Yahweh is immoral

[Sheldon]

No. I never said that I wanted to do anything. That is your fear.

Yes you did, that is your dishonesty.

 

[Sheldon]

That is your fear.
You don't like what Islam stands for, so you strongly oppose it, and attempt to tar all Muslims with the same brush, accusing them of extremism.

Oh I think it is clear that is YOUR fear, not mine. Again, I am happy for anyone to read what has been posted, and see your prejudice and dishonesty for what it is here.

 

[Sheldon]

I oppose usury. It is corrupt and is a major sin.

Usury is an abstract concept, your superstitious beliefs are irrelevant to both the concept and its influence.

 

[Sheldon]

The prophet Muhammad reported to have said that it is equivalent to committing adultery with your mother many times.

Well he would know, given history has recorded him as a vile paedophile.

 

[Sheldon]

I have looked into Islamic economics and have a fairly good understanding.
I do not propose to go into detail with you here..

I know you are wrong, "but do not propose to go into detail with you here"...

 

[Sheldon]

You can prod and goad as much as you like. I won't discuss things with people who are being rude.

It appears you will, and are being less than truthful.

 

[Sheldon]

Right, then one shouldn't be in such a hurry then. But doing nothing is not an option.

Seriously, what is it with religious apologists and putting full stops in the middle of sentences, then starting a new sentence with the words. But or, And?

It's just bizarre...

Like the extra...

line breaks they put in

As if this makes their point somehow more credible. But

it doesn't....

 

[ppp]

I refer it to God.

How do you decide what god said you should decide?

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do you decide what god said you should decide?

It’s a long story. I don’t want to bore you.

 

[joelr]

You previous answer already dictated that you are not into real dialogue...

Maybe on another subject we can interact in as much as this subject is mute between the two of us.

Regarding this subject you are demonstrable incorrect. I demonstrated some sources saying that the child sacrifice claim regarding the Canaannites is not valid. The historicity and archaeology provides no evidence that they used child sacrifice as a religious practice.
Although since it states in scripture that the Canaanites are abominable for practicing this it's worth questioning why Yahweh would do something like destroy a city of 70,000 people, including innocent children when there are clear obvious alternatives? Condemning Canaanites for child sacrifice is good (except they probably didn't do that ) but then killing entire cities needlessly is terrible.

My previous answer asked direct questions about how religious believers justify immoral behavior. You gave an answer that didn't make sense in any way. If someone took your family from a war torn city as plunder would your question not be "why couldn't you just take them as people?".

So you have no answers to this issue. Ok.

 

[joelr]

Listen, we cannot make decisions for others, especially those who live elsewhere.

Right so how does that help your point?

Thus, if people starved, that would not be our choice but theirs, plus we could make promises to help them once the leadership surrendered. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't believe in killing thousands of innocent civilians when it could possibly have been avoided.

The Japanese would rather die than surrender. Many civilians committed suicide when they realized we had taken the last islands. They considered surrender to be a horrific death of rape, slavery and torture.
So they would have starved to death. While you sit around going "hey, that's their choice man..."
They were taught that since childhood and also told anything we say on air or drop as a message is a lie to lure them in.
But the military class would be fine, they would eat all the fish and build a new navy. Get the whole war started right from scratch. I wonder if you were up for draft at that time how you would feel?

If you can, then you're not the kind of person I ever want to associate with for any reason.

Yeah, while you sit around in comfort eating food and knowing everything while the enemy commits slow suicide by starvation because of our blockade you don't need worry about seeing me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Usury is an abstract concept..

..so if money is an "abstract concept", why is it that people spend so much time in obtaining it?
Of course usury is real. People will look for the "best deal" when it comes to borrowing and lending.
The capitalist system relies on manipulating "the cost of money" to control inflation. It is relentless. It punishes those who can least afford to be punished.

 

[metis]

Yeah, while you sit around in comfort eating food and knowing everything while the enemy commits slow suicide by starvation because of our blockade you don't need worry about seeing me.

Who made you "prophet"?

 

[ppp]

..so if money is an "abstract concept", why is it that people spend so much time in obtaining it?
Of course usury is real. People will look for the "best deal" when it comes to borrowing and lending.
The capitalist system relies on manipulating "the cost of money" to control inflation. It is relentless. It punishes those who can least afford to be punished.

If money were not an abstract concept how does the spending power of a dollar change? What is the concrete object to which its value is tied?

 

[muhammad_isa]

If money were not an abstract concept how does the spending power of a dollar change? What is the concrete object to which its value is tied?

We all know that currencies are propped up by political manipulation.
Gone are the days that major currencies are linked with gold.

 

[ppp]

We all know that currencies are propped up by political manipulation.
Gone are the days that major currencies are linked with gold.

They always have been. Even when gold was the basis for the currency. The buying power of gold has fluctuated wildly in all the ancient economies. As did other forms of hard currency. Both from political manipulation and from individuals taking advantage of situations. Money is not tied to anything objectively real. Is a function of our perceptions and our agreements on how we conduct trade.

