Religion or just morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adrian1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adrian1

Guest
Why is important to be a catholic and not just a moral man? What is the different between a moral man and a religios man? A moral man can be saved? Why religious is more than morality, or is just morality and all religion and all denomination say same thing - to be god- and that is all?
 
Last edited:
Nobody can be moral without the grace of God. Christianity is also about finding the joy and love of God and not just being a good person (although that is a big part of it) Other religions and even philosophical systems are simply a way in which men try to search for God, or so Christians believe.
 
Last edited:
Why is important to be a catholic and not just a moral man? What is the different between a moral man and a religios man? A moral man can be saved? Why religious is more than morality, or is just morality and all religion and all denomination say same thing - to be god- and that is all?
Catchism
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
 
Why is important to be a catholic and not just a moral man? What is the different between a moral man and a religios man? A moral man can be saved? Why religious is more than morality, or is just morality and all religion and all denomination say same thing - to be god- and that is all?
Morality is not a philosophy, it is a seeking of the good. The whole point of the morality is to find the good, or what we call our “beatitude”.

Love is the ultimate good. It is the source and destination of morality.
Love is a relationship, not a philosophy or moral code.
We have relationships with persons, not moral codes. In morality, we are conformed to someone good, not merely something good.

Religion is the response to that personal relationship of love. It is the entering into the fullness of it.
If we did not have religion, the world would have no anchor to the good. Morality is meaningless without the human response to the objective good, ie religion.
(or to put another way more bluntly, morality is not an accident of the human mind. People do not sacrifice themselves for mere ideas…and morality asks for self sacrifice)
 
Last edited:
I met my shadow in the evening woods,
Amid the last flickering gold of twilight leaves
Before the dew began to weep
From the heavy laden, burdened trees,
Before the mist began to rise
From the soil beneath my steps
Or the last bird ceased his calls in vain
From within his secret, fear-filled nest
Then in that moment 'tween night and day
'tween the sun and moon’s delicate interplay
I saw my shadow fade to grey
And gently, softly slip away
Until I knew I had become one
With that darkness all around
Standing in that growing night
Listening to its sacred sounds
Of life and death
Of hunt and chase
Of predator and prey
Of spiders spinning silent webs
Of bats rising upon the death of day
Of snakes entangled in the roots
Of ancient tree’s forbidden fruits
And then I knew this symphony
Played its sacred notes in me
To give this dark epiphany
'til I my nature understood
'til I finally grasped the many shades of good
As I lingered in its sudden mystery
Where I met my shadow in the evening woods
 
Without Judeo-Christianity, it’s not important what you do-- what’s important is who you do it to. In other words, if you can get away with doing stuff-- like lying, or cheating, or stealing-- feel free to do it.

But Judeo-Christianity was the first to say, “Lying is wrong, period.” Not, “You can lie to this group of people, but not that group of people.” Or, “Lie if you can get away with it-- it’s only a bad thing if you get caught.”

Lying is wrong because we’re all part of the body of Christ, and when we harm someone else by doing them wrong, we also harm ourselves and our relationship with God. The Commandment tells us not to bear false witness against our neighbor-- which encompasses all forms of lying-- and Leviticus tells us not to steal, deal falsely, or lie.

But without Judeo-Christianity, and the understanding that we’re all brothers in Christ, and that we’re all children of God, and that we’re all equal in the sight of God (because Jesus died for each of us as individuals)-- where would you base your morality? You have the concept of the equality of man, which is a very Christian thing, because while we may be created equal, we certainly don’t act equally, and we don’t live equally, and we don’t think equally. There’s an immense distance between the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of the world, and the outcastes of Bombay and people digging through garbage in Haiti. Without the concept of living your life on the twin foundations of “Love of God” and “Love of Neighbor”, why in the world would you have any reason to pay attention-- not to the people a thousand miles away-- but to the people you come across in your path? Do you treat your incompetent waitress with courtesy and kindness and patience, not because you don’t want to look like a jerk to the people around you, but because she’s connected to you? How about the frustrating people who get in your way? How about the people who want to take advantage of you? How about the coworkers who want to steal your credit? How about the boss who treats you unfairly compared to X?

