Why should Immoral people change?

reply to post by logical7

i just see a fight between the two, alcohol just was an incidental reason. Either way your posting it does not help.

It was to show you that the US tried to abolish alcohol, as you would like us to. And that it doesn't work. Muslims are "forbidden to drink" and yet they commit crimes anyway - we've exhausted the 'alcohol is evil' premise. It does not cause morality or immorality - same as religion doesn't cause morality or immorality.

I still would like the answers to the questions posed in my post after that one.
You don't have to tell us, but you're the one going on about understanding one another's starting point. I can't get to your starting point if you refuse to offer it up.

ignorance has nothing to do with education here.

Ignorance has everything to do with education, everywhere. Education is the cure for ignorance.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

Islamists and Traditionalists reject modernity, by which they mean Western secularism and the banishment of religious values from most aspects of daily life in what Mohammad Arkoun calls the mythical West.

In this world view, reason and the Enlightenment have become the new devils, modern blasphemies because they dare to set Man up as equal to God. The original sin of modern Man is therefore to have rejected the sovereignty of God and put in its place the sovereignty of the Individual.

See how you are? This is from Islam and Modernity article on Warsi news

The very words secular and individualism are anathema to many of today’s Islamists.

But what they understand by both terms often seems superficial, a cliched vision of life in the West as seen on cable television and films – a world of sex, violence and desperate loneliness – that overlooks the role religion, custom and tradition play in the lives of most people in Western countries.

Yes, Indeed. I would include you as believing that mythological description.

Such rejection is also part of a wider process that seeks to recast Islam as the quintessential Third World ideology, the obvious successor to Marxism, inheritor of the mantle of nationalism, a repudiation of colonial weakness and the glorification of a mythologised Islamic Past that stands alone and defiant from Western civilization.

Okay, do you see? Can you address this notion relative to yourself and your beliefs?
Because.....

this simply flies in the face of historical evidence. Islam is part of Western civilization.

So, we may have an objective and scholarly look at where you are really coming from. You have a mythological view of both: The West, AND Islam's past.

If I am wrong about that, by all means, tell me how.


Condition of Indian Muslims in current day India: Justice Saachar Report
also from Warsi news, gives statistics.
Now, I would like to ask you a couple of questions.
This item struck me as inconsistent with the picture you portray:

In urban areas, the report shows that Muslims mostly live in slums characterized by poor municipal infrastructure. In the rural area they eek out a subsistence level living at par or below with Sub-Saharan Africa.

Do you live in a city?
If so, which one, and what part of it? If not, what village or rural area?
Is your family prosperous?

I've been researching this morning on Muslims in India.

The salient features of the Sachar Committee report are:

*Like Slumdog’s protagonist, 94.9 per cent of Muslims are in Below Poverty Line (BPL); families in rural areas do not receive free food grains.

*60.2 per cent of Muslims do not have any land in rural areas.

*Just 2.1 per cent of Muslim farmers have tractors. With 15,25,000 tractors, India ranks No.4 after US, Japan and Italy

*A mere 1 per cent own hand pumps.

*On the educational front, the picture is equally dismal: 54.6 per cent Muslims in villages and 60 per cent in urban areas have never attended schools.
Only 0.8 per cent of Muslims in rural areas are graduates.
Although in urban areas, nearly 40 per cent of the Muslims now receive modern education, only 3.1 per cent of the community in urban areas is graduates. Just 1.2 per cent is post-graduates.

How much education have you and your family members received IN SCHOOLS?

All of those are demographic items. Other items listed areas where there are a majority of Muslims.

But HERE IS ONE that you seem to have failed to show us, while showing statistics of prison populations in the USA.

*However, there is one place where Muslims are over-represented: prisons. Muslims claim a grossly disproportionate share of prisoners, including convicts and those undergoing trials.

So, here in these two articles from Warsi news we can see the conditions of Muslims in India, and also the mythological "West" that the traditionalists harp about. Clearly, your own 'education' and 'point of view' are skewed with a charicature of 'the West', and you are not alone in this.

Sadly, however, you seem unwilling to listen to those of us de-mystifying and explaining to you that your ideas of the West are incorrect. Would you like to address that?

I'm trying to get at your 'starting point'. I believe I've already contributed mine.
And one more question for now:
Which 'sect' of Islam do you claim as yours, and what makes you a competent 'teacher' of that sect?

edit on 14-5-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Islam, in short, is no more nor less pro- or anti-Modernity than Western civilization. Indeed, some scholars argue that Islam actively encourages Reason and Free Will more actively and explicitly than either Christianity or Judaism. The concept of Original Sin, for example, is simply absent from Islam. Far from abhorring individualism, Islam encourages any Muslim to seek their own path to God. A good Muslim should be anything but rigid or obedient to anyone other than the Divine. No one person or caste has a monopoly of wisdom or access to God. Any Muslim, literate or illiterate, can discover the essence of God without intermediary or catechism, but in their own way, and in their own time.

Thats more like me. Why are you so interested in giving me self-knowledge.

Your own behaviour here ends up in you being criticized a lot, are you the person the critics blame you to be?

You are openly anti-religion and point more at its negative aspects, yet when negatives of your beliefs are shown, you point its positive.

Are you at least open to accept that ideologies are as good as the followers especially when everything is not spelled out.
In Islam, the ideology itself has rules and laws to make people act good by bringing out compassion or promise of reward or threat of punishment (aimed at people who tick by different reasons)
what ticks you is there in Islam, compassion, universal brotherhood etc. What you are objecting to is the part that does not tick you. Why is it wrong if someone does not do a wrong for the fear of punishment? Its sure not the best motivator but it is effective.
You are imposing your idealistic philosophy on people who are incapable to understand it and will be stuck there till they get knowledge, but till then they can be contributors towards good by reward and punishment belief.
You deny the above because it conflicts your deistic beliefs.
If you want to understand others view points, don't assume you beliefs as facts.
Your claim is that hell does not exist and its proof is that people abuse it so they must have invented it is lame. I should not have to explain it more to an intellectual. After this, its just your rigid belief. An intellectual position about The Unseen(God, Heaven, Hell) is "i don't know"
A big job for me will be to seperate your "beliefs" and the things that you have "assumed" as facts because they agree with your beliefs. I hope you'l want to do it yourself too.

reply to post by logical7


Are you going to answer the questions, or not?

You are openly anti-religion and point more at its negative aspects, yet when negatives of your beliefs are shown, you point its positive.

What? That sentence makes no sense. What are the negatives of my beliefs?
I get criticized because I speak my mind. I'm allowed to do that, and people are allowed to criticize me. At least I'm transparent, despite my 'critics' constantly saying they can "see through me" and calling me a demon.

Now, if you don't intend to answer the questions I asked you, just say so.

Tell us "why immoral people should change" and stop attacking me and 'the West'. Unless you answer the questions I am going to have to assume that the statistics are accurate and that you are not one of the very, very few Muslims doing well in India.

Your ideas and beliefs, like everyone else's, are a reflection of your life experience. It appears from research (which is all I can do as you will not disclose the specifics of your life and I have NO INTENTION of going to India or anywhere in the Middle East or any place that is predominantly Muslim) that your life has not been a particularly comfortable one.

I think you align most with the Wahhabi style, based on what I've been able to determine.

Your once open and amiable conversation has turned to insults and bashing of 'the West' based on false ideas, and attacking me and my beliefs.

My "idealistic" beliefs and agenda would help everyone in the world. Lose mythology and fear, get rid of focus on the afterlife, and deal with the here and now problems on the ground in a humanitarian manner. If you think people are "incapable" of understanding that, then that is real arrogance.

Hello Dear

I think the problem is the subjective nature of the concept of "morality/ amorality." What is unacceptable behavior for some, is acceptable for others. Morality is usually learned through cultural upbringing.

reply to post by Akragon

So a text from within 100 years of his actual life that said specifically he is the son of God... likely written by someone that was Johns closest follower is wrong... Yet your book is from no where near his lifetime and its more accurate... You don't find that a bit ridiculous?

do you know how they looked at that title during Jesus' time?
Even Ceasar was called son of God.
The objection is to its assumed blasphemous meaning. The Ebonites actually had the same belief about Jesus pbuh as in Islam and so are their texts less valid than what church declared as "official"? They are of the same time.

I realize what others called him... but
he called himself the son of God... His own words.... 33 The Jews answered him, saying,
For a good work we stone thee not;
but for blasphemy; and because that
thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not
written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom
the word of God came, and the
scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father,
believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not
me, believe the works: that ye may
know, and believe, that the Father is in
me, and I in him. .......... So you're telling me that he didn't say
that?

lets consider he did say it.
I see it as him making an intelligent arguement rather than declaring anything specifically.
He says other people in OT have been called gods so how is he guilt for saying he is son of God?
The Jews were looking for excuses/arguments to deny him and not believe him as Messiah(Christ) and he was countering them with his intelligent counter arguments.

