What are some limitation of morality based on religion?
If you mean limitations with the argument that religion is the source of morality, then you should read The God Delusion. There is a section about this topic. In it, there is a study involving people being asked questions with a morally right answer, such as "Five people are dying from five different organ failures. Should you take these organs from a healthy man sitting in the lobby of the hospital?" The "right" answer is "no." These questions become more complex and there are many. Anyways, the results showed that people who are not religious did not do any differently than people who are. One might say that an atheist got his morality from religions of the past, which were then considered to be truth. This is refuted by that study, because they did the same thing with a tribe that had absolutely no exposure to any religion (of course with questions involving situations that they would understand) and the results were the same. Therefore, it is simply human nature to be moral.
If you meant what are the limitations of basing your morality on religion, then there aren't really any. What most religions teach about what is right and wrong is good. I just don't believe that religion is what created morality. I believe people have always had a sense of morality and that it was then incorporated into religion. But if someone bases their morals off of religion, they'll probably be a good person.
If you meant what are the limitations of basing your morality on religion, then there aren't really any. What most religions teach about what is right and wrong is good. I just don't believe that religion is what created morality. I believe people have always had a sense of morality and that it was then incorporated into religion. But if someone bases their morals off of religion, they'll probably be a good person.
2 people found this useful
Since religions have a God with a set of rules to base sin upon then the reasons for the commandments cant be God-Created so who created morality in the first place?
Answer Let's back up a little first. There is a difference between eternal laws and God. The eternal laws simply are. They are the laws of existence. God exists within the parameters of eternal laws. He is our Heavenly Father, of whom our spirits are born. We came to this earth and received a mor…tal physical body. But we have been promised an opportunity to be able to return to live with him with a resurrected body in this place of harmony. We give our children "rules" that we expect them to obey so that they can become loving adults and responsible, productive members of their community. To a child not all of these rules seem directly related to being a productive member of society - such as having to be in bed by 8:30, or having to wait until after dinner to eat dessert. Even as they approach adulthood we set curfews for them that they rarely think are fair or reflective of their own perceived maturity. None-the-less we know that if they will obey, in time, they will come to their own understanding of the wisdom of these rules. God has likewise given us "commandments" to help us navigate the eternal laws. If our child doesn't understand the reason we have made a rule, we expect him to ask us, not just ignore it for lack of understanding. Sometimes their level of reasoning is not developed enough for a thorough discussion of the matter and must be put into simpler terms. Heavenly Father will help us to gain an understanding of his commandments if we but ask with real intent and are patient enough to let him show us. "Ask and ye shall receive". I think this applies to knowledge perhaps more than anything else. Obeying the commandments keeps us in harmony with God, in communion with him, and on that path back to him and that great eternal round. Of course the greatest commandment is to love him. Obedience to all other commandments naturally follows out of a great love for him. When we have sinned, we have created a chaos that moves us out of harmony with God/the eternal laws, and that must be rectified. Answer Not all religions have a God. Consider Buddhism where the Buddha explicitly said he was not a god and that the existence or otherwise of god is not necessary to the practise of Buddhism. Answer This is one loaded question, but an excellent one and it's a good sign you are doing a lot of thinking and searching for a good belief system. We are created to know right from wrong and God gave us the freedom to use our minds for good/evil. You see it all around you. When you think evil is gaining by a lot, along comes a miracle. If we all gave up and decided because bad things happen to good people then evil would simply win. As worn out and sad as we can get at times it's proof there is a Supreme Being out there that keeps us putting one foot in front of the other no matter how tired we are. If we are really listening and looking we will realize we are truly never really alone. As a Christian myself I am always reminding myself not to come across pompous or with all the answers as it does say in the Bible that we should not do so. I remember the quote that says, "For those who have not sinned cast the first stone." Well, I'm almost 65 and I haven't seen any stone throwing yet! Man makes the changes in morality. If you study the Puritans it was a form of control. It was the Puritans (so-called clean of heart) that the true meaning of religion slipped between the cracks and burned so-called witches at the stake. We can go back into history and see how much of this went on in the name of God as well as wars. God didn't ask any such thing from any of us. Each one of us has the power to see things in a clear light as to whether they are evil or not (not just because someone is different in their values, religion, etc.) and change things if we wish too or, we can simply sit back and let things go astray. It's up to each one of us. It could be something as simple of helping a lonely person get help, sitting with the sick, helping the poor, being a good friend, or simply loving those close to you. You don't have to be famous and make a name of yourself to be counted on the list God may have. Answer Since the original question postulated (I think) something about religions having a god that created rules upon which the definition of sin is based, but "the commandments can't be from God," let me step in and say that the presumption is incorrect. The definition of morality comes from the definition of sin, both of which come from God. . A point well taken, but, some people can twist what they feel is moral or immoral. Of course there are the 10 Commandments which was a message from God, but to some these Commandments are confusing (such as: An eye for