Does the U.S. want Trump's Muslim solution or the vigilantism the E. U. is moving to?

[FourPart]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492450 wrote: So you think the Jews were in the wrong moral position.

Islam is representing Hitler here. Not the West.

Sharia is even worse than whatever Hitler would have come up with for laws.

As to the inhalation of Islam and your comment, show anywhere that I spoke of such.

Yours is a cheap shot so show us if your own thinking is cheap or if mine was.

Regards

DL


I asked you what your answer was. You have not answered that question. You have been asked many questions by many posters, yet you have not answered any. You seem to take your lead from David Cameron at PMQs. Asked a question, turns it into a totally different question, then spout off on your own soapbox.

I ask you again. You are full of the hatemongering. What is your answer? My reference to the Holocaust holds true. Hitler used the same form of hatemongering against the Jews. His solution was to annihilate the problem by annihilating the Jews. As you seem to be following the same line of hatemongering, I ask if your solution is the same? If not, then what is it?

You love to take on the "holier than thou" platform, spouting off about what is immoral, yet you won't answer the simple question as to define what IS morality & why one person's morality should be the right one over another. I'm not saying what is right or wrong - that is not my place to say. I have my own moral values. That doesn't mean that mine are right over someone else's. To assume otherwise is simply arrogance & has been the basis of most wars throughout history - more often than not, caused by the self righteous followers of Religion.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1492453 wrote: To judge others is often one of the greatest mistakes one can make.


That was not the issue.



That just shows a lack of quality judging on your part.

We judge constantly as we go through life. That is how we maintain our safety and survival.

Whose standards do you judge by if not your own?

Or was that just your foolishness that you decided not to recant?



Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Bryn Mawr;1492458 wrote: No, I show that there are reasons other than the religion that are pushing some Muslims into fanaticism and many Muslims into a dislike of the west.

I also show that it's the fanaticism that we should be fighting, not the religion.

You cannot fight fanaticism by killing the fanatics - that just creates martyrs and breeds more fanatics.


The fanaticism is produced by Islam. Only fools will not see that.

This is indeed a war against an immoral religion and if so called moral men do not start to push back, the West will lose the gains our forefathers fought and died for.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492465 wrote: Judging????? Gnostic????


Just like you just did pal.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492478 wrote: I asked you what your answer was. You have not answered that question. You have been asked many questions by many posters, yet you have not answered any. You seem to take your lead from David Cameron at PMQs. Asked a question, turns it into a totally different question, then spout off on your own soapbox.

I ask you again. You are full of the hatemongering. What is your answer? My reference to the Holocaust holds true. Hitler used the same form of hatemongering against the Jews. His solution was to annihilate the problem by annihilating the Jews. As you seem to be following the same line of hatemongering, I ask if your solution is the same? If not, then what is it?

You love to take on the "holier than thou" platform, spouting off about what is immoral, yet you won't answer the simple question as to define what IS morality & why one person's morality should be the right one over another. I'm not saying what is right or wrong - that is not my place to say. I have my own moral values. That doesn't mean that mine are right over someone else's. To assume otherwise is simply arrogance & has been the basis of most wars throughout history - more often than not, caused by the self righteous followers of Religion.


I am not your dictionary and the Jews were not attacking the Germans so your analogy is garbage.

If you see that and that is why you want to deflect to the definitions of well known words.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

I didn't ask you what THE definition was. I asked you what YOUR definition was. You obviously seem to think that Hatred has to be Moral, as that is what you are promoting.

[LarsMac]

Bryn Mawr;1492458 wrote: No, I show that there are reasons other than the religion that are pushing some Muslims into fanaticism and many Muslims into a dislike of the west.

I also show that it's the fanaticism that we should be fighting, not the religion.

You cannot fight fanaticism by killing the fanatics - that just creates martyrs and breeds more fanatics.


True. And,...

You especially cannot fight fanaticism, by attacking the non-fanatics. That will generate even more fanatics and prove the point for the original fanatics.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492516 wrote: I didn't ask you what THE definition was. I asked you what YOUR definition was. You obviously seem to think that Hatred has to be Moral, as that is what you are promoting.


We are having multiple and repetitive discussions. I answered your question elsewhere, but for here, since morals are subjective, what is moral is whatever I like or want and would try to do in any situation.

Name the situation and you can have a direct answer.

When analysing a scenario, my first consideration has to be whether I will respond with love or with hate. The experts use the terms Harm/Care to describe our reactions to whatever situation is at hand.

Here is a short piece on this.

