Freedom to Sin v. Puritan Utopia

Dave —

If men were meant to choose God - and not merely inherit their servitude from family/society etc. And God decided that it should be man's natural nature to have the ability to choose or reject him. What does that say about how we should organize our societies.

Should we be free to sin - no societal restrictions on murder, rape, fornication etc. So that there can be no way we were compelled to choose him?

Or should good decent godly people band together to create societies which strictly demand their citizens adhere to God's commandments? Societies where those who are born into them do not so much choose God, but are weaned into a world devoid of any alternative?

Forum

You — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 - 02:35

we have been given personal responsibilities aswell as social responsibilities.

We must not force others with personal responsibilities, but must carry out the social responsibilities.

Dave — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 - 02:38

But don't we have duties to each other to protect each other from the grip of sin? (wrt personal responsibilities)

You — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 - 02:40

There is no compulsion in religion.

A muslim must pray. Not praying is a sin. We cannot force another to pray (unless parents to kids etc.)

preventing murder, crime etc are all social contracts.

salaf — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 - 03:29

Islam falls in between those two.

Remember pre-modern islamic societies didn't have police forces.

Plus there are crimes in Islam which are either very hard to prove or not punishable at all.