an eye.) The bottom line is, there is something in each of us from birth from God (the creator) that can lead us down the path of what we know is good or evil. Answer This is why the language of mind is going to become more and more pertinent. A sin is a mistake where no learning has occurred and therefore is repeated. If you choose to take the time and effort to learn about the universal laws, then you can make use of these things rather than simply continue to debate and speculate or worse, take someone else's word rather than investigate. Learn how to take believing into knowing. Jesus represents that part of each of us. All of this information is available to anyone who will ask the questions that are really important. The commandments are universal laws that wait for your understanding through the universal language of mind. Language of mind can be applied to any of the major holy works which provide the same pictures. You will have many pleasant surprises on this journey. Rather than be weighed down with conflicts in beliefs, go find out what is. Another Answer Moral laws were independently created by co-living groups of people (that's why in different places moral laws are different), based upon, which actions brought negative effects and consequences, and which not. For example let's take the highest sin in Christianity: Killing a person. Now let's see some of the bad consequences such action may have: 1)Loss of this person's physical and mind capabilities and skills: The amount of physical and mental work, plus special skills, like reading, cooking e.t.c. this person could do are lost. 2)Loss of this person's personality: You are no more able to talk to this person, learn more about him/her and make social relations between both. 3)Dead body: A corpse will appear, which will start decay, stink and bring infection. if not taken a proper care. Also, if you are interested, why do people do good acts, like helping an old lady, then, go to the link, titled "psychological egoism", I've posted bellow. A Short Answer Morality, or Natural Law, is place into our being by God. ( Full Answer )
Answer . When the practice of a religion conflicts with the rights of other citizens and if it could bring harm to someone while doing the act.
Limitations to freedom of religion; hate rhetoric under the guise of religion. The call to hatred, be it gender, race or religion from a pulpit. __________________ One limit to freedom of religion, at least in the US, and at least for the present, is that your practice can never violate civil la…w; the law of the land trumps religious law. Answer The main limitation regarding freedom of religion is simply that the dominant creed will no longer dictate the laws of the state. Freedom of religion dictates that secular beliefs must no longer be allowed to unfairly influence the state into encroaching upon the inalienable right of every individual to live or die as he/she choose. Then there would no longer be a problem with abortions and gay rights. It would mean that society would have to collectively create its own set of moral principles to guide social behaviors. Answer Actually, freedom of religion according to the Constitution means that Congress cannot pass any laws respecting the establishment of religion, e.g. Congress cannot deem Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam or any other religion as official nor can they create a State religion. It also prohibits the government from interfering with the practice of one's religion so long as it is practiced within the laws of the United States. Abortion and gay rights has less to do with religion than it does the American value of life (hence the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence and the right to life, liberty and property under due process of the law according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution) The limitations on religious freedom primarily come in where there is a conflict between the practice of religion and local, state or federal laws. And in rare instances when a child's health depends on medical treatment that a particular religion otherwise prohibits, the Courts may decide to overrule religious freedom of the parents for the safety, health and welfare of that child. Freedom of religion is not limited by hate speech, in fact, hate speech is not limited at all. It is still a part of the protections afforded under the 1st Amendment. Answer It isn't that people have religious freedom as long as they don't break the law. What if congress passed a law that forbid public prayer? That doesn't work. Religious freedom is only trumped by the unalienable rights of other people. Answer Of course there are limits to Freedom of Religion just as there are limits to Freedom of Speech. People have tried getting ordained by the Universal Life Church and declaring their mansions "churches" or "monasteries" to avoid paying taxes, only to wind up in jail for tax fraud. In 1990 in Los Angeles CA, William Tracy, 51, and his Wife Mary Ellen Tracy, 46, (a.k.a Lady Sabrina Aset) were convicted for prostitution as part of an occult sex cult called "The Church of The Most High Goddess".Male participants could have sex with Mary Ellen Tracy for a "sacrifice" of $100. They both went to jail for running a brothel. Richard Rameriez was arrested for murder, even though the people he killed were "sacrifices to Satan", because human sacrifice is not recognized as a religious right. So yes, there are limits to freedom of religion. ( Full Answer )
Answer Yes. Atheists may be better people than somereligious people. Answer There is no simple "yes" or "no" answer to thisquestion. The Chambers Dictionary's first definitions of moralityare: " relating to character or conduct consider as good or evil;ethical; adhering to or directed towards wha…t is right." Thisraises the question of what is good/evil or right/wrong,acceptable/unacceptable and who decides what is good/evil,right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable for morality cannot bediscussed without giving them consideration. 1. The Individual There are those who argue that somethingis acceptable/unacceptable based o n what an individual believes; in other words, there is noobjective criteria. What may be wrong/unacceptable for one personmay be right/acceptable for another. The challenge to thisview is that, on a practical level it can give licence to doanything and would make laws unenforceable. It would givejustification to those who rape, murder or abuse children; allthings which the vast majority of people find reprehensible. 