Paris Attacks

[Droogs]

It is the exact same basis as your moral compass, Mathew 7:12. The fundemental moral compass of the Christian religion. Only expressed in the manner in which I see it. Or to put it another way, through self realisation rather than selfishness that in order to co-exist with other people you must recognise that selfishness conveys the idea that indiviual interests are expressed through the individual alone, that they would and do exist independently of society, and that social interest comprise an aggregate of individual interests. Whereas self realisation is the recognition that individual interest can be expressed only through society, that one only comes to realize what one's interests are in relation to others and that while individual interests may well conflict with those of society, they cannot exist indendently of them. Just as we have to remember that before the concept of private property there was not right and wrong, this moral idea only emerges as society and civilization does, in order to allow people to co exist and function, hopefully to the betterment of all

to paraphrase Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

[gregmcateer]

That's just personal preference and everybody's is different so doesn't work. What I really meant was an objective moral standard

I'm not too good at expressing thoughts, but these murdering b*&^%$"$ and their leaders probably think they DO have an objective moral standard. Unfortunately, so do the leaders of all the big religions. We all have a moral standard, yet I don't think any of us can be truly objective - we are all the sum of our biological and environmental parts. This thread is a good example - each has a valid view, some overlap, some coincide and some will be diametrically opposed.

I don't know enough about any other religion than that with which i was raised and that is open to massive interpretation variations on so many fronts. Just a few examples where the 'fundamentalist' Christians are deeply opposed to 'liberal' Christians;

Creationism vs Evolution
Forgiveness vs Retribution / Punishment
Literalism vs symbolism

Tricky, ain't it?

 

[Flynnwood]

If you want to tune right into morality, Chapter 13 of Lila by Robert Pirsig.

I tried to fault it ('LILA' in general ... for a long time).

I couldn't.

A snip:

"Although the four systems [i.e., the inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual] are exhaustive, they are not exclusive. They all operate at the same time and in ways that are almost independent of each other.

This classification of patterns is not very original, but the Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not continuous. They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes."

Things can be discrete and still have relations with other things. A child is discrete from his parents even though he has emerged from them, and that is the case with the levels of static quality patterns. One can argue that “discrete” means “completely separate and unconnected” but nothing in this world is completely separate and unconnected and so this definition of “discrete” makes it an empty term. I could have said the levels are “distinct” but that’s too weak. Everybody knows they’re distinct."

End of quote.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"For the many atheists saying how wrong these killings are, what moral standard do you look too to declare anything right or wrong? " - Murdoch

I grew up in a village which was divided, one half were religious and the other not. I think my family were the only exception, we were not not religious but we lived on the religious side. In all the years I lived there in all the disasters and catastrophes that befell people never once did I see anyone helped in any way by anyone from the religious side, it was always a heathen. The religious were to busy going to chapel three times a Sunday or else too worried they might get their clothes dirty. The belief that christians have a monopoly on morals rings a little hollow with me (and some of the muslims in this Country certainly don't have any).

 

[murdoch]

There are so many religious people who are grumpy and judge others, it is a real embarrassment. A real christian should be the first to help, give and have compassion for others.

Christians believe that all people are made in the image of God and are of huge value and worth and we should always view others as equals. As has been said, one of the golden rules as Jesus said was to love your neighbour so christians who don't help others are hypocrites.

However, up and down the country there are thousands of churches which are doing huge amount to help in every area of life. The church should be seen as a place where anybody can come for help, support, shelter, finance, advice, protection ect. It's a shame that many are seen as religious cults which close there doors to outsiders. This is not the biblical pattern of how a christian or church should be and I apologise for those that are.

 

[artie]

I don't think morals or ethics are synonymous with religion. I was raised with a strict, when it suited him, Christian Father. He read the Bible aloud practically every day, but never seemed to remember or benefit from what he read. To my knowledge he never committed a serious crime but he was deceitful and told petty lies. I would have liked him better had he either omitted the preaching or the deceit.

I remember needing to use a phone one Sunday night, I approached a house and asked the man if I could use the phone. No No he said "We are going out to church"

Not major things but enough, with many other incidents, to make me question if religion is all it cracked up to be.

 

[Kalimna]

One wonders how anybody who follows an abrahamic God can, without humour or irony, considers the contents of their preferred book (for instance the bible, old or new) to be an appropriate pole for their own moral compass. It is, furthermore, rather sad that people feel it is necessary to be told how to behave by readings from an ancient text instead of working it out for themselves.

I wonder how the victims, and their families and friends, would feel about the plethora of prayers being offered in their name following yet another horrific attack (this latest in Paris merely the most reported of recent years), that has a wholly religious basis.

Damn them all to the imaginary hell they believe in.

Adam S

 

[Droogs]

Well it would seem that France has decided to show its feelings about the attack and pretty swiftly too. Let's hope they have enough ammo to hit every inch of soil occupied by one of these pieces of S***

 

[artie]

Well it would seem that France has decided to show its feelings about the attack and pretty swiftly too. Let's hope they have enough ammo to hit every inch of soil occupied by one of these pieces of S***

Thing is,

It can be almost guaranteed that the people hurt by the French are not the people who hurt them.

And is an eye for an eye ever justified.

 

[rafezetter]

I have said on an Anglo/French forum I'm on that the only way to stop these stupid idiots is for their own religious people to say enough is enough and then if it continuous for them to come down with a very very heavy hand on the morons!

There used to be a muslim living in the house here, nice family guy, devout muslim - did all the prayers, even the late night ones etc.

the subject came up once about the extremists and I asked him how he felt about these people and what they were purpetrating in Islams name to which he replied "what do I care? they are not attacking us, it's your problem".

