Religions doing awful things

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by photon

I used to be a youth pastor (well maybe youth leader? I never had any official education or whatever) and I wouldn't call myself deranged. Delusional may have fit.. I honestly believed what I taught them about the Bible and tried my best to help them and support them because I cared about them.

I definitely wasn't a liar or a scam artist.

It was the fact that while I felt God would tell me what I should talk about or that God would tell the other pastors and leaders about what they should be doing but God seemingly completely neglected to tell the leadership about the abuse that happened in the church that made me start to question things. Well one of the many many things that raised questions..

If God is talking to the leaders but none of the leaders are aware that some person is abusing people (physically, mentally, sexually, whatever) then either God isn't telling, the leaders aren't listening.

Yeah, my cousin left a 9-5 job he's worked for 10 years to go off and study and become a pastor. Great kid, held him when he was born.

[flamesfever]

While it is reasonable for people to criticize religion for various legitimate reasons, I believe that it's essential to recognize that criticism doesn't negate the positive aspects of spirituality and moral reform inspired by religious principles.

One could speculate that the gradual increase in corruption, sense of meaninglessness, cynicism, loneliness, mental illness, etc. in NA may be related in part to the lessening of the positive impact of religion on society.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

While it is reasonable for people to criticize religion for various legitimate reasons, I believe that it's essential to recognize that criticism doesn't negate the positive aspects of spirituality and moral reform inspired by religious principles.

One could speculate that the gradual increase in corruption, sense of meaninglessness, cynicism, loneliness, mental illness, etc. in NA may be related in part to the lessening of the positive impact of religion on society.

Sorry man, but the corruption of society is being led by the moral high ground you claim they are standing on. Your "positive aspects of moral reform" are another's repressive tactics that divide society and work against equality. The Pope and his minions can't even offer a position of equality for all, and they are somehow held as a moral authority? Ridiculous. Do you see how that is ridiculous?



I think you need to reevaluate from the vision of perfectionism you have in your head vs the reality of what is actually out there. Because most religions and religious people don't follow(or even give a #### beyond lip service) the high moral standings they claim to be bound by.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No problem with that if at the same time you inform them they are only stories, and not to be taken literally. Something many many religions do the opposite of. By deceiving people of reality you do them no favours, and set them up to struggle with cognitive paradoxes for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately this means many default to belief over fact, because it's so much easier to just believe, to take it on faith, than to actually understand.

In the past religions existed to provide structure and control. We have no need for that now, and the reality is it's become an impediment to peaceful society so long as more than one differing group exists in the same place and imbued with fundamentally different "truths" they have been convinced through indoctrination that that is the proper way to live. And they fight for that way of living, to the death. Or impose it on others.

You don't think things like "Do unto others..." help or serve others, especially those in need, always tell the truth, don't steal, murder, etc. etc, etc, are not to be taken seriously?

[KelVarnsen]

Not by religious people

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

You don't think things like "Do unto others..." help or serve others, especially those in need, always tell the truth, don't steal, murder, etc. etc, etc, are not to be taken seriously?

The discussion was around rituals, and presumably stories like Moses and Noah. I said "literally" not seriously. And I live by the same universal general rules of morality, but didn't need to be indoctrinated with fables and threats to my eternal soul to get there. How do you suppose that works?

[Dion]

We are all born with the basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. You don't need religion to teach you that.

[Dion]

Morality In The Absence Of Religion

I am not arguing that moral atheists or agnostics have objectively higher moral standards than religious-believers, or that they act solely out of goodwill. It would be pointless to assert that moral action is never motivated by personal gain, whether it be because we wish for personal reward or simply to feel good about ourselves. I am arguing that those who act without following rules for the sake of it, but who are instead motivated by what they themselves understand to be better from a moral standpoint, do indeed have higher moral standards, whether they are secular or religious. It would be a shame to believe that so many do good only because they fear the judgment of a higher being and the possibility of eternal damnation.

