Which religion is the most morally sound?

[NoGravitas]

What religions holy texts and certified scripture are the best guide for living a morally sound life in the modern age?

No religion is without its backdated, normally horribly unethical teachings but which out of todays active religions do you think is best off?

Will it be Christianity? Islam? Or even Scientology?

[}{arlequin]

wild guess... buddhism?


edit: i forgot to add ibtp!!

[Face]

they're all stupid

[slore]

Jedi.

[NoGravitas]

Sorry to all the offended Jedis. How could i forget you?

[Face]

apatheism FTW

[Okie Medicvet]

Definitely other. I pick the smorasborg of faith...Unitarian Universalism. If everyone converted to that they could still keep their original faith, and would be part of something to have everyone getting along a lot better because they would be taught to respect what others believe as well. So UU ftw.

[medlar]

Catholocism..how you should act as opposed to what you believe.

[}{arlequin]

the 'how-about-you-don't-do-bad-shit' religion rates very highly in my book

[NoGravitas]

Definitely other. I pick the smorasborg of faith...Unitarian Universalism. If everyone converted to that they could still keep their original faith, and would be part of something to have everyone getting along a lot better because they would be taught to respect what others believe as well. So UU ftw.

Id never heard of that but it sounds like a genius idea.

[}{arlequin]

i realize i don't know the premise(s) behind many of these

[Okie Medicvet]

I think the oldest one of those is Zoroastrianism, or at least that was the first monotheistic religion..checked it out and they have a pretty interesting online site:

http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/

I also find it pretty interesting that just about every religion has it's own version of the 'golden rule':

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

If I wasn't already a UU and had to pick just one of the other faiths, would probably go with Buddhism, but since I don't have to choose I can see a lot of good to be found in the Buddhist way of thought, and the noble eightfold path, and incorporate it into my UU belief structures.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html


I also have some Wiccan beliefs, and what some call "new age" but in reality predates Christianity, and some Native American and animistic beliefs.

[Phil Theehor]

This is a tricky question. Each religion establishes its own moral code. So, the question "which religion provides the best guide for living a moral life" is really an impossible question. They all provide a moral code that, in the eyes of the followers, is the best moral code. Because they all define for themselves what is moral, the 'most moral' question really can't be answered.

Now, mix in the "modern day" element and I do get where you are going with this. You're asking what works best today. I'll confess that the only ones I really understand are Judaism, Christianity and Islam-- so I'm not qualified to do an across the board compare and contrast.

However, I can give a conceptual answer. The best religion for modern times would be the least codified and most principle-based. Jesus' answer to the "most important commandment" question provides an excellent starting point. Stick to those principles and you'll be a good person. "Don't use the same dishes for milk and dairy" doesn't provide a lot of value.

Now, here's the final answer (and this is a drum I beat in every religion thread). Where religions ultimately succeed or fail is in how they are interpreted. You can take "love thy neighbor" from the Koran. Or you can take "stone women drivers" (at times, not an unattractive thought, but I digress) and "kill non-believers".

I don't know the tenets of all the religions listed, but I would guess that you can find "don't be a dick" somewhere in all of them. That's a pretty good moral code for any age. And if you look hard enough, you can probably find "be a dick" in there, too.

Religion is a tool and, like any tool, is only as good as the person who uses it.

[Okie Medicvet]

True, a lot of different faiths holy scriptures are flawed by being encased in tradition instead of concentrating more on concept. I don't find Eastern faiths like Zen and Buddhism doing that though, and that's probably because they are as much a philosophy as a faith...maybe that is where the flaw lies in the trifecta of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

and couldn't help but post this cartoon as it fits so well:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v247/okiemedicvet/judgementday.jpg

[NoGravitas]

True, a lot of different faiths holy scriptures are flawed by being encased in tradition instead of concentrating more on concept. I don't find Eastern faiths like Zen and Buddhism doing that though, and that's probably because they are as much a philosophy as a faith...maybe that is where the flaw lies in the trifecta of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

Theres a whole load of ritual involved in the Eastern religions. Maybe even more than the western.

