Jump to content

What to do about ISIS


Recommended Posts

So if, hypothetically, we are all just pawns in the game of a higher power, and God forced some to love him and do what is best for them, but not the others, then what would that make those others? Instruments to test those that God chose to love him? No, because God is omnipotent and would therefore make us love him. This post seems contradictory to your last one, because first you said that God should control us all because that would mean he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but now you seem to suggest that God does exactly that for some and yet not for others. Which makes no sense because going to heaven (the result of being controlled to love God) would be the best possible thing for us.

exactly. the fact that there exist people who do not love god and would therefore not go to heaven after death (such as myself!) shows that god is either not omnipotent (he doesn't have the power to force those people to love him) or not omnibenevolent (he is not interested in giving those people the best outcome). therefore, this god doesn't exist.

people try to handwave this with the convenient premise of free will, but that doesn't satisfy the observation that god is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent. even supposing that people had free will and god chose not to act with his omnipotence, this still suggests lack of benevolence on god's part towards non-believers if he just stands by and lets them condemn themselves to hell for eternity.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why didn't he intervene when Adam and Eve sinned? He's omnipotent so he could have limited the amount of sin in the world.

I'm not saying that God should get rid of sin entirely, but minimize it. So why didn't he?

I see your argument, and I admit it's a good one. But He didn't intervene there because he had a different plan. Instead of intervening to stop sin, he intervened in a different way to keep up from having to face the consequences of it. God has opened the door to all of us through the death of Jesus, so that we might join him one day. However, if evil, sin, and trials did not exist in this world, then we would already be in paradise. Because God allows us to choose whether or not we want to be with Him, we have to go through trials to strengthen our faith and serve and love others as a testimony to the goodness of God and the hope that we have in Him.

Edit:Dondon, it is tough to understand. Because God loves people, He gives them the choice as to how they want to live their life. There are many who do not believe in God's existence, or who simply reject him for convenience/desires. God sends no one to Hell, people who go there send themselves. In the book Mere Christianty, CS Lewis says that Heaven/Hell are just eternal manifestations of our life, in a way. We continue becoming what we were in this life: in Heaven, we always get better, and in Hell, we always get worse. If you are right, then I am at fault here for telling you this. But if I am right, then you have a choice, and you can change and this is not on me or God.

Edited by Blaze The Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a lot of suffering that doesn't seem to have anything to do with free will- such as natural disasters.

I'm not sure how an earthquake in Nepal killing thousands of people really counts as a 'trial', especially considering it likely killed children. I suppose some might see it as God's punishment for not following his word, but that's one twisted form of omnibenevolence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your argument, and I admit it's a good one. But He didn't intervene there because he had a different plan. Instead of intervening to stop sin, he intervened in a different way to keep up from having to face the consequences of it. God has opened the door to all of us through the death of Jesus, so that we might join him one day. However, if evil, sin, and trials did not exist in this world, then we would already be in paradise. Because God allows us to choose whether or not we want to be with Him, we have to go through trials to strengthen our faith and serve and love others as a testimony to the goodness of God and the hope that we have in Him.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist at all. They should exist as minimally as possible. They should exist to test us, but only minimally enough to do so. And we know just from observation that there's a lot more sin than necessary. I'm saying this: why all the unnecessary natural disasters? Why the Holocaust? There is so much needless evil in the world that we could've done without. God could have easily tested our free will, even if he prevented those meaningless natural disasters and such.

So why didn't God do that?

Ninjad by Cynthia :<

Edited by Chiki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a lot of suffering that doesn't seem to have anything to do with free will- such as natural disasters.

I'm not sure how an earthquake in Nepal killing thousands of people really counts as a 'trial', especially considering it likely killed children. I suppose some might see it as God's punishment for not following his word, but that's one twisted form of omnibenevolence.

