The morality of Biblical Christianity vs secular morality

[super animator]

Thanks, I needed another reminder of how anti-human Christianity is.

Two things:
I don't see how you reach that conclusion.
The user who post that has been banned, most likely the result of his behavior.

 

[super animator]

Is TheReginator yet another reincarnation of elionai26?

Well he been banned by the looks of it.

 

[Cearbhall]

As has been stated many times before, atheism has no basis for morality.

The idea of being rational and using logic to solve problems isn't nearly as frightening to me as the fact that some people literally think we'll be tortured for eternity if we don't follow a set of ancient, irrational rules and can therefore justify any means of force to themselves without a rational basis.

 

[IanCG]

I don't have a wife

I didn't ask you that. Don't dodge the question.

 

[madaz]

I'm still here.

Are you also known as Organic?

 

[Dave Ellis]

If atheists disagree then I want them to tell me: would they prefer to share a prison cell with unrepentant criminals, or with born again Christians?

Depends.... Are the born again Christians also unrepentant criminals?

 

[IanCG]

Are you also known as Organic?

No, he's yet another sock of that pedophile apologetic.

Correlation is not causation.

There is another factor causing the trauma.



This is further confirmed by the story of the women that was posted in this forum. She does not experience any trauma until her mid twenties, as she discovers that a 40 year old who has sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile, who deserves to be reviled.
The trauma due to pedophilia is 100% social stigma.
Society got along fine with mass molestation during the Bible days and up to about 1880.

 

[Ken-1122]

As has been stated many times before, atheism has no basis for morality. Morality in atheism comes down to a matter of opinion. However, just because someone is a theist doesn't mean they follow the commandments of Jesus. A person can believe in God and still do immoral things. What I'm talking about is the commandments of the New Testament vs secular morality.

The majority of people in society, whether they are theists or atheists, don't follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It should not surprise us then that a lot of crime, evil, and injustice happens in our society. To think secular morality is a good thing is a delusion.

Are you even familiar with secular morality? An argument can be made that many of the teachings of Jesus is actually based upon secular morality

If I follow the teachings of the New Testament, I am to love others, not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not murder, not mistreat the poor, help the widows, and be forgiving. Secular morality cannot and doesn't offer such a basis.

Have you ever heard of the Golden rule? That is a secular morality; perhaps you should quit reading your bible so much and pick up a few secular books, you might find out Christians haven’t cornered the market on morality.

If an atheist was sent to prison and he had a choice of cells: he could either share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murderers, or he could share a cell with a group of born again Christians who decided to repent and follow Jesus, I'm sure that most atheists would prefer to share a cell with the Christians.

How about if you were sent to prison and you had a choice of cells; you could share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murders or you could share a cell with a group of atheists who have repented of their previous evil deeds and have had a change of heart?
Two can play that game ya know!

The atheist would know that unrepentant rapists and murderers have no basis for their morality.

How do you know? Those unrepentant rapists and murders could be Christian!

This is why the commandments of Jesus are way superior to the morals of secular morality. If atheists disagree then I want them to tell me: would they prefer to share a prison cell with unrepentant criminals, or with born again Christians?

What about the morality of Moses, Saul and Joshua? Are those examples of christian morality?

K

 

[Eudaimonist]

Secular morality has been responsible for most deaths and immorality throughout history. Contrast that with "love one another," as Jesus commands.

This was your reply to the following statement:

We need a secular ethic because once you reject that as the authority, you can choose whatever religious morality you want. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusaders also had no need of a secular morality, and look where that ended.

I had asked what is wrong with that statement, and invited you to help me see what is wrong with it. I'll examine the statement, and your attempted solution.

Let's consider as an example a snippet from Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Would you agree that if everyone in the world were an ethical humanist, believing the above to be the best and most desirable way to live one's life, then Stalin and Pol Pot could never have existed?

The same thing could be said of ethical Hindus who believe in the virtue of non-violence. A famous example is Gandhi. If everyone believed that Gandhi had the right view regarding violence in society, would there be rapists and murderers?

Now, not everyone has moral virtue. Not everyone agrees with the Christians, Secular Humanists, and Hindus (and many, many other ethical groups!) that violence is not a good way to live.

So, back to my statement. What is wrong with it? And what is wrong with your reply, which makes the very same error?

The problem is that the categories are being drawn incorrectly. The distinction isn't between some religious command and everybody else. It is between anyone who holds to a non-violent, benevolent ethic versus everyone else. It also isn't ethical Christians versus atheists, but ethical Christians, ethical Secular Humanists, ethical Hindus and other ethical groups versus unethical Christians, unethical Secular Humanists, unethical Hindus and unethical others (grouped or not).

