Why should Immoral people change?

reply to post by wildtimes

I never said our society is perfect. Yours is not perfect either

now thats pretty neat wildtimes, according to you the problems in our society are due to our religion and beliefs.
When problems in your society are pointed out you say "i never said our society is perfect"
wildtimes, is it by any chance equally possible that the problems in your society are due to prevalent beliefs and ideas that influence the people to act in certain immoral ways?

you
STILL haven't answered my questions
regarding the treatment of girls and
women in India, or the case of the
Westboro Baptist Church "defectors."

how and why India is in discussion? I'l answer, the men who gang raped the girl in bus had converted a private bus into a public bus and there were no other passengers except her bf who was beaten and thrown out.
If you want to know about Delhi, i can tell you but you wouldn't like it, the girls in delhi are becoming more western and trying to live a western life of late night drinking and partying and men have yet to catch up leading to an explosive mix, just because a girl wears a miniskirt, men assume she is too willing for sex and treat her as a loose girl and insultingly. Its disgusting but thats whats happening, its a transition period and the only way to protect the girls is stricter laws and more policing or that girls keep in mind what men are around and care about their own safety rather than expecting men to suddenly have the insensitivity or self control to nakedness like western men.
Regarding WBC defectors, i am glad they escaped an intolerant, hateful group. If they were forced to believe or do anythings then i am happy they escaped.

Scorpie

You did say something about Christians recognizing homosexuality as healthy and normal lifestyle... which you say is the "truth", and supported by the DSM.

Nevertheless, your question was posed to me about my basis for my making a truthful observation about the secular aspects of an ordinary part of human life. No problem asking somebody about the factual basis of some statement they made. Big problem saying that that's somebody else's basis for some other statement that the other person might or might not make.

Paul is rather explicit in his stance regarding homosexuality. Romans 1:27 is another example.

Really? That's thoroughly cherry-picked, even for you. Paul is describing the punishments for idolatry in that passage.

Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions.

That doesn't sound much like love between the people involved. That also doesn't make what is being described a sin. We hardly need Paul to tell us that being impelled in wrath to perform sex acts without love is plausibly punishing. That would be just as true of heterosexual acts.

Many people do not find sexual acts punishing when, unlike in Paul's epistle, they arise from love rather than divine wrath. How are these people contradicting themselves? How is the Old South Church at fault for embracing people who, for all they know, may not be idolators at all?

Their ideas and practices are the work of men, not necessarily supported by the book they supposedly follow.

The usual Christian view is that the Bible is a work of men, aided or inspired by the divine. It is especially crucial for Christians that the New Testament be the work of men, otherwise Christianity wouldn't be a historical religion. If it's all a fairy tale, then that may be fine for some, but it isn't what Christianity claims about itself.

For example, a key controversy between Christianity and Islam is whether Jesus died on the cross. John says he has an eyewitness to the stabbing, by a Roman soldier, of the corpse, hanging from a Roman cross. If the Gospels are not the work of men, then there is no witness, and a Christian has no historical basis for disputing Mohammed's claim that Jesus didn't die by Roman hands.

Well, I include many portions of the Bible in my religion as well....

Speaking of your posting history, you and I have discussed that you do not accept the thought-to-be inspired words of the Gospel narrators, but only words that the narrator places directly in the mouth of Jesus. You do not accept Paul as a religious authority, you use him only for rebuttal.

My statement that neither of us incorporates the Bible in our religion stands. The title of a book generally refers to the book as a whole, and did in my statement. However, I happily clarify that you do use selected parts you like, particularly the bits printed in cherry red in some editions.

Well, some of Jesus' words, anyway.
-

reply to post by logical7

wildtimes, is it by any chance equally possible that the problems in your society are due to prevalent beliefs and ideas that influence the people to act in certain immoral ways?

You should be asking yourself the same question. If Christian beliefs shape the way people act immorally, can't the same be said for Muslim beliefs?

The middle east is the most chaotic part of the world right now, with genocide after genocide taking place every day. Is it at all possible that Muslim beliefs influence Muslims to act immorally?

reply to post by wildtimes

YES I know the extent of domestic violence! There are MANY, MANY people working to stop it, to PREVENT it, and I am one of those people - for God's sake!! Did you not catch that I was a mental health clinician?

yet the only reason you mentioned for run away girls ending up in prostitution was low self-esteem due to religious indoctrination. Almost makes it appear that you have an agenda to defame religion every chance you get, i merely reminded you of other reasons and you took it personally. I hope you were not shouting at me

the simple thing is that the society you are defending is decaying and the reason is some of its wrong values and beliefs. There are attempts made to 'cure' the bad effects of those wrong values rather than changing the values and going for 'prevention'
Being a mental health clinician, can you tell me in how many domestic violence cases was the assailant drunk? Most, half, some, rarely?

