| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Tim Evans 
Senior Member
Joined: 31 January 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 273
|
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote  Reply
 Posted: 14 February 2006 at 7:24pm |
Life is nothing but an accumulation of many breaths. Brilliant, why did I not think of that crass remark and send it to a dreamer?  So every breath is just a precious diamond which cannot be purchased with anything in the world. Diamond are African black men's trears and can be purchased for a week's wages. It is a priceless jewel which has got no substitute in value.You are right there, who can pay for the oppression of the miners exept the rich? So in movements and talks, and in sorrows and happiness, such a priceless breath should not be spent in vain. The narrow vain that the miners have to work in is not in your 'talks' is it?.To destroy it is to court destruction. To destroy capitalism is to advance civilization. An intelligent man cannot lose it. An intelligent man wouldn't touch it with a long stick. Crap poetry,
When a man gets up at dawn, he should enter into an agreement with himself just as a tradesman contracts with his partner. Or a wage slave. At that time, he should address his mind thus: O mind, you have been given no other property as precious as life. When it will end, the principal will end and despondency will come in seeking profit in business. Tough!
Today is a new day. Allah has given you time, that is, He has delayed your death. He has bestowed upon you innumerable gifts. Profits from the workers. Think that you are already dead. Oh please. So don't waste time.
Every breath is a precious jewel. To tell more lies with!
Man has got for each day and night twenty-four treasure houses in twenty-four hours. Fill up these then find them filled up with divine sights in the world next. If they are not filled up with good works, they will be filled up with intense darkness wherefrom a bad stench will come out and envelop them all around. Another treasure house will neither give him happiness nor sorrow. That is an hour in which he slept, or was careless, or was engaged in any lawful work of this world. He will feel grieved for its remaining vacant. At some point in the near future, join the real world of the tens of millions of poor workers who really make society happen and have better poetry!
|
| Back to Top |
    |
Edited by Tim Evans
|
|
Tim in Britain
|
 |
Angel
Senior Member
Joined: 03 July 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 6641
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 14 February 2006 at 10:29pm |
My view, freewill and predestination don't go together, its one or the other.
Freewill is making choices with all the choices out there. God gave us choices to use our brain, to think and ponder adn all that and make changes where ever necessary.
Feewill, allows freedom of expression to be who we are, to act out the very essense of that.
Predestination is not having any choice, no freewill, as God has determined your life, so what's the use of having freewill and choices? and what's the use of having the saying, "life is what you make it"  or "there's always a choice"
Now as I have said that, i do believe somewhat in destiny, but it is upto us find that destiny.
Ah...I'm probably flawed in this
Edited by Angel
|
 ~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 5:13am |
 Maryga wrote:
To a believer the "freedom" of a non-believer" is limited to this life which may either be brief or a hundred years, but that freedom will end as soon as he dies. Whereas the believer's freedom is restricted in this world by his Faith in God and in obedience to God's commands. These restrictions are again limited to only this life and his freedom in the next life God willing will be endless. |
I agree with that. My life is limited to one life which I fully intend to live.
I'm not really sure what you mean by these following statements but I will hazzard a guess. Feel free to correct me were I am wrong.
| 053.028:But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing againstTruth |
My views on my lack of religion means nothing when compared to islam. I have already figured that one out. You mean there is no room for movement?
| 053.029:Therefore turn aside from him who turns his back upon Our reminder and does not desire anything but this world's life. |
I should be cast out from society for the way I think? I find this confusing. If we are all gods creatures surely we all have a place how ever high or low in the food chain? To turn my back on something I have to have faced it in the first place. To have people turn thier back on me surely goes against the teachings of forgiveness.. How can I accept anything if the teachings shun me in the first place?
| 053.030:That is as far as knowledge will reach them. Verily thy Lord knoweth best. |
Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I think others shouldnt believe.. everyone has a calling of some sort or another.
I may have read your post totally wrong, this is just my interpretation.
|
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 7:14am |
ketchup wrote:
I think you have answered your own question. What is socially acceptable in one culture is not socially acceptable in another.. thats culture. |
Not satisfactorily. Social practices or customs are different than morals. These customs may or may not have moral grounds, but they exists with that culture. Islam came to correct the morals and not the cultures. So, if these different cultures have anything immoral, Islam provides them the guidelines to curtail their culture on higher grounds of morality. It is exaclty for this very reason, my wonder began on this thread, that how people without faith, may even talk about morals? "Morality" is basically absent in their world of dictionary.
ketchup wrote:
I am probably guilty of all the sins you depise but in my moral code of conduct i believe as long as I am not causing harm or destruction to those around me then I am a "good" person. |
No, you are wrong to assume that from my side. I can't be the judge, as I also live in a relativistic world as you do. Only that, who is absolute, we call Him God or Allah for Muslims, that can judge humans. "Destruction/harm" are both relative terms. I think, though don't directly cause destrubtion/harm to the two individuals as you say, but when wide spread in the society, adultary causes moral degradation of the whole society, and hence its destruction. Kindly note that I already know that you don't like adultary, but I just used it to make an example about relativitism of these terms. Similar arguments can be given to any immoral (according to us) values not considered immoral by your standards. Porn industary is just another one of them.
