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

[Cooky]

Not it is the problem of millions that looked to Bible for moral and ethical guidance and owned slaves.

They foolishly replace their own consciences entirely with the scripts of their religions, without contemplation, and without looking any further within themselves ever again. Which is unhealthy both spiritually and practically.

 

[Cooky]

This the problem with clinging to ancient religions that lack the guidance for the contemporary world like the Roman Church.

How does "ancient" have anything to do with anything? Please explain how it's this rather than text-only conscience replacement that is the problem? I'm very curious on the logic.

 

[shunyadragon]

How does "ancient" have anything to do with anything? Please explain how it's this rather than text-only conscience replacement that is the problem? I'm very curious on the logic.

Ancient texts reflect ancient world views, cultures, mythology, morals and ethics, and the world view of only their orientation and not the universal view, nor the contemporary world, which is the problem of the Roman Church.

 

[Cooky]

Ancient texts reflect ancient world views, cultures, mythology, morals and ethics, and the world view of only their orientation and not the universal view, nor the contemporary world, which is the problem of the Roman Church.

But the Roman Church is not a Sola Scriptura religion. So when we hear the ancient texts, at Mass, there is usually a homily that directly follows, translating the overall message of the text into something useful in our modern world, in this time.

...So is the problem not solved?

 

[shunyadragon]

But the Roman Church is not a Sola Scriptura religion. So when we hear the ancient texts, at Mass, there is usually a homily that directly follows, translating the overall message of the text into something useful in our modern world, in this time.

...So is the problem not solved?

The Roman Church need not be a Sola Scriptura to be Ancient texts reflect ancient world views, cultures, mythology, morals and ethics, and the world view of only their orientation and not the universal view, nor the contemporary world, which is the problem of the Roman Church.

First the mythology of Adam and Eve and the Original Sin of Genesis is at the root of the beliefs of the Roman Church.

 

[Cooky]

The Roman Church need not be a Sola Scriptura to be Ancient texts reflect ancient world views, cultures, mythology, morals and ethics, and the world view of only their orientation and not the universal view, nor the contemporary world, which is the problem of the Roman Church.

First the mythology of Adam and Eve and the Original Sin of Genesis is at the root of the beliefs of the Roman Church.

None of these beliefs impact the world in a negative way. It's our right to hold harmless beliefs on certain things if it's what we aspire to do.

Everyone else is free to believe as they want too, although text-only religionists do seem to be culturally and socially harmful, especially the most ignorant thereof.

 

[Cooky]

it's one thing to be an ignorant person... But an ignorant text-only religionist, becomes an offensive fool on a mission.

 

[Heyo]

But the Roman Church is not a Sola Scriptura religion. So when we hear the ancient texts, at Mass, there is usually a homily that directly follows, translating the overall message of the text into something useful in our modern world, in this time.

...So is the problem not solved?

The problem is not whether the ancient morals are written down or only in the heads. Problems arise when the morals don't fit the environment. The RCC has, up to now, managed to stay somewhat fit by 1. using its niche, 2. creating its own environment and 3. adapt some modern morals.
But 1. other beliefs encroach on the RCC niche and 2. the RCC has lost parts of its power to create its own environment. So I predict that either the RCC has to adapt more or perish.
Either you have a female pope by 2050 or cease to be the dominant Christian sect.

 

[Augustus]

ever implied 'Christianity followed.'

I assume this is supposed to be "never implied".

Correct, you didn't imply it, you stated it explicitly: "The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct, of the cultures over time."

Yes, there were movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam against slavery, but it remains a fact of history that Christians widely bought, sold, and owned slaves up until the 19th century, and there was no law against slavery in the Bible. The ancient Jews bought, sold and owned foreign slaves and there is now law in the OT prohibiting slavery. Yes the Koran also did not forbid slavery and they owned, sold, and bought slaves,

It also remains a fact of history that by far the most important abolitionist movement in history was dominated by religiously motivated Christians.

Do you accept this much?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I assume this is supposed to be "never implied".

Correct, you didn't imply it, you stated it explicitly: "The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct, of the cultures over time."




It also remains a fact of history that by far the most important abolitionist movement in history was dominated by religiously motivated Christians.

Do you accept this much?

What was the most important abolitionist movement in history?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Augustus]

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?

And I told you to use the search function as there is no point in repeating myself if you simply pretend we haven't had this conversation before.

