Which is a superior foundation for morality: Christianity or Secular Humanism? [Spirituality & Religion]
While i think that Christianity has a number of good moral positions it also has some pretty wretched stuff which is (at least notionally) based on what a god wants. On the other hand, secular humanism holds as it's metric the idea of human flourishing and reduction of harm. It can encompass absolutely every moral virtue claimed by Christianity but is beholden to none of the harmful, punitive dictates that come from religious dogma.
Therefor i say that Secular humanism has the superior foundation for a system of morality.
Love is better than hate. Jesus taught us to love. Here are some Bible quotes proving love is better than hate. I have listened to my atheist friends who tell me that they treat people the way [i]they [/i] are treated, not as Jesus taught, which is to treat people the way they [i]want[/i] to be treated themselves. I am praying for the people who have treated me poorly, and for that man who raped Tori. Do you pray for him? Being a loving Christian is hard at times but God calls us to love people regardless how they treat us.
You might think this is too long and tedious to see on your post and delete it but these are good verses for humanity to follow.
Matthew 5:22 Love Your Enemies …43You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.… Berean Study Bible · Download
1 Samuel 24:17 and said to David, "You are more righteous than I, for you have rewarded me with good, though I have rewarded you with evil.
Proverbs 19:11 A man's insight gives him patience, and his virtue is to overlook an offense.
Proverbs 25:21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Luke 6:27 But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up His garments by casting lots.
John 13:34 A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you also must love one another.
But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which spitefully use you, and persecute you;
@Carazaa You object when Atheists put their views on your threads and often delete their replies, yet you think it's fine for you to pollute Atheists' threads with your BS christian propaganda. That's called hypocrisy!
@Carazaa [quote]Satan murdered billions.[/quote] Where did you get that lie from? Remember, according to biblical mythology, it was your god who wiped out nearly all life on Earth.
@Carazaa Each year worldwide, nine million children die before their fifth birthday. By no fault of their own and no matter what the beliefs of their parents. Only a tiny few go through the ritual of baptism. Original sin still means no heaven. God really protects and breaks the rules?
@Carazaa Oh, yes, I know that is his message and as a way of life it is fine. Sadly though, as you know there are plenty who profess to be Christians but preach only inter-faith or inter-sect divisions and intolerance - hardly Christian, hardly moral.
It's not confined to Christianity of course, but all the more hypocritical when the faith itself preaches love and tolerance.
I think the question flawed by implying a difference between the only two forms of belief competing to monopolise "morality", however defined.
They don't of course. I am not religious but I do know the difference between good and bad behaviour without having any faith's scriptures to hand. I do not mind people being religious at all, nor for having no such beliefs. I do though think it very wrong to assume behavioural superiority over anyone else merely for different theological beliefs - Christianity, Judaisn, Islam, A.N.Other or none.
My understanding reading the Bible is that "[b][c=BF0000]Love covers all sin[/c][/b]" God says. However, Jesus is very clear only born again Christians go to heaven. "[b][c=BF0000]You must be born again"[/c][/b] The Holy spirit must come into our hearts for us to be a new creature and then we belong to God forever.
For those who have not repented when Jesus comes will be judged for the sins they comitted, but not for the loving acts they did. Jesus also said these are those who love me, those who keep my commandments, Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and treat others as you want to be treated. Upon these two commandments hang all the laws" There is no higher virtue.
@Carazaa I accept that's what you believe but my central point is that "morality" - a code of social behaviour and the subject of the question - cannot be monopolised by any one religion or philosophy.
Attemps to do so are not only illogical, but divisive by creating airs of superiority.
That's why I say "neither" to the original question. Your religion may be meaningless to an atheist, of merely academic interest to an agnostic and "wrong" to an ardent follower of some other religion; but that alone does not make those individuals any more or less moral than you and me.
I think it helps to appreciate that Christianity is an awful big thing.
The Christianity I was brought up with has a strong resonance with Buddhism. The punitive ethical aspects are like in Buddhism, aimed at oneself. They are never pointed by the individual to others. The punishment aspects is also much like Buddhism. It happens at some time after death, and one is wholly uncertain of the outcome. In the case of Christianity because one does not and can not know the mind of God. But both similar in that it is difficult to know one's own heart and be confident of any reckoning. So what one does is live one's life engaging in the practice, the spiritual discipline. Which in both Christianity and Buddhism is largely love and compassion for others, service. In the case of Christianity love for God.
Traditionally Christians of that sort were not so different from secular humanists in how they engaged the world, as the metaphysical aspects of their faith are private and hidden. Faith points to oneself. Religious ethics point to oneself and as expressed socially are universal with any secular or religious tradition. Faith and religious ethics never points outside towards others, towards society. One's service to others directs itself outwards in a way much like secular humanism. Not in a parochial way.
It's a strange thing for me to see religious ethical judgement pointed to others. The number of people who have religiously damned people here is really stunning. People are damned for their belief about the age of a rock or their politics, much less how they treat others or relate to God. The public spectacle of faith-- which I would be the first to admit is protected by the first amendment-- is also strange to me. With this seems to come the demand and expectation that every aspect of one's faith be accepted and embraced in a public social setting.
@Pikachu Many many fundamentalists would, including self-appointed pastors on SW. Ethics are only possible with a relgious confession, and a specific one at that.
Christianity teaches better Morals because it is based on an absolute, the morality of God as opposed to "secular morality" which changes with the winds and has no solid base. God does not change but people do. I know the Bible has much evil in it but that is because much of it is human history, not what God approves of.
@Faith13praise [quote]the morality of God [/quote] The bible was written by men so it contains the morality (or lack thereof) of those writers. There is better morality expressed in other works of fiction.
@DocSavage [quote]And I do not believe god me the ability to chose right and wrong.[/quote] That agrees with the bible. According to christian mythology, god tried to deny man the knowledge of right and wrong (good and evil). It was Satan who set man free by letting Eve know the truth, that she could eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
@Faith13praise If the murder takes Jesus into his heart, he gets a free pass into heaven. According to the rules. The victim, his family and friend get no justice. People have the ability to decide right and wrong themselves. Our jury system is based on that.
@Pikachu The point that I'm trying to make is that, basing a debate on the concept of morality is akin to building a house on shifting sands.
Our social constructs are, and must be, dynamic and organic.
Things go very wrong when groups try to constrict the organic and dynamic nature of our societies. And yes, formal religions are usually the worst culprits. But, so are our social constructs. Even those which formally separate state and religion. Ironic, right?
Because our social constructs must be dynamic and organic, the moral codes which underpin them must be equally adaptive. Must be allowed to evolve.
Before you start jumping up and down and waving and telling me that, that's what secular humanism promotes, I'd like to point out two things. First, humanism argues that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone (Robert Ashby). Human nature can be a pretty crappy thing on which to base anything. Second, if we look at the actual teachings of Christ, it's relatively easy to determine that he was both a humanist and a socialist.
I can't disagree with what you've said. Even though I was raised with Christianity, in all the ways. Even though I've sought and felt the Holy Spirit of the Christian Bible, and those times I've felt it was almost indescribable love.
@room101 Shagging the partner of another human is a good way to get yourself killed, however. Therefore, while it might lead to an increased number of children, you yourself run the risk of dying painfully.
@LordShadowfire It's a good way to get yourself killed because our societies have deemed "extra-marital relations" as something to be avoided. To be frowned upon.
If, on the other hand, our societies had evolved along the lines of the survival imperatives that you suggested........................shag whomever you want to shag would have been a non-issue. Because, everybody would be doing it. In fact, one could argue that the world would be a far more pleasant place because there would be no jealousy etc.
