The confusion between the popular fact, and the preferable choice (2/2)

         To continue in the same last topic, which shows many sides of both choices that people applies in life nowadays, I’ll try to show more opinions about it and make you all think with me while reading there.

It’s right that even with marriage; the life’s complications can lead to a bad end and get divorced, so may someone says that it doesn't matter if people are married or not. but the divorce is a resort we need to use just when life becomes impossible for two people to remain together. It's a logical solution to fix it, and also exceptional because that doesn't happen always, but breaking up is easier than divorce. don't you all think so?

Because breaking up can be a one side decision and sudden, and can happen in one glance, just like that. Whereas the other partner can't do anything to keep things better except to accept by force the consequences. That’s of course if we keep aside the person’s personality, because some people aren’t good at all in any way, and that’s because they don’t want to be good and they even have not intention for, or just they don’t feel the need to be so. And whether in marriage or in relationship, they just can’t function properly.

         Whereas divorce takes many procedures and agreement of two people too, also it takes time to end up. And because of that people may think to solve their problems more than to think about divorce, they act more logically than anything else. Whereas in a relationship it's easy for someone to escaping any time.

All that disagreement with marriage comes from the feelings of insecurity, that’s why many avoid getting married and prefer sharing life with someone without any official commitment. Every side is afraid to be deceived, and getting married is like a big risk for them. In this case, since they can’t trust each other so far, so why do they start their relationship? Furthermore; the argument of being more free out of marriage, is somehow a way to express the disappearance in any moment as a very possible choice, sooner or later, isn’t it? I mean once the person feels that s/he must be responsible on something, then s/he will find it easy to escape from that and just disappear like s/he has never been there before.

Keeping a family is better than breaking up or making one parent families, studies all confirm that the best for a child is to live between two parents instead one parent. And better to live in family than in an orphanage, Better for psychological reasons, social skills, better for communication skills, and for stability in personality...etc

It’s not bad at all to take from new things and benefit from their advantages, but it’s bad to reject all from everything only because it’s a part of a social heritage which maybe refers to mean an old thing. We don't neglect love and romance, but also we can't rely only on that for facing the hardships of life.

The confusion between the popular fact, and the preferable choice (1/2)

I’ve lately discussed this topic with some friends, why the marriage should be a recommended choice for partners’ life instead of any other choice? And I can start from that as a question for article. I’ve discussed this matter before, and somehow; their reading was the reason of our discussion, my friends and I. And in addition to what I’ve said before (you can check and read if you didn’t do so), I promised them to write more about, so I want to bring here some facts to enlighten this topic more, maybe I succeed to answer this question here or at least clarify more of its aspects.

We sometimes follow the seductive rhythm around us whatever it is instead of following our personal preferences. And that’s a very serious and large topic we maybe discuss another time, but that can affect very much on our choices and our lives aswell.

Yes i know that guys avoid marriage because of its responsibilities, and that girls don't prefer marriage, because they may want for a reason or another to make marriage as a big event. Of course it’s a big event in life of couple, but they unintentionally mean to make that appear to all others, it’s like making it a big event for everybody around and they should feel it that way like them, or big for the whole city, or even for the whole country (if they can so); otherwise better not to get married.

We don’t need to complicate things, or to be connected to the materialist stuff because they’re just like accessories. Since the marriage is an official step of commitment between two people; so if someone is a loving person to the second, and really want to spend life with; then s/he doesn't mind the step to making the relationship official. Isn't it? Because they argue that step is not necessary and meaningless, so it won’t make difference if they do it also, yeah! Or maybe they don’t have enough trust to each other? That’s a big problem really.

           Also marriage is better because it guarantees the rights of both, rights in front of law and brings advantages too in comparing to the second choice. Besides that; the marriage prevents the person from looking far, away from his/her family zone. In other words; someone in relationship means s/he is still looking for better one meanwhile s/he with someone and confessing about the love maybe every day, but in reality that person not enough yet. Moreover; marriage makes the relationship stronger and the desires of breaking up will decrease since each one remembers that they're married and not just in relationship that can end simply anytime, so there will be a lot to do before being officially separated. It’s a stimulant reason to think well before acting and not to behaving insanely towards the situation.     …To be continued!

The need for common measurement to our morals (P4/4):

The morals such as tolerance, understanding, patience, forgiveness, mercy, care and love …etc; can be found in different people regardless their ages, genders, places, positions or social degrees. Well appreciated because the reasons from applying them in life aren’t due the benefits to get something from in return, neither because of the power they’ve; but because of the desire to be close the most possible to perfection. That’s why the best right you may give to others is the one you do it willingly before being requested for, and the most generous doing you may do is when you don’t need anything from that person in return.

The powerful morals aren’t the same ones that the powerful people do, but they’re the ones which affect deeply even if it doesn’t largely affect, whether on the person himself on others around. Whereas the powerful people may affect largely and quickly even with the horrible morals they do. The powerful morals too are the ones which exceed the focus on self to others too, they’re the ones which show the responsible side of a person towards himself and others at once instead being silly irresponsible running after desires and only.

In this way we can define each moral alike, and the principle isn’t the fears and only, also not the fact to get something in return necessarily. But a personal target to recover the humanitarian side into the person without being blindly guided to his desires and lust. And the question comes in mind here is: which morals are needed to make us closer to the human perfection? Also what’s the utility of being so if we don’t see its effects, neither we’re feeling satisfied from the situation of being perfect?

Before that, let's describe what could the human perfection mean? it's a known fact that the human has a shortage and many flaws, which negates the perfection. but the concept we mean here is the fact of being a minded entity, having a sedate logic, his priorities aren't for materialistic stuff, neither for lust in expense of his mind. In this case there will be flaws aswell, but not same amount as the first time. Also the reasons to fall in stupidities are reasonable in comparing with the first case, that's what may the human perfection means. to be human as it's supposed to be.