If at any point I implied that all suffering everywhere comes from free will, I did not mean to. The fact is, no way around it, suffering WILL come whether you are a Christian or not, God or no. It is a terrible tragedy, and I know it sounds like I'm just waving it off, but I'm not. In this world, pain will come to everyone, no matter who you are.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist at all. They should exist as minimally as possible. They should exist to test us, but only minimally enough to do so. And we know just from observation that there's a lot more sin than necessary. I'm saying this: why all the unnecessary natural disasters? Why the Holocaust? There is so much needless evil in the world that we could've done without. God could have easily tested our free will, even if he prevented those meaningless natural disasters and such.

So why didn't God do that?

Ninjad by Cynthia :<

I'm getting more and more convinced we aren't quite seeing the others points. Like I said to Cynthia, God or no, free will exists, and in turn suffering exists. Humans are really messed up creatures, and they do really messed up things. The Holocaust was one of the worst events in human history, and I don't pretend to know what Hitler and countless other Nazis thought. But my point remains: they chose to do it themselves. Suffering is always caused by imperfect beings, as we are. I also won't pretend to know the mind of God until I see Him, so I can't answer every question.

I'm goin to bed, so I'm done tonight. I'll be back on tomorrow though. I've enjoyed this debate so far, you guys are all pretty respectful and knowledgeable people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Holocaust was one of the worst events in human history, and I don't pretend to know what Hitler and countless other Nazis thought. But my point remains: they chose to do it themselves

But free will could have existed without so much needless evil. 10 people could've died instead of 6 million. We get the point, Hitler is evil and twisted and he deserves to burn in Hell. Killing 5 or 10 people would've proven the point. Why 6 million? Why didn't he intervene?

Free will is besides the point. Why doesn't God intervene and stop natural disasters? That is truly needless suffering. No free will is involved in natural disasters so why doesn't God stop those from killing people?

Edited by Chiki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I miss in this thread, is that Islam also encourages love. I am not versed in the Islam, so I've been looking up these parts. Forgive me if I've cited wrongly, I did not mean to offend believers of the Islam.

Here are a few examples:

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces to the East or the West, but truly righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets, and spends his money for love of Him, on the kindred and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and those who ask for charity, and for ransoming the captives; and who observes Prayer and pays the Zakat; and those who fulfill their promise when they have made one, and the patient in poverty and afflictions and the steadfast in time of war; it is these who have proved truthful and it is these who are the God-fearing." (Verse 2:177) <http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/2-177.html>

"Indeed, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency, and manifest evil, and wrongful transgression. He admonished you that you may take heed." (Verse 16:91) <http://islamawakened.com/quran/16/90/>

"And those who strive for Us, We will surely, guide them (to) Our ways. And indeed, Allah surely (is) with the good-doers." (Verse 29:69) <http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/29/69/>

So the Quran speaks about 'fight those that do not believe in Allah'. What does the Quran mean with 'fight'? Does that mean slaughter anyone that does not believe in Him? I don't think so, there are other ways. One can also fight with patience and with virtue, not necessary with violence. ISIS believes that they should, but as I've cited above, Allah awards those that do good. The Quran says so!

So I think that means ISIS believes in a perverted way of Islam, Allah would never encourage slaughter, when I look upon these verses. And there are many other verses like these.

Then there are the civilians, who believe properly in the Islam. They're the real victims. Because we got fools like ISIS on this world, that make us think that people who believe in Allah are like ISIS, what we shouldn't do. The common man/ woman that follows Islam would never resort to violence. I mean, I'm Christian myself, and I'm sure that the Bible says that we ought to make people believe in God, perhaps even through violence. I don't know, I haven't read the Bible.

What I'm trying to say is though, please don't say Islam is bad, because I don't think the problem lies with the Islam. The Islam encourages virtue, patience and love as well. To fight those who don't believe in Allah isn't necessarily through violence. At least that's what I believe when I read these verses.

