quote:

Jesus wore a robe. Does that mean Christians should follow his example and wear robes? He was single, so shouldn't Christians stay single?

The imitation of Jesus are different then the imitation of Muhammad because Christianity is not as stringent in the rules of everyday life as Islam is. The thought process is different. The point I was making with Islam was that it supports a life style that many would view as sinful. This really ties into ideas on right and wrong, if you believe that polygamy is wrong you should be aware that Islam supports polygamy.
And yes Islam does also support mirage with one woman.

quote:

So, the Holocaust was neither right nor wrong. The Nazi Party viewed it as right, and the Allies viewed it as wrong. That's how it was in my eyes.

Okay what you are talking about it whether or not a certain action is viewed as being right or wrong. I agree with you that people can have different views about what is right or wrong. However though people may have different opinions they can all be right. Take the example of the Holocaust. The Nazi party and the allies could not both be right. This is actually a law of logic, called the law of non-contradiction. Basically something can be both true and not true. So it is either true that the Holocaust was wrong, or it is not it is impossible for it to be both.
With this in mind there has to be a way to determine which of the two was right, since only one of them can really be right.

quote:

They were perfectly justified in that they saw it as wrong, even though the South saw it as right.

Again the law of non contradiction comes into play. The north and south could not both be right. They may have both thought they were right but only one of them could really be right.

quote:

You're not getting it. If I see slavery as wrong, then I am justified in condemning them. You're mistaking the lack of absolute right and wrong for the inability to condemn people for what you think is wrong.

No you would not be justified. Because if what they do is right to them who are you for coming in and telling them that what they are doing is wrong. Under this system all condemnation really starts to loss its worth, because there is no final word on right or wrong. Everyone judges each other but there is no universal standard, everyone just makes up their own standards as we went along.
For an illustration of why this is a problem try to imagine what our legal system would be like if all the branches of the law came up with their own ideas of what is right? The possibilities are almost none ending to envision pure chaos as everyone enforced contradictory laws.

quote:

Pretty much. We may not always like it, but the biggest or strongest group gets to say what's right or wrong.

Okay so the things in the following quote are okay?

quote:

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

These things are clearly not okay just because one group decided that it is. The most powerful group may have their will enforced but that does not mean that what they do is right.

quote:

It does promote polygamy in the sense that Muhammad had many wives. Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Muhammad and if Muhammad has many wives Muslim men can assume that they also should have many wives.

Jesus wore a robe. Does that mean Christians should follow his example and wear robes? He was single, so shouldn't Christians stay single?

Anyways, even if Muhammad had multiple wives, that does not mean all Muslims are to take multiple wives. They can if they want, but it is all right by the Qu'ran to stay with a single wife.

quote:

Right and wrong can not change. What is accepted as right and wrong may change but right or wrong can not change. Look at it this way what are you saying when you say something is wrong? You are saying that that type of action is flawed. Take the mass killing of Jews during WWII. That was considered acceptable by the Germans, but it was clearly wrong.

We're looking at things differently. I don't see ideas like right and wrong as explicitly existing. For me, it's only the acceptance of things as right and wrong that exist. So, the Holocaust was neither right nor wrong. The Nazi Party viewed it as right, and the Allies viewed it as wrong. That's how it was in my eyes.

quote:

If slavery was right for the south the north had no right to come in and stop them from having slaves. The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.

They were perfectly justified in that they saw it as wrong, even though the South saw it as right. Again, the strongest group gets to impose it's view of morality.

quote:

Exactly you just showed why slavery was wrong. And has always been wrong. If it has not always been wrong, you have no basses for condemning the slave traders. And this applies to everything. If there is no right or wrong, then no wrong has ever really done anything wrong, it is just a mater of their actions either being accepted or not accepted.

You're not getting it. If I see slavery as wrong, then I am justified in condemning them. You're mistaking the lack of absolute right and wrong for the inability to condemn people for what you think is wrong.

quote:

That’s basically what you just said, what ever the majority says goes.

Pretty much. We may not always like it, but the biggest or strongest group gets to say what's right or wrong.

quote:

Get your facts straight.

