Is Christian morality superior or inferior to secular morality? Why?

@Abstraction (Sorry @Pikachu it's long and even then too short to explain. This is a small space to discuss a big and very deep topic and I necessarily have to skim over some big pieces. But your summary isn't even close. It's a phantom argument to me. )
[b][u]1. Morality:[/u][/b] I find it helpful to compare the core of morality to laws of physics, inherent. Not 'laws' in the context of rules, but like fabric of the universe. If you decide to ignore gravity you can wind up damaged. If you ignore moral 'laws' or principles it is ultimately to our detriment and detriment of others. If you ignore moral 'laws' it is inherently destructive and damaging. Let's just take two core moral principles and their opposites - [b]love [/b](vs [b][i]selfishness [/i][/b]in all its forms) and [b]truth [/b](vs [b][i]deception [/i][/b]in all its forms). Consider for a moment how much human pain and damage emerges from selfishness and deception alone. If you are in favour of selfishness and deception, good for you. Some people might claim to subscribe to being selfish and lying when it suits, but the same people [i]don't like to be victims of it[/i] when others lie to them, steal, betray, cheat them, walk over them to get their way...
2. [b]Love [/b]is working with the grain of the universe, [b][i]selfishness [/i][/b]is working against the grain of the universe. [b]Truth [/b]is working with it, [b][i]deception[/i][/b], lies, cheating, spin, manipulation is working against the moral grain of the universe. As a Christian these are not arbitrary rules but based on who God is: God is love - so if I [i]want [/i]to be like him (because I believe in these things) I won't be selfish, I will care for the vulnerable, I care for those who have nothing to give me. Because this is right, even if God doesn't exist. God is faithful - don't betray your partner. God is truth, don't deceive, don't cheat, don't pretend you're something you're not.
NOTE: This contradicts the suggestion that the 'rules' are an arbitrary imposition designed for God's benefit. When people design their own morality most can't help rationalising and compromising - and many screw up their life.
[b][u]3. Christianity is 'post' (freedom from) rules[/u][/b]. But it isn't license to be selfish and lie, either. Even Peter said that Paul writes some things difficult to understand (especially that we are not subject to 'Law' or commandments), but Christianity is not rules. Jesus taught the opposite of selfishness and deception: he taught to love your enemies, give your cloak to the one who wants your sandals, to go beyond not because he commands it, but because that is what God is like and our relationship with God makes us want to do these things even if there was no God because we learn to show love even to strangers who have nothing to offer us. If you don't understand this (that Christianity is not "an imposed set of rules rather than thinking for yourself") you are probably not in a position to critique Christian morality in relation to God. You can certainly comment on social 'Christian' morality imposed on others by (often self-righteous) 'Christians' who actually contradict what Jesus taught. But you can't critique what Jesus taught and intended until you understand it.

Let me be clear, I'm [b][i][u]not [/u][/i][/b]saying you have to be a Christian to have good morality. Christianity doesn't teach that either, it teaches most humans concur with these really core values. It just says either way, you'll struggle to live it consistently because we are fallen beings.

@Abstraction Jesus blabbed about turning the other cheek and loving your enemies while saying that you have to hate your family members. The guy was a whacko.

@Diotrephes I don't think you're reading very deeply. And I don't think you care to. Fine by me.

@Abstraction Do you even know what the Ten Commandments are? Get back to me when you do.

@Abstraction


[quote][quote]. Christian morality, rightly understood, is in the best interest of people.[/quote][/quote]

Hmm i think for me the stumbling block there is "rightly understood" because "rightly understood" is fundamentally a subjective position.

[quote] It isn't following a set of rules imposed on you (counter-intuitively - and I'm 100% serious); it isn't about doing what God wants when you want to do something else[/quote]

Isn't it?
Because i can think of examples (Eg> Abraham and Isaac) where it is indeed considered virtuous to do something that god wants which one would consider counter intuitive.
Can you give me a Biblical example where it is characterized as virtuous to do something in opposition to what god commands even if what god wants seems kinda fucked up?