The answer of this question is based on the second condition to explain the origins of morals (not due the fears that push to renouncing).The matter is why this concept of life can’t help us to be committed to good morals and principles, I mean when we think that the life is only one and we must live is to the fullest.

When the person is limited on this concept in his view to life, then the success will be to reach his goals anyway, regardless the nature of ways to achieve them. In this situation; if there is a way to do something to get the target (even inappropriate way) but possible to escape from punishment; so the success according this concept is worthy to do in such way. Because that person has some fears really, but not enough to stop him when he was inspired somehow by an outlet to avoid all that and to continue towards his goals. It means his principles and priorities in life aren’t ordered in proper way as they should be. That’s because of the distorted concept of life that he adopted for himself.

And I finish with this too; which concepts for life that can make us consider all these stuff and adopt the proper morals in common between us? And before this; what’s the reference that’s helpful to realize the good morals to apply for our lives?

The conscience plays an important role in this matter, I mean about being a reference for the measurement of morals which ones are needed and which ones are not. The unconscious people can’t be judged for their doings, like someone mad because he’s not responsible on his actions. But the conscience is a magical addition into the human which is able to show what’s true to do and what’s not. That conscience is in common between all people, and it can judge any action to decide whether it’s a good or bad action. Everything that’s going wrongly; it touches deeply our conscience and brings the feeling of grief. But it’s not always possible to play such role because sometimes the reliance on deep and wrong convictions according to the personal view, may deform the conscience and so its measurement. In other words; having a wrong start from certain convictions will lead to reach a wrong end while judging an action.

Getting used to a fact, can promote that into convictions, when the environment (family friends and so on), the habits, and traditions all together push to a certain direction, the way will be easy to get convinced. And what if those bases were wrong, so the convictions will be also so.

Then in same context with what we've discussed before;  what will be effective - as reference- to teach ourselves correct and new convictions that can be common morals in our lives ? i’ll try another time to reply at this question , and i give you a time to think again also.

The need for common measurement to our morals (P3/4)

Philosophers discussed the question: are the powerful morals the same as the morals of powerful people? And is the power (or the ability to do what the person wants) enough to measure a value as a good or bad? Or that must be a look at the benefits meanwhile?

And since some people can avoid every possible punishment for their bad doings (besides their perspective about living this life and only); we get that the fears aren’t enough to keep the person committed to noble morals. Because they can escape and succeed to get in what they aspire whatever the environment truly is in.

If the fears that comes for the environment generally (and from others in particular), and to easily avoid any possible punishment, we’ll need another factor to keep the control, it’s the self-control. When the person exceeds the level of worrying about what others may do in return, to reach the level of worrying about the self-fulfillment; where the person carries such inner reference for self-controlling.

That mechanism comes from the faith that’s locate into the person himself due the convictions s/he has, to prevent him from doing anything wrong even if he can avoid that social judgment. And instead of just caring about their reactions towards him; he’ll care about his (re)-action towards others. Because he has an unseen faith that everything he does; will certainly be judged for, even if he can escape the social judgment. And that’s the advantage which takes out the bad traits in the human and elevate from his value in the existence. But may a faith bring such feelings although it’s not doing that deep effect into the person.

Moreover we can still have some misunderstanding and maybe an opposition too about the same matter, that's why the question will be:  beside the fears and the self- controlling; what else we need to do too? What’s the more criteria we need for reaching the point of being agreed on common values and morals? (to stabilizise the people's life).

The need for common measurement to our morals (P2/4)

Usually the establishment of morals and ethics between people is claimed to the fear, in case if we look to the matter from the logic of powers to renouncing. And as an explaination; their fears from being oppressed hamper them from transgressing on others. In other words; to push themselves to doing what they aspire to get in return as a deal. And this kind of agreement -they had approved- could make people living safely together, based on their fears of course.

They can be committed to such agreement to protect themselves to avoid every punishment they may deserve. Although we could guarantee some stability into the group of people, but we can’t guarantee totally the rightness or wrongness of the things we do, but we can’t decide what’s acceptable to do and what’s not.

Because the concept of life is based on living it to the fullest since it is just one life, and the success of the individual is justified according this concept, regardless the harm and damage that may others get even if they’re billions of people, but their personal view -to this life- is enough to please them as they think it is.

The question is, what would be; if there was no fears within some ones, whereas they got enough means to be far away and out of every punishment or social judgment that can threaten them? Moreover; since they even don’t care what their environment may think about them. In such scenario; what can stop these people if their pleasure and joyment comes from the wrong and bad things they do?

Humanity could make the civilization when people have invented the system of writing. and if we try to tell this story from its beginnings; we can say that the need to communicate properly and to easily make the exchange between people, they needed to do so, the idea was to draw symbols and figures able to referring to certain things when everybody else can see, he will understand easily. Some languages which they still use same old systems of symbols. And with ages these systems of writing got developed and updated to be easier until we see now. It’s in the same way like we see now the signalization in our streets to facilitate the traffic.

My point for that is; the system which is used here was able to make a common mechanism of principles and rules to guarantee the people life in groups wherever they’re. And same for the morals between people they should be in common aswell.

The need for common measurement to our morals (P1/4)

I've said before about the troubles that can be due the differences in interpreting the facts and reactions towards, when people confuse the terms and they differently determine them which can lead to contradictions.

