Is God mute?

[jem]

if you read the articles you would see in areas ISIS controls Isis gets 20 percent. And from what I have been reading... it was a very small source of revenue for ISIS.

again... this is far more nuanced that the bullshit you original posted.

does saving something for preservation if Isis gets a little from it.. a better outcome than seeing it get destroyed. I would say yes... in many cases. IF Isis had control of the dead sea would you not want to save recently unearthed scrolls?

on the flip side... if these guys are involved in theft and deception.. that is not moral.

Those artifacts are not available for any type of legitimate sale. Buying artifacts off of ISIS and other terrorist groups for whatever reason, for whatever value, supports them.

This is a bunch of christian evangelicals getting involved in active looting ,theft and deception giving false information and breaking home import laws.
You think that's morally correct.

To have morals you don't need religion, but seemingly you do need it to lose them.

 

[stu]

on the flip side... if these guys are involved in theft and deception.. that is not moral.

There is no flip side. They patently were involved, the whole article is about that fact and it's not moral.

You say yes to funding terrorists to save artifacts of doubtful value traded illegally because they might or might not be worthy of preservation, but done in the name of Christianity, so that makes it ok.

The question is how come your morality can squirm around so much trying to justify such a thing.

 

[nitro]

jem

 

[OddTrader]

There is no flip side. They patently were involved, the whole article is about that fact and it's not moral.

You say yes to funding terrorists to save artifacts of doubtful value traded illegally because they might or might not be worthy of preservation, but done in the name of Christianity, so that makes it ok.

The question is how come your morality can squirm around so much trying to justify such a thing.

My 2 cents:

It's a complicate process! Morality is also relative!

imo, if a person is happy to spend money to buy a favourable artifact (s)he like and want to protect its valuable history, of course (s)he should be free to do so with her/his own money, especially her/his intention has been always wanting to return it later to the original owner country for reservation of cultural valuables at no price/cost as gift.

However, keeping and negotiating an absolutely minimum money given to the terrorists for acquiring the artifact should be a must.

Only fundamentalists of regional believers or non-believers/atheists would have/follow a fixed set of rules/books making decisions and doing things without compromise.

 

[jem]

1. . You keep misrepresenting what I have been saying. I said preserving antiquities. I loathed the destruction of the buddhas and cited that as my first examples. This is not solely about Christian artifacts you lying troll.

You are such a cheap shot artist and I don't say yes to funding terrorists. I say yes to preserving important antiquities from destruction by Isis... particularly if Isis is not making much from it.

2. the article was filled with innuendo and painted to make it look like the articles going into the museum were obtained illegally. There was very little substance besides circumstantial evidence of a Fed ex package and some papyrus which was sold on ebay after it had been smuggled out.

The article was filled with bullshit... such as making statements about the new testament being written in 6 AD... (which is counter factual to the what these guys are most likely trying to find... which would be early biblical texts... some of the texts being found in places like the Dead which are being dated to within a decade or 2 of Jesus' life.)


Another line of bullshit... was the part where the author stated... there is "no evidence of" a respect for diversity of culture. (a paraphrase). What a piece of work. There is not evidence of it because the museum isn't even open, yet.

3. you were the one with the ignorant binary statement that started this conversation.

I will go get it and post it...

There is no flip side. They patently were involved, the whole article is about that fact and it's not moral.

You say yes to funding terrorists to save artifacts of doubtful value traded illegally because they might or might not be worthy of preservation, but done in the name of Christianity, so that makes it ok.

The question is how come your morality can squirm around so much trying to justify such a thing.

 

[jem]

It's wrong to acquire looted items. More wrong to do so by deception, for any reason. Particularly hypocritical and wrong to do it considering what the so called Christian message is supposed to be.

to which I said..


here is the thinking person's point of view...

it is wrong in some circumstances to acquire looted items from a culture that preserves and respects their past... but in my opinion it is not morally wrong to remove items which might or will be lost to groups like Isis or the taliban.

remember this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0-years-Buddhas-fall-to-Taliban-dynamite.html

or this

Story highlights

• In May, ISIS seized Palmyra, the UNESCO designated World Heritage Site.
• ISIS Militants have since destroyed shrines, temples, and monuments of the ancient Syrian city.
• Architectural and historic treasures, including some of the world's oldest Islamic inscriptions, have been obliterated.