24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost
thou make us to doubt? If thou be the
Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I
do in my Father's name, they bear
witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

reply to post by logical7

do you know how they looked at that title during Jesus' time?
Even Ceasar was called son of God.

Know them by their fruits... Cesar was a warlord... not an agent of peace...

While it may be true its just a title, there is quite a difference between those that were called the son of God and the one that proved it...

The objection is to its assumed blasphemous meaning.

To a jewish priest it was blasphemy, that's why he was executed... even to this day jewish people will not even type God... any association with God is blasphemous in that day, especially claiming to be Gods son.

The Ebonites actually had the same belief about Jesus pbuh as in Islam and so are their texts less valid than what church declared as "official"? They are of the same time.

As far as I know they were at least 100 years before Jesus...

lets consider he did say it.
I see it as him making an intelligent arguement rather than declaring anything specifically.
He says other people in OT have been called gods so how is he guilt for saying he is son of God?

Personally I think he did nothing wrong... He tried to get people away from the current mind set from the OT... but they preferred Moses and Abraham...

The Jews were looking for excuses/arguments to deny him and not believe him as Messiah(Christ) and he was countering them with his intelligent counter arguments.

of course they were!!

But this has nothing to do with what I asked... How is your book a more valid perspective when its 600+ years older then most of the NT?

How would your book have a more accurate idea of who Jesus was and what he said?

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?

I think we are born with a certain amount of instinct when it comes to basic right and wrong. This suggests that our... call it, inborn firmware, is based on concepts that are not simply man-made but universal in nature. It's really amazing when you think about it.

But as far as moral things like greed and selfishness that come via a preferred ignorance? Those seem part of the human condition and suggest that our species is still in the nursery, so to speak. Our ignorance of choice is often to set aside what we know to be wrong and embrace it anyway.

All this said now, I don't believe that it is our place to try and force our views of morality on others. This isn't because such may not be needed, but because lessons are best learned through first-person experience.

You can tell a child that the oven door is hot but it most often requires a burned little finger for that to take.

Good topic.

reply to post by wildtimes

But HERE IS ONE that you seem to have failed to show us, while showing statistics of prison populations in the USA.

maybe you missed important things in the report.
Like

It clearly displays that in the socio-
economic and educational fields the
Muslims lack behind because of
blatant discrimination.

Muslims are altogether excluded from
“sensitive” posts such as jobs in the
intelligence agencies, especially the
external-espionage Research &
Analysis Wing, the National Security Guard and other elite protection forces. Their presence in the top
national police and paramilitary
agencies is nominal. However, there is one place where
Muslims are over-represented: prisons.
Muslims claim a grossly
disproportionate share of prisoners,
including convicts and those
undergoing trials. The Sachar study, revealed that there
was extreme prejudice in Bharat
against all minorities, but especially
against Muslims. It pointed out that
being dressed as a Muslim was
enough to create extreme suspicion. In Delhi DWB (Driving while black) is a
major offense. In Bharat Muslim men
wearing a beard and a ‘topi’ [skull cap]
are often picked up by police for
interrogation from public places like
parks, railway stations and markets. It is worse for women. Muslim women
wearing an Islamic scarf or Muslim veil or full-body burqa complained of
facing hostility at markets, hospitals,
and schools and found it hard to get a
job.

i have to reluctantly believe that you deliberately missed it and posted only what suited you.
Btw just a fact, the discrimination was fanned and exploited by colonisers to rule without any opposition and when they left it went so high that pakistan had to be formed.

I'm trying to get at your 'starting
point'. I believe I've already
contributed mine.
And one more question for now:
Which 'sect' of Islam do you claim as
yours, and what makes you a competent 'teacher' of that sect?

you don't need my details to know the starting point of my thinking. My starting point is there is a God, One God, All Aware and we are created with/for a purpose.

Whats yours? You have a vague starting point so i'l like to know, i have an idea but i want you to put it again as precisely as possible.

reply to post by Akragon

there is quite a difference between those that were called the son of God and the one that proved it...

others proved it before and after him, the prophets suffered while giving the right message and for being firm on truth, John pbuh was beheaded, Zecharia pbuh killed etc. Jews have a history of killing prophets whose message din't go down well for following their desires and their excuses were ofcourse religious too.
What you believe is your belief and you can have it, its not an exclusive title, it just means a saintly/pious person.

To a jewish priest it was blasphemy,
that's why he was executed... even to
this day jewish people will not even
type God... any association with God is
blasphemous in that day, especially
claiming to be Gods son.

no, he was attempted to be executed on a false charge, show me that it was proven.

Mark 14
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to
put him to death; and found none. 56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not
together.

