this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2023
151 points (80.1% liked)
Asklemmy
44165 readers
1251 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Religion did have good morals in theory. Not in practice.
Also, unrelated to your points, religion didn't evolve. It stayed about the same for thousands of years, despite new science.
Which one is that?
That jesus dude had some pretty liberal thoughts. Buddhism was a nice reaction to the caste system. The method of delivery may not be inherently moral, but it is possible to manipulate a population in a way overall beneficial to society.
He personally, maybe. I didn't know the guy. The religion that grew around him, though ... not so much.
I'm not sure if it's because of his father or he just had terrible editors for his posthumous book release. But some of the stuff in there is quite abhorrent.
It's quite easy to find a lot of legitimately disgusting stuff in there, true. I'm on the antireligious apatheist side of things, so you don't have to convince me on that. But I wouldn't go as far as saying some religions' fundamental pillars don't have any good messages behind it. "Love one another" alone isn't too bad at face value, isn't it?
We a have so many other books now that contain all those good messages, even a lot more with more relevance to modern life, without all the terrible stuff and non-sense.
It just makes no sense to keep a 2000 old book around for a couple of good messages that are already thaught in many other, more modern stories and context.
The point was "do religions have any good in them", not "are religious texts still relevant".
No, that was not the point. They point was "do Relgions have good morals" and the answere is clearly no.
I see. You seem to interpret it as "are they moral as a whole". I interpreted it as "do they have any good morals". I don't think either affirmation is contradictory.
That seems like quite a low bar. Basically the broken clock being right twice a day.
No relgious person goes around and says "never mind that jesus and god stuff, I'm just in it because of the "you shalt not kill"". It's always about bundling in all the irrelevant crap. Those couple good stories about helping neighbours doesn't offset that.
Yeah, indeed. Was just explaining that it's how I interpreted the comment you answered to initially, thus my response.
i didnt say religion only had bad morals. broken clocks and such.
but christianity in specific has a lot of flawed morals that christians handwave. like Mary being 12 when she gave birth to Jesus, or pretty much everything old testament.
claims of a perfect and just omnipotent god while stuff like that flies is sloppy.