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED Talk | TED.com

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

I can't help wondering if you actually watched the talk. Basically he was saying the same as I've been saying all along. In morality there is no right or wrong, and he specifically states that you can't go headlong & tell others that their view on morality is wrong. In fact everything you have said thus far is in conflict with what he was saying.

I guess you must be a Bush supporter.

"The world is running short of oil. The ay-rabs control most of that oil. Therefore we must have that oil for ourselves. What can we do about it. I know, we'll make out that Saddaam Hussein is stockpiling a load of evil, immoral weapons of mass destruction (never mind that our entire defense network relies on our having many more time more than they're ever likely to have) & move in & take the oil for ourselves. By the time they find out it was all a ruse the mission will have been completed & we'll have control over the country & the oil. Sure, there's gonna be some ay-rabs who get a bit pissed off about our moving in on their country & their ancient culture, but that don't matter - when they try to retaliate we can always spread the propaganda to the gullible about how immoral their culture is, and overlook that it was us who threw the first stone - oh, yeah - stoning. Let's put than down on the list as well".

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492529 wrote: ...

When analysing a scenario, my first consideration has to be whether I will respond with love or with hate. ...


Responding with hate is never the right decision.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492532 wrote: I can't help wondering if you actually watched the talk. Basically he was saying the same as I've been saying all along. In morality there is no right or wrong, and he specifically states that you can't go headlong & tell others that their view on morality is wrong. In fact everything you have said thus far is in conflict with what he was saying.

I guess you must be a Bush supporter.

"The world is running short of oil. The ay-rabs control most of that oil. Therefore we must have that oil for ourselves. What can we do about it. I know, we'll make out that Saddaam Hussein is stockpiling a load of evil, immoral weapons of mass destruction (never mind that our entire defense network relies on our having many more time more than they're ever likely to have) & move in & take the oil for ourselves. By the time they find out it was all a ruse the mission will have been completed & we'll have control over the country & the oil. Sure, there's gonna be some ay-rabs who get a bit pissed off about our moving in on their country & their ancient culture, but that don't matter - when they try to retaliate we can always spread the propaganda to the gullible about how immoral their culture is, and overlook that it was us who threw the first stone - oh, yeah - stoning. Let's put than down on the list as well".


Every moral situation has a correct response. There is definitely a right or wrong way to handle all situations.

Our present laws show the trend and justification for our actions with each other as a general guide so you cannot really say there is no right or wrong. The law or guidelines are the right way and you had better have a good excuse if you decide that the law has taken the wrong moral position.

You complained about how I answer your questions and I cannot improve on that when, like here, you fly from Bush to oil.

Stay closer to the issues at hand if you want more clarity.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1492533 wrote: Responding with hate is never the right decision.


Really!

What a foolishly simplistic answer.

Try applying love to this.

You get home and a rapist is on your wife.

Will you respond with love to that rapist or is the hate I would respond with the wrong decision?

Regards

DL

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492538 wrote: Really!

What a foolishly simplistic answer.

Try applying love to this.

You get home and a rapist is on your wife.

Will you respond with love to that rapist or is the hate I would respond with the wrong decision?

Regards

DL


Your rather typical myopic response.

I would, no doubt, react as expected, in a fairly visceral manner, without giving much real thought to it.

There would be no decision on how to respond. I would just respond.

What has that to do with how I should treat people who are not raping my wife?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1492540 wrote: Your rather typical myopic response.

I would, no doubt, react as expected, in a fairly visceral manner, without giving much real thought to it.

There would be no decision on how to respond. I would just respond.

What has that to do with how I should treat people who are not raping my wife?


Not a thing.

I was just responding to your initial foolish answer.

You forget that every time you show a positive bias in one direction, you also create a

negative bias towards the opposite. Hate definitely has a place in society and I would not want to live without it at this point in time.

Enemies are to be hated by intelligent moral men with a bias towards good.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492537 wrote: Every moral situation has a correct response. There is definitely a right or wrong way to handle all situations.
Yes - but one person's right may be another person's wrong. Who are we / you to say which is right / wrong?

Our present laws show the trend and justification for our actions with each other as a general guide so you cannot really say there is no right or wrong. The law or guidelines are the right way and you had better have a good excuse if you decide that the law has taken the wrong moral position.There you have it. OUR present laws. OUR actions. The LAW.

These are not necessarily THEIR present laws. Nor do the justifications necessarily apply to THEIR actions. They have THEIR law.

