Why should Immoral people change?

Originally posted by wildtimes
Let's go back to the UDHR.
What parts of the UN's "human rights list" items that I posted do you disagree with?
What parts do you see as immoral?

not immoral, just a very high risk of being abused because of unlimited freedom. How about introducing a limitation based on golden rule.

Here is Islamic human rights
www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

I Right to Life
II Right to Freedom
III Right to Equality and Prohibition
Against Impermissible Discrimination IV Right to Justice
V Right to Fair Trial
VI Right to Protection Against Abuse
of Power
VII Right to Protection Against
Torture VIII Right to Protection of Honour and
Reputation
IX Right to Asylum
X Rights of Minorities
XI Right and Obligation to Participate
in the Conduct and Management of Public Affairs
XII Right to Freedom of Belief,
Thought and Speech
XIII Right to Freedom of Religion
XIV Right to Free Association
XV The Economic Order and the Rights Evolving Therefrom
XVI Right to Protection of Property
XVII Status and Dignity of Workers
XVIII Right to Social Security
XIX Right to Found a Family and
Related Matters XX Rights of Married Women
XXI Right to Education
XXII Right of Privacy
XXIII Right to Freedom of Movement
and Residence

XII Right to Freedom of Belief,
Thought and Speech a) Every person has the right to
express his thoughts and beliefs so
long as he remains within the limits
prescribed by the Law. No one,
however, is entitled to disseminate
falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to
indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast
defamatory aspersions on other
persons. b) Pursuit of knowledge and search
after truth is not only a right but a duty
of every Muslim. c) It is the right and duty of every
Muslim to protest and strive (within the
limits set out by the Law) against
oppression even if it involves
challenging the highest authority in
the state. d) There shall be no bar on the
dissemination of information provided
it does not endanger the security of
the society or the state and is confined
within the limits imposed by the Law. e) No one shall hold in contempt or
ridicule the religious beliefs of others
or incite public hostility against them;
respect for the religious feelings of
others is obligatory on all Muslims.

i would like if you can read the whole article and give your feedback.

reply to post by logical7

sadly they don't teach morals at school/college.

Well, unfortunately, that is becoming true in some cases. However, in any discipline there is a "code of ethics", and most Liberal Arts colleges require things like Philosophy, World History, Western Civilization (or Cultural Studies) for underclassmen....and now they are tending to remove those courses - which I think bodes ill for us all.

A youth of 18 or 19 can read Plato, or learn basic world events, but they won't really "get" Plato or the subtle nuances of, say, Israel as a very new nation, until decades later and some life experience. But to be effective as an adult in this world, one would do well to have that background from which to work and learn more.

On the flip side, it does bother a lot of people that the Religious Right (aka The Moral Majority, or Christian Coalition) are trying to force ultra-conservative Christianity into elementary schools - and that is wrong, in my opinion. Unless those lessons are taught with EQUAL TIME to ALL world religions. They could have "Christian month", Muslim month," "Buddhist month", "Jewish month", etc. etc. But to teach ONLY ONE religion as the ONLY religion is wrong in my opinion.

reply to post by wildtimes

and now they are tending to remove those courses - which I think bodes ill for us all.

maybe they will not teach morality because they have subscribed to the belief that morality is absolutely relative to each individual! Get ready for chaos if that happens!!

I would also like to ask you, did you teach your kids the basics of all religions and did you study them yourself keeping aside your own opinions about the stupidity of heaven, hell etc

reply to post by logical7

I would also like to ask you, did you teach your kids the basics of all religions and did you study them yourself keeping aside your own opinions about the stupidity of heaven, hell etc

Yes, I did teach them about all religions, and I did and still do study them myself! (Here's another one of those questions that I can hardly believe you asked me...I've told you again and again!)

As far as "morals", I think the UDHR is moral - and every American is taught those things as Americans. It's very integral to our culture. Again, we are back to square one: Religion does not CREATE morality. Muslims here are not persecuted, they coexist peacefully along with Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Holy Rollers, whatever. We don't really care what your religion is as long as you don't try to IMPOSE IT on OTHERS.

Even so, some nutjob shows up at every major show at one of our local centers for sports and music, with a bullhorn and a banner on a pole that threatens people with hell. He is entirely ignored. When I worked at a major convention hotel, the cabbies were almost all Muslims - Sudanese and Somalian - and they'd get out their prayer rugs and do their thing right there on the sidewalk. No one cared. We have an enclave of Sudanese in one area of the city - some of the Lost Boys live here, even.

When my daughter decided to join a mainstream (Not Evangelical) school youth group, I allowed it. She tried it, and decided it was too preachy...and fakey. My son has no interest, but they both know ABOUT religions and the different schools of thought. I taught them about pagan annual cycle earth-religions, too - as well as Buddhism, Christianity, etc.

(Not sure what you mean by "basics" - no, they didn't learn the "practical" basics such as how to kneel facing Mecca, or genuflect when entering church, or saying rosaries, or doing meditative yoga.) I taught them about world cultures, too.

