Yahweh is immoral

[ppp]

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

That's okay. I'll pass. Explaining how one would go about doing a thing is a method, not a story.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Who did the Canaanites worship?

 

[Sheldon]

..so if money is an "abstract concept", why is it that people spend so much time in obtaining it?

Obviously because abstract concepts that are shared, can be useful, but the wealth of money exists in only the mind, obviously, if no one accepted the concept how much of that abstract value would remain?

Of course usury is real. People will look for the "best deal" when it comes to borrowing and lending.

I don't think you understand the terms abstract and real here, usury is an abstract concept, though it has a real effect obviously, since most people recognise that abstract concepts like money, credit and usury are useful.

The capitalist system relies on manipulating "the cost of money" to control inflation.

What's your point? Should they let inflation go unchecked? You do understand that a system can be imperfect but still be useful right? Wanting to improve it or even replace it with something better is perhaps laudable, but blindly suggesting we destroy it without any viable alternative, or any consideration for the disastrous outcome is insane.

It is relentless. It punishes those who can least afford to be punished.

Indeed, but creating even more misery is not a solution. You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. If you want to make sweeping claims about economics, I suggest you learn a little about it, rather than basing it on blind adherence to archaic superstition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

No, it wouldn't.
..any more than our modern secular state is today.
It seems that many people are happy with democracy when the majority agree with them .. but when this is not the case, they don't accept it and behave badly.
That's what I call hypocrisy.

 

[Sheldon]

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

So the value of money is abstract then, you just admitted as much. Even the value of gold is abstract, not real, the gold is real, just like a note or coin is real, but money is not, it is abstract. What's odd is you argue against this, but have had more than enough time now to research the idea, and learn that you are getting this wrong.

Try this, you're in a desert, there are a group of people, and one billionaire, has his money piled up right there it is real you can touch it, There is only enough water for one person to walk out of there alive.

How much is his money worth know? If it's value is real, and not abstract then it must retain that value yes? Would you swap the water for it? I'm guessing not, since it would have no "real" value in this scenario, even to buy the only things that had a real value, the water for example. The minute the abstract value we attach to money disappears, it is worthless.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..blindly suggesting we destroy it without any viable alternative, or any consideration for the disastrous outcome is insane..

You keep saying that, but I'm not suggesting destroying anything.
That is purely your assumption.
Reform is what I suggest, rather than further deregulation.

The main reason why this is not happening is due to the nature of cities like London or New York. They thrive on attracting so-called investment from overseas .. so much so, that 'dirty money' is being laundered and the property market seriously inflated.

 

[Sheldon]

You keep saying that, but I'm not suggesting destroying anything.
That is purely your assumption.
Reform is what I suggest, rather than further deregulation.

Now that is simply not true, you said unequivocally you wanted to end usury, I asked you what alternative you would replace capitalism with, and didn't have anything, still don't. It was I who asserted controlling the rate of usury was a more realistic idea, and you dismissed it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So the value of money is abstract then, you just admitted as much.

No.

abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

If it's value is real, and not abstract then it must retain that value yes?

You must be using abstract in a different way from me.
I don't see the point in your argument.
It is real. It is a part of all our lives.

Of course the value can rise and fall. That doesn't mean it is abstract.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I asked you what alternative you would replace capitalism with, and didn't have anything, still don't..

That's right.
You advocate a system based on usury, whereas I do not.
I never said anything about how it can be realised. You assume that Muslims are all extremists, while we are not.

 

[Sheldon]

So the value of money is abstract then, you just admitted as much.

No.

Of course you did, here:

We all know that currencies are propped up by political manipulation.

 

[Sheldon]

You keep saying that, but I'm not suggesting destroying anything.

you said unequivocally you wanted to end usury,.

That's right.

You assume that Muslims are all extremists, while we are not.

What on earth are you blathering about?

 

[Sheldon]

I don't see the point in your argument.

Yes I see that.

You must be using abstract in a different way from me.

If the value of money is real, could you spend it when someone refuses to believe it has value? If you took money into a rain forest to some secluded tribe, would they see its value? Of course not, because it is an abstract idea, and they would not understand that idea.

 

[ppp]

No, it wouldn't.

I have read your posts on the male abortion thread, as well as others. I do not believe you.

Which, I guess. ends the discussion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have read your posts on the male abortion thread..

I have not made any, as far as I'm aware.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes I see that..

Well? What is the point?

 

[muhammad_isa]

@Sheldon

You misquoted me in post #311

you: .I asked you what alternative you would replace capitalism with, and didn't have anything, still don't..
me: that's right

AND NOT

you: you said unequivocally you wanted to end usury
me: that's right

 

[Sheldon]

Well? What is the point?

That money is an abstract concept, we believe it has value so it does, but the value is not real, so if we stop believing it has value, its value stops existing, ipso facto it existed in our minds only.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That money is an abstract concept, we believe it has value so it does, but the value is not real, so if we stop believing it has value, its value stops existing, ipso facto it existed in our minds only.

What nonsense.

I doubt very much whether billionaires consider their money has no value. I'm sure they spend it copiously.

It seems to me that you just want to divert the subject matter,
mumbling on about money being worthless etc.

 

[ppp]

What nonsense.

I doubt very much whether billionaires consider their money has no value. I'm sure they spend it copiously.

It seems to me that you just want to divert the subject matter,
mumbling on about money being worthless etc.

He did not save money was worthless. He said that money only has value because we believe it does. Which is why billionaires spend so much time trying to raise confidence in the market.

 

[muhammad_isa]

He said that money only has value because we believe it does..

It's more than that.
I explained how bank notes started.
Credit and electronic money exceeds the use of cash in many places in the west today.
It is no different. It is a medium of exchange.

If certain people want to say that money is abstract, then substitute the word "wealth". It is just that these "certain people" are being pedantic as they dislike the truth of what I am saying.

I am only saying what all of the prophets in the Bible and Qur'an have always taught. It is not my own original material.
..and many people have always denied it.
Mankind is violent in his love of wealth .. it is not difficult to understand.
Being very rich, or very poor encourages corruption.
G-d shows how we can prevent this in the guidance for sincere believers.

Civilisations rise and fall, as does people's faith and subsequent righteousness.