2. Society Others are of the opinion that right/wrong isbased upon what is good for the harmonious ordering of society.They see the need for some kind of objective moral code. Thus lawsagainst murder, stealing and rape may be based on principles foundin religious texts, but their value lies in that they promoteharmony, peace and stability; there is no need for a religiousunderpinning of these moral codes. The challenge to this view is that certain societies haveenacted laws, and behaved in a manner which many find morallyunacceptable. One needs only to think of the perfectly legalactions taken by the Nazis against such groups as Jews,homosexuals, gypsies and the mentally challenged. One may alsoconsider the more recent prejudicial laws against black people inthe Southern USA, the laws which discriminated against Catholics inNorthern Ireland until the mid 1970s or South African apartheidwhich ended only in the 1990s. The Nazi state may not have beenharmonious, peaceful and stable but the Southern states, NorthernIreland and South African were certainly considered to be stableand relatively peaceful. One also has to ask some questions: (a)are things morally acceptable simply because they are legal anddesigned to promote a safe and stable society - as they were in allof the above cases? (b) Are current laws restricting the freedom ofwomen (and in some cases, regarding them as being subject to men)in certain Arab states considered to be moral; after all, they aredesigned to facilitate an harmonious society. 3. God Peopleof faith believe that basing morality on individual preferenceleads to self-centredness and societal chaos. Likewise, basingmorality solely on the beliefs of a particular society leads toequating morality with legality and thus potentially makes an actmorally acceptable in one country and reprehensible in another.This would be seen as inconsistent and simply applying theprinciples of no.1 on a wider scale For those who considerscenarios no.1 + no.2 to be flawed, it is God who establishes thefoundations of morality. For people of faith the external moralcode is based on sacred texts such as the Bible or Qur'an; ideally,these moral codes are reflected in secular laws. Some religiousgroups (e.g. Catholics and Orthodox) supplement this external codewith an internal moral one based on Natural Law; this moral guideis "written in the heart" of every human being and includes suchthings as the sanctity of life and the inclination towardsfairness, goodness and cooperation. For the person of faith, it isnot enough to consider the wishes of the individual, importantthough he or she undoubtedly may be; nor is it sufficient toconsider the goal of an harmonious and stable society. Forbelievers the underlying basis for morality is that all humanbeings are made in the Divine image and likeness; thus all areintimately connected. This is why Christ was able to say 'Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters youdo to me." (Matthew 25: 40) and John states " Let us love oneanother since love is from God, and everyone who love is a child ofGod and knows God ." (I John4:7) Thus, for theperson of faith, although it is quite possible to be a morally goodperson without explicitly acknowledging God, that very God dwellsin the heart of everyone by virtue of Natural Law. Further,morality is not simply about an harmonious, fair and stable societybut involves the realisation that every person is sacred and, insome real way, related to everyone else through a common bond ofcreation. The challenge to this view is that religious people havebeen all-too-weak and frequently failed to live up to the moralguidelines they believe are from God. Further, some have usedScripture - out of context - to justify behaviour which would beconsidered immoral. Finally, people of faith must also confront thereality that some passages in sacred texts portray a God whoadvocates the destruction of innocent people. The response thatthese passages were written by men of a particular era (and thusconditioned by the thinking and moral codes of that period) mightwell ring hollow in the minds of non-believers. Conclusion It is clear, from simple observation in daily life, that a personwho is an atheist may live what most people would consider to be amoral life. For obvious reasons, it is unlikely that an atheist'smoral code would be based upon thinking only of himself/herself(no.1 above). The morality of an atheist may then come from what iscommonly held by the people of a particularly country and thuslegislated by the state. However, what then happens if an atheist,who is also a pacifist, lives in a state which subsequently passesa law he/she considers to be unjust e.g. military conscription intime of war? On what basis does the atheist reject that law ifhis/her morality is based upon what is believed by the people ofthe state? One is inevitably led to position no.1 or theCatholic/Orthodox concept of Natural Law mentioned in no.3; themoral atheist would find both unacceptable, but would then have tofind a way to explain his/her objection without falling into theposition of either camp. The proponents of either position no.1(the individual) or position no.3 (God) would have no suchdifficulty. Answer : Answer: Yes it can as morality originatedfrom altruism which in turn originates as a mechanism for thesurvival of a species without intellectual thought or divinedirection. Any discussion of morality rapidly diverges from a discussion ofmoral behavior to discuss doing things that are right (aka good) orwrong (aka evil). Many biologists and animal behavioralists havestudied non-human species and discovered that there is a degree ofaltruism present that could be interpreted as moral or ethicalbehavior but is, in reality, a support for social interaction(living in groups) that is in turn an evolutionary tool for thesurvival of the species. In this case the altruism is simple thatwe all take a bit less than we could get for ourselves so that thecommunity itself survives. This creates a currency of dependence inhuman society so that the people you leave a bit of food for orwhose children you don't shoot are willing to help you fight offthe attacks of the wolves. Before we go to far on the general application of this altruism tothe whole of the human race consider the Ik of Northern Uganda,agroup of subsistence farmers that have abandoned almost allco-operative endeavors since being friendly (having to feed peoplewho help you build your hut) would doom your family to starvation.The Ik have religion but we would see them as lacking morality.Wolves in British Columbia, as far as is known, have no religion.They however hunt in packs and share in the kill on a communalbasis (some eat while others stand guard, then they swap duties)-altruistic or moral behavior. This is done in the face of the factthat a breeding pair of wolves can easily kill game. The packbehavior gives no advantage in effort required