I give another picture for that, the Bosnian schools for example, and even in same city, they have different lessons for history subject, because the different perspectives towards the last war they've had, and each community teaches the subject in starting from its personal view and not necessary to telling the truth most of times. Such situation can show the gap that exists into the depths of the same society to be fragile, moreover the troubles that can happen because of that (like the national pride or national spirit as one of common issues which isn’t in fact and that may destabilize the country). because each side reads the events in a way different than the other side, different reasons, different excuses and different consequences, we reach - at the end - different measurements while everyone has his own system to evaluate facts and situations, because they started from different platforms to treating the issue, those different measurements don't bring harmony, neither to stabilize enough the social life of people although the same circumstances they share.

I stopped last time with a question, which measurement should we rely on to define properly the platform (for all people who share same situation) with clear principles and based on morals we've to share?

When everybody is living life according his personal principles, and each one is looking after his happiness ad success through certain perspective -based on some interests- which can be completely in the opposite of someone else. And what someone sees as a good thing and fulfilling the happiness, someone else may see it horrible and kind of corruption. Such difference is what breaks the harmony of being in social life and prevent the civilized progress.

If we look after the morals and their beginnings, people appreciate generally certain values but they can be different sometimes until being in contradictions while someone appreciate something whereas the other appreciates absolutely the opposite in fact. we find out that one of the reasons and the explanations of beginning; it was to guarantee the social interest to living into a group of people (society) through certain rules and without neglecting the individual. Because if every individual started looking after his personal satisfactions, and to getting his own benefits; then it'll be hard to establish a society, because there is be transgression on others and their rights aswell.

For this fact; it was necessary that everyone must renounce some of their demands and requirements willingly to guarantee the safety (from any transgression) and the freedom (to dreaming and looking after goals), that kind of balancing between issues can lead to the peace between people of the same environment.

That renouncing can be in many different ways, or all together, such as discussions, learning about, experiences and measuring the consequences from. The next question is: on which bases we can be sure that the renouncing is fair and just for us as same as it's for the others? And how do we realize and guarantee that others also are ready to offer that renouncing?

The relationships in our world today. (Part 02)

     I've heard this many times and i'd like to repeat the phrase, and i think it has a deep meaning too, which says: the most important in life is to love the woman/man whom you'll marry; instead to marry the woman/man whom you love. It seems confusing a bit, but i'll try to explain it now here. i don't think someone can disagree with the first part, but the second part looks wrong, you can understand me if you get in minds that I mainly emphasize on the order between the two factors, the wrong thing in the definition "of love" into our minds, (or in other words the way that our conscious learned about the love from different influences), and we can't rely on the love and only; to make a strong and long relationship - as everybody may say so -, but the love is supposed to grow up along the life in between, not waiting it to be grown enough then to be sure and to tell yourself : "ok! i'm sure this is the person whom i'll spend my life with", and if you ask anybody has a successful life (i mean asking eldery people), i think you'll find the same answer like in here.

     That calls in my mind the fact of two people still loving each other, although they don't look the same like the time when they've met in past, the changes came on them after years so the faces and bodies are completely changed with years, and even some views, but the love is alive and stronger. Of course there aren’t perfect and surely some conflicts had been within the years, and struggles to exceed some situations, also not everything was accepted from a one to another, but they kept the most important in between, that affability while living together and sharing the same responsibilities. With years they realize that the life can’t be shorten just into feelings, but the life is more than only that, and deeper aswell, which is based on more roles to play into. That's why the people today are far from their roots and social values, they disconnected from their past completely, and almost each relationship is free from any responsibility usually, so they lost the essences and get themselves lost.

     People surely need to know each other well before getting married , because it's an important step in life, but not necessarily in the way that's popular in the world of today. People agree with this fact they've now while they don't know anything else better as alternative. Because they wasted the ancestors' experiences and focused on the modern style of life that they're impressed by it,( kind of self-confidence more than the necessary), just to following the worldly trends, through different tools, and also reasons (which are long to talk about them all in here right now). But it's easy to know many about others today through communications (and as i said how friends are knowing about each other too), we don't need all details in the beginning whereas that must be as results for relationship, we need the necessary and the stability in the commitments between the couple.

     I’ve read in one novel about something in this context, the girl  and after some confusion she had and insecurity in her relationship, she asks her friend's advice  : I just want a hot relationship that ends up with marriage”, she naively thinks so. Then her friend - who’s older than her and seems wiser so - explained: you've just said it here, to ends up with marriage, and since it's ended up; so what will you keep for yourself both after getting married? fights? Looking for someone else or divorce maybe.

     Like that, the previous statement means, the love is growing up along the life and not completing its growth before the marriage, else it'll be drained only because no responsibilities nor duties that keep the relation between, no commitment, no clear goal nor common purpose for the two people ahead. Everyone is free and in every moment it's possible to be far away from the second in a second, that promote the cheating and disloyalty and cause then the insecurity, depression, and so on.

     To be committed into the marriage as an institution for family and society; requires some rules to follow, that commitment is the push to be someone caring and loving, because there is a goal they both aspire to achieve, it's the incentive to limit the passion into the family context (and i focus just on this side of love/relationships/marriage). That person won't look for something else far, where it's available between hands with the near partner and enough to fullfilling the needs (whether for the man or the woman) because it's mutual between.

     The emotions are an energy from the 04 human's energies, that should we renew it and upload it, and to be aware how to spend it, but the complication in the life today led the people to misuse this energy in the proper way, they unintentionally waste this resource and drain it in emptiness, and so they feel lost and usually to be in bad feelings can have awful consequences (which we previously have to avoid really).

     All that can show the need to think again at least on personal level, on how to measure that fact and to be aware enough to protect ourselves.

The relationships in our world today (Part 1)

     In my opinion ; I see about the relationships without passing through marriage, has many disadvantages really, one girl told me that old people for example in her country (from previous generation) see that is not good to be in full relationships before marriage or being engaged at least, and many are thinking same so in different countries more or less.

