Morality Vs Religion

#1

What is morality?
AND
What is religion ?

Are these two terms the same or are they something totally different ?

If they are different which one should one place more importance on?

I came accross the definition of religion :

Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

and also morality :

concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

raum will most proably come in and give a better definition of them both but let me continue with what I believe in.

To me morality means more as it is the ethical reponsibilty of a person. However religion has always provided morality if not only through the stories of how the world was created or how god in turn helped out the people or other great stories which are held within all the different holy books, and all of them have it. But since there will always be a question mark on which religion is correct or which one came first, morality seems much more important to me personally.

Religion allows for self actualisation however moral value does not. Moral values provides a much more peoples approach to life and concerns itself mainly with personal ethics and their beliefs to right and wrong.

So morality or religion ? You decide....

#2

QUOTEHowever religion has always provided morality

I would question that D, ask anyone that fell victim to the church during the Crusades.

I will elaborate a little more later (when I have time) but my feeling on this subject is:

Morality is inherent

Religion is learned.....

#3

Interesting dichotomy you have tried to to establish, as morals are usually enforced from a religious perspective...

Morals are SUPPOSED to be that original fiber that we lost when God was forced to punish mankind for its arrogance. The theme is global, not Christian, btw. In fact, it is the goal of Religion to restore that fiber.

Again, this is not just Christianity... it is the goal of religion, a term that signifies a restoration of the personal covenant between man and god.

The entire history of morals imposed on people can be traced to the ancient Yi kingdom of the land that is now China. The Wu-Tai-Chien (The Great Mystery of Heaven) is that "Man is inherently evil and must purge that of himself, but he will not do so without outside influence of the good through instruction and enforcement." This was the major edict of the Wang dynasty over the Jen indiginous peoples, and was the seed that begat the Golden empire of 7 Kingdoms of enemies.

The meaning of this was lost coming down the silk road amnd eventually we are left with nothing but "original sin", which causes a rethinking of the tenets of faith and the powers of priests of religions that are the backbones of the religions in global conflict even now.

vertical,
raum

#4

The simplest answer is often the best answer in many cases...

I don't view religion and morality in the same boat at all...I think that they should exist seperately...I would hate to think that somebody that doesn't believe in religion, doesn't believe or have an idea of morality/ethics, etc...They share similar ideals, but that is about the same as a Whopper and a Big Mac, if that makes any sense...

#5

similar ideals, but that is about the same as a Whopper and a Big Mac.

I would rather say that what you are arguing people should inherently possess are not "morals" but ethics.

If religion is a sandwich, the *specific* morals of the religion are the kind of meat (or lack of meat) between the bread.

vertical,
raum

#6

I'm confused Raum. Are you saying that Morals and Religion go hand in hand? That a person can't in fact have one without the other?

#7

sure, you can always eat soup or toast... but its not a sandwich.

in other words,..

Morals (though *which morals* certainly varies) are vitally inclusive to religious adherance. A religion needs morals to outline human action according to its professed faith. Morals are supposed to be made clear by examining the doctrine of the religion, but rarely is that the case.

Religion is not so lucky. Morals do not need any religion.

Morals, theoretically, outline a course of action universally deemed "right" for all purposes, according to the ideal of human consciousness. They don't need a religion to back them up, but a religion without morals is hardly a possibility.

vertical,
raum

#8

Yea...what Raum said makes sense. My morals are determined by my religion but people who dont' have a religion still have morals.

#9

lol trash do you ever disagree with raum?

Anyway I do agree that a religion without morals has no basis what so ever and that morals are the backbone of any religion. In this age when people are easily influenced on the basis of religion to act immorally like the Jihad (i.e war of religions) being fought, it can be said that it would be easier for a rational person to see it as a disincentive to believe in religion since it obviously causes death and destrcution and would then need to build strong morals that would have no involvement of religion. This can be done and has been done before.

#10

Deepak,

it is not religion that brings these things. It is religious facism.

Thus, the case is made to not be a religious facist.

and for the record, trash has disagreed with me at least three times publically, and once in private.

but not many people disagreed with me as much, except Fapper, and all of that is really one incident.

vertical,
raum