for hunting, and thesharing of food cuts down on the food per wolf reward. Whenbiologists studied this they determined that the sharing is drivenby he need to keep ravens away from the kill as a flock of ravenscan easily strip a carcass as quickly as two wolves, and two wolvescan't keep the ravens away and eat. As far as the terms right orwrong - there is no universal agreement on what camp many humanactivities fall into. Pro-life and freedom of choicers go at it,people kill each other over dietary preferences and which days ofthe week to rest. It is difficult to determine any good or evilactivity that can't turned around to be on the other side in somecircumstances. If a thing were true (right) than it would be alwaystrue (e.g. a dropped stone always falls towards the Earth) So it comes down to the fact that morality (or altruism) can existwithout religion or even intellect as a derivative of evolutionaryneed, and that the rightness or wrongness of the direction thatthis takes is entirely dependent on its advantages for survival ofthe species. Because of the natural law imprinted on the hearts of men, we cancome to a basic awareness of the rightness and wrongness of certainactions without being introduced to religion. For example, evenatheists know that murder is wrong. So, in a sense, the answer is"Yes." But, some people advocate doing away with religion alltogether. They say that "religion" gets in the way of arelationship with Jesus, or of living a good life. We must disagreewith such people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church definesreligion as "a set of beliefs and practices followed by thosecommitted to the service and worship of God." Without religion,without a rule against which to "test all things and hold fast towhat is good," it becomes much more difficult for man to discernwhat is right and wrong. In a wonderfully paradoxical way, religion(particularly the Catholic religion) provides the boundaries thatmake us free. Another Answer. Morality can exist without Religion and without having a State -one need look no further than some of the isolated tribes in theamazon jungle. In fact morality exists in man even if one neverheard of a prophet, god or religious teaching. ( Full Answer )
Money can't buy love. Don't judge a book by it's cover. Having a sharp tongue can cut your' own throat. Go hard or go home. Hit two birds with one stone.
ive been researching this as no one has given me a straight answer,it seems its obviously hard to define, all i have got from theresearch is that is it really religion? or is it the way in which aculture chooses to live, i understand this isnt an answer to yourquestion but my point is, is there a de…finate answer? ( Full Answer )
US President Woodrow Wilson created an administration based onMoral Diplomacy. The idea was to support countries that had thesame moral beliefs as the US.
A: The Christian religion, Judaism and Islam, all say that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. This makes the existence of moral and natural evil something of an embarrassment. If we are aware of evil and suffering, then we know we are obliged to do what we can to eliminate those ev…ils. If God is aware of all evil and suffering, and is able to eliminate those evils, he is even more obliged to do so unless he does not care about our suffering. That is known as the problem of evil and suffering, and each of the Abrahamic religions has attempted to explain the existence of moral and natural evil in the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. Jeffrey B. Russell ( The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History ) describes how the Jews of the Apocalyptic period (200 BCE to 100 CE) could not understand why God had abandoned Israel and allowed evil to rule the world in their time. Such a degree of evil was more than God would ordain and greater than mere humans could cause. It must therefore be the work of a powerful spiritual force. The Apocalyptic writers studied the Old Testament and found a hint of such a force in the sinful bene ha-elohim. They proceeded to develop these hints into full, colorful accounts, as in the Book of Enoch. Later, in the Common Era, Rabbinic Judaism rejected the dualistic tendencies of the Apocalyptic writers and insisted upon the unity of the one, benevolent Lord. The rabbis argued that evil results from the imperfect state of the created world (metaphysical evil) and from human misuse of free will (moral evil). Most of the rabbis rejected the concept of a personified being leading the forces of evil and preferred to speak of the Devil only as a symbol of the tendency to evil within humans. Christians went the other way, emphasising a role for the devil in the existence of evil, and Russell tells how the existence of the devil was used by Christians throughout history to exonerate God for the existence of evil. Islamic thought is a complex amalgam of Orthodox Christian, Gnostic Christian and pagan beliefs, with spiritual beings called jinn capable of both good and evil. There is a strong sense of fatalism in Islamic history, so that at times Muslims knew that evil would happen because it was destined to happen. ( Full Answer )
Opinion You can not. you can try, but you horribly contradictyourself. Without religion, you can not condemn others for doing"bad" because everyone is just doing what THEY believe is right.And we all have different ideas. You can not say we all have theright to believe whatever we want, because what… if someone believesall blondes should die. Without religion, who is to say you can'tbelieve that. Christians can, Mormons can, but atheists can not. ( Full Answer )
I think that this question can be answered in two ways. One is the moral decay of a, individual religious person. One who rejects that which one had to go the way of the world and adopt its ways. Or where the Religion itself with all of its members turn away from their beliefs and go the way of the …world moral decay takes over. The second is the religions view of the moral decay of the world in general as apposed to its own righteous beliefs and righteous actions. ( Full Answer )
Confucianism is just about all ethics and morality. It's more a code of laws for life than a religion. The jokes that start out, "Confucius say..." are satire of all the different little things that make the the complex system for morals, social behavior, political believes, and the philosophy of …Confucianism. The main idea behind Confucianism is that humans can be taught to be better and perhaps eventually perfect through stringent dedication to Confucianism, even giving their life to uphold the practices. ( Full Answer )
You can be moral without being religious. You can also be religious without being moral.