ISIS militants destroy ancient Syrian ruins - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/11/08/architecture/palmyra-around-the-world/
CNN

Feedback
About this result •
ISIS destroys Arch of Triumph in Syria's Palmyra ruins - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/middleeast/syria-isis-palmyra-arch-of-triumph/
CNN
Oct 6, 2015 - (CNN) ISIS militants have destroyed the iconic Arch of Triumph in Palmyra, the latest cultural treasure of the ancient site that they have reduced ...
ISIS militants destroy ancient Syrian ruins - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/11/08/architecture/palmyra-around-the-world/
CNN
Nov 9, 2015 - Story highlights. In May, ISIS seized Palmyra, the UNESCO designated World Heritage Site. ISIS Militants have since destroyed shrines, temples, and monuments of the ancient Syrian city. Architectural and historic treasures, including some of the world's oldest Islamic inscriptions, have been obliterated.
Here Are the Ancient Sites ISIS Has Damaged and Destroyed
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../150901-isis-destruction-...
National Geographic Society
Sep 1, 2015 - A guide to cultural sites that ISIS has damaged or destroyed so far: ... ISIS seized the modern town of Palmyra and the ancient ruins nearby ...
Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_cultural_heritage_by_ISIL
Wikipedia
^ Jump up to: a b "Syria: Isis releases footage of Palmyra ruins intact and 'will not destroy them'". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 May 2015. ^ Isis 'blows up temple dating back to 17AD' in Syrian city of Palmyra, TheGuardian.com; accessed 25 August 2015.
‎List of destroyed heritage – ‎Ashurnasirpal II – ‎Unite4Heritage – ‎Hatra

 

[stu]

My 2 cents:
imo, if a person is happy to spend money to buy a favourable artifact (s)he like and want to protect its valuable history, of course (s)he should be free to do so with her/his own money, especially her/his intention has been always wanting to return it later to the original owner country for reservation of cultural valuables at no price/cost as gift.

But you've diluted the circumstances for a moral judgement to be made so far away from the original article it's almost impossible to compare.

Are you really saying "(s)he should be free to do so.." regardless of the fact we are talking about dealing in stolen property!?

In addition, there is no declared intention of returning anything to original owners and with respect, naive to think that would be an outcome anyone could expect.

It's a complicate process! Morality is also relative!

Yes I agree, morality is also relative, but in this regard, not complicated and relative to ...

justifying the expenditure of $800 million on looted artifacts which will sustain fundamentalist killers who make it their job to murder in the name of a religion called Islam.

Excusing it for reason of merely preserving material objects at the cost of human lives, for more fundamentalists to break the law by smuggling into the country as it is illegal to trade the artifacts, all in the name of another religion, this time called Christianity.

Morality so relative it was all really nothing more than immorality all along!

 

[OddTrader]

But you've diluted the circumstances for a moral judgement to be made so far away from the original article it's almost impossible to compare.

Are you really saying "(s)he should be free to do so.." regardless of the fact we are talking about dealing in stolen property!?

In addition, there is no declared intention of returning anything to original owners and with respect, naive to think that would be an outcome anyone could expect.


Yes I agree, morality is also relative, but in this regard, not complicated and relative to ...

justifying the expenditure of $800 million on looted artifacts which will sustain fundamentalist killers who make it their job to murder in the name of a religion called Islam.

Excusing it for reason of merely preserving material objects at the cost of human lives, for more fundamentalists to break the law by smuggling into the country as it is illegal to trade the artifacts, all in the name of another religion, this time called Christianity.

Morality so relative it was all really nothing more than immorality all along!

Personally, I think an absolutely minimum number of representative pieces for a minimum amount of money would be ideal and acceptable! It's worth sometimes to break the rules! Practical or not is another issue!

Silo (local optimisation for this topic) vs Systemic (holistic optimisation for complete elimination of fundamentalists) solutions!

 

[stu]

Tell it tothe judge when your case comes up, for all the good it won't do.

 

[nitro]

Pay close attention about the one about stealing: