What is more important...beliefs about God or morals?

[StTommyMore]

You never established Jesus’ morality. In fact Jesus never taught about theological morality. That was not why he came. Though there is a moral sense to His parables and miracles, Scriptural morality can not be boiled down to “follow the rules.” A cursory reading of Sermon on the mount indicated that true morality is not in following a set of strictures, but pursuing virtues. Your one verse proof-text does nothing to prove your point. You can prove anything by taking verses out of context.

This is quite possibly the worst wording I have ever posted…ever. It is a jumbled mess. Let me think on this and post something coherent.

 

[Prophesy]

So tell me what kind of justice did Jesus talk about in the gospels?

I believe that has already been laid out in post 13.

-Prophecy

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t really care how Aquinas defined morality. Jesus said to treat others the way you want to be treated. THAT is morality.

Luke 6:27-28

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

So what kind of justice did Jesus talk about? Where does justice fit into Jesus’ system of morality?

Justice is central to the teachings of Christ. The virtue of justice is defined as to “render to one what he is owed.” The practice of religion is an incomplete practice of this virtue because we cab never render unto God what He is truly owed. It is your lack of understanding with regards to true morality that is causing problems here. Instead of relying upon your own understanding, look to the teaching of the Church.

 

[bingbang]

Justice is central to the teachings of Christ. The virtue of justice is defined as to “render to one what he is owed.” The practice of religion is an incomplete practice of this virtue because we cab never render unto God what He is truly owed. It is your lack of understanding with regards to true morality that is causing problems here. Instead of relying upon your own understanding, look to the teaching of the Church.

Maybe it is your lack of understanding with regards to true morality that is causing problems. And I’m not going to look to the teachings of the church that has been wrong so many times for my morality. I am not going to just be a mindless drone that follows the church. The church is made up of men and obviously it can make mistakes. The church being guided by the holy spirit is also made up by men. The whole religion is based on a book written by men and the tradition of men. There is no way to know if the church is actually being guided by the holy spirit. Taking your morality from an already set moral system is a cop out. We need to think on our own.

So maybe it is YOUR lack of understanding of morals. I can’t stand how people on this board can be so self righteous and condescending. Most of you just seem to be missing the point completely. Jesus’ message was simple. Love God and love your neighbor. That is what we are called to do. Focusing on gay marriage and ABC and what not is just distracting all of you from actually caring and loving people. Instead you sit on your high horse and just make it seem that you are better than everyone else because you follow the “one true church.” Give me a break.

Seriously, so many of you need to wake up and realize that there is so much more to morality and God than the church. Without the holy spirit guiding the church, what do you have? Nothing. An institution run by men…men who err.

 

[StTommyMore]

Maybe it is your lack of understanding with regards to true morality that is causing problems. And I’m not going to look to the teachings of the church that has been wrong so many times for my morality. I am not going to just be a mindless drone that follows the church. The church is made up of men and obviously it can make mistakes. The church being guided by the holy spirit is also made up by men. The whole religion is based on a book written by men and the tradition of men. There is no way to know if the church is actually being guided by the holy spirit. Taking your morality from an already set moral system is a cop out. We need to think on our own.

So maybe it is YOUR lack of understanding of morals. I can’t stand how people on this board can be so self righteous and condescending. Most of you just seem to be missing the point completely. Jesus’ message was simple. Love God and love your neighbor. That is what we are called to do. Focusing on gay marriage and ABC and what not is just distracting all of you from actually caring and loving people. Instead you sit on your high horse and just make it seem that you are better than everyone else because you follow the “one true church.” Give me a break.

Seriously, so many of you need to wake up and realize that there is so much more to morality and God than the church. Without the holy spirit guiding the church, what do you have? Nothing. An institution run by men…men who err.

News flash: The Church has never taught error.

 

[bingbang]

News flash: The Church has never taught error.

And the only way to prove it is to use circular logic. Well the church is guided by the holy spirit so it can’t teach error, and the church is guided by the holy spirit because it says so. Its not like you can prove that. And to be honest I think the church has taught error before as there seems to be more evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary than for it.

 

[StTommyMore]

And the only way to prove it is to use circular logic. Well the church is guided by the holy spirit so it can’t teach error, and the church is guided by the holy spirit because it says so. Its not like you can prove that. And to be honest I think the church has taught error before as there seems to be more evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary than for it.

Actually there is no definitive evidence against her perpetual virginity.

 

[bingbang]

Actually there is no definitive evidence against her perpetual virginity.

