What morals and ethics do Christians and other religions follow over time?

[sun rise]

If I thought that were a basic root principle of Christianity I'd like Christianity better than I do.

But I don't think that.

I find it more like the Republocratic party talking about freedom and democracy. Ya know, basic root principles that just don't work in the modern world.

But they make great sound bites and slogans.
Tom

Tom, by root principle I meant the "Two Greatest Commandments" which are about love.

Just think of what would happen if Christians spent time deeply reflecting on what it means to truly be more loving in thought, word and deed.

 

[columbus]

Tom, by root principle I meant the "Two Greatest Commandments" which are about love.

Do you think that those are the root principles of Christian culture?

I don't.

Tom

 

[columbus]

Just think of what would happen if Christians spent time deeply reflecting on what it means to truly be more loving in thought, word and deed.

I have thought about that.

Imagine if the USA response to 9/11 was to declare war on unsafe water.
Declare war on ignorance.
Declare war on hunger and AIDS and tyranny.

But it wasn't. It was to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Christian response is called "Shock and Awe". Violence and death and destruction that will reverberate down through history.

And you know that's true. You know who supported the Bush Wars. Christians.

Not me.

Tom

 

[sun rise]

Do you think that those are the root principles of Christian culture?

I don't.

Tom

I agree it's not the culture. The culture does not follow what the Bible defines as the most important thing.

 

[columbus]

I agree it's not the culture. The culture does not follow what the Bible defines as the most important thing.

I think you're kidding yourself. Believing what Christian ideological authorities tell you Christianity means, when there's solid evidence about it actually means.
Tom

 

[sun rise]

I think you're kidding yourself. Believing what Christian ideological authorities tell you Christianity means, when there's solid evidence about it actually means.
Tom

I don't believe in any authorities. I read what the Bible said.

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[columbus]

I don't believe in any authorities. I read what the Bible said.

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

What makes you think that is basic Christian ideological ethics?

History and the modern political landscape tell me something different.

In the voice of God.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

This thread was inspired by a thread started in Christianity DIR.

The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct, of the cultures over time. This is true of other religions also. The standards of morals and ethics such as the Ten Commandments are found in most other cultures and religions of the world. The evolution of morals and ethics can be seen to evolve from the Neolithic cultures. Even in the Neanderthal cultures evidence of care for the elderly and disabled is known based on the evidence.

For example: Slavery evolved in the different cultures over time. In Neolithic cultures slavery is virtually absent. Captured prisoners and women and children were most commonly adopted into tribe or community. This is true of Neolithic Native American cultures. Slavery appeared in Bronze Age civilizations, up through resent history when it gradually is becoming immoral in the cultures today, and the principle transition to none slave cultures began in the 19th century. Christians widely bought, sold and owned slaves in recent history just as slavery existed in other cultures over time, and it was not considered immoral by many if not most Christian in the past.

And the Christian's used the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to justify slavery too.

 

[Augustus]

You mean I'm wrong in saying that Jon Haidt does not support the rationalist position on moral judgments? That's the only claim I make.

You claimed the 2 positions were 'opposite'. If you understood them properly, you'd know that this is a misrepresentation for the reasons I explained.

It's a "To what extent..." question, not a simplistic "A or B" option.

Who is they? The only thing that social scientists agree on is that moral judgments are intuitive. After that, there is no consensus. If I'm wrong, please post evidence of any moral intuitionist who fundamentally agrees with Haidt (who, thanks to Wikipedia, seems to be the only social scientist with whom you are familiar)..

As you well know, we have discussed this ad nauseam with reference to primary texts which is how I know you misrepresent their views. As such, making silly claims like "who, thanks to Wikipedia, seems to be the only social scientist with whom you are familiar" shows you are not actually interested in honest discussion.

Use the search function if you were not being disingenuous and genuinely have lost all recollection of this.

 

[sun rise]

What makes you think that is basic Christian ideological ethics?

History and the modern political landscape tell me something different.

In the voice of God.
Tom

Note that I'm not saying that it is part of what passes for Christian ideological ethics but that it should be.

 

[columbus]

Note that I'm not saying that it is part of what passes for Christian ideological ethics but that it should be.

And when a Person of God shows up and starts using a whip on His believers I'll be a little more impressed than I am right now.
Tom

 

[Heyo]

Do you think that those are the root principles of Christian culture?

I don't.

Tom

Bible believing Christians do, or at least should.


Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’a]">[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” - through Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 22:36-40 - New International Version

There you have it, from the horses mouth.

 

[columbus]

Bible believing Christians do, or at least should.

Why should they?
The Bible says all kinds of things. Why should Christians pick out your favorite verses and ignore the rest?

There you have it, from the horses mouth.

What horse wrote Matthew?

I don't believe that you or anybody else knows.

