Religion, morality, spirituality

[Josh]

Here's a fun topic that we discussed in one of my classes recently: To you, what is the relationship between religion and morality? How would you define each of the two? In what ways are they connected? Separate?

And, if you really want to be bold... add the term 'spirituality' to the mix.

Have at it.

[beautifulmess]

To a lot of people outside of the church, and even a few of the people inside of it, I think religion and morality can often appear to be the same thing. A lot of people think of religion and automatically think of rules. They picture this big list of things one must do in order to be known as Godly. I think there's a big focus on religion, but a very small one on a real relationship with God. There's a big focus on deeds and works: "If you do this or abstain from this, God will show you His favor." People tend to get too caught up in the moral side of everything and end up losing sight of the real purpose to it all.

As for spirituality, I think it's just such a vague term to use. To some, being spiritual means having a passionate, vibrant relationship with the Almighty and to others, being spiritual is believing in God, but not enough to actually act on it.
 

[Josh]

Andy,I think you're right on the money about spirituality being an ambiguous term, at least in our culture. Many believers like to use it as a synonym for Christianity, it seems, which is just plain wrong. (And by wrong I mean incorrect, not sinful).

I agree also with your assessment of religion and morality, but I would add that there is a movement within the church which uses the catch-phrase "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship." And that's not entirely true; Christianity is, first and foremost, a relationship with Jesus Christ, but it is also a religion, that is, an organized system of beliefs. And anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.  =)

Yes, a relationship with Christ is the most important thing, but there are also many religious laws and rituals that are clearly spelled out in the Bible, and we would be very foolish indeed to completely ignore those in hopes that it will somehow mprove our relationship with Christ. Because it won't.

[Vlad!]

Morality without religion is a somewhat dodgy proposition. With religion, one has an overriding reason to be moral. Without it, one is faced with a 'prisoner's dilemma' type situation: do you be moral in the hopes that those around you will reciprocate, or do you simply do what you think will be best for you? It's OK to steal as long as you don't get caught--there's no reason apart from the law of the land for not stealing.

Religion, on the other hand, is more than morality. Morality is a facet of religion. It doesn't even have to be codified--Christianity depends more on a few moral principles than on a specific list of rules. I almost consider rules to be the antithesis of morality. Morality is more like a philosophy, an overriding system of belief. Acting from a love of God and man, humility, cheerfulness in the face of adversity, universal compassion, these things are a morality. Do not steal, do not have sex with someone you are not married to, do not lie, these are rules. I can hate a man without stealing from him. Well, let's add do not hate to the list. Now I'm trying not to hate him, not because I care anything about him, but because the rules say not to. This isn't morality, its legalism. Morality is both not stealing from and not hating the man because he is, like myself, a human being. He is made in the image of God, worthy of my love and respect. It's aretology, not ontology or teleology.

As for spirituality, what of it? As has been more or less established so far, spirituality is more or less a multipurpose word to describe the relationship of oneself to the metaphysical. I have physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects to myself. Do we talk about 'emotionality' or 'physicality'? Not really. Spirituality is merely the realm that focuses on the spiritual part to perhaps even the exclusion of the other areas. I view someone who boasts about being spiritual the same way I view a professional bodybuilder or someone ruled by emotion: it's good to develop one part of oneself, but not to the exclusion of the other parts.  

[danny316]

I'd put each of these things as completely different, but i'm using unusual definitions.

I'd say Religion is the set of customs, rituals, and practices that a portion of mankind follows in response to what they believe about God or whatever else they think is out there.

Morality is a sense of right and wrong. I'm not even set on the idea of it being absolute, but i think that one person should have a consistent measure of it even if they don't live up to it.

Spirituality is a rather vague way of saying that someone has a connection with their spiritual side. What's on that side, i have no idea, and it probably varies from person to person. Even within Christianity i've noticed people try to connect to God in completely different ways. Actually, that could fall under religion, as the ways one denomination worships versus the way another denomination does generally would includes customs and practices....

Anyway, i'd say they're only vaguely related because they're all rather vague terms that people would describe very differently. Even with how i just defined it, there are infinite views of what religions people can hold, what morals people can hold, and ideas of spirituality. Sometimes the ideas even conflict - you could do something you see as morally wrong religiously to help some spirit that i wouldn't even know about.

[Josh]

Morality is a sense of right and wrong. I'm not even set on the idea of it being absolute, but i think that one person should have a consistent measure of it even if they don't live up to it.

Hmm... not to hear the Bible tell it...

[danny316]

Hmm... not to hear the Bible tell it...

Obviously the bible has a set of absolutes. I don't think everyone agrees with that though - i assumed you meant morality in a general context and not a strictly Christian context.

