Is accepting Jesus as ur saviour & the son of God a moral thing to do?


A facebook Muslim friend asked this question:

“Is accepting Jesus as ur saviour & the son of God a moral thing to do?”

He was asking about non-Catholics being saved and I already shared the CCC 839-848. I was sharing about mortal sin… and he then again asked the above. What is the best way to answer him?


Of course! There is nothing in that simple concept that is contrary to Catholic faith. In fact, before a person is baptized, he/she must make baptismal promises, including:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ,
[the Father’s] only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered death and was buried,
rose again from the dead,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father?

That statement of faith explicitly includes acceptance of Jesus as Son of God. The part of savior is more implicit in the “suffered death and was buried, rose again from the dead” part.

It is not enough to follow the Protestant model only, however. Full grace comes through the Sacraments and the Church (you already knew that but your Muslim friend may not grasp the distinction).

Absolutely! You must before making a decision to follow him! Even when our protestant brothers do this and stop there…it is one step closer to the truth than they were.

Turning to God in faith, love, and obedience is the moral thing to do. Justice calls out for man to be in relationship with God. When we see Jesus we see the Father; we’re to recognize the One to whom we should turn when we see the Son.

Jesus came to make reconciliation between man and God so that relationship can be restored, so that man can *commune *with God as was always intended, and as is necessary in order for man to have life, moral integrity, harmony, happiness.

Thank you for all of the posts!

Muslim friend said:

"Morality is subjective in some things & objective in others.

If you say a moral person accepts Jesus as the son of God. Thats SUBJECTIVE ! ! ! Just YOUR point of view & NOTHING else.

If you say killing is morally wrong. Thats CLEAR CUT. There should be NO 2 views about it."

What is the best response? Should I say his statement is only subjective for someone who hasn’t come to knowledge of the truth? But that doesn’t seem to do much for our conversation. I know…A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

I told him the best moral decision is to accept Jesus Christ into one’s heart.

"1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4 -

Thanks for helping me to think through this!

Ask them why killing or stealing etc. Is morally objective? Animals certainly don’t behave that way, nor do humans in many contexts such as:

Genocide (for example a lot of Germans in hitlers Germany thought it morally acceptable to round up and execute those not Arian enough)

There are many more examples, but it seems like her own statement is subjective in itself.
Many philosophers and atheists would disagree with her so it is sort if self refuting.

Thanks… I am not that great with philosophy, try as I might. Not sure how to answer this statement.

He said:

Saying that accepting Jesus as God is moral is TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE & expecting everyone to accept that is TOTALLY WRONG & saying that those who dont accept that are not moral is EVEN WORSE ! ! !

THATS where I was trying to bring you ! ! !

Yeah, I might agree with his statement. I don’t think I would necessarily bring acceptance of Christ or not snd morality together. The two can be separated. It seems to complicate the issue to me.

What are you trying to argue exactly? That Jesus is God?

If he is Muslim, he shouldn’t really believe in subjective morality. He should agree with the statement that there is 1 God, who has revealed 1 truth to man, and that in Gids eyes there is either moral (with God) or immoral (against God). Where we disagree is merely on what the 1 truth revealed by God is.

"Morality is subjective in some things & objective in others.

If you say a moral person accepts Jesus as the son of God. Thats SUBJECTIVE ! ! ! Just YOUR point of view & NOTHING else.

If you say killing is morally wrong. Thats CLEAR CUT. There should be NO 2 views about it."

He misunderstands the concept of morality (or perhaps this issue has been explained poorly to him).

He asked, “Is accepting Jesus … a moral thing to do?”, to which the answer is YES.

He did not ask “Must a person accept Jesus to be moral?” The answer to this question is NO.

Morality is not subjective at all. But just because a thing is moral does not mean it is compulsory.

It is moral to accept Jesus.
It is neutral to merely not accept Jesus due to not hearing or not understanding the Gospel.
It is immoral to hear and understand the Gospel and then to positively reject it. (by this last one, I mean, for example, hearing “feed the hungry,” understanding that the hungry need to be fed and that one is in the position to feed and then to hoard one’s food in spite of the message, ability and understanding)

He is a liberal Muslim and framed the question using “morality”, not sure why he did that. I don’t think he understands objective and subjective morality, try as I might… or he isn’t seriously thinking through it. I told him people can be saved that don’t accept Jesus Christ (but not without faith in ways known only to God as per CCC)… but not in so many words. Shared with him the CCC verses on salvation.