Seeing as I guess most people here accept that culture does influence morality as it is self-evident, perhaps you have by now managed to locate even a single scholar who supports your view that culture has no impact on moral choices?

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?

Feedback obviously. The relationship between intuition, reason, culture, environment, etc. drives human behaviour

Would you agree human society is a complex system? Complex system - Wikipedia

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

Even if that were true, you would need to make a case that it is independent of culture.

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.

Or perhaps both, depending on the situation.

 

[Augustus]

What was the most important abolitionist movement in history?

The one in Britain (also influenced by the broader English speaking world) as they backed it up with the necessary military and economic force to start the ball rolling.


The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa.[1] With a home base at Portsmouth,[2] it began with two small ships, the 32-gun fifth-rate frigate HMS Solebay and the Cruizer-class brig-sloop HMS Derwent. At the height of its operations, the squadron employed a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and marines. In 1819 the Royal Navy established a West Coast of Africa Station and the West Africa Squadron became known as the Preventative Squadron.[3] It remained an independent command until 1856 and then again 1866 to 1867.

Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans
West Africa Squadron - Wikipedia


At the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Britain sought an international accord that would not only make the Atlantic slave trade illegal for all European powers, but also would establish a joint agreement to enforce it. British diplomats came away from that and subsequent meetings with little more than a collective acknowledgment that the trade was an “odious commerce” that ought to be suppressed. As an alternative, thereafter, the British government worked to forge bilateral agreements on the slave trade with each of the individual nations. Britain could not win the right to search and condemn French or American ships suspected of illegal trafficking. Both governments refused to surrender this marker of sovereignty. Instead, the United States and France agreed to police their own merchants by establishing naval squadrons in West Africa, a commitment that the French government would honour in practice, but the United States would not. By contrast, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, and, after 1822, Brazil, proved less able to resist British diplomatic pressure, in part because they depended upon British economic support. As a consequence, they each acceded to the establishment of courts of mixed commission, in which a British judge would join with a Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, or Brazilian jurist in deciding when a ship suspected of trading illegally should be condemned...

These courts of mixed commission have been described recently as the first international human rights courts. In truth, though, these courts often were international only in the most limited sense. The British navy captured more than 90 per cent of the ships brought into these courts. A disproportionate number of the cases were heard at Sierra Leone, a British colony, where the British Commissioner often acted unilaterally because the other justice was absent...

The sociologists Robert Pape and Chaim Kaufman have described the six-decade campaign to suppress the Atlantic slave trade as “the most expensive international moral effort in modern history”. From 1807 to 1867, Britain expended on average, they estimate, nearly 2 per cent of its national income on the enforcement of slave trade abolition. Over time, the size of the West African squadron grew incrementally across the 1820s and 1830s, and then dramatically in the 1840s...

The United States government under-funded its West African squadrons for four decades, thereby allowing US ships, or ships flying the US flag, to import tens of thousands of African captives to Cuba. Brazil, too, made no attempt to police its own waters until 1850, when the British navy began to do so on Brazil’s behalf. The suppression of the slave trade to Cuba, the last surviving branch of the traffic after 1850, depended in part upon declining demand for slaves in Cuba after 1860, but it owed something also to the firm turn against the illegal slave trade in the United States after the election of Abraham Lincoln (Daget, 1981; Bethell, 1970: 351–63; Murray, 1980: 298–323).”

Britain initiated, organized, and conducted the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade but, in the end, could succeed only with the assistance, however grudging, of others. The Routledge History of Slavery

Also, created feedback loops within Africa:

On the coast itself, the decentralized political structure was one reason that the British and the Americans could found colonies for freed slaves at Freetown and Monrovia. The location of these settlements and the use of Freetown by the British antislave-trade squadron transformed this stretch of coast into a potential bridgehead in the struggle against slavery. The slaves seized on the high seas were liberated at Freetown, and many converted to Christianity and eventually returned to their homelands to assume an active role in local changes that helped undermine slavery. Transformations in slavery - PE Lovejoy

 

[loverofhumanity]

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 is much older than either the Bible or Quran and neither initiated it. As it was such a deep seated practice it could only be abolished in stages. Both the Bible and Quran sought to regulate and give some rights to slaves when eventually it was officially abolished in the Most Holy Book by Baha’u’llah. So eventually when humanity was ready a religion appeared with Holy Texts forbidding slavery.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

The one in Britain (also influenced by the broader English speaking world) as they backed it up with the necessary military and economic force to start the ball rolling.