When you throw money at problems like single teenage mothers, this happens

The rise of the welfare state in the
1960s contributed greatly to the
demise of the black family as a
stable institution. The out-of-
wedlock birth rate among African
Americans today is 73%, three times higher than it was prior to the
War on Poverty. Children raised in
fatherless homes are far more
likely to grow up poor and to
eventually engage in criminal
behavior, than their peers who are raised in two-parent homes. In
2010, blacks (approximately 13%
of the U.S. population) accounted for 48.7% of all arrests for homicide,
31.8% of arrests for forcible rape,
33.5% of arrests for aggravated
assault, and 55% of arrests for
robbery. Also as of 2010, the black
poverty rate was 27.4% (about 3 times higher than the white rate), meaning that 11.5 million blacks in
the U.S. were living in poverty.

www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1672

Family is a functional unit of a society. Society will be as the family is. This is what Sharia acknowledges and lays laws to preserve.
You may have a distaste for the word but you can't deny the wisdom.
Muslims know this, family structure is very strong among muslims and they get angry when it starts to disintegrate due to western cultural influence.
How do you justify thinking that a dysfunctional social/moral system of your can be universally applied? And if you think it can be perfected then pefect it first and then think about exporting it!

reply to post by eight bits

Nevertheless, your question was posed to me about my basis for my making a truthful observation about the secular aspects of an ordinary part of human life. No problem asking somebody about the factual basis of some statement they made. Big problem saying that that's somebody else's basis for some other statement that the other person might or might not make.

You said Christians recognize homosexuality as normal and healthy.
The Bible does not teach that, so their basis for believing so would be secular. Which takes us back to the original point I made about Christianity adapting to secular ideals.

Paul is describing the punishments for idolatry in that passage.

Alright then, so the bible teaches that some men turned into homosexuals as a punishment from God.
Homosexuality itself is described as a "degrading" passion, as in the verse you quoted... NOT "healthy and normal".

Read a little further...
"Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done..."

In other words, homosexual acts were not to be done to begin with.

The usual Christian view is that the Bible is a work of men, aided or inspired by the divine. It is especially crucial for Christians that the New Testament be the work of men, otherwise Christianity wouldn't be a historical religion.

All thats fine, but I was talking about churches accepting homosexuals.... as being the ideas and works of men. It does not mean it has a biblical basis.

Ever noticed that every verse on "marriage" ALWAYS involves a man and a woman? There is not a single verse teaching that 2 men can marry.

You do not accept Paul as a religious authority, you use him only for rebuttal.

Do I need to accept Paul as a religious authority when he states the obvious?

He is not a religious authority to me. But when evaluating what the book has to say about a specific subject, Paul's views are just as important... and can be used for rebuttal.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The middle east is the most chaotic part of the world right now, with genocide after genocide taking place every day. Is it at all possible that Muslim beliefs influence Muslims to act immorally?

Are you also including the chaos caused by the US invasions and bombings? You know, the ones started by a certain Christian president.... and fought by soldiers who would identify as Christians?

If you want to drop big words like "Genocide", know that it can also be applied to the victims of US drone attacks. Most of whom are women and children.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I was talking more along the lines of Syria. I don't condone what the president has done, and I believe Christianity is just as big of a problem as Islam, if not bigger. I acknowledge both sides of the problem while you ignore one, which happens to be your religion.

I think that this ongoing war between Christianity and Islam is exactly what the Judaic god (Satan) wanted all along: chaos and confusion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You should be asking yourself the same question. If Christian beliefs shape the way people act immorally, can't the same be said for Muslim beliefs?

i don't think USA is acting on Christian beliefs, i wish all were following Jesus Christ pbuh. I meant beliefs of individualism, greed, lust etc being glorified rather than condemned. So the later part of your arguement does not stand, actually the muslim world is also being infected by that western virus as Islam is losing hold on the hearts.

The middle east is the most chaotic
part of the world right now, with
genocide after genocide taking place
every day. Is it at all possible that
Muslim beliefs influence Muslims to act
immorally?

no, lack of muslim belief is making them immoral.
We have a hadith that if two muslims fight to kill each, both the killer and killed will go to Hell because both had intention to kill his brother.
Now you tell me are they following the Prophet's saying?

The genocides are not being done by muslims except the war in syria.
I guess you are smart enough and i won't need to point out that world politics being played in ME and the blood spilled is muslim. Its cheap in the eyes of Western powers you see.
The muslims are ignorant and have become pawns in the game of power. If they go back to Qur'an and follow it and get united above race, tribes and langùages under one faith as Islam teaches, do you think the war mongers could manipulate them with money and false promises of power etc?

I guess the world remembers what happened when islam was followed fully, the western powers are not fools to let muslims become a formidable united union with almost complete control on the primary energy source, OIL!

The word "moral/immoral" is problematic.

It's use flows from a paradigm of 'outside authority' as opposed to inner-guidance. Humanity is in the midst of making a transition from one paradigm dominated by energies of greed/manipulation/secrecy/judgment to a new one of well-being/empowerment/openness/compassion.

In this transition, we are learning the energy of 'appropriateness'.

