The origin of morality

[Joel]

Islam is barbaric/ secularly moral.

To you, forgiveness is meaningless. That was my point.

No, forgiveness is not meaningless to me. Don't twist what I've said, please.
I forgive people. I make it something I live by to forgive anybody that wrongs me. If we didn't forgive people, we would all be bitter and cold-hearted.
Forgiveness means an awful lot.

[fr0d0]

In Islam forgiveness means something to the person being forgiven. In Christianity it means nothing at all.

How so?

@ Joel - sorry bud that wasn't aimed at you

[Joel]

In Islam forgiveness means something to the person being forgiven. In Christianity it means nothing at all.

How so?

@ Joel - sorry bud that wasn't aimed at you

Oh alright. No worries.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In Islam forgiveness means something to the person being forgiven. In Christianity it means nothing at all.

How so?

I don't agree with the 'nothing' part, but there is a difference between forgiveness and restitution.

[Foxaèr]

I don't agree with the 'nothing' part, but there is a difference between forgiveness and restitution.

By the way, you never did respond to this.

[Neo-Scholastic]

By the way, you never did respond to this.

Post #18.

[Foxaèr]

Fail. Attack the neighboring tribe, steal all their women, rape them, and raise the children to be part of your clan. And that's just one example.

You obviously failed to understand the distinction between tribal and territorial morals. Territorial morality defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Attacking another tribe would not be considered immoral in the same sense of the U.S. having attacked Germany in WWII was not immoral. I am not stating that, to our advanced minds today, that raping the women of another tribe was moral, but to incorporate the women and children into the tribe would have strengthened the tribe and allowed it to defend itself from other tribes. No tribesman would have killed anyone in his own clan, because that person would have been needed, and that was where morals began its evolution.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You obviously failed to understand the distinction between tribal and territorial morals.

So if you present two different incomplete theories that makes one complete one?

[The Grand Nudger]

Fail. Attack the neighboring tribe, steal all their women, rape them, and raise the children to be part of your clan. And that's just one example.

You obviously failed to understand the distinction between tribal and territorial morals. Territorial morality defines a person’s territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Attacking another tribe would not be considered immoral in the same sense of the U.S. having attacked Germany in WWII was not immoral. I am not stating that, to our advanced minds today, that raping the women of another tribe was moral, but to incorporate the women and children into the tribe would have strengthened the tribe and allowed it to defend itself from other tribes. No tribesman would have killed anyone in his own clan, because that person would have been needed, and that was where morals began its evolution.

I think that it would be more accurate to say that this sort of scenario is one in which identifiably or specifically human morals could be carved and modified. Not so much where morality began.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

No human society condones gratuitous murder of and theft from members of that society.

You obviously know nothing about communism or about Islamic States in the middle east. Go and educate yourself, and then come back and try again.

No wonder everyone else ignores you. As a newbie I made the mistake and replying and encouraging you.

---

In Islam forgiveness means something to the person being forgiven. In Christianity it means nothing at all.

How so?

@ Joel - sorry bud that wasn't aimed at you

In Islam, if the wronged party forgives the "crime" then the state does not punish.

In Christianity there is punishment regardless of the forgiveness of the wronged party.

Obviously forgiveness is a personal exercise for the wronged party having nothing to do with anyone's behavior.

And if you are seriously deficient in the subject, Christian countries where forgiveness has no bearing upon behavior are about the only ones who invented crimes against the state where forgiveness changes nothing in the state punishing crimes against it.

---

How so?

I don't agree with the 'nothing' part, but there is a difference between forgiveness and restitution.

Today the US is experimenting with victim impact statements before sentencing. I have heard many cases where the victims family in a murder case declaring they forgive the perp results in a sentence of time served, i.e. immediate release. Obviously forgiveness is of no value to the perp outside of these very recent experiments. Outside of these recent experiments there has been no impact at all on the punishment. The idea of crimes against the state, murder is against the state, is an invention of Christian nations.

Most all ancient legal codes only put a formal price as compensation for a crime. They were more like our idea of insurance than criminal law. Most all murders had only a financial penalty.

This is not to preclude vendetta in place of compensation and that it might be in the interests of the state to prevent vendettas with crimes against the state. However vendetta is not forgiveness either.