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

[Heyo]

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.

At some time you have to question if the fundamentalists are the problem or the fundamentals. The RCC has ridden itself into an evolutionary dead end with its dogma, especially the infallibility dogma.
From palaeontology we know that mega fauna with long reproduction cycles are prone to extinction in rapid changing environments. They are simply too slow to adapt.

 

[Cooky]

At some time you have to question if the fundamentalists are the problem or the fundamentals. The RCC has ridden itself into an evolutionary dead end with its dogma, especially the infallibility dogma.
From palaeontology we know that mega fauna with long reproduction cycles are prone to extinction in rapid changing environments. They are simply too slow to adapt.

What are the dogmas even, really... I don't even know. It's a hard concept even for Catholic theologians to understand and explain.

 

[Augustus]

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.

You said:

"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."

Feel free to clarify what you view as the mechanism by which morals evolve over time and how you weren't actually saying "Christianity followed" this.

The history of your posts is that of an apologist despite what you claim to believe.

The history of your posts is that you know very little about history and assume that anything that goes against your meagre understanding must be biased even when though it is supported with numerous secular academic sources while your opinions are supported with none. Then you resort to ad hom rather than actually discussing the source material.

Someone who was more intellectually curious might indeed ponder the great mystery of why so many secular academic experts promote 'apologetics' so obviously wrong that even someone with a cursory understanding like yourself knows them to be patently untrue.

Or perhaps you already have a rational reason why so many secular academics and reputable peer-reviewed journals so readily promote Christian apologetics and would like to share it with me?

 

[shunyadragon]

You said:

"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 tail does not wag the Dog.

Feel free to clarify what you view as the mechanism by which morals evolve over time and how you weren't actually saying "Christianity followed" this.

IT is simply a fact that the morals and ethics followed the natural pattern of evolving morals and ethics. If you still thank so directly cite me completely, misrepresentation on your part is your modus operendi

I specifically said it is possibly due to evolution through natural processes, and I also said, because I believe in God it is possible that the evolution of humanity physically and the mind, consciousness, and morals and ethics is through progressive evolving Divine Revelation.

Read my posts quote and cite me accurately.

The history of your posts is that you know very little about history and assume that anything that goes against your meagre understanding must be biased even when though it is supported with numerous secular academic sources while your opinions are supported with none. Then you resort to ad hom rather than actually discussing the source material.

Someone who was more intellectually curious might indeed ponder the great mystery of why so many secular academic experts promote 'apologetics' so obviously wrong that even someone with a cursory understanding like yourself knows them to be patently untrue.

Or perhaps you already have a rational reason why so many secular academics and reputable peer-reviewed journals so readily promote Christian apologetics and would like to share it with me?

Arrogant insults do not make a coherent dialogue, especially your reading skills appear to .be wanting.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One line direction in Hinduism:
"Paropakaram punyaya, papaya parapedanam"
(To help others is merit, to pain others is sin)

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Keep the baby and throw out the Church. The flaws cited are overwhelming dominant and a matter of documented history, and your side stepping the the reality of the history of the church to justify your own agenda. There is absolutely no evidence in history that the Roman Church is universal.

Over time, your Church too will become dirty with sin. But does that mean we should forget all the good things?

Blatant assumption without evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

One line direction in Hinduism:
"Paropakaram punyaya, papaya parapedanam"
(To help others is merit, to pain others is sin)

Simpler sayings exist in all religions. So what?!?!!? We are all still universally human.

 

[shunyadragon]

What are the dogmas even, really... I don't even know. It's a hard concept even for Catholic theologians to understand and explain.

The dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Church are clearly stated and defined in the Catechism. It what you say were actually true the Roman Church would a fog of meaninglessness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did I say anything which merited 'So what?' I just mentioned what Hindus believe.
We are not just universally human, but for an advaitist all living and non-living things without any exception are constituted of the same entity.

 

[Augustus]

If you still thank so directly cite me completely, misrepresentation on your part is your modus operendi...

Read my posts quote and cite me accurately.

Which of these are quoted inaccurately?

Historical evidence also shows very clearly that you cannot isolate 'culture' from religion, and simply say that 'Christianity followed'.

ever implied 'Christianity followed.'

I assume this is supposed to be "never implied". Correct, you didn't imply it, you stated it explicitly:

Christianity followed the evolving morals

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.

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.

IT is simply a fact that the morals and ethics followed the natural pattern of evolving morals and ethics.

 

[Augustus]

Arrogant insults do not make a coherent dialogue, especially your reading skills appear to .be wanting.

So, to clarify, you don't have a rational reason why so many secular academic experts and credible peer-reviewed journals engage in such self-evident Christian apologetics that they are immediately visible to a casual observer with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter?

 

[shunyadragon]

So, to clarify, you don't have a rational reason why so many secular academic experts and credible peer-reviewed journals engage in such self-evident Christian apologetics that they are immediately visible to a casual observer with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter?