So, my question is not of "what" standards but "how" standards for morality are defined by the people of no faith? What are the basis for them?
ketchup wrote:
Belief/faith is a completely different matter.. I should point out for the record that I was brought up in as a christian, with the christian set of values.. but even from a very young age I never believed in a god. If you cut out the religion side of it the bible is a very good read but to me it is only a story.... If this all makes me a bad person then so be it.. I could burn in hell if you like.. but as I don't believe in a hell I can't.
What I do have is a conscience. |
So, you provided the basis of your consciencness as influence of Christainity but without belief/faith part of it. Hmm!! That is it what I was looking for and it was the sole purpose of my arguments. I think, your answer has provided me yet another example to support my original hypothsis. Thanks.
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 8:47am |
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
AhmadJoyia wrote:
So, my question is not of "what" standards but "how" standards for morality are defined by the people of no faith? What are the basis for them?
ketchup wrote:
Belief/faith is a completely different matter.. I should point out for the record that I was brought up in as a christian, with the christian set of values.. but even from a very young age I never believed in a god. If you cut out the religion side of it the bible is a very good read but to me it is only a story.... If this all makes me a bad person then so be it.. I could burn in hell if you like.. but as I don't believe in a hell I can't.
What I do have is a conscience. |
So, you provided the basis of your consciencness as influence of Christainity but without belief/faith part of it. Hmm!! That is it what I was looking for and it was the sole purpose of my arguments. I think, your answer has provided me yet another example to support my original hypothsis. Thanks. |
Each culture has a unique set of moral values, we've already been through this.. natural influence from the environment, upbringing and the world around us leave thier mark, what is ok in one culture is not acceptable in another when religion creeps into it each section thinks its own set of moral values are right and the others are wrong.
My values are based on the loving family I grew up in.. and the values that are learned from it.. my mother was a christian so I am bound to be influenced by it, would be silly to assume otherwise, but it still doesn't mean I have to believe.. Do not pillage, rape and murder, etc to me is just plain common sense.. for me it is wrong on every level. This is what my culture has taught me, so assuming these set of values are "right".. because I don't have faith it makes them morally wrong? Thats assuming morality exists in the first place and isnt just a basis of cultural unbringing.. I believe adultery is wrong there for I would judge, to judge I need a set of morals to follow.. this isn't something I would invent along the way because without them i would have no basis for comparison..
Definition...
mo�ral�i�ty  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m -r l  -t , m�-)
n. pl. mo�ral�i�ties
- The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
At the end of the day it is all subject to opinion. I think I am right. you think you are right yet one of us has to be wrong.. or we are both wrong ofcourse.
Just because people believe in something it doesn't make it fact.
I hope this is what you meant.
|
|
Tim Evans
Senior Member
Joined: 31 January 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 273
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 9:04am |
AhmadJoyia wrote:
[quote=ketchup]I think you have answered your own question. What is socially acceptable in one culture is not socially acceptable in another.. thats culture. |
Not satisfactorily. Social practices or customs are different than morals. These customs may or may not have moral grounds, but they exists with that culture. Islam came to correct the morals and not the cultures. So, if these different cultures have anything immoral, Islam provides them the guidelines to curtail their culture on higher grounds of morality. It is exaclty for this very reason, my wonder began on this thread, that how people without faith, may even talk about morals? "Morality" is basically absent in their world of dictionary. Islam and the other 'great religions' regards 'human nature' as a constant that can not be changed by religion which only provides "guidelines". In this view no amount of morality can prevent the selfish,rebellious, 'original' sinful nature of man. So by this, man is left with only a superficial veneer of 'morality' but otherwise unchanged. Islam and other religions say it is permissible for the wealthy to remain wealthy (because it is human nature to have appetites) as long as charity is dispensed. This only addresses the personal voluntary morality of the individual and dose not answer the social impact of economy which recognises the social forces brought into being by wealth accumulation have a very amoral impact. The atheists usually have no such concept of man as inherently greedy and do not acknowledge his individual right to accumulate welth to the disadvantage of his fellow humans. Tim
Edited by Tim Evans
|
|
Tim in Britain
|
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 9:09am |
ketchup wrote:
.....Do not pillage, rape and murder, etc to me is just plain common sense.. for me it is wrong on every level.... |
Just imagine if someone is brought up in a culture of people without faith, how would they view the same principles of morality as you do? Definitely different. Isn't it? Then what would you say about them when you also say
ketchup wrote:
...for me it is wrong on every level |
Hence, though cultural practices can be relativisitic, depending upon culture to culture, but not the morals. Morals are standards, that are kind of common within all humanity across the board. For example, telling lie is wrong and honesty is known as best policy, every where in the world. Similarly "adultary" is a core common moral value that can only be brought in by faith and faith alone, it has no origin from "no faith".
ketchup wrote:
I believe adultery is wrong there for I would judge, to judge I need a set of morals to follow.. |
Hence, the moral standards are the domain of 'faith' and borrowed by 'no faith' to provide an excuse for their living as how humans do to distinguish themselves from animals. In a nut shell, 'no faith' can't exist without 'faith' among humans, whether they like it or not.
Edited by AhmadJoyia
|
|
Ketchup
Senior Member
Joined: 10 February 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 349
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 February 2006 at 9:30am |
Mmmm
Seriously, I will excercise my free will and stay out of that thread for now!
|
|
Tweet