OK, so I just assume that a woman who was married never had sex in her life? Was that normal back then? Should I just assume that passages in the Bible that say Jesus had siblings are misinterpretations?

Either way that doesn’t matter. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no proof that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and that the church does no wrong. It just isn’t there.

I am guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe me? No? So why believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Because they told you?

 

[StTommyMore]

OK, so I just assume that a woman who was married never had sex in her life? Was that normal back then? Should I just assume that passages in the Bible that say Jesus had siblings are misinterpretations?

Either way that doesn’t matter. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no proof that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and that the church does no wrong. It just isn’t there.

I am guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you believe me? No? So why believe the church is guided by the Holy Spirit? Because they told you?

Point out one error. That is all it would take. Just one.

 

[rwillenborg]

I can see this has already gotten off topic, which is a shame, because I think this is a very good question.
On the face of it, I would answer that I would rather live with moral atheists than amoral Catholics.
But, as others have stated, there might be some clarification in terms necessary.
Clarification such as: whose morality are the moral atheists following? If everyone is just making up their own morality that each individual person finds compelling, then I think we actually already live in that society, so, it wouldn’t really be much of a change. Is it a specific moral code? If so, what are the parameters? Who decided on this moral code? For example, I know, among my own friends, several who find it is morally acceptable to cheat on spouses. The thinking goes: this is what makes me happy, and my happiness is paramount, therefore, my actions are moral. So, would it be their morals which lead the day, or the morals of someone else? Why are the atheists following this specific set or moral laws? What compels them, and can this thing or person or whatever that is compelling them to be moral change its mind or go away?

Furthermore, what does it mean to be a Catholic in yoru sccenario? Are they practicing their faith? Or were they just baptized and walked away? I would actually argue that I think it would be VERY difficult to be a practicing Catholic and at least not be making AN EFFORT to do morally right acts. It would be like exercising and not losing weight - it certainly happens, but one at least HOPES the two would travel in sync.
I can tell you right now, if your Catholic world is full of Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis I would be on the first spaceship to the moon, and I wouldn’t even care if I had enough oxygen to get there.

I hope you have time to respond to this post and define your terms because, as I said in the beginning, I think this is a very good question.

 

[bingbang]

Point out one error. That is all it would take. Just one.

lol, the church is only infallible on things regarding faith and morals, things that can’t be proven wrong. So you are asking me to do something impossible. I hate to use atheist arguments as I am not an atheist, but can you disprove that a flying spaghetti monster exists? Should I just believe that it does because you can’t disprove it?

 

[bingbang]

I can see this has already gotten off topic, which is a shame, because I think this is a very good question.
On the face of it, I would answer that I would rather live with moral atheists than amoral Catholics.
But, as others have stated, there might be some clarification in terms necessary.
Clarification such as: whose morality are the moral atheists following? If everyone is just making up their own morality that each individual person finds compelling, then I think we actually already live in that society, so, it wouldn’t really be much of a change. Is it a specific moral code? If so, what are the parameters? Who decided on this moral code? For example, I know, among my own friends, several who find it is morally acceptable to cheat on spouses. The thinking goes: this is what makes me happy, and my happiness is paramount, therefore, my actions are moral. So, would it be their morals which lead the day, or the morals of someone else? Why are the atheists following this specific set or moral laws? What compels them, and can this thing or person or whatever that is compelling them to be moral change its mind or go away?

Furthermore, what does it mean to be a Catholic in yoru sccenario? Are they practicing their faith? Or were they just baptized and walked away? I would actually argue that I think it would be VERY difficult to be a practicing Catholic and at least not be making AN EFFORT to do morally right acts. It would be like exercising and not losing weight - it certainly happens, but one at least HOPES the two would travel in sync.
I can tell you right now, if your Catholic world is full of Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosis I would be on the first spaceship to the moon, and I wouldn’t even care if I had enough oxygen to get there.

I hope you have time to respond to this post and define your terms because, as I said in the beginning, I think this is a very good question.

Morality in the atheistic society is treating others the way you want to be treated. Yes, the Catholics go to church if that is what you mean by practicing. And if you think it is hard to go to church and live immoral lives, you obviously don’t know enough people that go to church.

 

[StTommyMore]

lol, the church is only infallible on things regarding faith and morals, things that can’t be proven wrong. So you are asking me to do something impossible. I hate to use atheist arguments as I am not an atheist, but can you disprove that a flying spaghetti monster exists? Should I just believe that it does because you can’t disprove it?

