Can God be moral?

[Nimos]

"if the Quran doesn't say it and think, encourage or doesn't care about killing others, that is fine with me," is what YOU WROTE.

Yes, that is correct. Did I accuse the Quran of saying any of these or do you think I wrote it, because you pointed out that it was wrong, without stating why?

"Now you have made an inference that the Ten Commandments is mentioned in the Quran in various places. Can you show me where the Quran says "Do not kill"?"

Despite the quote explicitly stating:
The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

If you have an issue with it, why not say that the Quran doesn't say that, but that you shouldn't kill innocent.

But still I didn't state that the Quran said any of the things I wrote, I gave you options to choose from, which I knew you wouldn't agree with, since you ignored the OP and expected me to run through the Quran finding the verses. So Ill admit I pushed you a bit on purpose, so sorry for that. But honestly I don't really think you are being fair, when it is stated several times in the OP, where and how this quote is suppose to be understood.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that is correct. Did I accuse the Quran of saying any of these or do you think I wrote it, because you pointed out that it was wrong, without stating why?

"Now you have made an inference that the Ten Commandments is mentioned in the Quran in various places. Can you show me where the Quran says "Do not kill"?"

Despite the quote explicitly stating:
The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

If you have an issue with it, why not say that the Quran doesn't say that, but that you shouldn't kill innocent.

But still I didn't state that the Quran said any of the things I wrote, I gave you options to choose from, which I knew you wouldn't agree with, since you ignored the OP and expected me to run through the Quran finding the verses. So Ill admit I pushed you a bit on purpose, so sorry for that. But honestly I don't really think you are being fair, when it is stated several times in the OP, where and how this quote is suppose to be understood.

Still Nimos, you just made that all up. Its not necessary. If you need clarification, ask for clarification. Thats the whole point.

 

[Nimos]

Still Nimos, you just made that all up. Its not necessary. If you need clarification, ask for clarification. Thats the whole point.

Ok, lets leave it. Again, I honestly think that the OP was clear enough.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, lets leave it. Again, I honestly think that the OP was clear enough.

I am correcting you and you should be open to hear.

it clearly says that you cannot take a life of an innocent, and if you do it is like killing all of humanity. But it does not say "You cannot kill" because it prescribes death penalty for murder of innocents.

So its a correction to your OP which is a stark contrast so you should consider it. If you got this from the British library, it is not a scholarly source but a general source without much information. Its alright to go to your preferred source, yet be open for correction or something new.

So the point is though you are taking a retracting approach, not a ground up approach which is fundamentally flawed in a philosophical discussion, you cannot put both of these books and make one foundation out if both with this kind of information because both are very very different in this particular topic.

Unless of course you are not interested.

 

[Nimos]

I am correcting you and you should be open to hear.

I am, I have no issue with your corrections.

So its a correction to your OP which is a stark contrast so you should consider it. If you got this from the British library, it is not a scholarly source but a general source without much information. Its alright to go to your preferred source, yet be open for correction or something new.

I got the quote from there.

So the point is though you are taking a retracting approach, not a ground up approach which is fundamentally flawed in a philosophical discussion, you cannot put both of these books and make one foundation out if both with this kind of information because both are very very different in this particular topic.

I don't understand what you mean by this?

it clearly says that you cannot take a life of an innocent, and if you do it is like killing all of humanity.

So what categories a person as innocent? Is an atheist innocent? a homosexual? (Not pushing you this time ) Actually meant as clarification, the reason I ask is because "innocent" at least in the context you put it here is very vague. So who decided and by which rules are a person considered innocent?

 

[firedragon]

I don't understand what you mean by this?

Discussing objective morality and an ontological argument has to be by default done independent of a specific religious text. It should be purely a philosophical discussion. I think I already told you this. Thats the ground up approach. The reason is because the morality of a necessary being stemming from the ontological argument has no baggage and is purely philosophical. If you go from the Biblical point of view and then question the ontology of the being, it is a retracting approach which means you are gonna carry all the baggage into the discussion.

If you wish to take scripture, it should be done after establishing the validity of objective morality. It will never ever work otherwise, and never has.

I already told you this.

 

[firedragon]

So what categories a person as innocent? I

Again, you cannot kill, unless as punishment for murder. Understood?

 

[Nimos]

If you wish to take scripture, it should be done after establishing the validity of objective morality. It will never ever work otherwise, and never has.

I already told you this.

Ok, lets give that a try then, how would you establish the validity of objective morality?

 

[Wildswanderer]

When is killing ever the only option for God? Under which circumstances do you see this applying to him, just wondering.

Well by definition, and I wold not be able to make that judgment because I'm not him. Only someone that has complete and total wisdom and omniscience could make that call.

