₦airaland Forum

donjazet1:
Fine, can I call him a child fvcker? Is it blasphemy?

Yes some Muslims can perceive that as blasphemy as well.

donjazet1:
This one which amoto reported me for?

We already agreed yesterday calling Muhammad a pedophile and a rapist is your own way of mocking Islam when he was none of those things according to the norms of his time. So yes some Muslims will term that blasphemy.

donjazet1:
Kholiwe, you never answered my question about this blasphemy ish? I'm waiting please.

I didn't see any question.

A001:
You said earlier you're a Christian. You said so yourself; I didn't put words in your mouth.

Hence, I responded to your posts based on your religion (I know that's where your beliefs stem from) and the points you put forward in your posts.

I never brought the religion angle into it so you had no reason to bring it in. You were not objective as a learned person would and should have done.

A001:
Lols. You're a religious person, and I know you people's reasoning is always controlled by the content of a book, even when the reality of things contradicts your beliefs.

Abeg enough of religious discussion for me, just hold onto your beliefs while I hold onto reason.

Attack the things I write down in my post to you not what I didn't write down. I never mentioned religion or refered to any religious books when we were discussing rights, wrong, Good/bad and morality.

A001:
Thanks for showing me a reasonable person can't trust your religious text since it's the handiwork of man (human reason). It didn't drop from heaven.

You keep talking about religion this and that where as all my posts are centered on society definition of right, wrong Morality etc in general without even bringing religion into it. The only thing in that big head of yours is religion.

A001:
If you can't trust human reason, then how did you conclude rape, slavery weren't condemned in the past?

If human reason can't be trusted, then nothing you say as a human can be trusted.

It's basically written all over history. Keep up and stop carrying me backwards. Human reasoning is flawed and you already agreed to it. Everything at our disposal to scientifically understand reality is heuristics (theories, models, experiments, studies), which by their nature can never be 100% correct. So in terms of factual understanding of the world all we humans can do is try to use the scientific or other methods to converge to a universal understanding of reality as much as possible, but we will never, ever achieve a universal understanding. This is the human condition and what the Socratic paradox is all about.

A001:
You asked me what makes me the judge of good acts even after I said right and wrong are subjective; yet you said "Killing an enemy is right".

What makes you the judge of that?

Any sane person knows what's right and wrong.

The bold is nonsense. Who and what determines what's right and wrong if not society? Most people perceive acts of right and wrong by following a pre established set of moral guidelines. Who instilled these guidelines and set these rules for valuation of human actions into place? Any concept such as good, bad, right and wrong can ultimately be boiled down to fabrications of the human mind. All such concepts are relative to individual perception.

A001:
Yes, that's true.

Since you agree Human reason is limited, fallible, and conjectural then you agree it cannot be trusted as well.

A001:
Moral relativism won't make rape, child marriage, slavery, ritual killing good acts.

Just onto your beliefs while I hold onto reason and my philosophy.

But be careful about what you advocate so that the evil you condone today doesn't come back to haunt you in the future.

What makes you the judge of good acts? There's no such thing as objective "right" or "wrong", just people's opinions. Right and wrong is purely subjective. Killing an enemy is right, but wrong if you are that enemy.

Rape and murder is only wrong, objectively now, because it clearly doesn’t work in the kind of society we are trying to live in. That is why, and the only why. The society determine what is wrong or right. Even rape and murder have not been considered wrong by all societies throughout all history. In many periods these were completely acceptable activities depending on who the victim was. All morality and ethics, which define "right" and "wrong," are human-made and vary by group, culture, time, and place.

A001:
Ordered by God . That's the main problem. And it's sad, people still have this caveman mentality in modern times.

Reason should supersede following so-called God's orders.

Human reason is limited, fallible, and conjectural.

A001:
Legal where? Specify the actual place. The world is wide, not a small village.

Any god of religion started as a local god, whether it's Allah or Jehovah. And even though they're more popular these days due to colonialism, wars, invasions, trading, they're still local gods.

