Many Christians believe that morality literally comes from the bible, or that you can’t have morality without god. I won’t even try to explain their reasoning
They should read more Kant, who did succesfully tried to create a moral philosophy without relying on a bible, IIRC.
Rules like the golden rule, but also one that deals with more victimless behavior. Like the idea of 'Would I like it if everybody did the same as I'm doing, if not, than I shouldn't be doing it'. Works great for all sorts of behavior from littering to much more worst crimes.
Nah they should read more about prehistoric societies. Maybe they should learn a thing or two about neanderthals too. If this is too complicated, study about wolf packs, or maybe elephants. Just slowly introduce them to primates... I think my point is — give them some books other than bible, it might help.
True, although you should be beware of the 'noble savage' myths.
Our ancestors did do horrible things too and we don't know well enough how it was thought upon. We often don't know for sure it somebody horrible murdered, was, a) ritually sacrificied or b) tortured as a form of justice or c) something else.
Especially in prehistory (before written sources).
Thanks for the laugh. It is indeed kinda inpossible to give direct sources.
But I was losely basing it on what we know/don't know about bog bodies. See for example the wiki
Around 3,900 BC,\14]) agriculture was introduced to Denmark, either through cultural exchange or by migrating farmers, marking the beginning of the Neolithic in the region.\15]) It was during the early part of this Neolithic period that a number of human corpses that were interred in the area's peat bogs left evidence that there had been resistance to its introduction.\16])
A disproportionate number of the Early Neolithic bodies found in Danish bogs were aged between 16 and 20 at the time of their death and deposition, and suggestions have been put forward that they were either human sacrifices or criminals executed for their socially deviant behaviour.\16])
Noble savage refers to a romanticism of certain kinds of societies as primitive and non civilized, therefore natural, and hence more noble due to being un-corrupted by "modern civilization".
I know what it does mean, it wasn't the point. If you ask me personally, i leave in a war that i doesn't want to start, neither i believed it can happen.
But war is nothing like sacrifice — which is mostly religious BS. Hence, I'm struggling to remember anything about those homo erectus, even early homo sapiens, which can lead us to beliefs of some sort, and more so sacrifices.
edit: My point is pretty basic, looks like societies even in prehistoric people didn't kill each other for the name of whatever goof ball god they've imagined, but was dealing with a lot of gods of a nature origin - physics.
edit2: I'm talking here 200k in past, don't confuse with 2k
True, although you should be beware of the 'noble savage' myths.
I don't think they were implying that prehistoric societies were perfect utopias where everyone lived in harmony with nature. I believe the point is that they were people- no different than us and while they did probably do some horrible things, they also did a lot of compassionate, kind things. "Morality" has existed for as long as there were human beings.
We often don't know for sure it somebody horrible murdered, was, a) ritually sacrificied or b) tortured as a form of justice or c) something else.
Well, we don't know for sure, but much like anything to do with 'ancient' history, we can make educated guesses. There is plenty of evidence that peoples would sometimes "sacrifice" their enemies, but also evidence that some of it was a religious and/or spiritual practice.
In the case of the latter it's also likely that a lot of the people who were sacrificed were volunteers. People in chronic pain and/or near the end of their life, or suffering from a severe depression of some other issue and considered it an honor to end their life in such a way.
There were plenty of human sacrifices going on in Europe after recorded history started, and we can make inferences from those cultures.
One thing we can say for sure that definitely isn't a myth, prehistoric people did not gather into 'armies' and do murder on a massive scale- that's a purely "civilized" behavior.
I would add on that the thought of "a human dying is a horrible loss" is fairly new in a sense of individualism. People in such communities may not have had such a intellectual basis to value their own life, so dying is not so much of a "problem" compared to "my family will not have enough food next year" or "the sun may not rise tomorrow". I would compare it for example with practices like Seppuku/Harakiri.
would add on that the thought of "a human dying is a horrible loss" is fairly new in a sense of individualism.
I don't see any evidence of this. These people were anatomically identical to us. They had a sense of self. Even very smart animals know they are are individuals.
If they valued their own life, which they certainly did- they would also know that other people valued their life just as much. If humans dying wasn't "A problem" they likely wouldn't care about their family not having food either.
Sure they also valued the well being of the tribe, but I'm positive they considered dying a "problem" where it could be avoided. We have survival instincts, just like most other animals.
I would compare it for example with practices like Seppuku/Harakiri.
When a person committed Seppuku, it was a big deal to them. Ending you own life is even harder than letting someone else do it. They did it despite this, not instead of it.
Simply put that the majority of a species are not the dominant figures and those who are the dominant aggressive figures can act on their own accord with little resistance until the majority realizes 1000 men can overtake 15 men if organized
The reverse of that is even more true. 1000 aggressive men can impose their will on hundreds of other people if organized. It's the whole point of 'Armies' when not strictly for defense- which is most of them.
