Church influence down, morals changed?

zanador

completedit wrote: »

Very interesting topic, people will use some scandals and say that the church has no morals blah blah but we need structure, we need something. We've basically replaced religion with liberalism and consumerism which are all well and good but have potential problems as well.

God is dead but what do we replace him with?

It's very interesting. I read something once, can't remember where, that Michael Jackson (as an example at the time) could be a god in 2,000 for the fame he has and the way people will talk about him. That's changed obviously but it makes one wonder.

And we do replace the idea of 'god' with something - that so far has been the human cycle over history. Maybe humanism will become a god figure in a few thousand years?

Strumms

completedit wrote: »

Very interesting topic, people will use some scandals and say that the church has no morals blah blah but we need structure, we need something. We've basically replaced religion with liberalism and consumerism which are all well and good but have potential problems as well.

God is dead but what do we replace him with?

The only structure society needs is a structure of decency, honesty, openness and compassion. The church’s track record in adherence and advocacy in that direction is lacking.. they can’t be trusted.

Also what you are referring to as ‘scandals’, were in fact very serious crimes, both perpetrated and covered up over decades.

The church provides little of anything worthwhile...The church pretty much now has no more influence or appeal than your local rugby club, less probably...

If you get up in the morning, and say “I need structure”... I’d suggest going to a building site ahead of a church.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

The only structure society needs is a structure of decency, honesty, openness and compassion. The church’s track record in adherence and advocacy in that direction is lacking.. they can’t be trusted.

Also what you are referring to as ‘scandals’, were in fact very serious crimes, both perpetrated and covered up over decades.

The church provides little of anything worthwhile...The church pretty much now has no more influence or appeal than your local rugby club, less probably...

If you get up in the morning, and say “I need structure”... I’d suggest going to a building site ahead of a church.

All we have done really is replaced the church with the church of Woke. Complete with guilt, shame and hypocrisy.

And all societies need structure. Some kind of moral basis shared by all. The church for all its faults did in fact do some good. The church of woke is merely performative.

( I say all this as an atheist).

Mad_maxx

Del2005 wrote: »

Considering the scandals that have come out about the Catholic church in the last 20 years they never had any morals. What happened then was that everything was hidden, mother and baby homes for sex before marriage, and the church encouraged it.

a small minority of fiends in the catholic church should not mean we completely dismiss the stability in society that a strong church provided

im a non believer too by the way

Mad_maxx

zanador wrote: »

Yes, they definitely have, since the fall of the church we have started caring for our LGBTQ communities, have supported women in their choices, have allowed unhappy couple to divorce, and also are hopefully on the road to stop judging women for having sex. That's a bit far off though I'd say from some posters..

Anyhoo, our morals have changed to more care for each other and less judgement on actions so my answer is yes.

just as much judgementalism about today , only difference is the moral guardians of today are the WOKE media and the rest of the PC clergy

katiek102010

Deleted User wrote: »

All we have done really is replaced the church with the church of Woke. Complete with guilt, shame and hypocrisy.

And all societies need structure. Some kind of moral basis shared by all. The church for all its faults did in fact do some good. The church of woke is merely performative.

( I say all this as an atheist).

100% agree.

completedit

Strumms wrote: »

The only structure society needs is a structure of decency, honesty, openness and compassion. The church’s track record in adherence and advocacy in that direction is lacking.. they can’t be trusted.

Also what you are referring to as ‘scandals’, were in fact very serious crimes, both perpetrated and covered up over decades.

The church provides little of anything worthwhile...The church pretty much now has no more influence or appeal than your local rugby club, less probably...

If you get up in the morning, and say “I need structure”... I’d suggest going to a building site ahead of a church.

Ok, but how much of those values come from Christendom? On the individual level, all we need is these values but what drives these values? I'm not even sure what I think, perhaps Christianity has taken us to where we need and we are fine to pursue are own path using the principles laid down over centuries but I wouldn't be positive either. Society needs structure. Society needs organization. The individual can support the systems for so long. One or two generations would be my guess. Who knows what happens after?

Neitzche was speaking in the 19th century and so far European society has been okay. But we also had two of the most destructive world wars, facism, Nazism, Stalinism, things have been okay but is this a brief period of stability or the status quo?

