Why should Immoral people change?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

i meant if punishments of horrible crimes are too lenient(due to mercy/forgiveness) then it will indirectly encourage(not discourage) those crimes.

It appears that there are "judicial systems" that you consider to be "too lenient."

Is this a push for Sharia?

i find punishment for rape lenient if its less than capital punishment.

No, not pushing for Sharia, just a desire to let you all know sharia before judging it.
Sharia is more about social welfare with a tiny part dealing with punishments.
As BH said, 1% owning 99% wealth. sharia makes sure of economic redistribution.
Sharia protects the weakest against the rich.
A rich may get immoral if he stops caring for the poor because he believes that what he earned is by his talent. Its untrue, he din't really earn the talent, gratefulness to God keeps him humble and makes him give charity.

reply to post by slugger9787


Nice argument.

The light comes from within and without. My body is full of light because my true body is not physical. You see the light but do not comprehend it, I do. If you focus what's in front of your face you might understand, but I don't expect you to understand because not many people can.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

Only atheist can think that a criminal who did not value another life should be allowed to live as their is nothing after death and the one who died is already dead so lets not worry about the victim.

WHAT?!!!

That is preposterous. Wow. So, you're advocating that "we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong." I saw a bumper sticker about that very idea that started out with "WHY DO we kill people, etc."

"ONLY AN ATHEIST can think that a criminal ... should be allowed to live"?

REALLY?
Again, wow.

killing INNOCENT person is wrong.
Having a death penalty for murder is a deterent for anyone who wants to kill.
You are surprised that i say its an atheistic idea. Right?
tell why not apply the golden rule?

I see the judicial system is more criminal friendly than victim friendly. Why the desire to protect lives of criminals and send a wrong message to potential ones and make more..?
Prisons in America is big business, its profitable to keep more in prison and let taxpayers feed them!!

reply to post by wildtimes

"Why would anyone do that?"?? BECAUSE it's the RIGHT THING to do. God has nothing to do with it!

will an immoral person do the RIGHT thing?

God has everything to do with it, a belief in Jugdement day will prevent people being immoral 'knowingly'

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
According to the Christian position I would say that all people are born with God's laws naturally programmed into their consciousness. And to act on love, being unselfish, and wanting the best for one's fellow man IS natural behavior, even if the person doesn't acknowledge the God who created that person to behave in such a way.

This is not only the Christian position, but also aligns with mystic teachings.

The more we act from the center of our "true" self, as opposed to our ego-self, the more we naturally avoid immoral actions. It is not out of fear, or even a conscious decision based on love, but a deep-seated spiritual instinct which goes beyond religious precepts and societical laws.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by logical7

 

But god is the one who set society up.

What do you think those conquests of the Hebrews were for? To expand "god's" territory and to force his societal ideals on others. Religion is what controls society and is a main factor in it's construction. What do you think the Law was for? To shape society in a certain way.

God does want the society to be setup in a certain way. There are laws too but its not being done. An ideal society would be harmonious. But when mèn make laws and that too immoral men make laws and trends of society then how can you expect a moral one?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Who ever said that criminal law is made on "forgiveness",

the whole abolishing of capital punishment thing.

Only atheist can think that a criminal who did not value another life should be allowed to live as their is nothing after death and the one who died is already dead so lets not worry about the victim.

And why do you think atheists reject your god? Because they know the crimes that Yahweh committed in the OT, they are against killing, which is exactly why they do not believe in your god.

Apparently atheists are more against murder than you are because you condone all the genocides that your god committed.

do i? I din't knew that i condone it.

I say the OT was modified by a bunch of fanatic terrorists during many times in history and they blamed it on God and they are still doing it to grab land, to kill and call themselves as chosen!!

reply to post by logical7


But you think it's impossible that the same thing was done to the NT? If the OT was prone to manipulation, what makes you think the NT wasn't?

