In a number of posts (some of which were abruptly closed by moderators) members have been debating about whether Religion (God) is the only source of morality? Or has man developed social mores due to historical and cultural experiences?
PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Is Religion the (sole) source of Morality?
(187 posts)-
gv
MemberPosted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:07 # -
@gv,
they have been closed for a reason.
and reason always has been given by the moderator who is closing that particular thread.threads u r talking about ...must be closed just for the simple reason that too many threads are already discussing "religion "...most hot is "i am Muslim",which is hitting more than 200 posts and still going ...with out getting closed.
that shows we have no issue with religion and religious debates ..if they are in certain limits and not in too many threads but in one or two threads it has been discussed.
u are welcome to join your friends in the thread :
i am Muslim .
and post whatever your comments are .thanks
BeenaiPosted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:15 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@gv: Do you think you can YOURSELF operate a new car better than how it is described in the manual given to you by the original manufacturer of the car ?
Do you think the original manufacturer KNOWS MORE about the car or YOU who only has partial info on best practices from past experiences ?
Similar question, but this time let's take the example of a computer.
What do YOU think ?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:17 # -
Revivalist
membergv,
In a secular society morals can never be objective as without God there is no rational basis for objective morality.
Logical coherence of this argument1. God is the conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity
2. Secularism divorces any reference to God in moral matters
3. Therefore morals are subjective & relative in a secular frameworkIn Islam morals do not change because they are grounded in God i.e. euthanasia (“the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition) and suicide they are would be described as immoral. They always have been, and this will not change.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:43 # -
gv
Member@rev and haris,
my argument as stated before is that man has developed a system of morality and justice based on his individual and communal self interest _as explained in my caveman analogy.
I think it makes perfect sense that over a long period of time the basic 'universal' tenets of morality i.e.
- do not kill
- do not steal
- do not cause harm and distress to your fellow beings etc..
..are a direct result of that self interest as any rational society would punish/ostracise any miscreants. Therefore it would be in the individuals self interest to adhere to the law/social rules.
In my opinion religion was (and is) used to bolster that adherence to socially acceptable behaviour.
your argument is simply 'god said so'
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:51 # -
amin1924
membergv,
If you don't mind can you tell me why do you differentiate between a particular type of action from other actions?
A moral action can be for material value or for spiritual value or for humanitarian value, it depends on the intention of a person and case to case.
A human lives with others in a common set of thoughts, emotions and rules that organize their affairs of life to attain harmony in society.
Basically my idea is that you can not isolate a particular kind of action from a complete set which has certain other parameters that revolve around it.
Perhaps I'll understand more about your thought process as the debate progresses forward.
Thx
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 13:53 # -
gv
Member@jj
The debate is about whether morality derived from a creator being (god) or whether man developed morality due to the collective experiences of detached communities independently forming a social contract over a long period of time.
I don't think i disagree with what you are saying about isolating particular actions but I don't see how that is relevant?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:02 # -
amin1924
membergv,
Message of religion depends on messenger and their is fair chance that message may not have reached some zulu tribe in Africa.
Those people would have developed certain code of life for all kinds of actions, people would have common emotions and thoughts on them and a mechanism to enforce the code on everyone.
Now that code of life may not be moral for outsiders, but those people can develop code of life independently because it is animalistic instinct. Even animals have pretty organized code of life.
But why do we isolate a particular type of action called moral from others? In each case there is a common frame of reference be it for action between one human and another or action between human and spirituality or human and society.
Why isolate a particular relationship and view it as isolated?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:08 # -
gv
Member@jj doesn't sound like a very efficient message if it can;t reach the public?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:16 # -
Revivalist
memberTO me the issue is of subjective and objective morality as I have said earlier. Morality detached from God is subjective and morality connected with God is objective and binding as well as is more rational then making evolution/social pressure as the bases of morality....