Morality is the decision of whether things are "right", whether they cause undue harm for an insufficient purpose; values are along the same lines but involve more of a "what do I think is more important"; religion is an organised system of belief centred around faith in and obedience to a god or go…ds, which may or may not involve following a code of morality or values as part of everyday life, e.g. Christian commandments/beattitudes, Islamic five pillars of faith, Buddhist eightfold path. ( Full Answer )
Most religions teach morals through the use of stories and anecdotes. For example, the Bible is full of stories that try to teach us to act a certain way. Each story has moral to it. They also try to teach us moral values through strict rules, like the 10 commandments. If you don't follow the rules,… you may be punished in the afterlife, so fear is also used to help enforce the morals they teach. ( Full Answer )
The worst issue is that many Christians thinks that Pagans worship devil. This is not true because Pagans don't believe any entity of pure evil. The root of this steriotypr is that the Pagan god Pan has antlers which are often misinterpreted as the horns of the Christian devil Satan.. Not all the P…agans are Vegitarian.. Most of the Pagans don't pollute their bodies with narcotics.. Pagans are not Hippies. There is a big difference.. Pagan, NeoPagan religions includes Wicca, Witchcraft, Shamanism, Druidism, Asatru... etc... ( Full Answer )
Answer All the religions are based on moral code, especially Islam insists the right and wrong and moral of good and bad in several places and warns who do wrong and bad.
Pakistan is officially a Muslim country, with that religion dominating amongst those that are actually religious. Countries in the Eastern Hemisphere are stricter about their religious beliefs than those in the Western Hemisphere. With that being said, a person's morals are still ones own "code of c…onduct," a personal belief system of what is right and what is wrong. It cannot be said that all Pakistanis have the same moral beliefs, but since morals can be heavily influenced by a person's religion, there will be the same general beliefs. ( Full Answer )
Religion can play a large role in morality. Sense religions tend to tell people how they should live it would affect morality. . Morality is determined by socially acceptable behaviors and religion was created to enforce those behaviors so that there would be a controlled society based on the… objectives of the lords and masters. ( Full Answer )
Yes, you don't have to be religious to have morals. Qualities like honesty and altruism are older than religion , are printed in our genes and also taught to us by our parents, but it's fair to say that many people whose lives have gone astray (such as a result of substance abuse) have led more dece…nt lives after converting to religion. ( Full Answer )
Morality concerns every individual as to understanding the difference between good and evil or right and wrong. It is the ability to apply in our lives that which is good, and to conduct our lives in a manner that will be pleasing not only to ourselves but to those whom we come into contact with. . … Morality in religion would be an adherence to standards set by the dictates of your religion. This usually means abstinance from sex until marriage, and keeping the marriage vows while married (no sex with anyone but your spouse). It can also mean being an honest and upright citizen and following all rules of your church. ( Full Answer )
Our beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses are based on Jehovah's inspired written Word, the Holy Bible. . For a brief list of some of basic Bible based beliefs, and Scriptures from which we derive these beliefs, please see the related links below. . The article in the first link is actually article three… from the brochure in the first link: Jehovah's Witnesses - Who Are They? What Do They Believe? ( Full Answer )
Certainly not. Humanism is a collective term for a number of philosophies dating back to ancient Greece, India and China; what they have in common is an emphasis on human concerns without reference to the supernatural. You could say that they derive a system of morality by reference to humans rathe…r than by reference to gods. Morality in practice need not differ all that much between religious and non-religious systems either. I suppose pretty much everyone thinks beating up old ladies is a bad thing to do, whether they are religious or not. Disagreements between religious and non-religious moralities tend to be in areas where it is hard to see that the behavior will hurt people, where a religious morality can still refer to the opinion of gods. The relatively modern concept of human rights is an example of a moral view I think a large number of people can agree on, more or less independent of religious views. For more on humanism, see related link. ( Full Answer )
Yes, you can have religion and no morals (pedophile priests), and morality without religion--many people have ethics but no particular religion. I'm pretty sure most of the people on death row call themselves religious.