The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa.[1] With a home base at Portsmouth,[2] it began with two small ships, the 32-gun fifth-rate frigate HMS Solebay and the Cruizer-class brig-sloop HMS Derwent. At the height of its operations, the squadron employed a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and marines. In 1819 the Royal Navy established a West Coast of Africa Station and the West Africa Squadron became known as the Preventative Squadron.[3] It remained an independent command until 1856 and then again 1866 to 1867.

Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans
West Africa Squadron - Wikipedia


At the Congress of Vienna in 1814, Britain sought an international accord that would not only make the Atlantic slave trade illegal for all European powers, but also would establish a joint agreement to enforce it. British diplomats came away from that and subsequent meetings with little more than a collective acknowledgment that the trade was an “odious commerce” that ought to be suppressed. As an alternative, thereafter, the British government worked to forge bilateral agreements on the slave trade with each of the individual nations. Britain could not win the right to search and condemn French or American ships suspected of illegal trafficking. Both governments refused to surrender this marker of sovereignty. Instead, the United States and France agreed to police their own merchants by establishing naval squadrons in West Africa, a commitment that the French government would honour in practice, but the United States would not. By contrast, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, and, after 1822, Brazil, proved less able to resist British diplomatic pressure, in part because they depended upon British economic support. As a consequence, they each acceded to the establishment of courts of mixed commission, in which a British judge would join with a Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, or Brazilian jurist in deciding when a ship suspected of trading illegally should be condemned...

These courts of mixed commission have been described recently as the first international human rights courts. In truth, though, these courts often were international only in the most limited sense. The British navy captured more than 90 per cent of the ships brought into these courts. A disproportionate number of the cases were heard at Sierra Leone, a British colony, where the British Commissioner often acted unilaterally because the other justice was absent...

The sociologists Robert Pape and Chaim Kaufman have described the six-decade campaign to suppress the Atlantic slave trade as “the most expensive international moral effort in modern history”. From 1807 to 1867, Britain expended on average, they estimate, nearly 2 per cent of its national income on the enforcement of slave trade abolition. Over time, the size of the West African squadron grew incrementally across the 1820s and 1830s, and then dramatically in the 1840s...

The United States government under-funded its West African squadrons for four decades, thereby allowing US ships, or ships flying the US flag, to import tens of thousands of African captives to Cuba. Brazil, too, made no attempt to police its own waters until 1850, when the British navy began to do so on Brazil’s behalf. The suppression of the slave trade to Cuba, the last surviving branch of the traffic after 1850, depended in part upon declining demand for slaves in Cuba after 1860, but it owed something also to the firm turn against the illegal slave trade in the United States after the election of Abraham Lincoln (Daget, 1981; Bethell, 1970: 351–63; Murray, 1980: 298–323).”

Britain initiated, organized, and conducted the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade but, in the end, could succeed only with the assistance, however grudging, of others. The Routledge History of Slavery

Also, created feedback loops within Africa:

On the coast itself, the decentralized political structure was one reason that the British and the Americans could found colonies for freed slaves at Freetown and Monrovia. The location of these settlements and the use of Freetown by the British antislave-trade squadron transformed this stretch of coast into a potential bridgehead in the struggle against slavery. The slaves seized on the high seas were liberated at Freetown, and many converted to Christianity and eventually returned to their homelands to assume an active role in local changes that helped undermine slavery. Transformations in slavery - PE Lovejoy

Yet nothing said as to this being dominated by motivated Christian groups.

God-Ole-Rebel

 

[shunyadragon]

None of these beliefs impact the world in a negative way. It's our right to hold harmless beliefs on certain things if it's what we aspire to do.

You are either terribly naive or just plain avoiding reality to justify your belief The negative impact of these beliefs is immense. Simply the claim of the Roman Church as being the only true church and the only way of salvation has lead to many social problems in the relationships with non believers. The church addressed the issue of slavery inconsistently. Even though opposition to various forms of slavery were opposed by the Vatican, slavery was was common in the colonies of Spain and Portugal, resulting in the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of natives. Over the history of the church the vatican owned slaves.