All those things you listed previously were legal and general accepted as the Norm/right thing to do in those communities and societies true or false?

A001:
It's reality. You don't have to agree with it.

I'm sure tomorrow when certain events happen that don't augur well for your religion or interests, you'll adopt another standard to justify your desires.

A religionist like you has different standards for analysing issues, and your self-interest is what determines the particular standard you choose at any point in time, not the truth or advocating what's right.

Hypocritical should be a synonym for religious.

There's no realty involved in any of your post. Reality is accepting the fact that what is right and wrong is determined by the Society in which one lives in. Nothing is generally bad or good. Go and read more about moral relativism

A001:
You're generalizing to suit your narrative. Religious people are wont to twisting historical facts to suit their parochial agenda.

Those things were practically legal during those days. Like I said before it's Society that determines what's wrong or right. Hundred of years from now what was seen as right can be regarded as wrong and vice versa.

A001:
There has never been a point in history where all the cultures in the world agreed on a universal standard for what is right and what is wrong.

Right and wrong are always subjective and relative with different perspectives going from one culture, species, country, or the other.

And as human species (who are sentient and civilized), child marriage and rape are evil. We, as humans, are endowed with higher intellect compared with lesser animals, and as a species, our needs are identical.

Hence, even though good and bad are relative and subjective; an average human (regardless of race, age or gender) would frown at an act that has adverse effects on their health and well-being and appreciate a deed that impacts their life positively. .

Since you agreed their is no universal agreement on what is right and wrong then you can't call anything Evil. Evil is a man made concept that can change over time as well. At the bold that's your personal opinion which I don't agree with.

A001:
Yes, morality is a human invention, but religion is as well.

But you, religious people, don't want to accept the simple fact that your religion (just all aspects or concepts humans use or practice every day) is man-made.

There's nothing divine in or about life.

Like I said in the morning, acts like rape, child marriage, stealing, slavery were as bad in ancient times as they're in modern times.

It's Society that determines what is bad and Good or right. Back then those things you listed were not regarded as bad to those societies.

A001:
Even if an anti-human or barbaric act is legal or lawful (based on certain religious laws), that doesn't make it right or good.

.

It's Society that determines what is good and right from bad. Morality is an human invention.

patrickmuf:
Times change and with it, what is considered right or wrong...

Correct on all counts. Morality cannot be independent of anyone's thoughts. It is a human invention and not some law of nature. Humans have evolved and this evolution has led to redefining what is good and what is bad. Absolute moral cannot exist since as I have stated before, circumstances change how a person will act.

A001:
I thought you were a Muslim. Am I wrong? If you're not a Muslim, most likely you'd be a Christian.

It's Muslims and Christians that reason the way you do, always keen about promoting the foreign culture(s) and denigrating the local ones.

I am a christian and I don't understand anything you are typing or how it relates to my points about Muhammad.

A001:
But you and your fellow Muslims

You and your fellow what?

donjazet:
this is ridiculous. This is just like saying we shouldn't call slave traders slave traders, we should call them chattel traders or business men because the slaves weren't deemed equal to fellow men and we're properties.

It's just like saying people who killed twins 100 years ago were not ritualists.

You really can't argue WORD DEFINITIONS.
Rape is when you have sex without the person's consent. It's true now as it was 500 years ago. It's a DEFINITION. It's not only a legal indictment.

Rape is rape whether it happened now or years ago.

But you are digressing from my main point of view.

By definition, Mohammed was a pedophile and a rapist. These are FACTS!
Should one be killed for saying the truth?

You know definitions have been changed and altered over time to fit into current standards? Do you even understand the meaning of pedophile or you are just throwing the world around loosely? Give me the definition of pedophilia as it was in the time of Muhammad.

donjazet:
And for clarification, yes!! They are all pedophiles.

You really can't argue with DEFINITIONS! Even if ritual killing of twins was accepted 100 years ago, it is still as bad then as it is now.