You should probably rephrase your question. It's difficult to answer "What are the religious teachings of religion" and "What are the religious teachings of morality". You would need to spicify what religion. Morality is simply the priciples concerning decisions of right and wrong. So each religion …would have different moral values. ( Full Answer )
Since we have different words for them they are necessarily seperable, unless if your religion teaches they are inseparable. Answer Religion and morality are indeed separable. It is a fallacy to think they are not. Modern history has an abundance of religious leaders who displayed very immoral… behavior, lied about it to their families and their follower and who failed to provide their congregations with good moral leadership. It is time to view religion with eyes wide open. ( Full Answer )
the Prophet Muhammad said that man's duty is to worship only the one true God, to obey his parents, to take care of the orphans, the widows, and the needy, to either speak a good word or keep silent, to treat guests and slaves equal to or better than the way he treats himself, to not slander chaste …women, and to struggle against the people, with his life and his wealth, until they proclaim that there is none worthy of worship but God, establish the daily prayers, and pay the charity tax. Notably absent from the Koran are morals supported by other religions, as summarized by Moses in the Ten Commandments: 1)You shall not murder 2)You shall not steal 3)You shall not lie 4)You shall not desire other people's possessions ( Full Answer )
to put it very simply, religion has led to moral decay by celebrating logical self-contradiction and circular reasoning. It has allowed the mere expression of faith to be more significant than actual moral practices. It allows people to seem sane when they talk about their 'conversations with God'. …It allows a chosen book's antiquated and sometimes stunningly cruel myths (or histories) to be taken literally by some religions and encourage people to hurt each other in a way that, to the impartial or outside observer, is clearly and unequivocally immoral. There is more, and I'm sure there are quite a few philosophy writings on the subject. But, alas, this question assumes that there is a natural, universal morality that persists aside from all teachings. That is not necessarily the case, and, as such, there is cause to think that 'moral relativism'-- rather than being a pejorative term associated with amoral behavior--is a true state of affairs that always has been, and always will be, a part the human condition, caused by the naturally differing perceptions and experiences of human beings (or sufficiently similar alien life, if it exists) causing each person's morality, internally and unverifiably, to differ relative to those differences. ( Full Answer )
Basically all religions have limitations in one way or another that have been set a particular way for quite some time. It's people who choose to stretch (or shrink) those limitations to how they see fit and to what suits them and their cause or agenda.
ethics and morals are not the creatation of religion, peoples long before religion had them. religion just claims to be the keepers of them as their own. Even animals have rules of conduct that they live by when living in groups.
One can examine morals and philosophy outside the framework of religion, but the religions do have a long lead time. By several thousand years!
Religion came from morals because religion had to start from small just like everything else in the world
Christianity is a relationship. Although External Actions play an important part in Christianity, it is not the base of Christianity. It depends on the motive. A True Christian will do good on the inside because he/she has God(Jesus) inside, and a False Christian will do good in an attempt to attain… favour from God. ( Full Answer )
This topic can not easily be answered in a short statement. Many people have spent their whole lives answering this question. However, morality is often defined as a system of moral conduct put forth by a society. A society's religion often defines its system of moral conduct. So, your question is a… little bit like asking, "what are the similarities between a car and its wheels?" The fun starts when one considers issues like: Religion is not the only definer of morality. What happens when one system of morality comes into contact with another? How do we know which system of morality is correct? ( Full Answer )
A: Christians cite the Bible as their moral guide, although there is little in the Bible that really provides practical, day-to-day advice on resolving ethical problems. More directly, some would attribute morality to God, saying that without God there can be no morality. This very issue was exami…ned by Plato in one of his Dialogues. Here, Euthyphro seeks to define goodness in terms of what the gods would want. At this point, Plato has Socrates raise the Euthyphro Dilemma: 'Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods choose it?' If the first option is true, this shows that good is good independent of the gods (or in modern terms, God) - good is good and that is why a good god will always choose it. If the second option is true, this makes the very idea of what is good arbitrary. If something is good simply because the gods choose it, then what is to stop the gods choosing torture, thus making it good? The problem with the second option in answer to the the Euthyphro Dilemma is that for God to choose torture, thus making it good, is absurd. But the reason it is absurd is that we believe torture is wrong and that is why God would never choose it. To recognise this is to recognise that we do not need God to determine right or wrong. Euthyphro had tried to attribute morality to the gods, but Socrates showed him that no such attribution is possible. So it is if we attribute morality to God. Morality comes from within and is guided and informed by our consciences. Ultimately, Christian morality is based on the concept of reward and punishment. If I behave morally, I have the chance of eternal life, but if I fail then I am doomed to hell. But Julian Baggini ( Atheism ) says that it is an odd morality that thinks one can only behave ethically if one does so out of fear of punishment or promise of reward. He says the person who does not steal only for fear of being caught is not a moral person, but merely a prudent one. The truly moral person is the one who has the opportunity to steal without being caught but still does not do so. Many Christians are truly moral persons by this definition, but so too are many secular atheists. ( Full Answer )
This is a great question. Morality should be the backbone of religion, sadly we have not found that to be true over the years. The sexual abuse of children has no place in religion or in moral living, yet we have found this dirty little secret to be rampant in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox… Jewish religion. If not condoned, certainly swept under the rug. Let us all hope that since this aberration is out in the open, it will no longer be tolerated. Maybe then people will start to equate morality and religion as we all should. ( Full Answer )
Christian morality is based on the classic "golden rule", which basically is "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." (matthew 7:12) so if you value your own life, don't kill other people. if you want to keep your money, don't steal from others, etc. the whole meaning of this is to tr…eat others with love and respect, including your enemies, in the hope they will see god's love in you. it can make a huge difference in your life. and if you still don't get it, talk to a local pastor or something, I'm absolutely sure they can explain it better than I ever could :) hope I helped! ( Full Answer )
All religions teach high moral values. An important function of scriptures is to explain the moral values expounded by the religion. But religion is not a necessary source of moral values, since many people live ethical and fulfilling lives without any religious beliefs.
