Are good morals rendered invalid if their source is considered false?

[Kouyate42]

This is something I have been meaning to ask for some time based on something I have read.

It was actually in an article I saw about the Jehovahs Witnesses which got me thinking about my title question. The JWs hold many beliefs which a Christian in the mainstream would likelu hold to be admirable, such as the importance of family or speaking out against homosexuality.

But my question is this: the JWs base many of their core beliefs upon what most people consider to be false doctrine. So does this invalidate their good moral teachings or not? And does this include those teachings which other religious denominations would also hold?

Similarly would anyone with false beliefs of ANY kind have their good moral teachings nullified on the basis that their initial reasoning for their morality is false?

 

[OraLabora]

The Natural Law teaches that good moral law is written on the hearts of all men and women of good will.

The source of good moral behavior is not the Church but God. Belief systems can of course teach either Truth or error, but inasmuch as it teaches a Truth that is recognized as such by the Church, that Truth comes from God. It is the errors that are taught that are from corrupt humans.

PS I’m not sure teaching against homosexuality is “good moral law”. The Church teaches that it is a disorder, not a sin. It is succumbing to the disordered temptation that is a sin. But it isn’t a sin beyond redemption. Teaching that the disorder itself is a sin is in fact teaching error and if the JWs teach that then they are teaching serious error (I have no idea if that’s what they teach).

 

[robwar]

most all religions will have some elements of truth which they should get from God’s Natural law. So while JW is based on false doctrine and false interpretation of the Bible, they have as other religions do some threads of truth such as good moral behaviors and family values. The Mormons are the same way. But what truth they may have does not justify their many errors or even to follow their teaching and beliefs. Common truth can be a stepping stone of conversation but common truth does not mean all religions are the same or equal and some have more than others. The Catholic Church contains all and complete truth. Maybe an example of this would be the Magi of Matthew. They were astrologers which is a false belief but they followed the thread of truth they had, left every thing behind to come to Jesus.

 

[DTrent]

This is something I have been meaning to ask for some time based on something I have read.

It was actually in an article I saw about the Jehovahs Witnesses which got me thinking about my title question. The JWs hold many beliefs which a Christian in the mainstream would likelu hold to be admirable, such as the importance of family or speaking out against homosexuality.

But my question is this: the JWs base many of their core beliefs upon what most people consider to be false doctrine. So does this invalidate their good moral teachings or not? And does this include those teachings which other religious denominations would also hold?

Similarly would anyone with false beliefs of ANY kind have their good moral teachings nullified on the basis that their initial reasoning for their morality is false?

No, it does not invalidate their good moral teachings. ANYBODY with good moral teachings (Bible teachings) is doing a good thing by holding to those morals.
Makes sense, yes?