Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Because the objections are always about sex aren't they?

Nah, I have one to stringing up the better jew.  What's a little buggery compared to that?

Seems to me, people are very good at rationalizing doing whatever they want with whoever they want anyway they want and dismissing the idea that they have any responsibility for their actions or that their actions have consequences. Sexual morality is just so very inconvenient, isn't it.

Yeah...responsibility and suchlike!  I mean, unless we can just string up a jew.  Is that on the table?

[henryp]

While religion can stall moral progress, it can also form a barrier to moral corruption, or provide an alternative to anarchy.

It's a tool that can and has been used both positively and negatively in regards to moral progress.

I think, in general, in first world well off populations, things have been sorted out a bit. But amongst the poor, rich, or less developed countries, they definitely can still benefit from some of the better forms of religion.

[Brian37]

While religion can stall moral progress, it can also form a barrier to moral corruption, or provide an alternative to anarchy.

It's a tool that can and has been used both positively and negatively in regards to moral progress.

I think, in general, in first world well off populations, things have been sorted out a bit.  But amongst the poor, rich, or less developed countries, they definitely can still benefit from some of the better forms of religion.

No, religion is nothing but a comic book reflection of our ability to do either good or bad.

Diversion is not a cure, it distracts, but it does not solve.

[brewer]

3. "Gayness" is not freely chosen, as people don't choose who they are attracted to. So it's not possible that being gay, in and of itself, would be against Natural Law.  

People don't choose to be diabetic, have Down's syndrome, or become near-sighted either.

We should be viewing same sex attraction as a disease/disorder? Nice!

[Brian37]

People don't choose to be diabetic, have Down's syndrome, or become near-sighted either.

We should be viewing same sex attraction as a disease/disorder? Nice!

@NEO

Bigotry
All my fear seemed so far away
I was never half the man I will never be
All because of bigotry

[The Grand Nudger]

While religion can stall moral progress, it can also form a barrier to moral corruption, or provide an alternative to anarchy.

It's a tool that can and has been used both positively and negatively in regards to moral progress.

I think, in general, in first world well off populations, things have been sorted out a bit.  But amongst the poor, rich, or less developed countries, they definitely can still benefit from some of the better forms of religion.

Trouble with that "tool" is that the parts of it which can and have been used positively don;t derive from the religion..and those parts have always existed previously to, concurrently with, and post-humously after the religion rises and then falls to obscurity.  

Judeo-christian belief, for it's part..was never relevant.  It began life already consigned by better ideologies and ethics to the trash-heap..and it was only -through- horrible shit that it persisted to this day.

[LadyForCamus]

An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard.  After all, we gain new information every day.  Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!"  In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery.  He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that.  He couldn't give women equal rights either.  Or really much of anything.

...

When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information.  And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better. 

First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).

Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.

Um...god was responsible for that culture.  Were the Jews not living in a theocracy?  The "cultural context" argument makes absolutely no sense, Steve.

[Cod]

   

5. For a time, I had a problem with the Church's teaching on contraception. I didn't understand it and it didn't make sense to me, so I thought the Church was wrong about it. Since then, I've come to better understand why and now I agree with it. Can't say there is anything else. All moral teachings make logical sense to me as of now.

5. You were correct for a time at least.

[SteveII]

First, Christians get their morality from the NT. OT laws were meant for Jews in the OT in their time and their culture (please don't quote anything from Matthew 5. In 2000 years, ONLY atheist with an internet connection think this applies).

Second, what "new information" pertaining to morality do we have now that was not available in the first century? In other words, what instructions were given then that can be called into question by some "new information"? This is the entire crux of your argument--so please be thorough.

Um...god was responsible for that culture.  Were the Jews not living in a theocracy?  The "cultural context" argument makes absolutely no sense, Steve.

Isn't relevant to my point. The subject is morality. It was suggested that a Christian's morality comes from the OT. That is simply wrong. Believe it or not, NT morality is a higher standard even as it has less specific do's and don'ts. 

I was interested to hear the answer to my questions in the second point--which is very relevant to the title and the OP. What do you think?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, is -that- what makes something a "higher standard"....ambiguity?