Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[ximmix]

Religion is necessary for religious morality, not for morality.

 

[Whyayeman]

Religion is necessary for religious morality, not for morality.

What is 'religious morality'?

 

[Ken-1122]

What is 'religious morality'?

Obeying the tenet's of the religion.

 

[Estrid]

Obeying the tenet's of the religion.

Terrif.
It used to be immoral to eat beef on Friday but now it's moral.
And there's no way to tell if slavery is moral or not.

 

[Whyayeman]

Obeying the tenet's of the religion.

Obedience is not morality. Obedience to religious teaching is the justification used by Islamic State for the atrocities they have committed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

While I don't discount the genetic factor, I do not consider it the primary reason why Christianity is failing in the West. I cannot speak about Islam, but only Christianity. I see the failure of Christianity as a result of increased secularization and the values of universal egalitarianism on the rise. Christianity and it's success depends on a level of commitment like that which the early Roman Christians exhibited. A willingness not only to die a martyr, but to exclude from one's own group those who would destroy the integrity of the group.

One of the only groups of Christians that is actually growing are the Amish. I would not count them as the most gifted people intellectually. They are simple and yet the way of life they live is one wholly dedicated to religion. God is their first loyalty, followed by their immediate community and then everyone else. They have strict rules in place to manage their society and those who break the rules are shunned. Modern Churches have problems even excommunicating known and open heretics. In effect, Christians have become too attached to being part of the wider society. They are less particular about themselves as Christians and more likely to think of themselves as Americans, New Zealanders, Australians or whatever. Religion is not their first loyalty.

As for the idea that religion cannot help those with psychopathic tendencies, if that's what I understood you to be describing, I don't agree. Psychopaths might be less willing to convert and might not feel the same as the rest of us but religion can make a difference in their lives if they are convinced of it. I think of David Wood, a serious and committed Christian apologist who once tried to murder his own father. Even if the psychopath doesn't have the same emotional reaction, a commitment intellectually to the rules and willingness to follow them can lead to lasting benefits.

 

[Ken-1122]

Terrif.
It used to be immoral to eat beef on Friday but now it's moral.
And there's no way to tell if slavery is moral or not.

Thus the problem with religious morality.

 

[Ken-1122]

Obedience is not morality.

You didn't ask about morality, you asked about religious morality; remember?

Obedience to religious teaching is the justification used by Islamic State for the atrocities they have committed.

Okay; first you asked what is religious morality, then after I tell you, you give an example of atrocities committed in the name of a religion and morally justified by said religion; is that correct? Sounds like you are making my point to me.

 

[fschmidt]

While I don't discount the genetic factor, I do not consider it the primary reason why Christianity is failing in the West. I cannot speak about Islam, but only Christianity. I see the failure of Christianity as a result of increased secularization and the values of universal egalitarianism on the rise. Christianity and it's success depends on a level of commitment like that which the early Roman Christians exhibited. A willingness not only to die a martyr, but to exclude from one's own group those who would destroy the integrity of the group.

One of the only groups of Christians that is actually growing are the Amish. I would not count them as the most gifted people intellectually. They are simple and yet the way of life they live is one wholly dedicated to religion. God is their first loyalty, followed by their immediate community and then everyone else. They have strict rules in place to manage their society and those who break the rules are shunned. Modern Churches have problems even excommunicating known and open heretics. In effect, Christians have become too attached to being part of the wider society. They are less particular about themselves as Christians and more likely to think of themselves as Americans, New Zealanders, Australians or whatever. Religion is not their first loyalty.

As for the idea that religion cannot help those with psychopathic tendencies, if that's what I understood you to be describing, I don't agree. Psychopaths might be less willing to convert and might not feel the same as the rest of us but religion can make a difference in their lives if they are convinced of it. I think of David Wood, a serious and committed Christian apologist who once tried to murder his own father. Even if the psychopath doesn't have the same emotional reaction, a commitment intellectually to the rules and willingness to follow them can lead to lasting benefits.

Thank you for responding, but I have to ask whether you actually read my website. I discussed both the issue of religious decay and Anabaptist (Amish, Mennonite, etc.) communities there.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do Christians ever think about what the Lord's Prayer means? Matthew 6:10 essentially says to try to make Earth more like Heaven. And this requires a fair amount of intelligence to do.

We do. But that isn't the meaning of "Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

The kingdom of God through Jesus Christ, who is the King, having died and risen, ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and He exercises His royal power and kingdom through His Church by the preaching of the Gospel. The Church here is God's kingdom on earth--it's not about politics, power, or any such fading and ultimately meaningless things, it's about the reality of God as king in Jesus who redeems and reconciles the world and who will come again as judge of the living and the dead.