God Bless You!

Thank you for your insightful thoughts! I will share them with him.

God Bless You!

Respond to the person in this way

Is accepting Jesus as your saviour and the son of God an immoral or amoral thing to do, and if so why?


It is my pleasure.
Hope it helps.

Let us know if you need more help. I find their line of questions to be very predictable.
They may or may not answer your question directly. Don’t worry. It’s not what they say that matters as much as what they do not say.

Thank you for all your help… please help me to respond to this question from my Muslim friend:

“HOW does moral law finds its “fullness” from Christ??? WHAT is “FULLNESS”???”

So HOW is accepting Jesus as “moral” unless you are a Christian & believe that Jesus is God??? Its moral ONLY as far as Christian Belief System goes. If you see it from an Islamic view point, its the BIGGEST SIN of all ! ! ! So its COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE ! ! !

Do we need religion (God or Gods) to tell us that killing is wrong???

To some degree all belief in a God with a defined nature and will is subjective. We depend on grace to enable that faith. But ignorance. caused by a variety of means, reduces culpability. In any case if we bother to look close. we’ll see the Father in Jesus more clearly then ever before. And we’re called to recognize that, to the best we can with the info we have, regardless of cultural anathemas.

Your friend is using the same line of argumentation that gives us abortion and homosexual activism today. I doubt he can truly delineate between his own use of the argument and theirs.

Since this particular objection is to your citation of the Catechism, it might provide some salve for him to learn other teachings from the same catechism that pertain more drectly to him:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
(Lumen Gentium 16)

You could answer your online friend that killing is good if and only if your particular God endorses it. However, I wouldn’t go that way with the response. He or she set you up for this question.
He or she actually brought up a great rebuttal.
Spin is needed now.

I’ve shared with him the CCC in the past on our relationship with the Muslims and non-believers, not sure if he read it entirely. He’s more apt to read short 2-3 sentences if i write them… I am almost done debating him, because i am fining it may be wasting my time; although, the debates may help me, and other FB readers, to grow in faith, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

His last post… I just don’t have the ability to defend that faith or the time to think through these things so deeply. Any support would be great. Thanks for trying to help. GOD BLESS YOU MY FRIENDS!

Forget me or what I believe. I just PROVED to you that “Accepting Jesus as God” is “SUBJECTIVE Morality” since for Christians its the moral thing to do while for Muslims, its the biggest sin of all.

And you still havent told me what is “fullness”???

& you didnt answer my previous question: Do we need religion (God or Gods) to tell us that killing is wrong???

He’s arguing for moral relativism and has not proved it at all.

His sole claim is that accepting Jesus as Lord is apostasy for a Muslim. Since Islam does not recognize the divinity of Jesus and further asserts their Prophet as inspired by God, he is correct that a person believing these things would err in leaving that religion. That is not because these things are wrong in themselves, but because such a person commits apostasy against his beliefs.

Moral law does not require anyone to act in defiance of their beliefs.

I discussed this in post #9.
It is moral to accept Jesus.
Morality does not necessarily require accepting Jesus.
Only those who believe in the divinity of Jesus are required to follow Him per moral law.

Morality does require integrity (i.e. acting in conformity with beliefs). This is the only point. Therefore, if a person believes in Islam, he is required to follow it. If, however, a person believes in Jesus, he must follow Him. Anyone who follows a religion he does not believe violates moral law. This is not subjective.

The same principle is true of civil law. A pedestrian is not required to wear a helmet even though he uses the same road as a motorcyclist. Both must stop at the same traffic light and neither must wear a safety belt. If the motorcyclist dismounts, he may opt to remove his helmet. If the pedestrian mounts a motorcycle, he must don a helmet. If either travels by car, he must wear a safety belt. The law doesn’t change. What the law **requires **changes depending upon the mode of transportation selected.

Even though beliefs are not chosen in the way that a mode of transportation is chosen, the analogy holds. You must act in accordance with your beliefs just as a traveler must act in accordance with his mode of transportation.

In answer to his other questions, “fullness” means completeness. It is possible to have an adequate (or even superlative) grasp of the moral law without the Church. However, the “fullness” is found in divine Revelation. (I would expect a Muslim to say the same of Islam, as it is also a revelatory religion)

“Do we need religion (God or Gods) to tell us that killing is wrong?”

Not relevant. As discussed in the “fullness” explanation, it is possible to achieve a superlative understanding of the moral law without revelation. Such understanding would not be perfect, but “better than average”.