• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Religious Leaders Have Rarely Been Moral Leaders

joe1776

Well-Known Member
You make the mistake of assuming that your morals are 'right' and sooner or later everyone else will agree that you are right too.
Yes, I do assume that honor killings are wrong and sooner or later the bias against women that causes this barbaric practice will be eradicated just as slavery was abolished in that culture.


I said things would likely be different. You can take your pick from the 20th C totalitarianisms for gains that were lost. Ditto failed states. Even in Europe, the Balkan ethno-religious conflicts were only a couple of decades ago. Catholics and protestants were fighting in N. Ireland
You are simply pointing out where problems still exist. You aren't giving examples of moral gains that were lost -- which was your claim.

IS reintroduced slavery and tens of thousands of young Westerners went to join them.
So, your reasoning then is that until slavery has been completely eradicated,I can't claim the abolition of slavery was moral progress? Your raising of the bar to an impossible height shows you have little interest in a reasonable debate.
 
Yes, I do assume that honor killings are wrong and sooner or later the bias against women that causes this barbaric practice will be eradicated just as slavery was abolished in that culture.

Sorry, that was slightly unclear. Wasn't saying honour killings were right, just that conscience/morality can drive people in very different direction. Had you been born in a different time and place your conscience would not be telling you the same things that it does now.

Western liberal humanistic individualism is not some kind of inevitable development in all human societies.

You are simply pointing out where problems still exist. You aren't giving examples of moral gains that were lost -- which was your claim.

Are you denying that totalitarianism represented a regression i.e. the loss of gains?

So, your reasoning then is that until slavery has been completely eradicated,I can't claim the abolition of slavery was moral progress? Your raising of the bar to an impossible height shows you have little interest in a reasonable debate.

No, I'm pointing out how easy it is for people to 'regress' morally based on ideology.

Violently utopian ideologies have been a constantly reoccurring presence throughout human history, and the 20th C saw them in their worst forms.

At the moment we are lucky that the one that currently exists is so unappealing to most people. History tells us that sooner or later another one will turn up that is more appealing to more people.

Remember, I'm not arguing that there are no gains in any areas, just that such things are cyclical rather than permanent. We are still the same animal that we have been for the past few thousand years. It is irrational to think it is impossible that things we have always done we could not do again, or that things we do now we could not do in greater numbers.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Sorry, that was slightly unclear. Wasn't saying honour killings were right, just that conscience/morality can drive people in very different direction. Had you been born in a different time and place your conscience would not be telling you the same things that it does now.
You agree that honor killings are wrong.There are two possible causes that we might blame: a faulty conscience, or a traditional bias.

I blame a traditional bias, specifically the bias against women, because that bias existed in the USA and it is well on its way to extinction. Since biases don't change themselves, I credit examinations of conscience for changing attitudes toward women.

You blame a faulty conscience for honor killings. Please explain your reasoning. Why do you think my conscience would be guiding me differently had I been born in another culture?

And, if you agree that honor killings are wrong, how do you know that? If your theory of a faulty conscience is right, maybe it's our consciences that are faulty.
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I've explained this to you twice. Please refer back to my previous post and try again.
No you certainly have not. You have made a series of unsubstantiated claims.

Moral leaders are rare... unsubstantiated. Rare compared to what. What is the expected frequency of moral leadership?

Religious leaders being moral leaders are rarer and the few who are, are exceptions... Completely unsubstantiated so far.
 
Last edited:

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. Just because we have greater technology doesn't mean that people stopped thinking about how to do bad things.
He told the German people they were members of a master race entitled to take the lands of Eastern Europe for their own. He appealed to their arrogance.
That's not why the German people followed Hitler. The Germans were an oppressed people after WW I. Hitler promised them freedom from the oppressive rule of the nations that conquered them in WW I.
Your position is shifting. Our topic was moral leadership.
Since my position hasn't changed, I don't understand what you are talking about. As to the topic, I'm just answering the question you asked in the OP,
Do you agree or disagree?