To be clear, i am not saying that Christians can't be moral or that there exist no morally good directives from a Christian perspective.
I am saying that from a Christian perspective what is morally good is ultimately defined by what god does or commands and that, that is not necessarily in the interest of human well-being.
Unless one already has faith that even if god appears to be hurting you, it is for your well-being, frankly a mind-set that is reminiscent of an battered wife or abused child.

@Pikachu I think you're missing the point of those stories. Your interpretation fits with your presuppositions, I expect. I read the same stories differently, I'm on the inside of faith and I definitely do not have the mindset of a battered wife or abused child. Nothing like it.
The doctor couldn't give my two-year-old son a necessary blood test because he was scared and became traumatised and didn't understand. The second time his mum asked me to come along because she couldn't bear to see him like that. Because I was there, even though to him it 'seemed kinda fucked up' as you put it, he settled down with me holding his hand and looking in his eyes because he trusted that I wouldn't ever do him any harm. And he was right.

The morality I follow, I follow rationally. I agree with it. It works. It does no harm. It builds relationships, it cares, it gives, it is there for broken people and people can trust I'll speak the truth and deal with them sincerely. Where's God asking me to do something I disagree with?

@Abstraction

[quote]I'm on the inside of faith and I definitely do not have the mindset of a battered wife or abused child[/quote]

...isn't that kind of the point? The battered wife makes excuses for the abusive husband and doesn't see herself as a victim until there's a tipping point.
I'm not saying that you should consider yourself a victim, just that denying that one is in an abusive relationship despite abusive behaviour is pretty textbook.

[quote]Because I was there, even though to him it 'seemed kinda fucked up' as you put it, he settled down with me holding his hand[/quote]

And what if god asked you, as he asked Abraham to murder that child for his glory?
Would you trust that murdering your child was for the good? Would you be prepared, as Abraham was to murder your baby?
Would that strike you as abusive behaviour?

[quote]Where's God asking me to do something I disagree with?[/quote]

I'm not asking you to give examples from your own life, i'm challenging you to recognize that Biblical examples of god's actions and god's commands run contrary to what you would recognize as moral in any other context.
And why is that?

[quote]The morality I follow, I follow rationally. I agree with it. It works. It does no harm.[/quote]

Well let's leave off for the moment the argument that it does no harm.
Again, i'm not arguing that the Christian cannot behave morally using a Biblical guide, i'm saying that since morality ultimately relies on what you reckon god wants even if that appears to contradict human well being, Christian morality is necessarily inferior to secular morality which prioritizes human well-being.

@Pikachu
1. Argument one. Not at your best. Your evidence is that I deny it. Goodness. Then by your logic every wife is a battered wife, those who don't deny it and those who do. In the real world in which I live there are no symptoms in my life at all concordant with being in an abusive relationship.
2 & 3. There are difficult examples in the bible, agree - particularly old testament. I'm not a fundamentalist, how we read Genesis is an open question. You do a good job of calling into question some approaches. I don't have a problem with the passage because I read the old testament differently as a journey through combinations of myths, stories, history, prophetic utterances, wisdom etc towards an understanding... The full revealing of God comes through Christ and I don't see him advocating killing or doing harm to anyone. Dismantle his morality if you want to undermine my thinking.
4. Please do ask if my morality does harm. Not aware that anything I have done to follow Christ has harmed anyone. I've done my share of harm - only when I've stepped outside of that. It prioritises human well-being and goes further than average morality in finding value in sacrificial care (ie, being prepared to lay your life down for someone) for those from whom you gain nothing. Some secular moralities go that far, but none go further.