I am not trying to explain the causes of the civil war, and I am not saying that slavery was the only issue. All I am talking about right now is whether or not slavery was wrong, not aspects of the civil war. So my point was if slavery was right the north had no right to oppose it.

quote:

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

Exactly that is why I am saying that this system does not work. Under this system these things would be justified.

quote:

Relative values like right and wrong can't be arbitrarily applied based on one's moral credence like you do.

Right and wrong are based off of a moral code, and I would argue that this is the only system that works which is why it is used. Things are viewed as inherently right or wrong, and if there is not a system of right and wrong society falls apart.

quote:

You base your judgement on your religious beliefs

I don’t believe that specific aspects of Christian teachings should be enforced, but I do believe that right and wrong is based of a moral code that was made by God.

quote:

The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.

The north wanted to free the slaves because they had huge potential as consumers, and they wanted to do away with the south's independent primitive economy so it would become dependant on the north's industrial production. Get your facts straight.

quote:

any action in the name of order would be right.

So the Stalinist Gulag was ok?
Or the repression and killing of the Chilean People by Augusto Pinochet after the coup d'etat that murdered Allende?

Relative values like right and wrong can't be arbitrarily applied based on one's moral credence like you do. You base your judgement on your religious beliefs, thus anyone who does not share those beliefs is automatically wrong, if not in judgement, in justification.

quote:

Islam does not promote polygamy.

It does promote polygamy in the sense that Muhammad had many wives. Muslims are supposed to follow the example of Muhammad and if Muhammad has many wives Muslim men can assume that they also should have many wives.

quote:

Do right and wrong change? That's a good question. I'm likely to say yes.

Right and wrong can not change. What is accepted as right and wrong may change but right or wrong can not change. Look at it this way what are you saying when you say something is wrong? You are saying that that type of action is flawed. Take the mass killing of Jews during WWII. That was considered acceptable by the Germans, but it was clearly wrong.

quote:

So, slavery was never wrong or right. Things never are inherently one way or the other.

Now let’s look at the issue of slavery. If slavery was right for the south the north had no right to come in and stop them from having slaves. The only reason the north was justified in trying to free the slaves was because having slaves was wrong.
Basically if right and wrong can caught there is really no right or wrong, just acceptable and not acceptable.

quote:

On the other hand, some people viewed it as evil. Slaves were indeed humans, and no human should ever be forced to be subservient to his equals.

Exactly you just showed why slavery was wrong. And has always been wrong. If it has not always been wrong, you have no basses for condemning the slave traders. And this applies to everything. If there is no right or wrong, then no wrong has ever really done anything wrong, it is just a mater of their actions either being accepted or not accepted.

quote:

There is no absolute, over-arching view of order; it's what the largest or strongest group of people views as right.

So there is no really definition of what falls under order. So if the majority of people in a country said it was alright to take the children of a small group and rape, and torture, and kill them that would be alight. That’s basically what you just said, what ever the majority says goes.

quote:

Possibly. A single, large nation would probably create more problems than it solves,

Alright so it might not work it might, the point is that from what you said any action in the name of order would be right.

quote:

I brought up this point because many people in Europe and the US are opposed to polygamy and so the fact that Islam promotes polygamy would likely be an issue for many people so I wanted to bring it up.

Islam does not promote polygamy. As I stated earlier, a very small percentage of Islamic marriages are polygamous. There's a lot more to Islam than just polygamy. If people are going to have a problem with a religion just because of one rather insignificant aspect, I think the problems go deeper than simple dislike of polygamy. I mean, I immensely dislike the inherently Christian idea of preaching the Bible to non-believers, but that alone isn't going to make me hate Christianity. That would be rather...bigoted of me, wouldn't you say?

quote:

There is a big problem with this system and that is, does right and wrong change? The majority used to say that slavery was alright. But was it really right? Was it right when the majority supported it?

Do right and wrong change? That's a good question. I'm likely to say yes. I don't really have the means to argue that philosophically, but based on how so many things have swung from being generally accepted to generally despised or vice versa.