Did not respond to my post as far as I can see you only cited Haidt. As far as the supposed ex-spurts they can only be descriptive and cannot determine the ultimate origin of morals and ethics. Self evident Christian apologists regardless of qualifications can only come to subjective conclusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did I say anything which merited 'So what?' I just mentioned what Hindus believe.
We are not just universally human, but for an advaitist all living and non-living things without any exception are constituted of the same entity.

Conclusion that we are not universally human is an egocentric view of the nature of human nature.

Well . . . Hindus believe in many things, and with subjective differences as with many other diverse conflicting beliefs. I would not consider any to be descriptive of the universal beyond their own cultural view,

 

[Augustus]

Did not respond to my post as far as I can see you only cited Haidt.

No idea what you are on about now. You seem to be reading other people's posts rather than mine without even understanding what they are about (or that they are wrong even in the context the poster in question was referring to) and then just making stuff up.

What was that you were saying about reading and responding accurately?

Anyway, my point was that whenever you insist I am a secret, undercover Christian apologist it just so happens to be in a thread where I support my points with multiple academic sources. As such, if I am a secret, undercover apologist for making such arguments they must be too, especially as many of them represented the overwhelming academic consensus in that subject area.

As far as the supposed ex-spurts they can only be descriptive and cannot determine the ultimate origin of morals and ethics. Self evident Christian apologists regardless of qualifications can only come to subjective conclusions.

Whether that is true or not doesn't change the fact that it doesn't answer the question asked.

So thank you for clarifying that you don't actually have a rational reason why so many secular academic experts and credible peer-reviewed journals engage in such self-evident Christian apologetics that they are immediately visible to a casual observer with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Why bother lying just to make yourself feel better?

Tsk. Tsk. A Common and Appalling Definition of "Objective" Morals, Values, and Duties. Tsk. Tsk.

You can find more via the search function if you like.

The standard process is you claim scholar X supports your view, then I show you he doesn't

For example:

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).

I argue that our moral faculty is equipped with a universal moral grammar, a toolkit for building specific moral systems. Once we have acquired our culture’s specific moral norms—a process that is more like growing a limb than sitting in Sunday school and learning about vices and virtues—we judge whether actions are permissible, obligatory, or forbidden, without conscious reasoning and without explicit access to the underlying principles. Marc Hauser - Moral Minds


But while punishment in cultures of honor is remarkable for its effect in prompting punitive behavior, it appears to build upon many of the ordinary psychological foundations that we considered at the beginning of this essay in terms of punitive judgments. Punishment is triggered by causal responsibility, and although it need not be targeted at the responsible individual, at least it must be targeted at the responsible individual’s clan...

Many of the features that make punishment a daunting object of psychological study also make it an exemplar of the moral domain. If the psychology of punishment can only be understood as an interaction between biology, culture, and institutions, then surely the same is true of the psychology of cooperation, forgiveness, generosity, fairness, character, trust, and so forth.
Punishment in Humans: From Intuitions to Institutions - Fiery Cushman

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.

Why assume these feelings are independent of a) culture, environment , etc. b) other biological functions such as need to reproduce, need for power, etc?

 

[Cooky]

The dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Church are clearly stated and defined in the Catechism. It what you say were actually true the Roman Church would a fog of meaninglessness.

I doubt you know the differences between dogmas, doctrines or what constitutes a papal statement to be ex cathedra. I doubt you know how the canon differs from the catechism.

...Yet you seem to insinuate that understanding dogma is a simple task.

 

[shunyadragon]

I doubt you know the differences between dogmas, doctrines or what constitutes a papal statement to be ex cathedra. I doubt you know how the canon differs from the catechism.

...Yet you seem to insinuate that understanding dogma is a simple task.

I know the difference by definition.

The Catechism is first taught at the elementary school level.

There of course mysteries described in the church that are unknowable as in all Theistic religions as the ultimate knowledge and nature of God, but again the understanding of the doctrines and dogmas that are known to humans are in the Catechism.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, to clarify, you don't have a rational reason why so many secular academic experts and credible peer-reviewed journals engage in such self-evident Christian apologetics that they are immediately visible to a casual observer with a rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter?

Arrogant insults do not make a coherent dialogue, especially your reading skills appear to .be wanting.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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.

I'm pointing that out now. Where is the domination by motivated Christian groups concerning this abolition?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[columbus]

What are the dogmas even, really... I don't even know. It's a hard concept even for Catholic theologians to understand and explain.

I grew up in the RCC.

I was taught about Original Sin and why that made limbo a logical necessity.
Babies, humans too young to be culpable but not baptized, couldn't go to heaven because they were still under sin. But sending babies to hell was too awful to teach as Catholic catechism.

So. Limbo. Not heaven, that would contradict RCC teachings. Not hell, that would contradict the secular teachings the RCC was aiming towards.

So.
Limbo.

I learned that from the RCC. It didn't make any more sense to me then than it does now.
Tom