The Gupta Wasn't really based on any religion. But as America (and other countries) has many different religions, it also had a couple religions. Both Buddhism and Hinduism were widely prevalent. The characteristic features enabled it to survive till today; whereas the new features of Buddhism led t…o its final decline. Although Buddhism still appealed in matters of ritual making it ti be regarded as a sect of the latter. Jainism escaped from this fate. It remained unchanged; and therefore it continued to be supported by the merchant communities of Western India. ( Full Answer )
Morality is often tied to religion, but not always. While a religious tie can provide a rationale for morality as well as a system of punishment and reward for behavior in a moral context when bringing up children, it is not needed. Many children are brought up with a very strong sense of morality w…ithout religion. Atheists, humanists, and other "free thinkers" are often among the most morally concerned individuals in our society, and so are their children. ( Full Answer )
Religion is suppose to establish the core base as to what is actually right and what is wrong - morality.
To be moral we need to have some higher ideal. The philosophy that says it is enough to be a good person without faith in a higher power is one of the six main philosophies that existed in ancient India and it was called Karmamimamsa. The problem with this philosophy that if we do not believe in som…e higher power than eventually our mind will convince us anything that gives us pleasure is OK, since really if there is nothing higher than this material body there is no higher value than giving it pleasure. I can say with certainty from personal experience that some times I might get into something that is a bit in my gray moral area, and with time I convince my self it is fine, more over things that I thought were totally wrong now seem not so bad. Thanks to the fact I do believe in a higher power I know that satisfying my own egoistic needs is not the highest thing, and that by maintaining a high moral standard I can advance spiritually to a goal beyond this material world. Other wise there is no logical pragmatic reason not to enjoy fully on others expanse, only education and sentiments which can not lust. A secular view Religion should not be the de facto moral system where a religion tells people what is right and what is wrong. Right and wrong cannot be a derivative of a belief when there are obvious and logical methods to derive what is right and wrong, independent of belief. If someone needs a religion to see what is right and what is wrong, that person has to be brainless. ( Full Answer )
You probably meant to ask "What is the connection between religion and morality?" to which the answer is that they have a very tight relationship. Beside stories and beliefs the specific religion offers, it also holds it's moral values. For example, the whole Christianity revolves around Ten Command…ments and Seven Deadly Sins, and six out of ten commandments are about human relationships and morality, while seven deadly sins are all about morality. By breaking any moral values and laws, you are also breaking the religious laws and if your beliefs are strong, you will probably expect a punishment. with the exception of Atheism, in which there is no belief of any higher force whatsoever. ( Full Answer )
While proponents of Christianity see it as positive and hopeful, its detractors say its theology places too much emphasis on punishment. Some denominations of Christianity seem to focus almost entirely on sin, forbidding a long list of actions and behaviors, and warning believers of what will happen… to them if they disobey God. Critics point out that this type of Christianity is not so much about God's love as it is about frightening believers into obedience by warning them of the dire consequences (such as going to hell) if they deviate from their faith. It should be noted that scholars generally do not lump all denominations of Christianity together; it is the more conservative forms of Christianity that are seen as fear-based, since those denominations stress the punishments for sin (especially sexual sin), and preach about hell-fire and eternal damnation. ( Full Answer )
Not one of them has proof or facts, they can only have dialogues on ideologies. Things that do not really matter.
What was the origins and significance of Judaism as the first monotheistic religion based on the concept of one God who sets down moral laws for humanity?
