where did it all start

Originally posted by whyus?
"My religion is correct and your's is a pack of lies." How can this be anything but devisive?

Is there a similar belief in Christianity? Is it only these regional religions that have this intolerance built into them?

Is it fair to say that if a people's existance is dependant on not allowing others to exist; they should not be allowed to exist??

Absolutely! Christianity claims that the only path to salvation is through acceptance of Jesus Christ. Exclusivity is not strictly a regional attribute, but there are many spiritual/religious belief systems, namely the Dualist sects such as Bhudism, Taoism, etc., that make no such claims.

No, it is not fair to say your last statement! It is not moral to call for the execution of another even if they would deny you your existance. You have the right to defend your life when someone is attacking you, but only to the point of ceasing that attack. To go further is to cross the boundry into what I would argue, is no longer a moral stance.

[Edited on 21-5-2004 by scottsquared]

No, it is not fair to say your last statement! It is not moral to call for the execution of another even if they would deny you your existance.

But if it's ok to defend yourself, is it not ok to prevent the attack in the first place? And what about those of us who are not able to defend ourselves; is it not ok if not demanded of us, to protect those who can't defend themselves? I can't see how it would be wrong for us to defend the weaker, and if that is permitted then why can't we prevent them from being attacked in the first place....... or is this their line of reasoning also???
Are they attacking because we're not the same as them and therefore we may be a threat to them??

Acting in "defense" prior to an actual attack, or pre-emptive action, cannot be a moral choise because you have eliminated the free-will of those you have acted against. Up until the point that your alledged aggressor actually does attack, he/she/they have the option of changing course. You cannot conclude an action until that action has been concluded. Tautology(true by definition) For example: Would it be moral for you to go back in time, if it were possible, and kill Hitler's mother, thus cancelling the tens of millions of deaths resultant in WWII?

Yeah, I know that makes sense. It's the same as what we teach our kids, no hitting. You can defend yourself back but not hit first. It's just that in the 'big kids' world, the result of being hit first is not being around to defend yourself.
I've come to a point in my life where I'm looking for the big answers to the big questions; why are we here? to be wiped out by fanatics doesn't sit well with me.
All civilized society is based on the moral code that you don't hit first. When you encounter an uncivilized society you will lose. The same thing happened with the Spanish and the Inca's etal.

It is against my moral and religious teachings but I cannot shake the decision that we should hit first; wipe them out entirely. There will be a lot of innocent casualties and I know that is wrong. Even sitting here writing this I feel the dissapointment of my decision. I will continue to teach the kids as we have been but in this world, I have made my decision... and I don't feel any better for it.

It has been a pleasure to chat with you these past few days; I hope to do so again sometime.

Dan

Is it better to die with dignity or live with guilt? We all will die one day, in the end, the only thing that matters is whether or not you can be honestly proud of what you have done with your days.

We did when we supported the creation of the state of Isreal. The muslems have hated us ever since. They want us to get the # outta the middle east.