Zone1 Does morality shape religion or does religion shape morality ?

[Captain Caveman]

Our retreat from Christianity doesnât mean weâve lost our sense of morality | Kenan Malik

Those who moan that we’re losing our religion are quick to demonise the most vulnerable

www.theguardian.com

Yet the history of Christianity itself shows that it is not belief in God that defines our moral values but our moral values that shape the way we think about God. Christians (like those of many faiths) once enslaved fellow human beings, burned witches and killed adulterers, believing such practices to have divine sanction. Few Christians today would regard such practices as morally acceptable. Not because God has changed his mind but because humans have.

Collective social struggle – from campaigns to abolish slavery to battles for women’s rights – have been underpinned by moral considerations while becoming also the source of moral development. Such struggles have transformed our moral universe, and in so doing transformed, also, what believers imagine God deems to be good.

I cant see how this can be argued with.The people who campaigned aganst slavery may have been Christians but they were also good people who recognised it as evil.
It was their personal morality rather than any shift in the attitude of the churvh.

Life is generally better now that it was a century,or 2 centuries, back. But that is because we are better people rather than a shift in faith.

You could argue that art is more influential than the church in this.

No. You are trialling people from the past against today's morals/standards/laws, they will all fail. Everyone today will fail the morals/standards/laws of the future.

WWI and WWII were not religious based, but killed more than Christians dunking witches in the canal.

 

[Kruska]

Naturally humans had morals before any religion took possession of them and changed them accordingly to fit the respective power agendas. Even animals display morals e.g. other animals protecting a wounded one of theirs from becoming prey or not surviving. Whereby for animals - moral - is usually replaced with the term social behavior.

Then politicians came in and exploited existing religious believes to fit their respective power agenda. Today no one really cares about what some religious leader or religious institution proclaims. Moral standards are simply defined and decided upon by politicians.

 

[2aguy]

No. You are trialling people from the past against today's morals/standards/laws, they will all fail. Everyone today will fail the morals/standards/laws of the future.

WWI and WWII were not religious based, but killed more than Christians dunking witches in the canal.

Not to forget that atheists around the world have murdered up to, if not over, 200 million people since 1917........

 

[talksalot]

Good post. I’d say a little of both. But Chicken or egg. First came morality then came religion

Other way around.

 

[sealybobo]

Other way around.

Oh please. You're telling me you think humans didn't have morality until religion was invented? What a load of shit.

That would be like me saying immorality doesn't exist since religion was invented. Bullshit.

Clearly we had moral humans on earth before Moses came down from the Mountain. Or, before the Greeks invented the Gods, I'm sure there were some moral Greeks. In fact morality is probably one of the main reasons they invented the concept of God(s).

 

[PeterPilot]

Our retreat from Christianity doesnât mean weâve lost our sense of morality | Kenan Malik

Those who moan that we’re losing our religion are quick to demonise the most vulnerable

www.theguardian.com

Yet the history of Christianity itself shows that it is not belief in God that defines our moral values but our moral values that shape the way we think about God. Christians (like those of many faiths) once enslaved fellow human beings, burned witches and killed adulterers, believing such practices to have divine sanction. Few Christians today would regard such practices as morally acceptable. Not because God has changed his mind but because humans have.

Collective social struggle – from campaigns to abolish slavery to battles for women’s rights – have been underpinned by moral considerations while becoming also the source of moral development. Such struggles have transformed our moral universe, and in so doing transformed, also, what believers imagine God deems to be good.

I cant see how this can be argued with.The people who campaigned aganst slavery may have been Christians but they were also good people who recognised it as evil.
It was their personal morality rather than any shift in the attitude of the churvh.

Life is generally better now that it was a century,or 2 centuries, back. But that is because we are better people rather than a shift in faith.

You could argue that art is more influential than the church in this.

About 2 years ago the Pope declared that taking the clot shot was an obligation in the eyes of the Church. How immoral is that?

 

[koshergrl]

That would mean that atheists cannot be moral people. I dont think that stands up.