[moe_blunts]

that was easy

[Soup Nazi]

Buddhism often encourages its practitioners to seek out wisdom and teachings from other cultures and religions to better their own lives and those around them. I would say that puts it a slight peg ahead of many other teachings on the list.

I think if you got down to the core of Christianity and its most basic of teachings, it would be right up there as well. Unfortunately, the Church and its followers have had to dumb it down for the masses for so long, that lots of inane bullshit unfortunately leaked in. Though I suppose that also could be said of many others on this list, some of which I only know a little about (Jainism, Baha'i, and Sikkhism in particular).

[NoGravitas]

Though I suppose that also could be said of many others on this list, some of which I only know a little about (Jainism, Baha'i, and Sikkhism in particular).

One thing i know about sikhism is that it has (or at least had) alot of anti islamic teachings. Not really a solid moral base for a religion.

[NoGravitas]

Buddhism seems to be leading the way here but does it have any negatives? I dont know enough to say but surely it must have some outdated negative teachings somewhere? Does anyone have any dirt on buddhism?

[Anfield Red]

Religion is merely an artificial expression of spirituality, and has been said, rightly, serves as "the opiate of the masses", numbing them through a cloak of dogma to the realities of life.

Any morality therefore, expressed by a religion, is the interpretation of an individual or group, and cannot therefore be held in higher esteem than that of another, as they are all self-serving, reflective of the persona of its adherents.

[Archangel]

You Dawkins disciples sure are great at memorising his gospels verbatim.

[Archangel]

And last I checked, the basic tenet of Christianity is, "love everyone, no matter what"; I dunno about you guys, but to me, that sounds like a pretty good principle.

[Phil Theehor]

Religion is merely an artificial expression of spirituality, and has been said, rightly, serves as "the opiate of the masses", numbing them through a cloak of dogma to the realities of life.

Any morality therefore, expressed by a religion, is the interpretation of an individual or group, and cannot therefore be held in higher esteem than that of another, as they are all self-serving, reflective of the persona of its adherents.

That's awfully dismissive, chief. I'll agree with you that the actual results of religion rely entirely on the individual's (or group's) interpretation.

But if I'm reading you correctly, you'd say that "'love thy neighbor' can't be called a superior basis for a moral code because it is taken from Christianity, which only exists to placate the great stupid."

How is that? How would the origin invalidate the principle?

Interested in your thoughts (no more copy/paste please).

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure that the average Dawkins dick rider does so because it lets him use big words.

[vicar in a tutu]

Hindus get high so as to connect with Krishna.

Hinduism wins.

[Archetype]

That has nothing to do with morality.

[freegood]

What is morally sound like?

Does it morally smell?

[Anfield Red]

That's awfully dismissive, chief. I'll agree with you that the actual results of religion rely entirely on the individual's (or group's) interpretation.

But if I'm reading you correctly, you'd say that "'love thy neighbor' can't be called a superior basis for a moral code because it is taken from Christianity, which only exists to placate the great stupid."

How is that? How would the origin invalidate the principle?

Interested in your thoughts (no more copy/paste please).

Firstly, my original post is my own words. I'm not in the habit of quoting 'verbatim' persons I've never heard of.

Religion, organised religion, that is, has over time bound its adherents to an illusion of sanctity based on the actual physical practices of the entity, and although these may well encompass a moral code, the fact remains that the supposed morality of a religion remains the interpretation of man.

Morality itself is not beholden to being faith-based, as it is perfectly feasible for an athiest to morally acceptable to the society in which they live, after all, one's morality is purely the perspective of the person making the judgement, and therefore one cannot make the assumption that in order to be morally compliant in society that one has to adhere to a particular faith, irrespective of what that faith is.

Ergo: Society determines morality, not religion.

