Immediately after Christ states to enter in at the straight gate and that few will find it, He warns about many false Christian prophets (wolves in sheep clothing.) That is consistent with the view that few will find the gate because of the many Christian sects:
Mathew 7:
13 ¶Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mathew 24:
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
If the point of life is to follow this one specific path, and most people don't follow it, then it sounds like the path and its creators did a poor job. If there really were some universal theological truth, it ought to be obvious to everyone. That there isn't even a single majority religion in the world means that no faith is so compelling.
"The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin"
The fact that the religions of the world agree on most facts of what constitutes moral behavior shows the universality of the natural law.
This is a point we can actually agree on, though it is engraved in our DNA and biology, not a disembodied soul. Human beings, regardless of culture or myths, including ones that don't have myths at all, generally know what's right and what's wrong. And most people live according to that, without any influence from supernatural beings or religious. This is how we know that most religious sexual mores are simply culture specific and not universal morals. This is how we know that xenophobia and bigotry are wrong, because literally no one doesn't feel wronged when they suffer it.
Your contention that most people fail to live up to this standard seems false. Most people live decent lives and are kind to one another. Most people follow that universal, biological morality. It is a rare person who completely fails to do so. The gate seems pretty wide to me. And if it is not, then it the fault lies in the designer for designing poorly. Either designing people to not meet the standards that we generally all want to meet, or for designing the supposed method to get through the gate (religion), since it's largely failing to get people onto the right path.
Either way, I think people are doing pretty okay. Certainly better than past societies, and there certainly seems to be a correlation between increased human morality and societies being irreligious. Especially when it comes to the treatment of women.
Sure, but the fact that most religions agree about (at least until recently) most aspects of sexual ethics reveals that this natural law extends to sex as well.
No, this seems to be a particularly modern problem (though I cannot speak to the ancients).
Our attitudes toward race have become better, though I sometimes wonder if we are now at the point that we are so tolerant that we are afraid to address facts. The same problem is seen with women. Our attitude toward sex, however, has been completely destroyed, and this has had terrible societal effects. As for general morality, you tell me whether we were better off 100 years ago or not. Outside of institutional things like racism and the like, are we really better in our interpersonal relationships than we were before? From what I can tell, our relationships have become nasty, brute, and devoid of any respect.
Most don't. Judaism was big about sexual mores, and its descendants continued this idea. Plenty of societies and cultures throughout history have had different sexual mores than Judaism and its children, and didn't condemn homosexuality. This particular set of mores just happened to conquer the world through violence better than its contemporaries.
What does marrying to have children have to do with morality?
Also, by "ancients", I hope you're referring to the 1800s, since there has never been a time in our history where unmarried parenting was uncommon. But again, who cares? Lots of people are opting for a new model besides marriage, especially given the tremendous inequality that a lot of our marriage traditions have within the union, mainly placing a whole lot of restrictions and responsibilities on women. Since women no longer need to marry men in order to obtain economic security, they don't seem as keen on subordinating themselves to men. And this inequality violates the fundamental right and wrong we were talking about, since literally no one likes to be discriminated against to that degree. Your particular religious view of marriage violates the natural law that you're so keen on.
Our attitudes about sex are better than past generations in just about every way. We do more and more to decouple it from economic security. We are much better than we were 100 years ago. Children being chewed up in machines in factories was normal a century ago. Husbands beating their wives was normal a century ago. Marital rape only became a crime in the 1970s, for crying out loud!
I don't know about your personal relationships, but pretty much the only relationships that are nasty, brutish, and devoid of respect are the ones that try to force women into a subservient role for religious reasons. These are both anecdotes, so they're not conclusive data, but there is certainly no great harm suffered by our society by no longer marrying young and having lots of babies and women being forced to be housewives. Modern sexual choices between people have provided a much healthier and more prosperous environment, especially for women.
This is all a bit of a tangent, though, isn't it? Or is male-dominant marriage the criteria for getting through this narrow gate? As opposed to my contention, which is to be respectful and kind to other people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?