Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jun 29, 2009.
But that's nothing more than your opinion.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I find it more interesting that the press has decided to react to what is standard islamic doctrine, muslims have stoned sexual deviants for centuries. Why all the shock and horror now? It looks like false shock and horror to me.
Have the controllers of the press decided that now is the time to manoeuvre the peoples from a liberal view of islam to another?
Interesting times indeed.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
If they didn't report it, they'd be accused of hiding it.
This is not the 1st or 100th reporting of such. It hasn't been ignored by the press for centuries then suddenly reported on now.
There is no indication in this of what the controllers of the press' motives are, other than running a business which makes money by reporting.
If this was law in your country would you personally turn gays in to the authorities? Why?
Unfortunately, an aspect of maintaining free speech is allowing an idiot like this cleric to keep running his mouth.
The only medicine for such people is to perhaps turn the message around on them. For example, I propose that anyone who teaches and/or calls for the deaths of homosexuals should be subject to--you guessed it--death by stoning.
If you live in the UK and you see this guy walking down the street, pick up a rock and chuck it at him.
“Originally Posted by spidergoat
I would disagree that any collective good is served by descrimination against homosexuals. In fact, it's unlimited breeding that it causing harm to society. ”
It's much more supportable than the reverse.
well let's just die out all together. that'll solve all the world's problems.
No, it isn't. It's an opinion, thus from a certain perspective spidergoat's opinion is as stupid as the clerics.
Although I am on your side, don't fool yourself into thinking you're more right than the cleric in some way; you aren't, there is no right. He has his opinion, no matter how crazy we think it is, and we have ours.
Mine is based on reason, his is based on faith.
His is based on his own reason supported by faith.
What is reason? We can not reason such things; we can use logic and reason to learn of the nature of the world, to learn about the mathematical harmony of the world.........but logic and reason rarely apply to social issues like this.
It's all emotional. Except, whereas you or I base our opinion on the mindset of tolerance, seeing it as beneficial in our opinions, he bases it on the mindset of "purity" seeing that as beneficial. He is no more wrong than you or I; the simple matter is that, at least in Britain, the consensus is likely with us. Thus he is "wrong" only in that way; if the consensus approved of the stoning of homosexuals, then is it wrong anymore? No.
All a matter of opinion.
Reason is not supported by faith. Faith is the opposite of reason.
No, no, you misunderstand what I said. I said he uses his own reason derived from faith. It is a biased and inconsistent "reason", but my point is that he makes his judgements based on his faith, thus his reason is based on faith.
And yours on emotion. Who is the more right?
That's not necessarily true, Norse. Empathy is linked to the size of a certain region of the brain. This means that NOT stoning homosexuals in the streets could be considered objectively good, since the non-act would be the result of the people with higher-developed brains making sure it doesn't happen.
I personally think it takes a little more than faith to desire violence against a certain group. I think it requires some form of mental deficiency.
Also, faith and reason are exclusive. You can't have reason based on faith.
No it can't, objective good does not exist.
The problem is that you must see it from his perspective: he does not view it as merely "stoning homosexuals", he views it more as a cleansing, a sort of "fixing" of society and thus his support of the stoning of homosexuals is based on a natural desire for "good", like yours.
Why do people always associate intelligence with pacifisim?
Nor on emotion, then.
However neither the cleric nor us have our opinions based on reason. It's emotional.
Reason and faith should agree, not be based on one another.
The one is not more fundamental than the other. You can't base reason on faith, because you cannot reason from inconsistent principles and assumptions contrary to also recognized fact (as would be inevitable if faith is adopted without reason's constraint). You cannot base faith on reason because you cannot acquire enough evidence or become infallible enough to support faith in most arenas (especially not the ones in which you most need faith).
Gay haters and fag bashers are seldom, if ever, motivated by reason or faith - those are post hoc justifications for quite personal motivations.
OK, you can say that all you like, but there is scientific evidence that supports the idea that greater brain development = greater empathy, so unless you can come up with something to contradict that...
I do see it from his perspective. I'm not an idiot, Norse. But what you're missing is that he is wrong. His ability to empathize is less than mine, because his brain is less developed than mine.
Because there appears to be some connection, that's why. Do the research. Get enlightened.
We're assuming empathy is good. And that we must always act on it; again, from his perspective what he is doing is "good" and as such, it's merely a matter of opinion.
I disagree. We can still have empathy and hate people, there's nothing inherently wrong with hating people.
His brain is no less developed than yours; he simply has a different culture.
There are no "superior" cultures. You seem very arrogant IMO assuming you're "more developed" and "better" than him.
There is no connection. That's why I asked the question.
One can be intelligent as well as aggressive, or stupid and a pacifist. Indeed most pacifists are stupid.
Wonder what muslims would say if a homosexual said all muslims should be stoned to death ? Just for being muslim
Or christians or any other member of a religious faith.
It'd be their opinion.
Separate names with a comma.