Anybody who slept with a small kid whether, 300 years ago or today is a pedophile!. I'm not even arguing whether it was a crime or not, the definition is constant. my question has always been, is it blasphemy to state the truth?

Is there another name they were calling those who slept with small children then?
I am stating established truths, not trying to establish the criminality of it. My focus is on blasphemy angle.
Should I lose my head for calling Mohammed what he is, a pedophile and a rapist?

The law doesn't allow you to punish someone retrospectively for something you did before the law was changed and quite rightly. Mohammed, in his time, was not a paedophile or rapist, what he was doing then was the same as pretty much every man did. Ayesha was even betrothed to another man before meeting Muhammad. This is proof that Ayesha had reached the age of marriage and engagement in that time. It was not illegal, immoral or weird, it was perfectly normal by the standards of the day. Judging him by standards set 1500 years after he died doesn't achieve anything except allow people to feel smug and troll Muslims.

donjazet:
Carry your stupidity to your grave, I thought you were here to dialogue, and here you are insulting. Shame I would have loved to drag this out but fvck off back the hole you came from. Enjoy my attention while it lasted.

Never meant to insult you. So sorry for that.

donjazet:
If true, then I vociferously condemn their actions, just like I harshly also condemn them if they killed twins and I certainly hope myself and my children will never take inspiration from them for doing those things. If they did, I spit on their graves and hope to banish their memories forever.

Oya your turn, do the same for Mohammed.

I have no business with Muhammad. I am here to correct your foolishness. There is so much evidence historically speaking that marriage was allowed legally at a very young age in the past.

donjazet:
Why?? Is there any difference between a highway robber who robbed horses on the road 200 years ago and a highway robber who robs motorists today??

Are the both of them not thieves?? If a man pinned down a woman and had sex with her 200 years ago, is that not rape? If the same thing happens today, is it still not rape?? Evil has always been evil.

No content whatsoever. When you add context it will make you understand better that you are typing without thinking. Every culture has its norms...just over a 100 or so years ago in Europe and US the legal age of marriage was 7-10. In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older. There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off. For example in the bible, Isaac was 37 years old when Rebecca was born. When Rebecca was 3 years and one day old, she was married to Isaac. Mary was 12 years old when she married Joseph the Carpenter who was 90 years old. King David was 70 years old when he married Abishag who was 12 and a half years old. In 1396 at age 29, King Richard ii of England married 6 year old Isabella of Valois.King John married Isabella when she was 12 years old. Joan of France married King Louis Xii in 1476 at the age of 12. Back then it was legally allowed so why are you calling him a rapist and a pedophile when he committed no crime.

donjazet:
MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE AND A RAPIST. That's a FACT. He slept with a 9 year old child and married a 6 year old. And because of this, millions of innocent children are being raped LEGALLY around the world including in your country.
We need to keep this flame burning.

This is so wrong. Stop using modern day definition and standard to judge actions that took place more than 200yrs ago. Your ancestors were probably rapist and pedophiles too going by today standard and rules.

Kriss216:
Yeah... Go ahead

No am done.

Kriss216:
Lol

Is that all

Do you want more?

Toxic simple-minded losers who are too invested in their own false sense of superiority to allow any conflicting information to enter their brains, even when following TRP principles leads them into a hell of their own making

Toxic masculinity is the adherence to masculinity to the point that is harmful. Masculinity in itself is not bad. It's that certain traits or concepts that are considered “masculine” are harmful, and therefore toxic.

For example, the idea that men should never express emotion. This is harmful, as holding emotions inside or not dealing with your feelings properly is notably bad for your mental health, and it can also harm how you relate to your friends and spouse (ie, you may not be able to and your relationship could suffer as a result).

Or the idea that men cannot be abused by women. That's a result of toxic masculinity. It's not “masculine” to admit that a little weak woman was able to harm you, the big strong man, so your suffering is ignored as “being a pussy”

FEAR ME

Seriously, I would very much like to stare someone down, to see them quake with fear. I want to whisper with menace and see the fear in someone's eyes

....