of without due reverence, but I believe their religion's founder to be wrong. I am, I suppose, and infidel, and nothing I could say would NOT be offensive.

I'm confused as to whether you're saying you think they're different gods, or one is an inaccurate representation of the other. Earlier, it sounded like you were saying the former, now the latter.