McAdam,

That was a shocking thing to do: three innocent people gone, and gone forever, and all that potential destroyed. As an atheist, I take death very seriously, as the tragic and 9rreversible end of everything for those fine young people.

The murders raise questions immediately: was he acting alone, i.e. as a lone wolf ? Was he acting in the name of any ideology ? If so, then I condemn that dreadful action, and also call into question that ideology, if it could allow such evil.

Joe

We have reached "B&W 101", which might be an appropriate place to leave it, besides which it's getting far down the list and is now in the 'One quarter back' section and most posters can't be bothered in looking for it anymore.

I have no objection to stopping here as suggested in the previous post (12 Feb 3:04 PM).

The point raised by McAdam (post 12 1:05 PM) must touch hearts.

Preaching hatred can’t promote peace. On the contrary, it must encourage the likes of Craig Stephen Hicks who took three innocent lives.

More importantly, targeting Islam for the crime of deranged Monis is as unjust and dangerous as putting Atheism on spot for the heinous act of its adherent Hicks.

Let us hope that human societies will resolve to condemn the preachers of hatred targeting ANY shade of this multi-cultural and multi-religious world.

NC/McAdam

We have already established that you think slavery, armed robbery, rape, mass murder phucking little children, and killing people for different religions opinions, are all okay because you hold the moral example of Mohammed to be unimpeachable on any ground.

Don't you?

Either that, or you criticise and condemn Mohammed as an immoral fraud.

Which one is it?

Do you affirm or deny the moral example of Mohammed?

Just answer my questions directly without evasion.

JKJ,

To give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps NC/McAdam would concede that yes, Muhammad carried out brutal invasions and mass murder, child rape, robbery, thievery, lying and torture, but that was then when such brutality was commonly accepted in many societies - but now, I'm sure, McAdam/NC would not support such barbarity, and - he would probably suggest - neither would Muhammad.

But societies and social attitudes evolve. Mostly.

So Muhammad's character is all a bit moot, with little or nothing to do with the current situation - unless, of course, someone is seeking to suggest that what was good for Muhammad then would be good for him now, and 'therefore' good for all true-believing Muslims. Then we would have the problem of bringing barbarians, kicking and squirming, into the modern world.

Joe

Joe

That wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt, because then they would still have to unequivocally renounce and reject Mohammed's moral example. They're doing the opposite. They're saying it's the best possible moral example in the history of the world.

The moral question is not what other people believe for other people in other times, it's what NC/McAdam believe for themselves in this time.

Obviously if Muslims think murder, robbery, slavery and rape are okay because other people think or thought so, then Muslims could have no objection *in principle*, they would just look around and say, well, other people are doing it, so it must be morally okay.

And obviously with that non-moral non-theory, no society would ever progress beyond the intellectual or moral standards of 7th century Bedouin bandits, which is why the Muslim world keep reverting to type, and the abolition of slavery had to be forced on them by outsiders.

Obviously to be Muslim means to genuinely not understand that anything Mohammed did can be wrong.

Otherwise NC/McAdam would just come out and say "You're right. Slavery, rape, robbery, mass murder and phucking little children are wrong and Mohammed was wrong for doing them and I condemn and renounce him for it."

But they're not doing that, are they? They know they would disgrace themselves if they came out and admitted the details of their beliefs in modern Australian society, so they squirm and writhe and twist and gloze and evade and lie and misrepresent, and try to drive the discussion into the irrelevance of wrongs by others, which is all they've done this entire thread.

BTW, the idea that tuch abuses were "commonly accepted in many societies" is not true, for obvious reasons. Only a complete moral imbecile would make the argument that NC and McAdam are making; and the problem is precisely that we are trying to work out how any Muslim can avoid the same premises. NC/McAdam's reply couldn't be more damning.