[Serious] What does religion have to offer?

[Brian37]

This seems contradictory to me. Even "a la carte" beliefs stem from Biblical teachings or philosophy. Obviously they're all going to be close to the Christianity of the Bible.

The point about a la carte Christianity is that it is simply the individual's own morality substituted for Biblical morality. The further from "fundamentalist" a Christian faith is, the more one has to question why they bothered with the faith claim to begin with when in reality they are using their own morality (which is to be applauded) over the immoral preachings of the Bible. Theists like to say that any good moral beliefs have a basis in their faith, as if it impossible to be good for goodness sake.

I wouldn't limit "a la carte" to Christianity. It owns no patent on that.  Every religion, bar none, has sub sects under the same umbrella label that do not agree with the other interpretations of the other sects of that same religion.

Our species morality is not in a holy book, not in a holy person, not an an interpretation of old mythology. Most human beings are good, and perfectly capable of empathy and compassion. I simply disagree with EVERY religion as to where they think our species morality is coming from.

Conservatism or "fundamentalism"  exists in every religion, even Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist religions. It would be a mistake to think only Christians and Muslims have a far right conservative view.

The empathetic left, and fearful right exist in every religion. This has never changed worldwide in our species history. 

The problem with the left and right of EVERY RELIGION in the world, is that most people do not want to face it is all "a la carte". All religions depend on cherry picking, within the same umbrella between sub sects, not just fighting against other religions.

I'd argue to all of humanity, if one sect, or one religion constituted a perfect morality for all of humanity, then why is there more than one religion? Why is there more than one sect of the same religion? Why is it there is not one nation, friend or foe alike, that does not have hospitals or prisons? Maybe because our species morality isn't in a label, but in our genes, in our evolution.

If one has the capability to look at someone outside their label, and accept that that individual is capable of doing good and being good, then that should tell them that morality isn't in a label, but in our genes as individuals.

[BryanS]

What about a situation where one has a blend of their own morals from experience and the Bible, and is aware that they are doing that? What about those who recognize it is possible to be good for goodness sake while simultaneously saying that it has a basis in their faith? I don't know, it feels like you're oversimplifying both the Bible and morality.

 
The Bible is quite explicit about morality coming from the authority of god (Moses's tablets delivered from Mt Sainai, and Jesus's sermon on the mount delivered in homage to that act).  Indeed, if there is a morality that is independent from what any god says (as atheists argue) then what need for god? A Christian such as you describe has essentially decided to do away with any need for god. 

Often times, such a Christian who has their own morality separate from their faith will selectively call on authority of their faith to insist on a morality that is in conflict with society's evolving mores. Everyone knew homosexuality was morally wrong, and the Bible seemed to agree. From the Bible, one can learn just how a master is to treat his slaves. And the Bible is quite clear about the subservient roll wives must have to their husbands. The religiously devout are often the last to acknowledge changing morality, and the Bible and resulting Christian faith deserves much of the blame.

---

I wouldn't limit "a la carte" to Christianity. It owns no patent on that.  Every religion, bar none, has sub sects under the same umbrella label that do not agree with the other interpretations of the other sects of that same religion.

I of course agree, but just arguing the Christian angle since that appears to be my audience at the moment. This is an attribute of religion in general.

[Brian37]

What about a situation where one has a blend of their own morals from experience and the Bible, and is aware that they are doing that? What about those who recognize it is possible to be good for goodness sake while simultaneously saying that it has a basis in their faith? I don't know, it feels like you're oversimplifying both the Bible and morality.

 
The Bible is quite explicit about morality coming from the authority of god (Moses's tablets delivered from Mt Sainai, and Jesus's sermon on the mount delivered in homage to that act).  Indeed, if there is a morality that is independent from what any god says (as atheists argue) then what need for god? A Christian such as you describe has essentially decided to do away with any need for god. 

Often times, such a Christian who has their own morality separate from their faith will selectively call on authority of their faith to insist on a morality that is in conflict with society's evolving mores. Everyone knew homosexuality was morally wrong, and the Bible seemed to agree. From the Bible, one can learn just how a master is to treat his slaves. And the Bible is quite clear about the subservient roll wives must have to their husbands. The religiously devout are often the last to acknowledge changing morality, and the Bible and resulting Christian faith deserves much of the blame.

