| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 04:00:27 PM |
| Object: |
Islam Hypocrisy? |
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
04 Jun 2007 06:36:15 PM |
|
|
"One of the most astounding instances of Jewish hypocrisy was uttered
by a Jew named Isi Leibler, who is no less than the chairman of the
governing board of the World Jewish Congress. Now Isi Leibler is
well-known as a powerful Jew in Australia, where he was for years the
official head of the Jewish community there. He now lives in Israel.
In an interview with a Jerusalem newspaper, he stated about Israel
"This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country
for the Jews." In an essay he wrote for the World Jewish Congress, he
decried intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews as a kind of racial
suicide, and likened assimilation with non-Jews as a slow bleeding to
death of the Jewish people. He emphasized that focus of Israeli policy
should be to sharpen and intensify Jewish identity and that even
giving up territory was acceptable if it meant getting rid of non-Jews
and making Israel a more nearly all-Jewish state. Leibler argues that
post-Zionists threaten Israel when they publish textbooks that
de-emphasize Jewish racial
interests and replace them with "universalist" history. In the
interview mentioned, Leibler went so far as to say: "Multiculturalism
has no place in Israel. Israel was created as a Jewish state for the
Jews." That's the Jew Isi Leibler talking about his own people's
country, talking about Israel. [Leibler, Isi: Is the Dream Ending?
Post-Zionism and its
Discontents - A Threat to the Jewish Future, Institute of the World
Jewish Congress, Israel]
But what was Isi Leibler saying when he lived in Australia, a White
country, a non-Jewish country? What was Isi Leibler saying when he was
the head of Australia's powerful Jewish minority? Isi Leibler's advice
to Israel is to protect its racial and cultural heritage. Isi
Leibler's advice to Jews is to avoid intermarriage. Isi Leibler thinks
it's just
fine -- even necessary -- to separate non-Jews from Jews in Israel, to
get non-Jews on the other side of a well-defended border, to throw
them out of Israel. But to Australians Isi Leibler played quite a
different tune. When Australian politician Pauline Hanson was
galvanizing White Australians in 1993 with her questioning of the
wisdom of non-White
immigration to that country, Leibler warned that "extremists" were
threatening precious multiculturalism. He said: "There is a need to
sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture
that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all proud being
part and parcel of, and which is really under threat?" [Australian
Herald-Sun,
September 27, 2000]
How much clearer does it have to be before you see it? Leibler and his
fellow powerful Jews want racial nationalism for their own people,
because racial nationalism makes them strong and ensures their
survival. They want racial nationalism because they want their kind to
survive and racial nationalism is the key to survival. They're not
stupid. They want what is best for Jews.
But Leibler and his fellow powerful Jews don't want racial nationalism
for White people. In Australia and Europe and South Africa and the
United States - wherever White people live -- Leibler and his kind in
Jewish organizations and in the Jewish-controlled media do everything
in their power to destroy racial nationalism for White people,
everything
in their power to keep us from having it, everything in their power to
make it disreputable and impossible and illegal. Just the other day,
Leibler said that one of the most important things in the world to him
was Israel's "right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state." [Israel
Insider, November 24, 2002] But Leibler and his co-racialists in the
Jewish ADL and other groups devote their lives and their billions to
preventing White people from claiming their right to sovereign White
states. Keeping Britain British, or keeping America American, or
keeping France French, is anathema to them, it is the ultimate in evil
and they never let us forget that."
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
04 Jun 2007 04:49:51 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180904427.901372.184960@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Because Muslims worship Satan...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "We are Muslims, and we are extremely proud of it" |
|
| Title: 95% of those Anti-Islamic claims are very silly. |
03 Jun 2007 05:46:17 PM |
|
|
95% of those Anti-Islamic claims are very silly.
In my opinion, they are not even worth responding to.
But unfortunately, they have to be responded to because the Muslims
and the non-Muslims need to learn about what both sides have to say.
I've noticed that 99% of their so called "Hard Questions on Islam"
come from the anti-Islamic claims that are all answered on this page.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/quranerr.htm
Get The Holy Quran. It is absolutely FREE
http://www.freequran.org/
Useful links
Understanding Islam
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E1283E
http://www.muslimheritage.com/Default.aspx
http://www.studying-islam.org/index.aspx
www.islamonline.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
03 Jun 2007 05:02:59 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
The objection of non-Christians to Christianity is simply that God is
NOT the same as a man. They are irreconcileable entities, that cannot
exist as one. Logically and metaphysically.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
03 Jun 2007 09:17:50 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
05 Jun 2007 02:57:28 PM |
|
|
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
07 Jun 2007 09:04:22 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted. Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
07 Jun 2007 12:07:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1181225062.537630.198250@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 08:32:55 AM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 12:07 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181225062.537630.198...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
-- cary
God cannot be bribed.
