Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality

[joe1776]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

 

[Augustus]

Being of the opinion that any ideology that has strongly influenced any society for 2000 years has had 'no effect whatsoever' on morality is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

(Also you might want to read up on the religious motivations of many key players in the abolitionist movement)

 

[wizanda]

The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women.

Personally would equate Paul saying women should not talk, and stay below the husband, is a big culprit to regressive thinking...

Just like for every one man, we need two females as witnesses in Islam, as they can't be reliable as they're forgetful.... Matriarchs.

Rabbinic Judaism 'to teach a woman the Torah is to teach her to commit blasphemy.'

In a way, any statutory system is going to be none progressive thinking to some degree; unless the system encourages progressive thinking.

In my opinion.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry, but I think I need some clarification here, because I am not at all understanding how you get from the argumentation you lay out to "Christianity had no effect whatsoever on human morality." The logic doesn't follow at all.

 

[joe1776]

Being of the opinion that any ideology that has strongly influenced any society for 2000 years has had 'no effect whatsoever' on morality is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.

I didn't read a counter-argument in what you wrote. Can you make one?

Also you might want to read up on the religious motivations of many key players in the abolitionist movement)

Will you cherry-pick the key players of a movement that began several centuries ago and in different parts of the world for me so that I might be better informed?

 

[joe1776]

I'm sorry, but I think I need some clarification here, because I am not at all understanding how you get from the argumentation you lay out to "Christianity had no effect whatsoever on human morality." The logic doesn't follow at all.

I showed that following scripture in the Bible had no effect at all, positive or negative, on humanity's most notable moral advance. That doesn't track logically for you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(Also you might want to read up on the religious motivations of many key players in the abolitionist movement)

The Bible often acts like an echo chamber: put any opinion into it and it comes out endorsed by God. Good people will have good gods and find support for the theology they want in the Bible; evil people have evil gods and find support in the Bible, too.

Overall, I think the impact of this effect is negative. It makes positions immune to reason that ought to be susceptible to it.

... but if you want another measure of the impact of religion on slavery, consider that at the height of the transatlantic slave trade, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was the Church of England.

 

[David T]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

.... Hey your reading comprehension level is at the level of a southern baptist level congrats.

 

[joe1776]

Personally would equate Paul saying women should not talk, and stay below the husband, is a big culprit to regressive thinking...

Just like for every one man, we need two females as witnesses in Islam, as they can't be reliable as they're forgetful.... Matriarchs.

Rabbinic Judaism 'to teach a woman the Torah is to teach her to commit blasphemy.'

View attachment 20241

In a way, any statutory system is going to be none progressive thinking to some degree; unless the system encourages progressive thinking.

In my opinion.

I don't think you can blame the scriptures for the bias against women. The men who wrote those "sacred texts" didn't create the bias against women. They simply wrote of the attitude which existed in their cultures.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't read a counter-argument in what you wrote. Can you make one?

Christianity is an ideology. Ideology influences thought. Complex morality is a product of thought.

Even the progressive teleology inherent in your OP is largely a product of the effect of Christian eschatology on Western thought. The Idea of Progress really is not something that is common to most cultures across human history.

Will you cherry-pick the key players of a movement that began several centuries ago and in different parts of the world for me so that I might be better informed?

Can find explicitly Christian arguments against slavery from Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th C.

For the abolitionist movement, just start with Wikipedia for the evidence against "no effect whatsoever" which is a pretty low barrier:

Abolitionism - Wikipedia
Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade - Wikipedia

 

[bobhikes]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

While Christianity has its faults it definitely had a huge effect on morality. You need to understand that Christianity has been around around 2000 years and what effect it had on the Romans, Gauls, Mayans, African Tribes, North and South Americans when it reached them. It gave a value to all humans even slaves. There were morals for how to treat all people. Where the morals up to today's standards no but they were advanced for the standards of the age. Can you say the Christian morality has fallen behind the times yes but saying it had no effect on human advancement of morality is ridiculous.

 

[wizanda]

They simply wrote of the attitude which existed in their cultures.