     And what changed now in societies, i don't mean a country in particular, but that's in everywhere now, because it’s the new and modern culture through "the globalization". the new generations are obsessed to the freedom in way they claim to fake freedom (if we think deeply about that, it'll be more painful than they imagine, why? because now they prefer to be free from any obligation or any value came from the past, to guarantee their absolute freedom, which became the only value to look for as a reference and to care about, whereas that's not true always and doesn’t work in all cases of course,

     The humanity's traditions and customs say along the ages and centuries that the marriage is the act between two people to make a family, (although those conceptions are redefined, and have got many updates), but let's start from a question I’ve heard :

     "How can someone meet a girl? i mean to find out about her personality, character,beauty, hobbies etc. unless be with her for a while, then to know if she matches with you properly?"

      In the context; I’ll bring the real definitions that must do exist into any society, the marriage that i meant (as it was always in past), it's not to prevent meeting between the two concerned ones in the issue, of course marriage won't be a blind act without knowing each other, right. but the fact to preceed the marriage (official act) by a relationship (for fulfilling the desires) is the reason that causes many problems and break hearts to have failed and sad endings.

     A few decades ago; relationships were more successful than in the today life, with their previous definition, and the problem is in the changes that happened in societies, which means the changes in people's mindsets, concepts, social relations and social values aswell. when two people are in relationship and spending alot of time together and do everything possible to do, together, talk so much, and appearantly the feelings are growing up but not in the proper way that they should be in order to lead to a successful ending.

     And for a while, they're learning about each other (this is the main reason that people rely on, just to convince themselves they're right, and no way except that one). for example now friends know a lot about each other, they know about hobbies, mindsets, characters, behaviors, thoughts, what each other like or dislike, their interests, and tendencies,....etc, they know a lot about each other really, but does that mean they're in relationships ? of course not,

     Moreover; why do we love some people without any condition to that love? (like family; with parents or siblings). Simply because they make a part of us, whatever happens they’ll stay in same position from us, and generally have same attitude from us towards them. The same when it’s a husband/wife and father/mother or parent/children. And the last thing they should think about is the divorce, not because it’s difficult to doing, but because it's not preferable as a choice.

     When two people take the long time together without any official link in between (justifying the reason to knowing more about each other and if they can bear each other or not...etc), in this way; their feelings will be drained completely to the bottom. whereas they think the feelings is growing up, but that's not true in the fact. when they enjoyed each other enough and shared almost everything, and each one pleased the second enough, then of course there will be some boredom between, and one day (sooner or later), one of the two people (or both) will have a sudden change and find no more benefits from the second one. because the life's interests are changing constantly, and that staying along the time ends up to someone with no more interest in him/her, and like that; the breaking up comes for any casual reason maybe, because this one (or maybe both) already feel satisfied from each other, and everything is already done. so why they need to continue in this case?

     Surely the human self (in this case) will look for new passion  and something else, and to look for being out of that routine; to have more satisfaction for desires, or just more adventures, since there is no steady link to preserve their being together. and that style; broke the hearts of many people unfortunately, because no guarantees for their social, neither psychological  nor emotional rights. that's what the modern life gave us from redefining many concepts like about social life here. Shouldn’t we think again about those concepts and how do they affect on our lives?

The marriage as an institution

     Many people aren't interested in committed relationship beneath the marriage institution, they prefer more freedom without marriage, or sometimes for fewer responsibilities avoiding any urgent way they may have. and many who’re against the marriage, for silly reasons, like to marry just to fix problems (or let’s say fixing their mistakes), If there are children. And I found that -according to their constitutions, Unfortunately-the law causes most of changes in people’s interests, so instead paying a lot for marriage’s stuff, they prefer to live together instead (regardless to all the advantages of marriage like the incomes of family and health care better). 

      Or maybe fears from cheating of the second person, even living together for years can’t guarantee the enough trust between. So the fears from divorce in future (in case of marriage)remain constantly, then they can’t change certain notes on their documents forever, because it’s not a relaxing fact to taking the name of the man even after the separation; which means certain dependence and kind of reminder in case if things didn’t go properly in their past. Also there are who prefer that as a choice to get more benefits, like being able to win scholarships for their studies, that as married can’t get them. And I found that the majority of people prefer such choice to be into a “free & sperated relationship” (if I can say so), since in any moment it ends and can happen that we can say there was no relationship at all, and then nothing remain anymore, especially like those who aren’t religious people, free of every controller of belief I mean, like those whom the religion doesn’t make a part of their lives at all.

      But in fact we can't find better than the marriage to guarantee the rights of two people, (within certain rules of course , not necessarily as the laws say nowadays), especially the social and psychological rights for the two people alike. And not easy for any side to just leave his/her duties when the mood and desire says so; and the situation when there are children between, they shouldn’t be a tool to fix the problem or mistakes of someone are counted from adults, that’s even a wrong view when they think about child as a mistake they did unfortunately, unjust to define that as a mistake.

      Moreover; the studies confirm that the marriage can help one or two people to be committed in certain healthy relationship due the psychological security that can bring to them, and even to avoid certain bad behaviors that can trouble the health of person (like some diseases) or the health of relationship (like drugs or drinking), these advantages are only because the huge affection and influence that the continuous presence of the second partner can provide - at least psychologically -, in comparing with the unmarried people while in one glance can disappear – and with obscurity why exactly -.

we can see that (such reasons like : to take another surname and be related to it, ...etc), and all those changes in lifestyle were mainly coming from decision makers, or the parliaments before decades, who defined the societies in way to commanding in people's thinking way in somehow, then that caused the changes into people's priorities, and their attitudes in life aswell, right?