Ken Clifton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 11:22:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1181309575.282134.52340@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 7, 12:07 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181225062.537630.198...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
-- cary
God cannot be bribed.
Good to hear, but it has less than nothing to do with my question,
which was to ask you if making ammends to any you may have wronged
a good quality?
Whatyya think?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 07:47:45 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 11:22 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181309575.282134.52...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 7, 12:07 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181225062.537630.198...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
-- cary
God cannot be bribed.
Good to hear, but it has less than nothing to do with my question,
which was to ask you if making ammends to any you may have wronged
a good quality?
Whatyya think?
-- cary
Sorry, I jumped ahead of you. Yes, making ammends is a good thing.
No. It cannot pay for the wrong. God cannot be bribed.
Ken Clifton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
11 Jun 2007 11:40:19 AM |
|
|
In article <1181393265.602193.16740@n4g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On Jun 8, 11:22 am, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181309575.282134.52...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 7, 12:07 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1181225062.537630.198...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
-- cary
God cannot be bribed.
Good to hear, but it has less than nothing to do with my question,
which was to ask you if making ammends to any you may have wronged
a good quality?
Whatyya think?
-- cary
Sorry, I jumped ahead of you. Yes, making ammends is a good thing.
But God, I am geussing that you would agree, does not exercise this
virtue: G.d does not make amends for doing wrong.
Therefore thare are virtues which God do not appear in God's nature.
-- cary
No. It cannot pay for the wrong. God cannot be bribed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 03:51:24 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 2007, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <f49e0u$r0u$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <1181225062.537630.198250@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed
in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted.
And if there were evil in God, then who, exactly, is going to "not allow"
God to be the Judge?
Not a biggie; Henrieta H God is very laissez-faire about the "whole
ball of wax".
Her idea of "punishment" is to spend a "little while" (that
expression makes me nervous) in a MacDonald's. Of course, the "food"
might be a little bit boring and the "restrooms" rather restricted in
the areas of sanitation and cleanliness.
Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Is making ammends to those you have wronged a good quality?
Not only a "good quality" but the only way for your "wrong" to be
forgiven.
No "shortcuts" or "detours".
++ gray
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 03:02:15 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 9:04 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted. Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm afraid your post does not have much logical coherence. God as
"judge" is a possible interpretation of divinity, but not a
particularly common one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that
judges aren't allowed to have any evil in them. They're just human,
like everyone else. They're not the sum of all good, obviously!
They're also not particularly self-sacrificing!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 07:58:32 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 3:02 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:04 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted. Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm afraid your post does not have much logical coherence. God as
"judge" is a possible interpretation of divinity, but not a
particularly common one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that
judges aren't allowed to have any evil in them. They're just human,
like everyone else. They're not the sum of all good, obviously!
They're also not particularly self-sacrificing!
I already answered this. See above.
Getting back to the point.
I find it a hypocrisy for Islam to say that self-sacrifice is a
virtue, while saying that God (as sum of all good) is unable to
sacrifice Himself. Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-
sacrifice isn't good.
K.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 09:18:19 AM |
|
|
On Jun 9, 7:58 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 8, 3:02 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 9:04 am, Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 9:17 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 5:02 pm,Jerry Kraus<jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 3, 4:00 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I've been posting this question for weeks, and no one can see to reply
to the point, instead choosing to try to distract from the core
question. So, let me make this as simple as possible....one
sentence....
How is it that Muslims praise self-sacrifice as a virtue (good
quality); while they deny that God
(the sum of all good) could sacrifice Himself for man or possess this
"virtue"?
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
I suppose you're arguing that "psychologically" there's no obstacle to
God sacrificing himself for man. No, there's no psychological
obstacle. There is, however, the practical obstacle that, being all-
powerful, he cannot be under the power of anything else. Therefore
God cannot sacrifice himself.
Really, the whole issue becomes moot, if you reject the
anthropomorphic conception of God. If you perceive God as a
universal direction or unity of nature -- something more consistent
with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, than it is with
Christianity -- then the notion of God as Man, self-sacrificing or
otherwise, becomes inconceivable.
