Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[stevevw]

I think the other thing with the Atlantic slave trade is it was the most visible and talked about while other areas seem to have been largely forgotten. I think some American's are far to much in a bubble when it comes to world history with many believing the slave trade to the Americans was 'the entire slave trade'. No wonder they are angry. Now maybe if the Middle East had a large black population there would be more attention paid there because 1929 is shockingly late to abolish slavery, but they had no descendants to speak out. Maybe also people in the west are a bit afraid of the Middle East too, Europeans are an easier safer target. Unless people delve into world history that huge and long slave trade isn't even known about.

It was barbaric but also widely accepted across the world. The world viewed it as normal which is how it continued on unchallenged until Brittan decided to put on the breaks. I don't think many Americans even realize Brittan was out in the open seas fighting against slavery. People need to realize white men didn't go into Africa and kidnap these people, they were there on the coast in markets sold by their own country men. White men wouldn't have lasted more then 2 weeks in Africa, if the diseases didn't get them tribes men would have done.
People were treated like cattle and very few cared. This is a good example of how society can endorse sin as it is doing now. Sin becomes viewed not only as normal but good. Which is why Jesus came to die, because man left to himself is evil.

There was a sort of slavery in Australia where indigenous people were used as cheap labor and later it was found that many were never paid and this became known as the 'stolen wages' which lasted until around 1970. I think this happens a lot today so its a bit of a deception that because people are regarded as workers they are not slaves. But they actually were as they were worked hard without rights for no pay. So it wasn't as obvious and took time for this to come out.

But in the truth comes out in the end and the wrong is exposed just like in Britain and the US. Unfortunately there are places that still today commit these wrongs and get away with it. The point is because we gradually and eventually see the wrong and make changes towards improving things we are aiming towards something better if not the best behavior in those situations which means there is some ideal or objective standard to measure what is right and wrong behavior.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There was a sort of slavery in Australia where indigenous people were used as cheap labor and later it was found that many were never paid and this became known as the 'stolen wages' which lasted until around 1970. I think this happens a lot today so its a bit of a deception that because people are regarded as workers they are not slaves. But they actually were as they were worked hard without rights for no pay. So it wasn't as obvious and took time for this to come out.

But in the truth comes out in the end and the wrong is exposed just like in Britain and the US. Unfortunately there are places that still today commit these wrongs and get away with it.

Like Qatar.

The point is because we gradually and eventually see the wrong and make changes towards improving things we are aiming towards something better if not the best behavior in those situations which means there is some ideal or objective standard to measure what is right and wrong behavior.

Or, try this..

Maybe over time we realize that those things we used to do weren't that great or kind and we'd rather not have them done to us, so let's set some standards and try to meet them. The religious texts still say things about how to do slavery, those haven't changed. I would welcome a church that says Leviticus isn't a valid text and is discarded from the canon.

 

[Ken-1122]

It was barbaric but also widely accepted across the world. The world viewed it as normal which is how it continued on unchallenged until Brittan decided to put on the breaks. I don't think many Americans even realize Brittan was out in the open seas fighting against slavery.

What was Brittan doing? Stopping slave ships? If so, did they attack any American slave ships?

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
My bad; it’s just that your facts were so far off compared to what really happened in the USA that I just assumed you were talking about a different country.

I don't think the facts were way off. The fact is Britain was the first to bring in laws to stop the slave trade because of the horrible treatment Negro's. This was the argument used to protest the wrongs. The US followed suit soon after to ban the slave trade despite many relying on it as a form of commercial interest.

(Ken)
The abolition of slavery started when slavery started; there has always been those who had moral misgivings concerning the issues of slavery; but those voices were weak. It wasn’t until the Industrial revolution began and slavery became less important that their voices became louder and more powerful. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

The voices to stop slavery due to inhuman treatment and the act of parliament to outlaw it happened well before the industrial revolution. I don't think the fact that it took time to completely stop all trade changes the fact that it was wrong and that was the truth of the matter. Even today we know of wrongs being done and yet turn a blind eye for commercial interest. But none of this changes the fact its wrong and people knew it.

(Ken)
I can’t speak for what was going on in Britain, but in the USA, slavery ended as a result of our Civil War (Northern States against the Southern States) The war started because the South wanted to leave from the union and form their own country. It wasn’t until a few years later when it was obvious the South was losing the war that Lincoln who hated slavery made the end of slavery a condition of surrender. But make no mistake; nobody knew Lincoln was gonna end slavery when the war started, this was something he added after the war had started.