One need to define what does he mean by "do not kill" and do not harm and distress your fellow human being" If a thieve feel harmed and distress by the policeman, what would you call it and if a person who has killed some one is being punished to death, isn’t there a difference between these both????
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:16 # -
gv
Member@revivalist
why is morality connected with God more rational?
that is what i fail to understand..
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:19 # -
amin1924
membergv,
Well, you just by passed the whole point and made a one liner.
A message being efficient or not has no relevance with communication mechanism? How do you correlate the two?
A scientist getting noble prize on a new discovery and it isn't efficient enough because it doesn't reach you?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:19 # -
Revivalist
membergv,
1. God is the conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity
2. Secularism divorces any reference to God in moral matters
3. Therefore morals are subjective & relative in a secular framework i.e.euthanasia....Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:24 # -
gv
Member@jj
Morality for me is defined as an acceptable social code of conduct for members of a society/community etc.
Nearly all settled civilisations since the dawn of time have expressed a few common factors in developing that code which are typically
- do not kill, steal, injure a fellow member (or property of that member) of the society/community
I find it easy to attribute that development of universal social mores to 'animalistic instict' as you put it, or self interest (which is my favoured reason) or cultural pressures or social evolution
What i am finding difficult to understand is why the concept of morality derived from god is superior?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:30 # -
Red-Scorpion
BlockedFirst of all, we recognize that all morals are human-made -- even those that allege to have come from a god. So, in one sense, all ethics are personal, because even a theist chooses which religious system to follow.
But in another sense, most ethics are universal. This is because all humans have similar mental constructions and experience similar upbringing. There are certain things that no healthy human could be convinced to do, and there are certain sacrifices that any human would make for her or his fellow-humans.
True, there are exceptions: a small number of humans will disregard ethics that the rest of us take for granted. All cultures have developed laws -- game rules -- to remove such lawbreakers from our midst. If you look at the various cultures, you will notice that some rules or laws are common to all cultures. The same acts are taboo and are swiftly punished wherever you go.
Most of us, though, learn to respect the game-rules of the culture in which we have been raised. These game-rules include the universal human morals plus the unique cultural quirks of that group. We all want to live, and each culture group has developed for itself a set of rules that it has found conducive to survival. Each group also has imposed upon itself a set of superstitions, many of which remain long after the basis for the superstition has vanished.
Humans differ from other animals in that our young spend the largest fraction of our life-span completely dependent upon the nurturing of the parents. Our brain cannot grow in a mere nine months of gestation, so we each spend fifteen to twenty years growing our brain and learning to use it. All our social regulations, in one sense, revolve around caring for our young. Nurturing and caring for one another is our natural human heritage, resulting from the situation in which we all find ourselves. This is universal, and colors everyone's understanding of reality. Our reality is culture based, and it is this cultural basis which forms the bulk of the reality we see and experience.
So, is it one or the other? is it either subjective or objective? No. It's not either-or at all, but both. To ask the question this way is to ask a trick question. This is true for almost all culture bases, including religious cultures. The only exception would be fundamentalism, which demands unquestioning and unthinking obedience and complete loyalty to the tribal totem.
Since renouncing the human mind is one of the most unhealthy things one can do (and probably the most difficult thing for a human to do), fundamentalism will not work for very long -- especially in the global community, or at least a large, diverse, and free community. Few people are cut out to ascent to and obey rules that they see as arbitrary -- that they think make no sense -- and this is the core of fundamentalism: a single set of rules arbitrarily applied to all people in all situations without regard to circumstance and without regard to whether the rules are healthy or even just.
So, in any fundamentalistic subculture, you will find a large number of people unable to obey and subsequently being rejected by the community. Even today, the fundamentalist Taliban movement dishes out strict enforcement of insane laws (men must grow beards just like Mohammed) because the human mind cannot possibly act this way under natural circumstances. The Jehovah's Witnesses ostracize members for the slightest infraction. The Puritans burned anyone who did not obey their intricate and inhumane laws. The Roman Catholics and the early Protestants (Luther; Calvin; Knox) were the same way. Only the liberal, tolerant societies (ancient Egypt; ancient India; ancient Greece; ancient Rome; pre-Enlightenment Islam; America; post-Enlightenment Europe) thrived in any way. Such societies trusted the human.