Strumms

completedit wrote: »

Ok, but how much of those values come from Christendom? On the individual level, all we need is these values but what drives these values? I'm not even sure what I think, perhaps Christianity has taken us to where we need and we are fine to pursue are own path using the principles laid down over centuries but I wouldn't be positive either. Society needs structure. Society needs organization. The individual can support the systems for so long. One or two generations would be my guess. Who knows what happens after?

Neitzche was speaking in the 19th century and so far European society has been okay. But we also had two of the most destructive world wars, facism, Nazism, Stalinism, things have been okay but is this a brief period of stability or the status quo?

Does it though ?

I’m not sure Christendom can take absolute ownership or responsibility for the good in people and society though.

As relates to NOW, their world influence has trailed off and drained away...because of their actions and inactions as well as crimes.

You can and will learn said values if handed down from your parents, reinforced by and right through your education... my parents and education thought me way more than a church...a million times more, about every aspect of life.

So this education and organization just comes from an alternative source...an appropriate source.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

2lazytogetup wrote: »

im not religious, but think the aul JC was cool. he said be nice to each other, forgive etc. probably good teachings.

Bill and Ted sid the asme thing. So, by extension, if you haven't seen their most excellend movies, dude, you are so uncool.

ancapailldorcha

Shame aul JC didn't take an interest in his priests when they were molesting children and his pope when he was promoting and waging wars.

Antares35

Hardly an institution to look up to now. Protecting and relocating known paedophiles so they could hurt and abuse children elsewhere. Generations of kids terrified to go to school because of the Christian brothers treatment of them. Telling women whose babies died before baptism that they didn't go to heaven. Baptising a tiny innocent baby because it was born with sin. Requiring women to be "cleansed" after childbirth. Denying women reproductive autonomy for years. Telling them it was sinful to refuse their husbands. Swindling life savings out of stupid aul wans who thought it would get them to heaven quicker.

I don't want to join that club. Besides, if you need an institution to tell you right from wrong, it isn't religion you're lacking, it's a moral compass.

In addition, I live a much better and more charitable life as an atheist than some of the prícks I know in my locality who treat people like rubbish and still mindlessly hug the altar every Sunday.

Snake Plisken

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Shame aul JC didn't take an interest in his priests when they were molesting children and his pope when he was promoting and waging wars.

At least the Crusades drove the invading Moors back out of Europe, could do with them back to protect Europe's borders these days!

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Shame aul JC didn't take an interest in his priests when they were molesting children and his pope when he was promoting and waging wars.

Far more wars caused by secularism in the last few years.

Antares35 wrote: »

I don't want to join that club. Besides, if you need an institution to tell you right from wrong, it isn't religion you're lacking, it's a moral compass.

Well that's right, the person who needs to be told to be more moral or to expect some reward in the next life isn't as moral internally as the person who doesnt. But maybe for society we need some of the moral bribery.

I once watched a Netflix documentary on life inmates in American prisons. No chance, or little, or parole. Most were extremely bitter, but the guys who turned to Christianity in prison were happy enough, and were helping other inmates. So it does work.

AutoTuning

I actually think we’re far more moral. If you look at politics or debates on any topic in Ireland in recent years, they’re more empathetic and reasonable and have a lot more of a social conscience than that would have had in the 1980s and dramatically more so than the 1950s or earlier.

We’re less pious, buttoned up and conservative, but those things don’t equate to morality.

Horrendous stuff happened here during our most pious and religious years and there was more focus on an outward appearance of morality than actually having morals and values of decency. That’s how we ended up protecting institutions instead of people’s rights and dignity.

I’m not even convinced that we were religious. We were pious and obsessed with social respectability and our society’s mores were often absolutist, inflexible, judgmental and lacked any sense of compassion.

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Far more wars caused by secularism in the last few years.



Well that's right, the person who needs to be told to be more moral or to expect some reward in the next life isn't as moral internally as the person who doesnt. But maybe for society we need some of the moral bribery.

I once watched a Netflix documentary on life inmates in American prisons. No chance, or little, or parole. Most were extremely bitter, but the guys who turned to Christianity in prison were happy enough, and were helping other inmates. So it does work.