---

I wouldn't limit "a la carte" to Christianity. It owns no patent on that.  Every religion, bar none, has sub sects under the same umbrella label that do not agree with the other interpretations of the other sects of that same religion.

I of course agree, but just arguing the Christian angle since that appears to be my audience at the moment. This is an attribute of religion in general.

Your audience at the moment yes. But worldwide history is far bigger than one moment in time, or one location on the planet. 

If we are willing to accept we are all the same species, which is the good part of liberals, even liberal theists, then humans would do better to focus on the fact we are the same species, and not let, even well intended liberals let conservative bullies hide behind their fearful sales pitch.

It is also worth noting, that not even among atheist we have 100% agreement 100% all the time, we do not.

I have met atheists whom support Che, the revolutionary whom lead to Castro's Cuba, which ironically Cuba is not an Atheist nation, it is a majority Catholic. I have met other atheists whom support the Ayan Rand "Atlas Shrugged"  <----"Fuck you I got mine" economics. I don't like Cuba or Stalin's Russia, as much as I don't like the exploitation policies that lead to our Great Depression and Bush's Great recession.

Humans are the same species, we always have been. We all want the same things, but argue over who should control our resources.

[mordant]

The Bible is quite explicit about morality coming from the authority of god (Moses's tablets delivered from Mt Sainai, and Jesus's sermon on the mount delivered in homage to that act).  Indeed, if there is a morality that is independent from what any god says (as atheists argue) then what need for god? A Christian such as you describe has essentially decided to do away with any need for god. 

Often times, such a Christian who has their own morality separate from their faith will selectively call on authority of their faith to insist on a morality that is in conflict with society's evolving mores. Everyone knew homosexuality was morally wrong, and the Bible seemed to agree. From the Bible, one can learn just how a master is to treat his slaves. And the Bible is quite clear about the subservient roll wives must have to their husbands. The religiously devout are often the last to acknowledge changing morality, and the Bible and resulting Christian faith deserves much of the blame.

Another way to look at this is that if morality is a work product of society rather than religion, then any religion whose morality is very much different from societal morality will be deemed ... wait for it ... immoral. So no religion can afford to be wildly different in its moral code. Generally, the religious morality just has some bolted-on add-ins that society is willing to tolerate, such as "saving yourself for marriage". And this implies that each religion, despite its pretenses to being the protectors and keepers of an unchanging morality, is obliged to evolve morally.

The way religion generally handles this is to change, but to always be at least a couple of generations behind the rest of society. That way by the time a few of the old folks notice the sleight of hand going on, no one pays any attention to them. To the current young and adult working cohorts, the current regime is all they've ever known. The claim that morality is black and white and immutable seems plausible.

This also explains why religion tends to be conservative relative to developments in society, why it resists new insights, particularly when those insights move certain persons or classes of persons from pariah to being embraced -- or certain activities or trains of thought from forbidden to accepted. It's because religion has never innovated or invented anything. It is society that does that, too. Religion is always trying to Keep Things the Same. It's not above borrowing ideas or tropes from other cultures / religions, but even that is testament to its utter bankruptcy when it comes to truly new ideas.

[comet]

people run religions. If we are all the same species than religious people use the same rules as people. and, being people, all the same species, we have some people that are 'immoral". these people are immoral no matter what they believe.

Since the observations show that we are part of a larger more complex system that is misrepresented as "god" and/or "anti-god", we will inevitability have immoral people misusing that fact for personal gain.

now if only we can get the literal "my-god-only" types to have the same influence as the anti-godders, we would be in business.

[Belacqua]

What about a situation where one has a blend of their own morals from experience and the Bible, and is aware that they are doing that? What about those who recognize it is possible to be good for goodness sake while simultaneously saying that it has a basis in their faith? I don't know, it feels like you're oversimplifying both the Bible and morality.

 
The Bible is quite explicit about morality coming from the authority of god (Moses's tablets delivered from Mt Sainai, and Jesus's sermon on the mount delivered in homage to that act).  Indeed, if there is a morality that is independent from what any god says (as atheists argue) then what need for god? A Christian such as you describe has essentially decided to do away with any need for god. 