I know there is a group called "not in my name" but they are few and there are likely many more who because they are not the targets, don't give a damn.

 

[monkeybiter]

It just goes to show that idiots can be of any faith, or without; by living on the surface of the earth he is vulnerable to the indiscriminate tactics of the gang of warmongering murderers who are hiding behind a perverted account of this particular religion. People are people, there's good'uns and bad'uns, there's those with religion and those without. There doesn't have to be a correlation.

 

[Zeddedhed]

It just goes to show that idiots can be of any faith, or without; by living on the surface of the earth he is vulnerable to the indiscriminate tactics of the gang of warmongering murderers who are hiding behind a perverted account of this particular religion. People are people, there's good'uns and bad'uns, there's those with religion and those without. There doesn't have to be a correlation.

Couldn't agree more.

I grew up in a Christian family, which I have to say was OK. I have my own faith, although it largely centres around the teachings of the New testament, sermon on the Mount etc, and I keep a healthy distance from most manifestations of organised Christianity such as Church.

in my time I've met some who align themselves with Christianity who are utter Bas*ards, and others who are truly selfless caring people. But then again, I've met equally as many Bas*ards and selfless types who have no interest in any kind of spirituality or belief system.

My faith doesn't define me. My relationships with and behaviour towards others does.

That said the scum who committed the attacks in Paris and who revel in the be-heading and mutilation of innocents should be wiped out. To a man.
(I know that's at odds with having a christian faith, but I'm a person not a saint)

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Is an eye for an eye justified? I wonder if the only way we'll ever get on top of this is to blow several thousand square miles of the middle East off the face of the earth. I bet the French pilots thought that last night.

 

[Racers]

Interesting paper on religiously raised children.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf ... 1167-7.pdf

Pete

 

[artie]

Peter Hitchens's Mail On Sunday column

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... think.html

 

[lurker]

I can only guess, but I think a practicing Muslim must be pretty p ed off with this scum being described as muslim terrorists.
When much the same thing ( and it WAS very similar) was happening in Northern Ireland you did not hear about Christian terrorists.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"She regretted the concentration of resources on revenge rather than on protecting our citizens and helping the vulnerable." Diane Foley in that article.
I think sometimes there's a good case for getting your retaliation in first, though.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

This is quite a succinct, informed and enlightening article from the Telegraph, written by the former Pakistani ambasador to the USA (for those who would not normally read the Telegraph, don't worry; there's no political slant that I can determine).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... isers.html

In summary - there has been a debate within Islam for about the last 200 years between those who take a pragmatic and pluralistic line on the modern world and engage with it, and a minority who take a very literal interpretation of some parts of the Quran and would enforce Islam on everybody. Until that essentially theological argument is resolved, we will continue to see problems.

 

[JakeS]

One thing is for certain and that is that there are very very very few Christians who are going around killing and maiming in the name of their God.

Not many. They did all that a few hundred years ago. Torture, burning, death. Countless thousands. None of it pleasant.

A few hundred...? I seem to recall the IRA blowing people up in the street as recently as - what, fifteen to twenty years ago? If you want to look at the problems stemming from the middle east so simplistically as to call them a religiously-motivated problem, then you should also look at the problems in Northern Ireland equally simplistically and call them a Catholics-versus-Protestants fight. We're not - as a people - in any way special or magically morally superior.

Religion is used as the excuse for a lot of wars, but in reality it's very rarely the actual reason people fight. People who start wars care about power, territory and resources... and rarely anything else. (People who fight wars will sometimes fight them for religious reasons, of course, but they're not the ones who decide who fights whom and when.)

The most interesting article I've seen recently on the topic was written in 2001 in response to the 9/11 attacks (no idea why it's on LinkedIn in particular):

Why They Hate Us - Cass Sunstein

The point it makes is, I think, very important. If we want to end the seemingly-continuous threat of middle-eastern Islamist terrorism, we have to take a long, hard look at why people embrace such a perverse ideology in the first place. Fight the extremists there and you'll never have to fight them with bombs and guns and you'll never have to fight them on the streets of our major cities. For anyone who's been following the various incidents of campus unrest in the US that are starting to infect British universities, you can see exactly the same psychological groupthink taking root in those populations, just with differing goals and justifications.

Like the problem in Northern Ireland, however, the roots of everything in the middle east go back a long way and aren't easily disentangled. Plenty of cases of people X who hate people Y because Y's grandparents stole something from X's grandparents, regardless of whether the present Y ever did anything wrong. Look at the cack-handed slicing up of Kurdistan for a really obvious example - I read just the other day that the Turks today are bombing the Kurds more than ISIS, despite the psychopaths of ISIS being literally right on their doorstep and having a published plan to invade and take over Turkey, thanks to this century-old disagreement that has the Turks bizarrely seeing the Kurds as more of a long-term threat.

Not to say that we shouldn't bomb the faeces out of ISIS - just to say that we should recognise while we're doing it that it's only a short-term solution at best. In the long term, the only proven, repeatable method of getting rid of terrorism is sitting down at the negotiating table with it - however much our maxims like to pretend we don't do that sort of thing.

 

[RogerS]

Well it would seem that France has decided to show its feelings about the attack and pretty swiftly too. Let's hope they have enough ammo to hit every inch of soil occupied by one of these pieces of S***

Thing is,

It can be almost guaranteed that the people hurt by the French are not the people who hurt them.

And is an eye for an eye ever justified.

So what would you propose? Do nothing ? Invite ISIS round for a nice chat and a cup of tea ?