ETA: Oops, I forgot you were Muslim, sorry.

reply to post by slugger9787

There are two basic theories about morals: 1. They are objective, absolute, universal laws. 2. They are subjective, relative, societal preferences.

there are some in #1 that can never be altered and atering them will lead to decay of the society.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Doesn't the bible say that there is no fear in love? Doesn't it also say that god is love? So why does a god of love require fear to be moral? If he requires fear, he is not love because there is no fear in love.

I would say that love casts down fear.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What original sin basically is is those who wrote the bible and who put it together passing the blame onto other people. We are not born sinners.

A baby is born pure and innocent, even a kid is free from sin till he/she reaches a certain age of making responsible choices thats around puberty, then the person is accountable for his/her actions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I agree, which begs the question: why does Yahweh require fear?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by logical7

 

Doesn't the bible say that there is no fear in love? Doesn't it also say that god is love? So why does a god of love require fear to be moral? If he requires fear, he is not love because there is no fear in love.

Here's the verse:

1 John 4
18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

How do you reconcile this with your beliefs?

simple! I don't have this belief.

God is loving but God is also Just.

If God is loving to the criminal, it would be injustice to the victim.

Do you think that christian leaders causing wars and genocides are doing it because they think God is love? Then its sick.

The fear should be to God because He will do Justice. A murderer can escape law but not God, if he really believed it, he would fear God and not do that crime.

The idea of God is love almost makes God as passive and forced to forgive all, Jùstice can go to hell!!

God is the God of victims too not just the sinners/criminals. Its sick how victims are told to just suck it up.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I agree, which begs the question: why does Yahweh require fear?

You have to differentiate the types of fear there are. Fear has several meanings. One of those would be "great admiration and reverence". I know it sucks, and one of the great laments I have come to have over the years of studying scripture is a desire that English was a rigid and precise as Greek, or as colorful and descriptive as Hebrew. But it just isn't, it's such a simple and lazy language. For example there are numerous different words for the many types of "love" that exist in Greek, in English we use the word "love" for each of them and the subtleties are no longer concrete and defined, but inferred.

Originally posted by logical7
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

What original sin basically is is those who wrote the bible and who put it together passing the blame onto other people. We are not born sinners.

A baby is born pure and innocent, even a kid is free from sin till he/she reaches a certain age of making responsible choices thats around puberty, then the person is accountable for his/her actions.

Correct. And it needs to be pointed out that original sin is a Catholic doctrine used to support infant baptism. Many Christians believe that a person is born with a nature to sin, not sin passed down from Adam. That a baby is innocent until they make the free moral choice of their own consciousness to rebel.

reply to post by logical7

If God is loving to the criminal, it would be injustice to the victim.

So would you say that people who die in the act of murdering innocent people are in Hell?

reply to post by logical7

i heard that having it makes girls appear more pretty!
I don't know any other benefits.

Well, that thing you "heard" is based on how many beers the guy has had to drink..... they say that enough beer makes anybody pretty......

But, there are benefits. It's relaxing, and enjoyable, and totally benign in terms of "evil-doing". As long as it's not in excess and a person who gets violent when "uninhibited".
En vino veritas.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by logical7

 

A baby is not naturally shy about their nakedness, it is society that makes them shy and embarrassed about it. There are tons of naturists around the world who raise their children without clothes and the children are 100% fine with it from birth.

NO, naturist teach them to live that way.
At birth the baby is unaware of self, when the awareness of body comes, then the shyness comes. It will go if trained otherwise.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Could you give some examples of these different meanings? Specific words that differentiated them? Also, was the Greek word for fear in 1 John 4:18 different from the translated Greek form of the Hebrew word for fear in the OT?

If they didn't mean fear, they wouldn't have translated it into the English word for fear, they would have translated it as "admiration" or "reverence", but they didn't.

reply to post by logical7

I say the OT was modified by a bunch of fanatic terrorists during many times in history and they blamed it on God and they are still doing it to grab land, to kill and call themselves as chosen!!

Really? So, you think the Old Testament was correct?
If so, I really don't know how to effectively respond to that assertion. It's clear to me that the Old Testament "God" was a capital creep!!