If it were to be true that God doesn't sacrifice Himself, one of two
things is true. Either God is not the sum of all good, or self-
sacrifice is not good.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.cm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Correct. Most religions don't see God as the sum of all good. They
see God as an all-powerful, universal entity, responsible for all good
and evil. He/It is not evaluated morally. He/It is not part of any
community to which morals apply.
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial. Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define
good and evil. However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is
not allowed to BE evil, or the judgment is tainted. Thus, God would
have to be the sum of all good. So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God
would have it.
Ken Clifton
christiansuperhero.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm afraid your post does not have much logical coherence. God as
"judge" is a possible interpretation of divinity, but not a
particularly common one. I'm not sure where you got the idea that
judges aren't allowed to have any evil in them. They're just human,
like everyone else. They're not the sum of all good, obviously!
They're also not particularly self-sacrificing!
I already answered this. See above.
Getting back to the point.
I find it a hypocrisy for Islam to say that self-sacrifice is a
virtue, while saying that God (as sum of all good) is unable to
sacrifice Himself. Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-
sacrifice isn't good.
K.C.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think one can argue, that for GOD, self-sacrifice is NOT good! That
the very concept of self-sacrifice is inconsistent with being all-
powerful and and all-knowing. Why should God need to engage in self-
sacrifice? Why not simply use that infinite power to rectify all
problems? Isn't self-sacrifice, for an all-powerful God, a
distraction and an irrelevancy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 10:58:29 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
I find it a hypocrisy for Islam to say that self-sacrifice is a
virtue,
Nobody in Islam gives a damn what you "find". You don't have a clue
what they believe in the first place.
while saying that God (as sum of all good)
Do Moslems believe that God is "the sum of all good"? I don't even
think that Jews believe that. I'm not even sure that all Christians
believe that, with an obvious reason being that "good" is not
necessarily a "summable" quantity.
is unable to sacrifice Himself.
In most religions, the concept of a God sacrificing Himself, means
that the God no longer exists. If, after sacrificing Himself, God is
unchanged, then there was no real sacrifice.
Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-sacrifice isn't good.
That does not follow.
You have to ASSume all sorts of things that other people do not
assume.
For one thing, I personally don't think that self-sacrifice is ALWAYS
"good".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
10 Jun 2007 01:01:45 PM |
|
|
On Jun 9, 10:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I find it a hypocrisy for Islam to say that self-sacrifice is a
virtue,
Nobody in Islam gives a damn what you "find". You don't have a clue
what they believe in the first place.
while saying that God (as sum of all good)
Do Moslems believe that God is "the sum of all good"? I don't even
think that Jews believe that. I'm not even sure that all Christians
believe that, with an obvious reason being that "good" is not
necessarily a "summable" quantity.
is unable to sacrifice Himself.
In most religions, the concept of a God sacrificing Himself, means
that the God no longer exists. If, after sacrificing Himself, God is
unchanged, then there was no real sacrifice.
Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-sacrifice isn't good.
That does not follow.
You have to ASSume all sorts of things that other people do not
assume.
For one thing, I personally don't think that self-sacrifice is ALWAYS
"good".
lojbab
Of course it follows. If Jesus is right in saying that ONLY God is
good, and God defines Righteousness by Himself, then either self-
sacrifice is good for both man and God or it is not righteous for
either.
Ken Clifton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
10 Jun 2007 10:09:37 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
In most religions, the concept of a God sacrificing Himself, means
that the God no longer exists. If, after sacrificing Himself, God is
unchanged, then there was no real sacrifice.
Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-sacrifice isn't good.
That does not follow.
You have to ASSume all sorts of things that other people do not
assume.
For one thing, I personally don't think that self-sacrifice is ALWAYS
"good".
Of course it follows.
Nope.
If Jesus is right in saying that ONLY God is good,
What Jesus said is utterly irrelevant to any other religion besides
Christianity, thus making your argument utterly irrelevant to
non-believers.
And of course it is contestable that Jesus said anything of the kind.
You may find a verse that you INTERPRET as Jesus saying something to
that effect, but we know that your reading comprehension is zilch.
and God defines Righteousness by Himself,
That's fine, if you are God.
then either self-sacrifice is good for both man and God or it is not righteous for
either.