I don't think the concepts of heaven and hell are "stupid" - I think they were INVENTED to keep people under control. I think they are evil manipulation tools, and honestly I wish they'd never been dreamed up. Because they are based on some unknowable After You Die notion of sublime reward or fear of torture, and neither of them can be proven.

maybe they will not teach morality because they have subscribed to the belief that morality is absolutely relative to each individual!

Hey, you're the one touting "relative morality", not me!
It's clear that I was taught them as Universally applicable, not "relative."

And by the way, my children have EXCELLENT moral compasses. I know, because I pay attention and they talk to me about their lives and beliefs, their deeds and the transgressions they see around them. They know right from wrong in every way that matters. They are polite, well-mannered, and respectful. They are also outspoken and call out injustice when they see it.

reply to post by logical7


I read the article on Religious Freedom - don't see any problem with it in general. Except:

No one,
however, is entitled to disseminate
falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to
indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast
defamatory aspersions on other
persons

And who decides what is "falsehood" please? Religious "truth" or "falsehood" is TOTALLY subjective and, in the case of Islam, based on faith in a long-gone prophet who said he could talk to Gabriel and flew to heaven on a horse. The only reason Islam has "defamatory aspersions" cast against it is because of the ACTIONS of Extremists. What is Islam doing to silence them?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

From what I can tell, they all have basically the same meaning.

LINK

Could you tell me if the word fear in 1 John 4:18 is different from the word fear used in the OT? If they are the same word, that means John was saying the OT was wrong. Either way, John didn't say there is no "certain type" of fear in love, he said there is NO fear in love, excluding any type of fear.

And as I pointed out earlier, they wouldn't have translated it as fear if they didn't want you to fear god.

Well the word used in John would be Greek, not Hebrew. And which instance are you talking about in the OT, the word appears almost 400 times there.

reply to post by wildtimes

(Not sure what you mean by "basics" - no, they didn't learn the "practical" basics such as how to kneel facing Mecca, or genuflect when entering church, or saying rosaries, or doing meditative yoga.)

by basics i meant basic philosophy.well reading your opinions about islam i feel you barely know it. Don't worry i am a good teacher

I don't think the concepts of heaven
and hell are "stupid" - I think they
were INVENTED to keep people under
control. I think they are evil
manipulation tools, and honestly I
wish they'd never been dreamed up. Because they are based on some
unknowable After You Die notion of
sublime reward or fear of torture, and
neither of them can be proven.

your beliefs are based on assumptions and can be wrong as you admit.
The same thinking can be applied to say that God is invented to control people but you believe in Divine and contain a tiny 'spark' of that Divine Creator
you don't believe in divine revelations but i guess you believe in signs that can be observed all around, in nature and events happening in daily life. God is communicating to all but only the one tuned in recognise the signs.
Like a radio, atheist have turned their's off, agnostics just hear static, some catch an occasional meaningful line and some get to hear a beautiful song of life constantly.
I am in the occasional meaningful line for now..

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How many times is it used in the NT again? I'm guessing far far less.

To make it easier, why not compare the Greek word for fear used in 1 John with the Greek translation of the Hebrew word fear in Isaiah 41:10 (which seems to contradict the other teachings to fear god in the OT).

I wouldn't begin to know where to look it up though. Maybe you could point me in the right direction for the translation?

reply to post by wildtimes

The only reason Islam has "defamatory aspersions" cast against it is because of the ACTIONS of Extremists. What is Islam doing to silence them?

thats a very simplistic uninformed view. Islam is suffering "defamatory aspersions" and falsehood against it right from the start and the simple reason is that it was seen as a natural challenger to the church and the church did its best to defame islam and the Prophet and people are still doing it, maybe you must have noticed it here on ATS too.
Some atheist try to defame religions in general just because they don't like them.
Muslims can/should just follow islam.

4:140
And indeed He
has revealed to
you in the Book
that when you
hear Allah's
communications disbelieved in
and mocked at
do not sit with
them until they
enter into some
other discourse; surely then you
would be like
them; surely
Allah will gather
together the
hypocrites and the unbelievers
all in hell.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Okay, so I just did a bit of research and the Greek word for fear in 1 John 4:18 is "φόβος", meaning John said there is no "φόβος" (fear) in love. That same word is used in the Greek version of Acts.

Acts 10
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

So God accepts those who fear him.

The translated version of verse 35 is this:

παντ ἔθνει φοβούμενος ἐργαζόμενος δικαιοσύνην δεκτὸς

Spelled a bit different but its root word is "φόβος". The two spellings have the exact same meaning.

I put the word "φοβούμενος" (verse 35) into google translate and it came out meaning "apprehensive". Are you apprehensive of god?

The pronunciation of "φόβος" is "phobos". The definition of "phobos" is to "flee from because of feeling inadequate". Do you flee from god? Or do you embrace him NuT?

So Peter says that those who fear (flee) God will be accepted (wait, what?), while John says there is no fear in love. So which do you accept as right?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Have you considered consulting a commentary? Like maybe Matthew Henry's Concise?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The definitions speak for themselves. If I listen to a commentary then I'm sure they'll give me the same excuses as you.