That is the dividing line -- the ethically benevolent, no matter if they are Christian, non-Christian religious, or nontheistic, versus everybody else.

So, what about the idea of "choosing" one's morality? Christians are just as free to pick and choose from their morality as anyone else. They may even cease to be Christians. Commandments did nothing to prevent the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. They do nothing to prevent Christians from being "lukewarm" or even "cold" in their behavior.

However, if someone is an ethical Secular Humanist, they understand that Secular Humanism is a good and desirable way to live one's life. They believe that not all ways of life are equally good -- some are more desirable than others. Some values have a greater claim to be the sort of value one ought to pursue in life. So, they don't need Commandments to see the best way to live.

So, how do Commandments compare to this? They don't prevent anyone from doing evil, from picking and choosing, or from leaving or not joining the religion. At best, a Commandment fills the same function as an "ought". You ought not do X because X will get you punished for an eternity.

Commandments are inferior compared to understanding-based ethics. A Commandment, much like a human law, merely tells people that some other people will punish you if you do X. They don't explain why one should view X as undesirable in itself. They don't explain why someone ought not do X even if no punishment were forthcoming.

If you understand why X is undesirable -- for instance, why it is not in someone's best interests to do X, why there is nothing good about X -- then one will not do X regardless of one's calculation of one's chances of avoiding punishment.

Commandments, OTOH, avoid this explanation, and simply say: "if you do what we don't want you to do, we're going to step on you". Stalin and Pol Pot used this approach. Even if one tries to use this approach for good, it amounts to the same thing.

Sure, we need laws, but even more we need ethical people, and those ethical people do not have to be Christian. They can be "secular". They can be religious non-Christians. And none of them have any "magic bullet" in making the unethical ethical. Sure, people can choose not to be ethical Secular Humanists just as easily as they can choose not to obey Christian "Commandments". Atheists and atheism aren't the problem any more than the Spanish Inquisition or the Christian Crusader ethics. The problem is simply one of convincing unethical people that an ethics is a good way to live -- the better choice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

As has been stated many times before, atheism has no basis for morality.

By who? Only you! Thats non-sensical. Why not just substitute "atheism" with a sub-group of atheism like humanism, humanism is an atheist system that does have a basis for morality.

Morality in atheism comes down to a matter of opinion.

Morality in theism also comes down to a matter of opinion, so whats your point?

However, just because someone is a theist doesn't mean they follow the commandments of Jesus.

Agreed, and your behaviour is a classic example.

A person can believe in God and still do immoral things.

Agreed, history has confirmed this fact multiple times.

What I'm talking about is the commandments of the New Testament vs secular morality.

Define secular morality?

The majority of people in society, whether they are theists or atheists, don't follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Why should they, society has changed over the last 2000 years so ethics and morality need to evolve to keep up, slavery is not so acceptable these days. Albert Einstein once said, "There is nothing divine about morality, it is purely a human affair.

It should not surprise us then that a lot of crime, evil, and injustice happens in our society.

Our society is majority christian so it should surprise you.

To think secular morality is a good thing is a delusion.

I think you are projecting here again, I think secular morality is a good thing, as a humanist I have a deep seated compassion for humankind and the world at large, because benefiting society maximises individual happiness as well as raising the potential of humanity. I also have a deep seated appreciation for the natural world and because I dont believe in an afterlife, I find real value and meaning in this one gift of life I have been granted. For myself and most other humanists I'm sure, only reason, experience, observation and action provide truly reliable tools for realising compassionate ends.

If I follow the teachings of the New Testament, I am to love others, not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not murder, not mistreat the poor, help the widows, and be forgiving.

Please follow the NT if that will help make you a moral person.Whatever works!

Secular morality cannot and doesn't offer such a basis. Let me give an example:
If an atheist was sent to prison and he had a choice of cells: he could either share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murderers, or he could share a cell with a group of born again Christians who decided to repent and follow Jesus, I'm sure that most atheists would prefer to share a cell with the Christians. The atheist would know that unrepentant rapists and murderers have no basis for their morality. Or what about the prison guards? Would an atheist prefer to live in a prison where the prison guards were born again Christians who believed in caring for their inmates, or would atheists prefer to live in a prison where the guards did as they pleased? Some of the prison guards in American prisons are brutal. They have even tortured the inmates.
This is why the commandments of Jesus are way superior to the morals of secular morality.

Really? What secular moral systems are you familiar with, please name them?

If atheists disagree then I want them to tell me: would they prefer to share a prison cell with unrepentant criminals, or with born again Christians?

