Why do so many consider us today less "moral" than in the past.

[Arkywhitegirl]

My father is very religious and when I see him he often talks about the end days and uses things such as gays and others as an example of how "moraless" we've become and says that's what the Bible says.

My question is how can it be when in the past we openly accepted things such as slavery, mass discrimination, lynchings etc. In fact, it's only been in the last 50 years that we've even really started giving people equal rights and such.

Seems like societies in the past were a lot less "moral" then people today.

 

[World King]

I can really relate myself to your situation regarding your father. My mother talks about stuff like that most of the time.

From what I've been, the past had a different concept of social rights and wrongs. It also depends on the kind of people that inhabitted our past and other things such as classes. I sometimes look at society today and wonder if this is really that much different from before, or are we going through the same situation as people in past times, but with different problems.

So to me, morality has always been underrated by society since always. ​

 

[FreakyLocz14]

People's perception of morality varies so much that we can't make any blanket statements on the morality of our youth. Moral virtues to me have to do with keeping tenents of Christianity like generosity, humility, treating others how you want to be treated, honesty, kindness, not being ashamed to profess your faith in Christ, etc.

 

[Dawn]

While I think it's definitely arguable that overall morality has taken a hit, I think in this case it's just a matter of your father having been taught different morals.

Also, we have successfully demonized the things you mentioned to the point that they're way too commonly accepted as the worst things out there. If you search today's society, you will find things arguably far more horrible and worth our attention going on right around us, things that arguably make "black slavery" and discrimination look petty in comparison. Y'know why I don't just say slavery? I don't say slavery because slavery never died. It's actually very alive, it just doesn't specifically target African Americans anymore.

 

[HarrisonH]

To say that society has become "more moral" or "less moral" requires there to be some sort of absolute standard of morality that everyone should follow.

There isn't.

Morality is relative. It differs among cultures, societies, and individuals. To say that one culture/society/individual is more moral than another is an erroneous statement, as what one thinks is moral is going to show in their judgement of what is immoral. If one steps back and looks at it without letting their own opinions cloud their view, only one conclusion can be made: Both groups are moral within themselves, but different from each other.

A prime example comes from the United States and England. In the United States, it's easy to see the glorification of violence on television, but the demonization of sexual content. In England, it's the opposite. Is violence more moral than sex? Is sex more moral than violence? There's not an absolute answer for that. It all depends on where you are. It's all relative.

Comparing morality is a fruitless endeavor. "More moral" and "less moral" are meaningless phrases.

 

[Masqueraine]

People's perception of morality varies so much that we can't make any blanket morality about our youth. Moral virtues to me have to do with keeping tenents of Christianity like generosity, humility, treating others how you want to be treated, honesty, kindness, not being ashamed to profess your faith in Christ, etc.

Sorry but morality has to do with more than just religion. You can be a good person just to do so rather than to make sure you're pleasing a deity who will cast you into hell if you like men, masturbate, tell a lie and so on.

As for the op, it sounds like overly religious people afraid of change.

 

[Oryx]

Sorry but morality has to do with more than just religion. You can be a good person just to do so rather than to make sure you're pleasing a deity who will cast you into hell if you like men, masturbate, tell a lie and so on.

As for the op, it sounds like overly religious people afraid of change.

She said that was morality to her, not in general. Also, I'm not religious but your image of religion is highly misguided. But that's not the topic here.

Honestly, I think that every previous generation will be disappointed with every new generation. If the next generation went back to being entirely religious, chaste, etc, our generation would be disappointed with them because the generally secular youth see a lack of religion as freeing and a good thing, not a bad thing. While we may not say that they are immoral, we would still in general be disappointed. While there are obviously some things that must be stood for and set in stone (murder, rape, etc is wrong), there are other gray areas where the best way to be is to have your own set of morals, but accept that others have other morals and that doesn't necessarily mean that either is wrong or right.

 

[Masqueraine]

She said that was morality to her, not in general. Also, I'm not religious but your image of religion is highly misguided. But that's not the topic here.

I don't see why it couldn't be discussed when it was brought up in the first post. In this case religion is in direct correlation with morality.

And I don't think my view of religion is misguided. I have read passages in the bible pertaining to what I've said, read and met people who follow it as such, I don't see how I can be wrong to be honest. Obviously not everybody who follows religion follows it as religiously as that, but to say that there aren't those who do is silly, especially considering the person referred to in the first post could be described as such if they find being gay and accepting it to be immoral.

