Apology For Religious Histories

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Apology For Religious Histories

I can’t remember the name of the wise author who wrote of the great and good men of the past, that their virtues were their own, but their vices were those of their times. Their moral innovations came from a special light that shone from within them, but what we now see as their moral failures was not anything that came below what was considered ordinary and acceptable behavior for their times and in their societies. Moral Intuition and Reflection can only go so far in convincing even the bravest moral pioneer that he alone is right and all his contemporaries wrong. Also, there may have been instances where some unique individuals in the Past have lived entirely independent of the influence of their societies and conducted their lives in the most pristine goodness. But whether perceived as Saints or Insane, they must have been so very different from everybody else of their times that it must have been thought impossible to emulate them, and their influence on the Moral Development of the Societies minimal because it was so incomprehensible.

Today, it is a favorite argument of Atheists that the Religious Leaders, Saints, and Prophets of the past did not evince the same high moral standards by which we measure ourselves today. We should understand, however, that it is the cumulative moral efforts of these very people that have given us these high moral standards by which we now criticize them. We must also take into consideration that it is the inactive, secluded, retired and demur Intellectuals who seem to expect the Highest Moral Standards from those who live active lives. Those who live Active Social and Political lives, because they are lead into choices, some of which present moral dilemmas, must sometimes choose between evils, where the best that can be expected is that they choose the lesser of evils. But they who would insist upon a bitter and spiteful perfection, see only that evil has been committed, and not that a greater evil had been avoided. And it should perhaps mitigate the Atheist’s argument that the Saints of the past did not behave according to the moral standards of today, that a thorough review of modern social and political behavior would reveal that few of our own time’s men and women of influence are able to be any more exemplary than those of the Past who are now criticized.

So I would recommend we judge the Religious Institutions of the Past against the moral standards of the secular and barbaric Societies in which they had no choice but to interact. To judge things Ancient by Modern Standards may be useful in giving us a sense of moral progress, but to turn these comparisons into indictments is rather like blaming Apples for not being Oranges.

Atheists may insist that the Influence of Divine Omnipotence should have guaranteed a Moral Perfection from the very first moment of Creation. Yet, perhaps the Atheists should consider that our Eternity which we perceive as an endless span of Time, is to God but a Single Moment in which His Perfection is achieved. Engulfed in the middle of the Process, by the Illusion that we are passing through Time, we think we see imperfection, but it is rather Chaos inexorably combining into an Ultimate Moral Order. It is really not something we should be complaining about.
 
Too many times we judge people of the past using today's standards. We do not give them the benefit that they were living in what they considered to be moral at that time. Things that are quite obvious to us now were unknown back then. People of the future will do the same thing to us. They will look at our time and judge us based on their knowledge and understanding of the time. Things we do now will seem very barbaric to them. People can only be judged in the context of their own times. They cannot be retroactively judged based on new understandings.
 
Brutus1964 said:
Too many times we judge people of the past using today's standards. We do not give them the benefit that they were living in what they considered to be moral at that time. Things that are quite obvious to us now were unknown back then. People of the future will do the same thing to us. They will look at our time and judge us based on their knowledge and understanding of the time. Things we do now will seem very barbaric to them. People can only be judged in the context of their own times. They cannot be retroactively judged based on new understandings.

To expand on what you are saying, I do believe that there will be enough moral progress in the future to rightly justify the contempt that our posterity will have for us, I hope. Arnold Toynbee, who had done so much work in studying and analyizing Civilizations, past and present, did remark that Humanity was still relatively young with that whole concept -- that there had only been 20 Civilizations, and so far only two Generations of Civil-Religious development. All that in just the last 10,000 years. What could we expect after 50,000 years... or a Million years? The moral development we demonstrate today may well be perceived as quite 'pre'-Civilized to those who will look back upon us.

Some of my hopes are based upon Messianic Prophecies. The entire idea of Christ's Coming may not so much indicate a specific Divine Individual arriving from Heaven to boss everybody around, as it may point to the possibility of Humanity reaching that stage of Moral Social Development where we can assert finally that Heaven is now upon the Earth. Certainly such claims cannot be made while Greed is posing as a Virtue, while Freedom is being pushed out of bombbay doors from 30,000 feet, and Democracy provided to support the tyranny of Special Interests and Powerful Ethnic Groups over ambushed majorities. However, there is a strong enough Moral Reaction to Conservative Satanism that liberal and Higher Religious despair need not be complete, and where there is still life left in any 'Blue' State, there is Hope.
 
Dear Itopal,

There is not really much that can be said about your sentence by sentence comments... they are so reactive. I could go over each comment saying that your are projecting out of your own serious neurosis onto what I had said, seriously distorting my intent, but it would soon get redundant.

A better style would be for you to read my mini-essay and write a mini-essay of your own in response, focusing more on what you think. Instead of structuring around my essay phrase for phrase, you could structure around your own coherent thoughts, if you have any.

The only thing in your comments that attracted my attention was with the troubles Voltaire had with the Church. I suppose you think that the Church has been the only Institution in Human History to ever get in anybody's way. But what of the Orthodoxies of Our Modern Age. We have Institutionalized Pressures that first insist that everybody in the World organize themselves as Democracies, and then, once that is accomplished, to insist that they Vote Conservatively. People that don't want to go along with the Plan wind up on the receiving end of bombs and invasions. That is Secularism.
 
Religions did a disservice to the 'natural law' - survival of the fittest. What a rosy world it would have been without religions....
 
So Gods christian morallity is subjective, rather than objective? Thats rather interesting considering one of the christians biggest arguments is for the superior objective morality of god. If christian morality is just as fallible as non christian morality of what use is it?
 
Back
Top