Is christian morality superior to secular morality? Why? [Spirituality & Religion]
It seems to me that christian morality ultimately falls back on what god wants, whether or not that is for the well being of humans, while secular morality is based upon what is the in interest of a human's well being.
It seems to me that human well being should be in the better interest of human well being than what a god demands of us for his purposes.
If you look at the much-vaunted Ten Commandments, they come down to: Don't lie, steal, murder or cheat. Frankly, I had that pretty much sorted out by the time I left kindergarten.
All of the others revolve around: Do what the old men tell you to do, and don't even think about questioning where all this authority comes from.
It's perhaps helpful to first define morality. I rather like 'behaviour that promotes the wellbeing of organisms capable of otherwise suffering'
Christian morality is based on a never changing standard- Truth. Secular morality changes with whatever man wants it to be- usually based on falsehood.
Simple. If they were punished by God for the way they implemented it then surely it could not have been what the prescripts actually implied. And they knew it as well.
Now this argument is the same as saying that because there are sweat factories the concept of factories is bad. It's illogical.
Yes it is. Christian morality is based on the Word of God which is solid truth. Secular morality is based on what man thinks it ought to be but man doesn't know truth from lie.
@Bushranger [quote]That cartoon mocks the people who try to use the Bible and religious beliefs to describe the physical world.[/quote]
What you don't get is that when you mock the children of God and His Word, you mock Him.
The Word of God does describe this physical world in truth. BTW, when you try to mock God, it turns back you. If all you guys can do is ridicule, mock, and act stupid, then why cry for a debate with us?
@TheWildEcho I hold morality to be behaviour that, to the greatest practicable degree, preserves the well-being of organisms capable of otherwise suffering.
But then, that's just me... I don't want to spoil my relationship with reality
@Pherick The church has committed genocide and countless murders, it's irony that believers can say that with a straight face knowing the Church's history.
It's not just Christian morality, really. As soon as you start taking orders from an external source, it seems like you're not really accepting responsibility, IMO.
I don't think the two are necessarily different. Once we reduce secular morality to what is for the "well being" of humans it comes down to the same thing that God wants for us. That's because we were created in His image so there's no other option than for us to want what He wants. The problem is only when metaethical moral relativism masking as secular morality enters the fray to try to sway us.
@Pikachu Err... it was the whole system at fault. A system which cooked babies on hotplates and continued unto the next generation. So nobody was really innocent as they all partook in it. But this is the fact that you and other continually ignore for convenience sake.
America has invaded countless countries and killed many innocents in the process for its own agenda. So really it shouldn't be a surprise why I'm wondering and have a chuckle when it's suggested that secular morality is superior when it not only allows this but condones it.
[quote]But this is the fact that you and other continually ignore for convenience sake.[/quote]
Sorry. If that's really what you believe then want to hear you say the words "it was right to murder babies for the crimes of their parents" and since you've arrived at that conclusion via christian morality, i then want you to explain how that is a superior version of morality.
I really don't get what argument you're trying to make here. Yes, america has been all over and done a lot of bad. Not sure where you get the idea that this is morally right from a secular moral view. Are you arguing that since it has happened, this is acceptable and moral? Furthermore, just how does this invading practice differ from all the invasions and bloodshed by god's chosen in the bible? After all, that definitely WAS considered morally good. Sorry, i just don't see where you're trying to go with that.
@Pikachu and most God centric religious morality, are focused on obedience to that authority as well as the health of That Organism ( the religion), and not the benefit of Humans or humanity
some will say..
but it IS to the Benefit of all so they can live forever in heaven sounds a con game to me.
@Pikachu And not forgetting that non-christian belief systems still have moral guidelines, some of which place a different value on behaviours. For example, the Buddhist precepts put harm against living things as the first of their precepts. Obviously, being a non-theist religion, they don't have to worry about a supreme being getting all put out if someone should question it.
@otto78 [quote]I don't require anyone else to abide by that standard. I hold only myself accountable to it.[/quote] That's essentially what a Pagan priest once told me - "Remember, nobody else is perfect." The principle being that one should hold oneself to a higher standard than one holds others to.
I support the theory of evolutionary morality. How can you learn when things are spoon fed to you, if things are spoon fed, then you are trusting that persons version of what happened and adopting their views on things. Better to find out things for yourself, at least the things that are attainable.
@Notmesam but [i]intent[/i], can be horrific the Good intentions, of those spanish missionaries, resulted in genocide the little kids yanked from their native families in Utah? those people INTENDED good things, but did the opposite