Here's the issue: This isn't about the common Muslim, this is about ISIS. In the majority of countries, the common Muslim is not required by law or any such nonsense to pay for what their fundamentalist brethren are doing. They are NOT the real victims. The real victims are innocent people living in a war zone, Muslim and Christian alike, who are being slaughtered by the First Nation state in the world to be run fully by terrorists. And, the Koran does not specify whether to use violence or not, so ISIS is merely interpreting it in one way. I would still say that Islam is at fault here, even if ordinary Muslims most definitely are not.

Now, lets talk about historical context. After the Prophet Muhammad died, his descendants, the Caliphs, waged war on the Sassanids and the Byzantines. They then proceeded to conquer all of North Africa, and Iberia. Eventually, they would go on to conquer India and the Byzantines, and it was only the Polish who stopped them from taking all of Europe at Vienna. So I'd say that if anything ISIS is following the historical example, even if they are conquering more brutally than the old Caliphates.

Edited by blah2127
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit:Dondon, it is tough to understand. Because God loves people, He gives them the choice as to how they want to live their life.

lol i've heard this bullshit so many times, and it makes absolutely no sense. the mental gymnastics that christians have to perform in order to reconcile reality with a god that can't possibly exist are astounding.

it's actually almost insulting to have someone tell me that because god loves me, he will let my soul be tortured for eternity. when i first realized that, that's when i stopped believing in god.

Edited by dondon151
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting fact. Pope Pius II was instrumental in appointing one Vlad the Impaler to fight against the invading sultans. That's right. Dracula was loyal to the pope and fighting against turks. I'm surprised that, for all the anime involving him, there isn't any with him bound by an oath to Pius II in a Inuyasha-style set-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting fact. Pope Pius II was instrumental in appointing one Vlad the Impaler to fight against the invading sultans. That's right. Dracula was loyal to the pope and fighting against turks. I'm surprised that, for all the anime involving him, there isn't any with him bound by an oath to Pius II in a Inuyasha-style set-up.

Based on both this and your story submission, you seem to have quite the knowledge of the initial Ottoman conquest of southern Europe. In any case, Vlad was certainly the closest thing Christianity had to ISIS. Well, it would be a toss up between him and Ivan the Terrible. Or Leopold II. Okay, so maybe Christianity had plenty of figures comparable to ISIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing them doesn't work, but talking to them doesn't work either.

Honestly the ISIS is something I'd like to read more about to form an opinion. These guys are pretty brutal, but have a strange allure to them, which is why people from the West go join them. Most curious is the case of women, since ISIS seem conservative on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on both this and your story submission, you seem to have quite the knowledge of the initial Ottoman conquest of southern Europe. In any case, Vlad was certainly the closest thing Christianity had to ISIS. Well, it would be a toss up between him and Ivan the Terrible. Or Leopold II. Okay, so maybe Christianity had plenty of figures comparable to ISIS.

Actually I just have a like for cool and interesting facts in general. Sure, the Ottoman invasions and incidents are bigger than some others, but I don't specialize in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing them doesn't work, but talking to them doesn't work either.Honestly the ISIS is something I'd like to read more about to form an opinion. These guys are pretty brutal, but have a strange allure to them, which is why people from the West go join them. Most curious is the case of women, since ISIS seem conservative on the matter.

Why does bombing them not work? The problem is that we don't treat this problem with the gravity it deserves. We are fighting a nation, legitimate or no. It is important to acknowledge that they are willing and able to fight a conventional war. We need to stop being afraid of killing civilians, because if we remain so, we will be at a serious disadvantage.

Actually I just have a like for cool and interesting facts in general. Sure, the Ottoman invasions and incidents are bigger than some others, but I don't specialize in them.

Ah, I see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the ISIS is something I'd like to read more about to form an opinion. These guys are pretty brutal, but have a strange allure to them, which is why people from the West go join them. Most curious is the case of women, since ISIS seem conservative on the matter.

the KKK have an allure to them, too. they have an extreme supremacist ideology, which is why people join them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bombing them doesn't work, but talking to them doesn't work either.