In a free society, fundamentalism is a self-regulating venture. In any situation, fundamentalism requires periodic exposure to the dogma and frequent exercises in tribal loyalism. This is why religious groups meet regularly: the dogma would never stick if subjected to free inquiry and to the natural testing that any inquisitive mind naturally places upon any idea. So, fundamentalism requires daily, weekly, and yearly renewal of the tribal loyalty in order to survive the rigors to which an unencumbered human mind will put any idea.
The basis for any culture's laws is, of course, the set of laws under which that culture finds itself. More and more in recent centuries, the people are being allowed to contribute to the construction of those laws (democracy and representative republicanism). The Divine Right of Kings has been rejected by most cultures for the religious dogma that it is.
Hopefully, all laws are constantly tested to see how effective they are at keeping peace. Hopefully, all laws are subject to revision based upon new evidence and new situations. And hopefully all laws have exceptions: I would hope that killing someone who was attacking an innocent person will not earn me the electric chair, even though I would expect (even demand) swift punishment for anyone who killed out of greed or passion.
Personal morals very from individual to individual: I emphasize honesty and integrity in myself, while both of my parents seem to emphasize tolerance and privacy. I am more likely to treat everybody the same than are my parents, while they are more likely to let each person succeed or fail according their decisions and their own abilities. The three of us feel very strongly about helping those who are unable to take care of themselves.
But cultural laws, in order to work, must be fair to all; that is, they must be administered the same way to all under similar circumstances. This is the only context where I find the context of punishment to be appropriate: we live under an assumed contract with our fellows, and if anyone gains an illegal or unfair advantage, that person earns the swift retaliation of his or her community. This only works, though, when all punishments are meted out without regard to who someone is. Without careful attention to impartiality, disrespect for the laws renders them ineffective as deterrents.
The basis for an atheist's personal morals is the human's prize possession: the human mind. Though fallible, our minds are superior to anything else we have encountered. My fellow-humans are the most caring and most intelligent entities with which I can communicate. Like it or not, this is the best we've got. And I think we do quite well, considering the prevalence of fundamentalism's influence in its quest to impose arbitrary laws upon the rest of us.
Most humans who are unencumbered by fundamentalism basically do what they want as long as it harms nobody else. This is natural. You will find the so-called Silver Rule in almost all cultures: Don't do to another what you wouldn't want done to yourself. The so-called Golden Rule is intrusive, instructing people to do unto others without regard to their wishes, while the Silver Rule trusts that others know what they want.
But though we basically do what we want, many of us find the need to justify our actions. We will point to a cultural base or a religious dogma to justify those actions for which we cannot find any basis in innate human compassion. And we will point to a cultural or religious base in lauding those actions which do have their basis in human compassion. Religion, the "will" of a "god," has been used to justify crimes that no human could justify through natural means. I cannot fathom burning someone at the stake for their opinions. But if Jesus said we must do this (John 15:6) then I guess we've got to do it. And since we're doing it for Jesus, we ought to do it right. So we'll place the victim upwind of the fire in order to prolong the victim's suffering. This fundamentalistic style of thinking is inhuman and inhumane, and I'm glad it is rapidly dying off among humans.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:30 # -
Religion is not the only source of Morality.
Humanity, always had certain moral rules and regulations stemmed through local and social compulsions, even when there was no religion.
Gradually with the advancement and growth of intelligence several philosophers, intellectuals and religious preachers, kept on contributing to improve and polish the already existing rules of Morality.
Rules and norms of Morality are related to the regional, local, cultural preferences and requirements.
