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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I interpreted it as “do they have any good morals”
That seems like quite a low bar. Basically the broken clock being right twice a day.
No relgious person goes around and says “never mind that jesus and god stuff, I’m just in it because of the “you shalt not kill””. It’s always about bundling in all the irrelevant crap. Those couple good stories about helping neighbours doesn’t offset that.
Which one is that?
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.
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.
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?
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.
The point was “do religions have any good in them”, not “are religious texts still relevant”.
No, that was not the point. They point was “do Relgions have good morals” and the answere is clearly no.
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.
That seems like quite a low bar. Basically the broken clock being right twice a day.
No relgious person goes around and says “never mind that jesus and god stuff, I’m just in it because of the “you shalt not kill””. It’s always about bundling in all the irrelevant crap. Those couple good stories about helping neighbours doesn’t offset that.