It might be said that OUR laws have their roots in the 10 Commandments - although the same basic laws apply to all cultures throughout the world. They have become recognised as being required for a community to survive. Survival has no morals. However, if one chooses to follow the ideal of those laws having the Biblical root, is it not moral to abide by those laws? Then, is it not also moral to impose the penalties laid down in that same book of laws for breaches of those laws? These penalties are very clearly laid down & are, once again, to be found in cultures throughout the world. They specify the Death Penalty, as well as being very specific about how that penalty is imposed. It also refers to amputations. Therefore is it immoral to obey the laws laid down in their Holy Books - the origin of those laws? In the UK, until relatively recently we had the Death Penalty ourselves. Indeed, there are still strong arguments for & against its reintroduction. There are those who say that sex criminals should be castrated. This is already laid down as part of Sharia Law.

When the West brutally imposes its own views of morality upon another culture's set of moralities, is it not justifiable that they should see our views as being immoral. We infidels openly defy the word of God by drinking, eating unclean meat, slaughtered without the moral rituals of Halal. Women blatantly displaying themselves without the modesty of the Hijab? Remember - their culture & their strict set of morals have remained the same for centuries, and has worked well for them. Ours is the one that has strayed from the path of righteousness. We are the ones who openly permit drunkeness, fornication, etc.

I ask you again - what is your justification for taking the moral high ground?



You complained about how I answer your questions and I cannot improve on that when, like here, you fly from Bush to oil.I didn't complain about how you answered my questions. On the contrary. I complained at how you DIDN'T answer my questions. My situational example of Bush moving in to steal their oil & putting the blame onto the as being another demonstration of the hypocrisy of claiming the moral high ground.



Stay closer to the issues at hand if you want more clarity.

These ARE the issues at hand.

[Ted]

If one claims to be a Christian then we must read the Old Testament in light of the New. Jesus in Matt. 5 emphasizes a new approach to the famous 10. " You have heard it said . .. . but I say to you . . . "

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492677 wrote: If one claims to be a Christian then we must read the Old Testament in light of the New. Jesus in Matt. 5 emphasizes a new approach to the famous 10. " You have heard it said . .. . but I say to you . . . "


True that Jesus tried to overrule the O T sometimes while other times he endorses old Yahweh.

Scriptures also say that God says that once he says something, it is written in stone, so to speak, and he never changes his mind.

You might know the chapter and verse to my adlib. I do not have it at present.

From my more Jewish POV, it does not matter much as man or a Rabbi, can over rule whatever the written word is. The oral tradition reins over the written one.

Think Jewish Divine Council.

Have ye forgotten that ye are Gods? ---- Jesus.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492548 wrote: Yes - but one person's right may be another person's wrong. Who are we / you to say which is right / wrong?

There you have it. OUR present laws. OUR actions. The LAW.

These are not necessarily THEIR present laws. Nor do the justifications necessarily apply to THEIR actions. They have THEIR law.

It might be said that OUR laws have their roots in the 10 Commandments - although the same basic laws apply to all cultures throughout the world. They have become recognised as being required for a community to survive. Survival has no morals. However, if one chooses to follow the ideal of those laws having the Biblical root, is it not moral to abide by those laws? Then, is it not also moral to impose the penalties laid down in that same book of laws for breaches of those laws? These penalties are very clearly laid down & are, once again, to be found in cultures throughout the world. They specify the Death Penalty, as well as being very specific about how that penalty is imposed. It also refers to amputations. Therefore is it immoral to obey the laws laid down in their Holy Books - the origin of those laws? In the UK, until relatively recently we had the Death Penalty ourselves. Indeed, there are still strong arguments for & against its reintroduction. There are those who say that sex criminals should be castrated. This is already laid down as part of Sharia Law.

When the West brutally imposes its own views of morality upon another culture's set of moralities, is it not justifiable that they should see our views as being immoral. We infidels openly defy the word of God by drinking, eating unclean meat, slaughtered without the moral rituals of Halal. Women blatantly displaying themselves without the modesty of the Hijab? Remember - their culture & their strict set of morals have remained the same for centuries, and has worked well for them. Ours is the one that has strayed from the path of righteousness. We are the ones who openly permit drunkeness, fornication, etc.

I ask you again - what is your justification for taking the moral high ground?

I didn't complain about how you answered my questions. On the contrary. I complained at how you DIDN'T answer my questions. My situational example of Bush moving in to steal their oil & putting the blame onto the as being another demonstration of the hypocrisy of claiming the moral high ground.

These ARE the issues at hand.


“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

How dare you insult nations by saying they follow Judeo Christian policies.

Fact is, the West has had to drag Christianity, screaming and yelling for their homophobic and misogynous policies, into civilization. We progressed in spite of Christianity.