Good grief. The only one on your list likely to qualify is the Dalai Lama. Pope Francis is trying to bring Catholics up to par but he's not leading them to higher moral ground than the the rest of the enlightened world..
So you are saying the Pope is not a moral leader despite the fact that millions of people regard him as one, just because he doesn't pass your personal morality litmus test?:rolleyes:
I think there always have been people with keener consciences than the rest of us. They feel the injustice of say slavery and they speak out and make others examine their conscience on the matter. But arrogant leaders, in religion, politics. or anywhere else, are not usually people with keen consciences.
"not usually"?
So... you are unable to point to any moral leaders in our time and you don't have expectations that our leaders should be moral, but "we are treating each other better than at any time in the past".o_O
Sorry, Amigo, I don't recognize you as an authority on what the terms of my argument mean.
What do the terms of your argument mean?
What constitutes a "moral leader"? Who are they?
You make a general statement about people treating each other better, but can't (or won't) point out anyone as an example.
You say the founders of the Abrahamic religions were not moral leaders, but can't (or won't) point to anyone as being better.
They are just all immoral, the whole lot of them, according to your personal litmus test for morality and that's that.
 

Murad

Member
I think we are born with a conscience, an intuitive sense, that gives us immediate judgments. It works case by case. We make a mistake when we make moral rules and laws. They only confuse us.

If I'm right on this, I expect most atheists will claim that evolution provided us with conscience, but those inclined to a spiritual answer will claim it as a gift from a Creator. If a Creator exists, a simple moral guide for everyone is the very kind of gift I'd expect if we're here to make moral progress.

If we are here in this life to make moral progress, then we should see it happening with humanity over time. My post 85 lists the evidence that it is.

Your English is good. I understood you easily.
That's can't be?
Evolution give some answers for physical issues but not spiritual or conscience.
That
I think we are born with a conscience, an intuitive sense, that gives us immediate judgments. It works case by case. We make a mistake when we make moral rules and laws. They only confuse us.

If I'm right on this, I expect most atheists will claim that evolution provided us with conscience, but those inclined to a spiritual answer will claim it as a gift from a Creator. If a Creator exists, a simple moral guide for everyone is the very kind of gift I'd expect if we're here to make moral progress.

If we are here in this life to make moral progress, then we should see it happening with humanity over time. My post 85 lists the evidence that it is.

Your English is good. I understood you easily.[/That's can't be. Evolution can't give us con
Evolution can't give us unphysical things " conscience"
and if it (conscience) a gift "wherever it come from" it should be a constant and standard in everyone.

Another major issue who has the authority to explain and define it?, since every society and even everyone think they/he are the model.

Aanother point in the original topic, if the "moral progress," how you can judge Abraham who come almost 2 thousands year before us?.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
They are just all immoral, the whole lot of them, according to your personal litmus test for morality and that's that.
I enjoy debate, that's why I post controversial arguments. But, I'm not here to be the foil of posters who simply want to be argumentative. Please read the OP again to understand my argument. If you don't understand it, ask me to clarify it for you. Also, please read my follow-up posts, so that I don't have to answer questions that I've answered two or three times.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
That's can't be?
Evolution give some answers for physical issues but not spiritual or conscience.
That.
I don't want to argue that point. I'm saying that will be the argument of atheists. In fact, scientists who are at the cutting edge of the conscience issue are already framing conscience as being "hard-wired" into our brains. That term is linked to evolution.

Another major issue who has the authority to explain and define it?, since every society and even everyone think they/he are the model.
When we understand that conscience is a universal guide, we will understand that there are no model cultures.Although there are some that are running ahead of others. I'm a citizen of the USA. I see us lagging behind a couple of the Scandinavian countries.

Aanother point in the original topic, if the "moral progress," how you can judge Abraham who come almost 2 thousands year before us?
I judge the ambition to lead as a symptom of arrogance and arrogance as the problem even when the leader is well-intentioned. I can't see why that would change over time. Moreover, I judge the product that was produced, the moral guidance offered by scripture of the Abrahamic religions considered sacred by so many.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I linked Steven Pincker's site because he is an authority who would support my claim that humanity has been making moral progress. His views are based on statistics. He's not making predictions that would either support or reject Bible prophecies.