:)

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Sorry but morality has to do with more than just religion. You can be a good person just to do so rather than to make sure you're pleasing a deity who will cast you into hell if you like men, masturbate, tell a lie and so on.

As for the op, it sounds like overly religious people afraid of change.

You seem to be way more hostile towards people different than you than any religious person I've known.

You seem to have a negative view of Christianity, or religion in general. Then again, atheist propaganda does tend to emphasize how some religions and sects and denominations disapprove of homosexuality, sex before marriage, being dishonest, etc. When do I ever hear them talk about denominations that have differing views or how the Bible teaches us to treat our neighbors how we want to be treated, to make sure that we take care of those less fortunate than us, to be sure to not practice our religion openly for show, etc.?

My point is, I never said that being religious is the only way to be moral. You seem to jump to conclusions about what I said in the same fashion that you do when you state that religious people are afraid of change or that insinuate that religion is the source of all bigotry.

Sorry but morality has to do with more than just religion. You can be a good person just to do so rather than to make sure you're pleasing a deity who will cast you into hell if you like men, masturbate, tell a lie and so on.

As for the op, it sounds like overly religious people afraid of change.

Please point me to where in the Bible you've seen this? I've never encountered a passage that discusses masturbation. I've also never seen any passage that says that being a homosexual in immoral. As for lying, being liar is immoral regardless or your religion or lack thereof. Telling one line doesn't necessarily make you an immoral person, but it is an immoral act.

 

[Dawn]

There are standards for morality.
Geez. It's like you can't simply discuss morality anymore without someone trying to say that nothing is ever agreed on by the significant majority.

 

[Shining Raichu]

My father is very religious and when I see him he often talks about the end days and uses things such as gays and others as an example of how "moraless" we've become and says that's what the Bible says.

The problem with your father is that he has fallen into the common trap of confusing 'morals' with 'values'. He has Christian values, which is... fine, I guess, but he is not, nor is anyone else in the world, qualified to make judgments on how 'moral' the world is based on their views of how the world should be.

To my mind, morals are a question of conscience and guilt, which implies that the acts where morality is questioned would have to inflict harm on other people. This is why I always find the concept of homosexuality being immoral simultaneously fascinating and ridiculous - though sadly, I'm completely unsurprised that he used that as an example. It's not hurting anybody, and ironically gay people will see more love and light in their lives than someone blinded by hate ever could.

It's ironic, I would think that using acceptance of homosexuality as an example of how the world has become less moral is an act of bigotry, which is something that is incontrovertibly immoral itself.

There is a Bible passage I'm thinking of, something about Jesus and not throwing stones, that would fit really well here

My question is how can it be when in the past we openly accepted things such as slavery, mass discrimination, lynchings etc. In fact, it's only been in the last 50 years that we've even really started giving people equal rights and such.

Seems like societies in the past were a lot less "moral" then people today.

This. I couldn't have said it better myself. But sadly some people would rather return to these days of lynching than allow people to live the lives that make them happy. Isn't morality fun?

 

[Oryx]

I don't see why it couldn't be discussed when it was brought up in the first post. In this case religion is in direct correlation with morality.

And I don't think my view of religion is misguided. I have read passages in the bible pertaining to what I've said, read and met people who follow it as such, I don't see how I can be wrong to be honest. Obviously not everybody who follows religion follows it as religiously as that, but to say that there aren't those who do is silly, especially considering the person referred to in the first post could be described as such if they find being gay and accepting it to be immoral.

:)

I've gone to Catholic school for 5 years and went through RCIA to get baptized/confirmed within the Church in the past, so people who unwittingly say those kinds of things about religion always bother me a bit. Considering you mentioned masturbation which is only considered a sin within the Catholic church, I'm going to answer as if that was what you meant.