Agreed, and then after those cultures should have progressed to a new ideology, the religiously minded deemed it not acceptable, thus we stayed with archaic systems.

My mum was one of the first ever women in the bank she got her mortgage from, to receive one without a husband, as back then it wasn't acceptable.

We've only just allowed women to vote; do you think that was really the mentality of the time?

Who ran the household when you were growing up, made sure everything was attended to the male or female?

Answer is nearly always going to be women, as by design they're more capable at multitasking, organizing, etc.

We had cultures of women deified, and the Abrahamic religions literally wiped them out; plus even mistranslated any reference to them existing in their own texts (Asherah H842 - groves).

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

"Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality"

Tell that to the thief that robs no more. Tell that to the slave trader who stopped trading slaves and wrote "Amazing Grace". To Saul, the murderer, who stopped killing--let him know that Christianity had no effect on morality. Repeat that to the cannibals who stopped eating people after receiving Jesus Christ. Tell that to me who was going to commit adultery some 30 years ago but instead I am happily married for 43 years...

You were saying?

 

[Quintessence]

I showed that following scripture in the Bible had no effect at all, positive or negative, on humanity's most notable moral advance.

You did? Not what I saw. My standards for solid argumentation are a bit higher than what you provided. Well, okay... a lot higher.

Setting that aside for a moment, don't you see the jump between the claim "the Bible had no effect on the most notable moral advance" to "Christianity had no effect on human morality?" What question are you actually intending to address here? The Bible is a small fragment of Christianity, and what you call the "most notable moral advance" is a small fragment of human morality. They don't really transcribe one-to-one, yeah?

 

[Nakosis]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

I think what you're trying to say is that people used religion to justify what they already felt was morally right.

Hard to say really though how much of what we feel is right morally is influence by religion/culture.

Christian morality gets spoon fed as a kid if you're in that culture. How much it gets stuck in your subconscious mind to influence your conscious thinking unawares?

I'd agree to a certain degree that much more than religious beliefs goes into our moral feelings of what's right and wrong. Still, I'm pretty sure it's part of the mix.

 

[joe1776]

Christianity is an ideology. Ideology influences thought. Complex morality is a product of thought.

Your premise that morality if a product of thought is false. Morality is the province of the instincts we refer to as conscience. Furthermore, if Christians followed instruction provided by their Bible, they would not have found slavery immoral.

Even the progressive teleology inherent in your OP is largely a product of the effect of Christian eschatology on Western thought. The Idea of Progress really is not something that is common to most cultures across human history.

You can't support those claims with evidence. Christians have been following their conscience to make moral progress. That's why I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake as I might have been centuries ago.

Can find explicitly Christian arguments against slavery from Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th C.

I'm sure you can find exceptional Christians in any era but their opinions against slavery were not supported by scripture.

 

[Muffled]

I believe this is the null hypothesis and can't be proven for lack of evidence and to boot the evidence is to the contrary.

 

[socharlie]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

message of Christ Jesus and Paul was one - AGAPE. that is , imo, political Christianity failed that massage, despite the fact that many individual Christians followed the message.
But the God's system to improve collective morals through collective unconscious works.

 

[Muffled]

Personally would equate Paul saying women should not talk, and stay below the husband, is a big culprit to regressive thinking...

Just like for every one man, we need two females as witnesses in Islam, as they can't be reliable as they're forgetful.... Matriarchs.

Rabbinic Judaism 'to teach a woman the Torah is to teach her to commit blasphemy.'

View attachment 20241

In a way, any statutory system is going to be none progressive thinking to some degree; unless the system encourages progressive thinking.

In my opinion.

I believe Paul used good logic which is more than I can say for Imams and Rabbis in general. As far as I am concerned what liberals think is progressive means that they are moving forward on the road to hell.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think you can blame the scriptures for the bias against women. The men who wrote those "sacred texts" didn't create the bias against women. They simply wrote of the attitude which existed in their cultures.

I believe Paul is not working on bias but is presenting his reasons why it is the natural order of relationships.