Wrong.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

About 2 years ago the Pope declared that taking the clot shot was an obligation in the eyes of the Church. How immoral is that?

Good advice that saved millions.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Today we know hitting children is immoral. Atheist parents today know better than our Christian parents.

Again with complete blankets statements based on total BS? What are you basing that on LOL

 

[sealybobo]

Again with complete blankets statements based on total BS? What are you basing that on LOL

Are you suggesting we should go back to hitting our children? What are you basing that on? I'm basing my comment on everything we know about hitting children.

Spanking can physically harm children. Rather than teaching kids how to change their behavior, spanking makes them fearful of their parents and teaches them to avoid getting caught. For kids seeking attention by acting out, spanking may "reward" them — negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Research has long underscored the negative effects of spanking on children's social-emotional development, self-regulation, and cognitive development, but new research, published this month, shows that spanking alters children's brain response in ways similar to severe maltreatment and increases perception of threats.

Physical punishment can work momentarily to stop problematic behavior because children are afraid of being hit, but it doesn't work in the long term and can make children more aggressive
Should I listen to you or pediatricians?

Parents should avoid spanking as a form of discipline, pediatricians say

Spanking as a form of discipline is associated with poor health outcomes, such as mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and physical health issues.

nortonchildrens.com

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Are you suggesting we should go back to hitting our children? What are you basing that on? I'm basing my comment on everything we know about hitting children.

Spanking can physically harm children. Rather than teaching kids how to change their behavior, spanking makes them fearful of their parents and teaches them to avoid getting caught. For kids seeking attention by acting out, spanking may "reward" them — negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Research has long underscored the negative effects of spanking on children's social-emotional development, self-regulation, and cognitive development, but new research, published this month, shows that spanking alters children's brain response in ways similar to severe maltreatment and increases perception of threats.

Physical punishment can work momentarily to stop problematic behavior because children are afraid of being hit, but it doesn't work in the long term and can make children more aggressive
Should I listen to you or pediatricians?

Parents should avoid spanking as a form of discipline, pediatricians say

Spanking as a form of discipline is associated with poor health outcomes, such as mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and physical health issues.

nortonchildrens.com

You said Christian parents hit their children more than atheist parents. What are you basing that BS statement on?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Our retreat from Christianity doesnât mean weâve lost our sense of morality | Kenan Malik

Those who moan that we’re losing our religion are quick to demonise the most vulnerable

www.theguardian.com

Yet the history of Christianity itself shows that it is not belief in God that defines our moral values but our moral values that shape the way we think about God. Christians (like those of many faiths) once enslaved fellow human beings, burned witches and killed adulterers, believing such practices to have divine sanction. Few Christians today would regard such practices as morally acceptable. Not because God has changed his mind but because humans have.

Collective social struggle – from campaigns to abolish slavery to battles for women’s rights – have been underpinned by moral considerations while becoming also the source of moral development. Such struggles have transformed our moral universe, and in so doing transformed, also, what believers imagine God deems to be good.

I cant see how this can be argued with.The people who campaigned aganst slavery may have been Christians but they were also good people who recognised it as evil.
It was their personal morality rather than any shift in the attitude of the churvh.

Life is generally better now that it was a century,or 2 centuries, back. But that is because we are better people rather than a shift in faith.

You could argue that art is more influential than the church in this.

Morality is a learned behavior

 

[PeterPilot]

Good advice that saved millions.

You're a funny guy Tommy, thoroughly indoctrinated.

 

[Dragonlady]

You said Christian parents hit their children more than atheist parents. What are you basing that BS statement on?

That isn't what she said at all. In fact, she didn't say ANYTHING about Christian parents at all. The word "Christian" doesn't even appear in her post, but thanks for proving what a lying piece of shit you are.

You don't like what she really said, and you have no way of refuting her post, so you change what she said to something you think you CAN attack.

