Lately, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about morality, especially in the context of religion, and I’d be interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on this.
Jesus teaches that people should do what is right and live according to the moral principles he set forth. That raises a broader philosophical question for me;
Are morals objective truths that exist independently of us, or are they systems that societies create and reshape over time?
morality is a man made construct thus it isnt objective, the greeks and the people they conquered had different moralities, maybe some of them had a worse morality or "better" morality compared to the romans according to their above laws but in the end the romans conquered them, and thats all that matters, if ur victorios in the eyes of whoever is looking at it through a non moral context i feel like it doesnt matter wether u place morality in it, christian morality is cancer i must say
JC comes from jewish land thus his morality is based mostly on the jewish principles, and considering the jews long history of being r***d enslaved and beaten pre christ, it would be silly to folllow their teachings instead of something better like greek or romes philosophical drivers
I’ve increasingly struggled with the idea that laws and social norms alone can represent ultimate truth. If they did, they would presumably be immutable. Yet history shows that what societies consider right or wrong changes dramatically across generations. Practices once widely accepted are now condemned, while others once condemned have become accepted. That suggests that at least some moral systems are heavily influenced by culture, politics, and historical circumstances, rather than existing as timeless absolutes.
One historical pattern I find interesting is the relationship between power and religion.
completely true, if u read one of nietzsche or schopenhauers books u couldve came to this conclusion already in the first 20 pages jaani
For much of history, rulers maintained authority primarily through force. Kings and emperors relied on military strength, intimidation, and punishment to discourage rebellion. This could secure obedience, but it often produced unstable governments because people obeyed out of fear rather than genuine loyalty.
Religion introduced a different mechanism.
Instead of relying solely on external coercion, it could provide an internal form of social regulation. If people sincerely believed that honesty, humility, loyalty, and self-restraint were morally good, while betrayal, greed, and the pursuit of power for its own sake were sinful, then many would regulate their own behaviour without requiring constant force.
some inforce this better then others, and some religions are better then others, point to athens and the answer for everything wrong with religion and modern beliefs, the answer is in how the athenians did it
From a political perspective, that has obvious advantages. A population that shares a moral framework and largely governs itself through internalized beliefs is often easier to govern than one that must be controlled entirely through fear.
true, altough i dont like politics..
Historically, many rulers seem to have recognized this. Some may have been genuinely religious, while others may have promoted a particular faith because it strengthened social cohesion and reinforced political legitimacy. Grounding authority in something perceived as divine can make that authority appear stronger than military power alone.
with rulers its more ify, some of them genuinely liked the power, but others felt illuminated by god, almost like a trance
That doesn’t necessarily mean religion is only a political tool. I think humans naturally want to believe in something greater than themselves: something that gives meaning, purpose, or comfort beyond ordinary life.
yes, philosophy explores this in deeper effects, humans end up believing in something wether they like it or not, but again, some beliefs are better then the others
What I find interesting is that many religions follow similar patterns:
- they provide moral guidance,
- they create a shared identity,
- they offer explanations for suffering and existence,
- and they often become closely connected with political authority.
i agree with the ethics of each except justifying suffering, suffering shouldnt be explained it should be justified through a means, saying its bad and happing because of .... isnt saving anyone when the world is filled with suffering and the bones of people who died
So the question I’m left with is this Do religions primarily reveal objective moral truth, or did they become dominant because they were the most convincing, comforting, or politically useful systems available at the time?
religions appeal to the masses because they are appealing, christ is appealing to the human because his faults are projected onto the image of JC, picture the tortured soul being redeemed in teh afterlife, as the peasant sees his day to day as suffering he longs for a break one day, as JC promises that, he follows christ to its conclusion, often living a dull life, however the greeks on the other hand, their gods were literal gods, with teh same foolish thoughts as the humans, except they were idealised
anyways arzenic good luck tryiing to shake up braincels on that shithole