Religion gives context for the rest of our actions to make sense, and to guide them according to a particular code. If you divorce yourself from the reason for acting in a certain way, and you act “morally” because society sez so, not because you understand the reason why our culture is grounded in a certain brand of “morality”… the only thing you’ve got holding you to that code is your self-consciousness of wanting to go through the motions to act in a socially acceptable way. And once you stop caring what other people think about you… that goes away pretty fast. 🙂
 
What is the different between a moral man and a religios man?
I think God morals go beyond the morals of most men. It is not a natural thing to love and pray for your enemies, it is not natural to forgive. There are many passages that say how we should help the poor…

Sirach 34
The bread of charity is life itself for the needy; whoever withholds it is a murderer. 26 to take away a neighbor’s living is to commit murder; 27 to deny a laborer wages is to shed blood.

We find strength in the Lord…

Sirach 34
Often I was in danger of death, but by these experiences I was saved. 14 Living is the spirit of those who fear the Lord, 15 for their hope is in their savior. 16 Whoever fear the Lord are afraid of nothing and are never discouraged, for he is their hope. 17 Happy the soul that fears the Lord! 18 In whom does he trust, and who is his support? 19 The eyes of the Lord are upon those who love him; he is their mighty shield and strong support, A shelter from the heat, a shade from the noonday sun, a guard against stumbling, a help against falling. 20 He lifts up spirits, brings a sparkle to the eyes, gives health and life and blessing.
 
Last edited:
Well, God incarnate called Himself “The Way, The Truth, and the Life.”

We often think of morality and the truths of principle as something that’s “Because God said so.” But actually, if there’s such a thing as true morality, even God saying so wouldn’t make it so, because that would just be one more opinion. So if something is true, it’s not because God said so, but because God, the living Truth, IS so.

So for example murder being immoral isn’t just a command of God, it’s a trait of God, something so true that it must be a part of the One Who said He Himself is the Truth. He can’t change it, because even though it depends on Him, it’s because it’s part of His very identity as Truth, not because He just wills it arbitrarily.

So I’d say it’s literally impossible to be moral without God, if He’s real, because every moral act is a participation in God whether the person knows it or not. A person’s beliefs do matter to God, but I kind of think that’s because God is due the credit, and depending on your beliefs you may not give it to Him. So it’s not because somebody couldn’t be good without Him, but because to do good and not give Him credit is a sort of plagiarism, if that makes sense. Claiming credit or giving it to somebody else when God’s the real source, no matter where you learned it: If it’s true, it’s from God. Obviously this is speaking from the Catholic point of view, where God IS the Truth.

That doesn’t mean every unbeliever goes to Hell in that case, because we cant judge that. And I’m
NOT blanket accusing unbelievers of any kind of moral dishonesty we usually think of with the word plagiarism. Yeah, if God is Truth all credit for morality belongs to Him, but claiming credit for it when it’s not ours can be innocent or accidental for a person who honestly doesn’t believe there’s a God to be the One who wrote morality on his heart, just like you could honestly not realize a song you thought you’d written yourself was actually lodged in your head from a time you’d heard it years ago and forgotten. We just can’t judge somebody’s inner mind or soul. The Church teaches lots of things are objectively wrong, unbelief being one, but subjectively we can’t ever judge if a person really was innocently unaware of God’s true identity or even His existence, and if he was innocent in not knowing that, he might not be held seriously responsible, even if the deed itself was objectively wrong.

Somehow we know all salvation comes through Christ. But death is a mysterious thing, and nobody can ever totally know that a person who died didn’t come to Jesus the instant before he died. I like to hope that if anybody was legitimately innocent in not knowing Jesus is real, and was trying to live in the truths, the TRUTH, he did know, God is more likely to give that person such a chance. Not gonna act like it’s a guarantee, so yeah, we need to live our Religion proudly to be a witness to this world, but it’s still a hope that helps me to walk the thin line between judging people and the mistake of saying there’s any way to Heaven without Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Hi. I respectfully disagree with you on your initial point. In my experience as a war vet, I’ve found that most “good” people don’t even believe in a god yet they are good, upstanding people who love life. I believe in earth, nature and the universe not some imaginary force, yet I am a good man with morals and empathy for others. I know, “God loves you even though you don’t believe”. I feel that’s a statement to allay a believers lack of a cogent reply to a difficult situation. As for philosophical systems to find a deity, I find you are mostly right for today’s society. In the beginning, though, “religion”, if it could be called that, was a human’s way of putting a name to an event he didn’t have the understanding of. (ie, Lightning associated with,say, Zeus or Thor. Life and death associated with Quetzalcóatl). In the medieval ages the Vulgate was used to control the masses. Also,studies from Oral Roberts University and other theological schools have shown of late that religion is declining for whatever reason. I could go in about theological history but it’s unnecessary. I apologize if I offend as that’s not my intent.
 
