Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

bluecell99 wrote: »

Some conservative commentators analysis of Irelands current social problems is depressingly simplistic;add weekly mass and insist on two parent families and the situation will improve dramatically.

It would solve a lot of problems actually if you just think about it for a second:
Religious communities in general have lower suicide rates than in communities which do not practice religion at all. This is a common trend. The countries with the highest suicide rates are also the countries which seem to have made the furthest retreats from church attendance etc.
A family with a mother and a father is simply the way to go, it provides the child with a male and a female role model which is important for development, and it provides them a secure base in which they can live, and it provides them with a loving mother and father which care for them. Already I can see the amount of problems a child can have being significantly reduced.
Also a married couple are far more prepared to deal with unplanned or unexpected pregnancies generally in terms of finances and so on, in comparison with those which are outside of marriage. There are also more possibilities for the couple to actually bring the child into the world rather than abortion, or it seems a more tangible option.

Some such families were severely dysfunctional and violent,something both church and state historically failed to appreciate and acknowledge,leaving many defenceless women and children trapped behind a veneer of conformity .

Yes, but in general a marital situation is far more secure than others.

There is scant regard paid to this fact and this has resulted in high rates of alcoholism and suicide not to mention mass emigration from rural areas - not always based on economic factors.But as long as the couple were "married in the eyes of god" and in the "holy roman church" then alcoholism,sexual gratification with children,beatings,mental torture and gratuitous violence were all ignored.

If one lives by Christian values as in the Biblical text, if one heeds the commandments that God has given them (such as Ephesians 5:13, Proverbs 20 and so on) concerning drunkeness the probability of alcohol abuse has diminished. Just because people in the Catholic Church became lapsed and failed to follow God's will (as happened in other churches) doesn't mean that this is a flaw in Christianity, but rather a flaw in human behaviour.

Religious conservatives must realise that religion was only ever an expression of moral sense and NOT ITS FOUNDATION.

Why must we? We believe God's way is the best way, and I'm not going to bow down on that one. We have been given a new chance of life, and a new chance to put ourselves right with others, whether it is through adherence of social laws such as Proverbs, or moral laws of Christ and the Apostles we have this chance, and I believe it to be the most powerful way of life. Why should I compromise my values just for the sake of appeasing you and people like you? Christian values are foundational to me, I treat them with the respect they deserve, and I hope each and every day I can live by them just a bit better.

The moral sense required to underpin the social eduction of kids should focus on ethics and morality in themselves and not the goddam religious window-dressing.

I believe children should be raised to love their neighbour, not to slander and ridicule others to tear them down, build people in the community up for the forces of good, to hate what is evil and to love what is good, not to gossip, help the needy, the orphans and the widows, I believe that people should honour their mother and father, not to steal, to keep away from sexual immorality so as not to harm others, not to revel in drunkeness, to serve the other in society, to honour God, to keep the Shabbat, not to judge unfairly, not to belittle others, and the countless other guidelines that Christians have to live their lives. Values such as ethics and morality don't come from within, that's nonsense, they have to come from somewhere and I'm happiest deriving mine from the Christian faith.

The conservatives are shrewd enough to the sensitivity of the debate to recognise that authoritarian religion is not the answer.The type which was practised here for decades and duped the gullible masses into believing that organised religion and morality were inextricably linked and effectively one and the same thing.NOT SO.

Not so? I believe in universal morality and I believe it to be evident. Anyone who is a moral relativist will be quick to impose their own condemnation on the actions of those who commit genocide, when in reality it could have been right for them at the time under the model of moral relativism. It crumbles, and it isn't a useful framework to have within society. Do you ever wonder why people say to eachother "You should know better?" and appeal to the others sense of morality? It is because this morality is derived from a single universal source.
So yes for me they are one and the same, I believe the God of Israel gave us our means of conscience and discerning what is true from false, and if you choose to follow Him He will train you in His Spirit to be able to do this, and to be able to follow His laws. As I say I'm still learning and I'm still trying to apply as much of this as possible to my life, but I'm also determined to do so.

Surely respect for others is based upon compassion and this is a human trait and NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

Respect is something that has to be learned. You might be able to respect people without a rigid morality system, but is something that isn't grasped by society unfortunately and one could go on all day listing the events. Morality is learned, it isn't within.