So if Lincoln made it a condition of surrender then it must have been an important issue to decide and stop. That seems to be made out of concern for the poor treatment of the slaves and not some commercial interest. The war ended in 1865 before the industrial revolution so this could not have been factor in deciding to end slavery.

I thought you said your protestors in parliament was in the 1830’s. Slavery ended in the USA in the 1860’s; obviously having nothing to do with your parliament protest.

Yes the British parliament passed the bill to stop slavery in 1833 and this led to the US outlawing in some 30 years later. But they knew that it was wrong before hand. It just took longer for the US to enact the Bill.

(Ken)
The only objective reason beyond myself that caused me to change my views was the other guy who provided a better argument.

Yes and that better arguement would have appealed to reasoning based some fact on why it was wrong such as its cruel or unfair etc and not just because they said so.

(Ken)
In the USA it is not illegal for a policeman to speak ill of the people in the community he serves. It’ll get him fired, but he won't go to prison for it.

Then that is an example of what I have been talking about. How someone who has done nothing illegally wrong can suffer a penalty based on a subjective opinion. How people turn their subjective opinion into some weapon to hurt others like on social media.

But again; do you believe all the moral issues that have changed over the years have changed for the better?

No of course not. As modern society allows moral plurality under subjective morality its not about better or worse but who has the loudest voice of power to push they moral views and sometimes maybe often we end up allowing immoral behavior as a consequence even when we know its wrong. But the point is do you think they should change for the better.

 

[Ken-1122]

There was a sort of slavery in Australia where indigenous people were used as cheap labor and later it was found that many were never paid and this became known as the 'stolen wages' which lasted until around 1970. I think this happens a lot today so its a bit of a deception that because people are regarded as workers they are not slaves. But they actually were as they were worked hard without rights for no pay. So it wasn't as obvious and took time for this to come out.
.

Was this done at gunpoint? How did they get these people to work without pay?

 

[stevevw]

Like Qatar.

I guess so and like other places even today.

Or, try this..

Maybe over time we realize that those things we used to do weren't that great or kind and we'd rather not have them done to us, so let's set some standards and try to meet them.

But that's more or less the same thing. We realized it wasn't 'kind' needs to have some objective standard as to what is 'kind and unkind'. Otherwise there's no such thing as being kind or unkind its just a different way to behave like wearing a different shirt.

That we empathize with others means we know its wrong to treat people that way and that is what morality is about, how we treat others. Afterall Jesus said that the second greatest commandment was to 'Love your neighbor as yourself. We are moral creatures and morals relate to how we treat others.

The religious texts still say things about how to do slavery, those haven't changed. I would welcome a church that says Leviticus isn't a valid text and is discarded from the canon.

Why would we do that. We don;t take sections out of our history books because we don't like them. If there are no objective morals then no wrong is being done. Its just a different way to live back then.

The law of the Old Testament was fulfilled in Christ and Christ says to 'Love your neighbor as yourself. In fact he says love your enemies and turn the other cheek.

I think slavery was a big part of society before the monetary system and was a form of payment or a punishment for wrong doing. God set the wheels in motion to regulate slavery which led to stopping it. So the Bible is not saying slavery is morally good but rather dealing reality that it was part of life and putting some controls in place for its eventual cessation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why would we do that. We don;t take sections out of our history books because we don't like them. If there are no objective morals then no wrong is being done. Its just a different way to live back then.

There are lots of religious texts (Christian and Jewish) that are not part of the standard Christian canon. If those laws no longer "apply" then why not remove their "official" status?

The retention of certain parts of the Jewish scripture as part of the old testament remains a significant impediment to Christian morality.

The law of the Old Testament was fulfilled in Christ and Christ says to 'Love your neighbor as yourself.

Now only if Jesus defined "neighbor"...

In fact he says love your enemies and turn the other cheek.

And I say you should fight your oppressors rather than giving into them.

I think slavery was a big part of society before the monetary system and was a form of payment or a punishment for wrong doing. God set the wheels in motion to regulate slavery which led to stopping it. So the Bible is not saying slavery is morally good but rather dealing reality that it was part of life and putting some controls in place for its eventual cessation.

Oh, the slow plan. Only took 2500 years to work out (100 generations of slaves).

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think the facts were way off. The fact is Britain was the first to bring in laws to stop the slave trade because of the horrible treatment Negro's. This was the argument used to protest the wrongs. The US followed suit soon after to ban the slave trade despite many relying on it as a form of commercial interest.