I would discuss this, but to do so is in violation of a temporary ban. I am unsubscribing from this thread. I do get annoyed by anti-Catholics with an agenda.

 

[Stylites]

If you were to choose between living in a society in which no one believed in God but everyone treated each other with respect and followed the basic teachings of Jesus’ moral code (love others) or a society which was only Catholic but people did not strive to follow the morals of Jesus (no offense, but like most Catholics today), which would you choose?

What is more important to you? Someone’s religious beliefs or how they actually treat others?

And as a secondary question, which would you rather have as your neighbors…a gay couple that treated everyone with respect, treated others the way they want to be treated, were extremely helpful and compassionate, volunteered at soup kitchens, etc…or a Catholic family that went to church every day but were nasty to people on a regular basis?

So, what is more important to you? How someone treats others or religious beliefs?

The moral law is supreme to any idea of God. Gentiles who do what the Law requires are a law unto themselves. (Active homosexuals are not treating each other with love, by the way.)

 

[bingbang]

I would discuss this, but to do so is in violation of a temporary ban. I am unsubscribing from this thread. I do get annoyed by anti-Catholics with an agenda.

I have to admit your arguments in this thread have been impeccable.

 

[rwillenborg]

Morality in the atheistic society is treating others the way you want to be treated. Yes, the Catholics go to church if that is what you mean by practicing. And if you think it is hard to go to church and live immoral lives, you obviously don’t know enough people that go to church.

Ugh, I responded to you yesterday, and somehow it didn’t post, so now I have to retype it. Boo!
Still, I look forward to your answers.
You’re right, I don’t know many people who go to church. Most of my friends are atheists and agnostics, with some pagans thrown in just to make it colorful.
But, when I am saying that I think it would be difficult to be a Catholic and be immoral, I’m not just talking about going to Church. Anybody can punch a timecard and show up somewhere for an hour a week. I’m talking about living the Catholic life to its fullest, embracing Christ’s teachings not just within the walls of a church, but also in the world at large. So, I guess what I’m saying is I think it would be difficult to FULLY embrace Christ’s teachings and be immoral. I guess I simply don’t understand how someone can have strong beliefs about God, Christ Jesus, and His Church, and then leave them at the church door. How strong, really, are their beliefs then? I’m not suggesting that people who believe in God don’t ever lead sinful lives, but what I AM suggesting is that to say you are following God and not at least TRY to treat your neighbors with love and respect would be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest. I think it was CS Lewis who said something like ‘Outside of the blessed sacrament, the holiest thing I will ever see is another human being’. And, for a Catholic, (and in his case an Anglican) that’s a true statement, so I don’t know how you can know that statement as a truth and still intentionally and without remorse treat others shabbily.
So, I guess in your scenario are you saying that by belief in God you mean simply showing up to church for an hour a week and shutting their ears and their minds to the message? Because, no, I don’t really see any value in that.

Now, on to your other scenario…so there would really be one rule which is to treat others as they want to be treated. So, now I’m wondering, how would that play out actually? I will give you some examples.
My dear friend Nicky is addicted to meth and cocaine. Here is how he wants to be treated: He wants me, and his other friends and his family to help support this lifestyle choice of his, first and foremost financially, and, secondly, if financial help is not a possibility, to, at the very least, leave him in peace to get high. This is how he wants to be treated. He has been very explicit in this request. Would I have to comply with such a request if I were living in the alternate world, the one where all people are treated as they want to be treated?
And, what of cases where the wants of two people are in opposition? Cases where, to treat one person as they want to be treated would necessarily prevent me from treating another person as they want to be treated? For example, take my philandering friends, I will take my friend Billy for an example, he has a wife and a girlfriend. His wife wants him to be exclusively with her. His girlfriend wants him to be with her, but not exclusively. She prefers that he be married, it makes her life easier. So, whose wants should he favor in this situation? If the rule is ‘treat others as they want to be treated’, then he must dump the girlfriend in an effort to show proper love and respect to his wife, but then he would necessarily be leaving his girlfriend, who he is actually in love with, and that would certainly NOT be treating his girlfriend as she wants to be treated. What would be the guiding principle in that situation?
What if someone breaks this rule? What if someone does NOT treat someone as they want to be treated? What is the recourse? Is their justice for the slighted individual? Who measures out that justice and on what basis?
And what of those whose standard of how they want to be treated might be under-developed? I am thinking of friends I have who really are perfectly fine with being treated badly by boyfriends. It is the standard by which they live. What if I think they should actually be treated BETTER than they are being treated? And what of those who are still maturing? I am thinking specifically of children here, say, a newly turned 18 year old? I assure you that how I WANTED to be treated when I was 18 would have left me dead in a puddle of my own vomit, and I’m certainly grateful that NO ONE back then treated me how I actually WANTED to be treated, so what of those situations?
And, again, by what force are people treating others as they want to be treated? And, how do people KNOW how others want to be treated? I mean, you don’t always have the opportunity to get into lengthy conversations about what another person deems respectful and not respectful so, or loving and not loving, so what would be my guide in times when I wasn’t sure? Would I simply make an assumption? What would that assumption be based on?