9 But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of
the Jews? 10 For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy. 11 But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas
unto them. 12 And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I
shall do unto him whom ye call the
King of the Jews? 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him. 14 Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out
the more exceedingly, Crucify him.

reply to post by Akragon

As far as I know they were at least
100 years before Jesus...

Ebionites

Sect of Judæo-Christians of the second
to the fourth century. They believed in
the Messianic character of Jesus, but
denied his divinity and supernatural
origin; observed all the Jewish rites,
such as circumcision and the seventh- day Sabbath; and used a gospel
according to Matthew written in
Hebrew or Aramaic, while rejecting the
writings of Paul as those of an
apostate

reply to post by logical7

others proved it before and after him...

Who?

the prophets suffered while giving the right message and for being firm on truth,

Who?

Suffering wasn't the message... just part of the process apparently...

John pbuh was beheaded

barely anything is written about him...

Zecharia pbuh killed etc.

This guy?

In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

2 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.

3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

Jews have a history of killing prophets whose message din't go down well for following their desires and their excuses were ofcourse religious too.

I don't see your point...

What you believe is your belief and you can have it, its not an exclusive title, it just means a saintly/pious person.

That's fine, I've already said its just a title... now what about my question?

no, he was attempted to be executed on a false charge, show me that it was proven.

Are you saying he wasn't executed... or he was but he didn't die?

Im confused...

the subject is covered in all four of the most important books in the entire bible...

reply to post by Akragon

But this has nothing to do with what I asked... How is your book a more valid perspective when its 600+ years older then most of the NT?

From where do you think Jesus pbuh got the teachings(Gospel) he preached? A revealation from God right?
Like Qur'an says,

(3:47) She said: 'O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has ever touched me?' The angel answered: Thus shall it be. Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decides something, He merely says: "Be" and it is. (3:48) And He will teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel, (3:49) and he will be a Messenger to
the Children of Israel.' (And when he
came to them he said): 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will make for you from clay the likeness of a bird and then I will breathe into it and by the leave of Allah it will become a bird. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and by the leave of Allah bring the dead to life. I will also inform you of
what things you eat and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely this is a sign for you if you are true believ-ers. (3:50) And I have come to confirm the truth of whatever there still remains of the Torah, and to make lawful to you some of the things which had been forbidden to you. have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so have fear of Allah and obey me. (3:51) Surely, Allah is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him alone. This is the straight way.' (3:52) And when Jesus perceived their leaning towards unbelief, he asked: 'Who will be my helpers in the way of Allah?' The disciples said: 'We are the helpers of Allah. We believe in Allah, and be our witness that we have submitted ourselves exclusively to Allah. (3:53) Our Lord! We believe in the com-mandment You have revealed and we obey the Messenger; make us, then, one of those who bear witness (to the Truth).' (3:54) Then they schemed (against the Messiah), and Allah countered their schemes by schemes of His own. Allah is the best of schemers. (3:55) (And it was part of His scheme) when Allah said: 'O Jesus! I will recall you and raise you up to Me and will purify you (of the company) of those who disbelieve, and will set your followers above the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me you shall return, and I will judge between you regarding what you differed.

Why should anyone change? The only reason someone would change is if they are suffering.
If you are not hurting you will not change. If you are hurting then change will happen.
Even a one celled organism will move away from something toxic (pain) and will move toward food (pleasure).
The mind tends to override this instinct with reasons why it might help to stay somewhere unpleasant because of future promises. The mind gives reasons why it is good to do bad things because in the long run it is good.
Like bombing Japan (with nuclear weapons) - they say it saved lives in the long run??

reply to post by logical7

From where do you think Jesus pbuh got the teachings(Gospel) he preached? A revealation from God right?

wrong...

according to his words, he was with the Father before this incarnation...

He remembered being with God, unlike anyone else...

It wasn't a revelation, it was pre existent knowledge...

even your book says he spoke when he was just born...

reply to post by logical7

i have to reluctantly believe that you deliberately missed it and posted only what suited you.

No, you don't "have to reluctantly believe" - you're deciding. AND you would be wrong again!

I read the entire article, posted a link to it, and extracted a few statistical points. I figured you would go and read the whole thing and come back. Yes, discrimination = people suffer. No question about that.
I don't care if a person is green, purple, or blue - if they act like a jerk, I will stay away from them.

reply to post by Akragon

That's fine, I've already said its just a title... now what about my question?

which question exactly, can you please put it again.

