Religion and Morality, Happiness, Hope and Love

[Jagella]

When the religious aren't admonishing unbelievers to believe in the God and miracles of their religion, they might ask unbelievers to consider the importance of the morality, happiness, hope, and love offered by their religion. For Christians, they have the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to guide morality, the happiness and sense of hope that results from their doctrine of salvation, and the love of both neighbor and enemy taught by Jesus. So aside from God and miracles, they can offer important reasons to believe.

As far as I'm concerned, I can and do have morality without religion. In fact, I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers. It is no secret that religions have committed atrocities as a result of their beliefs, and any moral person should not adopt that kind of ethics.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that religion can bring happiness to some people some of the time. I've heard the stories of the happy-go-lucky Christian just loving life being a Christian. To me, though, there are more important things in life than happiness. As I have just implied, I value my morality very highly, and I won't throw it away in some effort to be happy. For that reason I cannot envy the happiness of a religious person any more than I can envy the happiness of a rapist as he violates his victim. Besides, I find the claim that religion brings lasting and meaningful happiness to just anybody to be very questionable. I've known plenty of miserable religious people.

But no matter how happy or unhappy religious persons may be, don't they have hope that some day they will be happy as their religion promises? For them they may have that hope, but it often comes at the expense of the hope of others and for others. For every person who thinks she is heaven-bound, she must believe that those do not share her beliefs are hell-bound. She may also find herself believing that her deceased family members and friends are in hell. What kind of hope is that?

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so. Such a love has little to distinguish it from hatred. Love should be free and granted to who deserves it. If God commands us to love him, then he obviously is not confident he can win our love. His love is like the love between despotic rulers and his subjects which is based on fear of punishment.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers.

Okay. Do Hinduism.

Annnnd...GO!

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Love should be free and granted to who deserves it.

Who is undeserving of love in your opinion?

 

[Spirit of Light]

When the religious aren't admonishing unbelievers to believe in the God and miracles of their religion, they might ask unbelievers to consider the importance of the morality, happiness, hope, and love offered by their religion. For Christians, they have the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to guide morality, the happiness and sense of hope that results from their doctrine of salvation, and the love of both neighbor and enemy taught by Jesus. So aside from God and miracles, they can offer important reasons to believe.

As far as I'm concerned, I can and do have morality without religion. In fact, I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers. It is no secret that religions have committed atrocities as a result of their beliefs, and any moral person should not adopt that kind of ethics.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that religion can bring happiness to some people some of the time. I've heard the stories of the happy-go-lucky Christian just loving life being a Christian. To me, though, there are more important things in life than happiness. As I have just implied, I value my morality very highly, and I won't throw it away in some effort to be happy. For that reason I cannot envy the happiness of a religious person any more than I can envy the happiness of a rapist as he violates his victim. Besides, I find the claim that religion brings lasting and meaningful happiness to just anybody to be very questionable. I've known plenty of miserable religious people.

But no matter how happy or unhappy religious persons may be, don't they have hope that some day they will be happy as their religion promises? For them they may have that hope, but it often comes at the expense of the hope of others and for others. For every person who thinks she is heaven-bound, she must believe that those do not share her beliefs are hell-bound. She may also find herself believing that her deceased family members and friends are in hell. What kind of hope is that?

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so. Such a love has little to distinguish it from hatred. Love should be free and granted to who deserves it. If God commands us to love him, then he obviously is not confident he can win our love. His love is like the love between despotic rulers and his subjects which is based on fear of punishment.

Love given unconditionally is the true love.
As a spiritual person, its not about me as a person. But about being there for others no matter what situation they are in.

 

[The Hammer]

Okay. Do Hinduism.

Annnnd...GO!

Oooh ooh ooh.

And Neopaganism!

 

[syo]

When the religious aren't admonishing unbelievers to believe in the God and miracles of their religion, they might ask unbelievers to consider the importance of the morality, happiness, hope, and love offered by their religion.

My religion teaches nothing of the above.