Often times, such a Christian who has their own morality separate from their faith will selectively call on authority of their faith to insist on a morality that is in conflict with society's evolving mores. Everyone knew homosexuality was morally wrong, and the Bible seemed to agree. From the Bible, one can learn just how a master is to treat his slaves. And the Bible is quite clear about the subservient roll wives must have to their husbands. The religiously devout are often the last to acknowledge changing morality, and the Bible and resulting Christian faith deserves much of the blame.

@Aegon

Interesting ideas!

I'm not exactly sure how to think about a Christian having a morality "independent of their faith." Naturally there are a lot of different flavors of Christians and hardly any agree, but many of the ones I've read would see any morality at all to be an act of their faith. That is, their faith isn't the expression of only those rules explicitly found in the Bible, but merely doing what is right in any given circumstance. 

One way they see it (which is somewhat unfair to Jews, unfortunately) is that the laws of Moses were intended as training for beginners -- something to be outgrown. When they say Jesus has "fulfilled" the Law, it means sort of that he has put the law into the hearts of his followers. The written rules are no longer enough. There's now just this one big imperative, which says: always do the right thing.

As I see it this is actually more difficult than following the 613 mitzvahs. It introduces more anxiety, because if the only injunction is to be good, we can never really know if we've managed that. We can only use our brains to choose, rather than consulting a definitive rulebook. The Sermon on the Mount is more about aspirations than rules. 

Depending on how traditional or liberal a given Christian is, he might look back to more specific rules in the OT or elsewhere. But there are plenty of Christians who aren't sola scriptura literalists who see it as their duty to evaluate new challenges. Using their own judgment will mean they often make stupid choices -- especially, I think, when they take on the values of capitalism more than those of the NT. But it also means that specific rules concerning divorce, gay people, etc., may be re-evaluated by sincere people, who consider the truth of God to be something we are still working toward. 

There is support for this in theology. For example, in The Divine Comedy sins are seen less as moral failings than as psychological quirks which distract us from doing the good things we would naturally do otherwise. After the pilgrim has his sins cleaned out in Purgatory, his guide tells him that from this point he should do whatever he wants, since his desires will always be good ones. That's the ideal state for a Christian, I think. To just be clear on goodness, without rules. 

Simone Weil wrote about situations in which a person acts without thought -- in which the correct thing to do is so obvious to him that no conscious rules or decisions are necessary.

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly, that’s not at all what “fulfilling the law” means in Christian theology. It simply means that he paid the price. Vicarious redemption through the sacrifice of a demigod.

Secondly, “knowing what’s right” in a Christian context is explicitly based on the Christian gods rules.

Not that I don’t understand where you (and there are certainly Christians who imagine something similar) are coming from with the dechristianization of Christianity...., but there’s a reason that clergy is apocalyptic about that trend. The manner in which we attempt to salvage a faith as our own notions change necessarily grinds against the articles of that faith.... but any given faiths innate capacity or ability to change is s solid predictor of success and continuity. It certainly helped Christianity spread, for example. This could be seen as a value of one religion over others. What it can offer that others, potentially, cannot ( or do not to the same degree).

[Little lunch]

I was once a x-tian.
Since then I've been through some horrendous times and pulled through without needing religion. (I couldn't have done it without family though.)
Religion has only one thing left to offer me.
If my kid dies before me, there might be a chance I could get to see her again.
I hope I wouldn't be that stupid if it happened.
But, you know, it's probably better than death, which is what I would want in a world without her.

[EgoDeath]

I was once a x-tian.
Since then I've been through some horrendous times and pulled through without needing religion. (I couldn't have done it without family though.)
Religion has only one thing left to offer me.
If my kid dies before me, there might be a chance I could get to see her again.
I hope I wouldn't be that stupid if it happened.
But, you know, it's probably better than death, which is what I would want in a world without her.

Interesting.

I think, as we've seen in this thread, that most things religion has to offer can be achieved without religion. It forces me to ask, what do people continue to use religion for? I think it's simply people lacking the knowledge that they can find satisfaction to these 'problems' elsewhere.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most of the things religion offers are achieved by other things even among the religious.