In the book of Daniel we read one of Daniel's visions where he beheld the Son of Man being taken on a cloud up before the Ancient of Days and given kingdom and everlasting dominion. That's what Jesus' ascension means, the Son of Man ascended and took His seat at the right hand of the Father as King Messiah, His kingdom is everlasting. While, at present, the kingdom is seen in part; when He returns the kingdom shall be in full. As we read in the penultimate vision of St. John's Apocalypse the what is described as a "New Jerusalem" coming down out from heaven upon the earth, and the renewal of all things.

The prayer is not, "Let's take the wheel of power here on earth and make this world in our image by our own ambitions for power"; the prayer is that the Messiah has indeed come, and He shall reign until the end, when He delivers all things over to the Father. In that sense, heaven will come to earth; but it will not be through the power and programs of human ambition which always results in suffering, death, jealousy, and war. It will be by the total and full redemption and healing of all creation. When God makes all things new.

And the Church shares in that even now, by announcing the Good News of what God has done to the world, and by going out into the world to help pick up the broken pieces, that the hungry might be fed, the thirsty given drink, the naked clothed, the stranger welcomed.

We certainly don't need more (to roughly quote my favorite ska band from the 90's) evil plans to save the world put forward by those who think they know how to fix everything (usually at the expense of everyone they don't care for).

Civilizations rise and fall. Kingdoms come and go. Iron breaks bronze, steel breaks iron, but all will pass away. The cycle of human ambition that goes on and on will not bring anything but ruin--as it always does. So a new idea, a new system, a new ambition, a new program is nothing, means nothing, and will do nothing. "Christian civilization" means nothing. But Jesus Christ is forever.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Thank you for responding, but I have to ask whether you actually read my website. I discussed both the issue of religious decay and Anabaptist (Amish, Mennonite, etc.) communities there.

No I didn't read your website.

 

[Whyayeman]

You didn't ask about morality, you asked about religious morality; remember?

I do not see any distinction. Morality is the same for us all, surely?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Both Christianity and Islam have produced successful cultures. But today, both fail. Islam failed some time ago and Christian nations are in obvious decline today. So what changed? The religious texts and early writings have not changed. I believe that intelligence and morality has dropped for both cultural and genetic reasons.

Someone with a good heart but a dysfunctional brain is not able to distinguish between good and evil. And religion cannot fix this. One needs intelligence to properly apply religious teachings. And one needs a moral sense to even care. Modern culture promotes stupidity and immorality both through how children are raised and through dysgenic selection which lowers the quality of the human gene pool.

I have written about these issues at length on my Arkian website. I have posted about this to a Mennonite forum and a Muslim forum. Now I hope to get general Christian feedback here.

I believe that Christian and Islamic culture is failing because it is based on false principles, namely the principle that existence is a product of consciousness.

 

[Ken-1122]

I do not see any distinction. Morality is the same for us all, surely?

If there were no distinction, they wouldn't call it religious morality.

 

[Estrid]

I do not see any distinction. Morality is the same for us all, surely?

Seriously? It doesn't even stay the same in Christianity.
.

 

[o_mlly]

Someone with a good heart but a dysfunctional brain is not able to distinguish between good and evil.

If a "good heart" refers to one's intention and "dysfunctional brain" refer to one's inability to objectively determine the morality of the act in itself then you make the case that morality is objective. A "good heart" cannot make moral an act that is evil in its object.

Morality is the same for us all, surely?

As this post affirms.

 

[Whyayeman]

Seriously? It doesn't even stay the same in Christianity.

Well, I think it does. We may differ in our conclusions but the moral issues are the same for us all.

An example or two: I think there is very wide agreement that killing people is wrong and that killers should be punished somehow. There is universal agreement that stealing property belonging to another is wrong.

 

[Estrid]

Well, I think it does. We may differ in our conclusions but the moral issues are the same for us all.

An example or two: I think there is very wide agreement that killing people is wrong and that killers should be punished somehow. There is universal agreement that stealing property belonging to another is wrong.

Killing people is wrong except for countless
exceptions across cultures and time.

Christians used to think it was peachy to kill
heretics and witches, among others.

Stealing? Always wrong under any possible
circumstances?

Some Christians hold that they'd not steal
penny to save their mother's life. Others find
great virtue and heroism in stealing a whole
continent.

That's not even getting into what is " stealing"
or "murder" in other cultures.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, I think it does. We may differ in our conclusions but the moral issues are the same for us all.

An example or two: I think there is very wide agreement that killing people is wrong and that killers should be punished somehow. There is universal agreement that stealing property belonging to another is wrong.

Murder, rape, genocide, that's easy. What about some of the more complicated stuff; like Gay marriage, the use of Nuclear weapons during war, transgender rights, killing someone who breaks into your house; are your religious brothers in agreement on those issues?

 

[fschmidt]

I believe that Christian and Islamic culture is failing because it is based on false principles, namely the principle that existence is a product of consciousness.

Where is atheism more prevalent historically, in rising culture or in decaying cultures?