Now you are attempting to conflate "good" and "righteous". I read a
good book yesterday. It was not a righteous book. While
self-sacrifice may in some circumstances be "good", I wouldn't say
that it is *always* "good", and I would never claim that
self-sacrifice is "righteous". (Some of course say that suicide is
"evil", and it is merely another kind of self-sacrifice.)
In fact, using your assumption that God defines Righteousness, I think
it is blasphemy for any human being to claim that any human act is
"righteous". Only God can make that judgement, and perhaps only God
can perform a "righteous" act. Feel free to ask him on judgement day;
I don't much care.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
11 Jun 2007 08:55:02 AM |
|
|
On Jun 10, 10:09 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:58 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
In most religions, the concept of a God sacrificing Himself, means
that the God no longer exists. If, after sacrificing Himself, God is
unchanged, then there was no real sacrifice.
Either God CAN sacrifice Himself for man, or self-sacrifice isn't good.
That does not follow.
You have to ASSume all sorts of things that other people do not
assume.
For one thing, I personally don't think that self-sacrifice is ALWAYS
"good".
Of course it follows.
Nope.
If Jesus is right in saying that ONLY God is good,
What Jesus said is utterly irrelevant to any other religion besides
Christianity, thus making your argument utterly irrelevant to
non-believers.
And of course it is contestable that Jesus said anything of the kind.
You may find a verse that you INTERPRET as Jesus saying something to
that effect, but we know that your reading comprehension is zilch.
and God defines Righteousness by Himself,
That's fine, if you are God.
then either self-sacrifice is good for both man and God or it is not righteous for
either.
Now you are attempting to conflate "good" and "righteous". I read a
good book yesterday. It was not a righteous book. While
self-sacrifice may in some circumstances be "good", I wouldn't say
that it is *always* "good", and I would never claim that
self-sacrifice is "righteous". (Some of course say that suicide is
"evil", and it is merely another kind of self-sacrifice.)
In fact, using your assumption that God defines Righteousness, I think
it is blasphemy for any human being to claim that any human act is
"righteous". Only God can make that judgement, and perhaps only God
can perform a "righteous" act. Feel free to ask him on judgement day;
I don't much care.
lojbab
So, you say Jesus lied in saying only God was good?
Ken Clifton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
11 Jun 2007 12:17:08 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you say Jesus lied in saying only God was good?
No. I say that you twist the Scriptures to suit your unholy opinions.
Do a concordance search on the New Testament, and find the number of
OTHER places where Jesus used the word "good" to describe something
other than God.
For example
Matt 12:
<[35] A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
< good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
< evil things.
That sentence makes no sense, if "only God is good".
By your reasoning, Jesus contradicted himself.
(Of course, neither we nor any Bible records the actual words,
presumably in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic, that Jesus actually spoke.
Perhaps He used a different word to describe God than in all those
other places that were translated to Greek and then to English, as
"good". I don't call anyone by whatever Aramaic word Jesus used that
has been translated to English as "good".)
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Firnando" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
11 Jun 2007 06:10:09 PM |
|
|
HAVE MY POSTS MADE ANTI-ISLAM TROLLS ANGRY!!
Have I now become anti-Islam trolls enemy by telling the truth? The
information I present does not always go over well with all people. I
do hope you'll take the time when reading my messages, and see if you
can understand the truth a little bit better. After all how do you
choose to react to that truth is not my concern.
Since shortly after the first message was posted readers of the
Newsgroups have been writing to me. For the most part, I am happy to
say, the email has been highly complimentary about the articles, and
not unnaturally I read such messages with great pleasure.
Several of them, however, did more than merely give a boost to my ego,
the first one sowed the seed of an idea and those which followed
caused the seed to germinate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
07 Jun 2007 10:25:28 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial.
In OUR society, "we the people" decide the standard. The judge merely
applies OUR standard to the case.
It isn't necessarily true about other societies either.
Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define good and evil.
That does not follow. Judges do not define "good and evil". They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is not allowed to BE evil,
Since when?
or the judgment is tainted.
If there is no appeal, then the judgment stands. The concept of
"tainted" simply does not apply.
Thus, God would have to be the sum of all good.
That does not follow even from all the rest. A judge who is not evil
does not have to be the sum of all good.
So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God would have it.
That does not follow, because you are playing games with the English
language. Good is not a summable quality (or quantity). "sum of all
good" is just a figure of speech".