      Then we assume if you [woman]can keep your surname, and you can keep your rights that the man can't leave just because he wants to do, in other words, he can't get rid of his responsibilities, so would that be better for the woman?  i meant also; when it happens and you divorce, you simply recover your surname again and only, can that reform the attitude to avoiding of this choice -marriage- from her?

      Those fears from cheating are in two directions between them, and the instability due the missing of guarantees and commitment, are not disadvantages of marriage, but the problem can be in morals of one or the two people, and their social values. Because marriage in fact; must refrain that instability and then to bring enough guarantees and relief for both to stabilize their relationship.

The need for common system of morals.

    People are different in their backgrounds and their cultures, which affect logically on their attitudes, thoughts and points of view, and when they come to define certain terms, they maybe disagree to determine the same definition to it.

    I got a question that means to say about the things I do like in this world and in mankind and those which I dislike, and because the topic generally was a new into my mind, I got in my mind an answer that analyzing a bit the human nature and the world today. That’s a story about the concepts and the values into every single mind, honestly all people agree that they love the peace, calm, happiness, the fortune, the fun, the joy, the justice, because that's what our instinct is made of, and meanwhile we dislike the hating, the oppression, stealing, ...etc. But the problem is in the confusion between those good values which all people look after.

    people have differences in how they define those terms, and if you ask about liking justice, nobody will answer you “no don't like”, but in fact they like justice when it's for their rights and their desires, and when they’re looking after it, but when it happens that justice is against them, and against their benefits, or someone else is striving to get it, they don’t give the matter enough importance, and they underestimate from the matter.

     So here the value is the selfishness since it’s not personal matter, and no talk about justice whereas we’re all live in same world and under the same universal circumstances even if our personal circumstances are different, and instead to have the same attitude from the issue they don’t care or maybe to stand against hidden behind some illogical reasons, they unintentionally forget about the justice's principle which they strive for in the first case.

     So there is the essence into our instinct inside in the depths of the human, but there is no strict controller that people are agreed about to keep control on those terms similarly on all of people, that's the problem in the matter, and the way to fix it, is through knowledge, while we learn more, we can find out about ourselves and our depths truly, do you agree with my opinion here?

     Yeah the knowledge is the cure against any bad stuff, it's a cure for ignorance and bad stereotypes, more we find out about issues we can have clearer idea about and then we won’t betray the principles and the we keep then the essence of morals as they’re into the human instinct and into the human nature according to the pattern on which he is made, but to imposing the opinion on others, that's really the bad fact, it starts from politicians who impose their thoughts, whether they look for good for others or for their personal benefits as usual, to the media that works according to oriented agendas and for certain purposes far away of the neutrality, until the simple people when they treat and deal with each other.

     So anyone has some of authority on someone else, will have the power to impose certain concepts on the way he wants them to see them, and usually that happens for guarantee some benefits constantly and being appreciated and protected from any troubles, it's the person's interests and selfishness, arrogance, superiority’s feelings, that push to such situations and as a sequence there will be more conflicts and misunderstanding between people and nations aswell.  

     To fixing well those problems, it’s required to have a common system of measuring the morals and determining correctly the values and principles that command in and control the people’s lives in every time and in everywhere.  But the question that I’ll finish my article with is: which measure should/must we rely on to determine perfectly those terms and clarifying well the principles based on morals? Probably I’ll reply on that question in other occasion.

The importance of the belief (part 03)

    Let’s continue from where we stopped before, and to mention some points here. The fearing of god → means that this person is thinking in sequences before doing everything, and not only –as everybody can do that too-, but s/he remembers that he’s having limits that s/he shouldn’t exceed them, and even when it’s possible to do and nobody can notice that but it’s invalid to doing that, then preferably to avoid as a choice and with a conviction→ which means also the self-control even when nobody else can notice that, and no collapse in behaviors or in values, from here the humanity got its moral culture, and in this context; people do a lot of thing in good sense in their around, without waiting anything in return from others, then they’re applying certain of real noble principles towards the world and humanity → and during that, s/he will be doing his/her obligation (with conviction of course) towards everyone (everything) around as much as possible for the god’s sake, and fearing god of hurting them too in every treatment or dealing with, that can look meaningless for those who didn’t experiment that really, because the god’s satisfaction is what s/he is looking for -in first place- and always there is a reason to stop them even if they get a bad intention in something.

    And when the goal is common between all people (and prior than the private interests and only), then it’ll be fair for all to agree with that rule, which shows the justice in front of all people alike, right. Because it’s so impossible to have a contradiction in purposes here between the god's satisfaction and people's agreement in such situation while all rules are applied on all at the same time and way.

    That’s above when we talk about the influence of religion on people’s transactions and dealings, and when we talk about the spiritual impact, we’ll see something else, may people today accuse the religious as weak people and they don’t trust themselves enough to face the life, in other words they claim the perfection and no need to any religion to live a proper life whereas they’re worshiping different idols when they don’t know, but the human nature requires to fill the spiritual side and complete that need inside, so historically many people left the religion when they don’t find their peace inside, but not only, they didn’t just accuse the way they were on, but generally the term of religion became inexistent for them completely, just from the only one experience they had, and that’s why they rejected all.

    Scientist and Philosophers confirm the belief as a part of every single soul, even those who make the mind just the only way to ruling the life instead of any other religion (which is useless), and to ruling the life by mind, it’s necessary to belief in the power of their minds and that are able to do everything, so without that certitude in their power and their authenticity, they can’t rely so much on their mind, and that means the belief. Religion was like a shadow of the humanity since the first age in obvious way that nobody can deny it.