I'm not sure why you say interest is wrong. If I let someone keep my money for safekeeping, then there's only two choices. Choices. Either I have to pay them to keep it, or I allow them to use it to make more money. Money. If I do the first then I lose some of my money every rental period. If I do the second then they are using my money to make them money. Which is fine. But the way to get me to go with bank A over a bank B is to cut me in on the action. If I go with bank A and they are willing to pay me to let them use my money for investments then It works out for both of us. It's also helpful for me to be able to go to bank A and borrow money so that I can expand my business.
Can you articulate why any of those specific actions is wrong? And what exactly makes it wrong?

 

[muhammad_isa]

They always have been..

That is not entirely true.
Money began with coinage that reflected its value. Notes did not exist. Neither did computers and credit cards.

I'm not sure why you say interest is wrong. If I let someone keep my money for safekeeping, then there's only two choices. Choices. Either I have to pay them to keep it, or I allow them to use it to make more money.

Banknotes started out as deposits with goldsmiths. At first the promissary notes were named as the depositer, but they soon realised that making them unnamed meant that they could print these receipts without even anybody making a deposit.
"I promise to pay the bearer on demand"
Hmm

Eventually, these early "bank notes" were banned, and the same activity confined to govt. issue only.
i.e. central banks

Do ya ken?

Money. If I do the first then I lose some of my money every rental period. If I do the second then they are using my money to make them money. Which is fine. But the way to get me to go with bank A over a bank B is to cut me in on the action. If I go with bank A and they are willing to pay me to let them use my money for investments then It works out for both of us.

Oh yeah?
..and what happens when banks fail?
The politicians say that "we will all pay" .. but that never happens .. those that have, have .. and those that haven't suffer in recession.

It's also helpful for me to be able to go to bank A and borrow money so that I can expand my business.
Can you articulate why any of those specific actions is wrong? And what exactly makes it wrong?

If you want to raise a loan for business, then make a non-usurios loan .. such as a profit-sharing scheme.

Check out the 2008 banking crisis. It's a bit like pyramid selling .. passing on debt to others etc. until suddenly we are left "holding the baby"

 

[ppp]

That is not entirely true.
Money began with coinage that reflected its value. Notes did not exist. Neither did computers and credit cards.

I was talking about physical coins. Was that not clear when I said ancient economies? They didn't have computers in ancient Greece, you know?

Also, I am pretty sure that money did not begin with coinage in most places. I know that Angel Mesopotamia was a credit system where you would bring goods to the temple and the temple would give you a tablet marking how much you brought. And you could redeem it as a later time for other things that other people brought to the temple And I'm pretty sure that China started off with cowry shells as currency.

But none of those items, including gold, has any value other than what we assign to it. And our evaluation of things basically comes down to. Can I eat it, can I have sex with it, will it help my tribe's safety, or is it shiny? From that's all value is derived. Including, but not limited to, money, altruism, self-sacrifice, and noble goals.

Oh yeah?
..and what happens when banks fail?

Then the economy collapses. There's a time of strife and then a new economy emerges from a new society.

The politicians say that "we will all pay" .. but that never happens .. those that have, have .. and those that haven't suffer in recession.

You are basically saying that some people will try to use other people to get what they want but not deliver on what they promised. Do you have a way to structure society where that never happens?
What is that social structure?

If you want to raise a loan for business, then make a non-usurios loan .. such as a profit-sharing scheme.

I am perfectly aware that such things are possible. It is the economy of childhood. Not to say it's childish. I'm just saying that children, not having ready access to money, pool resources to accomplish goals. And yes, I can agree that societies can work on that principle. I just have my doubts as to whether large societies can. Or for that matter, trade between societies. At least not trade between free and equal societies.

Also, I have to point out that just changing our economy system does not address the actual problem that you're trying to deal with. And that is the fact that there will be corruption in the political, economic and cultural systems. Simply getting rid of interest will not fix that. It will just result in the same problem under a different economic system.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Also, I have to point out that just changing our economy system does not address the actual problem that you're trying to deal with. And that is the fact that there will be corruption in the political, economic and cultural systems. Simply getting rid of interest will not fix that. It will just result in the same problem under a different economic system.

I am well aware that forcing people to believe something cannot change a nation.
If the people of a nation acknowledge that lewd behaviour is not acceptable, then progress will be made.

That is how democracy works.
True democracy is not one group of people bullying another.
Sadly, that is what tends to happen. Evil cannot be eliminated unless the majority want it to.

The best King of England was Alfred the Great [ 9th. century]. He outlawed usury, and was a pious Christian.

 

[ppp]

Thanks for acknowledging my points regarding the origin of currency. You are a real mensch.

I am well aware that forcing people to believe something cannot change a nation.
If the people of a nation acknowledge that lewd behaviour is not acceptable, then progress will be made.

I am well aware that forcing people to believe something cannot change a nation.
If the people of a nation acknowledge that lewd behaviour is not acceptable, then progress will be made.

Lewdness is about sex. We were talking about money. You just took a hard left turn and lost me.

That is how democracy works.
True democracy is not one group of people bullying another.
Sadly, that is what tends to happen. Evil cannot be eliminated unless the majority want it to.

Sure, but you push for laws and standards that I consider to be wretchedly immoral. Not the least of which is that your wish to impose your sexual mores on other people. If such laws were put into effect, it would necessarily be a fascist* state. I would put all my resources into the rebellion.

The best King of England was Alfred the Great [ 9th. century]. He outlawed usury, and was a pious Christian.

I am sure that those thing mean something to you. He wasn't bad for his time and place.

*Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.