For example, masturbation being a mortal sin? That's only in the Catholic church as far as I know, and even within the church it's disputed. Did you know that once that was announced, priests were telling their parishioners not to listen and that they would rescind it? But they didn't. It's not something that I agree with, but it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

As far as 'liking men', that is in no way a sin. The church recognizes that being gay is not a choice, actually. The doctrine within the Catholic church is that you can't control your feelings, but you can control your actions. Therefore, their belief is that gay people are bound to a life of celibacy. They don't hate gay people. In fact, even if someone couldn't take it and had gay sex, they would be "forgiven" for it, but I'll get to that in a second. It's not a perfect doctrine obviously (I'm a firm believer in gay rights, one of the reasons I'm not religious), but your idea of it is misguided.

And for lying. There are two kinds of sins. Venial sins, that aren't a big deal, and mortal sins. Things such as murder and refusing to go to church when you have the means to are considered mortal. Things such as telling a lie or insulting someone are venial. Venial sins don't get you "cast into hell", they get you extra years in Purgatory, assuming you don't confess them. Mortal sins are the ones that are supposed to get you into Hell if you don't repent for them.

And as far as any sins go, not a single one is a "go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go" sin in the Church. If you sin and are truly sorry, go to confession, and do your penance, it's as if your slate was wiped clean. This applies to people telling lies, tricking people, having gay sex, murder. Everything. The only catch is that you actually have to be repentant and want to change your ways; for example, the priest that taught RCIA once told us a story about a man who confessed having premarital sex with the girl he lived with. The priest replied "Okay, when are you going to move out?" Without a willingness to try to fix whatever is wrong, confession is just a waste of time.

You said religion in general though, and are claiming that some religions are like that. There are maybe a few fringe religions (Westboro Baptist Church?) who believe that the second you tell a lie, you're doomed to Hell for all eternity. But religion in general isn't like that. How do you know that Freaky is one of the few fringe religions that believe that?

 

[HarrisonH]

Please point me to where in the Bible you've seen this? I've never encountered a passage that discusses masturbation. I've also never seen any passage that says that being a homosexual in immoral.

There are plenty about homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Romains 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
1 Timothy 1:9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

Either you just overlooked them, or you actually haven't read the bible and are just going by what is selectively taught in your church.

 

[Masqueraine]

I've gone to Catholic school for 5 years and went through RCIA to get baptized/confirmed within the Church in the past, so people who unwittingly say those kinds of things about religion always bother me a bit. Considering you mentioned masturbation which is only considered a sin within the Catholic church, I'm going to answer as if that was what you meant.

For example, masturbation being a mortal sin? That's only in the Catholic church as far as I know, and even within the church it's disputed. Did you know that once that was announced, priests were telling their parishioners not to listen and that they would rescind it? But they didn't. It's not something that I agree with, but it's not as cut and dry as you seem to think it is.

As far as 'liking men', that is in no way a sin. The church recognizes that being gay is not a choice, actually. The doctrine within the Catholic church is that you can't control your feelings, but you can control your actions. Therefore, their belief is that gay people are bound to a life of celibacy. They don't hate gay people. In fact, even if someone couldn't take it and had gay sex, they would be "forgiven" for it, but I'll get to that in a second. It's not a perfect doctrine obviously (I'm a firm believer in gay rights, one of the reasons I'm not religious), but your idea of it is misguided.

And for lying. There are two kinds of sins. Venial sins, that aren't a big deal, and mortal sins. Things such as murder and refusing to go to church when you have the means to are considered mortal. Things such as telling a lie or insulting someone are venial. Venial sins don't get you "cast into hell", they get you extra years in Purgatory, assuming you don't confess them. Mortal sins are the ones that are supposed to get you into Hell if you don't repent for them.

And as far as any sins go, not a single one is a "go to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass go" sin in the Church. If you sin and are truly sorry, go to confession, and do your penance, it's as if your slate was wiped clean. This applies to people telling lies, tricking people, having gay sex, murder. Everything. The only catch is that you actually have to be repentant and want to change your ways; for example, the priest that taught RCIA once told us a story about a man who confessed having premarital sex with the girl he lived with. The priest replied "Okay, when are you going to move out?" Without a willingness to try to fix whatever is wrong, confession is just a waste of time.

You said religion in general though, and are claiming that some religions are like that. There are maybe a few fringe religions (Westboro Baptist Church?) who believe that the second you tell a lie, you're doomed to Hell for all eternity. But religion in general isn't like that. How do you know that Freaky is one of the few fringe religions that believe that?