    But Then they couldn’t continue in this way, because the spiritual side is empty and they’ve to cover it, not because the creator needs the obedience of human to him, but because the inner need of human to his creator to filling the spiritual emptiness, therefore a lot of people were( /are still ) looking for that mean to filling the shortage in the Far East (especially in the philosophical currents of Hinduism and Buddhism) or and learn that by their money instead of following the steps of their spiritual physicians sent by the god (like one scholar has said). As examples, people are learning yoga, or tai-chi, although we can’t deny their advantages on body and mind, like some other sports too, but not enough to cover all the spiritual needs in the modern life even if they calm down a bit that need, but can’t resist longer nor getting nirvana with life’s hardships.

    Furthermore, nowadays the social and economic pressures on every person are more than they were in decades before, because the world’s situation troubled in different sides, and so the feelings of fear increase too into everyone, that what explain (according studies) the inclination to astrology just to hearing what they want to hear and calming down their fears from totally the unclear future.

    People without a metaphysical stability are facing a lot of changes in the physical world, and they get many colors of distraction in life to have that chaos and wonder always, that lead many times to waves of depression, wondering, suicide ….etc. This last has high rates among the no-religious societies, and that reveals on the loss of the goal into their hearts, why do we live? And for which purpose are we living a period of certain years then leave this world? The true meaning from life totally is into the answer. Can the mind works with religion together to give a convenient answer?

The importance of the belief (part 02)

    In fact, everybody has his own religion, I mean even if it’s not from the structured ones, so s/he’s following his desires and freaks, his interests, lusts ….etc, and once I read about someone who said: “the music is my religion”.

    I think that religion leaves different imprints in every heart of believer. Our faith is subjective... we all feel God in different ways and understand His words in different ways. But fundamental principles are the same when the hearts are pure and intentions are innocent and clear.

    That refers to one thought: the religions are coming all from one source who is the god, and if there were more than one god, then we'll find huge differences in the essences between. Otherwise each god will leave away from others with his own rules, his creations, and his creatures, and then his own world.

    How person can realize the importance by religion in our lives? I think God shows that only. God opens eyes and hearts for the truth:

     Every person has to discover an importance of religion by himself ... faith is very personal and intimate thing. Whatever I talk about importance about religion and its advantages for hours but if in the same time his heart is not opened to God and his mind is not capable to understand information, I can say my talk is useless.

    "Our minds are created enough to realizing that we're in need to religion because the imperfect nature of the human’s perception. Therefore the god's wisdom and his absolute care about mankind brought the need to cover the shortage into minds by instructions from the above from the god, and then to guarantor the safety from every evils (Instructions that we can ingest them practically). Therefore we can't judge something (and i mean by something: the religion here) over our minds' power & ability, and then we say that we don't need it at all in the life, only because we didn't realize in fact its importance yet (the importance of that thing). If i don't feel cold, don't mean it's warm around, right and if i don't know something and its value. It never means that it's doesn't existing nor valueless."

     We can have hundreds of ways to realize this truth –truth of being in need to faith-, but to be convinced we take a certain time to think deeply about. The opening of heart of someone is by the god's will, but if we just say that, so we're telling in somehow that "the god is unjust" and that's wrong thought an wrong saying in his almighty right. So we'll add the following: of course the god commands in people's hearts, and nothing can happen without his will, but what makes the difference between people to be lighted by the god's guidance or not? If the person hasn't any good indicator for kindness or he's fanatic to his thoughts whatever the portion of these thoughts' truth; so surely this person won't be lighted and he will be prevented from the god's mercy where he's not merciful with his around from first.

     We can’t measure that with someone’s properties, or the luck –apparently- in the people’s life, the true essence appears mostly in crises that face the person. If you want get the god’s mercy, you must be merciful to people, and to want the god’s help, then be helpful for people too, and so on.

The importance of the belief (part 01)

    I was talking with a friend when she told me that she wishes:” I just want to be with a man of a strong faith.”  Then she continued that: “Nowadays I see a lot of couples living in civil marriage not being officially married. It’s so sad: (To spend a long time with a person and when you get tired of him just break up ... And yes, I do know what happened to modern guys here, all are scared about marriage: (So that’s why I said that I’m looking for a person with faith, because religion gives us instruction about marriage and we should follow that to be better.) and I’ve heard about many women too who wished to have a man fearing god. I wondered about that request and I wanted if I can to figure out its reasons from depths.

   Of course that’s a pity when the commitment between two people is interpreted just in this superficial way, I mean, it's a big badness when we just keep close contact to someone in a strong relationship then we leave simply when we want, it means we just follow our fancy, so the leaving isn't appropriate logically because that cause a mess in society and families also in their families ties, the mess not only society but even in our minds… and that builds irresponsible person who doesn't undergo to any commitment in life about others (except his interests and benefits in life), and even if that’s temporary or in period to certain time, but the difference is not committed relation. So if we use the religious logic, we can say it's very big sin to use others for the personal fun and temporary freak. Unfortunately that’s the general majoring fact in the world and the lifestyle in modern and fast-paced life which it became a way to spread even recently in everywhere around the world.

    "The best in my opinion is the one who can understand what religion means –truely-," like my friend continued. because today most of people think that religion is useless thing in life and not time to think about, or it causes problems for the human-being so better to get rid of it. To escape they choose different ways in life -without knowing also another face for an idol -. This logic of thinking upsets many people today really, even that, but they still living the hardships and adversities, because of missing the meaning of life generally and - the essence from- why we live.

