-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you judge yourself to be Moral without god?
- Thread starter Sententia
- Start date
Little Joe Gould
Seeking God
If anyone can look back on their life and judge it to be moral and acceptable are in my opinion out of their minds. Humans are a ridiculously wicked lot. We do horrible things, all of us, in some way or another. So my answer is definitely no.
Hmm.. What actions or deeds, if their not too personal, do you think are only moral if your religion is true?
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
That's a tough question and I'll likely fail at answering adequately. Love is the only truth, in my opinion. And I fail miserably at true love.
Ahh... I was trying to refer to events in your life that could only be defined as moral *if* some form of your god and religion is true.
Humans are imperfect and may be immoral. However, Are there any things that are considered moral now under your religion that if your religion were to turn up false and your god was absent on finals would then be considered immoral.
I get the we're all sinners line a lot hehe.
I must be out of my mind then, because I think the majority of my past actions are at least acceptable, if not moral.
Draka
Wonder Woman
Personally, I find it incredibly immoral to condemn others and/or proselytize to others. I find it mean and downright rude. However, some religions actually promote such actions of their followers. Luckily mine doesn't.
I don't think there is anything about my religion that makes an action moral that would otherwise be considered immoral if it didn't exist.
I don't think there is anything about my religion that makes an action moral that would otherwise be considered immoral if it didn't exist.
Last edited:
ayani
member
well, here's the thing...
the Book of Romans has some interesting thoughts on the subject.
Paul writes, essentially, that the Law is written on every human heart. there is, within each of us, a general sense of "i should treat others the way i would like to be treated". it's a very simple, basic morality (our conscience), that is God-given, but not Spirit-driven.
we have all known many dear, good, kind, helpful, and patient people of all faiths, or no faith. i've known many self-professed Christians who have been rather ungracious and cold. and many people of diverse faiths who give, love, help, and uplift their brethren with humbling enthusiasm and spiritedness.
in my Christian faith, what is right and wrong comes not from one's own inner sense of or guess-work concerning what is right or wrong, but comes from the guidance of God's Spirit- that of God's holiness and guidance that dwells within us after we have made the descision to follow and belong to the Son, Jesus. the laws, commandments, and example of Christ become our compass. former opinions as to what is ok and what is not may change drastically after conversion. this does not mean that one hates or shuns individuals who engage in activities that are sinful- one respects and serves the person, who is made in God's image, while understanding that some of the things they are doing are contrary to God's Law, and pull them further from Him.
i've met many Christians who believe that in the end, all who have not accepted Christ will basically burn in hell. i contest that. what is dearer to God? a Sikh, Hindu, or agnosic who loves and serves, or a Baptist who lives only for himself and shuns others? God looks at men's hearts, and in the end, we will be called to task for our deeds- for how we have used and given of this precious gift of life. to have new, spiritual life in Christ, living for God in Him, is a beautiful, miraculous, and life-changing thing. yet not all people will be able to come to Christ, for many, many reasons.
so in essence, we can basically do what is commendable and helpful, selfless and admirable, whatever faith we may be. ultimately though, there is a lot of internal guess-work involved both on individual and general issues. one person's sin is another's free right, and the issue of cultural / personal relativism makes it more complicated.
when speaking religiously, "morality" and being a kind and helpful person are ultimately two different things.
example: for a devout Sikh, according to Sikh standards, his Christian neighbor who drinks occasionally and eats meat is immoral. yet this Christian neighbor often helps the Sikh when he is in need, often at the expense of his own personal time. the Sikh understands the Christian's dietary ways as immoral, yet deeply appreciates the help this neighbor gives, and respects him for his kindness and goodwill.
the Book of Romans has some interesting thoughts on the subject.
Paul writes, essentially, that the Law is written on every human heart. there is, within each of us, a general sense of "i should treat others the way i would like to be treated". it's a very simple, basic morality (our conscience), that is God-given, but not Spirit-driven.
we have all known many dear, good, kind, helpful, and patient people of all faiths, or no faith. i've known many self-professed Christians who have been rather ungracious and cold. and many people of diverse faiths who give, love, help, and uplift their brethren with humbling enthusiasm and spiritedness.
in my Christian faith, what is right and wrong comes not from one's own inner sense of or guess-work concerning what is right or wrong, but comes from the guidance of God's Spirit- that of God's holiness and guidance that dwells within us after we have made the descision to follow and belong to the Son, Jesus. the laws, commandments, and example of Christ become our compass. former opinions as to what is ok and what is not may change drastically after conversion. this does not mean that one hates or shuns individuals who engage in activities that are sinful- one respects and serves the person, who is made in God's image, while understanding that some of the things they are doing are contrary to God's Law, and pull them further from Him.
i've met many Christians who believe that in the end, all who have not accepted Christ will basically burn in hell. i contest that. what is dearer to God? a Sikh, Hindu, or agnosic who loves and serves, or a Baptist who lives only for himself and shuns others? God looks at men's hearts, and in the end, we will be called to task for our deeds- for how we have used and given of this precious gift of life. to have new, spiritual life in Christ, living for God in Him, is a beautiful, miraculous, and life-changing thing. yet not all people will be able to come to Christ, for many, many reasons.
so in essence, we can basically do what is commendable and helpful, selfless and admirable, whatever faith we may be. ultimately though, there is a lot of internal guess-work involved both on individual and general issues. one person's sin is another's free right, and the issue of cultural / personal relativism makes it more complicated.
when speaking religiously, "morality" and being a kind and helpful person are ultimately two different things.
example: for a devout Sikh, according to Sikh standards, his Christian neighbor who drinks occasionally and eats meat is immoral. yet this Christian neighbor often helps the Sikh when he is in need, often at the expense of his own personal time. the Sikh understands the Christian's dietary ways as immoral, yet deeply appreciates the help this neighbor gives, and respects him for his kindness and goodwill.
ayani
member
so.... one can by these standards be both "immoral" and a rather kind, friendly, good-natured person. what one regards as God's standards will colour what one deems immoral.
but all of us can appreciate an empathetic, helpful, or compassionate person, especially when these loving acts are done in the face of great danger or risk. e.g. those Mumbai cops who fought in the Taj hotel for days, and the many others in the seige who risked their lives to save and shepherd strangers.
but all of us can appreciate an empathetic, helpful, or compassionate person, especially when these loving acts are done in the face of great danger or risk. e.g. those Mumbai cops who fought in the Taj hotel for days, and the many others in the seige who risked their lives to save and shepherd strangers.