Would you say that my research is wrong? Because I made sure it was right. You can do the digging for yourself if you'd like.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How many times is it used in the NT again? I'm guessing far far less.

To make it easier, why not compare the Greek word for fear used in 1 John with the Greek translation of the Hebrew word fear in Isaiah 41:10 (which seems to contradict the other teachings to fear god in the OT).

I wouldn't begin to know where to look it up though. Maybe you could point me in the right direction for the translation?

I use either blueletterbible.com or esword. I prefer the first one though because you can view any chapter, verse etc, and set it to show the Strong's Concordance numbers and click on any word in the text and every detail you could hope to need will pop up.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The definitions speak for themselves. If I listen to a commentary then I'm sure they'll give me the same excuses as you.

Would you say that my research is wrong? Because I made sure it was right. You can do the digging for yourself if you'd like.

Excuses?

No, there actually is a difference between Hebrew, Greek, and English. That's the purpose of Lexicons, Concordances, and exegetical commentaries. That's precisely what scholarship entails.

In the Concordance there is literally 9 definitions for the word "fear" that appears in Acts 10:35. It's easy to tell by the context, (how it's used in the sentence), that the writer if using the word in the sense of:

A: of those struck with amazement.

Or

B: To reverence, venerate, to treat with deference, or reverential obedience.

Originally posted by logical7
While having discussions here on ATS, I came up with this question and wanted to put it up to people in this section.

Immorality has caused and is causing a lot of damage, death and destruction, social wrongs, economic crises, environmental changes.

What will motivate immoral people to want to change towards better?

What can be a counter force to selfishness, greed, lust etc that works?

What you or i see as immorality, they see as freedom. These types of people are ready to embrace humanism and neo-platonism. They don't like stuffy old rules and archaic laws that tell them they may not murder unborn children, or that they cannot be homosexual if they so desire another man's flesh. In essence they want to do what they want to do and to hell with anyone who dares to disagree with their views, leaving people like you or me who disagree with their lifestyles branded as "haters" and terrorists for advocating a modicum of morality.

People hellbent on doing what they want to do and denying any culpability and responsibility usually won't change, not on their own. It takes an act of God to bring them to their knees and repent (change their minds about doing wrong), short of that nothing will open their blind eyes.

reply to post by wildtimes

Hey, you're the one touting "relative morality", not me! It's clear that I was taught them as Universally applicable, not "relative."

i am not touting relative morality, just wanted to show you that you are following a "relative" one and assuming it universal as you admitted.
Then you see people having stricter morals and you think of them as brainwashed
its like, "anyone driving slower than you is an IDIOT and anyone driving faster is a MANIAC!!"

whatever you and i have been taught may or may not be true, Qur'an tells not to follow the religion/culture/morals of forefathers/parents blindly as they may be themselves blind and unknowingly following wrong things. So use the brain to reason and reflect.

2:170
When it is said to them: "Follow what
God hath revealed:" They say: "Nay!
we shall follow the ways of our
fathers." What! even though their
fathers Were void of wisdom and
guidance?

(6:151) Say to them (O Muhammad!): 'Come, let me recite what your Lord has laid down to you: (i) that you associate nothing with Him; (ii) and do good to your parents; (iii) and do not slay your children out of fear of poverty. We provide you and will likewise provide them with sustenance; (iv) and do not even draw to things shameful - be they open or secret; (v) and do not slay the soul santified by Allah except in just cause; this He has enjoined upon you so that you may understand;
(6:152) (vi) and do not even draw near to the property of the orphan in his minority except in the best manner(to improve it); (vii) and give full measures and weight with justice; We do not burden anyone beyond his capacity; (viii) When you speak,
be just, even though it concern a near of kin; (ix) and fulfil the covenant of Allah. That is what He has enjoined upon you so that you may take heed.
(6:153) (x) This is My way -that which is straight: follow it, then, and
do not follow other paths lest they scatter you from His path. This is what He has enjoined upon you, so that you may beware.'

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

These types of people are ready to embrace humanism and neo-platonism.

humanism and neo-platonism are not wrong but yes they are very limited and relative. Just because two people consent to do a 'thing' does not make it ok especially when they are a part of society. It would be like two gears in a mechanical clock deciding to 'swing the other way' and then expect the clock to work correctly.

The immoralities exist because the laws are made considering individual freedom supreme which is not applicable when a person commits some promise to another. Say in marriage, then the individual freedom is willingly traded down in exchange of companionship. Later when having a baby, parents make another commitment to the baby and lose more freedom, but the law says that a married man/woman, father/mother still have complete freedom, if the man cheats on his wife he is breaking commitments and a family thats immoral but now almost an accepted behaviour.

In short if people are allowed to do immoral things then they would do it. Majority of people live a reward/punishment lifestyle. If an immoral act(lust, greed) is pleasureable(reward) and no punishment then why not do it!!
Only belief in God, Judgement Day and in Heaven and Hell will keep these people moral if laws favour immorality. If no belief in the above and laws favouring immorality then yes only God can bring them back!!