Evil people can possess a lot of goods and still be quite evil. Good
people may possess no goods and still be good.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 08:38:45 AM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 10:25 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial.
In OUR society, "we the people" decide the standard. The judge merely
applies OUR standard to the case.
It isn't necessarily true about other societies either.
In this society and ALL societies, the judge uses the law that gave
Him the position. And, in NO society, does the judge use the law
(conscience or justification) of the one on trial.
Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define good and evil.
That does not follow. Judges do not define "good and evil". They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
Actually, that is false. Judges decide GOOD things for people to do
for public service every day, and they decide which crimes are worse
than others and are worthy greater sentences. Are you even trying
here?
However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is not allowed to BE evil,
Since when?
Now I think you are just brainlessly typing. We don't allow felons to
be judges.
or the judgment is tainted.
If there is no appeal, then the judgment stands. The concept of
"tainted" simply does not apply.
Thus, God would have to be the sum of all good.
That does not follow even from all the rest. A judge who is not evil
does not have to be the sum of all good.
So, if self-sacrifice is a good, God would have it.
That does not follow, because you are playing games with the English
language. Good is not a summable quality (or quantity). "sum of all
good" is just a figure of speech".
Evil people can possess a lot of goods and still be quite evil. Good
people may possess no goods and still be good.
lojbab
"good" people cannot. People with "good" qualities can. If you call
someone "good" you are declaring them entirely good. If God is
"good," He is, as I said, entirely good.
Ken Clifton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
08 Jun 2007 02:53:05 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:25 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial.
In OUR society, "we the people" decide the standard. The judge merely
applies OUR standard to the case.
It isn't necessarily true about other societies either.
In this society and ALL societies, the judge uses the law that gave
Him the position.
Which are OUR laws, not his.
And if he doesn't use OUR laws as his standard, but something else,
he'll be overturned on appeal, and if really egregious, he'll be
impeached and removed from office.
And, in NO society, does the judge use the law (conscience or justification) of the one on trial.
You seem to be trying to redefine the word "law". Neither
"conscience" or "justification" is "law".
But in point of fact, for several crimes and punishments in our
society, evidence of conscience (the word used is "remorse") or
however the person justifies his actions can affect whether the person
is convicted ("self-defense" and "insanity" defenses apply here), and
what the sentence will be.
Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define good and evil.
That does not follow. Judges do not define "good and evil". They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
Actually, that is false. Judges decide GOOD things for people to do
for public service every day,
No. If they assign public service, the key word is "service", not
"good". Often times the judge doesn't even decide what the community
service will be, but leaves it to some appropriate government
department.
and they decide which crimes are worse
than others and are worthy greater sentences.
The law determines that, not the judge. And the standard is not
"good" and "evil", but "lawful" and "unlawful" with a scale of
"seriousness" which may or may not have anything to do with "good and
evil".
"Worse", BTW is a term on the scale of "good and bad", not on the
scale of "good and evil". You are succumbing to the temptation to
think that idiosyncrasies of the English language reflect reality.
Are you even trying here?
Trying what? I don't need to try, in order for you to look like an
idiot. You do that by yourself. I merely am the one that articulates
the sort of thing that others merely think about, and then click the
"next" button.
However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is not allowed to BE evil,
Since when?
Now I think you are just brainlessly typing. We don't allow felons to
be judges.
"Felons" are merely people who broke the law. They did something
illegal, not necessarily something evil. The law is not inherently
good, and crime is not necessarily evil.
And there is nothing in particular that stops a convicted felon from
becoming a judge, provided that he can get nominated and confirmed.
Nor, necessarily, does a judge who is convicted of a felony have to
step down from office. That takes a separate impeachment trial.
Until convicted by an impeachment trail, a judge can be a felon and
still remain a judge (in point of fact, the few such federal judges
who have been convicted have in fact been impeached and removed, but
that is a decision of Congress and not an absolute requirement).
That does not follow, because you are playing games with the English
language. Good is not a summable quality (or quantity). "sum of all
good" is just a figure of speech".
Evil people can possess a lot of goods and still be quite evil. Good
people may possess no goods and still be good.
"good" people cannot.
Cannot what?
And who is a "good" person, under the doctrine of original sin?
People with "good" qualities can.
Can what?
If you call someone "good" you are declaring them entirely good.
*****.
I know lots of people that I call "good". I still know that every one
of them has done many bad things in their lives.
A good movie may still have some flaws.
