Thank you for an interesting question, Steffon.
I think the chief value of morality isn't that we live blameless, respectable lives. It's that we make the best use of our instruments of conscience (by which I mean our wisdom, compassion and reason.)
Since humans and their societies can grow in wisdom, compassion and reason over time, it follows that our consciences can grow too, if we allow and encourage that.
If we believe that all the moral answers were available to us in the Bronze Age when the great world religions were founded, then we're also saying that there are no moral reasons to oppose slavery, superstition (such as the belief that sickness is caused by witches and demons), the subjugation of women, treating children as chattels, capital punishment, infant mutilation, the suppression of free speech, torture and genocide -- all of which were routine in Bronze Age cultures.
But if we believe that morality is developed over time, then we must also accept that superior knowledge can allow future generations to see moral insights that we may find murky today. For example, what might genetics or neuroscience one day teach us about cruelty? What might economics and psychology teach us about theft? What if biology and neuroscience show that other animals also have conscience?
It's one thing to act on conviction -- from time to time, we must all do that. But it is quite another to act from supremacism -- the belief that one is not only making a good decision, but that all other decisions must now and forever be inferior or bad.
Decisions based on reason must submit themselves to challenge. However, decisions based on the exercise of faith and/or dogma are especially prone to supremacism. This is true both in religious and secular ideology -- whatever we embrace as an act of faith.
Thus, I hold that faith isn't the answer. At best it's a gateway to better questions.
I hope that may be of interest.
We wouldnt! Everybody else was wrong and thought they were right so we should be the same way as we are human too. If we were doing gods will then our ancestors would have been doing gods will otherwise god didnt have anything important for humans to do all throughout history so why all the sudden does he have a plan for us. And if it wasnt important for all of our ancestors to believe in jesus then why is it important for me to believe. If there was one religion that had been with us sense the beginning and if there were no starving kids in the world etc. then i might believe in it if it werent as ridiculous as the bible and other religions. We arent doing gods will unless god is an evil a hole
The assertion made in the topic is false and also is a generalization. Anytime an assertion is made using the word "ALL" it is a red flag for sure! So really ALL of the beliefs of everyone's ancestors were wrong? What about people who believed on both sides of a same issue...One would have to be right? Or not??...In the past ---just like today, some people are following God and correct morals, and some people are not....But the main idea that most people don't understand yet is that a person can receive personal revelation...From God to them. A person can KNOW that God lives, a person can know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a person can know which Church is God's Church....You don't have to guess.
Yes, it is true that religion has been used to justify very wrong things, but this does not mean that the morals taught by the religion are all wrong. Unfortunately, many either misunderstood the message that a religion should be about and others have cherry picked quotes from religious text to justify evils. Most, if not all, religions main message is one of kindness, forgiveness, and other great attributes a person should gain. Though the message may be misunderstood or twisted to fit an agenda, the basic message tends to be moral.
The person who wrote this may have failed to realize that the same statement would also apply to them if true. If chances are that we are wrong, then chances are they are wrong as well because "we" signifies that the person is including themselves in the statement.