I'm a good person I don't need God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victorygirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Max,
Romans 2, states that a person, who lives a good life & doesn’t have God, is receiving grace from the Holy Spirit to be able to choose good in their life. .

2:9 There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek. 2:11 For there is no partiality with God. 2:12 For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. 2:14 For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, DO BY NATURE, the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES. 2:15 They show that the work of the law IS WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, as their conscience bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse, or else defend them, 2:16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus.

Like Aborigines, never hearing of God, but live good lives, caring for one another! They have the HOLY SPIRIT guiding their Spirit in goodness. They will be judged righteously!
It’s sad, when knowing God, and being in full relationship w him, is so great…
May those who hear, HEAR! And those who see, SEE!
 
If I were a very moral atheist, I’d wonder what religion would have to offer me to begin with. The minimal flaws could be chalked up to imperfections and simple human nature. I know Catholics who don’t feel they need to go to confession because they aren’t bad people. People define good and bad differently.
 
You might say, “Well, God believes in you!” and then drop it and pray for them. It is the Holy Spirit Who accomplishes all conversions. And, He does it in His own good time. We may never live to see it, and that is just fine.
 
Well it’s true, you can be a good person without God. Some atheists are more moral than some people who believe in God.

However, without God there is no foundation for objective morality. You need to have a reason to explain why some things are just intrinsically evil and wrong. Most people do agree with this point of view. Others who disagree with this, will do so in one of two ways.
  1. Morality is relative and there is no objective truth. They don’t agree that brutal evils like the Holocaust are objectively wrong, but only wrong from their own point of view. But if they think that murder, torture and rape are just wrong no matter what anyone thinks, then this solution falls flat.
  2. Objective morality does exist but it doesn’t need to be grounded in God. C. S. Lewis said that people “appeal to some kind of standard of behaviour that they expect the other to know about.” But if they don’t, what happens next? Morality flops back and becomes subjective and ultimately meaningless. Chesterton once said “when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”
There needs to be an objective groundwork for morality. An atheist worldview doesn’t provide one. God does.
 
Last edited:
michaelArc said:
Well it’s true, you can be a good person without God. Some atheists are more moral than some people who believe in God.

However, without God there is no foundation for objective morality. You need to have a reason to explain why some things are just intrinsically evil and wrong. Most people do agree with this point of view. Others who disagree with this, will do so in one of two ways.
  1. Morality is relative and there is no objective truth. They don’t agree that brutal evils like the Holocaust are objectively wrong, but only wrong from their own point of view. But if they think that murder, torture and rape are just wrong no matter what anyone thinks, then this solution falls flat.
  2. Objective morality does exist but it doesn’t need to be grounded in God. C. S. Lewis said that people “appeal to some kind of standard of behaviour that they expect the other to know about.” But if they don’t, what happens next? Morality flops back and becomes subjective and ultimately meaningless. Chesterton once said “when a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”
There needs to be an objective groundwork for morality. An atheist worldview doesn’t provide one. God does.
Click to expand...
If I asked you why murder rape and torure were wrong without mentioning God or religion, are you really saying you would have no idea?
 
Not going to bother to respond to a silly question as if morality hinges at the the very end of the spectrum.

Curious though, if I were to kick in you in the gonads because it would make me feel good, would you object to it?
 
I recently heard an interview with Malachi Martin, and he basicallly stated this. I was taken aback because I was raised in the seventies and eighties with a lot of social justice. It was good for me to hear this. I’m convinced those Catholic hospitals, and all that charity and teaching orders were not just for the next life alone. But, it’s a good start with the end in mind! I suppose the emphasis has been on the here and now since the 20 C. and not so much the hereafter.
 
So you wouldn’t be able to articulate any reason at all?

Actually I’m certain that you could. But you paint yourself into a corner when you say we can’t tell right from wrong without God.

Just imagine if you got a bang on the head and forgot everything about your beliefs. If someone said rape was wrong, would you shrug your shoulders and ask why?
 
Why is it when the issue of morality comes up with an atheist that it’s alway about rape and torture as if that is the defining quality on the basis of ALL morality? We both agree that rape is wrong. Yay! there is no God.

:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
I never trust anyone that says “I’m a good person” and feels the need to trumpet how “good” they are.
 
Yes, people can live good, compassionate, and loving lives without acknowledging God. I have a sister and brother in that very state. What they cannot do very well is provide solace to one who is dying or in the throes of temptations they wish to be rid of.
 
Victorygirl said:
More often than not, when I open up to people about my Catholic faith I hear the above or “I know a lot of really moral people that don’t believe in God” and similar “one doesn’t have to believe in God to be a good person” type responses.