Two type of Moral rules are:
1. Universally recognized and honored, such as murder, theft, torture, food adulteration, dishonesty, corruption.
2. Regional such as dress code, social behavior, forms of respect, eating habits, coeducation, etiquettes, and manners.
One qualification in China could be a disqualification in Pakistan.Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:33 # -
Revivalist
memberRS,
Please summarize the whole copy/past thing in your own words, if you can!!!!!
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:35 # -
amin1924
membergv,
Regarding:
What i am finding difficult to understand is why the concept of morality derived from god is superior?
Because believers of god believe in supremacy of god? What is so hard to understand here?
Either one believes in a supreme being or one believes another human to be superior because he obeys him/her.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:36 # -
Red-Scorpion
Blocked@Janu Jerman
"""Because believers of god believe in supremacy of god?"""
>>>
And god's commands are supreme and killing in the name of god is a supreme act too :)))
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:40 # -
Red-Scorpion
Blocked@Revivalist
"""Please summarize the whole copy/past thing in your own words, if you can!!!!! """
>>>
Yaar, tum nay kiya hamisha A U Khan kee help say Exams diya thay :)))
What's stoping you to read the whole excerpt ? :)
Why don't you like copy/paste material which is not from HT's site ? :)))BTW it's not that much difficult and I think you'll enjoy reading it, so enjoy :)))
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:43 # -
amin1924
memberNo, killing in the name of freedom is supreme?
Plz don't sidetrack our nice convo here.. Try to sum up your copy/paste above so we could benefit from it.
Is there any MODERATOR around here?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:44 # -
Revivalist
memberJS,
Though the things you mentioned are universally accepted but when you will connect it with God it becomes objective, rational and binding but in secularism it would remain relative and objective....
"Humanity, always had certain moral rules and regulations stemmed through local and social compulsions, even when there was no religion". Could you please identify a time when there was no religion????
http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/08/comment-assisted-suicide-and-subjective.html (it may help you in understanding)
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:46 # -
Revivalist
memberRS, what is so funny in your comments???? I hope you understand what i mean!!!!
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:49 # -
gv
Member@rev
"1. God is the conceptual anchor that transcends human subjectivity
2. Secularism divorces any reference to God in moral matters
3. Therefore morals are subjective & relative in a secular framework i.e.euthanasia...."you are stating the obvious and not answering my question - fine lets say that there is one society that develops in the deepest darkest amazon jungle with no organised religion to define social mores and another that develops in the heartland of the judeo-christian-islamic levant and both have the same 'universally accepted moral rules" (as per Javed Sheikh)
Why should the first set of rules be inferior to the second (identical) set of rules?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:52 # -
Red-Scorpion
Blocked@Revivalist
"""Though the things you mentioned are universally accepted but when you will connect it with God it becomes objective, rational and binding but in secularism it would remain relative and objective...."""
>>>
By just connecting with god, how anything can become 'objective', 'rational', and 'binding' ???
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:52 # -
Red-Scorpion
Blocked"""Why should the first set of rules be inferior to the second (identical) set of rules? """
>>>
Just becoz god is not connected with it :)))
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 14:55 # -
Revivalist
memberRS,gv
yes and that makes it objective but what you are talking about is subjective and prone to be altered any time, like the case won by Debbie Purdy who is suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. In a secular society morality changes and only sky is the limit, this is because God is removed as a basis for their social practices and norms.
In Islam morals do not change because they are grounded in God. Concerning euthanasia and suicide they are/would be described as immoral. They always have been, and this will not change. For example the Qur’an mentions:
“Not take a life, which God made sacred, other [see Qur'an 17:33]”
“ If anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole people. [see Qur'an 5:32]”Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 15:03 # -
gv
Member@rev
ok
So when you get into the finer detail who decides which is the appropriate punishment/treatment for breakers of the this 'static' moral code in islam? and who is correct?
The hanafi's, the wahabi's, the maliki's, the shia?