On the matter of slavery, it's an excellent example of how the morals of the strongest group win out. The American Civil War was fought primarily over the institution of slavery, which was slowly becoming disliked. The North symbolized freedom; the South protected slavery. Yes, it's simplified, but I'm not going to explain what everyone (at least every American) learns in history class. When the North beat the South and abolished slavery throughout the United States, it was a clear-cut instance of the strongest group imposing it's view of morality. Had the South won, slavery would have continued, to a point (when popular opinion would have turned against it again).

So, slavery was never wrong or right. Things never are inherently one way or the other. Ideas cannot be good or evil, since those are human-created concepts. With slavery, some people viewed it as good. Slaves were only partially human, after all, so it was good that people should take them in and reform them through labor. On the other hand, some people viewed it as evil. Slaves were indeed humans, and no human should ever be forced to be subservient to his equals. Slavery became "wrong," so to speak, when the majority viewed it as evil, as opposed to when the majority viewed it as good.

quote:

Could you justify suppressing freedom of speech, religion and the press under the name of a greater order?

What a thing to ask of a libertarian. No, I can't personally justify it, but in the name of order, I'm sure someone could. There is no absolute, over-arching view of order; it's what the largest or strongest group of people views as right. Order makes societies, but it's up to the members of those societies to determine what kind of order will hold them together. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but I'd say the evidence supports it.

Also, it could be said that suppressing free speech results in a disorderly society due to people objecting against the limitations on their freedom of speech. That's a bit of a reach, I realize, but oh well.

quote:

If there was only one nation could you say that there was more order?

Possibly. A single, large nation would probably create more problems than it solves, in that it would be very hard to govern the parts of it farthest away from the seat of government, which could cause more chaos. I'm not really suited for this kind of big-picture philosophy. My ideas are generally focused on (and apply best to) smaller and more localized situations, if that makes any sense.

quote:

but those are completely dependent on the people in the relationship, not the fact that the relationship is polygamous. Just like a monogamous marriage.

Okay so this issue really boils down to our beliefs. If you believe that polygamy is okay then the fact that Islam supports polygamy is not an issue for you. However if you do have a problem with polygamy you would have a problem with Islam. I brought up this point because many people in Europe and the US are opposed to polygamy and so the fact that Islam promotes polygamy would likely be an issue for many people so I wanted to bring it up.

quote:

Exactly. That's the way of the world. The strongest group gets to say its right.

So what ever the crowd says goes? There is a big problem with this system and that is, does right and wrong change? The majority used to say that slavery was alright. But was it really right? Was it right when the majority supported it?

quote:

Societies can't exist without order.

So basically you are saying that there is a large over arching absolute of order. In that case what do you define as order? Can anything fit under this umbrella? Could you justify suppressing freedom of speech, religion and the press under the name of a greater order? Again what are the boundaries of this larger idea?

quote:

But how? People like Hitler cause chaos because they kill lots of people.

Ah but what if they killed those who cause division. If there was only one nation could you say that there was more order?

quote:

Change can be chaotic, but most good change doesn't involve death.

So only things that cause death are wrong? I though you said the standard was order. There are many times that people have done things to gain rights that have decreased the order of something.

quote:

Kind of like "Thou shalt not kill"? Kill whom? Do circumstances matter? What if they were the aggressor? What about war?

Yes I would agree that that rule all by its self is vague. However I would say that if you look at other verses in the bible you will find the picture becoming clearer and clearer.

quote:

I've heard that the KJV is one of the better versions, considering it's one of the oldest. Newer versions suffer from simplified language. I guess this is another reason why I need to learn Hebrew and Greek.

Many people say that it is a really great one. It does have some translation problems because it is an older version of English. I use the NIV and the RSV for the bulk of my bible usage, and sometimes use other translations. We also have the Hebrew and Greek translations that I can use to reference. I know a little of both Hebrew and Greek, which is enough for me because the main thing that I use the Hebrew and Greek for is to look up words that cause problems, like the word day in genesis, and see what the original would have meant.

quote:

The point is that in a relationship with polygamy there are inherent problems.

I can think of a few that could happen (lack of attention to certain wives, etc.), but those are completely dependent on the people in the relationship, not the fact that the relationship is polygamous. Just like a monogamous marriage.

quote:

So no group rely has a claim to being right, it is just the beigest group that is right?