The off-balance energies of the old paradigm have left us cut off from our inner-guidance systems. The dominance of the male/rational mind (individually/collectively) and the suppression of the female/intuitive mind has left them both disempowered.

That balance needs to be restored before we can be free of inappropriate expression/actions here on Earth.

The potentials are strong that we will.

It takes a few generations, but the seeds have been planted, and they germinate with each act of compassion between humans.

Blessings,
*e

Scorpie

You said Christians recognize homosexuality as normal and healthy.

Actually, you said something about Christians who accepted homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. I proposed for discussion a possible alternative statement to yours prefaced by "Or, alternatively..." I went on to make a statement in my own voice that my proposed alternative explanation would portray Christian thinking as consistent with the truth about homosexuality.

You asked me a Biblical question, which I answered. Then you asked a follow-up question,

You were saying something earlier about Christians recognizing homosexuality as a normal and healthy lifestyle, something you say is the "truth". The truth according to who? Homosexuals? Their supporters? Christians who run gay churches?

"You were saying something earlier..." is a statement, not a question, and it refers to our earlier exchange. Your question about that exchange (as opposed to your suggested answers) was "The truth according to who?" Which truth were you asking about, again? Emphasis added:

something you say is the "truth".

All you asked about was me saying that it is the truth. And so I answered.

As I so often remind you, there really is no point telling fibs about me when anyone who cares can simply check back in the thread, and see for themselves that you aren't telling the truth.

Also Old Testament laws regarding shellfish and fabrics has no bearing on the New Testament rulings on homosexuality. Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Period.

You've struck out twice trying and failing to show Paul even mentioning, much less condemning, loving voluntary adult same-sex relationships. Ages before Paul, homosexuality was forbidden on exactly the same grounds as shellfish eating, pork, etc., in statutes which applied only to a Bronze Age Israelite state that came and went long before the first Christian was born.

That is the Biblical truth.

Homosexuality itself is described as a "degrading" passion, as in the verse you quoted... NOT "healthy and normal".

No, the punishment sent by God for idolatry is what is described as degrading (and so, not healthy or normal), according to the passage. It's unclear whether the degradation isn't that idolators who have no personal inclination to engage in some sex acts are nevertheless impelled by the God-sent passion to do them. But in any case, that has nothing to do with the same acts perfomed by adult non-idolator volunteers, motivated by their love for one another. The passage says nothing at all about them.

As for your reading a little further, the later things that shouldn't be done aren't sex acts, but other things entirely, an additional avenue of punishment, besides the passion we've discussed,

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. 29 They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips 30and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them

Not a sex act in the lot. I guess that's why your cherry-picking broke off even more abruptly than usual.

I mean what's the point of that, Scorpie? The Christians who would care and students of the issue already know what Romans 1 says, and anybody at all who is following the thread can just look it up. So why even try to pull a fast one? You never get away with it. Why not just try to have an honest discussion, based on a truthful use of what your sources actually say?

Heck, do it for the change of pace.

Ever noticed that every verse on "marriage" ALWAYS involves a man and a woman?

Yes, and thank God, we're fixing that, too.

reply to post by logical7


If the U.S. isn't acting on Christian beliefs then what "beliefs and ideas" were you talking about?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by logical7

 

If the U.S. isn't acting on Christian beliefs then what "beliefs and ideas" were you talking about?

I meant beliefs of
individualism, greed, lust etc being
glorified rather than condemned.

reply to post by logical7

So what is the reason for the civil war in Syria? You can't blame one side then give the other a free pass all because they share the same religion as you.

reply to post by AlphaLeonis


Star, and thanks for contributing here. Welcome to ATS.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I acknowledge both sides of the problem while you ignore one, which happens to be your religion.

Hear, hear!! Thank you, 3NL for saying so!!!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Dude, WHERE do you live? In order to continue this discussion, we need to be clear on where the participants are 'coming from'. Otherwise, there's no point at all.

reply to post by logical7

the simple thing is that the society you are defending is decaying and the reason is some of its wrong values and beliefs. There are attempts made to 'cure' the bad effects of those wrong values rather than changing the values and going for 'prevention'

Oh. Really? I'm thinking that the Middle East is becoming a very volatile and dreadful, violent place (as if it wasn't for centuries).....
I don't see how the West is 'decaying'. But I DO see how the Islamists are behaving.....
and you STILL have not addressed that 'little problem.'

You want the world to 'understand' Islam? THEN DO SOMETHING about the extremists who are killing, maiming, and subjugating people!!!!!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Are you also including the chaos caused by the US invasions and bombings? You know, the ones started by a certain Christian president.... and fought by soldiers who would identify as Christians?

That is a HUGE assumption, and totally refutable.
STOP with the broad-brush painting of all "Westerners" as "Christians." It is ENTIRELY UNTRUE.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I think that this ongoing war between Christianity and Islam is exactly what the Judaic god (Satan) wanted all along: chaos and confusion

YES.
That.