Secondly,
if i went to a small village in a remoter part of the world preached a social system identical to the abrahamic systems, and claimed that i as a syed am a direct descendant of Abraham and have a special connection to the one true god and essentially established a new religion for the inhabitants of that village
would my village be morally superior to the amazonian civlisation ?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 15:12 # -
gv
MemberInteresting website: http://evolution-of-religion.com/
Somewhat relevant to this thread..
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 15:28 # -
amin1924
memberIn a secular society scholars also have difference of opinion on all issues. For example some think abortion is a woman's right while others consider it to be a murder. Who is right and who is wrong doesn't matter, what policy state adopts matters and all follow irrespective of giving up their idea. They can campaign their idea, debate it and promote it but still have to live under the state policy.
Same applies in Islam, if scholars have difference of opinion on a matter -it is good- while affairs will be organize by the central authority by formulating a policy.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 15:44 # -
amin1924
memberFurther to my previous post, developed and dominating civilizations will enforce their code of life, irrespective of moral right or wrong. One has to live according to present world order.
These debates of morals coming from x set of code or y set of code don't matter much.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 15:46 # -
gv
Member@jj
that's a contradiction because religion claims to have all the answers - secularists by defintion do not
I agree with your statement about how the central authority will act in practice but that does not make it superior to a secular authority - in fact it makes it no different at all - so as a derivative to my original question - What makes religious authority superior to secular authority if there is no fundamental difference in how it rules ?
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 16:01 # -
amin1924
membergv,
Like I said before, it is about dominating civilization and application of their ideology, not technical evaluation or superiority of morals.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 16:02 # -
SufiSoul
Membergv wrote,
{{{you are stating the obvious and not answering my question - fine lets say that there is one society that develops in the deepest darkest amazon jungle with no organised religion to define social mores and another that develops in the heartland of the judeo-christian-islamic levant and both have the same 'universally accepted moral rules" (as per Javed Sheikh)Why should the first set of rules be inferior to the second (identical) set of rules? }}}
You may notice that tribes are their in this world living in the darkest age, in Jungles.
You can visite their social life OR through some TV channels.
My question is why these tribes still missing to use their brain to come up to the morale standards of the rest of the world.
They even cannot realise the concept of covering their bodies.
NOW go back to the first tribe on this earth HOW they have been developed socially and started following Morale code of conduct.
If you are talking abt time than calculate the time of these tribes living in the african forests.
The matter is never of time or some other brain development process.
BUT their was a guidance direct from GOD even to tell and teach different names of things as Quran says.
GOD's guidance is something can be traced back in each and every religious book.
The next is even this debate of GOD and Religion cannot be developed BUT only religion and divine rules and teachings are their to bring such discussion.
Further is the same abt different religions in the world like HINDUISM and others.
These religions are derived from divine's religion according to the wishes of the rulers mostly.
So concluding every thing in kind of morale values,Religions available in the world are possible due to the initial and from time to time teachings of divine's religion.Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 18:57 # -
Asli Moulana
Blockedyou are stating the obvious and not answering my question - fine lets say that there is one society that develops in the deepest darkest amazon jungle with no organised religion to define social mores and another that develops in the heartland of the judeo-christian-islamic levant and both have the same 'universally accepted moral rules
The Same universal moral code is based on a religion that has one god Allah in it as the Supreme Being and yet you spend a life time contradicting yourself about His Presence.
Posted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 21:41 # -
If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html#
Human morality, though sophisticated and complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation. morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness. In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts. They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics' prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Objective Morality An evolutionary approach
http://www.percepp.com/morality.htmPosted 2 years ago on 08 Oct 2009 22:02 # -
gv
Member@jj et al
None of you are making sense - this has been my experience so far:
Me: Is religion the source of morality ?
Pro : But of course
Me: Why
Pro : because god said so
Me: But i've just laid out a fairly rational counter argument which none of you are disproving in any way
Pro: it doesn't matter because I happen to know that religion is the source of morality you see because god said so. its just the most rational thing to believe in after all.
