Morality can't exist with Religion... right?

Hey yo hello what's up? I came across something the other day that really made me think about morality and religion. Basically, it goes like this..


There are people who do heroic and selfless acts. They do it simply for the greater good or to protect those around them. They exist, and have always existed.. you can find them in every heroic narrative from every culture on earth. For example... beowulf and paul revere.


But let's take a modern day example, like Pat Tillman (he turned down a multimillion$ contract from the NFL to join the army instead, and was killed in the Middle East). Most people would call this a truly moral, courageous, and heroic act. It is something we all can aspire to. But when viewed through the lens of religion, doesn't the heroic act become degraded into just another ploy to appease the Creator?


This is because the heroic act would have been in anticipation of either a reward from Heaven or punishment from Hell. If religions like Islam and Christianity are true, then every noble and moral act would be because of anticipation of salvation or damnation. From this point of view, can morality truly exist then?


..... and in case u were wondering.. Pat Tillman did not profess faith in any religion, he is truly a modern day hero...



[edit on 25-12-2008 by Artificial_Eyebrows]

Ok but artificial, there is also something in the soul of believers and non alike, mind you non believers are not free from self love.

meaning behind the heorioc act is a hidden pride or could be a hidden pride or motive. Not talking about tillman but about the worldy people who haven't been brought up with humility so they attest the goodness to come from themselves which could cause numerous prides in the soul.


where as the saints gave God all credit for their works and good.

and saying the bible teaches a reward system only and damnation, that's truly tells me you are a youngin that doesn't know what the bible teaches.


God himself condemed the hypocrites in the hiearchy for doing works of love for a reward because it's phony.


God wants (un) conditional love, expect NO reward, do it for good, and if you happen to get a reward you say.

" I am worthy of dog crap "


Infact many saints said on their death bed after years of service for homeless people.

and I qoute.


" How should I not fear, I am so unworthy to behold God "


So no, this is not even biblical what you're saying.


and another fact is that God doesn't try and scare us into doing good.

God said hell will be for those who choose it. The punishment from hell is from God justice combined with human will.

we do nothing out of fear, and many saints taught this as well.

infact st teresa of avila said


" I never talk about hell "

because she knew that only joy and heaven should be on your mind.

so again, little understanding.

merry christmass.

reply to post by Artificial_Eyebrows


sorry, I miss read your title.


[edit on 25/12/2008 by Sauron]

Artificial_Eyebrows

There must be plenty of believers who do good things just because they want to go to Heaven.Though I'm sure they wouldn't admit such a thing.

People who are truly good perform acts of kindness with their focus continuously on those they are helping and because its the right thing to do.Doing good with one eye on God at all times takes something away from those acts of kindness;for the person receiving and the person giving....


Scenario one.

MAN1:Why did you did you give that poor stranger food and shelter?

MAN2:Because God says we should do such things if we are to join his glory in heaven.


Scenario two.

MAN1:Why did you did you give that poor stranger food and shelter?

MAN2:Because he needed the help i could give.

But the very fact that God created heaven and hell and told us that we would go to one or the other after we die, takes away or at least degrades morality doesn't it? Character or integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching. But unforunately religion tells us taht God is always watching... constantly and recording everything you do and think. Does that not take away character and integrity, turning us into something more like children attempting to please their father in the next room?


I don't think it really matters much that saints may say that they help people without thinking about heaven or thinking they aren't worthy of heaven. instead, i look at the teachings and purpose of Jesus Christ. He says that he came here to save mankind (and im very thankful of that ^^). Specifically, save us from damnation or Hell. so basically heaven and hell are behind everything, and we are going to end up in one or the other in a few decades, or for some of us even sooner. in my opinion, heaven and hell take away true morality because true morality is shown when there is absolutely no consequence but you do the right thing anyway (like sacrifice your life to save others)

Originally posted by Artificial_Eyebrows
heaven and hell take away true morality because true morality is shown when there is absolutely no consequence but you do the right thing anyway (like sacrifice your life to save others)

Damn right.

I cant understand how some people would disagree with that statement, just like I dont understand why some people use religion to determine a bad person from a good person. Its not about beliefs, its about ones mind set and actions

[edit on 27/12/2008 by OzWeatherman]

A person can do moral acts whether they are a Christian or not. A world with out morals would be a very dangerous place indeed. Even evil people will do moral acts to those they love............... To be moral does not make one a Christian, good deeds and morals are honorable attributes for anyone to have............ may we all seek to follow goodness.

reply to post by Artificial_Eyebrows


I am trying to figure out your question and I'm not sure I understand it. I think you are asking "if the threat of punishment of the attraction of a reward taints good behavior"?