Its time that fans of organised religion took their heads out of the sand and faced reality.Their continuing defence of organised religion as the only bullwark against a breakdown of society is doing a grave disservice to all those who have suffered from abuse and does nothing to advance the cause of proper standards of behaviour and respect for people.

Ever thought that God is the reality? I'm pretty much interested in saying the same thing to you. How can you put up mental barriers to religion and expect to find any value in it at all. Mind you then again, the truth is only learned when one asks for it with a full heart on the God question, so I should really expect that you would reject it.
God is the reality for me. He's as real as your or I, infact probably more real since me and you are only His creation. God has made Himself apparent through life if you are willing to seek Him out that is.
I'm not ashamed of Christianity, because it's transformed lives, changed peoples hearts and allows them to live in a way for eachother that isn't possible anywhere else really. It only takes a look into a community of active believers to really see this. If this is the breakdown of society, I don't know if there is much better really.
As for abuse, check this out.
Church != Christianity
Christianity != Church
Would Jesus advocate abuse? - No, therefore it isn't carried out according to the tenets of the Christian faith, hence not Christian motivated. Mind you I find that this is just an excuse churned out at this stage. Jesus is the centre of the Christian faith, not the Church (i'm not a member of the RCC anyway).
Christianity does so much to respect people, it's more that you have your head in the sand and are unwilling to see the truth about life. So I guess this is essentially a counterpoint to that quote.

If they had as been as quick in confronting the abusers and not condemning those who did not come from 2 parent families perhaps we would not have the bleak situation which is facing society in the present day with increasing crim,lawlessness and thuggery;complete disrespect for others dignity,massive increases in litter control and a huge upsurge in sexual attacks

See last post on how Church isn't the source of Christian teachings, but rather Jesus is. Actually that much makes it crystal clear for those who know what the Bible says to be able to check if what the Church is doing is coherent with the Bible, and if not to seek another church or to question their minister.

yet we are not supposed to talk about these things as the very enforcers of doctrinal and rigid adherance to religion remain detached in luxury surroundings with new cars and attended by domestic servants.They continue to propagate mass going and two parent married families as the answer.

This isn't the case at all in the majority of cases. However just because people have luxury surroundings (which is something I don't approve of myself) doesn't mean that the two parent married families aren't the logical answer when infact they are as I explained near the top of my posts. Marriage is the best surroundings for a child to be raised in and there is still a very very strong case for favouring this to unmarried couples on several fronts. The coming together of a man and a woman as one before God is perhaps one of the most beautiful things that we can experience as people on this earth.

Respect for others can only come from ethics awareness at an early age and a true and certin knowledge that transgressors against other peoples property,personal space or health will be severely dealt with. - and those guilty will not be able to hide behind free legal aid and they "came from a broken home,Judge" baloney.

At an early age? You still haven't explained how these ethics are meant to be imparted. I personally consider the Biblical text to be the cornerstone of how I want to apply moral rules to my life. I'm nearly 20, and I'm still seeking to know more about how to live my life, so I want to know how on earth do you possibly think that morals are innate?
The problem with your theory is is that it promotes an idea where people don't review their morals, and check them, and see what can they do better as people. This is something that is promoted by mainstream religion and is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for religious ethics, the fact that you are constantly checking to see if you are leading your life right, and if you are not what can you do better. This concept is unheard of in secular circles really, and if it is there I'd like for some of you guys to explain how you do this as I'd find it particularly interesting.
As for broken homes, they are a reality, people suffer greatly due to divorce, and due to adultery and other such things, I really think that it is a bit cruel of you to underestimate the great pain that people feel. It is these people I hope that can know God through their suffering and find peace.

True morality can only be formed from an early age with the certin knowlege of non-compliance.It should have nothing to do with whether you come from a one or two parent background or whether they went to mass.

What is this early age nonsense? Morality is something that we all have to deal with throughout our whole lives until we see the grave. It shouldn't be something you stop learning when you are young. It has everything to do with where you learned it from.
A two parent background helps, theres no denying that. Growing up with both a male and female rolemodel helps in what one learns about society, this is even discussed in psychology.
As for going to church. Going to church is only a tiny part of faith. I believe reading the Bible, the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles, the Old Testament narratives and moral Torah laws can all help us grow as people. You're right, if you think that faith is only about going to church it is lacking! Faith for me is every day, or I'm trying to make it every day, instead of just Sunday.

