Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

There are people who commit horrific crimes and then say that 'God told me to do it'. Some are psychologically unsound, some are using at as excuse and some believe it.

When the crime in question is the slaughter of civilians, especially women and children, the reactions of others to this crime is usually polarised. There are those who would condemn this in no uncertain terms as a crime (calling it terrorism or similar), and there would be those that say it WAS indeed an 'act of God'.

In recent times we have a American born terrorist who emigrated to Israel and then slaughtered unarmed worshippers in a mosque in Hebron (which is under Israeli Military Occupation, and not part of Israel). His supporters consider him a religious martyr and a saint, the rest of the world consider him a religiously motivated terrorist.
philosophy-dubai/for-baruch-goldstein-t37863.html


Now, for the interesting part.

When discussing the slaughter of babies, women and children and the enslavement of virgins by military personnel in an attack over control over land, event horizon and I have reached a situation where he says the killings were 'an act of God' - because God told the army to kill and enslave.
philosophy-dubai/biblical-war-crimes-t40711.html


Event Horizon has asked me to explain something to him.

event horizon wrote:If I support the death of people because I call it an act of God in one instance, does that therefore mean everything else I term an act of God is something I support?

dubai-politics-talk/muslims-france-t48481-105.html#p396848

I'd like some help in explaining to him why slaughtering of babies and enslavement of virgins by men is not the same as a tsunami or bridge collapsing (or any other 'act of God'). Any suggestions?

Does anyone else agree with eh - eg that Baruch Goldstein shouldn't be viewed as a religiously motivated terrorist or that slaughtering babies if you believe God told you to do it is no different from an act of God?

Cheers,
Shafique

I'd like some help in explaining to him why slaughtering of babies and enslavement of virgins by men is not the same as a tsunami or bridge collapsing (or any other 'act of God'). Any suggestions?

Actually, you should explain to yourself for starters.

You were the first to refer to Allah's intentional and deliberate destruction of people as "an act of God".

Tsunamis and tornadoes are not caused by God but are called "acts of God" in modern usage.

However, the Koran records that Allah and his followers wiped out entire cities.

Therefore, in modern usage, Allah's destruction was not an act of God.

I believe I pointed this out to you when you first tried to peddle that excuse on an old thread.

Try being consistent.

As for your question, whether deliberate actions are "acts of God" or not, I'm curious why you've avoided my question and conclusion to your logic that calling an event an act of God means I support the incident.

I must therefore, using your logic, support a tornado's destruction.

slaughtering babies if you believe God told you to do it is no different from an act of God?

So how did you arrive at the conclusion that believing slaughtering babies is no different from an act of God means that one supports or justifies slaughtering babies?

Wouldn't that mean one supports acts of God if they support slaughtering babies if the two are viewed as the same?

Do you even understand how your logic doesn't make sense?

I suspect you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have started this thread.

One can only determine someone supports killing babies because they compared the action to a tornado if they support the deaths caused by tornadoes.

That's very simple and very logical. You would have to show the person supports deaths caused by tornado before you can conclude they support deaths caused by any other means to the tornado they made the comparison with.

Thanks for you views eh.

I'm trying to find out a way to explain to you why I (and I assume most others) don't agree with you that men slaughtering babies and women in the name of God is the same as 'an act of God' such as a Tornado.

Believing that I share your views just shows that you've not understood my posts at all. Perhaps others can help me with explaining to you the difference.

Cheers,

Shafique

Sorry, was my explanation too complex for you?

Maybe I can get a crayon and draw you a picture.

You still play with crayons?

Well, may I suggest you stay away from sharp items like knives.

But seriously, your post was indeed quite useful and laid out that you do consider the slaughter of babies in the name of God as no different from a Tornado, and base this on a belief that God told the men to do the killing (and enslavement).

Let's see if anyone takes up the challenge to explain it to you in a way that you understand.

Cheers,
Shafique

your post was indeed quite useful and laid out that you do consider the slaughter of babies in the name of God as no different from a Tornado

I suppose you just confirmed to any new readers your intellectual depths.

Perhaps. Or perhaps they'll see if they can take up the challenge to help explain to you the difference.

Cheers,

Shafique

Sure, and we'll see if the difference applies to your argument that the cities destroyed by Allah and his followers were acts of God as well.

After all, a tsunami or bridge collapse are non-deliberate events. Allah's massacres - and those of his followers - are anything but.

(Also, bridge collapses and tsunamis aren't literally caused by Allah, according to scientists and non-Muslims)

Btw, still waiting for that post of mine "justifying" the killing of babies.

Ok, why don't you start a new thread and quote my words which lead you to think that I share your views.

I'm waiting to see if anyone else can explain to you the difference to you here, between your stated view that men killing babies in the name of God is just like a tornado or other 'act of God'.

Cheers,
Shafique