Are my kids' grades in elementary school tainted by my desire for them to do well?

Do employees just do good work because they like the work and would work for free?

It seems to me that you are implying that those who believe in a God who rewards/punishes are acting out of a type of selfishness.

Is that what you are saying? (Or, rather, "asking"?)

reply to post by Artificial_Eyebrows

in my opinion, heaven and hell take away true morality because true morality is shown when there is absolutely no consequence but you do the right thing anyway (like sacrifice your life to save others)

Something like this?

1 Cor 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

If you are presenting an idea that the "most" (best) heroic acts are performed by those who have no worries/concerns about a consequence (Heaven or Hell...or pleasure or pain)... then you seem to tacitly imply that every infant is the "least heroic".

I've never had or held an infant that didn't demand that I satisfy EVERY SINGLE ONE of their needs...IMMEDIATELY! Furthermore, these infants don't care AT ALL about MY pleasure or pain...they only care about their OWN pleasure or pain! Infants are some of the most SELFISH human beings upon the entire EARTH!

...yet nobody seems to hate infants.

If "morality" is to be defined by the "selfLESS" acts we do, then infants are quite immoral.

Originally posted by PreTribGuy
Something like this?

1 Cor 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

If you are presenting an idea that the "most" (best) heroic acts are performed by those who have no worries/concerns about a consequence (Heaven or Hell...or pleasure or pain)... then you seem to tacitly imply that every infant is the "least heroic".

I've never had or held an infant that didn't demand that I satisfy EVERY SINGLE ONE of their needs...IMMEDIATELY! Furthermore, these infants don't care AT ALL about MY pleasure or pain...they only care about their OWN pleasure or pain! Infants are some of the most SELFISH human beings upon the entire EARTH!

...yet nobody seems to hate infants.

If "morality" is to be defined by the "selfLESS" acts we do, then infants are quite immoral.

While the person in 1Corinthians (Paul i think) says that they will not profit from any charity they do, they also know full well that they will be rewarded after death... which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Paul is going to go to heaven after he dies, and he knows that because Jesus told him that moral actions would lead to a spot in the heavenly kingdom. So it doesn't matter that Paul says "it profiteth me nothing" because he knows full well that it WILL profit him. If you don't agree then you're basically saying Paul didn't get into heaven.


And that is why morality may be degraded or cheapened by religion. Because true morality is only shown when the right thing is done when there is no consequence. But with religion, you always have a consequence and so we are more like children appeasing a Father instead of humans being humane.


And I love children and think that everybody does. They are the most innocent people on earth. But at the same time is there anything more cruel than a child? I mean, you told me that children are very selfish and I agree with you. But I still love them because they are not experienced or intelligent yet. They are still in the first stage of morality:

Lawrence Kohlberg's six stages of moral development:

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)


Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/good girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)


Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

Most people actually never get past level 2 of the moral development.
I hope you understand what I meant now, thanks for posting! I'm really not here to offend you even though it sounds like it.

Originally posted by Artificial_Eyebrows

This is because the heroic act would have been in anticipation of either a reward from Heaven or punishment from Hell. If religions like Islam and Christianity are true, then every noble and moral act would be because of anticipation of salvation or damnation. From this point of view, can morality truly exist then?

Do you really think it is just easy to die for what you believe? Is every heroic act one that is anticipated? Heroics are often so because they are spontaneous and often detrimental to the one acting in a heroic manner. I don't know about you, but if a chance arose to be heroic do you really think people take the time to contemplate that because they believe in God they will be rewarded, so their heroic action is logical and can be acted upon with assurity that any outcome will be beneficial spiritually, regardless of the material impact on their being.
What is heroic anyway. Being in war. dying in War. killing in War. killing yourself in a war, being killed by your own soldiers in a war. Simply going to war, is that heroic? Is it morally altruistic to do any of these.

I understand what your are saying, but I think you are a little naive in belittling those of religious sacrifice, and holding that of certain soldiers as a moral ideal. You think that soldiers don't have their own myth sets that highlight the ideal of dying for their country, their fellow soldiers and their people back home. That is why soldiers get medals as rewards, Parades, meet the President(god), that stories are told about their exploits, that they get propagated to the next generation. Soldiers become Immortal too, in tales, songs, books and movies. News stories. That monuments are built. That days are set aside for people to remember/worship them and their sacrifices and heroics[heaven]. Patriotism. Service. Do you think that soildiers don't anticipate these reactions, or in-fact know that these are real possibilities for them as rewards for their service and sacrifices and may be a motivation for service and sacrifice too. And conversly, if a soldier does not hold these ideals, hesitates when the sacrfices is required, he is a coward, weak and a traitor to the cause[hell].