(Ken)
Actually, I think it was Haiti who was the first to outlaw slavery(late 1700’s-early 1800’s), Britain didn’t outlaw it till the 1830’s and the USA didn’t outlaw it till the 1860’s (hardly soon after)

The voices to stop slavery due to inhuman treatment and the act of parliament to outlaw it happened well before the industrial revolution.

So if Lincoln made it a condition of surrender then it must have been an important issue to decide and stop. That seems to be made out of concern for the poor treatment of the slaves and not some commercial interest. The war ended in 1865 before the industrial revolution so this could not have been factor in deciding to end slavery.

(Ken)
In the USA, the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700’s. Slavery didn’t end till the mid 1800’s.

Then that is an example of what I have been talking about. How someone who has done nothing illegally wrong can suffer a penalty based on a subjective opinion. How people turn their subjective opinion into some weapon to hurt others like on social media.

(Ken)
This has been going on forever; it's just with social media the platform is much bigger

No of course not. As modern society allows moral plurality under subjective morality its not about better or worse but who has the loudest voice of power to push they moral views and sometimes maybe often we end up allowing immoral behavior as a consequence even when we know its wrong.

(Ken)
But isn’t this the same system in place that you spoke of that ended slavery?

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
Actually, I think it was Haiti who was the first to outlaw slavery(late 1700’s-early 1800’s), Britain didn’t outlaw it till the 1830’s and the USA didn’t outlaw it till the 1860’s (hardly soon after)

Actually Britain passed the Bill to stop the slave trade in 1807 and the US did the same 1 year later in 1808.

(Ken)
In the USA, the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700’s. Slavery didn’t end till the mid 1800’s.

So therefore the industrial revolution was well under way and still they didn't stop slavery.

(Ken)
This has been going on forever; it's just with social media the platform is much bigger

Yes I agree but is that fair and morally ok that the opinion of one person or group can destroy another persons life. Doesn't seem like a very good moral system where people can arbitrarily determine the fate of others.

(Ken)
But isn’t this the same system in place that you spoke of that ended slavery?

No its different. The protest to stop slavery was based on the fact of the inhumane treatment of slaves. That is what persuaded parliament. Wilberforce argued his case and others agreed not because Wilberforce and others said so by personal opinion but because of the fact it was inhumane.

But what happens on social media and throughout society where money or positional power influence people to suffer is not based on any objective truth. Rather it happens because people manage to use their position to push personal agenda's that have nothing to do with the truth but political correctness.

For example the attack on J K Rowling for mentioning that she supported traditional marriage. She did nothing illegal but express her belief and people attacked her on social media leading to her suffering consequences.

 

[Hans Blaster]

(Ken)
Actually, I think it was Haiti who was the first to outlaw slavery(late 1700’s-early 1800’s), Britain didn’t outlaw it till the 1830’s and the USA didn’t outlaw it till the 1860’s (hardly soon after)

Haiti was a slave revolt beginning in 1791 that eventually make Haiti an independent, Black republic in 1804.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually Britain passed the Bill to stop the slave trade in 1807 and the US did the same 1 year later in 1808.

(Ken)
Yet slavery continued for another 25 years. Haiti outlawed it around that time.

So therefore the industrial revolution was well under way and still they didn't stop slavery.

(Ken)
The Industrial Revolution just made it less profitable. When the profit thing is no longer an issue, it’s easy to conjure moral fortitude and agree with the anti slavery crowd.

No its different. The protest to stop slavery was based on the fact of the inhumane treatment of slaves. That is what persuaded parliament. Wilberforce argued his case and others agreed not because Wilberforce and others said so by personal opinion but because of the fact it was inhumane.

(Ken)
I disagree! The idea that slaves were treated inhumanely is based on personal opinion; no such facts were presented.

But what happens on social media and throughout society where money or positional power influence people to suffer is not based on any objective truth.

(Ken)
Actually a lot of it is based on objective truth. Person “A” says or does something person “B” finds objectionable. Person “B” uses social media to destroy the reputation of person “A” due to the objective truth that he was offended by person “A”

Rather it happens because people manage to use their position to push personal agenda's that have nothing to do with the truth but political correctness.

For some people, the importance of political correctness IS an objective truth.

For example the attack on J K Rowling for mentioning that she supported traditional marriage. She did nothing illegal but express her belief and people attacked her on social media leading to her suffering consequences.

For some people, anything that speaks against gay marriage is equal to hate-speech.
Your only moral difference between speaking out against gay marriage and speaking out against slavery is that you agree with one and disagree with the other.

 

[Ken-1122]

Haiti was a slave revolt beginning in 1791 that eventually make Haiti an independent, Black republic in 1804.