 

[ChristineM]

When the religious aren't admonishing unbelievers to believe in the God and miracles of their religion, they might ask unbelievers to consider the importance of the morality, happiness, hope, and love offered by their religion. For Christians, they have the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount to guide morality, the happiness and sense of hope that results from their doctrine of salvation, and the love of both neighbor and enemy taught by Jesus. So aside from God and miracles, they can offer important reasons to believe.

As far as I'm concerned, I can and do have morality without religion. In fact, I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers. It is no secret that religions have committed atrocities as a result of their beliefs, and any moral person should not adopt that kind of ethics.

Yes, I think it's fair to say that religion can bring happiness to some people some of the time. I've heard the stories of the happy-go-lucky Christian just loving life being a Christian. To me, though, there are more important things in life than happiness. As I have just implied, I value my morality very highly, and I won't throw it away in some effort to be happy. For that reason I cannot envy the happiness of a religious person any more than I can envy the happiness of a rapist as he violates his victim. Besides, I find the claim that religion brings lasting and meaningful happiness to just anybody to be very questionable. I've known plenty of miserable religious people.

But no matter how happy or unhappy religious persons may be, don't they have hope that some day they will be happy as their religion promises? For them they may have that hope, but it often comes at the expense of the hope of others and for others. For every person who thinks she is heaven-bound, she must believe that those do not share her beliefs are hell-bound. She may also find herself believing that her deceased family members and friends are in hell. What kind of hope is that?

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so. Such a love has little to distinguish it from hatred. Love should be free and granted to who deserves it. If God commands us to love him, then he obviously is not confident he can win our love. His love is like the love between despotic rulers and his subjects which is based on fear of punishment.

Morality is a human condition (and many others mammals also have their morality). Without it social groups would be impossible. Morality allowed humanity to develop civilisation which in turn allowed religion to form.

So far so good.

As i understand it religion took morality and made it their own, modifying it to exclude people who did not worship as the majority.

I too, argue my morality is superior to religious morality, for one i don't go around stealing morality and denying it to other people.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so.

How do you see this quote?

"You belong to the world of purity, and are not content to live the life of the animal, spending your days in eating, drinking, and sleeping. You are indeed men! Your thoughts and ambitions are set to acquire human perfection. You live to do good and to bring happiness to others. Your greatest longing is to comfort those who mourn, to strengthen the weak, and to be the cause of hope to the despairing soul. Day and night your thoughts are turned to the Kingdom, and your hearts are full of the Love of God. Thus you know neither opposition, dislike, nor hatred, for every living creature is dear to you and the good of each is sought. These are perfect human sentiments and virtues. If a man has none of these, he had better cease to exist. If a lamp has ceased to give light, it had better be destroyed. If a tree bear no fruit, it had better be cut down, for it only cumbereth the ground." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks, p. 112

To me it is saying we practice virtues for Love.

Simply for a person of Faith, God is all the Attributes and it is to those Attributes we submit.

Regards Tony

 

[Jagella]

Who is undeserving of love in your opinion?

I'd say that anybody who does evil habitually without remorse does not deserve my love. That is, I would not respect or laud evildoers because if I did, then I would be helping them to do evil. And that's one reason why religion's commanding people to love others unconditionally is a very bad idea.

 

[Jagella]

Love given unconditionally is the true love.
As a spiritual person, its not about me as a person. But about being there for others no matter what situation they are in.

I try to treat others the same way, but I do it on my own without being commanded to do so. Do you need to be commanded to love?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I try to treat others the same way, but I do it on my own without being commanded to do so. Do you need to be commanded to love?

No, unconditional love grow from within when realizing that our own "needs" are not as important as being there for others in need of love and kindness.

One word, one touch of a hand, or a moment of eye contact can be enough to say.

I see your pain, and i do anything i can to help you.

 

[Trailblazer]

As far as I'm concerned, I can and do have morality without religion. In fact, I can argue that my secular morality is far better than any morality any religion offers. It is no secret that religions have committed atrocities as a result of their beliefs, and any moral person should not adopt that kind of ethics.