A good meal may have a high calorie count.
The English language does not abide by your black/white distinctions.
If God is "good," He is, as I said, entirely good.
That is only your own worthless opinion. It is not inherent to the
English language word "good".
Indeed language seldom uses words as absolutes.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 07:56:13 AM |
|
|
On Jun 8, 2:53 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:25 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In every society in all history, the judge decides the standard, not
the one on trial.
In OUR society, "we the people" decide the standard. The judge merely
applies OUR standard to the case.
It isn't necessarily true about other societies either.
In this society and ALL societies, the judge uses the law that gave
Him the position.
Which are OUR laws, not his.
And if he doesn't use OUR laws as his standard, but something else,
he'll be overturned on appeal, and if really egregious, he'll be
impeached and removed from office.
BINGO. I hope you are reading your own words. If God doesn't use the
standard that makes Him a judge (His own), his decisions are
invalid.
And, in NO society, does the judge use the law (conscience or justification) of the one on trial.
You seem to be trying to redefine the word "law". Neither
"conscience" or "justification" is "law".
But in point of fact, for several crimes and punishments in our
society, evidence of conscience (the word used is "remorse") or
however the person justifies his actions can affect whether the person
is convicted ("self-defense" and "insanity" defenses apply here), and
what the sentence will be.
Just above you admitted that the judge cannot use another standard but
the laws under which he lives. Now, you say he can use the standard
of the accused. Make up your mind. So, I respond with your own
words...
"And if he doesn't use [the laws under which he is a judge] as his
standard, but something else, he'll be overturned on appeal, and if
really egregious, he'll be impeached and removed from office."
Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define good and evil.
That does not follow. Judges do not define "good and evil". They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
Actually, that is false. Judges decide GOOD things for people to do
for public service every day,
No. If they assign public service, the key word is "service", not
"good". Often times the judge doesn't even decide what the community
service will be, but leaves it to some appropriate government
department.
And....the judge would decide that good enough to qualify.
and they decide which crimes are worse
than others and are worthy greater sentences.
The law determines that, not the judge. And the standard is not
"good" and "evil", but "lawful" and "unlawful" with a scale of
"seriousness" which may or may not have anything to do with "good and
evil".
"Worse", BTW is a term on the scale of "good and bad", not on the
scale of "good and evil". You are succumbing to the temptation to
think that idiosyncrasies of the English language reflect reality.
Now you are just fictionalizing stuff again. The judge DOES decide
the penalty based upon how bad he thinks the crime to be. Do you even
live in this country?
Are you even trying here?
Trying what? I don't need to try, in order for you to look like an
idiot. You do that by yourself. I merely am the one that articulates
the sort of thing that others merely think about, and then click the
"next" button.
However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is not allowed to BE evil,
Since when?
Now I think you are just brainlessly typing. We don't allow felons to
be judges.
"Felons" are merely people who broke the law. They did something
illegal, not necessarily something evil. The law is not inherently
good, and crime is not necessarily evil.
WOW. Not only are you a terrorist supporter, but you have the
mentality of a criminal, as well. Breaking the law, according to you,
is not evil?
And there is nothing in particular that stops a convicted felon from
becoming a judge, provided that he can get nominated and confirmed.
Nor, necessarily, does a judge who is convicted of a felony have to
step down from office. That takes a separate impeachment trial.
Until convicted by an impeachment trail, a judge can be a felon and
still remain a judge (in point of fact, the few such federal judges
who have been convicted have in fact been impeached and removed, but
that is a decision of Congress and not an absolute requirement).
Fictionalizing, again. I just remembered why I stopped debating with
you, last time. When you are losing a debate, you just start making
stuff up. If you are going to live in your fantasy land and ignore
reality, what point is there to debate you? Enough said....
K.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Islam Hypocrisy? |
09 Jun 2007 10:39:27 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
In this society and ALL societies, the judge uses the law that gave
Him the position.
Which are OUR laws, not his.
And if he doesn't use OUR laws as his standard, but something else,
he'll be overturned on appeal, and if really egregious, he'll be
impeached and removed from office.
BINGO. I hope you are reading your own words. If God doesn't use the
standard that makes Him a judge (His own), his decisions are
invalid.
We can change our laws. Do you refuse to grant God the power to
change His?
And, in NO society, does the judge use the law (conscience or justification) of the one on trial.
You seem to be trying to redefine the word "law". Neither
"conscience" or "justification" is "law".