 

[bingbang]

Ugh, I responded to you yesterday, and somehow it didn’t post, so now I have to retype it. Boo!
Still, I look forward to your answers.
You’re right, I don’t know many people who go to church. Most of my friends are atheists and agnostics, with some pagans thrown in just to make it colorful.
But, when I am saying that I think it would be difficult to be a Catholic and be immoral, I’m not just talking about going to Church. Anybody can punch a timecard and show up somewhere for an hour a week. I’m talking about living the Catholic life to its fullest, embracing Christ’s teachings not just within the walls of a church, but also in the world at large. So, I guess what I’m saying is I think it would be difficult to FULLY embrace Christ’s teachings and be immoral. I guess I simply don’t understand how someone can have strong beliefs about God, Christ Jesus, and His Church, and then leave them at the church door. How strong, really, are their beliefs then? I’m not suggesting that people who believe in God don’t ever lead sinful lives, but what I AM suggesting is that to say you are following God and not at least TRY to treat your neighbors with love and respect would be, at the very least, intellectually dishonest. I think it was CS Lewis who said something like ‘Outside of the blessed sacrament, the holiest thing I will ever see is another human being’. And, for a Catholic, (and in his case an Anglican) that’s a true statement, so I don’t know how you can know that statement as a truth and still intentionally and without remorse treat others shabbily.
So, I guess in your scenario are you saying that by belief in God you mean simply showing up to church for an hour a week and shutting their ears and their minds to the message? Because, no, I don’t really see any value in that.

Now, on to your other scenario…so there would really be one rule which is to treat others as they want to be treated. So, now I’m wondering, how would that play out actually? I will give you some examples.
My dear friend Nicky is addicted to meth and cocaine. Here is how he wants to be treated: He wants me, and his other friends and his family to help support this lifestyle choice of his, first and foremost financially, and, secondly, if financial help is not a possibility, to, at the very least, leave him in peace to get high. This is how he wants to be treated. He has been very explicit in this request. Would I have to comply with such a request if I were living in the alternate world, the one where all people are treated as they want to be treated?
And, what of cases where the wants of two people are in opposition? Cases where, to treat one person as they want to be treated would necessarily prevent me from treating another person as they want to be treated? For example, take my philandering friends, I will take my friend Billy for an example, he has a wife and a girlfriend. His wife wants him to be exclusively with her. His girlfriend wants him to be with her, but not exclusively. She prefers that he be married, it makes her life easier. So, whose wants should he favor in this situation? If the rule is ‘treat others as they want to be treated’, then he must dump the girlfriend in an effort to show proper love and respect to his wife, but then he would necessarily be leaving his girlfriend, who he is actually in love with, and that would certainly NOT be treating his girlfriend as she wants to be treated. What would be the guiding principle in that situation?
What if someone breaks this rule? What if someone does NOT treat someone as they want to be treated? What is the recourse? Is their justice for the slighted individual? Who measures out that justice and on what basis?
And what of those whose standard of how they want to be treated might be under-developed? I am thinking of friends I have who really are perfectly fine with being treated badly by boyfriends. It is the standard by which they live. What if I think they should actually be treated BETTER than they are being treated? And what of those who are still maturing? I am thinking specifically of children here, say, a newly turned 18 year old? I assure you that how I WANTED to be treated when I was 18 would have left me dead in a puddle of my own vomit, and I’m certainly grateful that NO ONE back then treated me how I actually WANTED to be treated, so what of those situations?
And, again, by what force are people treating others as they want to be treated? And, how do people KNOW how others want to be treated? I mean, you don’t always have the opportunity to get into lengthy conversations about what another person deems respectful and not respectful so, or loving and not loving, so what would be my guide in times when I wasn’t sure? Would I simply make an assumption? What would that assumption be based on?