On inmates with little else in their lives. Hardly a litmus test for society as a whole. I very much doubt that any significant level of compliance, adherence to the law and general inclination to treat others well can be attributed to people looking for the best seat in the house when they pass on.

There is a new religion to fill the God-shaped hole. It is called political correctness. We all have to say and do the prescribed things. Travellers are an ethic group. Refugees welcome here. Believe women. Love is love.

Woe betide anyone who disagrees with the new doctrine. They need to be dragged around and publicly shamed into grovelling apologies, or risk having their careers ended.

It's the same cult of group compliance and shaming, just with different labels.

suicide_circus

Basically our morals are still essentially Christian. "Do unto others..." Matthew 7:12

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a new religion to fill the God-shaped hole. It is called political correctness. We all have to say and do the prescribed things. Travellers are an ethic group. Refugees welcome here. Believe women. Love is love.

Woe betide anyone who disagrees with the new doctrine. They need to be dragged around and publicly shamed into grovelling apologies, or risk having their careers ended.

It's the same cult of group compliance and shaming, just with different labels.

That's not true. Some of us are very capable of debating with them and using informed logic and thought to hightlight the flaws in their logic and dangers in their ideas (where the exist - we don't have to exagerate them). Others aren't and have to moan about not being able to say what they want.

As I've said countless times before, "can't" as in not able to, not "can't" is in not allowed to.

Jim2007

Although the OP probably did not phrase it very well and some people have taken it as an opportunity to go off on a tangent about their favorite religious hobby horse, the OP has a valid point.

In Europe we have relayed very much on the Christian religion as the basis for teaching civics and we still do today. While most European citizens no longer practice their religion, most still have one and want their kids to hit all the religions high points of their religion, so young citizens still go through the same process today.

One of the reasons a country or the EU works is because we all have the same basic value system. For instance it goes without saying that we will not admit a new EU member state that supports the death penalty. There is no debate on it, it’s just how we feel about the topic.

I don’t believe for a minute that all the people who voted for Trump or BREXIT are stupid, but I do believe that their sense of civic duty has been blunted to such an extent that lies, cheating and doing what ever is necessary in areas of public policy are acceptable. And having a large percentage of the community practicing that “religion” has serious consequences.

So in a post religious society, how do we go about (a) defining our civic duties and (b) teach them to such an extent that they will be followed to the same degree?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

suicide_circus wrote: »

Basically our morals are still essentially Christian. "Do unto others..." Matthew 7:12

Yeah, my BDSM troupe has the same motto.

It'll be interesting to see mass attendance figures after the pandemic. The oldest generation are entering lotteries to attend currently but I'd say most others won't bother once it's possible for people in general to go back.

Will people's morality change, hopefully for the better.There's undoubtedly a sea change in irish society. Many villages were focused around the church. That's not coming back, and that can be lamented in the same way as whole villages coming together to bring in a harvest.

The authority of the Church being destroyed was Ireland's Berlin Wall coming down. 'All's Changed, changed utterly: a terrible beauty is born.'

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see mass attendance figures after the pandemic. The oldest generation are entering lotteries to attend currently but I'd say most others won't bother once it's possible for people in general to go back.

Will people's morality change, hopefully for the better.There's undoubtedly a sea change in irish society. Many villages were focused around the church. That's not coming back, and that can be lamented in the same way as whole villages coming together to bring in a harvest.

The authority of the Church being destroyed was Ireland's Berlin Wall coming down. 'All's Changed, changed utterly: a terrible beauty is born.'

A grarantee you, very few people in Berlin miss the wall. I'm guessing very few miss the authority of the chruch, too.

eviltwin

I wouldn’t equate religion with morality. Some of the most religious people have none. And who gets to decide what’s moral anyway? Why is it better to be a virgin on your wedding day, does that makes you a better person than someone who has had sexual experience? Does being straight make you a more moral person than someone who is gay? There is nothing stopping anyone going to church and holding onto official church teaching on these things but it’s better that we have become a bit more open minded and tolerant as a society.