But in point of fact, for several crimes and punishments in our
society, evidence of conscience (the word used is "remorse") or
however the person justifies his actions can affect whether the person
is convicted ("self-defense" and "insanity" defenses apply here), and
what the sentence will be.
Just above you admitted that the judge cannot use another standard but
the laws under which he lives. Now, you say he can use the standard
of the accused.
No. I specifically denied that. The judge USES one standard for what
is the *law*. He also DOES take into account circumstances (which are
not standards) such as remorse and justification; he doesn't use them
as alternate standards. The recognition of circumstances and
conditions is the difference between "the law", and "justice".
Juries of course are free to actually "nullify a law", ignoring it in
a specific case, if they think that applying it will give an unjust
result. A jury that does that cannot be appealed. A judge that does
it, can.
Thus, God, as judge of all humankind, would define good and evil.
That does not follow. Judges do not define "good and evil". They
interpret "legal" and "illegal", and may strive for "justice".
Actually, that is false. Judges decide GOOD things for people to do
for public service every day,
No. If they assign public service, the key word is "service", not
"good". Often times the judge doesn't even decide what the community
service will be, but leaves it to some appropriate government
department.
And....the judge would decide that good enough to qualify.
Nope. It may or may not be up to the judge. Indeed, if the judge has
discretion, then that means that it is an area where there is no
specified law.
"Worse", BTW is a term on the scale of "good and bad", not on the
scale of "good and evil". You are succumbing to the temptation to
think that idiosyncrasies of the English language reflect reality.
Now you are just fictionalizing stuff again. The judge DOES decide
the penalty based upon how bad he thinks the crime to be. Do you even
live in this country?
At the federal level, the judge decides the penalty based on legal
sentencing standards. He decides what standards apply, based on the
legal definitions, but he does not make up the standards, and "how bad
he thinks the crime to be" is not one of those standards.
However, the judge (in all societies in all time) is not allowed to BE evil,
Since when?
Now I think you are just brainlessly typing. We don't allow felons to
be judges.
"Felons" are merely people who broke the law. They did something
illegal, not necessarily something evil. The law is not inherently
good, and crime is not necessarily evil.
WOW. Not only are you a terrorist supporter, but you have the
mentality of a criminal, as well. Breaking the law, according to you,
is not evil?
Nope. Sometimes it is indeed "good". I refer you to Mahatma Gandhi,
and the concept of civil disobedience against a bad law. Or closer to
home, the Underground Railroad prior to the Civil War. Surely you
don't think that the slave codes were "good" merely because they were
"the law".
Many laws of the Nazis were in fact evil. They were still the law,
and the German judges had to follow that law, or be subject to
penalties of the law themselves.
And there is nothing in particular that stops a convicted felon from
becoming a judge, provided that he can get nominated and confirmed.
Nor, necessarily, does a judge who is convicted of a felony have to
step down from office. That takes a separate impeachment trial.
Until convicted by an impeachment trail, a judge can be a felon and
still remain a judge (in point of fact, the few such federal judges
who have been convicted have in fact been impeached and removed, but
that is a decision of Congress and not an absolute requirement).
Fictionalizing, again.
Nope. I actually checked that one to be sure. Not many Federal
judges have been convicted, but those who were either had to
specifically resign or be impeached and removed in order to stop being
a judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_E._Claiborne
discusses one judge who was convicted of a crime in October 1984. We
was sentenced to prison and started his sentence in May 1986. He was
still a judge though, and continued to be one until impeached by the
House and removed from office by the Senate in October 1986. So he
remained a judge for 2 full years after being convicted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
discusses another such judge who was impeached and removed from
office, in that case after being acquitted by a jury even though he
was apparently guilty, because someone refused to testify. He was
then elected as a Congressman and is still serving.
At state and local levels I am pretty sure that there are cases where
a judge who has been convicted of a crime can and has remained in
office. I am even more sure that there are cases where someone who
was convicted of a crime earlier in life was many years later
appointed a judge, having "paid their debt to society".
I just remembered why I stopped debating with you, last time.
I don't debate with you. I may lecture you. You aren't worthy of
debate. I've told you this before.
When you are losing a debate, you just start making stuff up.
I don't make stuff up. I don't need to.
If you are going to live in your fantasy land and ignore reality, what point is there to debate you?
You should try saying that to yourself before every time you hit the
"post" button.
lojbab
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