How would you respond to that?

I have been a Catholic since March 31 or this year so do not have all the answers yet (as if I ever will!)

Thank you!!!
Click to expand...
God created everything, and everything He created is good. it’s only natural that we can reflect His image, the image we’re made in, even as wrong desires and sin may also seek to oppose and destroy that image in us.

In any case its often easy to miss the forest for the tress, and to bite the hand that feeds us. As we come to recognize the existence of God and our need for Him, morality becomes increasingly a choice, something we embrace and “own” as we acknowledge its importance and necessity. This movement towards God, the source of and reason for morality, the standard for it and the authority behind it, mean that we’re no longer operating as if we’re the source of morality ourselves, a situation that makes morality relative to our feelings or opinions at the moment. Belief in God “solidifies” morality so to speak, makes it “bigger” than us, and therefore more securely a part of the world we live in as we consciously embrace its reality and necessity, associating it with the power behind it, Regardless of our opinion of religion or faith in God, I believe our world would be a much darker place had not those elements made their way into our world and the hearts of humans.
 
Last edited:
I do not agree with your statement. Everyone needs the help of God. So it is humble requisted to you that start the worship of God.
 
Are they thankful for their goodness?

Thankful to who?

Wouldn’t they like to know who to be thankful to?
 
Bishop Barron describes this using a car windshield as an analogy. It’s much easier to see the dust and specks, etc when you’re facing the light. If you’re not, it’s easy to forget the dirt that’s there.

I don’t go on forever and ever thinking about what a poor miserable sinner I am, but I will say that before I had faith I considered myself a pretty good person. I see much more easily now all my little faults I used to explain away or just completely ignore. Friends from before my conversion are distinctly uncomfortable if I mention (in passing) that I need grace or that I sin or do wrong. A couple have even half-joked, “You don’t have bodies hidden in the basement, do you?” The idea that I could be referring to my bad temper or gossipping, laziness, etc. isn’t even on the radar.

That said, I know some people without faith who truly do amazing good in the world. I often pray for them, too. So even if they’re not praying, I think God’s grace moves them. I figure someone had to be praying for my conversion, too.
 
michaelArc said:
Why is it when the issue of morality comes up with an atheist that it’s alway about rape and torture as if that is the defining quality on the basis of ALL morality? We both agree that rape is wrong. Yay! there is no God.
Click to expand...
Just saying it don’t make it so. It leaves me open to saying: ‘Hey, that’s just your opinion’. Can’t you articulate a reason? I can’t imagine that maybe before you were a Christian and somebody told you all about God and you’re thinking: ‘Ah, so THAT’S why rape is wrong! I had no idea…’.
 
Without an external, objective definition of good, there is no such thing as good and evil. New atheists, like Dawkins in River Out of Eden, have reached this conclusion. Subjective “good” defined by a single person or society is not sufficient because it carries no weight in the broader context of interpersonal or intersocietal affairs. If my definition of “good” was the exact negative of your definition of “good” (ie, murder is good, adultery is good, lying is good), and it could be because any naturally-derived morality is by definition subjective and valid, that would mean that good is (or equals) evil in an interpersonal context (and morality is necessarily an interpersonal affair because it deals with how we act in relation to others). Therefore, the definitions of “good” and “evil” break down and lose all meaning because they can be synonymous at any instant. It’s not sufficient that a group of people agree with each other on what is “good” either for the same reasons.

Inevitably atheists bring up natural selection leading to a “natural morality” that’s wired into our brains, and that’s where we derive our morality from. In my eyes, this isn’t sufficient either and opens an even more fundamental can of worms. How did humans develop this unique capacity for reason, and why is it applied in this manner that yields the “natural morality” that atheists subscribe to? I can’t answer that since I don’t subscribe to that view, but it’s something I’ve pondered.

And even as Catholics, I don’t believe we can claim to know all that is “good”. We have some guidelines, and we know that God is goodness, but we can’t know the entirety of God’s essence and, thus, we can’t know all of goodness. We rely on Sacred Tradition and Divine Revelation (through the Bible) to convey what is knowable about goodness.

I believe the proper response would be that a practicing, charitable Catholic should not claim to be a better, more moral person than another. Your friend’s “holier-than-thou” perception of Catholics is misguided. Catholics acknowledge that we are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God. It’s not a competition to see who’s a better person, we should all be elevating one another through emulation of Christ. But your friend is right, one doesn’t have to believe in God to be a good person and there are plenty of moral people (according to Catholic standards) who don’t believe in God, but why does being a good person matter to them? If nothing comes after death, our goodness or evilness (if such concepts can even exist in a godless world) are inconsequential.
 
