Does Someone Have to be Religious to Be a Good Person?

by flipper 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  WTWizard

  Religious people have caused the following disasters:

  (1) The First Dark Ages (the Catholic church)

  (2) The Crusades

  (3) Much of the fighting in the Middle East (the Islams)

  (4) Repression and stagnation, including most of our hangups about sex

  (5) Unnecessary complication of what is "moral" and what is "immoral".

  Take away religion, and you have true morals. Which are so simple that most small children abide by them. And, if that was the only moral principles in force, civilization would have long since taken off into near-paradise without God's interference. We would solve, not create, problems. The energy crisis would not have been--alternative energy would have appeared before oil gets critically short. Pollution, sickness, and death would have been solved. The free market and science would be totally free to be the only "religion" that we need.
• 

  parakeet

  flipper wrote: "And our take was that a good majority of Jehovah's Witnesses are good, because they feel they will be rewarded with everlasting life . Take away THAT reward ; and would they still try to be decent people ?"
  
  
  
  
  
  Behind the mask, their personalities are just as varied as the rest of us. IMO, they're not as good and decent as the average person on the street. Behind the smiles and outward show are some very disturbed people. Here's an assortment I've known personally or heard about in the news: The pedophiles protected by the Society, the vicious gossips, the smiling elder who loved to publicly humiliate teenagers who got out of line (personal experience on this one), the schizophrenics, the kangaroo JC courts.
  
  I think people are who they are, warts included, whether or not they are religious. No group or person can stake a sole claim on goodness.
• 

  Caedes

  If you are a 'bad' person and are religious does that automatically mean you are only claiming to be religious? As an atheist I have no problem believing that a 'bad' person who says that they are atheist really is an atheist.

  You would think that with the one experience we all share on this board that we could all agree that being sincerely religious does not preclude you from being a completely selfish, hateful, evil bastard.

  I would think that the kind of thinking that was expressed by one poster who described herself as imperfect etc, is exactly the kind of statement that could be used by religious convicts to justify their behaviour.

  That said, I believe religion can be a good tool for preventing some people from becoming axe-wielding murderers, and for some people to be nicer to their fellow man. For others it's good for convincing you to murder and torture your fellow man.
• 

  Reefton Jack

  Being rather wrung out on this particular Friday evening, I m not inclined to be verbose about this matter!
  
  I will just repeat what I have said on several previous occasions:
  
  i.e religion and ethics are two totally things.
  
  You can name some religious people whom you would not want to know (I certainly can, anyway!)
  - then you could name some non-believers who are entirely harmless.
  
  As to what constitutes ethics, I regard Stephen Covey's description in "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" to be close to the mark:
  - namely, just imagine what the opposite would be - then figure it out for yourself.
  (You don't 12 old f%^&ts in Brooklyn, some bloke on the Papal Throne in Rome - or his equivalent in Canterbury - to define that for you)
  
  
  My approach to this matter, anyway.
  
  
  Jack.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Can someone be religious and still be a good person?
• 

  worf

  Mr. Flipper,

  I have to say I agree with you. Even though I was born into the borg, I can honestly say that I have met more decent people outside of the wt and outside of organized religion. So in my opinion, you don't have to be religious to be a good person.

  Worf
• 

  worf

  WT Wizard,

  Your comments are right on target.

  Worf
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi Flip, my take on the issue is essentially that of Immanuel Kant who demonstrated that morals are autonomous, or else, they don't exist at all. If a person refrains from murdering his neighbor only out of fear of divine retribution, his behavior is dictated not by moral virtues, but by caution, fear of the Holy Policeman, and selfishness. And if a person does good only with an eye to salvation, he/she is not, in fact, really doing good (since his/her behavior is dictated by self-interest, rather than by duty or love) and will thus not be saved. A good deed is not good because God commanded me to do it; on the contrary, it is because an action is good that it is possible to believe that God commanded it. Rather than religion being the basis of morals, morals are indeed the basis of religion. Religion is not the foundation of morals. Rather, the converse is true - morals are the foundation upon which religion is based.

  The English words morals and ethics derive from the Latin and Greek [respectively] terms mores and ethos, which both essentially mean customs. In Latin and Greek [respectively], mores and ethos referred to the customs of people. What was deemed "moral" or "ethical" was merely that which was customary, the societal norm. Throughout the world, and throughout time, these societal norms have been in flux. As the French say: "Autres temps, autres moeurs." It means that people follow different various moral codes from one era to another.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Speaking of etymology, the word virtue shares the same etymological root as virile, that is to say "manly." The word virtue came into English via French. French got it from the Latin word virtutem, which meant "morality" and "manliness." The Latin virtutem is itself derived from vir, meaning "man." So, presumably, a woman might possess "chastity" or "purity," but she was necessarilly barred from possessing "virtue" due to her gender. This idea only serves to prove the French expression that I quoted in my previous post, "Autres temps, autres moeurs." The morals and ethics of people change from place to place, and from era to era.
• 

  mouthy

  I dont think there is any really good. I believe religion causes more trouble than anything. I am far from what I should be..but I try to be decent( dont succeed every day)

  But I am a believer in God. I believe it is a relationship ...I TRY to walk the walk especially if I talk the talk. But as most of you KNOW I cant always do that either...
  But I am a Hatch,Match,& Dispatch Church goer,( Christening,marriage,funeral)Also give my tetimony in any....

  So no one doesnt have to be religious to be decent human being.