Yes I knew it was somewhere around the late 1700's -early 1800's (didn't remember the exact year) and when they became a republic, they outlawed slavery.
By the way; what is a "black republic"? I've never heard of one of those.

 

[stevevw]

There are lots of religious texts (Christian and Jewish) that are not part of the standard Christian canon. If those laws no longer "apply" then why not remove their "official" status?

Not sure what you mean by official status. But the laws Old Testament laws have no status as far as being applicable today. I don't see any reason why they should be taken out of the Bible because they add context to the Christian faith today. Christ says that he did not come to erase the law but to fulfill it. Hebrews 7:18–19 tells us that the old Law was set aside “because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect).” The Law had no way of changing our sinful nature and that is where Christs sacrifice comes in. So to take out the writings about how the law first developed would destroy the New Testament as well.

The retention of certain parts of the Jewish scripture as part of the old testament remains a significant impediment to Christian morality.

Only because people don't read it in context to the rest of the Bible. Its like taking a part of our history out which would give a false picture out of context.

Now only if Jesus defined "neighbor"...

He did many times. For example in the parable of the good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37 an expert in the law asked Jesus how to inherit the Kingdom of God and Jesus replied with the two greatest commandments that covered all the laws being “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself"

The expert tried to trick hm and asked "who is my neighbor" and Jesus replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan which was about helping a stranger who had been beaten and left on the street while others including a priest walked on by.

Jesus also said to love your enemies and Galatians 5:14 it says "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers and Colossians 3:13 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. So it basically covers everyone.

But what stands out for me is that we should love our enemies. That is a radical idea in today's world.

And I say you should fight your oppressors rather than giving into them.

Jesus says to help the oppressed and that may take some fighting for their rights. But that doesn't mean attacking them physically or undermining them as people. We have seen the end results of that sort of fighting works in the world with the tit for tat mentality. Sooner or later someone has to turn the other cheek for that vicious cycle to end.

Oh, the slow plan. Only took 2500 years to work out (100 generations of slaves).

That is human nature. You have to plant the seed and let it take hold. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. That is the nature of man not God and as he allowed us free will nature had to take its course.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes I knew it was somewhere around the late 1700's -early 1800's (didn't remember the exact year) and when they became a republic, they outlawed slavery.
By the way; what is a "black republic"? I've never heard of one of those.

Just a short hand notation that the European colonists (a small minority of the total population) was not in power unlike in the new US where the European colonists had taken control from their colonial masters.

Despite being the only other republic in the Western Hemisphere until the Bolivarian revolution, the US did not recognize Haiti until 1862. (I wonder why....)

 

[Ken-1122]

Just a short hand notation that the European colonists (a small minority of the total population) was not in power unlike in the new US where the European colonists had taken control from their colonial masters.

Despite being the only other republic in the Western Hemisphere until the Bolivarian revolution, the US did not recognize Haiti until 1862. (I wonder why....)

I don't know. Did it have anything to do with being a black republic? If so, what is a black republic, and how is it different from a republic?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know. Did it have anything to do with being a black republic? If so, what is a black republic, and how is it different from a republic?

Sigh. I just told you. It was just a short hand to indicate that the pre-revolutionary elites (a low number of European colonists) were no longer in charge, unlike in the US where the old local, colonial elite were still in charge after the revolution.

Now can we go back to dealing with so-called "religious morality"?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not sure what you mean by official status. But the laws Old Testament laws have no status as far as being applicable today.

I litterally used the term "canon" in the same sentences.

I don't see any reason why they should be taken out of the Bible because they add context to the Christian faith today.

I don't remember ever once even being aware of these 600+ other commandments. Context seems thin.

Christ says that he did not come to erase the law but to fulfill it. Hebrews 7:18–19 tells us that the old Law was set aside “because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect).”

And we had no problems getting the gist of the reference without reading the obsolete commandments.

The Law had no way of changing our sinful nature and that is where Christs sacrifice comes in. So to take out the writings about how the law first developed would destroy the New Testament as well.

Only because people don't read it in context to the rest of the Bible. Its like taking a part of our history out which would give a false picture out of context.

Or even better, just don't read it. My "project" to read the whole bible from the start died in reading the old law. It was boring and irrelevant.

He did many times. For example in the parable of the good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37 an expert in the law asked Jesus how to inherit the Kingdom of God and Jesus replied with the two greatest commandments that covered all the laws being “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself"

The expert tried to trick hm and asked "who is my neighbor" and Jesus replied with the parable of the Good Samaritan which was about helping a stranger who had been beaten and left on the street while others including a priest walked on by.