    I agreed with my friend in point that she prefers a partner with faith, rarely to find someone who's serious with the matter of religion and who considers it as a part of life. Therefore that person can give some security to his/her partner and make a safe relationship, I’ve heard and read many women who pray for having men fearing god, while I expect the same -or a bit less- from kind men in return, only because s/he evaluates the life more than it's abstract appearance, and s/he looks for more dimensions around instead shortening that into one meaningless short life, it’s not to dealing with a trade partner, also not to thinking him/herself the axis that must be pleased (whatever others are in), while everybody around must obey his/her desires.

   It's a wrong thinking that, and a kind of selfishness, do you agree with me? Don’t you think so? Because if everybody does the same; then the jungle will be more merciful than the mankind’s life. Of course many people will disagree with that, and it’s just an opportunity to think about it again!!

   In brief the relationship between two people is just an example, but we can spread that on all topics of dealing in life, the religion guarantees the sense of responsibility in the person about his environment (whether people around or something else), his care about it and not looking just to himself and desires. Religion can control the person and help him to keep control and rectify his steps even when the chosen way is the hardest but it's the safest, the most correct one and the most servable.

   Like someone was looking to the world around in 2D, it was really great view, then he opened the second eye and the view becomes in 3D which became greater. Because the religion brings an additional dimension to every behavior and let some depths in its traces. And I’ll try to explain more in next article.

the imbalance in spending our care and feelings (3/3).

    We talked before about the fact of overstating in our dealing with animals, and in fact what it’s expressing about. Compare that view to the second one now, I watched a document which following the trajectory of the life of elephants, it was interesting to find out about the nature. During the way; one female fell sick when the caravan couldn’t wait it except its son which stayed nearby. Logically I was waiting when I’ll see the help to treat the elephant, but instead to offer that necessary care, they preferred to keep filming the end how it will be for hours to record that dramatic end.

    I don’t mean the situation like to saving a gazelle from a tiger, that’ll be a wrong interference in the nature and breaking the nature’s principal laws, so offering the help when it’s needed (as we said before) doesn’t mean to transgress on the normal process of the nature, also doesn’t mean to overstate in the care, right, but to help a wounded animal is something else and different to the two figures. Here where the animal’s welfare is required, instead of the previous figure that’s definitely legal and lawful.

    I didn’t find an explanation to this doing really, except the personal interest. Of course we have to care about animals –as we do with nature- by the necessary and treat them in proper way with mercy, but we can’t be as good as their lives in nature. We should do that for humans who deserve this kind of care like orphans or refugees of wars –as an example-.

    So when the matter requires care, usually people purely look for their interests without mercy nor care about the things around them. And in the same time they go far in the care and provide all kinds of mercy, whereas the matter can be controlled by keeping the middle distance in the dealing. In my opinion I don’t think it’s the right way to show the suitable care for animals and both are extremists in somehow.

    I my opinion, it’s not more than exaggeration in the two sides to the extremities, and it’s not more than tries to doing changes differently than the usual (when it becomes unbearably boring), and the freedom eased that way to try and be convinced with, maybe certain approbation comes from religious aspects and healthy results that someone get in fact, but not to be in the way that it’s in real life now.

    Recently, I’ve see a report showing some annoyance from animals rights organizations from those who possess animals, because they took them to special saloons, to colour them strangely and apply some weird cut hairs by shaving it. Really it’s not bad to possess animals and to give names to your pet like cat, horse, or dog, of course I don’t see all in black, some studies confirmed that the being with animals is bringing more happiness to elderly, they’ve some advantages surely, like when they give them reasons to move and be active in the life at least on a personal level (while those people are caring about something).

    And what I blamed here is: the dissociation in the social and family ties, furthermore; it’s not bad to care about animals -in reasonable way-, but when we check statistics and see around the world, we can find how many people are in need to help before any exaggeration to do with an animal, just keeping the reason with.

        To care about animals; it’s always necessary of course especially when it’s needed as we see in some governmental programs for protection from the human also (what the strange paradox). But the question for us as individuals; do we do that in the correct way as it should be done? Everyone can find the answer by himself and think about, probably there is something to rectify, don’t you think so?

the imbalance in spending our care and feelings. (1/3)

    I got a question from a friend: why we’ve names? Briefly I said that the name refers to his owner, usually it puts its traces in the personality of the person from the first times when he understands its meanings (name’s meanings) also from knowing stories of great people who got the same name and they play the role of models for him/her, and it effects on feelings towards the name as well.

    “Why we give animals names? Do they understand too the meanings too?” my friend continued so

    “Of course no” I replied, what people do today is a part from the social luxury. That’s from one side, and it's, just an interpretation for the need to live socially in the life. or just a picture of modern life, besides, the human is exaggerating to care about animals (especially pets) because of many reasons like the shortage in the human interactions, and less of social communication between people, social connection (even family ties) became weaker, that’s why people look for a different way to skip the situation, so animals become like a last outlet to cover that shortage in the life, especially when animals don’t demand a lot nor conditions for relations with.

    Regardless to the new life’s challenges and people do getting dogs often for more security, that’s great of course, but that you love animals so not necessary to have into your room on bed or sofa, you can be close to them by your care or going to park, right. They're not toys made for our fun and good mood, ok. So don't make all your interests in something like that and only, right

    And maybe if you’ve the enough social live (familiar life) you won't have time for animals as you do now, because you'll have something more precious to spend time with, because usually that (overstatement in) the interest - in pets- comes from the loneliness that people are living in life, unfortunately. So to trust animals and love them because they also love the human in return without conditions and easier to get them from, that’s what promoted this impression.