Exactly. That's the way of the world. The strongest group gets to say its right. Majority rule, if you will, although that's not quite right, since the biggest group isn't always the strongest.

quote:

What who says that society’s are supposed to be ordered.

Societies can't exist without order. That's what they're based on. From the beginning of civilization, there have been rules to preserve order and society.

quote:

And who said that they were necessarily causing chaos. I could say that the chaos was caused by those who opposed.

But how? People like Hitler cause chaos because they kill lots of people. You can't blame the chaos on the people trying to preserve the order (by eliminating the cause of chaos).

quote:

Also following that logic anyone who makes any big changes is evil.

Change can be chaotic, but most good change doesn't involve death.

quote:

Exactly and rules that are few and rather general are not that useful.

Kind of like "Thou shalt not kill"? Kill whom? Do circumstances matter? What if they were the aggressor? What about war? You don't really need to answer those questions. I was just pointing out that Islam isn't the only one with vague rules.

quote:

I would suggest quoting from a different version of the bible the King James really is not the best and is difficult to use.

I've heard that the KJV is one of the better versions, considering it's one of the oldest. Newer versions suffer from simplified language. I guess this is another reason why I need to learn Hebrew and Greek.

quote:

but there are specific rules regarding polygamy in Islam.

So there are rules, my mistake. The point is that in a relationship with polygamy there are inherent problems.

quote:

I must say though, I didn't know polygamy could be considered terrorism.

It is not a type of terrorism. This topic will go into other areas of Islamic teaching, because many of these issues overlap.

quote:

First, the biggest (or strongest) group will get its way

So no group rely has a claim to being right, it is just the beigest group that is right?

quote:

Ah, but we do. We cannot condemn them on moral grounds, but we can still condemn them for disrupting society's natural order by causing general chaos.

What who says that society’s are supposed to be ordered. And who said that they were necessarily causing chaos. I could say that the chaos was caused by those who opposed. Them. Also following that logic anyone who makes any big changes is evil.

quote:

my knowledge, polygamy in Islam has guidelines, even if they are few and rather general.

Exactly and rules that are few and rather general are not that useful.

quote:

so I don't know why this is even an issue.

It’s an issue just not a big point. We can drop it if you want.

quote:

I'm not saying they're true, but a few errors (inserted perhaps by overzealous human scribes) don't automatically make them false.

Okay I would agree with that copying errors don’t discredit the religion I was talking about major problems and contradictions

quote:

Judges 3:21-22. I'm using the King James Version, since they seem to have left the dirt bit out of newer versions

Okay I thought it might be this passage. This is an error in the translation. The best word to insert would be refuses, which does not mean dirt but is similar, which is why dirt was used. This is a linguistic error that you would not see in an earlier copy. Other versions of the bible don’t say dirt. I would suggest quoting from a different version of the bible the King James really is not the best and is difficult to use.

quote:

And yet the book is still credited to Moses.

Yes it is credited to mosses because he wrote most of it. Also I'm not sure how us making errors speculating about who wrote books of the bible shows flaws in the bible.

quote:

I'm feeling lazy, so here's a Wikipedia link on some alleged inconsistencies, and here's a link with a whole boatload of contradictions.

Okay because there are over 300 supposed contradictions I am going to address this point with an overview and then if there are any specific contradictions you want me to address just let me know. Now most of the contradictions have been scribal errors, most of these errors are detectable when you look at some of the earlier copies and find where the error was made. So that is the bulk of the errors. The other errors are really just theological points that are debatable, and slightly unclear. However if you actually analyze the passages there are no major contradictions. The last point is that there are differences in the authors writing stiles. Because of this they will record different information in different ways.

quote:

The question is what group will get their way. The question I am asking is do the other groups have any basses for saying that the group that was accepted was morally wrong.

First, the biggest (or strongest) group will get its way. Second, the other groups can indeed protest that the first group was morally wrong, but that first group has just as much call to say the other ones were wrong.

Moral relativity is a tricky deal, which is why humans have so many conflicts.

quote:

Think about it, if our morals don’t apply to them, and their morals said that what they did was fine, then we don’t have any grounds for condemning their actions.

