Can religion really claim to guide on morality?

[SolidSnake]

I have a question I would much appreciate some ideas on from those of faiths and also those of no faith.

"Can religious leaders and followers of a religion claim with conviction and a clear conscience that their faith be the very compass of morality that we all should follow?"

Isn't there a huge amount of hypocrisy in this? There are many quotes and teachings in holy books that fly in the face of what we would call moral and even by todays standards we would feel were totally immoral.

[McCulloch]

Why should I accept the bible as an authority to begin with.

Why?
You can't be serious.

We could not be more serious. That the Bible is true seems axiomatic to Christians, is the very thing we skeptics deny.

I give you BECAUSE,

I would have hoped that we might get beyond this. If you have any reason to present for us to accept the Bible as authority, then please present it. Otherwise, stop making noise.

and I give you FACT.

Yes, absolutely. Some facts would be really helpful. Please present some.

EVERY MAN SEEKS ESCAPE
FROM DEATH'S CRUEL GRASP.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am not very good at spiritual wisdom. I am not very good at interpreting free verse poetry either. So, do correct me if I am missing something, but it appears as if your argument goes something like this: We're all going to die. We don't like that idea. The writers of the Bible promise that there may be something, something good, for us after we die. Therefore, we should accept that the Bible is authoritative.

Now, perhaps it does not sound quite so profound written in prose or perhaps I've missed some important piece, but this does not sound very convincing to me.

Some seek escape, by good deeds in life.
Some seek escape, in the passions, and appetites, of life.
Some seek escape, in ignorance, in feigned innocence, in life.

You missed a few.
Some seek escape, in piety prayer and religion.
Some seek escape, in faith and the imagined grace from an invisible god.

WHY should you believe? The issue is you, and your destiny. All by yourself.
No man can stand up for you, except Jesus.

Accept a loving saviour, or suffer an angry God.
Your choice, that's why.

Hallelujah, Brother RichardP! Preach the word!
If there are any present here who wish to come forward and confess Jesus as there personal savior, come to the front right now. Praise the Lord!
We have counselors standing right by to help you. Meanwhile, open your Hymn Book to song number 362, "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus", sing with me now, while the deacons pass the plate.

[Autodidact]

How do you get 'God hates sinners' from that passage?

And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 20:14-15

Sinners are cast into the lake of fire. That means people, not some sort of displaced naughtiness. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Man cannot escape the justice of God by his own hand, but only by His mercy. Therefore it is wise to seek the mercy of God while life lasts....while there is yet time to escape.

Sounds like you might get along well with Rev. Phelps. Also that you worship a hateful, vengeful, evil God.

[dusk]

Wow, just wow.

[Logomachist]

Getting back to the OP... what institutions are better suited for holding up a moral compass than religious ones?

This isn't to say every religious teaching is correct, but if it weren't for religions where would we be getting our moral instruction?

[Thatguy]

Getting back to the OP... what institutions are better suited for holding up a moral compass than religious ones?

This isn't to say every religious teaching is correct, but if it weren't for religions where would we be getting our moral instruction?

It takes a community to raise a moral outlook.
Moral instruction comes from parents, our community, our schools, books, movies, songs. Any way that humans communicate and interact with each other passes on moral views. Religious institutions are better suited for declaring that they have the actual, literal compass in a secret glass case and will tell followers which direction God is pointing it in. (That was slight hyperbole, but it's basically the process involved.) But even though the church is saying that all moral direction comes from it, we are really far more influenced by our families and social interactions than we are by anyone claiming to have the fixed moral authority.

[1robin]

Getting back to the OP... what institutions are better suited for holding up a moral compass than religious ones?

This isn't to say every religious teaching is correct, but if it weren't for religions where would we be getting our moral instruction?

It takes a community to raise a moral outlook.
Moral instruction comes from parents, our community, our schools, books, movies, songs. Any way that humans communicate and interact with each other passes on moral views. Religious institutions are better suited for declaring that they have the actual, literal compass in a secret glass case and will tell followers which direction God is pointing it in. (That was slight hyperbole, but it's basically the process involved.) But even though the church is saying that all moral direction comes from it, we are really far more influenced by our families and social interactions than we are by anyone claiming to have the fixed moral authority.