[Archangel]

Edit it again. The spelling is still shit.


And drop the professorial tone. It's rarely good English to begin with, and you suck at it.

[Anfield Red]

Whatever.

[Archangel]

Also, from an epistemic viewpoint, you're an idiot. It's really easy to say that, 250 years after Kant, social morality and religious morality are two different things; but to somebody who's not from a country younger than Friedrich Schiller, the fallacy of that argument is blindingly obvious. Simply put, Christian morality and social morality were one and the same bloody thing in Europe for, oh, 1500 years.
For better or worse, if you look at our laws or our penal system, anyone with a working brain will see Augustine and Paul's hands in shaping them.

And guess what, secularism didn't change a fucking thing about that.

[Anfield Red]

Simply put, Christian morality and social morality were one and the same bloody thing in Europe for, oh, 1500 years.


500AD Europeans were running aroung in skins, clubbing the living shit out of each other, so much for faith-based morality.

[Archangel]

500AD Europeans were running aroung in skins, clubbing the living shit out of each other, so much for faith-based morality.

Great argument. The fact aside that the barbarian tribes weren't exactly papal (well, the Merovingians converted at the end of the 5th century), I guess you've never heard of the word "Constantinople"? Also, I mentioned Kant and the advent of secularism before, right? So if anything, we'd be talking about 300AD.

Try again. Your ignorance is showing.

[Archangel]

To wit: The guy just said that because the guys who worshipped Odin got into fights with the guys who worshipped Oberon, Christian morality is insignificant.

That is some brilliant analysis, right there.

[Archetype]

Firstly, my original post is my own words. I'm not in the habit of quoting 'verbatim' persons I've never heard of.

Religion, organised religion, that is, has over time bound its adherents to an illusion of sanctity based on the actual physical practices of the entity, and although these may well encompass a moral code, the fact remains that the supposed morality of a religion remains the interpretation of man.

And ducks like water. What the fuck, man? Of course morality comes down to the people who try and follow it.

Morality itself is not beholden to being faith-based, as it is perfectly feasible for an athiest to morally acceptable to the societyin which they live, after all, one's morality is purely the perspective of the person making the judgement, and therefore one cannot make the assumption that in order to be morally compliant in society that one has to adhere to a particular faith, irrespective of what that faith is.

Ergo: Society determines morality, not religion.
This is false. Morality does not hinge itself on being what is socially acceptable. Society does not determine morality, it can't determine morality because of it's temporary, contradictory, and ever changing stature. Morality is intended to be a universal concept, and thus can only be discovered through experience, introspective thought, and philosophical theory over time. It might require society to grow, but it is not contingent on societal rules, ie. every civil rights movement and revolution, ever. One needs not be religious to be moral, true, but that has nothing to do with societal customs and regulations, nor darwinistic survival. Hell, being moral may be impossible because of a flawed attempt at a universal where none such thing can exist, but that doesn't make morality relative, it makes it obsolete. The word your looking for is ethics, which is entirely relative to the specific situation. To win at chess, you must take the king in checkmate. This isn't the morality of chess, it's the ethics of chess. These ethical rules may be influenced by moral principles, and they may not.

Ergo: Neither religion nor society determines morality, but if you wanna get technical, most religions have the upper hand because they place it at the very core of their system, whereas society is purely relative to the people within it.

Also, who the fuck says "ergo"?

[Mustard]

The religion of my ballsack is the most morally sound.

[Archetype]

Like Shintoists, the people that find your ballsack have no moral code.

[Mustard]

I'm not sure where you're going with that remark, so I'm going to blindly dismiss it as false and move on like all religions do.

[Archetype]

You get handjobs from prostitutes and fat sluts.

[Mustard]

Well no shit.

[Skinny Banana]

buddhism for sure..it makes the most sense out of all of them..but the coolest one by far is hinduism...if you seriously believe in an elephant with multiple arms, you're the shit in my book, teach me more