Morality is a learned behavior

"Morality" is what drives religion, not the other way around. The social norms drive what is considered "moral" or "immoral". To cannibals, killing and eating their enemies was "moral". Religion is shaped to support the way society wishes to live, not the other way around.

The American Religious Right are prime examples of "morality" driving religion. Evangelicals are batshit crazy obsessed with sexual mores, but have no such devotion to the Christian principle of "Treating others the way YOU would like to be treated".

And true to the law of unintended consequences, they have raised a generation of young Christian women who are willing to do any sort of anal or oral sex act with their boyfriends - things that would make a Church Street hooker blush, anything but have straight up "normal" vaginal sex because then they won't be a "virgin" on their wedding night.

Jesus was NOT interested in the sexual mores of His time. He stopped the stoning of an adultress saying "Let he who is without sin among you, throw the first stone". They ignore the "Judge not lest you be judged" lessons in the Bible, and seek to bannish, subjugate and destroy anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "moral" code.

They vote for a liar, a fraud and a thief like Donald Trump, and tell themselves "God chose him to lead us". A man who has violated every one of the 10 Commandments.

 

[Crepitus]

Our retreat from Christianity doesnât mean weâve lost our sense of morality | Kenan Malik

Those who moan that we’re losing our religion are quick to demonise the most vulnerable

www.theguardian.com

Yet the history of Christianity itself shows that it is not belief in God that defines our moral values but our moral values that shape the way we think about God. Christians (like those of many faiths) once enslaved fellow human beings, burned witches and killed adulterers, believing such practices to have divine sanction. Few Christians today would regard such practices as morally acceptable. Not because God has changed his mind but because humans have.

Collective social struggle – from campaigns to abolish slavery to battles for women’s rights – have been underpinned by moral considerations while becoming also the source of moral development. Such struggles have transformed our moral universe, and in so doing transformed, also, what believers imagine God deems to be good.

I cant see how this can be argued with.The people who campaigned aganst slavery may have been Christians but they were also good people who recognised it as evil.
It was their personal morality rather than any shift in the attitude of the churvh.

Life is generally better now that it was a century,or 2 centuries, back. But that is because we are better people rather than a shift in faith.

You could argue that art is more influential than the church in this.

In as much as your religion is part of your immediate society yes, it shapes your morals, because society is what shapes them over all.

 

[Blisterfinger]

That isn't what she said at all. In fact, she didn't say ANYTHING about Christian parents at all. The word "Christian" doesn't even appear in her post, but thanks for proving what a lying piece of shit you are.

You don't like what she really said, and you have no way of refuting her post, so you change what she said to something you think you CAN attack.



"Morality" is what drives religion, not the other way around. The social norms drive what is considered "moral" or "immoral". To cannibals, killing and eating their enemies was "moral". Religion is shaped to support the way society wishes to live, not the other way around.

The American Religious Right are prime examples of "morality" driving religion. Evangelicals are batshit crazy obsessed with sexual mores, but have no such devotion to the Christian principle of "Treating others the way YOU would like to be treated".

And true to the law of unintended consequences, they have raised a generation of young Christian women who are willing to do any sort of anal or oral sex act with their boyfriends - things that would make a Church Street hooker blush, anything but have straight up "normal" vaginal sex because then they won't be a "virgin" on their wedding night.

Jesus was NOT interested in the sexual mores of His time. He stopped the stoning of an adultress saying "Let he who is without sin among you, throw the first stone". They ignore the "Judge not lest you be judged" lessons in the Bible, and seek to bannish, subjugate and destroy anyone who doesn't subscribe to their "moral" code.

They vote for a liar, a fraud and a thief like Donald Trump, and tell themselves "God chose him to lead us". A man who has violated every one of the 10 Commandments.

They vote for a liar, a fraud and a thief like Donald Trump, and tell themselves "God chose him to lead us". A man who has violated every one of the 10 Commandments.