The commandments you talk of are regurgitated from older tradition that Christianity plagiarized.

No moral God would have such a self-centred bunch of commandments.

The Jews were bright enough to reject what Christianity became. We should all be as bright.

"I ask you again - what is your justification for taking the moral high ground?"

I take the moral high ground because most religious people have taken the moral low ground where all immoral people dwell.

Why on earth would I want to join those immortal losers?

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

If you had read what I wrote, I did say 'If' you were to take the origin of the laws as being of the Biblical root. I didn't say they were. The same basic laws are universal across all cultures, not because of Religious Commandments (although they have evolved as such), but because they are rules that have developed as being essential for communities to survive. Originally they would have been just accepted guidelines. Eventually those guidelines would have come about to be written down in the first law books. Those first law books later became the relevant scriptures, or Bibles. The same rule applies to ALL Religions & Cultures. Without those laws there would be chaos.

[Ted]

It looks to me like Gnostic brands me immoral because I follow "The Way". Sorry about that. Guess I'll have to be content to be immoral.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492697 wrote: If you had read what I wrote, I did say 'If' you were to take the origin of the laws as being of the Biblical root. I didn't say they were. The same basic laws are universal across all cultures, not because of Religious Commandments (although they have evolved as such), but because they are rules that have developed as being essential for communities to survive. Originally they would have been just accepted guidelines. Eventually those guidelines would have come about to be written down in the first law books. Those first law books later became the relevant scriptures, or Bibles. The same rule applies to ALL Religions & Cultures. Without those laws there would be chaos.


You seem to have forgotten that we are born with a moral sense.

It is what kept man alive and well even before he developed language and writing.

You short change nature and evolution.

Man is a kind, altruistic and giving animal by nature.

We do not need commandments that tell us to obey some absentee sky flying God that somehow always wants our money.

I will admit that we need laws to keep the immature and unwise from killing or hurting themselves or others.

Imagine the carnage on our roads if we did not have laws. Yuk.

Ever hear an intelligent man cut up the big ten?



Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1492723 wrote: It looks to me like Gnostic brands me immoral because I follow "The Way". Sorry about that. Guess I'll have to be content to be immoral.


:wah::wah:

Which way are you following and have you seen this movie?



Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Humans are not born with any morals whatsoever. As with all forms of life they are simply born with an instinct to survive. Rules, or laws are man made. The are nothing to do with a moral code that we are born with. That much is evident from the different rules of the road to be found around the world. Driving on different sides of the road. Different lane disciplines. Different speed limits etc. When it boils down to it there are only 2 basic laws. Don't kill & don't steal. These are applicable to all forms of civilised societies. However, it oesn't seem to apply when dealing with neighbouring communities, where wars ensue - something we have very much in common with our chimpanzee ancestors. Laws are based on community needs - not necessarily on morals.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492734 wrote: Humans are not born with any morals whatsoever. As with all forms of life they are simply born with an instinct to survive. Rules, or laws are man made. The are nothing to do with a moral code that we are born with. That much is evident from the different rules of the road to be found around the world. Driving on different sides of the road. Different lane disciplines. Different speed limits etc. When it boils down to it there are only 2 basic laws. Don't kill & don't steal. These are applicable to all forms of civilised societies. However, it oesn't seem to apply when dealing with neighbouring communities, where wars ensue - something we have very much in common with our chimpanzee ancestors. Laws are based on community needs - not necessarily on morals.


Listen to what is said on moral law here at about the 4.30 mark. I agree with it.



Having said that, the rich also have a moral responsibility to the poor.

"Poverty is the worst form of violence." - Mahatma Gandhi



We were talking morals. Not law.

You indicated that we are not born with a moral code. I agree that there is no code but there is our selfish genes that push us to survive and we default to doing the good via cooperation. That is best for survival and that tendency to cooperate is what can be seen as a moral code. Only latter in life do we begin to earn the evils of competition.





Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492778 wrote: Listen to what is said on moral law here at about the 4.30 mark. I agree with it.


What I heard there supports what I've been saying.

(1) "Moral Law is an invention of Mankind" (not innate)

(2) "A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test"

We were talking morals. Not law.
Laws are generally based on morals - although it is true that they do tend to divert from them.

You indicated that we are not born with a moral code. I agree that there is no code but there is our selfish genes that push us to survive and we default to doing the good via cooperation. That is best for survival and that tendency to cooperate is what can be seen as a moral code. Only latter in life do we begin to earn the evils of competition.
On the contrary. The survival instinct will take any action in order to survive. It will kill, steal & enforce its dominance. Nothing of that could be considered as being moralistic. Morals are learned - usually by the culture in which we grow. Morals which suit one culture might not suit another. It doesn't make either right or wrong - just suitable for that particular culture.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492798 wrote: What I heard there supports what I've been saying.