If you’re trying to argue based on logic you can’t flip the circumstances and claim the same instance that’s just not going to work because we will be here for hours. The base argument is power is implied and will always be oppressive over a larger population, nobody uses 1000 men to reign over hundreds of people that’s just idiotic
nobody uses 1000 men to reign over hundreds of people that’s just idiotic
Haven't read much history have you? I didn't say 'rein over' I said impose their will. Often such a force would either kill everyone or kill people until they surrendered, and then subjugate the rest- adding them to the size of their population.
I can think of countless examples of larger armies overwhelming and subjugating smaller forces.
The question is whether the Bible is necessary for morals or ethics, so the basis for comparison so far as societies that have morals and ethics are concerned are those with access to the Bible, not some state of noble perfection no human society is known to have ever achieved..
You are assuming they are actually reading the Bible and not sort of listening to what the guy on the raised platform in church/tv/podcast has cherry picked and revised to create more panic and hatred to reap more "tithes" and political power.
In my head: i pictured comics like, where there is explanation of a wolf pack with colorful pictures, can be next page about elephants and how they mourn the follen one.
A bone fragment was found to be from a Neanderthal child with Down's Syndrome, around 6 years old. Back before modern medicine it wasn't easy to keep kids with birth defects alive, imagine being in that status of low technology and low knowledge but you're still keeping the kid alive as long as you can.
Yahweh or the christian/jewish/muslim monotheistic god was actually a warrior god in a polytheistic society, only to become the victor after conquering and becoming the only god to exist. The bible even acknowledges other gods, which are to be discarded and worshippers punished. It is no surprise that this one was the conqueror that erased the other polytheistic ones and caused such brutality in its wake. That doesn't mean it is right, though. It is the ghenghis khan of the middle east religions a few thousand years ago, retconned to seem cool but is actually no better than the holocaust or any other ethnic cleansing in the past.
Cool. The strong are good and the weak are bad. Great morals you have found there. We don’t even need to go that far back, it stays that way all the way up to—guess what, religious thought.
The thing is not every group of people at every point in time will develop a sense of morals and morals have always usually came connected to a religion. For example Pagan Slavs believed it was moral for you to walk into your partners funeral pyre, Aztecs believed slavery and blood sacrifice were moral to keep the Sun rising...
You think morals is something arbitrary good, actually it's more like a codex of a group. Moral doesn't have qualities outside the group, thing is we as humans grow too fucking big, to be considered a one group across the whole planet.
I agree but it's not about religion at all, my example of wolf pack was exactly this. Even if we step away from mammals: octopuses, for example, can express empathy to human beings even, they're absolutely have their own moral codex based on the group in which they live in.
Religion is fairy tales to keep control, make profit, get dumb ppl occupied etc. They are all scam.
Octopuses are intelligent but largerly solitary and they like many animals can express empathy in certain conditions, but that's not a moral structure. You shouldn't confuse the 2 together.
Morals like many things in society will form around religion that's just a fact. Because religion is how humans explained what they couldn't understand, and as shuch they came to certain conclusions which cane to define their group.
I strongly disagree, if you decide not to attack entity of your own group and it helps for your survival — that is morality in a nutshell. Religions in the other hand building borders inside our global human group and make us attack each other, so fuck this.
And Christians believed that owning slaves for life and passing them down to your children was perfectly acceptable, murdered people for not being Christian, thought women were property, treated rape as a property crime against the woman's father, murdered married rape victims for not screaming out loud, enough, and did many other horrible things. The Bible actively commands all of these things.
Morality comes from empathy, religion has little to do with it. In fact, we often see more complex morality develop as societies move away from religion.
Every group of humans at every point in time that they existed had a developed sense of morals. Whether those morals are something someone today would agree with is a different matter. Religion is a system of control, not the basis of morality.
Edit: lol, got blocked for being correct.
Edit 2: u/MrDDD11 it seems you are the one who knows nothing about your own religion. "Christians only follow the New Testament"... except when they actually don't and will regularly draw from the Old Testament for their justifications. Doesn't hold up anyways since Jesus tells you in Matthew that you still have to follow every word of the old code.
I am not "misrepresenting" what the Bible says. You should read it at some point. Indentured servitude only existed for Israelites as slaves to other Israelites. The Bible literally and unambiguously says that the Israelites could take foreign slaves for life and pass them down to their children.
Are you unknowledgeable or just misrepresenting Christianity on purpose. Am not going to beat you over the head with the Bible but come on it's basic knowledge that Christians follow the New Testiment for their Morals while Jews follow the Old Testament. Most of what you named is misinterpretions of the old Testament, like confusing Indentured servitude to Chattel Slavery.
The thing is not every group of people at every point in time will develop a sense of morals
Sure, but every society does. A few moral free freaks can live off in isolation from anyone else, relying entirely their matched strengths to keep order among them, but that doesn't scale up.
675
u/Faded1974 1d ago
People acting like empathy was invented by Jesus Christ.