The morality of Biblical Christianity vs secular morality

[Organic]

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.

I don't. Secularism says nothing about morality which is why it offers no moral basis.

 

[super animator]

Secularism says nothing about morality which is why it offers no moral basis.

Secularism is idea of religiously neutral government in politics not a system morals and ethics. Please read.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

So, according to you, if someone who claims to be a christian, ever breaks one of the commandments, they aren't truly a christian? Would this be correct?

Do you ever break any commandments?

 

[cgm5]

I don't. Secularism says nothing about morality which is why it offers no moral basis.

You missed his point. Secularism doesn't say anything about what morality is, because it doesn't try to. Kind of like French Cooking doesn't say anything about what morality is. That is not the point of French Cooking. If you want to attack French Cooking, declaring it to lack a moral basis is not very effective. Your attack on atheism and secularism makes about as much sense as attacking Christianity for using too much butter in its recipes. That attack might work on French Cooking, though, which has recipes.

 

[MewtwoX]

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.

Then by your own definition, nobody is a Christian. Not even you. There is no one in this world that has managed to follow this commandment 24/7 for their entire lives. Treating this definition as you have given it, then anyone who fails to love anyone in the same fashion as themselves has made themselves non-Christian. You definition fails to include the "forgiveness of sin with repenting" clause that would extend the population to include many killers as well as those guilty of other sins. Even if people are Christian, they will fail and they will commit sin of all kind (including murder) this fact must be included in the discussion as it is relevant to the arguments that you are using.

I must also note, that you are once again passing over people's arguments with a simple handwaiving "This is dishonest/This is all wrong". Doing this to people's posts tells us one of two things:

1. You do not have the ability to argue them.

OR

2. You can't be bothered to argue them


Neither option looks very favourable to you as an apologist, so do us and yourself a favour and actually debate.

 

[bhsmte]

Then by your own definition, nobody is a Christian. Not even you. There is no one in this world that has managed to follow this commandment 24/7 for their entire lives. Treating this definition as you have given it, then anyone who fails to love anyone in the same fashion as themselves has made themselves non-Christian. You definition fails to include the "forgiveness of sin with repenting" clause that would extend the population to include many killers as well as those guilty of other sins. Even if people are Christian, they will fail and they will commit sin of all kind (including murder) this fact must be included in the discussion as it is relevant to the arguments that you are using.

I must also note, that you are once again passing over people's arguments with a simple handwaiving "This is dishonest/This is all wrong". Doing this to people's posts tells us one of two things:

1. You do not have the ability to argue them.

OR

2. You can't be bothered to argue them


Neither option looks very favourable to you as an apologist, so do us and yourself a favour and actually debate.

An honest debate does not appear to be part of the agenda here and likely never was.

No, I believe the OP has other motivations, which become clearer with each post.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Secularism says nothing about morality which is why it offers no moral basis.

No one is saying that it does. However, that doesn't mean that secular people can't have moralities with a moral basis. Those moralities simply don't come from "Secularism".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sectio Aurea]

An honest debate does not appear to be part of the agenda here and likely never was.

Agreed, evidently the OP is simply just a pious charlatan with an underlying prejudice towards atheists, something must be motorvating his propaganda, maybe he blames atheists for weakening his faith? Or maybe he feels morally inferior and developed a need to project himself as a form of therapy?

 

[Organic]

So, according to you, if someone who claims to be a christian, ever breaks one of the commandments, they aren't truly a christian? Would this be correct?

Do you ever break any commandments?

No, I'm claiming that if someone claims to be a Christian and is living in wilful disobedience, such as the crusades, then such a person is not a Christian. However, if a Christian was overcome by weakness, such as the apostle Peter when he denied Jesus three times, but was truly sorry for his mistake and repented, then he is a genuine Christian. The people who go to war in the name of Christ are in wilful rebellion. And besides, deep down you already know this. You're just trying to create loop holes.

 

[bhsmte]

Agreed, evidently the OP is simply just a pious charlatan with an underlying prejudice towards atheists, something must be motorvating his propaganda, maybe he blames atheists for weakening his faith? Or maybe he feels morally inferior and developed a need to project himself as a form of therapy?

