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

[shunyadragon]

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

I have also studied it since elementary school and I do know the basics based on my previous post.

 

[Cooky]

I have also studied it since elementary school and I do know the basics based on my previous post.

I mean I have spent a decade studying it in depth. I also went to Catholic school my whole life.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

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

Dogma is defined and described in more detail here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dogma

 

[Augustus]

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

A coherent dialogue would be answering a simple question, but, strangely enough, you can't think of a rational reason to justify your claim that all of the cited scholarly sources from secular academics of diverse religious and irreligious backgrounds published in academic texts and peer-reviewed journals are simply Christian apologetics.

What a surprise...

 

[shunyadragon]

I mean I have spent a decade studying it in depth. I also went to Catholic school my whole life.

So? I at present do not consider you an authority. I refer to qualified references such as CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Dogma and the reference I gave with the basics.

 

[Augustus]

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

In the post you quoted, try reading it before hitting reply

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

In the post you quoted, try reading it before hitting reply

I did. Is that what you are calling christian motivated groups? Sounds like nothing but a 'social christianity'. Not a Biblical Christianity.

The anti-slave movement was the same in the U.S. in the North. The northern christianity was all upset. But then the northern christianity was nothing but a social jesus. Not Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[halbhh]

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..

And all these teachers are merely following their culture, eh? Ok. You can think that if you like. Hope you have a good evening.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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,

All views are personal and related to a person's culture and time only. There is no universal view. Hinduism understands this very well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, conscience (moral intuition) signals us that it is wrong to harm innocent people. This is true in all cultures.

"3. Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them, but put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” 1 Samuel 15:3
The God of Abraham must have been in a very bad mood.

Currently, there are already married Catholic priests under the pope.

Wish all priests were married. An Arch Bishop is facing multiple rape charges in India.

 

[Augustus]

I did. Is that what you are calling christian motivated groups? Sounds like nothing but a 'social christianity'. Not a Biblical Christianity.

The anti-slave movement was the same in the U.S. in the North. The northern christianity was all upset. But then the northern christianity was nothing but a social jesus. Not Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour.

Good-Ole-Rebel

That's mighty cute

 

[Augustus]

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.

It's actually amusement that you'll continually pretend you are right while literally quoting stuff which proves you wrong.

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.

Once we have acquired our culture’s specific moral norms... we judge whether actions are permissible, obligatory, or forbidden, without conscious reasoning and without explicit access to the underlying principles.

As I was saying...

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.

Once again, the information that proves you wrong is literally written in the post you are replying to.

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...

From a previous discussion, your definition of 'innocent' was very restrictive, based on what 'any neutral unbiased observer' would consider innocence. In honour cultures, as Cushman's article clearly states, this is not true.

The 'universal moral grammar' is not what you think it is.

As its name suggests, it is compared to the linguistic theory of a universal grammar which states all language has certain 'innate rules'. Despite this however, we can see that languages are not the same and are impacted by numerous external factors.

The 'universal moral grammar' is impacted by various factors, and if you actually read the people you claim support you, then you'd know this is what they argue:

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.

Anyway, feel free to pretend that which is clearly written doesn't exist as per usual

If you haven't got anything from published, academic sources that explicitly supports your specific argument, rather than noting there are some universal aspects of morality (such as a universal moral grammar), there's not much point in continuing though.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

That's mighty cute

And true.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[shunyadragon]

All views are personal and related to a person's culture and time only. There is no universal view. Hinduism understands this very well.

What you say above is unfortunately the egocentric view of most people that only view our existence from their own personal and cultural perspective. The universal perspective is far beyond any personal or cultural perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

And all these teachers are merely following their culture, eh?

Just as Christians follow their own culture by the evidence.

 

[joe1776]

It's actually amusement that you'll continually pretend you are right while literally quoting stuff which proves you wrong.

You accused my of lying because I amused you? Sure, that makes sense.

Once we have acquired our culture’s specific moral norms... we judge whether actions are permissible, obligatory, or forbidden, without conscious reasoning and without explicit access to the underlying principles. As I was saying...

The above statement is correct but most likely because of your bias, you are misunderstanding its meaning. For example, if we enter a Japanese home, we know that we should take off our shoes because, if we don't our hosts will be insulted. That's the knowledge that must be acquired specific to the Japanese culture.

However, the Japanese culture has no influence on our moral intuition (conscience) which signals us that it is wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That prohibition is universal. It applies to many acts in all cultures. And since insults cause harm, they are wrong in all cultures.

Your claim that culture shapes our moral intuition makes no sense. In fact, the reverse is true. It is conscience (moral intuition) that is morally upgrading our cultures. Slavery is the most useful example because we can see that the abolition movement didn't stop until it changed every culture in the world.

Religions are cultural institutions.There were Christian sects in the forefront of the abolition movement. Was their involvement because of their Christian beliefs or because Christians are human and gifted with consciences? Since their Bible condones slavery, it can only be that they heeded their consciences.