Are you saying he wasn't executed...
or he was but he didn't die? Im confused... the subject is covered in all four of the
most important books in the entire
bible...

the books in the bible were included to officiate and promote that belief, it can't be used as a proof for it being true. paul very clearly said that if Christ didnt die Christianity is a sham!
Is thats the best proof he could bring? Emotional manipulation to make people believe his integrity
Jesus was hungry and ate after his alleged crucifixtion.
Read what the devil said to him, that God won't even let his heel get bruised if he jumps from the temple roof and angels will protect/carry him.
How do you believe a story written by people who stood to benefit by spreading that official story?
Do you believe in exclusive salvation for christians? Jesus as saviour, original sin etc?
The story is like hindu beliefs that gods come down as humans(avatar) to feel how it is to be human and teach people, its soaked in paganism with a wrapping of monotheism. To please the gentiles and jews like paul said about himself.
Its just a belief that got popular by force and time, but then Islam came with a new revealation to correct it and the struggle continues, each side convinced that they know the truth but its our duty to find out, what if Jesus pbuh preached the Islamic idea and it was paul who hijacked it and corrupted it. You need to find out yourself, an english translation of Qur'an is not so hard to read. Unless you have rigidly made a belief and don't want to change it even if it maybe wrong.

reply to post by logical7

you don't need my details to know the starting point of my thinking. My starting point is there is a God, One God, All Aware and we are created with/for a purpose.

I've told you I'm an Agnostic Deist who follows NO religion. What sect of Islam do you follow?

Yes, I do need the details so that I can see the bigger 'picture' of your life experience. That's what communication is about. But since you are stone-walling and trying to put words into my mouth while accusing me of 'cheating', I understand that you have become defensive, reticent, and non-participatory in any actually productive outcome here.

reply to post by logical7

which question exactly, can you please put it again.

Why is your book more accurate then books that were written closer to when Jesus lived... possibly by witnesses?

the books in the bible were included to officiate and promote that belief,

Right...

it can't be used as a proof for it being true.

Why?

There are texts dated to within 100 years of his life... 300+ years before the bible was officially created...

paul very clearly said that if Christ didnt die Christianity is a sham!

Who cares what paul said?

I have like.. 4 threads on Paul... Not a fan

Really...

Is thats the best proof he could bring? Emotional manipulation to make people believe his integrity

What?

Jesus was hungry and ate after his alleged crucifixtion.

So...?

Wouldn't you?

Read what the devil said to him, that God won't even let his heel get bruised if he jumps from the temple roof and angels will protect/carry him.
How do you believe a story written by people who stood to benefit by spreading that official story?

Did you just say you believe the devil?

Do you believe in exclusive salvation for christians?

Im no Christian... and no...

Jesus as saviour,

Yes...

original sin etc?

No... Etc

The story is like hindu beliefs that gods come down as humans(avatar) to feel how it is to be human and teach people, its soaked in paganism with a wrapping of monotheism. To please the gentiles and jews like paul said about himself.
Its just a belief that got popular by force and time, but then Islam came with a new revealation to correct it and the struggle continues, each side convinced that they know the truth but its our duty to find out,

Jesus wasn't God...

what if Jesus pbuh preached the Islamic idea and it was paul who hijacked it and corrupted it.

Back to paul?

I thought we were talking about Jesus here... Paul didn't know Jesus...

So I personally don't care what he might have said

reply to post by logical7

Jews have a history of killing prophets whose message din't go down well for following their desires and their excuses were ofcourse religious too.

Wow, so now it's not just 'the West', it's the Jews, too, and the colonists (French and English), and the Hindus! ALL OF THEM are to blame for your plight. That's called 'playing the victim', and it's a specific mindset that is self-perpetuating.
The surviving Tsarnaev boy reportedly left a note in the boat where he was hiding (and I emphasize REPORTEDLY - because I did not see him write it or see it myself) that the Boston bombing/maiming/killing spree was 'payback' for 'the West's behavior in Muslim places.'

Do you suppose "Allah" told him to do those things? Or his older brother who had got sucked into an extremist way of thinking by OTHER people who are extremist Musliims, and Allah had no 'input' into the plan at all?

Was it justifiable? No (and neither are the wars or the West/NATO's interference and intervention). But it's understandable in TERMS OF MOTIVE. Was it "moral"? NO.. NONE of it is 'moral.'

You keep saying 'revelation' makes something a message from God, but that idea holds no water. And who was Muhammed to think he was so special and it was HIS job to correct the wrong notions of the OT/NT? LOTS of people, even today, think they got 'revelations' from some invisible source, and it proves nothing. Not One Thing.

they should get
some ethics or values