Who decides what the “external, objective definition of good” is? You or I? Your religion, my religion, or someone else’s religion? Secular society or culture according to their norms? An objective definition of goodness does NOT exist except as a subjective interpretation of personal or collective beliefs, whether secular or religious. Nonetheless, there are certain behaviors that almost all of us can agree on in terms of their goodness or evil. The remainder is based on personal religious or moral beliefs and interpretation.

For example, was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki good or evil? It no doubt ended the War sooner and thus saved many lives but it also resulted in the killing of many innocent lives. Was this behavior justified and moral or was it unjustified and immoral? The answer depends on your religious beliefs (is there such a thing as a just war?), your moral principles, your personal feelings and life experiences, your cultural norms, and so on. Or take the many so-called moral dilemmas: people will differ regarding which behavior is morally good and which is not based on all of the above influences.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Who decides what the “external, objective definition of good” is? You or I? Your religion, my religion, or someone else’s religion?
Click to expand...
I’ll only argue the point so far as it cannot come from within. Deciding which external source is valid is another discussion for another time. You’re right, though, that anything objective is interpreted through a necessarily subjective and limited lens. But as it pertains to the intellectual object of goodness, it does exist through God’s Word because it was divinely inspired. Our limited capacity to understand and apply it does not negate that.

I will say, though, that the appeal of Catholicism, to me, is the infallibility of an ongoing source of God’s teaching. If God just dropped us the Bible and said “good luck”, I’d agree. Humans would necessarily have to fallibly interpret it and would reach their own subjective moralities applicable to modern contexts that may not be in keeping with the original text. And for that reason, I maintain that the Catholic Church will never have the whole of “goodness” either. There will always remain moral lines to be drawn. What I claim we do know is that the lines that have been drawn by the CC are authoritative and true by nature of the infallibility of the Pope.
meltzerboy2 said:
For example, was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki good or evil? It no doubt ended the War sooner and thus saved many lives but it also resulted in the killing of many innocent lives. Was this behavior justified and moral or was it unjustified and immoral? The answer depends on your religious beliefs (is there such a thing as a just war?), your moral principles, your personal feelings and life experiences, your cultural norms, and so on. Or take the many so-called moral dilemmas: people will differ regarding which behavior is morally good and which is not based on all of the above influences.
Click to expand...
Well the CC maintains that a morally good act must consist of goodness of object, intention (or end), and circumstances. The Catechism (where that comes from) isn’t an authoritative teaching or doctrine itself (it’s a summary), but it is the basic rubric Catholics operate on. And yes, ambiguity makes moral decisionmaking incredibly difficult. Heck, we have the “pull the track-switch for the train or no?” (which is similar to your Hiroshima/Nagasaki) hypothetical pop up on here often. Even among Catholics you won’t get a unified answer because it’s a subjective moral decision, and no two Catholics have the exact same thought process. But the underlying reasons for being good and the source of knowledge of good for those two Catholics is the same.
 
gregoryphealy said:
Inevitably atheists bring up natural selection leading to a “natural morality” that’s wired into our brains, and that’s where we derive our morality from. In my eyes, this isn’t sufficient either and opens an even more fundamental can of worms. How did humans develop this unique capacity for reason, and why is it applied in this manner that yields the “natural morality” that atheists subscribe to? I can’t answer that since I don’t subscribe to that view, but it’s something I’ve pondered.
Click to expand...
You have it slightly backwards. It’s not that we have evolved an ability to understand what is right or wrong. We have evolved in a way that (generally) rewards that which benefits our survival and punishes (generally) that which doesn’t.

So way back when we were wandering the African savannah one had the opportunity of helping the group or helping oneself. And those that only thought about themselves fared less well. So those with a propensity for reciroprcal altruism flourished and passed on those valuable genes.

And when you are out hunting it helps to know what the other guy is thinking so you can work as a team. Those without that ability fared less well. And those with an ability to empathise flourished.

So we have those two traits running in parallel and they were a significant help in us reaching where we are now. So we defined what was good (generally) for the group as being ‘good’. So sharing your food or helping a friend build a fire or helping to collect berries was ‘good’ as it benefited everyone. And that which was bad for the group was defined as being bad.

So we haven’t evolved to recognise some objective morality - some Platonic ideal way of living. It’s that what was useful for us to flourish we deemed morally good and what was not we deemed immoral.

Now don’t take this to the extreme. You could quote any number of specific examples that run counter to what I’ve described above. But this is a scheme of things that has run for millions of generations sonthere will be plenty of options for you to point to certain events or times or societies that did not appear to follow ‘the rules’. But it has worked because we are here discussing it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top