Not Bob
Member
Two things. First, in response to ayani, Paul himself wrote about doing things that were considered immoral. In Romans 3:7, he admitted to lying. And in 1 Corinthians 9, he went on about how he lived under the law (Torah) when among Jews, and lived outside the law when among Gentiles (if he was Jewish as he had said he was, it wouldn't matter the company he kept, he would have kept the law anyway), so again he lied. And of course, justified his immoral behavior.
Second, if you compare the ratio of believers to atheists in the prison population to the ratio of believers to atheists in the free population, you'll find that there is a staggering difference. The percentage of believers in prison is incredibly greater than the percentage of believers in the free population, and the percentage of atheists in prison is remarkably smaller than the percentage of athiests in the free population. So apparently, atheists tend to be more moral than believers, and also apparently, threats of eternal damnation don't keep many believers from being immoral or even downright criminal. If believers are that bad with a God watching their every move, imagine how terrible they'd be if there were no God!!!
Second, if you compare the ratio of believers to atheists in the prison population to the ratio of believers to atheists in the free population, you'll find that there is a staggering difference. The percentage of believers in prison is incredibly greater than the percentage of believers in the free population, and the percentage of atheists in prison is remarkably smaller than the percentage of athiests in the free population. So apparently, atheists tend to be more moral than believers, and also apparently, threats of eternal damnation don't keep many believers from being immoral or even downright criminal. If believers are that bad with a God watching their every move, imagine how terrible they'd be if there were no God!!!
I answered yes cause my morality is not based on any god or religion. So even if it turns out to be all false it would not cause me to think anything I have done that was moral now immoral. The way I see it, if it would be immoral without god then it isn't moral in the first place.
ayani
member
hey, Bob.
i'd argue that what Paul did to further the Gospel was not immoral- when in Rome, as it were, he adapted. that is not to say he lied to the Jews or Gentiles- rather, he adopted their practices in order to better relate to them, and them to him. he became "all things to all people"- and indeed, a Christian hoping to share the Gospel effectively needs to take into account the cultural differences of peoples while ministering to them, and serving them, and respect those differences within framework of Christian morality.
is it a lie if, while with Muslims, i refrain from eating pork in front of them, out of respect for their faith? is it a lie to wear a sari and call the elders "Uncle" and "Auntie" while fellowshipping with Indian Christians, whereas in other setting i'd wear a t-shirt and jeans and call people "Sir" and "Ma'am"?
also... believers in what? to lump all people of faith together is a bit of a stretch. believers in anything? in a god? in a higher power? in Christ? in an Abrahamic tradition?
when faith is lived out in the head and fails to connect with the heart and hands, there is a problem. faith without works is dead, as James emphatically declares. Christian faith without the fruits of love, service, humility, and Christlikeness can not be said to be true faith.
simply saying "Lord, Lord!" does not make of a follower of that Lord, nor neccesarily a very good embassador of His Person.
i'd argue that what Paul did to further the Gospel was not immoral- when in Rome, as it were, he adapted. that is not to say he lied to the Jews or Gentiles- rather, he adopted their practices in order to better relate to them, and them to him. he became "all things to all people"- and indeed, a Christian hoping to share the Gospel effectively needs to take into account the cultural differences of peoples while ministering to them, and serving them, and respect those differences within framework of Christian morality.
is it a lie if, while with Muslims, i refrain from eating pork in front of them, out of respect for their faith? is it a lie to wear a sari and call the elders "Uncle" and "Auntie" while fellowshipping with Indian Christians, whereas in other setting i'd wear a t-shirt and jeans and call people "Sir" and "Ma'am"?
also... believers in what? to lump all people of faith together is a bit of a stretch. believers in anything? in a god? in a higher power? in Christ? in an Abrahamic tradition?
when faith is lived out in the head and fails to connect with the heart and hands, there is a problem. faith without works is dead, as James emphatically declares. Christian faith without the fruits of love, service, humility, and Christlikeness can not be said to be true faith.
simply saying "Lord, Lord!" does not make of a follower of that Lord, nor neccesarily a very good embassador of His Person.
Doodlebug02
Active Member
Yes, even if there is no god and it turns out that my religion is false, I would still consider my past actions to be moral.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I think an atheist would completely disagree with that. That's like saying that if one doesn't believe in a god that they can't have personal morals and standards. Also, that it would no longer be good to follow basic societal morals such as not killing and not stealing and so on. Those aren't "Christian" morals...they're human morals. Christianity may have embraced them, but they didn't make them up. You would still have them, I hope, even if Christianity was proven to be wrong.
What's wrong with this picture?
I make a point of not relying on any deities to support the morality of my life, so I guess "Wait, what" 
The concept of god was introduced to you as was your religion. Are you implying that if you were not introduced to your religion that you would murder, rape, pillage and plunder as you deemed neccesary? That doesn't seem likely.
Morality exists both with and without the concept of god. (Secular Ethics)