..... and in case u were wondering.. Pat Tillman did not profess faith in any religion, he is truly a modern day hero...

I was not wondering, but thanks for the eulogy. One could argue that Pat Tillman was serving the Patriotic Ideal that is indoctrinated just as much as any religion. That Pat went to war because of a false belief. Like religious people are accused of. How is it different to one serving God. Just as a religious person may act in a manner that is detrimental to the self in order to serve a greater purpose of good, so too do soldiers. Pats story is tragic and inspiring. Tragic because he was killed by his own, that his death has served no real purpose in an unpopular, nationally detrimental and ideologically flawed war that does not appear to have the moral gravity to keep absorbing the servants sacrificed by the society that instigated it. Pats life seems more a sacrifice for nought than one that was given for a greater good, as we are yet to see that greater good emerge.
His story is inspirational because he sacrifices the material in order to serve. But in a society that does not revere the material of wealth or idolises its sporting heroes, what would his sacrifice mean? What is more significant about Pat compared to other soldiers that gave up menial jobs to serve and who were not sporting Icons that also died. Why is Pat a true hero, why do you single out Pat? As a true modern day hero.
I could argue that morally, Pat had no right to be there, fighting. That he sacrificed no thing of real value but his life. Just like other soldiers, so why is he singled out by your post!
I believe the man thought he was doing the right thing, the right thing by his country, his family and his friends. And he was sincere in his efforts, Just like alot of religious people are who sacrifice their lives. I believe what Pat did is of no real moral difference to religious people acting in a similar manner because they served greater goods of different natures.
Just because he was sincere and thought he was doing right, does not make it so.

Artificial is a smart kid.

The thing about children is true but it's because they haven't receieved alot of graces yet, which is why they are cruel.

that change in the soul goes on through the years by Gods grace, Iv'e seen it happen in my own life.

graces are love God puts in the soul throughout the years provided we do work for it.



Now as far as st paul.

But the thing is, st paul didn't care for the reward. What you fail to realize girl is that the saints reached detatchment from everything in life, money, goods, family, and so the reward they could care less for because of how God worked in their soul removing selfishness from it.

They just want God and him alone.


But the rest of the world that you say is just doing it out of humaneness is not accurate because you don't know whats in their heart.

alot of those people might run on self love and never show humility, we don't know their hearts.


Very complex subject.

reply to post by Artificial_Eyebrows

While the person in 1Corinthians (Paul i think) says that they will not profit from any charity they do, they also know full well that they will be rewarded after death... which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Paul is going to go to heaven after he dies, and he knows that because Jesus told him that moral actions would lead to a spot in the heavenly kingdom. So it doesn't matter that Paul says "it profiteth me nothing" because he knows full well that it WILL profit him. If you don't agree then you're basically saying Paul didn't get into heaven.

This simply isn't true. Let me (please) break this above paragraph apart and answer it point by point?

While the person in 1Corinthians (Paul i think)

Yes, it is Paul.

says that they will not profit from any charity they do,

This simply is not true at all! He is specifically saying what is NOT charity and what IS charity. The whole chapter is about this!

Giving one's body to be burned is NO PROOF OF CHARITY!

...and you are incorrect to say that Charity does not profit:

1 Cor 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

and

1 Cor 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

they also know full well that they will be rewarded after death... which is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Jesus said:
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

Paul is going to go to heaven after he dies, and he knows that because Jesus told him that moral actions would lead to a spot in the heavenly kingdom.

Paul, actually, said this:

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

So it doesn't matter that Paul says "it profiteth me nothing" because he knows full well that it WILL profit him.

Paul says this:

Phil 3:8 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

If you don't agree then you're basically saying Paul didn't get into heaven.

I think I just proved the opposite via the Bible.

From your later (external) quote (emphasis mine):

6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)

Jer 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

reply to post by JesusisTruth

The thing about children is true but it's because they haven't receieved alot of graces yet, which is why they are cruel.

My Bible seems to imply that John the Baptist was saved while he was still in the womb.

Emphasis mine:

graces are love God puts in the soul throughout the years provided we do work for it.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Pretrib, I meant faith plus works go hand in hand as the bible says, faith without works is dead and vise versa.