(1) "Moral Law is an invention of Mankind" (not innate)

(2) "A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test"



Laws are generally based on morals - although it is true that they do tend to divert from them.



On the contrary. The survival instinct will take any action in order to survive. It will kill, steal & enforce its dominance. Nothing of that could be considered as being moralistic. Morals are learned - usually by the culture in which we grow. Morals which suit one culture might not suit another. It doesn't make either right or wrong - just suitable for that particular culture.


I agree with much of this but not all.

You give too much power to our survival instinct. Soldiers, firefighters and police take actions that they might consider quite opposed to survival all the time. So would any parent who shields their child from harm.

The young boys in that link I gave did not learn to do what we would see as the good and moral thing to do in helping others. He does it because his instincts are in play so to say we learn morals just from others is quite wrong.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Chimps form armies to makes war on neighbouring tribes. Leaf cutter ants enslave ants from other colonies to farm fungi, on which they feed. Are they acting on senses of morals or are they acting on instinct? They do what they do because it is in their nature to do so.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492844 wrote: Chimps form armies to makes war on neighbouring tribes. Leaf cutter ants enslave ants from other colonies to farm fungi, on which they feed. Are they acting on senses of morals or are they acting on instinct? They do what they do because it is in their nature to do so.


Indeed. So does man. Unless you think man is acting in an unnatural way.

They are acting on instinct and base what we would call their morality on that just as we do for humans. They cannot articulate the way we can as far as we know so they likely do not call it morals.

They will also not fight unless there is a need. Man seems to fight, be there a need or not. Strange that when you consider that we are kind, altruistic and benevolent animals.



Regards

DL

[FourPart]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1492845 wrote: Indeed. So does man. Unless you think man is acting in an unnatural way.

They are acting on instinct and base what we would call their morality on that just as we do for humans. They cannot articulate the way we can as far as we know so they likely do not call it morals.

They will also not fight unless there is a need. Man seems to fight, be there a need or not. Strange that when you consider that we are kind, altruistic and benevolent animals.



Regards

DL


Won't fight unless there is a need? You ought to look a bit more into the lives of chimps in the wild.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492848 wrote: Won't fight unless there is a need? You ought to look a bit more into the lives of chimps in the wild.




We are not always aware of why anymals turn on their own. For all we know, the aggressor is insane.

We also have reams of data showing chimps helping each other out. They even seem to have a sense of fairness.

Regards

DL

[FourPart]

You seem to think it was just one case of insanity with that chimp. Think again.

BBC - Earth - Do chimpanzee wars prove that violence is innate?



http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 85,00.html

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

FourPart;1492916 wrote: You seem to think it was just one case of insanity with that chimp. Think again.

BBC - Earth - Do chimpanzee wars prove that violence is innate?



Study: Chimps Wage War Over Territory like Humans Do - TIME


I said, for all we know, the chimp is insane. Only because we do not understand what might be motivating it.

Like us, they do what is required to survive.

Regards

DL

[Ted]

Does that mean that Donald Trump is a chimp?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ted;1493049 wrote: Does that mean that Donald Trump is a chimp?


I am not sure what motivates Trump but am certain that survival is not a part of that equation.

I have a new O.P. in the works.

Care to opine on it's worthiness as a topic?

-------------

How low the media has sunk, when the truth is taboo.

The media, of late, has been criticized for perpetuating the notion that we should be kind and gentle with Muslim. This may be true if you read some of the stories that come out long after they should have. Like all the rape cases in Europe that are mostly done by new immigrants. The press has been criticized quite a bit for their political correctness to the point of looking cowardly. Note in particular how the press was cowed by Islam and would not publish the cartoon the prompted the Hebdo murders.

The press is giving respect, and fear, to a religion that does not deserve respect. Has the free press become a cowardly institution?



Has the free world press gone too far in their political correctness, to the point where they are helping the evils of Islam and Sharia to grow?

I appreciate that we need, to some extent, to protect and lie about our political and religious institutions. We all know how phony we all like to be and do not like to air our garbage. I do think we have gone too far and are protecting what should be scrapped or reformed.

Is the free press losing it’s credibility by political correctness and not calling lies, lies?

Are these lies making it almost impossible for us to solve many of our current problems?

Is Trump actually a truthful politician that might give our press back it’s balls?

Regards

DL