As in most cases, I chalk it up to this:

The Religious Condition

 

[Organic]

Then by your own definition, nobody is a Christian. Not even you. There is no one in this world that has managed to follow this commandment 24/7 for their entire lives. Treating this definition as you have given it, then anyone who fails to love anyone in the same fashion as themselves has made themselves non-Christian. You definition fails to include the "forgiveness of sin with repenting" clause that would extend the population to include many killers as well as those guilty of other sins. Even if people are Christian, they will fail and they will commit sin of all kind (including murder) this fact must be included in the discussion as it is relevant to the arguments that you are using.

I must also note, that you are once again passing over people's arguments with a simple handwaiving "This is dishonest/This is all wrong". Doing this to people's posts tells us one of two things:

1. You do not have the ability to argue them.

OR

2. You can't be bothered to argue them


Neither option looks very favourable to you as an apologist, so do us and yourself a favour and actually debate.

Believe what you like. The Lord knows who the genuine Christians are. If you think a true Christian would deliberately go out and kill another person then you have no idea of what a Christian is.

 

[Organic]

No one is saying that it does. However, that doesn't mean that secular people can't have moralities with a moral basis. Those moralities simply don't come from "Secularism".


eudaimonia,

Mark

I see you missed the point again

 

[bhsmte]

No, I'm claiming that if someone claims to be a Christian and is living in wilful disobedience, such as the crusades, then such a person is not a Christian. However, if a Christian was overcome by weakness, such as the apostle Peter when he denied Jesus three times, but was truly sorry for his mistake and repented, then he is a genuine Christian. The people who go to war in the name of Christ and in wilful rebellion. And besides, deep down you already know this. You're just trying to create loop holes.

Deep down, I have no idea what your definition of a christian was.

So, it looks like we have a fine line that a christian can't cross and if they don't, they are still considered a christian in your mind? If they do, then they are not considered a genuine christian. Breaking commandments is ok, as long as it was because a person was weak and then they repent.

Kinda leaves it open ended, doesn't it? Where is the morality in that?

 

[Organic]

Deep down, I have no idea what your definition of a christian was.

So, it looks like we have a fine line that a christian can't cross and if they don't, they are still considered a christian in your mind? If they do, then they are not considered a genuine christian. Breaking commandments is ok, as long as it was because a person was weak and then they repent.

Kinda leaves it open ended, doesn't it? Where is the morality in that?

A Christian is forbidden from killing others. But a hypocritical church attender could still kill and call himself a Christian. Atheists, on the other hand, have no moral basis and can do what they like.

 

[Rajni]

I don't. Secularism says nothing about morality which is why it offers no moral basis.

If this is indeed the case, perhaps it’s because, for them, it goes without saying. Not everyone needs the rules of good behavior spelled out for them; it just comes to them naturally (or supernaturally, from God's direct influence). Apparently God felt the need to make double-sure members of His fan-club got the memo for some reason.


.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Atheists, on the other hand, have no moral basis and can do what they like.

And yet all the evidence points against this claim...

 

[bhsmte]

A Christian is forbidden from killing others. But a hypocritical church attender could still kill and call himself a Christian. Atheists, on the other hand, have no moral basis and can do what they like.

Well, Organic, studies have been completed on morality and they seem to say the opposite of what you state. So, even though you really really want to believe that atheists run around acting immoral, you have zero evidence to back up this claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Here we go again...

Morality in atheism comes down to a matter of opinion.

Religious morality comes down to what religion you adhere to.

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. 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. 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 looks like a false dichotomy. Apparently our only choice is between born again Christians and remorseless rapists and murderers.

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?

That depends: Will the born again Christian talk my ear off about how I can't be moral if I'm an atheist?

 

[David Brider]

Believe what you like. The Lord knows who the genuine Christians are. If you think a true Christian would deliberately go out and kill another person then you have no idea of what a Christian is.

Have you ever heard of the Crusades?

 

[David Brider]

Atheists, on the other hand, have no moral basis and can do what they like.

They can, sure. But most of them, you'll find, tend to stay within the morals and mores and laws of the civilisation and society and culture in which they're brought up. Which, in the western world, is in no small part derived from Judaeo-Christian beliefs. Sure, with rather more latitude about what's permissible and what isn't, but, y'know...most people know that, for example, killing and stealing and cheating and lying (for example) is wrong.