I'm not gonna argue, don't have the time or willpower, just gonna say that you learned a whole lot more from catholic school than I dd. I went for 8 years myself and know what you're talking about, but you really informed me about a lot of the procedures if what you're saying is true.

And FreakyLocz, I'm not gonna gain anything by trying to convince the unconvinceable, look at the last post for quotes, that's all I have to offer.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

There are plenty about homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Romains 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
1 Timothy 1:9-10 "We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine"

Either you just overlooked them, or you actually haven't read the bible and are just going by what is selectively taught in your church.

You've stated that the Bible condemns men having sex with other men in a manner that he would with a woman. Nowhere did those verses from the Torah state that simply being a homosexual is sinful. In your quotes from 1 Timothy, I would like to point out that the term "homosexuality" does not appear in the original Greek text, nor does it appear in the King James Version. That is a biased translation your are quoting from.

I agree with Yellow. We can't abuse moral skepticism to a point where we allow bad things to happen because people have differing views on morality. It in generally accepted that murder, rape, etc. are immoral, for example. I say "general consensus" because every single person will not agree, but an overwhelming majority of people do.

 

[Masqueraine]

You've stated that the Bible condemns men having sex with other men in a manner that he would with a woman. Nowhere did those verses from the Torah state that simply being a homosexual is sinful. In your quotes from 1 Timothy, I would like to point out that the term "homosexuality" does not appear in the original Greek text, nor does it appear in the King James Version. That is a biased translation your are quoting from.

Can you quote the originals here then? So we can see what it really says.

 

[HarrisonH]

You've stated that the Bible condemns men having sex with other men in a manner that he would with a woman. Nowhere did those verses from the Torah state that simply being a homosexual is sinful. In your quotes from 1 Timothy, I would like to point out that the term "homosexuality" does not appear in the original Greek text, nor does it appear in the King James Version. That is a biased translation your are quoting from.

First off, to call it biased is idiotic: It's modern. It's using words that didn't exist back then (First recorded use of "homosexual" was in 1868). You're right though, in the KJV, it states "those that defile themselves with mankind". Pray tell, how do YOU interpret that to mean?

You say that being a homosexual isn't a sin, but acting on those urges is. How is that any better? Besides, they were made in "god's own image", supposedly. Is god gay? Why would god's image be flawed in a way that by god's law that person cannot act on how god made them?

By the way, it can be argued that the KJV is also a biased translation, as it was commissioned by a king, and what better way to control a group of people than to form their religious beliefs to your will?

As for Masquerine, you can just use the dropdown box on the pages to change to the King James Version of the bible.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

First off, to call it biased is idiotic: It's modern. It's using words that didn't exist back then (First recorded use of "homosexual" was in 1868). You're right though, in the KJV, it states "those that defile themselves with mankind". Pray tell, how do YOU interpret that to mean?

You say that being a homosexual isn't a sin, but acting on those urges is. How is that any better? Besides, they were made in "god's own image", supposedly. Is god gay? Why would god's image be flawed in a way that by god's law that person cannot act on how god made them?

By the way, it can be argued that the KJV is also a biased translation, as it was commissioned by a king, and what better way to control a group of people than to form their religious beliefs to your will?

As for Masquerine, you can just use the dropdown box on the pages to change to the King James Version of the bible.

I never stated my personal view on homosexuality, I merely pointed out that the Bible doesn't condemn simply the state of being a homosexual male (women seem to escape condemnantion altogeher).

You are right. Original meanings do get lost in translation, and the translation is not immune to biased changes. Homosexuality was not condemned in the early church, however. That began during the Middle Ages, when the KJV was created.

This little back and forth on the Bible is getting off-topic; though, so we should leave it at that or continue this discussion in PMs or VMs.

 

[Livewire]

I love how older generations of people say our society is immoral, yet when my Grandparents were young, segregation was legal. Women couldn't vote. Hmmm.

The one constant in our world is change. Times change, people change, morality changes. It happens. Can't really do anything about it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I love how older generations of people say our society is immoral, yet when my Grandparents were young, segregation was legal. Women couldn't vote. Hmmm.

The one constant in our world is change. Times change, people change, morality changes. It happens. Can't really do anything about it.

You hit the nail on the head.

Their parents though that their generation was immoral because the young women wore skirts that showed off even an inch of leg. While some moral virtues should remain constant (like generosity, for example), social standards are constantly changing.