Now you tell me how is that line of reasoning supposed to convince anyone?
@sufisoul,
sir i am terribly sorry but your post makes absolutely no sense... i don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to say?
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 0:19 # -
amin1924
membergv
I see you are bit frustrated and have resorted to reactionary posts. Instead of contemplating poster's thoughts you are just reacting, this shows you are not open for discussion, your mind is made up and chapter is closed -that's all.
In the beginning I challenged your question which you conveniently ignored so I didn't push you, but your basic premise is flawed. There is no such thing as moral/non-moral actions. It is a complete package with respect to some other parameters and all need to be considered for discussion.
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 2:35 # -
golden girl
MemberPlease read the book "The God Delusion". it talks about the causes of morality.Religious morality is to please the God, the worldly morality is to please the conscience.Worldly morality is a response to the demands and expectations of society and to satisfy ones ego.In religious morality there can be different interpretations of situations In worldly morality, the moral values defined by society are more vivid and tangible and specific.
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 8:23 # -
GG:
Do you think that morality that satisfies one's ego/demands of society is preferable to morality that serves to satisfy one's Creator?
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 9:19 # -
Red-Scorpion
BlockedWell, how can we be sure if there's any Creator ?
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 9:29 # -
you don't need to be sure RS. you only need to be sure that the questioner is sure (or understand), for the sake of discussion, assert the questioner's assumption and carry the discussion forward.
continue please.........
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 9:31 # -
Red-Scorpion
BlockedWell, first of all there is no logical or scientific evidence available which can prove existence of a creator.
For the sake of argument if we presume that there in fact exists a creator then there is a possibility that that creator wants his/her creations to act on their own i.e. formulate moral laws for them as per their circumstances or social demands !
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 9:41 # -
Yes RS, it is indeed possible that the Creator wants this.
For the sake of argument run with me here:
whilst you and I are discussing I begin to prescribe advices and commands to you (perhaps like your adult guardians did when you were a child)..... would you appreciate my doing this? or even begin to obey my commands?
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 9:45 # -
@gv,
u have made me to open your thread again with the argument ,that u r gonna discuss an entirely different thing ,from that what was under discussed in the thread 'I M Muslim' and now its turning out the same .Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 10:01 # -
gv
Member@beenai
The topic of morality came up independently in two different threads. 'Democracy is the root of all evil' by nida e sehar and 'I'm a muslim' by crocodile, neither of which were specific to the topic being discussed here.
The objective was to open a thread which would be specific to the discussion of morality.
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 11:04 # -
gv
Member@jj
I'm not deliberately ignoring your post(s)
I'm just not understanding their connection to what we are discussing here.
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 11:07 # -
SufiSoul
Membergv,
My post is very simple above.
About the first group/Individual created at this earth.How any knowledge OR language was developed by the time till now??
Whe we find the people living in African Jungles BUT without any such social improvement.
This reveals the fact that,
NA THA KUCH, THO KHUDA THA.
NA HOGA KUCH, THO KHUDAHO GA.I think will help you understand NOW.
Posted 2 years ago on 09 Oct 2009 18:03 # -
golden girl
MemberIn secular societies too,once a law is enacted,it has to be complied with.some of the moral codes remain in the jurisdiction of individual will and the others are legalized.For example one may drink as much as one likes,but one cannot drive,in excess of prescribed quantity.
Posted 2 years ago on 10 Oct 2009 6:42 # -
SufiSoul
Membergg,
You are right here.
Religion has lil different perspective e.g drinking.
It says that ur life is given by GOD and you have it something from GOD.Theirfore he prevents you destroy ur health.
Plus society as a whole specially drinker's own family/friends are, caused troubled theirfore drinking is NOT ALLOWED at all and severe punishments are their for drinker.
Compare the two approaches here and you will find religion has given much security to all around and specially to the same person.Posted 2 years ago on 10 Oct 2009 6:59 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.