Universal Religion--Moral Vs Legal?

Question

if we presume that the erstwhile religious edicts were created to bind the primitive humans in some informal sort of civilised society by every means--love, persuation, persecutions, power, coersion, punishment,reward, hope, promises, union, reunion, etc, etc, etc.....are we to assume that today's Laws had to be created in a modern civilisation to overcome the shortcomings/drawbacks that arose in an ever evolving world, to govern it better on more realistic grounds as opposed to a high moral and probably, anachronistic-stand (out of time) taken by the existing religions of the world,evolved much earlier with few changes.

I am sorry if I was not able to make myself clear in the above parable.
In short, what I meant was that religion was used as an informal form of law in ancient times when civilisation was at a very primitive stage to bind people in a society.
Now with the advancement of modern civilisation due to education, etc. the same control could not be carried out by the use of the same religious means as a result of which Laws had to be enacted formally, to fill this lacuna and govern a just society.
Does this prove that all the religions founded in ancient times are unable to meet the aspirations of modern societies and thus lost most of their significance inspite of the hype surrounding them within their own groups with vested interests.

Answer 1

Yes, what you're talking about is generally covered in 4th grade. It's basic sociology.

And the previous person is right, that's a horribly written sentence.

Answer 2

My first impression is that you assume, presume and exhume far too much.

Um, was there an actual question in there anywhere?

But then I digress. After exhaustive, meticulous examination of the aforementioned and august sundry points of interest, I determined to sublimate the essence of your honorable query for the express purposes of gaining a cantilevered perspective on the ramifications of a variety of sidereal theoretical postulates, profoundly affecting but certainly not limited to the 6-fold inter-dimensional mathematical interaction between the ever devolving quasi-religious world and the uber-anachronistic and psuedo-archtypical psychological processes of archaic mythic phantasmagoric anomalies that ultimately result in the spewing forth of thousands of units of complicated, ultra-cryptic, listen-to-how-smart-I-am verbiage just to express one simple thought.

As far as the erstwhile religious edicts, I would treat them the same as the erstwhile religious eballs~

Answer 3

That was one poorly written sentence. About 150 words without one period. Commas can't pick up the whole load. That is too much to expect from a comma. They get tired. They often need a period to give them a rest; even a semi-colon would work.

Answer 4

That is the longest question/statement I have ever scene. Can you state it again with maybe some puncuation? Then I might know where one thought starts and one ends.

Give that to some English Freak and ask them to diagram that sentence. Their head would explode.

Answer 5

Well, I think that presumption is flawed. Religions originated as a means of explaining the unexplainable (and they largely continue on that basis today). Religions were institutionalized as a means of political control.

You're basically referring to secularization, which is simply a natural result of knowledge filling the "gaps" that religion previously hinged upon.

Answer 6

I think my English teacher said it best:

"Don't write run-on sentences they are hard to read instead learn to use punctuation."

But in answer to your basic query, yes.

Answer 7

Please make your questions more simple and easier to understand........