[adrianb]

I agree, religion offers simple ways to classify actions as good or bad. Following the church teachings or priest's guidance was enough to make an individual confident they are a good person, doing good things.

Meanwhile, in real life, everything is complex, few things are clearly good or bad, everything has advantages and disadvantages. People need a simple compass to distinguish good and bad. It seems the "political beliefs" are taking up that space in a secular society.

[tenpies]

> I agree, religion offers simple ways to classify actions as good or bad. Following the church teachings or priest's guidance was enough to make an individual confident they are a good person, doing good things.

The unfortunate thing is that this sums up the current state of religious education because we've had a generation that was poorly taught, who then taught the next generation. Now the generation we are raising is not even being taught - which might actually be a good thing since those that are interested will seek that knowledge for themselves instead of being turned off by poor educators.

But for Catholic moral theology for example, it's generally quite complex and exceedingly individual for all but the most black and white situations. What is a sin for me, may not be for you. "Sin" is also in itself a catchall for a whole subset of types of sin - and they're almost all relative to the individual because it will depend on the extent of your free choice, your understanding, and the gravity of the situation. People think it's the 10 Commandments, but that's really just the one thing someone who was poorly educated would remember.

And it's quite tragic because it's actually a whole journey that begins with natural law. Then slowly, over generations, you get small revelations of what God's moral teaching is until you reach a big moment with the revelation of Mosaic law (part of which are the 10 Commandments). Then generations later, you have Jesus drop by and quite literally say that because you were too hard of heart, that was the law revealed to you, but that now you are ready for a higher moral standard.

Even if one has no interest in Catholicism, it's fascinating to watch from the perspective of the evolution of a moral code over generations.

And then you have to consider that Catholic moral theology is just the foundation for Catholic social teaching, which is exactly what is taught to deal with the everyday complex issues where it may not even be a question of "is this a sin?", but rather, "how should I act?".

[TheOtherHobbes]

This would be more convincing if Catholics - actually religious people in general - were known for exemplary morals.

That's very much not the case.

Religion is demonstrably useless when it comes to practical morality, because it's not in any sense a coherent and stable moral system.

It's really about crafting individual and tribal justifications for arbitrary behaviours supported by various power hierarchies. Some may be considered moral, while others are clearly damaging, hateful, and abhorrent.

It's impossible to deny this without denying centuries of religious history.

There's far more of value in psychological research than there is any religious teaching. Even though it's just getting started, it's a far more coherent body of knowledge than the random mess of conflicting and contradictory opinions and justifications that the religious industries have generated.

[akomtu]

With a bit more discovery, the Catholic church apoears as the probably biggest corporation today with its unscrupulous desire for power. There are all sorts of people and stuff going on in that organisation: from literal saints (in the past) to rather evil types, from lithurgy to ceremonial magic and dark rituals. But the church is adept at making the illusion of united front. Its biggest secret is perhaps the history it had erased but had kept records of. So I wouldnt take its moral code any more seriously than a corporate policy. The only thing of value in that code is the basic rules like "do to others what you would do to yourself", but these rules werent invented by the church.

[snarf21]

That is the narrative of the religious but most don't go to learn about what they are doing wrong. They go to find out what other people are doing wrong so they can feel superior and rail against the sin of others. Religion has always been a weapon, it is just easier to wield now.

[qsort]

I'm not religious myself, but it is true that if you're going to treat something other than religion as though it were a religion, it's almost always going to be much worse.

Most religious prescriptions are either common sense (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness) or recipes to avoid social chaos (thou shalt not commit adultery).

Of course religion has also been wielded as a weapon, and I'm the first in line to cherish western secularization, but I don't see it as an inherently socially harmful force.

[ShrigmaMale]

Christianity is pretty clear on pulling out the log in one's own eye. Since everybody alive is imperfect we shouldn't spend time criticizing others, beyond something like a friend offering advice or parent correcting a child, or protecting people from others. It also is clear it is not our place to judge others. That is the place of the Father (if Jewish) or the Son (if Christian).

[seneca]

> That is the narrative of the religious but most don't go to learn about what they are doing wrong. They go to find out what other people are doing wrong so they can feel superior and rail against the sin of others.

And this is the narrative of the Extremely Online Atheist. Of the hundreds of religious people I know (though I'm not myself), maybe two fit that description. You are noticing outliers and assuming they represent the entire group.

[mensetmanusman]

Simple like ‘love your enemies’