 

[Nimos]

Again, you cannot kill, unless as punishment for murder. Understood?

So here is a quote:
The death penalty for gay acts is derived from people’s interpretations of the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and the Hadith, or the accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The accounts differ on the method of killing, and other accounts suggest lesser penalties for homosexual acts, depending on the circumstances.

Why are these muslims or islamic countries doing this then? I assume you agree that gay and atheists are innocent, since you didn't directly answer my question?

 

[Nimos]

Well by definition, and I wold not be able to make that judgment because I'm not him. Only someone that has complete and total wisdom and omniscience could make that call.

Using our limited capabilities and imagination as human beings

What limitations could we imagine that a being that can do anything, without any restrictions possibly be limited by? Nothing maybe?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

but is he coherent, if he can't follow them himself?

You’d have to provide an example. Just one (I don’t deal with gishes), where you think Jehovah God (of the Bible) was unjust.

 

[KerimF]

If you want to know what the Quran says, it clearly says that you cannot take a life of an innocent.

Do you mean that, in Islam, Allah doesn't have enemies who deserve being killed if they are threatening the existence of his believers? I am not saying this is wrong or right, I simply point a fact which I use hearing from my Muslim friends.

On the other hand, Jesus says clearly on the today's Gospel: "Love your enemies... etc." This is also a fact.

So I am real surprised every time I hear that Islam is an extension of Jesus message as presented on the today's Gospel. Please note that Jesus' message doesn't mean, speaking practically, the message of the today's Christianity which is made much like of Judaism and Islam.

 

[firedragon]

So here is a quote:
The death penalty for gay acts is derived from people’s interpretations of the Quran, Islam’s holy book, and the Hadith, or the accounts of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The accounts differ on the method of killing, and other accounts suggest lesser penalties for homosexual acts, depending on the circumstances.

Why are these muslims or islamic countries doing this then? I assume you agree that gay and atheists are innocent, since you didn't directly answer my question?

That is not from the Quran.

Also, "Why some people do it" cannot be answered. What I can tell you is that some countries have an adultery law that can be punishable by death and they apply the same law to homosexuality. I know its hypocritical, but that's the method they employ.

 

[Nimos]

You’d have to provide an example. Just one (I don’t deal with gishes), where you think Jehovah God (of the Bible) was unjust.

Lets take a straightforward one, Job, or more precisely his children.

 

[firedragon]

Do you mean that, in Islam, Allah doesn't have enemies who deserve being killed if they are threatening the existence of his believers? I am not saying this is wrong or right, I simply point a fact which I use hearing from my Muslim friends.

On the other hand, Jesus says clearly on the today's Gospel: "Love your enemies... etc." This is also a fact.

So I am real surprised every time I hear that Islam is an extension of Jesus message as presented on the today's Gospel. Please note that Jesus' message doesn't mean, speaking practically, the message of the today's Christianity which is made much like of Judaism and Islam.

This thread will turn into a Christianity vs Islam debate ultimately. So if you open a new thread, I will contribute.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, lets give that a try then, how would you establish the validity of objective morality?

Why not. Finally you get the point of your thread.

Can you give me your understanding of objective/objective morality?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Lets take a straightforward one, Job, or more precisely his children.

I appreciate that! Straightforward is always best!

Taking a straightforward approach to the account, I don’t see where God did it. Satan did.

 

[Nimos]

That is not from the Quran.

Also, "Why some people do it" cannot be answered. What I can tell you is that some countries have an adultery law that can be punishable by death and they apply the same law to homosexuality. I know its hypocritical, but that's the method they employ.

But these people, muslims obviously, uses the Quran to justify these laws and to punish certain people based on their sexsuality. So would you say that they are not "real" muslims? or how come they, do not interpret the word innocent like you do?
I have never claimed to be a muslim obviously and I might have quoted something wrong in the OP as we talked about. Yet here you have muslims completely incapable of understanding the sentences that you quoted to me? Don't get me wrong, I still doesn't know exactly what is meant by innocent, because to me, someones sexsuality is not a factor in whether they are guilty of something or not. I really don't see what "crime" that could ever be connected to? So I would consider them absolutely innocent in my understanding of the word.

So we have a lot of people that suffers and gets killed due to how this word is meant to be understood, and to sort of bring the topic back to morality, do you think that God is somewhat morally responsible for the death of these people? As I assume he could have made sure to make it clear what exactly is meant by "innocent" or at least have corrected it, when some people started to kill/murder others due to it?

 

[Nimos]

Why not. Finally you get the point of your thread.

Can you give me your understanding of objective/objective morality?

Sure, I use the standard definition, I guess you can call it.

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. ... Religious people will define objective morality according to the commandments of their god(s). Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder, as inherently bad.