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

[Cooky]

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

The Church no longer teaches the tradition of limbo.
It was never an official teaching.

 

[halbhh]

What you are stating is natural view again. You already stated this view and I responded. This adds nothing new. The subject addresses more the fact that the morals and ethics of humanity evolved over time and are not the standards of any one religion. In fact the morals and ethics of any one ancient religion today do not represent an adequate standard for the contemporary world.

Right, but we already agree to that. There seems to be a communication trouble, and I think I may have just found it.

I've been trying to address the far more interesting different question you raised prominently in the OP as I interpreted your wording -- "The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct," --

-- which if we use the word "Christianity" as to refer to the teachings/morals that Jesus taught such as:
"Forgive....not just seven times, but seventy seven times"
and
"Love your enemy"
and such...
then the idea this is only following culture would be mistaken, because of course people do not love their enemies generally in general culture, and don't want to love their enemies.

Clearly a moral law such as "love your enemy" is not following culture.

But perhaps by "Christianity" you mean the same meaning as often called 'Christendom' (or some such term) -- the mere general, traditional affiliation with a church (regardless of actual belief) as simply the local tradition/identity. That kind of 'christianity' could indeed merely follow culture. Using the word "Christianity" to not be what Christ taught, but instead what the general population of a so-called christian nation does....

So, there is an important ambiguity that is harmful in the OP, by accident I'm now seeing. It accidentally seems to suggest that 'Christianity' has nothing to teach or give anyone. You need a more clear wording/usage, to avoid this miscommunication.

 

[columbus]

The Church no longer teaches the tradition of limbo.
It was never an official teaching.

I learned it in grade school.

What is the RCC teaching these days that they'll be ignoring 50 years from now?

Celibacy?
Homosexuals are intrinsically disordered?
Male people are better at priesthood?

The RCC has taught a lot of things through the centuries.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

I learned it in grade school.

What is the RCC teaching these days that they'll be ignoring 50 years from now?

Celibacy?
Homosexuals are intrinsically disordered?
Male people are better at priesthood?

The RCC has taught a lot of things through the centuries.
Tom

Yes, the Canon of the Catholic Church allows for changes such as celibacy. It is neither a doctrine or a dogma... It's a tradition.

The Church also has the ability to allow women into the priesthood. All these things are merely Canonical traditions. And the Canon changes with the times - it always has, such as with the changes to the vernacular form of the Mass in 1965, and other ecclesiastical changes throughout history.

If you actually knew Catholicism, you would know this.

 

[joe1776]

Why bother lying just to make yourself feel better?

I understand that you don't like losing arguments but you really should try to restrain your anger. I'm not bothered by your accusation that I'm lying because it's not true.Your accusation is merely a sign of your frustration.

You quoted Bloom: I've made three arguments here. The first is that humans are in a very interesting way, nice. The second is that we have evolved a moral sense, and this moral sense is powerful, and can explain much of our niceness. It is far richer than many empiricists would have believed. But the third argument is that this moral sense is not enough. That accomplishments we see and we admire so much in our species are due to factors other than our evolutionary history. They are due to our culture, our intelligence and our imagination.

We went over this before. You seem to be insisting that Bloom's comment supports your claim that cultures influence our moral intuition. He's not saying that. He's merely saying that, in his opinion, our accomplishments aren't solely due to our moral sense.

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

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

Somehow, when you read the word culture your mind is assuming that the writer is supporting your point. Neither of the above quotes supports your claim.


Bloom's research with toddlers supports the idea that we are born hardwired with the ability to discern right from wrong (conscience). This doesn't mean we have nothing to learn from our culture. For example, the ways we might insult others varies a lot from culture to culture. So, we have to learn these cultural differences so that we don't accidentally insult innocent people. However, conscience (moral intuition) signals us that it is wrong to harm innocent people. This is true in all cultures. This is not something we have to be taught and has nothing to do with our specific culture.

Hauser and Cushman are doing research that might prove that we have a universal moral sense (conscience). That idea blows your claim out of the water.

 

[columbus]

Yes, the Canon of the Catholic Church allows for changes such as celibacy. It is neither a doctrine or a dogma.

The Church also has the ability to allow women into the priesthood. All these things are merely Canonical traditions.

Really?
You think that the Pope could just announce that the RCC will now have female priests? That priests can marry, because the doctrine and dogma have been replaced by secular ethics and values?

You really believe that?!

I know better.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

Really?
You think that the Pope could just announce that the RCC will now have female priests? That priests can marry, because the doctrine and dogma have been replaced by secular ethics and values?

You really believe that?!

I know better.
Tom

Yes, it's a fact. There is no "dogma" as such.

 

[columbus]

Yes, it's a fact. There is no "dogma" as such.

You really think that Francis can announce that RCC priests can be female.
Married.

Seriously?
You really believe that the Pope has that much power?
Tom

 

[Cooky]

You really think that Francis can announce that RCC priests can be female.
Married.

Seriously?
You really believe that the Pope has that much power?
Tom

Yes. It's merely a Canonical tradition. It is not a "teaching" of any sort, and the Canon was changed in 1965. They changed the Canon many times throughout history. It's a fact.

Currently, there are already married Catholic priests under the pope. Bet you didn't know that either.

 

[Cooky]

@columbus,

"There are around 125 married Roman Catholic priests like Whitfield, an Episcopal convert, across the U.S., experts say, and perhaps a couple hundred total around the world."
Father Josh: A married Catholic priest in a celibate world

...You have to realize that the Canon and the Catechism are two totally different things. One is changeable, the other can only be *added to* by an encyclical deemed Ex Cathedra by the pope... In which he would have received, through apostolic succession, a message of divine revelation from God. But no teaching can ever be taken away from the catechism.

Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[shunyadragon]

Right, but we already agree to that. There seems to be a communication trouble, and I think I may have just found it.

I've been trying to address the far more interesting different question you raised prominently in the OP as I interpreted your wording -- "The evidence in history shows that Christianity followed the evolving morals and ethics, or code of conduct," --

-- which if we use the word "Christianity" as to refer to the teachings/morals that Jesus taught such as:
"Forgive....not just seven times, but seventy seven times"
and
"Love your enemy"
and such...
then the idea this is only following culture would be mistaken, because of course people do not love their enemies generally in general culture, and don't want to love their enemies.

Clearly a moral law such as "love your enemy" is not following culture.

But perhaps by "Christianity" you mean the same meaning as often called 'Christendom' (or some such term) -- the mere general, traditional affiliation with a church (regardless of actual belief) as simply the local tradition/identity. That kind of 'christianity' could indeed merely follow culture. Using the word "Christianity" to not be what Christ taught, but instead what the general population of a so-called christian nation does....

So, there is an important ambiguity that is harmful in the OP, by accident I'm now seeing. It accidentally seems to suggest that 'Christianity' has nothing to teach or give anyone. You need a more clear wording/usage, to avoid this miscommunication.

The parallel sayings and morals exist in other cultures and religions in history at the time before and after Christ such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism..

 

[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.

Yes, of course, I do I was raised in the church, ut again the Catechism teaches the basics, and yes certain,' some' but not all papal statements are ex cathedra. 'Ex cathedra' is defined by doctrine in the Roman Church.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, of course, I do I was raised in the church, ut again the Catechism teaches the basics, and yes certain,' some' but not all papal statements are ex cathedra. 'Ex cathedra' is defined by doctrine in the Roman Church.

I've studied Catholicism in depth for years... Even I don't know what dogma truly is.

 

[shunyadragon]

@columbus,

"There are around 125 married Roman Catholic priests like Whitfield, an Episcopal convert, across the U.S., experts say, and perhaps a couple hundred total around the world."
Father Josh: A married Catholic priest in a celibate world"

So what?!?!?! Not really relevant to the discussion. If you believe so please explain.

...You have to realize that the Canon and the Catechism are two totally different things. One is changeable, the other can only be *added to* by an encyclical deemed Ex Cathedra by the pope... In which he would have received a message of divine revelation from God. But no teaching can ever be taken away from the catechism.

Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Fundamentally the Catechism remains the primary teaching of the church that describes the canon, doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church.

 

[Cooky]

Fundamentally the Catechism remains the primary teaching of the church that describes the canon, doctrine and dogma of the Roman Church.

No. The Catechism does not describe Canon Law. The Canon law is about ecclesiastics and order of the Church or priests and clergy members, like the rules of performing Mass, and Sacraments for priests, and other rules thereof.

...The Catechism is the teachings of the Holy Church for the Laity, and the whole Church.

Code of Canon Law

- is separate from -

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[shunyadragon]

I've studied Catholicism in depth for years... Even I don't know what dogma truly is.

The problem remains the high fog index you chose to apply avoiding the historical reality of the Roman Church.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...3i70i249j0i67j0i273j0i7i30i70i249.WsAOcn99XZI

dog·ma, noun - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

 

[Cooky]

The problem remains the high fog index you chose to apply avoiding the historical reality of the Roman Church.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk03VH9UQwsepVrV1eg0JvjbyqLi9Ng:1582499439258&ei=bwZTXqatD8at_QaAt7WIBQ&q=dogma+definition&oq=dogma+definition&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i67i70i249j0l4j0i7i30j0j0i7i30l3.569850.577951..582400...0.2..0.246.2239.2j15j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i13j0i7i10i30j0i13i70i249j0i67j0i273j0i7i30i70i249.WsAOcn99XZI

dog·ma, noun - a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I think there are what, 2 dogmas in the Catholic Church..?

 

[shunyadragon]

No. The Catechism does not describe Canon Law. The Canon law is about ecclesiastical and order of the Church for priests and clergy members, like how the rules of Mass, and performing Sacraments for priests, and the rules thereof.

...The Catechism is the teachings of the Holy Church for the Laity, and the whole Church.[/QUOTE]

True, but the Catechism teaches the substance of Canon Law.

The bottom line is your shell game blue smoke and mirrors efforts to create a high fog index DO NOT address the substance of the discussion on the nature of the Roman Church, and avoid the issues at hand.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think there are what, 2 dogmas in the Church..?

If you say so. So what?!?!?!

. . . but I have to disagree.

Some say there are 255, and yes there is some confusion among the splinters of the Roman Church.

I consider the dogmas of the Roman Church in what I was raised with are fundamentals I was taught with the Catechism.

Dogmas of the Catholic Church - Catholic Apologetics

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

1. The Unity and Trinity of God
2. God the Creator
3. God the Redeemer
4. The Mother of the Redeemer
5. God the Sanctifier
6. The Catholic Church
7. The Communion of Saints
8. The Sacraments
9. Baptism
10. Confirmation
11. Holy Eucharist
12. Penance
13. Holy Orders
14. Matrimony
15. Extreme Unction
16. The Last Things

 

[Cooky]

If you say so. So what?!?!?!

Nobody really knows anything about "dogmas". It's an old middle aged word, that the Church doesn't even use anymore.

...Mostly, it's just a word non-Catholics use, to slander Catholicism and they really have no clue what it is - Nobody knows what it *truly* is.