Ah, but we do. We cannot condemn them on moral grounds, but we can still condemn them for disrupting society's natural order by causing general chaos.

quote:

But it usually not that and the Koran does not specify rules, so it can allow abusive polygamy.

Says you. To my knowledge, polygamy in Islam has guidelines, even if they are few and rather general. For instance, a man is not allowed to have more than four wives, and he should not marry more women than he can deal justly with (up to the limit of four).

Also, it should be noted that polygamous marriages make up 1-3% of marriages in the Islamic world, so I don't know why this is even an issue.

quote:

Yes it does, these books are supposedly the words of God, and so they should be correct, in all that they say. If they are not then you can’t trust them and thus you should not follow those religions.

The books may have been inspired by gods, but they were written by men. And translated, and rewritten, and who knows what else. I'm not saying they're true, but a few errors (inserted perhaps by overzealous human scribes) don't automatically make them false.

quote:

What part of the Bible is this?

Judges 3:21-22. I'm using the King James Version, since they seem to have left the dirt bit out of newer versions (I could have sworn more than just dirt came out, but oh well).

"And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly: And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out."

As I said, I thought it was a little more explicit, but still, dirt coming out of a fat king's stomach?

quote:

The parts about his death and the following events were written by Joshua, who was the leader of Israel once Moses died.

And yet the book is still credited to Moses. Of course, it's not even clear how much of the Torah Moses wrote, if he wrote any at all. Too many different writing styles to be just one or two people.

I'm feeling lazy, so here's a Wikipedia link on some alleged inconsistencies, and here's a link with a whole boatload of contradictions. The second link has a lot of trivial ones, so don't disregard it because it's wondering how many sons Abraham had or whatever. There are some rather important ones later on, especially the New Testament.

quote:

But it usually not that and the Koran does not specify rules, so it can allow abusive polygamy.

I don't want to get roped back into this, but there are specific rules regarding polygamy in Islam. I'm not sure where they are so if they're not in the Quran then they are in the Hadith. 5 minutes on google could probably solve that problem. I do know for a fact that if a woman doesn't want her husband to take any other wives, she can put that in the marriage contract and he'll be bound to it, or she has grounds for divorce, so it's not like women have no control in the matter.

I must say though, I didn't know polygamy could be considered terrorism.

quote:

They can all have their own criminal justice systems because a compromise isn't going to happen with those views.

But they can’t co exist in one system. The question is what group will get their way. The question I am asking is do the other groups have any basses for saying that the group that was accepted was morally wrong. If not then whatever the country does is right, thus there is no problem with cases like Nazi Germany, dictatorships, or anything else.

quote:

Not at all. Morals aren't supposed to have authority above that of the individual. So, your morals dictate what you do, but that's it. They don't dictate what others do.

So the actions of Hitler weren’t wrong? The actions of the terrorists on 9-11 weren’t wrong? Think about it, if our morals don’t apply to them, and their morals said that what they did was fine, then we don’t have any grounds for condemning their actions.

quote:

Even if Jesus wasn't God, people would have at least liked the idea of going to heaven without having to sacrifice goats for it.

Okay lets clarify, the case of Jesus would be different than the other religions because Jesus clamed to be God. Christianity, and our way to haven is based around Jesus being God, so in the case of Christianity, if Jesus was not God, Christianity has no basses, and there would be no reason to follow the Christian religion.

quote:

Sure. I personally find nothing wrong with it so long as it's consensual and non-abusive, just like a monogamous marriage.

But it usually not that and the Koran does not specify rules, so it can allow abusive polygamy.

quote:

Not necessarily. Many of these holy books were written when people had little or no idea of how the world worked, so there is bound to be some inaccuracies. That doesn't invalidate the book as a whole, though.

Yes it does, these books are supposedly the words of God, and so they should be correct, in all that they say. If they are not then you can’t trust them and thus you should not follow those religions.

quote:

I mean, Christianity has it's own historical flaws and obvious hyperboles.