The treat your neighbor as yourself does have some arguments against it, but that isn’t what it means. It means love your neighbor. It means treat others the way that Jesus treated others.

There are obviously people that are disordered and want themselves to be hurt emotionally and physically…these people shouldn’t go out and do that to others. Treat others with love and respect. That is what it means.

There are many people that practice Catholicism, pray on a regular basis, but completely disregard moral teachings. These are the same people that look down on others for not going to church. I think it has a lot to do with someone’s ego…people that are like this are usually extremely full of themselves and think they can do whatever they want.

 

[StTommyMore]

The treat your neighbor as yourself does have some arguments against it, but that isn’t what it means. It means love your neighbor. It means treat others the way that Jesus treated others.

There are obviously people that are disordered and want themselves to be hurt emotionally and physically…these people shouldn’t go out and do that to others. Treat others with love and respect. That is what it means.

There are many people that practice Catholicism, pray on a regular basis, but completely disregard moral teachings. These are the same people that look down on others for not going to church. I think it has a lot to do with someone’s ego…people that are like this are usually extremely full of themselves and think they can do whatever they want.

This is not a Catholic problem, so do no try to make it one. For example, you apparently look down your nose at all Catholics as hypocrites. Atheists look down their nose at theists, etc. Your agenda is clear. Your purpose hear is a futile attempt to smear Catholicism. How charitable of you.

 

[bingbang]

This is not a Catholic problem, so do no try to make it one. For example, you apparently look down your nose at all Catholics as hypocrites. Atheists look down their nose at theists, etc. Your agenda is clear. Your purpose hear is a futile attempt to smear Catholicism. How charitable of you.

No. My family is full of devout Catholics. My mother goes to church every day. My Grandfather, whom I would love to be like, was a devout Catholic that went to church every day. My father was the Grand Knight for the local Knights of Columbus group last year.

I just feel that some of the Catholics on these boards are at an extreme level of conservatism…a level I have not seen from even priests. I have legitimately never heard of anyone not attending a wedding because it is invalid in the eyes of the church. I had never heard of anyone even bringing it up.

I just feel as though many Catholics are so caught up with the rules of the Church they miss the bigger picture…love God and love your neighbor. People get so caught up with rules and how they interpret them that loving your neighbor takes the backseat to following some rule that is FAR less important than loving your neighbor. Going to an “invalid” wedding for instance. I know that if someone didn’t show up to my wedding because it was invalid according to their religion I would be offended. I just think that not upsetting my friends and relatives is more important than possibly “creating scandal” just because I am at a wedding. I am sure there wouldn’t be a HUGE scandal if I went to the wedding of my friend or relative who invited me…in fact there would be a HUGE scandal if I didn’t go.

Anyway, I just think that a lot of Catholics on here are missing the point. The greatest commandments trump all others, and people need to realize that.

 

[StTommyMore]

No. My family is full of devout Catholics. My mother goes to church every day. My Grandfather, whom I would love to be like, was a devout Catholic that went to church every day. My father was the Grand Knight for the local Knights of Columbus group last year.

I just feel that some of the Catholics on these boards are at an extreme level of conservatism…a level I have not seen from even priests. I have legitimately never heard of anyone not attending a wedding because it is invalid in the eyes of the church. I had never heard of anyone even bringing it up.

I just feel as though many Catholics are so caught up with the rules of the Church they miss the bigger picture…love God and love your neighbor. People get so caught up with rules and how they interpret them that loving your neighbor takes the backseat to following some rule that is FAR less important than loving your neighbor. Going to an “invalid” wedding for instance. I know that if someone didn’t show up to my wedding because it was invalid according to their religion I would be offended. I just think that not upsetting my friends and relatives is more important than possibly “creating scandal” just because I am at a wedding. I am sure there wouldn’t be a HUGE scandal if I went to the wedding of my friend or relative who invited me…in fact there would be a HUGE scandal if I didn’t go.

Anyway, I just think that a lot of Catholics on here are missing the point. The greatest commandments trump all others, and people need to realize that.

Loving your neighbor includes fraternal correction. That means if they are violating a precept of the Church, then you must not support them in that endeavor. The prcepts af the Church are not arbitrary. Every one of them has a purpose. For example, supporting someone who is divorced and remarrying is committing adultery. If I attend that wedding, I am giving consent, and therefore sharing in the guilt. By “Conservative” you are trying to put a negative connotation on “obedience,” added to your skewed idea of love. Love and what you seem to describe are two different things.