Mad_maxx

AutoTuning wrote: »

I actually think we’re far more moral. If you look at politics or debates on any topic in Ireland in recent years, they’re more empathetic and reasonable and have a lot more of a social conscience than that would have had in the 1980s and dramatically more so than the 1950s or earlier.

We’re less pious, buttoned up and conservative, but those things don’t equate to morality.

Horrendous stuff happened here during our most pious and religious years and there was more focus on an outward appearance of morality than actually having morals and values of decency. That’s how we ended up protecting institutions instead of people’s rights and dignity.

I’m not even convinced that we were religious. We were pious and obsessed with social respectability and our society’s mores were often absolutist, inflexible, judgmental and lacked any sense of compassion.

Politically correct piety is borderline an Olympic sport nowadays, thing's haven't changed that much with respect of your last paragraph

_Brian

Morals of society have changed but who says the morals imposed by the church were correct for society anyway.

ancapailldorcha

Snake Plisken wrote: »

At least the Crusades drove the invading Moors back out of Europe, could do with them back to protect Europe's borders these days!

If this were anything but edgy scutter, one would wonder why you're not doing anything about it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Far more wars caused by secularism in the last few years.

So... you're just going to ignore the entirely of human history then? Blair, Bush & Putin are all Christians as far as I know so even a point this cherrypicked is blatantly wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If this were anything but edgy scutter, one would wonder why you're not doing anything about it.



So... you're just going to ignore the entirely of human history then? Blair, Bush & Putin are all Christians as far as I know so even a point this cherrypicked is blatantly wrong.

Didn't Bush go so far as to say God actaully told him to invade Iraq?

ancapailldorcha

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Didn't Bush go so far as to say God actaully told him to invade Iraq?

As I recall, yes. Funny how the defenders of Christianity will gleefully ignore all of it save for the handy bits they can use to justify atrocities and oppression.

B.A._Baracus

The church got too greedy and doing horrible things became the norm for a lot of priests (alter boys and the like) so the churches popularity going down was always gonna happen when it all came out and people having enough.
Sure didn't Martin Luther have enough centuries ago as the priests were going around all rich. Guess it's rinse and repeat.

I get what the op is saying tho. But the question should have been phrased - "religious influence down, morals changed?" - that is a very good question.
Let's all be honest, this world as it is right now isn't all peace and sunshine. It's a rat race and dog eat dog. Every man for himself and all that. I would not be surprised to hear more people DONT believe in god today.

So if you truly believe there is nothing what's morals? When you go down that's it. So why not do what you want? Plenty of liars, cheaters, users, abusers, back-stabbers, murderers, rapists etc out there already have that mentality.

I know, I know, what's the alternative? back to religious control? A lot of people died in the name of God so something is broke when it comes to religious beliefs and people.

My two cents to the question "religious influence down, morals changed?" - I would agree.

ancapailldorcha

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The church got too greedy and doing horrible things became the norm for a lot of priests (alter boys and the like) so the churches popularity going down was always gonna happen when it all came out and people having enough.
Sure didn't Martin Luther have enough centuries ago as the priests were going around all rich. Guess it's rinse and repeat.

I get what the op is saying tho. But the question should have been phrased - "religious influence down, morals changed?" - that is a very good question.
Let's all be honest, this world as it is right now isn't all peace and sunshine. It's a rat race and dog eat dog. Every man for himself and all that. I would not be surprised to hear more people DONT believe in god today.

So if you truly believe there is nothing what's morals? When you go down that's it. So why not do what you want? Plenty of liars, cheaters, users, abusers, back-stabbers, murderers, rapists etc out there already have that mentality.

I know, I know, what's the alternative? back to religious control? A lot of people died in the name of God so something is broke when it comes to religious beliefs and people.

My two cents to the question "religious influence down, morals changed?" - I would agree.

There's far too many blatantly incorrect statements here.

Do you think it wasn't every man for himself in the dark ages or in the stone age? Seriously? It's always been there and all Christianity does is to justify this. God helps those who help themselves after all.

Morals are down to the individual to decide and certainly not for an organisation that employs and defends child molesters to have the final say on.

If you want to know why people are ditching God, look at his Church. It's putrid, squalid and venal. I see no reason to continue supporting it.