• Oka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Kalash@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That jesus dude had some pretty liberal thoughts

          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.

          • folkrav@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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?

            • Kalash@feddit.ch
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • folkrav@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The point was “do religions have any good in them”, not “are religious texts still relevant”.

                • Kalash@feddit.ch
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, that was not the point. They point was “do Relgions have good morals” and the answere is clearly no.

                  • folkrav@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.

    • LapGoat@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.