 

[Augustus]

it is wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That prohibition is universal. It applies to many acts in all cultures.

Once again, the information that proves you wrong is literally written in the post you are replying to.

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...

From a previous discussion, your definition of 'innocent' was very restrictive, based on what 'any neutral unbiased observer' would consider innocence. In honour cultures, as Cushman's article clearly states, this is not true.

 

[shmogie]

This thread was inspired by a thread started in Christianity DIR.

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 standards of morals and ethics such as the Ten Commandments are found in most other cultures and religions of the world. The evolution of morals and ethics can be seen to evolve from the Neolithic cultures. Even in the Neanderthal cultures evidence of care for the elderly and disabled is known based on the evidence.

For example: Slavery evolved in the different cultures over time. In Neolithic cultures slavery is virtually absent. Captured prisoners and women and children were most commonly adopted into tribe or community. This is true of Neolithic Native American cultures. Slavery appeared in Bronze Age civilizations, up through resent history when it gradually is becoming immoral in the cultures today, and the principle transition to none slave cultures began in the 19th century. Christians widely bought, sold and owned slaves in recent history just as slavery existed in other cultures over time, and it was not considered immoral by many if not most Christian in the past.

Really? No.

Your problem is that you believe if a person says they are a Christian, they are. Not so.

Further, you ignore the principles of the NT, and many early Church writers.

In the United States, the most economically powerful colonies, then states were extremely uncomfortable with slave holding, ad it was strongly frowned upon.

Many of the Founders have written that slavery was immoral, yet they feared for the integrity of the Republic if it was dealt with too soon..

People who supported slavery, believed that African slaves were "less than human", thus justifying their slaveholding.

This is diametrically opposed to the NT declaration in various places that people of all races, all skin colors, both sexes, are totally equal.

Since you are a Ba'hai, or once said yoiu were,m you believe islam in some fashion is an expression of God..

I would like you to expound on muslim slavery, it's history, it's capture and selling of Africans into slavery, and what is occurring today regarding islam and slavery.

I think you carry a bias against Christianity, and Christians. Disabuse me of that, if you can.

 

[shmogie]

You accused my of lying because I amused you? Sure, that makes sense.

The above statement is correct but most likely because of your bias, you are misunderstanding its meaning. For example, if we enter a Japanese home, we know that we should take off our shoes because, if we don't our hosts will be insulted. That's the knowledge that must be acquired specific to the Japanese culture.

However, the Japanese culture has no influence on our moral intuition (conscience) which signals us that it is wrong to cause harm to innocent people. That prohibition is universal. It applies to many acts in all cultures. And since insults cause harm, they are wrong in all cultures.

Your claim that culture shapes our moral intuition makes no sense. In fact, the reverse is true. It is conscience (moral intuition) that is morally upgrading our cultures. Slavery is the most useful example because we can see that the abolition movement didn't stop until it changed every culture in the world.

Religions are cultural institutions.There were Christian sects in the forefront of the abolition movement. Was their involvement because of their Christian beliefs or because Christians are human and gifted with consciences? Since their Bible condones slavery, it can only be that they heeded their consciences.

The Bible condones slavery? Ya think?

Lets get the facts straight.

Slavery was condoned for a specific people, at a certain time, in a certain place.

It was part of the Torah, given to the ancient Jews. Their form of slavery was quite mild when compared to, say, the American South.

The New Testament, which replaced the Torah, and is the law for Christians, has been in authority for 2,000 years.

The NT emphatically states that all people are equal, and that slaves should seek their freedom whenever possible, however possible, short of violence.

So, your point fails.

True Christians objected to slavery in America, just as they did in Rome. It was not as a result of some form of natural law, it was because of what their religion taught.

There is a form of conscience driven intuitive law, C.S. Lewis thoroughly addresses it, but it is not what drives true Christians to do the right thing,

 

[joe1776]

The Bible condones slavery? Ya think?

Lets get the facts straight.

Slavery was condoned for a specific people, at a certain time, in a certain place.

It was part of the Torah, given to the ancient Jews. Their form of slavery was quite mild when compared to, say, the American South.

The New Testament, which replaced the Torah, and is the law for Christians, has been in authority for 2,000 years.

The NT emphatically states that all people are equal, and that slaves should seek their freedom whenever possible, however possible, short of violence.

So, your point fails.

True Christians objected to slavery in America, just as they did in Rome. It was not as a result of some form of natural law, it was because of what their religion taught.

There is a form of conscience driven intuitive law, C.S. Lewis thoroughly addresses it, but it is not what drives true Christians to do the right thing,

There are more than 100 Bible quotes on slavery and none condemn the practice.

You make what I'd call derisively argument by labeling. Christians who do the right thing are "true Christians." That kind of argument is not going to be persuasive to unbiased minds. You're "preaching to the choir."