That makes me a believer, doesn't it? I have firm beliefs about Christianity and the Bible.
What else is there?
Tom

 

[Heyo]

Why should they?
The Bible says all kinds of things. Why should Christians pick out your favorite verses and ignore the rest?

Because it is an alleged citation of the highest authorities Christians believe in. It states these to be the "greatest commandments".
I.e., when in doubt, these two rules should override any other passage in the bible.

 

[halbhh]

This thread was inspired by a thread started in Christianity DIR.

The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct, of the cultures over time. This is true of other religions also. The standards of morals and ethics such as the Ten Commandments are found in most other cultures and religions of the world. The evolution of morals and ethics can be seen to evolve from the Neolithic cultures. Even in the Neanderthal cultures evidence of care for the elderly and disabled is known based on the evidence.

For example: Slavery evolved in the different cultures over time. In Neolithic cultures slavery is virtually absent. Captured prisoners and women and children were most commonly adopted into tribe or community. This is true of Neolithic Native American cultures. Slavery appeared in Bronze Age civilizations, up through resent history when it gradually is becoming immoral in the cultures today, and the principle transition to none slave cultures began in the 19th century. Christians widely bought, sold and owned slaves in recent history just as slavery existed in other cultures over time, and it was not considered immoral by many if not most Christian in the past.

The problem in a correlation being guessed to also be causation...is that the correlates might not have the casual relationship imagined...

It can instead be the Law led the people upward over time, with incremental steps, instead of the less plausible hypothesis the Law only followed the people.

This would fit what we see today -- new Laws tend to be aimed to change the behavior of people, not merely confirm the behavior, most often.

Notice this requires the Law be incremental -- it cannot get so far ahead of the culture that it isn't practical to attempt to follow in that culture/economy.

 

[halbhh]

Ergo, Law must lead the people, and it must be incremental. Just like we see in the last many centuries.

Nothing else is even very likely.

Therefore, whatever morals or authority influences this lawmaking is quite decisive to create change.

 

[joe1776]

They note that intuition is significantly impacted by culture, and that both culture and morality can be influenced by 'rational' argumentation.

I asked you to tell me who "they" were. You didn't reply. Are you aware of any social scientist, other than Jon Haidt, who agrees with you that culture is an influence on moral choices?

Unfortunately, I can't debate Jon Haidt but both of you are confusing effect for cause. Societies can be said to have their own cultures. We use the word culture to represent the prevailing beliefs and opinions of a particular society in a given era. Those beliefs and opinions are the product of human minds. Thus in Biblical times, slavery was condoned in most cultures of the world. So, if human minds caused the effects (opinions and beliefs) we describe as culture, how is it possible, as you claim, that cultures can change human minds?

Human minds are changed by more influential human minds. Thus, people whose consciences felt wrong about owning other people as property influenced other human minds to examine their conscience on the issue. Thus, over three centuries, the conscience-driven abolition of legal slavery moved from mind to mind across cultures.

They see it as a kind of dynamic system in which intuition plays a major role, but they don't support your blind faith in conscience alone.

There is no "they" supporting you. This is what you need to know:

Except for moral dilemmas, the final judgment in specific moral situations is made by an immediate, intuitive feeling.that emerges from the unconscious. If it doesn't FEEL wrong, the act is justified

Reason's function is to answer questions about the situation. Who did it? What exactly happened? Was there an innocent victim? Did the actor intend harm?

You claimed the 2 positions were 'opposite'. If you understood them properly, you'd know that this is a misrepresentation for the reasons I explained..

The two positions are dirt simple. The final judgments on moral situations are as Aquinas thought a) judgments of reason or b) the product of intuition.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wanted to stay away from this unbiased and fair OP but the Bible as well as the Quran which is so dearly loved by the Baha'i allow slavery. When these books were written, slavery was a given, so of course slavery is found in those books.

Slavery and the degrading caste system are also apart of the Hindu culture going back to before the first century CE. No one is innocent.

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem in a correlation being guessed to also be causation...is that the correlates might not have the casual relationship imagined...

It can instead be the Law led the people upward over time, with incremental steps, instead of the less plausible hypothesis the Law only followed the people.

This would fit what we see today -- new Laws tend to be aimed to change the behavior of people, not merely confirm the behavior, most often.

Notice this requires the Law be incremental -- it cannot get so far ahead of the culture that it isn't practical to attempt to follow in that culture/economy.

Needs further explanation, because this response is too vague.

 

[shunyadragon]

Slavery and the degrading caste system are also apart of the Hindu culture going back to before the first century CE. No one is innocent.

The relationship between the Baha'i Faith and the Bible Quran, Hindu and Buddhist scriptures is not one of deep love (?) Sarcasm with disrespect noted. It is matter of respect and putting them in context of the time and culture they were revealed.