Which community (Somalia, Tehran), Which books (Harry potter, IT), Which movies (chainsaw massacre, American pie) If this is where we get our morals God help us. Each of these sources is subjective and imperfect, some downright evil. A desirable moral basis should be objective and perfectly just.
There is only one source in the history of man kind that is a candidate.

The following is taken from the last chapter of the book Why Jesus Matters, by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz

It is undeniable and indisputable. Jesus was the most extraordinary life the world has known. Even atheists and those who are cynical of any spiritual nature in Christ and humanity readily acknowledge the overwhelming impact Jesus has made on our civilization. The famous historian - and self professed skeptic - W.E.H. Lecky conceded the importance of the life of Jesus Christ with this statement:

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the longest incentive in its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."

But just as His impact cannot be denied, we can't ignore the controversy He has generated. No individual has caused more debate than Jesus Christ. For such a central figure in history, there is little consensus about Him. Jesus has split public opinion about Himself into two divergent camps. It seems that either He is respected and revered, or He is despised and denigrated.

So what is all the fuss about?

Is it about morality? No! He is universally recognized as the greatest moral teacher of all time. No one argues with His admonitions on interpersonal relationships or His concepts of right and wrong.

Accents are mine.

There is no more capable source to guide morality than the above. Everything else is just opinion, one no more valid than the next.

[dusk]

1robin
Please read some books of other cultures too it might cure your ignorance.

[Thatguy]

Which community (Somalia, Tehran), Which books (Harry potter, IT), Which movies (chainsaw massacre, American pie) If this is where we get our morals God help us. Each of these sources is subjective and imperfect, some downright evil. A desirable moral basis should be objective and perfectly just.
There is only one source in the history of man kind that is a candidate.

Whether morality should be objective or should be subjective is not up for a vote. It's not a matter of choice. We see people with widely varying systems of morality claiming that their own is objective and thus all others wrong. From all appearance, however, morality is subjective. It may be objective, but if so I've seen no convincing arguments that we have a reliable means to detect it. So we are left with morality at least appearing subjective and our having to follow subjective means of determining our values.

We draw our moral views from all sources, not only what we agree with but what we disagree with. So yes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre influences our society's moral compass. At least fewer people suffered horribly in it than in the Bible and without pretending that the suffering was just and godly.

As for only one candidate, you put forward a guy whose active career as a moral teacher lasted about three years. We have none of his writings, only what was said about him. Much of what's said about his teachings deals with theology, not morality. Very little original thought is attributed to him. His own life tells us little about how to live ours. How should we relate to our spouses or our children? Don't do as Jesus did. His relationship with his parents wasn't a model either, from what I've read.

His teachings were deliberately vague. Thus he is, as far as I can tell, something of a blank slate. People of all sorts of moral views point to him as examples of their moral outlooks being the right ones. Are you judgmental or not? condemning of any breach of moral correctness or forgiving? yielding to authority or rebelling against it? Peaceful or warlike? In favor of amassing personal wealth or giving it all to help the poor? For pretty much every side of a moral issue, people can point to the life and alleged teachings of Jesus for validation. No wonder he remains such a popular illustration of so many conflicting moral positions.

The teachings attributable to Jesus have been spectacularly influential and are deserving of study. But there are so many important teachers of morality from so many different cultures that it would be a shame to read of just one and decide that that's all we need. It lacks a certain perspective.

[1robin]

Which community (Somalia, Tehran), Which books (Harry potter, IT), Which movies (chainsaw massacre, American pie) If this is where we get our morals God help us. Each of these sources is subjective and imperfect, some downright evil. A desirable moral basis should be objective and perfectly just.
There is only one source in the history of man kind that is a candidate.

Whether morality should be objective or should be subjective is not up for a vote. It's not a matter of choice. We see people with widely varying systems of morality claiming that their own is objective and thus all others wrong.

Human societies act as if there is a (limited to that society) objective standard because that is what is needed. Basing morals standards in a subjective only moral framework is almost impossible to do in a just manner. If attempted it will always be the morals of the strong imposed on the weak.