    And when you're so interested in what you've at home, you'll be thankful for your life and all graces you've got, animals won’t be for you more than a creature that requires a help and care from you only when it's necessary, maybe we can exclude dogs and cats, but some animals can’t be as pets really and preferably (to this creature) to leave in the nature that it's created in. then it will enjoy and feel the life better than being at homes,

    According to what’s termed by “the positional arms race” in the social life of people, which redefine again what’s “adequate and enough” for the person in his ordinary process of life. It becomes today a part of lifestyle and people exaggerate in that way by more care, and treat them like their kids or maybe more, in this case we can call them humans instead animals, am I right? And I’m sure many people do call their pets like that, because they were failed from society around and couldn’t find the good companionship

    Even about using animals, I make a difference between putting them in parks like nature reserves, in way to protect the type of certain animals from extinction, AND the fact of using animals for fun and impose cruel exercises on them like in circus or home’s cages. They’re created to help you get your purposes but not to be games between your hands.

the imbalance in spending our care and feelings (2/3).

    In the other hand; some people work on animals rights and those vegetarians and vegans who abstain eating fish, meat and poultry –or any of their products- for ethical reason too and compassion of animals which started in first from India. And it’s developed through the Greeks then mixed with religious aspects according to certain old manuscripts to be a lifestyle in world culture today away from any religious commitments.

    I remind you by one truth: the animals and wild fruits were the basic food for the mankind –for hundreds of centuries- before the discovery of the agriculture (in the near east), where people were imposed to relying on migration and traveling life to guarantee their existence.  Secondly the most consummated meal is coming from those 03 kinds of animals, poultry, sheep, and beef respectively-regardless to fish-. But we never heard about the extinction in any kind of them or that they’re endangered species, though the big consummated amount every day, every month and every year.  It’s a part of the food chains that balance the life on the globe.

    And that last (animals) was the main factor to guarantee the continuity of the human race (regardless to plants), it’s a settlement, and its advancement towards the civilization as well. Besides; I can also say that plants are creatures, and then you shouldn’t eat from them or their fruit, at all too, because we can consider that also as a settlement, is it logical? Think about it.
    What about your pets, which kind of food you give them? isn’t made from animals too? And how the chain of food is going in the nature? We’re a part of the nature, aren’t we? but human has a mind to wisely use his environment.

    I’ll quote those verses from what I knew, and the Quran says:

And cattle He has created for you (people): from them ye derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) ye eat. (16-05).

All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel had made unlawful to himself before the Torah was revealed. Say, [O Muhammad], "So bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful." (93-05).

And for you in them is [the enjoyment of] beauty when you bring them in [for the evening] and when you send them out [to pasture] in the morning. (16-06).

And they carry your heavy loads to lands that ye could not (otherwise) reach except with souls distressed (difficulties): for your Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful, (16-07).

And it is He who subjected the sea for you to eat from it tender meat and to extract from it ornaments which you wear. And you see the ships plowing through it, and [He subjected it] that you may seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be grateful. (16-14).

   Those quotations are showing the fact of relationship we should have with all creatures around and especially with animals. It’s clarifying simply how it should be and the way we deal with them also. And instead of the fact of taking the far left and overstated care in animals to be close to the human level; not to be so cruel with them, as we’ll see in next part.

The advantages of travelling across the world

   I continue in the idea that says: “Not everything you think it’s good for you; it’s truly the good one.”

   The traveling is something exhausting for everyone although today it’s easier -and a lot- than it was in the past. I won’t talk about touristic traveling here, but I mean when the traveling is a necessary and obligatory in somehow -maybe from a city to another, or even to go to a different country-.

   Usually in those situations; people taste the batter of hard moment to be obliged to do that. That’s one among events which seem bad in first glance, right!! But the history told us many similar experiences and just different in details. The idea is when you feel yourself obliged to leave your current environment for certain reasons, means that you couldn’t get there (in where you’re now) what you look for, and that becomes helpless to you. It’s hard to quit your comfort zone (as many psychologists call that), whereas it doesn’t mean always to be bad as people think (or as imagine), and one scholar and poet said (before centuries)

   For reaching your goals and satisfying your vim; Immigrate in different countries, because you’ll get five benefits from traveling:

The translation is :

 * Immigrate in the homelands to appealing the summits in life, because in traveling there are five (05) benefits:

1- relief of your worries, 2- acquisition of livelihoods, 3- a science and literatures, 4- decency, and 5- a precious companionship whom you really can coexist with them (he meant : the travel shows you the right person who deserves to be your companion).

* And if they tell that in traveling there is humbleness, or an ordeal, and crossing deserts with difficulties of meeting [with family and relatives, which isn’t as hard as in past]; so the death is better for the person instead of sitting at home for deterioration, and suffering from the slander, the censure, or the envy.

   That’s what the poet said from his knowledge and experiences, and to motivate people to traveling without any fears from it, because to be in different place surrounded by different people, all those sides can show the person more opportunities in the new different environment, because s/he can see their life from new perspectives, as the poet said and it can be the opening of your future and the good life in few months of years later. Moreover the advantages and bounties we mentioned above here.

    Many people exploded their powers and reached their horizons just when they travelled and lived in far place different to their hometown city -or country-, because they met with new chances, and their different looking way to the life, then they can see the opportunities which they can work on (whether in studies, or professional career, or any interest in social life of people). They quickly adapt with the environment and naturally they get the inner motivation because it’s a new experience and there is an enthusiasm inside to do more in it, and usually they achieve their goals with some persistence, also they got more skills and experiences in life.

    If you keep your optimist mood and patience, then don’t regret nor doubt from your previous steps, to be sure and confident and strong enough (not to be confused from). To trust them (those experiences) for making new steps forward and while the goal is to improving yourself always; then you’ve to accept starting modestly and convinced.

    And I finish with this adage of one wise man when he said: “I don’t care in the way how I’ll become [in each morning] good or bad, because I don’t know truly where the goodness for me is: in what I like or what I dislike.”