....or am i totally off-base in my general definition too?  

[Vlad!]

We may be running into semantic difficulties. I do not like to say that morality is relative, but the truth is that it may be--relative to what is really the question. After all, the Old Testament had the Law, and the New Testament has Grace. If one must no longer follow the law to be moral (and one could argue that following the Law was never necessary for a moral life, but I'm not sure I buy that argument), obviously morality is relative to at least one thing: Law or Grace. When discussing the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols (a particularly intriquing passage), Paul suggests that morality is situational--an act that may be moral for a mature Christian in a vacuum is not right when it causes a less mature Christian trouble. Applying what I said before, however, it's obvious that this comes from a love and compassion for one's fellow human being.

Morailty, as I mention above, is more than just actions. The resulting actions from the morality may be different (contrast the kindness of Jesus' words to repentant sinners with his harshness towards the prideful accusers of those sinners), but the love, compassion, and peace that characterizes the moral life is constant.

It is tempting to say that morality is relative among people or people-groups. After all, one person may drink a can of beer and be perfectly fine, and another may become drunk and do something both stupid and harmful. Or in one culture a certain word is taboo but in another it is part of daily language. Or maybe in a tribal group nudity is nothing shameful, wheras we in America treat it as something to be hidden. Does this not mean that morality is relative? No, because there is nothing innately wrong with a word, alcohol consumption, or the nude human body. It's when a word is used in anger or in a hurtful way that it becomes wrong, it is when dangerous and shameful acts are committed that drunkenness is a vice, and the lust in the viewer of the nudity is what needs to be avoided. These things are constant, it is their outward manifestations that make it seem relative.

Obviously the bible has a set of absolutes. I don't think everyone agrees with that though - i assumed you meant morality in a general context and not a strictly Christian context.

It doesn't matter whether a person disagrees with the Bible or not. Truth is truth. If I disagree that murder is wrong, is it OK if I kill you? People who don't believe in the Bible aren't going to be granted a waiver on judgement day....

Sorry for the longwinded posts. I get worked up about these things

[danny316]

We may be running into semantic difficulties. I do not like to say that morality is relative, but the truth is that it may be--relative to what is really the question. After all, the Old Testament had the Law, and the New Testament has Grace. If one must no longer follow the law to be moral (and one could argue that following the Law was never necessary for a moral life, but I'm not sure I buy that argument), obviously morality is relative to at least one thing: Law or Grace. When discussing the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols (a particularly intriquing passage), Paul suggests that morality is situational--an act that may be moral for a mature Christian in a vacuum is not right when it causes a less mature Christian trouble. Applying what I said before, however, it's obvious that this comes from a love and compassion for one's fellow human being.

Morailty, as I mention above, is more than just actions. The resulting actions from the morality may be different (contrast the kindness of Jesus' words to repentant sinners with his harshness towards the prideful accusers of those sinners), but the love, compassion, and peace that characterizes the moral life is constant.

It is tempting to say that morality is relative among people or people-groups. After all, one person may drink a can of beer and be perfectly fine, and another may become drunk and do something both stupid and harmful. Or in one culture a certain word is taboo but in another it is part of daily language. Or maybe in a tribal group nudity is nothing shameful, wheras we in America treat it as something to be hidden. Does this not mean that morality is relative? No, because there is nothing innately wrong with a word, alcohol consumption, or the nude human body. It's when a word is used in anger or in a hurtful way that it becomes wrong, it is when dangerous and shameful acts are committed that drunkenness is a vice, and the lust in the viewer of the nudity is what needs to be avoided. These things are constant, it is their outward manifestations that make it seem relative.



It doesn't matter whether a person disagrees with the Bible or not. Truth is truth. If I disagree that murder is wrong, is it OK if I kill you? People who don't believe in the Bible aren't going to be granted a waiver on judgement day....

Sorry for the longwinded posts. I get worked up about these things

All good points. On judgement day, it's safe to say we'll be talking God's morals, which i assume are the ones shown in the bible. There i'm 100% with you. On a definition of morality though, i'd rather stay vague and relative than argue about what true morality is. It's easy to say it's a concept of right and wrong, it takes a bit longer to define every right and wrong. I'd definitely say it's wrong to kill, but i'm sure there's someone out there who's concept of morality says otherwise. You brought up some good points about things that people believe are morals that we'd agree aren't morals - but since some people believe those are morals, than the morality that defines those as morals or not morals must be relative.

You brought up some other good points too, but those are all specifically within Christianity and Christian morals instead of morality at large. I'd agree with you though that the meat sacrificed to idols situation isn't a case of being relative but rather a case of love affecting what the final action should be.

Anyway, all that to say i think you're right about hitting semantic difficulties.