my question is I was raised a Christian before I converted to Islam some people told

[truthseeker63]

As Salamu Alaikum or don't betray you're Family is but is this really a valid reason to stay in a Religion to please you're Family or because you think they will be Happy if you do ? In my opinion the answer is no I try not to Offend my Family since they are Christian therefor I won't say something bad about Christianity in front of them but let me be honest if no one in my Family was Christian I would never try to defend it or care about people's feelings or not Offend to be honest the only reason why I would show any respect or love to Christianity if I ever did would only be because thats what my Family is therefor When one is a Christian they are around their Family for Christian Holidays such as Christmas and Easter since you are a Child but let me be honest if I only showed love towards Christianity or emotions towards Christianity is because thats what my Family has been and Ancestors its a Family Tradition/Family History but again my heart was never with Chistianity see ? My pont is yes there have been Christian Individuals that I can or loved/respected/admired but do I respect/admire/love Christianity/Christians as a Collective my answer is No does anyone see my point no one chooses their Family Nation or Culture or Race/Skin Color therefor it is an Accident of Birth that I and my Family Members happened to be born in a Christian Society/Christian Nation/Christian Culture
its a matter of Individuals/Collective but I believe Collectivism is more impoortant than Individualism the only Christians I only like are my Family Members and a few Close Friends that happen to be Christians I don't care about Christians/Christianity as a Collective Community/Group anyone get my point please reply ?

Myth: There's no such thing as society… only individuals and families.

Fact: Two or more people in a cooperative relationship form a society by definition.


Summary

Whenever two or more people enter any sort of cooperative relationship, the result is by definition a social group. Group survival is much more effective and efficient than individual survival, but coordinating group survival results in a need for social policy. The market is not truly a place where individuals can act freely and without constraint, because markets are social institutions, and the parameters of legal behavior on the market are set by social agreement.


Argument

"There's no such thing as society," British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared. "There are individual men and women and there are families."

This remarkable statement serves as a useful litmus test for distinguishing the moderate right from the far right. If you are a conservative and agree with Ms. Thatcher, you most likely subscribe to the far right; if not, you are most likely a moderate. (The reaction of liberals to this audacious claim was predictable: many were left wondering how a great and sophisticated nation like Great Britain could elect anyone to high office without even a rudimentary understanding of sociology.) But as audacious as the claim may be, it is a common one among neo-conservatives. They believe that the concept of society is a myth, and in its place we actually have a collection of disparate individuals.

Perhaps the first important thing to note is that these are semantic games. Society is a "collection of individuals," even formally defined. It's often amusing to watch the verbal contortions that conservatives go through trying to avoid this sense of collectiveness. Instead of a society, they claim, we have a "group" of individuals, or a "collection" of individuals, or "many" individuals, or a "whole bunch of" individuals, or even Margaret Thatcher's solution to the dilemma: "individuals," plural. Yet the moment two or more individuals establish any sort of cooperative relationship with each other, the inevitable result, by definition, is a society.

To say that there is no such thing as society is demonstrably false. Humans are born in groups, raised in groups, work in groups, play in groups, defend their interests in groups, and die in groups. These groups are organized, specialized, interdependent, and greater than the sum of their parts. In fact, individuals owe their very existence to group behavior -- namely, the pair-bond, or the union of mother and father. (This is why Ms. Thatcher had to append the social group "families" to her statement.)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-nosociety.htm

[greenhill]

Salaam,

Don't quite get the real issue here...