A Islam uses the same religious symbol as the Canaanites, and Islam is a bastardized religion made up of Arab customs, Gods, Judaism and Christianity. Some how, the symbol and customs of the Canaanites ended up being the symbol and customs of the “modern” Muslim.
B You missed the point exactly as I put forth in my example, so I appreciate the support. All killing is not the same, the commandment says do not murder, not do not kill. Perhaps I should try stating it a bit different, it makes a big difference who you are killing, innocents, or Nazi’s are not the same. Morality is based on fine points such as these.
C Perhaps we should rescue Jeffery Dhalmer from indigestion? You show an amazing prediection to choose evil to “rescue” over good. Face with World War II would you be a Nazi and save the world for the betterment of the human race, or would you be and American and save the world for the freedom of the human race?
Can you tell the difference? Or has situation ethics so rotted your foundation that your boat floats?
A. The Canaanites no doubt used many religious symbols. That Muslims use one of them does not in and of itself prove a direct line of descent. For instance, the cross is one of the most common religious symbols around the world. It is used, or was used, by ancient Egyptians, Indians, Celts, Mayans and other American Indians, Buddhists, Norse and many others. Does this mean its use in Christianity “proves” that Christianity is “really” descended from one or more of those pagan religions?
Similarly, the use of the crescent moon as a symbol is part of the common symbology of the Semitic peoples, which include the Jews, Canaanites (now extinct), Arabs and many other peoples.
Perhaps more importantly, the crescent moon was the symbol of the Sassanid Persian empire which the Muslims conquered. It is a much more likely primary source for its use as a Muslim symbol than the religion of a people who had been extinct for well over a thousand years.
B. I quite agree all killing is not the same, that God commanded us not to murder, he did not command us not to kill. But it is extraordinarily odd that you accuse me of situational ethics. I believe that it is always wrong to intentionally kill the innocent. You believe that in some situations it is right to do precisely that. I think you have our philosophical situations reversed. You are the situational ethicist.
C. Faced with WWII I’d do more or less what we did, hopefully with less collateral damage, if possible. I must compliment you on your amazing ability to come up with inappropriate analogies. Had we followed the pattern of the Israelite genocide of the Canaanites (or rather what they were instructed to do in the Bible, it quite apparently was rarely followed through with completely), we would have invaded Europe and killed every living European. Or possibly just invaded Germany and killed every living German, including the babies. We would have liberated the camps and then killed all the surviving inmates.
The Nazis are quite evil, I agree, and should be destroyed by any means necessary. I fail to see why killing their victims is therefore also a moral imperative. To extend this analogy to its modern aspect, I fully agree that women-hating and boy-buggering Islamists are evil and should be destroyed. I don’t, however, see why we should also kill the women and little boys they victimize.