From all appearance, however, morality is subjective. It may be objective, but if so I've seen no convincing arguments that we have a reliable means to detect it. So we are left with morality at least appearing subjective and our having to follow subjective means of determining our values.

Thomas Jefferson recognized the need for an objective standard and the only justification for one when he said the Maker is the only source of inalienable rights.

We draw our moral views from all sources, not only what we agree with but what we disagree with. So yes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre influences our society's moral compass. At least fewer people suffered horribly in it than in the Bible and without pretending that the suffering was just and godly.

That last statement is a silly example of bias exhibited through ignorance. If your moral framework is just an amalgamation of every moral impulse in existence, thank the Lord that wiser people have written the constitution. Good and evil have no justifiable meaning in your system. Everything can only be evaluated by relative benefit, which is insufficient.

As for only one candidate, you put forward a guy whose active career as a moral teacher lasted about three years. We have none of his writings, only what was said about him. Much of what's said about his teachings deals with theology, not morality. Very little original thought is attributed to him. His own life tells us little about how to live ours. How should we relate to our spouses or our children? Don't do as Jesus did. His relationship with his parents wasn't a model either, from what I've read.

The fact that you feel confident to evaluate and disapprove of the character of the most respected example of morality in human history reveals a lot. He is the only perfect man who is ever claimed to have lived and you feel qualified to evaluate his relationship his relations with his family. Whatever insufficient method you are using is invalid anyway. His parent/child paradigm has no parallel in history by which to evaluate it by.

"He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciple’s feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality."
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian
"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists." W.E.H Lecky

His teachings were deliberately vague. Thus he is, as far as I can tell, something of a blank slate. People of all sorts of moral views point to him as examples of their moral outlooks being the right ones. Are you judgmental or not? condemning of any breach of moral correctness or forgiving? yielding to authority or rebelling against it? Peaceful or warlike? In favor of amassing personal wealth or giving it all to help the poor? For pretty much every side of a moral issue, people can point to the life and alleged teachings of Jesus for validation. No wonder he remains such a popular illustration of so many conflicting moral positions.

If your attempt at a understanding of Jesus was correct then how do you account for his life and example being the most contentious in history. If he was this every thing to everyone non-biblical version he would be the least contentious person who ever lived. In all the long years of hearing ridiculous counter claims to biblical claims this is the first time anyone has been willing to adopt some of the ones used here.

The teachings attributable to Jesus have been spectacularly influential and are deserving of study. But there are so many important teachers of morality from so many different cultures that it would be a shame to read of just one and decide that that's all we need. It lacks a certain perspective.

How could he be influential as you claim if he put forth every position possible on every topic. He is influential because his example perfect, and his claims were absolute. He was also exclusivistic as well as most of these competing sources you wish to consider. If you will read C.S. Lewis's mere Christianity you will discover why that claiming that Christ was simply a great moral leader is the most illogical conclusion that can be derived from biblical history.

[dusk]

Human societies act as if there is a (limited to that society) objective standard because that is what is needed. Basing morals standards in a subjective only moral framework is almost impossible to do in a just manner. If attempted it will always be the morals of the strong imposed on the weak.

Which would totally not be the case if we lived in a theocracy. It always was and always will be. A group that shares a set of morals will try to impose them by the mere nature of morality. The stronger group wins. Always was always will be. After all even modern democracy with its protection for minorities is also just a set of morals. Objective morals are an illusion required for people who prefer to or only can think one step ahead.

Loads of Christians regarded Jesus's morals as imperfect. They usually go with the eye for an eye of the old testament rather than what Jesus said. Jesus's morals are incomplete and wrong in some respects. It is too much authority and too little free thinking. Too many subjects he never covered properly and things would have turned out better if he had, yet Christianity would have been much less successful.

Your subjective interpretation of Jesus's morals will not become objectively perfect just because you think they are. It is the common mistake of believers to take something subjective and promote it into objective reality because of faith. That would be okay but it just gets stupid once such a person expects others to accept the objective nature of these things and it often turned out pretty badly in history too.
A perfect moral system would have included the illegality of such delusional expectations.