So Samaritans then. Makes sense, they live near the Galilee.

Jesus also said to love your enemies and Galatians 5:14 it says "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers and Colossians 3:13 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. So it basically covers everyone.

That's Paul, not Jesus.

But what stands out for me is that we should love our enemies. That is a radical idea in today's world.

Clearly not followed by the so-called "Christian nations".

Jesus says to help the oppressed and that may take some fighting for their rights. But that doesn't mean attacking them physically or undermining them as people. We have seen the end results of that sort of fighting works in the world with the tit for tat mentality. Sooner or later someone has to turn the other cheek for that vicious cycle to end.

Huh?

That is human nature. You have to plant the seed and let it take hold. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. That is the nature of man not God and as he allowed us free will nature had to take its course.

Again, I express my view that the religion doesn't help in the slightest here. It has failed to progress humanity.

 

[stevevw]

I don't remember ever once even being aware of these 600+ other commandments. Context seems thin.

That's because they mostly applied to the Hebrews. Some were about social order and others about ritual. Maybe read the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy which talk about the law.

And we had no problems getting the gist of the reference without reading the obsolete commandments.

But the new Covenant with Christ can only be understood in its context with the original covenant in the Old Testament and its laws. Its like studying a law degree and skipping how the law was established that gave its foundation. Otherwise people will question things because they only have a face value understanding and don't appreciate the foundations from where today's laws come from.

Or even better, just don't read it. My "project" to read the whole bible from the start died in reading the old law. It was boring and irrelevant.

Yeah it is a bit that way. But I think if anyone is to appreciate today's Covenant they can only understand where it came from. Like anything really, Anyone who studies law knows there's a lot of tedious reading which doesn't seem relevant but is still required as part of a law degree and in the end is of value as far as understanding the reasons for how the law works today.

So Samaritans then. Makes sense, they live near the Galilee.

Yeah Jesus was good at using local examples and stories to get the message across. Simple and effective.

That's Paul, not Jesus.

Yeah Paul was quoting Jesus from the sermon on the mount Matthew 5:44-45
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Clearly not followed by the so-called "Christian nations".

Yes the "so called" Christian nations. But are they really today. Seems its a dying belief. From memory didn't Obama say the US was no longer a Christian nation but one of many faiths.

Huh?

Actually Jordan Peterson does a good lecture on this applied to psychology, quite insightful. He applies this to everyday situations and how turning the other cheek often puts those who are attacking you in a spin and turns what the enemy wants (a reaction) back on them. It cuts through. That the aim is to make peace and not to win or defeat your enemies. But also to not confuse this with not having the courage to stand up for yourself.

Again, I express my view that the religion doesn't help in the slightest here. It has failed to progress humanity.

I disagree. If your looking for some utopia then that is not going to happen here on earth. But I think throughout time Christians have been working in the background to make things better, as Jesus said, help the disadvantaged, give hope, etc. They have been known for being at the forefront in cleaning up the mess society makes but not in the limelight.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's because they mostly applied to the Hebrews. Some were about social order and others about ritual. Maybe read the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy which talk about the law.

And when you read further, you noticed that I said it was not only irrelevant, but boring.

I frankly don't remember any readings from the last 3 books, and only the "exodus" part of Exodus.

But the new Covenant with Christ can only be understood in its context with the original covenant in the Old Testament and its laws. Its like studying a law degree and skipping how the law was established that gave its foundation. Otherwise people will question things because they only have a face value understanding and don't appreciate the foundations from where today's laws come from.

Really, "The Jews had old laws that don't apply to us as Christians because we have the new laws of Jesus" worked perfectly fine. One need not know about mixing fabrics to understand the "New Covenant".

Yeah it is a bit that way. But I think if anyone is to appreciate today's Covenant they can only understand where it came from. Like anything really, Anyone who studies law knows there's a lot of tedious reading which doesn't seem relevant but is still required as part of a law degree and in the end is of value as far as understanding the reasons for how the law works today.

Do you think law students read invalidated laws in law school?

 

[Astrid]

(Ken)
Actually, I think it was Haiti who was the first to outlaw slavery(late 1700’s-early 1800’s), Britain didn’t outlaw it till the 1830’s and the USA didn’t outlaw it till the 1860’s (hardly soon after)


(Ken)
In the USA, the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700’s. Slavery didn’t end till the mid 1800’s.

(Ken)
This has been going on forever; it's just with social media the platform is much bigger

(Ken)
But isn’t this the same system in place that you spoke of that ended slavery?

Slavery has not ended