I have a religion but I believe that people can be moral without a religion. Imo, many nonbelievers are more moral than some believers. The fact that some religious people have committed atrocities is not the issue at hand because religious believers should not be held accountable for the actions of others. The issue at hand is that some religious people do not follow the teachings of their religion so they are not moral.

What is the meaning of being moral?

Adjective. moral, ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. moral implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong.
Moral Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Yes, I think it's fair to say that religion can bring happiness to some people some of the time. I've heard the stories of the happy-go-lucky Christian just loving life being a Christian. To me, though, there are more important things in life than happiness. As I have just implied, I value my morality very highly, and I won't throw it away in some effort to be happy.

I am the same way. I do not care about personal happiness, there are more important things in life than happiness. Morality is far more important to me than my personal happiness.

For that reason I cannot envy the happiness of a religious person any more than I can envy the happiness of a rapist as he violates his victim. Besides, I find the claim that religion brings lasting and meaningful happiness to just anybody to be very questionable. I've known plenty of miserable religious people.

I do not think that happiness has anything to do with being religious. Happiness is a state of mind, a psychological state. I do not agree with the idea that some religious people have, that 'everyone' can rise above a psychological state if only they have faith in God. In fact, I find such as assertion to be arrogant, because it is based upon their personal experiences, thus it is ego projection. To be fair, it is also based upon what they read in their scriptures, but I still find it judgmental, as no man should judge another man until he has walked a mile in his moccasins.

But no matter how happy or unhappy religious persons may be, don't they have hope that some day they will be happy as their religion promises? For them they may have that hope, but it often comes at the expense of the hope of others and for others. For every person who thinks she is heaven-bound, she must believe that those do not share her beliefs are hell-bound. She may also find herself believing that her deceased family members and friends are in hell. What kind of hope is that?

I have suffered most of my life and continue to suffer, although not as much as in the past, but I do have hope of what my religion promises. You can call me optimistic or unrealistic, but I believe what my religion teaches.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

According to my beliefs nobody can ever know what the afterlife will be like because that is a mystery that God has concealed. I don't know who is bound for heaven, and I certainly would not say I know anyone is hell-bound. I have a personal opinion that evil people who commit heinous acts of cruelty will be punished but this has nothing to do with belief in God.

Finally, does religion not teach love? Yes, but like the morality, happiness and hope offered by religion, there is a terrible downside to religious-based love. Such love is based in obedience to a God--one is to love not because others have earned one's love but because God says so. Such a love has little to distinguish it from hatred. Love should be free and granted to who deserves it.

I view this a little differently than you do. I believe we should be kind to others because it is the right thing to do, the moral thing, not just because God commanded us to. I believe we should show compassion to all people, except for those who have some selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. If kindness is shown to these people it is not to their benefit because, far from awakening them to the error of their ways, it causes them to continue in their perversity.

If God commands us to love him, then he obviously is not confident he can win our love. His love is like the love between despotic rulers and his subjects which is based on fear of punishment.

I do not believe that God commands us to love Him. In fact I do not believe that God needs our love at all because God has no needs, since God is self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The only reason God enjoins us to love Him is for our own benefit, not for His benefit. I cannot honestly say that I love God, but in spite of the fact that I do not feel love for God I try to serve God as best I can by serving other people because I feel it is the moral thing to do.

 

[Jagella]

Morality is a human condition (and many others mammals also have their morality). Without it social groups would be impossible. Morality allowed humanity to develop civilisation which in turn allowed religion to form.

All societies need morality to survive as civilizations. An "evil city" is an oxymoron (although I sometimes doubt that truism in the town I live in). So whether we are religious or not, we need some kind of morality. Religion does not own morality and never did.

As i understand it religion took morality and made it their own, modifying it to exclude people who did not worship as the majority.

Many religions falsely lay claim to morality and blend it with their claims of magic. Magic has nothing to do with morality, but religion tends to assert that you cannot have morality with their magic.

I too, argue my morality is superior to religious morality, for one i don't go around stealing morality and denying it to other people.

LOL--I never thought of it that way, but you are correct.

 

[Jagella]

No, unconditional love grow from within when realizing that our own "needs" are not as important as being there for others in need of love and kindness.