An irreligious man is not acting morally because he is not acting justly toward God.
 
Last edited:
the purpose of the Christian life is not to practice morality, but to imitate the most perfectly Jesus in all virtues. To have a life of total renunciation, a life of love of the cross, a life of total abasement in order to imitate Jesus goes beyond the simple humanist morality.
And finally someone who has a perfect “humanistic” moral life but who refuses to believe in Jesus, or who refuses to love God will not be saved in principle
 
I’m not offended at all, I’m South-Eastern European I can handle quite a bit worse than a polite disagreement :). Yes, that may be true (that a lot of non-religious people are good/better than those who believe in God) but we believe that it is through God’s grace that non-religious people are good. Nobody (regardless of religion) does anything good without the grace of God. Often (in fact maybe in the majority of cases) those who declare themselves religious may find themselves responding to God’s grace less/much less than those who don’t. In fact, this is a pretty big theme through the New Testament of the outcasts, Gentiles and public sinners being more righteous than the Pharisees and of prostitutes inheriting the Kingdom before the experts in the Law. As for proof of God, philosophically I find there to be decent arguments but for me nothing trumps the historical argument (rather than philosophical ones) that may exist for the Ressurection.



http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

Also Aquinas (though not perfect) is phenomenal if you want more philosophy but feel free to chat with me because I actually loooooove this topic. (of proving God’s existence and some of His attributes).

As for people moving away from religion, I guess we could go on with many theories as to why. One big reason that is maybe underestimated in my opinion is that people weren’t half as religious as we make them be. For many religion was more cultural than personal (not all, but many) so when religion disappeared from being a major cultural force it also disappeared from the personal sphere.

(and many other sources explaining the opinion. It is a complex one but basically, it is hard to actually explain how early Christianity well… happened WITHOUT the Ressurection).

Also thank you very much for your service sir! 🙂

PS I see you are an Odinist. I used to be a Hellenist so I particularly feel I could hazard where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Without Judeo-Christianity, it’s not important what you do-- what’s important is who you do it to. In other words, if you can get away with doing stuff-- like lying, or cheating, or stealing-- feel free to do it.
How insulting to the billions of people in this world who live good, upstanding lives without judeo-Christian anything. Please rethink your opinion on this.
 
I think the user was trying to mostly refer to pre Judeo-Christian traditions in the regions that currently follow an Abrahamic faith and no offense but in those particular instances, I think she’d be correct. The Eastern religions are a whole different subject matter. I also think that what she says could (if we really stretch it) apply to some much more more minor extent to those religions (and forgive me here but I have a very limited understanding but I will try to use what I do know). For example in China Confucianism had this concept of the Mandate of Heaven which was basically used to justify the rule of a dynasty. If a particular dynasty/ruler was bad, Heaven would dispose of him thus the motivation to do good was to not be deposed. In Buddhism, there is similarly a concept of Karma (good Karma will mean good stuff happens to you). Now yes Christianity does have Heaven and Hell and yes these are big players but in theory (at least in theory) a Christian should be a good and moral person even if there was no Heaven because a Christian should do things simply for love of God and for love of Christ even if it yields him no reward, no reward ever. Now this is harsh and we know it isn’t true but some saints have reached this point, in fact, there was somebody (I forgot whom) who even wrote a poem about this very subject (ie loving Christ and by extension doing good things even if there is no Heaven and the guy wrote it because he really thought he wouldn’t make it to Heaven). Beyond any argument the Judeo-Christian moral system is vastly superior to at least most if not all systems that existed before in the areas it used to dominate. As to the Eastern system, it would be tough to call it superior (especially with having in mind all appropriate sensitivities and details) but you can certainly say that the motivation we aim for is different at least in some contexts. I think that’s what the original poster meant. Overal Midori’s argument can make a lot of good sense historically. It isn’t perfect and you can choose to argue against it but I was just pointing out that it isn’t trying to be insulting or tell you that people of another belief system cannot live good and moral lives.
 