I wonder what he thinks is moral. I find moral progress would be biblical morality, or mankind is making progress to extinction.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I don't want to argue that point. I'm saying that will be the argument of atheists. In fact, scientists who are at the cutting edge of the conscience issue are already framing conscience as being "hard-wired" into our brains. That term is linked to evolution.
When we understand that conscience is a universal guide, we will understand that there are no model cultures.Although there are some that are running ahead of others. I'm a citizen of the USA. I see us lagging behind a couple of the Scandinavian countries.
I judge the ambition to lead as a symptom of arrogance and arrogance as the problem even when the leader is well-intentioned. I can't see why that would change over time. Moreover, I judge the product that was produced, the moral guidance offered by scripture of the Abrahamic religions considered sacred by so many.

I find linked according to Scripture that conscience is ' hard-wired ' into our brains at Romans 2:14-15; 1 Timothy 4:2.
Conscience can only be a good universal guide if trained by moral principles such as the Golden Rule.
By excusing actions, or being accused by actions, shows that a conscience can also become hardened to the point that it becomes unfeeling like calloused skin that has been branded by a hot branding iron.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Ponerology, the study of evil, is a fun word, as are so many from religion
Soteriology - study of salvation
Hamartiology - study of sin
Eschatology - study of death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind.

Here's a fun quiz.Match the following:
(d) the violent end of the world
[/SPOILER]

I have found when people hear 'end of the world' that they equate that with the 'end of the Earth'.
I find Scripture assures us the Earth will be around forever according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B.
So, what is the end is the 'end of the world of wickedness' on Earth because the executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of the wicked according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16 thus making the Earth safe for people of goodwill.