Honestly the ISIS is something I'd like to read more about to form an opinion. These guys are pretty brutal, but have a strange allure to them, which is why people from the West go join them. Most curious is the case of women, since ISIS seem conservative on the matter.

They're deluded because of religion. Muslim men are promised 72 virgins in Heaven when they die. It's alluring to stupid people who believe that kind of stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=jzCAPJDAnQA

Look at 8:20.

I'm personally perplexed as to why women would find it alluring too, though. Maybe they're turned on by the fact that they get to marry a Muslim warrior?

Edited by Chiki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no conclusive measure that can be taken against ISIS right now, but it is likely that given enough time (during which conflict will simply continue), new groups within ISIS will begin to split amongst themselves. In turn, this may lead to possible negociations of some kind. People like to flaunt "never negociate with terrorists", but history indicates that in fact, we do tend to eventually talk to them, just not until both sides have suffered severe casualities. In the event that they refuse to negociate whatsoever, eventually they'll lose relevance and/or support, to the point where they're no longer able to function in the open.

You may argue "We can't negociate with those who have commited such atrocities", but various western countries aren't exactly clean either. We've backed insurgent groups to destabilise foreign regions for our own advantage, and throw about as much propoganda spin on it as terrorists do to their own causes. It's less of a case of "forgiving" or "excusing" them and more like the humanitarian cost of a continued conflict is a more direct and pressing issue than a moral princple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be beneficial to negotiate with terrorists under some circumstances- depends on how the terrorists are funded, their organizational structure, the amount of power they currently hold and their demands etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be beneficial to negotiate with terrorists under some circumstances- depends on how the terrorists are funded, their organizational structure, the amount of power they currently hold and their demands etc.

The problem is that what ISIS wants is unacceptable. They desire an Islamic State stretching across the entire Middle East. We cannot allow this to happen. If we negotiate a truce, it will merely give them time to rearm. ISIS would benefit from a truce far more than we would. It is also important to note that ISIS isn't really a terrorist organization anymore. They are able to fight to great effect a conventional war against the armies of Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the same time. There are even reports that they are building up an air force. They have the war making capabilities of a nation state. It is important to recognize this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that what ISIS wants is unacceptable. They desire an Islamic State stretching across the entire Middle East. We cannot allow this to happen. If we negotiate a truce, it will merely give them time to rearm. ISIS would benefit from a truce far more than we would. It is also important to note that ISIS isn't really a terrorist organization anymore. They are able to fight to great effect a conventional war against the armies of Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the same time. There are even reports that they are building up an air force. They have the war making capabilities of a nation state. It is important to recognize this.

Too be honest I think a cease fire would hurt them if it went on long enough as they would be forced to deal with reconstruction and would lose members due to a lack of fighting. The problem is that a ceasefire long enough to cause that is laughable for ISIS. I fully agree with everything you say and I have little doubt that ISIS would target the US and Israel the moment it got enough peace to do such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that what ISIS wants is unacceptable. They desire an Islamic State stretching across the entire Middle East. We cannot allow this to happen. If we negotiate a truce, it will merely give them time to rearm. ISIS would benefit from a truce far more than we would. It is also important to note that ISIS isn't really a terrorist organization anymore. They are able to fight to great effect a conventional war against the armies of Iraq, Syria, and Iran at the same time. There are even reports that they are building up an air force. They have the war making capabilities of a nation state. It is important to recognize this.

Oh no, I agree. Right now, they're unnegociatable with on the fact that we're not even in a position to give them what they want. I'm of the opinion that eventually, people within ISIS are going to realise that a compromise of some sort has to be made, and thus become possible to negociate with.

