Well, the thread seems to have gone viral. As for Kant's philosophy of "would this make a good maxim?", in my view this falls down due the problem that we face specific problems in the real world. If (OK, it's hypothetical) someone was shooting others "at random" I would feel no guilt in shooting him (although in the real world I wouldn't have a gun). Hence, I don't believe in an objective morality.
There are maxims that work fairly well in practice and are "pretty moral" in that they are similar to the golden rule (do unto others as you would be done by), but avoid becoming made into a sucker. For example, using the maxim of Tit-for-Tat you aim to treat others with the respect you expect for yourself as long as they behave in a similar fashion. If they behave badly towards you, you react, but without escalating. However, what this means is not always clear. I tend to keep those I see as acting badly at a distance, rather than punishing in any way and only interfere if they are hurting somebody else (at least in my idealised approach).
Well, if there's one thing the Pew polls show, it's that Muslims who "support Shariah law" interpret Shariah in various ways. I don't see any problem in your interpretation. I don't see any problems in the interpretations of five pillars of Islam that I've heard (belief in Allah, prayer, pilgrimage, charity - I know that is only 4, but I won't pretend by looking the other one up Ramadam, maybe the equivalent of the Sabbath??).
I don't have any problem with people believing in god, just what they do with that belief. In the same way I (obviously) don't have problems with people not believing in god, just what they do with that.
The reference to Numbers may have been an attack, but in this case definitely not on your views. I am fully aware what you have written on the OT (and the breadth of views of Christians on this). Similarly, we're quite a heterogeneous bunch. Part of the argument (although somewhat frivolous) was that you shouldn't equate Christianity with a literal interpretation of the bible.
There are maxims that work fairly well in practice and are "pretty moral" in that they are similar to the golden rule (do unto others as you would be done by), but avoid becoming made into a sucker. For example, using the maxim of Tit-for-Tat you aim to treat others with the respect you expect for yourself as long as they behave in a similar fashion. If they behave badly towards you, you react, but without escalating. However, what this means is not always clear. I tend to keep those I see as acting badly at a distance, rather than punishing in any way and only interfere if they are hurting somebody else (at least in my idealised approach).
Echoes said:So since I'm not sure there are Muslim posters on these boards, I'll have to clarify this.
What is the sharî'ah? Sharî'ah means the "way", the "road". For Muslims, the objective of it is protecting our body, soul and our reason/mind. Protecting our health, in a way.
I don't see any problem with it.
Well, if there's one thing the Pew polls show, it's that Muslims who "support Shariah law" interpret Shariah in various ways. I don't see any problem in your interpretation. I don't see any problems in the interpretations of five pillars of Islam that I've heard (belief in Allah, prayer, pilgrimage, charity - I know that is only 4, but I won't pretend by looking the other one up Ramadam, maybe the equivalent of the Sabbath??).
I don't have any problem with people believing in god, just what they do with that belief. In the same way I (obviously) don't have problems with people not believing in god, just what they do with that.
Echoes said:I love it how atheists always resort to the OT in order to bash Christians. They really can't realise that Christians believe in the Gospel, not in the OT.
The reference to Numbers may have been an attack, but in this case definitely not on your views. I am fully aware what you have written on the OT (and the breadth of views of Christians on this). Similarly, we're quite a heterogeneous bunch. Part of the argument (although somewhat frivolous) was that you shouldn't equate Christianity with a literal interpretation of the bible.