One word, one touch of a hand, or a moment of eye contact can be enough to say.

I see your pain, and i do anything i can to help you.

OK, but are you saying you don't need religion to love people?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd say that anybody who does evil habitually without remorse does not deserve my love. That is, I would not respect or laud evildoers because if I did, then I would be helping them to do evil. And that's one reason why religion's commanding people to love others unconditionally is a very bad idea.

Only God loves unconditionally, although that does not mean that all men, be they good or evil, are equal in the sight of God.

I do not believe that we are to love unconditionally, although there are some members of my religion who would disagree with me since they will cite certain scriptures and interpret those scriptures differently than I do. The way I see it, if we love the deceiver, the liar or the evil doer we are condoning their behavior so we are not doing them any favors.

“O ye beloved of the Lord! The Kingdom of God is founded upon equity and justice, and also upon mercy, compassion, and kindness to every living soul. Strive ye then with all your heart to treat compassionately all humankind—except for those who have some selfish, private motive, or some disease of the soul. Kindness cannot be shown the tyrant, the deceiver, or the thief, because, far from awakening them to the error of their ways, it maketh them to continue in their perversity as before. No matter how much kindliness ye may expend upon the liar, he will but lie the more, for he believeth you to be deceived, while ye understand him but too well, and only remain silent out of your extreme compassion.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 158

 

[Spirit of Light]

OK, but are you saying you don't need religion to love people?

There are many ways to love people.
Religious teaching is just one way to learn about how to love others. But if ego gets in the way of a religious person, unconditional love can not grow.

But of course an Atheist can love unconditionally too.

 

[Jagella]

No, unconditional love grow from within when realizing that our own "needs" are not as important as being there for others in need of love and kindness.

One word, one touch of a hand, or a moment of eye contact can be enough to say.

I see your pain, and i do anything i can to help you.

I don't think you need religion to do any of that, so we are in agreement on that issue.

 

[Ella S.]

I'm not sure I really understand happiness, hope, or love.

I also find that morality tends to rely on "moral intuition" which is incredibly idiosyncratic between everyone, including believers. Even if you take a specific church, synagogue, mosque, etc. and poll their parishoners you will find that they don't actually agree on their morality. Much of their morality is informed by emotions like anger, disgust, shame, guilt, conformity, compassion, and sympathy, which they all feel to different levels for different reasons and their moods can change how much they feel these things from day to day.

Since I'm highly alexithymic, I don't feel any of these things. I do still have emotions to a degree but I don't feel them. My conscious decision-making is rarely guided by what I feel and, even if I wanted to listen to my conscience, I can't. I also can't feel happiness, love, or hope.

I'm left trying to figure out what I "should" do in the absence of any sort of desire. People would say that this is impossible and it might be but they have the luxury of arbitrary goals gifted to them by their feelings. I have to approximate what my purpose in life is most likely to be. That's under the assumption that there is one and, if there isn't, I have to try to come the closest to an objective purpose that I can; even if it requires bending some rules of reason. I just have to try to bend as few rules of reason as possible.

And I'm only doing this because, if there's a possibility that there's something I should do, then I logically should try to figure out what that is so that I can do it. That's what "should" means. While it seems more likely to me that there is nothing that I "should" do and so I have no real argument against people doing whatever they want, I personally am only really left with the option of trying to figure out what I should be doing because I don't want anything. When I "want" something it's because it helps me do what I think I'm supposed to do.

Threads like these are very challenging for me to respond to. It seems like most people live in a completely different world than me.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not sure I really understand happiness, hope, or love.

Threads like these are very challenging for me to respond to. It seems like most people live in a completely different world than me.

I do not understand happiness or love but I have hope that this can change.
I should qualify that because I have a love for my cats and all animals but it is difficult for me to feel love for God or other people.

I also feel like most people are living in a completely different world than me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't think you need religion to do any of that, so we are in agreement on that issue.

Some people "need" religion to feel happy.others live by the teaching without thinking about it as relugion.
There is no one right answer tgat fit everyone