I was raised in the Roman Church and experienced it first hand in South and Central America. The authoritarian nature of the church hierarchy lead to rampant sexual abuse throughout its history. ITs corruption in history including in bed with organized crime was also the result of the unquestioned authority. The mythological belief in original sin and the Fall leads to psychological problems of guilt. The antisemitism of Europe was rampant in the history of the Roman Church. Just study the history, and ask the Jews about the history of their relationship with the Roman Church.

Everyone else is free to believe as they want too, although text-only religionists do seem to be culturally and socially harmful, especially the most ignorant thereof.

So what?!?!?! The sky is also Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July.

 

[Augustus]

Yet nothing said as to this being dominated by motivated Christian groups.

You didn't ask about that

There's stuff in an earlier post: here

Or:

Clapham Sect - Wikipedia
Abolitionism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
William Wilberforce - Wikipedia

etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are begging the question here assuming that morals simply 'evolve' naturally.'

I looked back at this statement. I did not say this.PLEASE do not misrepresent me. I said based on the evidence it possible based on the evidence. The history of your posts is that of an apologist despite what you claim to believe.

 

[joe1776]

And I told you to use the search function as there is no point in repeating myself if you simply pretend we haven't had this conversation before.

This is a false claim. You never gave me the name of any social scientist, other than Haidt, who supports your claim that culture is an influence on moral intuition. If you had you would be able to easily supply a name or two rather than ducking the question.

Seeing as I guess most people here accept that culture does influence morality as it is self-evident, perhaps you have by now managed to locate even a single scholar who supports your view that culture has no impact on moral choices?

Other than Haidt, I don't know of a single social researcher who supports your position but people don't ordinarily tell you what they don't believe.

Nevertheless, we can be sure that Marc Hauser and Fiery Cushman at Harvard don't believe that culture is an influence on moral intuition because your notion conflicts with their hypothesis of a universal moral sense (universal conscience). . Their Moral Sense Test has been online now for several years and is reportedly showing positive-similar results despite differences in age, gender, religion and culture.

Or perhaps both, depending on the situation.

All knowledge begins in the senses. Since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it. In other words, our reasoning minds would know absolutely nothing about morality if not for the feelings we refer to as conscience.

 

[Cooky]

The problem is not whether the ancient morals are written down or only in the heads. Problems arise when the morals don't fit the environment. The RCC has, up to now, managed to stay somewhat fit by 1. using its niche, 2. creating its own environment and 3. adapt some modern morals.
But 1. other beliefs encroach on the RCC niche and 2. the RCC has lost parts of its power to create its own environment. So I predict that either the RCC has to adapt more or perish.
Either you have a female pope by 2050 or cease to be the dominant Christian sect.

As a traditional Catholic, who enjoys attending an old fashioned Latin high Mass on occasion, I have no problem with charismatic, modern Catholics who appeal to a more modern human culture. In fact, I enjoy the variety, and I think both deserve a place.

...If the Church is truly "Universal" then it can, and will accommodate both.

The problem the Vatican faces are the fundamentalists on both cultural sides, who use *texts* to try and abolish their opponents on the other end rather than accept variety within our large organization, which actually comprises 24 different traditions already.

 

[Cooky]

You are either terribly naive or just plain avoiding reality to justify your belief The negative impact of these beliefs is immense. Simply the claim of the Roman Church as being the only true church and the only way of salvation has lead to many social problems in the relationships with non believers. The church addressed the issue of slavery inconsistently. Even though opposition to various forms of slavery were opposed by the Vatican, slavery was was common in the colonies of Spain and Portugal, resulting in the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of natives. Over the history of the church the vatican owned slaves.

I was raised in the Roman Church and experienced it first hand in South and Central America. The authoritarian nature of the church hierarchy lead to rampant sexual abuse throughout its history. ITs corruption in history including in bed with organized crime was also the result of the unquestioned authority. The mythological belief in original sin and the Fall leads to psychological problems of guilt. The antisemitism of Europe was rampant in the history of the Roman Church. Just study the history, and ask the Jews about the history of their relationship with the Roman Church.



So what?!?!?! The sky is also Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July.

Like so many others, your post focuses on all of the flaws of the Church on earth, while ignoring the fact that any and every religious organization in this world is bound and determined to commit sin. We can't just throw the baby out with the bath water everytime the water gets dirty, over and over every thousand or so years... Over time, your Church too will become dirty with sin. But does that mean we should forget all the good things?