Very long post in response to some of our media commentators with their slick new presentation skills and ready access to journalists.

I doubt any of the media commentators [I presume that David Quinn is one of the ones you are referring to - I personally think he's a wise man in a lot of ways] will be registered in boards.ie

You know who ye are.Lets hope ye read this at least and realise some people will NEVER fall for your religion line.

Yes I know who I am
Unfortunate that you are so closedminded but such is the way of life. I hope you learned something from my post about how Christians are really instead of the outer appearance that you have gathered from some people. I just want to let you know, if the Church has let you down, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus has let you down. There are also more churches in Ireland than Catholicism. I hope that you search and find God one day, irrespective of what Christian congregation you lean to or any.

Húrin wrote: »

Curiously, it's the opening argument of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Curiously Paul the Apostle also argues that Gentiles had the capability of following the law without the law in Romans ch 2, so I don't see how that would cause a believer to stumble or be any way a problem for one to deal with.

Jakkass wrote: »

A family with a mother and a father is simply the way to go, it provides the child with a male and a female role model which is important for development, and it provides them a secure base in which they can live, and it provides them with a loving mother and father which care for them. Already I can see the amount of problems a child can have being significantly reduced.
Also a married couple are far more prepared to deal with unplanned or unexpected pregnancies generally in terms of finances and so on, in comparison with those which are outside of marriage. There are also more possibilities for the couple to actually bring the child into the world rather than abortion, or it seems a more tangible option.

I agree with most of that, but that the problem is that some what childish attitude Christianity takes to sex and marriage (no sex, at all, before marriage) puts pressure on couples to marry young, without gaining the experience of long term, and sexual, relationships.

This leads to a higher level of marital break down and divorce, as the people getting married are inexperience with relationships and how to tell if a relationship is the one they want to spend their life with

Which is never a good idea for the children. And when a marriage does break down the religious stigma of divorce, the some what nonsensical idea that it is the selfish option, often keeps a completely miserable couple together, the stress of which cannot help but effect the kids.

Like abstinence only (teach kids not to have sex, they won't have sex, they won't get pregnant, they won't catch STDs, problem solved) it all sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life. The most frustrating thing though about Christian style morality is that answer for when it doesn't work is along the lines of "well you didn't do what we told you to do, did you?"

Jakass,

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
-Exodus 21

What am I misinterpretting about this? You're allowed to beat your slaves, but if they die, then you should be punished.

How is that good treatment?

I think the point is that not only is slavery ok, but that beating a slave is ok as long as you don't kill or maim him.

Dave! wrote: »

No Jakass I didn't read your article, nor did I read the rest of the passage

To your detriment.

Dave! wrote: »

However, the quote that I DID post says that the slave owner can strike his slave and not be punished. Regardless of any injuries that occur or do not occur, you said that slaves are treated "very well".

The quote that you quoted out of context without even taking into account many of the other things are in the passage, including the rights that slaves were even endowed in the Israelite system which are discussed in Exodus 21:1-11.

Dave! wrote: »

So you condone the hitting of slaves, and think that it's okay so long as they aren't killed, and so long as they don't lose an eye or a tooth? I guess I'll just chop off my slaves' ears when they're out of line.

I don't and neither does God. Nowhere in that passage or in any other passage does God condone this. Infact God tells us that those who own slaves should realise that indeed God is their master and He shows no partiality.

Ephesians 6:9 wrote:

And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

And furthermore, the quote you posted says that if the slave owner does destroy the slave's eye or tooth, then the slave should be freed. But what happens to the slave owner? Is there a subsequent quote that says that the owner should be punished for injuring them?

Indeed, and the Torah also goes on the the book of Deuteronomy to give the slaves freedom if they flee from their masters. Knowing what the Torah actually says of slavery is a good way to actually not take it out of context.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16 wrote:

Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them.

Interesting, there is even redress for the slave in cases of mistreatment. The Torah protects them in various ways. Now are you starting to see that Torah slavery is rather different from the slavery of colonialism, or the slavery that they were under in the time of the Egyptians. If you don't you're really just avoiding the truth.