@Abstraction

[quote]Argument one. Not at your best.[/quote]

lol Please just confine yourself to addressing what you consider to be the weaknesses of my arguments. I'm not interested in your commentary on the relative strength of my performance on a given day😏

[quote] In the real world in which I live there are no symptoms in my life at all concordant with being in an abusive relationship.[/quote]

Glad to hear it but that was not my point.
My point in bringing up that comparison was that when the Christian invalidates or trivializes their ow suffering because they consider as more valid the judgement of the one responsible for their suffering...that sounds an awful lot like an abusive relationship.

[quote]. I don't have a problem with the passage because I read the old testament differently as a journey through combinations of myths, stories, history, prophetic utterances, wisdom etc towards an understanding[/quote]

Sorry, but that strikes me as a deflection from the issue being raised by my questions to you there.
The thesis of this thread is that secular morality is superior to Christian morality because the former prioritizes human well-being while the latter priorities obedience to god's will or what someone interprets as god's will.
So let's say you don't want to take that passage too seriously or consider what you would do in that situation. I understand that, it's a challenge that most Christians are unwilling to take up.
But simply answer the question: As a Christian, do you consider to be your moral foundation what you believe to be good for your and yours or is it what god wants, whether that appears to benefit or harm you and yours?
We can get into examples later if you think it's important but right now i'd just like to see an answer to that question.

[quote]Not aware that anything I have done to follow Christ has harmed anyone[/quote]

I think you're getting too focused on your own personal experience when this question is not about your personal experience.
That's why i brought up the example of Abraham and Isaac.
In any other context, you and i would agree that murdering your child at the behest of your sovereign is neither a moral command nor a moral act. But under Christian morality, that IS a moral act because it is go's will.
Under secular morality , murdering your child is not a moral act no matter who commands you to do it.
Under these conditions, how can you say that secular morality does not go farther than Christian morality?

@Abstraction To be really clear, Christian morality is not really defined by difficult passages in Genesis, but by the life and teachings of Jesus who made a pointed of going beyond the old testament. What you have been discarding as my 'personal' morality is based on his life and teaching. Please demonstrate that your own morality exceeds his teaching and example.

[i]Reading through the Gospel of Matthew, one comes across the passage that moved Mahatma Gandhi and was to form the basis of his Satyagraha against the British Government. The actual verse reads: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.[/i] Arun Sharma, National Herald India, 30 Jan 2022.

@Abstraction That passage is BS. Compare it to the threat in John 15:6 (CEV) = "6 If you don't stay joined to me, you will be thrown away. You will be like dry branches that are gathered up and burned in a fire."

@Pikachu I understand the essence of what you presented as this: [i]humanistic morality is greater than christian morality because christian morality is based on whatever God says, whereas humanistic morality is based on the needs of human beings. [/i]
I have disagreed. I'm arguing this is a false dichotomy and it actually misrepresents Christian morality.
The views I am presenting are broadly-based and find expression over hundreds of years - probably preceding Aquinas, I'd have to think. You often appear to have fun arguing with the unread. But christian moral philosophers, theologians and others who have tackled morality and social ethics would immediately qualify the statements you make in your question and disagree with your premise, so your argument to them would be a bit of a straw man. How? Let me clear: [b]there is no dichotomy between 'morality that is based on the interests of humans' and Christian morality.[/b] They explore it from both moral philosophies or ethics studies and theological exposition - and come to the same conclusion. So... these studies demonstrate that humanistic morality is not superior. I don't mind calling it a draw. I am not aware of any essential human value that isn't found in Christian morality (and from Christian perspective doesn't also find its origin in the being of God as revealed in Christ.) The OT passages many of them address but that's a really big topic.

@Abstraction

Well the problem is that it is people who interpret what is moral from a Biblical perspective so even if you reckon that Jesus would have no problematic moral guidelines, Christian morality still depends on what Christians reckon god wants.

For example, Christians have reckoned that god made us male and female and that only male and female should be joined in marriage.
Using Christian morality, it is not right that two men or two women should be able to partake in this sacrament.
Using secular morality there is absolutely no reason why two consenting adults should not enjoy the same rights as their fellows.

How can that be interpreted in any other way than secular morality being superior to Christian morality?