What is the difference?

 

[madaz]

I'm still here.

Not for long...

 

[Organic]

Why don't you define who you would consider a christian?

And, you are a christian, correct?

A Christian is someone who obeys the commandments of Jesus:

"If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15)

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4).

And what was one of Jesus' primary commandments?

"This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12-13)

Anybody can do bad things while still claiming to be a Christian, but the Bible says that such people are liars and hypocrites. I don't consider a Christian somebody who attends church. Even Hitler could have attended church. The Bible teaches that a Christian is someone who obey's Jesus' commandments. So, in my opinion, Christians have never killed anyone because a Christian is not allowed to harm another individual.

 

[Organic]

Are you even familiar with secular morality? An argument can be made that many of the teachings of Jesus is actually based upon secular morality


Have you ever heard of the Golden rule? That is a secular morality; perhaps you should quit reading your bible so much and pick up a few secular books, you might find out Christians haven’t cornered the market on morality.


How about if you were sent to prison and you had a choice of cells; you could share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murders or you could share a cell with a group of atheists who have repented of their previous evil deeds and have had a change of heart?
Two can play that game ya know!


How do you know? Those unrepentant rapists and murders could be Christian!

What about the morality of Moses, Saul and Joshua? Are those examples of christian morality?

K

Quite possibly the biggest load of dishonest drivel I've read in this thread so far. When atheists tell a pack of lies, I refuse to debate them. So, no longer will I reply to your posts. You posted such a pack of lies.

 

[Organic]

By who? Only you! Thats non-sensical. Why not just substitute "atheism" with a sub-group of atheism like humanism, humanism is an atheist system that does have a basis for morality.


Morality in theism also comes down to a matter of opinion, so whats your point?


Agreed, and your behaviour is a classic example.

Agreed, history has confirmed this fact multiple times.

Define secular morality?


Why should they, society has changed over the last 2000 years so ethics and morality need to evolve to keep up, slavery is not so acceptable these days. Albert Einstein once said, "There is nothing divine about morality, it is purely a human affair.


Our society is majority christian so it should surprise you.

I think you are projecting here again, I think secular morality is a good thing, as a humanist I have a deep seated compassion for humankind and the world at large, because benefiting society maximises individual happiness as well as raising the potential of humanity. I also have a deep seated appreciation for the natural world and because I dont believe in an afterlife, I find real value and meaning in this one gift of life I have been granted. For myself and most other humanists I'm sure, only reason, experience, observation and action provide truly reliable tools for realising compassionate ends.


Please follow the NT if that will help make you a moral person.Whatever works!


Really? What secular moral systems are you familiar with, please name them?

What is the difference?

More hogwash

 

[Eudaimonist]

To be honest, guys, I think we're dealing with either a troll, or with someone who isn't even old enough to be on here in the first place. His arguments are so outlandish and oversimplified -- not to mention unsupported by any documentation -- that I find it's not even worth the time.

Oh, even if he is a troll, it may be worth it simply to present good rebuttals for the sake of the general audience. And if he is not a troll, we can help him to sharpen his own thinking skills, assuming that he is open to that.

All of us have to start somewhere on our philosophical journeys.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

More hogwash

Thank you kindly for responding.

 

[KCfromNC]

I ask again, what commandment is there in secularism to love others, as Jesus commands us in the New Testament?

Why would you expect secularism to say anything about morality at all? It is a belief about the proper relationship between religion and government, not a moral code.

Why not ask what actual moral codes say about behavior towards others? Playing the game of "French cooking doesn't tell us to love one another, therefore my version of Christianity is superior" is pretty lame.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is your response to my post? This is the amount of effort you wish to demonstrate to my propositions and arguments?

Your lack of desire speaks volumes on the quality of your apologetics.

You may be confusing desire with ability.

 

[KCfromNC]

Christians are perfect and flawless. That´s why Jesus´ sacrifice was pointless.

Yep. If you accept the OP's claims, True Christians[tm] just naturally do good works and thus are saved on their own merits. Faith isn't required, grace isn't needed, and we can reject the whole of Christian theology on salvation.

Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yep. If you accept the OP's claims, True Christians[tm] just naturally do good works and thus are saved on their own merits. Faith isn't required, grace isn't needed, and we can reject the whole of Christian theology on salvation.

Talk about a Pyrrhic victory.

I suspect he is simply following the line that only Christians who are completely obedient to Christian morality are "true Christians", and everyone else is an atheist.

Which makes the number of "true Christians" either very tiny or completely non-existent, and most or all people who believe that the Christian God exists but are imperfect morally are "atheists".


eudaimonia,

Mark