Edited by Irysa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Chiki, did you miss this post


If God did intervene, as Chiki proposes would be the best choice, wouldn't it also contradict with His nature? If God doesn't lie, then he can not break pacts. If He does, then he is not omnibenevolent. And if he were to take their free will (if God never made such a deal, to begin with, in other words), wouldn't that be an evil on itself? A God that manipulates his creations like minions is certainly evil.

Leibniz's answer, that this is the best of all possible worlds, seem more plausible through this point of view, although we can't either prove or deny it. But I suppose I must've failed logic forever at some point of this post, so feel free to shoot.

I really want to see how you answer this. How would it have been less evil for God to not allow Adam and Eve to commit a sin both consented to without breaking the pact of free will and becoming an all manipulative, totalitarian deity?

Also, to say that we have a limited free will is not to say we don't have free will at all. Our capability to choose, given the circunstances, still exists. To say that we have no free will is to claim that it absolutely does not exist, which is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to say that we have a limited free will is not to say we don't have free will at all. Our capability to choose, given the circunstances, still exists. To say that we have no free will is to claim that it absolutely does not exist, which is false.

There is no axiom (that I'm aware of) under which we can prove or disprove free will. Any attempts to point to our ability to choose can simply be dismissed by the claim that we only think those are free choices, and such a view is internally consistent - that all choices are just illusions. Although this is ridiculous, it's no more ridiculous than the claim there's an invisible being everywhere in the universe who can do anything he wants at any time and knows everything about you. Also he(it?) loves you, but will see you tormented in another dimension for eternity if you don't listen to everything written in ancient books.

Edited by Irysa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, I agree. Right now, they're unnegociatable with on the fact that we're not even in a position to give them what they want. I'm of the opinion that eventually, people within ISIS are going to realise that a compromise of some sort has to be made, and thus become possible to negociate with.

But what will happen then? Will we recognize the Islamic State as a sovereign nation? Will the people in ISIS be the ones who's opinions matter? I still maintain that even if we give them a ceasefire it will only lead to another war. We shouldn't stop with anything less with the total destruction of ISIS, or future generations will suffer in future wars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no axiom (that I'm aware of) under which we can prove or disprove free will. Any attempts to point to our ability to choose can simply be dismissed by the claim that we only think those are free choices, and such a view is internally consistent - that all choices are just illusions. Although this is ridiculous, it's no more ridiculous than the claim there's an invisible being everywhere in the universe who can do anything he wants at any time and knows everything about you. Also he(it?) loves you, but will see you tormented in another dimension for eternity if you don't listen to everything written in ancient books.

How are my choices all illusions?

The claim that it is ridiculous for a God esque being to exist is not relevant to the free will issue, you're appealing to ridiculousness.

people try to handwave this with the convenient premise of free will, but that doesn't satisfy the observation that god is either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent

It does. Read what I told Chiki.

Through free will God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent but not act because of his free will pact, for acting would break such pact, and not making it entirely would turn him into a totalitarian, manipulative evil God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But free will could have existed without so much needless evil. 10 people could've died instead of 6 million. We get the point, Hitler is evil and twisted and he deserves to burn in Hell. Killing 5 or 10 people would've proven the point. Why 6 million? Why didn't he intervene?

Free will is besides the point. Why doesn't God intervene and stop natural disasters? That is truly needless suffering. No free will is involved in natural disasters so why doesn't God stop those from killing people?

Humans messed up the world, and because of that, because all humans sin and rebel against God, God does not move on the grand scale in this "world of humans" now. One day He will, but for now if there is a problem, it is up to us to fix it.

Again, I see what you are trying to get at with the natural disasters. Someday, there will hopefully be a perfect world that God creates. But that world is not here, and bad things, including needless suffering, will take place. I don't know why God hasn't returned yet, but I understand that in an imperfect world, imperfect, deadly things such as natural disasters will take place.

Also, what Rapier said is what I have been trying to say, just said better.

Edited by Blaze The Great
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...