A lot of what is understood to constitute our moral code, at least from a Western perspective, is thought to originate from Judeo-Christian tradition dating back about 2000 years ago. Whether or not morality stems from religion is a whole other question, delving into the issue of the existence of God, and it is not a subject I wish to consider. But what I can say with some form of confidence is that moral standards have drastically improved since the dawn of time, and have leaped forward in the last century. The abolishment of slavery, the increasing disappearance of the death penalty or the drafting of a declaration of human rights, are few examples of a general on-going trend promoting the advent of quasi-utopian moral conduct. Those who fought for such changes and are still fighting today may be believers or nonbelievers, but above all they are people who share a common inner urge to do good. Shouldn’t we at least give some credit to mankind?

https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/48/bagot-4

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Dion

Morality In The Absence Of Religion





https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/48/bagot-4

As a member of the United Church of Canada for many years, I have never heard a minister preach the old "hell, fire and damnation" sermons of the past. I believe our church has definitely changed in this regard.

Of course mankind. whether inspired by religion or not, should be credited with all the positive changes in society over the ages.

I believe a person's individual beliefs are very personal, and one should avoid sharing them over the internet.

I remember our minister was told by a person once that he doesn't go to church because they are filled with hypocrites. His response was "Come on in, we can always use another one."

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

You don't think things like "Do unto others..." help or serve others, especially those in need, always tell the truth, don't steal, murder, etc. etc, etc, are not to be taken seriously?

Dude.

Those principles don't come from religion. Religions incorporated them into their teachings.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dude.

Those principles don't come from religion. Religions incorporated them into their teachings.

I’d disagree, in early society’s religion served an evolutionary purpose. It created the in groups and social rules that ensured the success of early societies.

Take for example the eating prohibitions and their correlation with things that spoil and carry risk of disease. So things like not killing your fellow community members came from religions.

The sets of rules early societies adopted were their religion. This doesn’t mean that religion was required for these things to exist or that religion has exclusive claim to moral thought.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’d disagree, in early society’s religion served an evolutionary purpose. It created the in groups and social rules that ensured the success of early societies.

Take for example the eating prohibitions and their correlation with things that spoil and carry risk of disease. So things like not killing your fellow community members came from religions.

The sets of rules early societies adopted were their religion. This doesn’t mean that religion was required for these things to exist or that religion has exclusive claim to moral thought.

Should probably clarify which culture you’re talking about, since society and societal/social rules predated religion in a lot of cultures.

[afc wimbledon]

early religions were little more than superstitions and myth, they had little to no morality, the pantheon of the Greeks were little more than a series of stories of rape and murder, there wasn't a 'moral' or a happy ending, Gods did what they wanted, screwed around with humans capriciously for no good reason and didn't care less how we behaved either

[Snuffleupagus]

R=ng

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Should probably clarify which culture you’re talking about, since society and societal/social rules predated religion in a lot of cultures.

Do you have a good example of one where rule of law wasn’t connected to spirituality.

I mean AFCs Greek and Roman example is not great as the culture was based around not angering the gods.

[Fuzz]

I don't know a lot on the subject, but reading this:


https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cl...eRuleOfLaw.pdf


gives the impression ancient Greeks had a lot more thoughtful laws than just "don't eat that or Zeus will zrrrt you".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't know a lot on the subject, but reading this:


https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cl...eRuleOfLaw.pdf


gives the impression ancient Greeks had a lot more thoughtful laws than just "don't eat that or Zeus will zrrrt you".

Yeah I grossly over simplified my statement the below is a far better discussion on the nature and influence of the gods of the morality of the Greeks through their main philosophers from Plato through Aristotle.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/

[Locke]

The Greek Gods were the best!

A genuine pack of ass holes those guys were! And they lived on top of a very climbable Hill!

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Locke

The Greek Gods were the best!

A genuine pack of ass holes those guys were! And they lived on top of a very climbable Hill!

The goddesses were better

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The goddesses were better

Agreed, but I sort of lumped them all together. I think 'Gods' is a fairly 'Gender Neutral' term?