We already know the final destiny of the soul because Adam became a 'living soul' according to Genesis 2:7.
Sinner Adam would pay the price of sin according to Ezekiel 18:4,20 that the 'soul that sins dies'.
( The soul can be destroyed according to Acts of the Apostles 3:23 )
Adam went from non-life, to life, and ' returned ' to non-life according to Genesis 3:19
So, at his death ALL of Adam ' returned ' back to the dust of the ground.
A person can Not ' return ' to a place he never was before.
So, at his death Adam became a dead soul, or a life-less soul or person.
No post-mortem penalty for Adam, just going back to where he started the dust of the Earth.
Mortal Adam lost what he was offered: ' everlasting life on Earth ' as long as he did Not break God's Law.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I wonder what he thinks is moral. I find moral progress would be biblical morality, or mankind is making progress to extinction.
I don't know what Steven Pinker would say but, but in Post 85 I put together some evidence for you. Did you see it?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I find linked according to Scripture that conscience is ' hard-wired ' into our brains at Romans 2:14-15; 1 Timothy 4:2.
Conscience can only be a good universal guide if trained by moral principles such as the Golden Rule.
By excusing actions, or being accused by actions, shows that a conscience can also become hardened to the point that it becomes unfeeling like calloused skin that has been branded by a hot branding iron.
Conscience is a moral guide. Why do you jump to the conclusion that when people misbehave it's due to a faulty conscience? How did you eliminate all the reasons people have for ignoring their conscience?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Has humanity made moral progress?. I say it has, Others in this thread disagree.
Morality is sometimes concerned with our treatment of the other animals. However, it is primarily concerned with how we humans treat each other. So, if we can say that we are treating each other better now than at any time in the past, we can claim that our species has made moral progress -- and that is precisely the claim made here.
Average human beings today are kinder people than their average ancestors of any past era. It's as if our brains, using the reward and punishment method, have been training us to be kinder to each other and to the other animals.
Like a simple binary code, pain and pleasure signals from our brains provide us with an on-board moral guidance system. We are punished with the pain of guilt after we have intentionally caused harm to someone innocent. When we treat others with kindness, we are rewarded with pleasure. We feel good about it. We refer to this collection of pain and pleasure feelings as our conscience.
The pain of guilt is not severe, but it can nag us for a lifetime. A black family, living in one of the northern states of the USA, received an anonymous letter. The postmark showed it had been mailed from a town in one of the southern states. In it, the writer apologized for having taken part in a lynching 50 years before in which a relative of the family was murdered.
Humanity is now, and probably has always been, making moral progress; we are treating each other better right now than at any time in our history. However, that encouraging fact is not obvious. There are four factors that can cloud our view:
1. Population growth causes the volume of criminal acts to increase even when the crime rate, expressed as a percentage of the population, goes down.
2. Advances in weapons technology makes it possible for each disturbed person, or small group, to do far more harm today than in the past.
3. Advances in communications technology makes it possible for us to see video footage of violence from halfway around the world the same day.
4. Early in the 20th Century, a man could beat his wife and children and molest his daughters with impunity. The fact that we are reading of more crimes against women and children might make it seem like the problems are growing when they are actually being rooted out and punished.
So, if we only use the bad news offered by the daily news media as our evidence, we might jump to the conclusion that there is little hope for humanity's future. In order to see humanity's moral progress, we need to compare human behavior today to what it was in the distant past.
• The world's religions are still making trouble for each other. However, they are not nearly as violent as they were between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries.
• The sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam contain some terrible moral guidance that, wisely, has been mostly ignored over the years. This is evidence that those texts were not divinely inspired as claimed and evidence also that human cultures of two thousand years ago, when those texts were written, were morally immature compared to today's.
• Children of the poor are still used as cheap labor in some cultures, but compared to the past, before Child Labor Laws, much progress has been made;
• In morally advanced cultures, men are learning to treat women as equals;
• Caste systems, like India's, which have resulted in unfairness for many over centuries, are gradually crumbling;
• Not very long ago, violent strikes were common during management and labor negotiations; it happens less often today;
• Employers have learned that it is profitable to give both employees and consumers more respect and better treatment than they once did;
• Government corruption and oppression are still a problem but much progress has been made since governments for the people have been replacing governments for the privileged;
• During past wars in human history, civilian populations were attacked; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants;
• Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history;
• We still hear about prisoners being tortured but, in the Middle Ages, torture was a thriving industry. Clever devices were designed and made to maximize pain.
• NFL Football provides mild violence as entertainment, but it is nothing compared to the spectacle of slaughter seen in Rome's Colosseum.
• At one time, men who cruelly abused their wives and children were immune to punishment under the law. This is no longer true in morally advanced cultures.
• Slavery is still a problem here and there, but not nearly to the extent that it was until just a few centuries ago;
• Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.
• Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for humanity's moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence. A brief summary of his argument can also be heard on his TED Talks video: The Surprising Decline of Violence.

In my town (not a city) there is a BIG surge in bad-attitude driving:
Darting past a stop sign as they apply breaks to the point that it looks as if they are trying to get the 'thrill of the throwback'. Lots of bumper stickers with ' language ', and Not just language on the stickers but coming out of drivers' mouths if Not ' finger ' speaking. Also, endless pushing by driving so close to one's trunk even when already going past the speed limit. Used empty shopping carts pushed into parked cars.
Some cars parked so close that one has to climb in through the passenger side door to enter.
Recently I saw a car stop for a red light, he looked both ways, and then continued to drive as if the red light was a stop sign. Also, Not just DUI driving because of alcohol but from drugs whether legal or illegal.
That reminds me, recently a near by community reported Not to leave your garage-door opener in your cars.
People on drugs were breaking into cars, putting up people's garage doors using their openers in order to enter people garages in order to hopefully easily enter their homes.

Years ago when the video game 'Mortal Combat ' was popular I asked the father of a 10-year old boy what he thought of his child playing that game. His response was children know the difference between reality and fantasy.
About 10 years later I received an e-mail to check our towns most wanted list as published in the local newspaper. That boy, who was Now a young man, was one of our towns posted most wanted.