A: Scholars are divided on whether the the origins of Judaism as a monotheistic religion are with the seventh-century-BCE reign of King Josiah or whether those origins are really in the Babylonian Exile. Until late in the twentieth century, the consensus of scholars was to accept the biblical text… that seem to describe monotheism as beginning with King Josiah, even if that reform was not entirely successful until after the Babylonian Exile. Some scholars now believe that the monotheistic reforms of Josiah were written back into the Bible and that monotheism was really introduced during the Exile. Of course, all religions set down moral laws for their people. The significance of the Judaic laws is that these eventually became, at least in part, laws for Christianity and Islam, and therefore not just laws for the Jews but laws for humanity. Answer: Jewish tradition: the tradition of the Sages and the Talmud, has always been that Abraham founded Judaism, and that since then, the Israelites have always worshiped the One God. Abraham worshiped "the Lord God of Heaven and Earth" (Genesis 14:22 and 24:3) and complained about the Philistines' lack of fear of God (Genesis 20:11). Jacob confiscated the idolatrous images taken from Shechem (Genesis 35:2) and got rid of them (Genesis 35:4); and refrained from invoking the gods of Nahor (Genesis 31:53). Rachel pilfered Laban's statue-images (Genesis 31:19) in order to prevent him from idolatry (Rashi commentary, ibid.). Joseph placed his hope in the God of the Forefathers (Genesis 50:24). Moses characterized the Golden Calf as "a great sin" (Exodus 32:21, 30) and punished the worshipers (Exodus ch.32). During the rest of his lifetime and that of Joshua (Judges 2:7), no incidents of Jewish idolatry were reported. Shortly before he died, Moses warned the people that he suspected that they would eventually succumb to the lure of the idols (Deuteronomy 29:17). Joshua gave a similar warning (Joshua ch. 24). These warnings came true. Many of the Israelites went astray after the foreign gods (Judges 2:11). However, the Jews never invented their own idol . It was always the baneful influence of other peoples. And there were times when the entire Jewish nation repented (Judges 2:1-4) and prayed to God (Judges 3:9, 3:15, 6:6, 10:10). Idolatry was never universal among the Jews. The tradition of the One God was handed down in every generation, whether by the few or the many; and it is those who handed down the tradition whose beliefs we Jews continue today. Deborah ascribed victory to God (Judges 4:14), Gideon tore down the idolatrous altar (Judges 6:25-27);Samson prayed to God (Judges 16:28), as did Hannah (1 Samuel 1:11) and Samuel (ibid. 12:18); Eli blessed in the name of God (1 Samuel 2:20), Saul built an altar to God (1 Samuel 14:35); Jonathan ascribed victory to God (1 Samuel 14:12), as did David (1 Samuel 17:46); and Solomon built the Temple for God (1 Kings 8:20). A number of the kings "did what was right in God's eyes": Asa (1 Kings 15:11), Yehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43), Yehoash (2 Kings 12:3), Amatziah (2 Kings 14:3), Azariah (2 Kings 15:3), Yotam (2 Kings 15:34), Hizkiah (2 Kings 18:3), and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). And, of course, the Prophets, who spoke in the name of God and warned against idolatry: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and so on. The sages of the Talmud, who ridiculed idolatry (Megillah 25b), were simply continuing in the tradition of the Prophets whose verses are quoted in that context (ibid.). As far as Judaism's significance, British historian Paul Johnson, in his A History of the Jews, states: "To the Jews we owe the idea of equality before the law, both Divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption: of the collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic furniture of the human mind. Without the Jews it would have been a much emptier place." . ( Full Answer )
Catholicism you have the freedom to make choices but that comes with a cost if you make an unethical decision and go against God unless you ask for forgiveness and repent
The Bible says that pure religion is to help widows and orphans and I suppose you may call this the 'aquisition of moral values', but the Bible teaches much more than this, and in fact, any 'moral values' that we think we may have, are called, 'our righteousnesses' which are filthy rags according to… the Bible, (Isaiah 64.6) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. ( Full Answer )
No. Christianity is based on Judaism. Judaism gets it's moral basis from a collection of books that is often referred to as the "old testament" which forms about 3/4 of the modern day bible. One of the key passages in that text -- that forms the moral code of Judaism are the Ten Commandments found… in the book of Exodus - the second book of the bible. They are as follows: "And God spoke all these words, saying: 'I am the LORD your God â¦ ONE: ' You shall have no other gods before Me. ' TWO: ' You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. ' THREE: ' You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. ' FOUR: ' Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ' FIVE: ' Honor your father and your mother. ' SIX: ' You shall not murder. ' SEVEN: ' You shall not commit adultery. ' EIGHT: ' You shall not steal. ' NINE: ' You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. ' TEN: ' You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. ' As you can probably see the morality of Christianity is derived from a monotheistic view of the universe. Whereas the Hindu religion has diverse gods so numerous they number in the hundreds of millions. With so many diverse gods any consistent morality is also virtually impossible to establish. Contrast the moral foundation of a single God and a "no other gods besides me" point of view -- a morality with the authority of a single deity responsible for all of creation who provides a single set of commandments as a moral foundation for it's adherents. Christ said that the 10 commandments of Exodus could be stated in a single commandment to "love God with all your heart, mind, and strength", and to "love your neighbor as yourself". He also said that if you fulfill this (new) commandment you'll also fulfill all the 10 commandments of the Old Testament. Thus in a single paragraph the entire moral basis of the Christian faith is summed up in this "new commandment". ( Full Answer )
That is currently happening . Several governments limit the freedom of religion. As an example, in Iran, if you change your religion (from Muslim to something else) you can get executed for "apostasy".
yes, religions are based on a moral set of codes. religions are written to achieve per-fact moral that God said samething in any religion that is live without any kind of violence bygiven all three instrument by GOD call pure mind. pure speech andpure body. whiteout pure food the mind never be pure… to receiveultimate stage of Generator, Observer, Destroyer. Final conclusionwe all GOD like .(In sleep) ( Full Answer )