Because morality is subjective without the Laws of God. And when morality is subjective, human beings tend to gravitate toward a pick and choose “morality” that suits their personal interests.
 
What are you talking about?

I’m basing it on a thing I was reading just the other day. It was all about “how to get ahead” in business. Some of the ideas I thought had merit; other ideas I thought were just flat-out wrong.

And then I realized, when I was trying to figure out why these ideas made sense to the author enough to write them down-- that’s what things look like when you’re in that mindset of “it doesn’t matter what you do; it matters who you do it to”.

That mindset has existed all throughout history, all over the world. It still exists in large swathes around the globe. Anyone who does business with people from other non-Judeo-Christian cultures can probably think of an anecdote or two or three or five. But it was still a little shocking to come across in the wild from someone from the US.
 
Last edited:
I’m basing it on a thing I was reading just the other day. It was all about “how to get ahead” in business. Some of the ideas I thought had merit; other ideas I thought were just flat-out wrong.

.
Successful business is generally measured by how much you can exploit people. Apple pay their Chinese employee less than a couple of dollars an hour, they overcharge their customers, leaving a few people with billions in their back pocket.

There are around two thousand passages in the Bible that refer to justice for the poor and oppressed.
 
Right.

How people deal with money, and how people deal with their fellow individuals when profits are concerned, is a giant tell about a person’s character.

Many of us are cogs and have to go through company protocol. Company culture, which is established by the higher-ups, can dictate what’s acceptable practice, or standard protocol. And that’s cool-- because consistency is good. If you treat Customer #1 in one way, you need to follow the rules and treat Customers #2-#1,000,000 in the same way. But on the flip side, if Company Culture says “bathroom breaks outside of your lunch break are a fireable offense, so wear Depends while you work the line”, that also says something about the people who are making the rules. Yes, you can’t have people wandering away from an assembly line at random, no matter how important their need to go is… but are “Depends” the most “moral” solution to come up with to solve the problem?

Many others of us run our own businesses, and deal with people with the freedom to establish our own “acceptable practices”… and when we allow our “it’s just business” impersonality to be shed, it’s usually at our own peril… and usually to our own poor results. Often, when we extend mercy or kindness or generosity to people who owe us hundreds or thousands of dollars, or who are not performing their obligations, 9 times out of 10, you get ingratitude. Or burned. Or whatever. And that’s okay-- because it was a chance you took to do the “right” thing, and you did it because it was the “right” thing, not because you were expecting gratitude. You gave them their chance, and they blew it, and you got hurt in the process as well. And you might do it again in the future… or you might not… who knows?

So, if you’ve dealt corporately with a society that has a solid grounding in things like caste or rank, that caste culture has an immense effect on coloring your interpersonal dealings. Either a person outranks you, in which they are entitled to deference and respect, or a person doesn’t outrank you, in which case they don’t deserve any particular consideration at all, and you might as well be their servant in the way they address you. To be held in contrast with the more egalitarian nature of interpersonal dealings that we expect. But— what makes us all equal? Why do we have an expectation of equality? Because, clearly, we’re not all equal-- not in our actions, or our economic status, or our education, or the way we think, or our life experiences, or whatever. The thing that makes us equal is not that we all share the basic genetic code that makes us human bipeds, rather than elephants or wasps or oak trees, but that we’re all the creation of God, and the idea that we’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, and are part of the body of Christ, and that Jesus died for us all individually.

Once you start eliminating the structure of religion, you take off a lot of the safety-guards that protect us from deploying our most selfish instincts. And that’s the way that you tell if someone is moral or not-- how people deal with stress, or how people deal with money, or how people treat the people who are under them.
 
Last edited:
An irreligious man is not acting morally because he is not acting justly toward God.
There are lots of other good answers but it is really this simple. You aren’t truly a moral man if you don’t worship the Creator. The most moral man would worship God and be a member of his body, the Church. He would listen to that body because it was instituted by God. A huge aspect of Catholicism is following authority, even when we disagree. It isn’t so strange an idea as a child should obey his parents, and a citizen his government. But it isn’t very popular because we view freedom as us being in charge i.e. being gods overselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top