You say this, and as you do, totally ignore the "judge not lest you be judged" principle. Congrats hypocrite

 

[Libby von H]

Our retreat from Christianity doesnât mean weâve lost our sense of morality | Kenan Malik

Those who moan that we’re losing our religion are quick to demonise the most vulnerable

www.theguardian.com

Yet the history of Christianity itself shows that it is not belief in God that defines our moral values but our moral values that shape the way we think about God. Christians (like those of many faiths) once enslaved fellow human beings, burned witches and killed adulterers, believing such practices to have divine sanction. Few Christians today would regard such practices as morally acceptable. Not because God has changed his mind but because humans have.

Collective social struggle – from campaigns to abolish slavery to battles for women’s rights – have been underpinned by moral considerations while becoming also the source of moral development. Such struggles have transformed our moral universe, and in so doing transformed, also, what believers imagine God deems to be good.

I cant see how this can be argued with.The people who campaigned aganst slavery may have been Christians but they were also good people who recognised it as evil.
It was their personal morality rather than any shift in the attitude of the churvh.

Life is generally better now that it was a century,or 2 centuries, back. But that is because we are better people rather than a shift in faith.

You could argue that art is more influential than the church in this.

Patently false...and proved so by the Greek philosophers all the way up through Lincoln
To take one of hundreds of examples, St Augustine shows that you MUST be wrong. Why does a thief say you wronged him when you steal from him !! After he does it. Because prior to chosen values or belief in God is the first principle that stealing is wrong.
There that was simple
If you want a modern simplified full explanation of why what you say makes no sense read THOMAS REID

“Nature hath given us us a particular emotion, to wit, that of ridicule, which seems intended for this very purpose of putting out of countenance what is absurd, either in opinion or practice. This weapon, when properly applied, cuts with as keen an edge as argument. Nature has furnished us with the first to expose absurdity; as with the last to refute error.”
― Thomas Reid, Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man

 

[Libby von H]

In as much as your religion is part of your immediate society yes, it shapes your morals, because society is what shapes them over all.

But this falsely states 2 contradictory theses.
1) If relgion (and I speak of Natural Religion, such as the existence of a Creator) is not rational then your objection itself is just a different "faith"
2) Your immediate society --- just think about it--- must have first resulted from what its component parts (individuals) believed so that society is the result originally and CAN'T be the cause.

This is all obvious historically if you look at the religious history of ,say, the French Revolution

 

[Crepitus]

But this falsely states 2 contradictory theses.
1) If relgion (and I speak of Natural Religion, such as the existence of a Creator) is not rational then your objection itself is just a different "faith"
2) Your immediate society --- just think about it--- must have first resulted from what its component parts (individuals) believed so that society is the result originally and CAN'T be the cause.

This is all obvious historically if you look at the religious history of ,say, the French Revolution

Pure sophistry.

Your "morals" are dictated by your society, Your society is the people surrounding you. If you surround yourself with religious types then that is where at least a portion of your "morality" comes from.

It really is just that simple.

 

[Libby von H]

Pure sophistry.

Your "morals" are dictated by your society, Your society is the people surrounding you. If you surround yourself with religious types then that is where at least a portion of your "morality" comes from.

It really is just that simple.

and you are stupid as all the folks who studied that as their life's work would laugh at you

Take Arnold J Toynbee
“Religion holds the solution to all problems of human relationship, whether they are between parents and children or nation and nation. Sooner or later, man has always had to decide whether he worships his own power or the power of God.”


“On this showing, the nature of the breakdowns of civilizations can be summed up in three points: a failure of creative power in the minority, an answering withdrawal of mimesis on the part of the majority, and a consequent loss of social unity in the society as a whole.”

— Arnold J. Toynbee
AND TOTALLY AGAINST YOU:
. “The equation of religion with belief is rather recent.”
— Arnold J. Toynbee
“The course of human history consists of a series of encounters between individual human beings and God in which each man and woman or child, in turn, is challenged by God to make his free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.”

— Arnold J. Toynbee “The course of human history consists of a series of encounters between individual human beings and God in which each man and woman or child, in turn, is challenged by God to make his free choice between doing God’s will and refusing to do it.”