Seems to me, on a personal one-on-one level, I do see a growing violent attitude being displayed around here.
I find the selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 to be more common in people than the attitude of people as the definition of love is defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Conscience is a moral guide. Why do you jump to the conclusion that when people misbehave it's due to a faulty conscience? How did you eliminate all the reasons people have for ignoring their conscience?

I wasn't trying to say ' faulty ' conscience. I wasn't trying to eliminate reasons for ignoring a conscience.
Perhaps I should have said people can choose to either ' listen ' to one's conscience, or ' ignore ' ones' conscience.
Ignored long enough then one's conscience can be hardened to the point of No more feeling when doing wrongs.
After all, who'd want the conscience of a serial killer.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I find the selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 to be more common in people than the attitude of people as the definition of love is defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6.
In order to see moral progress, we need to compare the present with the distant past from a global perspective as I did in that post.

I have a skeptical mind, so faith isn't possible for me. I don't think religion has been a force for good or evil. I see it as an amplifier of human emotions. It has moved some to wonderful acts of charity and others to attempt genocide in God's name.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
In order to see moral progress, we need to compare the present with the distant past from a global perspective as I did in that post.
I have a skeptical mind, so faith isn't possible for me. I don't think religion has been a force for good or evil. I see it as an amplifier of human emotions. It has moved some to wonderful acts of charity and others to attempt genocide in God's name.

I wonder how distant a past: Distant past such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the global Flood of Noah's day.
Skeptical mind or inquiring mind. An inquiring mind wants to know.

Genuine ' wheat ' Christians are moved to wonderful acts ( both secular and spiritual acts )
Whereas the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians are the the genocide ones. They are the ' bad ' fruit of Matthew chapter 7.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I wonder how distant a past: Distant past such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the global Flood of Noah's day.
100, 300, 500, 1000 years... it's possible to see moral progress at various stages with reliable history to back it up.

Skeptical mind or inquiring mind. An inquiring mind wants to know.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both. But the skeptical mind requires evidence.

Genuine ' wheat ' Christians are moved to wonderful acts ( both secular and spiritual acts )
Whereas the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians are the the genocide ones. They are the ' bad ' fruit of Matthew chapter 7.
The genuine Christians are the ones who do good and the ones who do bad are the fake Christians? Well, if an all-knowing God inspired the sacred texts of the Bible, why wasn't it more effective? Seems like a whole lot of fake Christians failed to get the message.
 
You agree that honor killings are wrong.There are two possible causes that we might blame: a faulty conscience, or a traditional bias.

I blame a traditional bias, specifically the bias against women, because that bias existed in the USA and it is well on its way to extinction. Since biases don't change themselves, I credit examinations of conscience for changing attitudes toward women.

You blame a faulty conscience for honor killings. Please explain your reasoning. Why do you think my conscience would be guiding me differently had I been born in another culture?

And, if you agree that honor killings are wrong, how do you know that? If your theory of a faulty conscience is right, maybe it's our consciences that are faulty.

What do you mean 'faulty conscience'?

I'd say it's more about changing environments. Honour killings have a perverse rationality about them in certain pre-modern cultural contexts. They are based on a concept of collectivist rights ranking higher than individual rights (as all pre-modern societies are).

When the honour of a tribe/clan/family can be lost by a single member of that group, it makes sense to put in place great disincentives to transgress. And in ancient times, being cast out of the family/tribe was pretty much a death sentence anyway so it was probably more 'humane' to kill them.

Honour societies have been particularly prevalent in harsh conditions where you had to earn a reputation for being both fierce and trustworthy. The weak were exploited and the untrustworthy could not survive as the means for survival (trade, cooperation, etc) would be cut off from them.

As such individual rights didn't exist as you always represented a group larger than yourself. The 'greater good' was always more important.

In a modern environment however, such behaviour loses its 'logic'. Individual rights make far more sense in an urban, post-industrial society.
 
Top