Really let’s see.

quote:

There's a part in there where a guy is pierced in the stomach and dirt and maggots fall out,

What part of the Bible is this?

quote:

and there's no evidence the entire world was flooded during Noah's time,

The bible does not say that the entire world was flooded, or at least it does not say that in the original Hebrew. The English makes it sound more global then it originally sounded. Also you have to remember that to them their world was the Mediterranean so when they say the world they mean the known world. This would not be a misstatement. Because earth world refer to all of earth. World has a meaning of the inhabited regions, or the areas of human existence, so a flood of the world would be a flood of the inhabited regions

quote:

Clearly there's a bit of exaggeration regarding how much (if any) of that book was actually written by Moses, since it's a little difficult to write about your own death after you're dead.

Most of Deuteronomy was written by Moses. The parts about his death and the following events were written by Joshua, who was the leader of Israel once Moses died.

There’s the response to those points got any more?

quote:

I was kind of asking you, so what do you think. As for the question I would say that in some cases there is only one right. Like in that situation they cant all get their way, which group is right?

None of them are right because none of them are wrong (from my point of view, at least). They can all have their own criminal justice systems because a compromise isn't going to happen with those views. Of course, in the real world, the biggest group would have its way.

quote:

Okay well if every one has morals that contradict each other? What authority does a moral have it is defined by individuals?

Not at all. Morals aren't supposed to have authority above that of the individual. So, your morals dictate what you do, but that's it. They don't dictate what others do.

quote:

If he was not God there would be no reason to follow his teachings.

Come now, of course there is. Look at all the obvious non-deities whose teachings are followed by largish groups of people. Even if Jesus wasn't God, people would have at least liked the idea of going to heaven without having to sacrifice goats for it.

quote:

Alright so are you saying that polygamy is Okay?

Sure. I personally find nothing wrong with it so long as it's consensual and non-abusive, just like a monogamous marriage. Now, I'd never personally marry more than one person, but I don't see why other people shouldn't be able to.

quote:

Basically if a holy book has several points that can be shown to be false, the books validity is called into question.

Not necessarily. Many of these holy books were written when people had little or no idea of how the world worked, so there is bound to be some inaccuracies. That doesn't invalidate the book as a whole, though. I mean, Christianity has it's own historical flaws and obvious hyperboles. There's a part in there where a guy is pierced in the stomach and dirt and maggots fall out, and there's no evidence the entire world was flooded during Noah's time, although there is evidence the Mediterranean area was. To the people of Noah's time, the Mediterranean was the whole world.

Another rather interesting one is one of the Five Books of Moses (the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible). I think it's Deuteronomy. Anyways, this book was allegedly written by Moses himself, yet the very end of the book details his death and the events shortly after. Clearly there's a bit of exaggeration regarding how much (if any) of that book was actually written by Moses, since it's a little difficult to write about your own death after you're dead.

Christianity isn't flawless, either, but again, not all flaws invalidate a religion. They have to be rather important flaws, and historical inaccuracies aren't that important in a book concerning itself mostly with spiritual matters.

quote:

Why does there have to be a single "right"?

I was kind of asking you, so what do you think. As for the question I would say that in some cases there is only one right. Like in that situation they cant all get their way, which group is right?

quote:

There may be no proof that it's false, but I must remind you that there's no proof it's true, either.

But the fact that it has withstood heavy criticism without any problems being found is evidence that it is true.

quote:

Even if everyone has a sense of right and wrong, they do not all agree on what is right and what is wrong.

What people think of as right also depends on their personal beliefs. So there are personal conceptions, I am talking about an inherent knowledge that some things are good, and other things are bad.

quote:

Are we talking about morals or a moral standard? I'm not denying there are morals; I'm claiming they differ from person to person.

Okay well if every one has morals that contradict each other? What authority does a moral have it is defined by individuals?

quote:

Indeed, and if Jesus wasn't God, he had no idea if his teachings would last past his death.

Okay so assuming that he is God he would still want his teachings taught. If he was not God there would be no reason to follow his teachings.

quote:

I can provide one that shows how it doesn't.

Alright so are you saying that polygamy is Okay?

quote:

That's your opinion. My opinion is that any holy book is a good choice, considering they all have an equal possibility of being true.

Actually not all holy books have the same chance of being true. For example some religions believe things that we now know to be historical, or scientific misstatements. Something that we know for a