Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[Nakosis]

In basic terms, some tenets compared/contrasted. Understand the six points below underpin what "educated" people in the West are taught:

* Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving

Superstition

* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

Superstition

* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

Superstition

* Babysit children and see this process at work! LOL

Children need to be taught principles that have proven success.

* Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues

It is possible to judge moral conclusions without judging people.

* The coming one-world government, like all empires, will be at its root antithetical to God

Superstition

The main difference I see between the principles developed by Abrahamic religions and those of Humanism is a lack of superstition.


Religious leaders develop principles the same as secular leaders. Religions leaders just assume the backing of divine authority to support acceptance of these principles.

Most OT principles no longer apply even among religious folks. These principles evolve with culture/civilization the same as secular principles. A lot of commonality in the evolution of these principles. Just about everyone accepts some form of the Golden Rule for example. Humanism simply lacks the use of superstition to support these principles.

 

[rational experiences]

Ie Sus comes from the Greek NT. Yeshua's name comes from the name we call "Joshua" and means "God who is Savior!"

God who is savior a man thought.

Owns a descriptive analogy.

Wandering God asteroid gas release a theme. Not a science string. As it was an observed physical known event.

God the seal a scientific statement relativity versus satanic life destruction.

Of the sciences that removed the holy seal body of God.

Space womb relativity God was held by its mother. Holy relativity no argument.

Sun. A nuclear body in womb could not be stopped. Relative warning to any satanic mind. Nuclear never owned the immaculate.

Satanist. A human man theist. Stated in science to be our destroyer for lying about God. A known fact.

If God a planet did not exist nor would life. A status.

Was never an explanation how life existed.

From Moses ape man mutation science caused the exodus to healing a medical biological advice against occult science caused.

Human taught by humans in human presence.

In life a human is first.

Science a choice.

The teaching...human science chose to change the nation's. Ion. Fusion and sacrificed us all by EL power of God in the God Jew EL.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This still doesn't address the fact that slavery is theft.

How do you know that theft is wrong? Because Ha Shem says so in Torah or . . . ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Absolute morals can exist eternally just as absolute mathematical and logical laws can exist eternally and uncreated. Provide justification as to why they would need a creator?

I will do so immediately, as soon as you prove that I exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's what you claim but fail to justify.

So far it only seems moral to those who consider slavery moral but murder immoral. Others will see that as an inconsistency.

I see it as evidence of the fact that the bible is not objectively moral.

I disagree with you therefore one of us is wrong. How do you determine which one of us is being objective in morality?

All I know is that you haven't in any way managed to justify your flip-flop views of slavery. Whereas I've justified my position.



I'm a vegetarian. I don't go to burger king. I think mass-produced meat is immoral.

I.E I think killing animals is immoral.

Humanism is all about respect to your fellow sentients. If you ignore consent before you break another's rights, you don't care about your fellow sentients. Therefore you are morally bankrupt.

What do you think is the purpose of morality? I'm guessing you think it's about following laws. I say both laws and morality are constructs that are supposed to benefit all sentients as a principle.

Hurting another sentient for any reason seems to defeat the purpose of morals. It makes them arbitrary rules.

How do you know that eating/killing plants is moral (or amoral)?

I cannot accept your "evidence" as you wrote (a word which implies much) of the Bible being immoral (or moral) in its moral codes, until I come to understand your judgment system, your derivation of morals and your terms.

For example, you have strong sentiments on foods and meat. I respect your stance and your lifestyle, putting your mouth where your morals are. How do you combat the immorality of those who of us who eat meat? Why isn't it immoral for you to stop us or try harder to stop us? Is it not immoral to avoid stopping a murder or rape (if at all possible)?

The answer, of course, is that their are relative degrees of morality (I use the word sin). For example, lust and hate get us into less trouble than rape and murder. The Bible is objectively moral--in the case of slavery, it provides real definitions and real answers. Both testaments say to love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, there is an accommodation in Torah for a slave who loved their master to refuse to be set free, instead having their ear lobed pierced with an awl to show their fidelity (there's a fine old song, "Pierce me ear, Oh Lord . . . ".

**

What do you think is the purpose of morality? I'm guessing you think it's about following laws. I say both laws and morality are constructs that are supposed to benefit all sentients as a principle.

**

I'm about to blow your mind (I hope). I think one of the many purposes of morality is to keep nonbelievers from murdering Christians with their hate.

I think another purpose is to humble and help us realize we need a Savior, per the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When using reference sources to define terms, it's important to understand what is being said in the definition. Reading the example helps.

You ignored the Wikipedia example that followed the definition, resulting in you misunderstanding the definition of "moral absolutism."

Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong.
Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
Source: Moral absolutism - Wikipedia.

I'm not going to pursue four different threads with you, but I'll answer both your relevant points here:

1) I can accept your ethical view on moral absolutism. The Bible contains moral absolutes and also, the pragmatic and sage realization that sentient, sapient beings have to judge where one moral and another seem to conflict, therefore, there are judges.

2) Me knocking your tooth out harms your wellbeing. Therefore, there are Bible laws and precepts prohibiting and punishing such behavior (love your neighbor as yourself, an eye for an eye).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Superstition

Superstition

Superstition

Children need to be taught principles that have proven success.

It is possible to judge moral conclusions without judging people.

Superstition

The main difference I see between the principles developed by Abrahamic religions and those of Humanism is a lack of superstition.


Religious leaders develop principles the same as secular leaders. Religions leaders just assume the backing of divine authority to support acceptance of these principles.

Most OT principles no longer apply even among religious folks. These principles evolve with culture/civilization the same as secular principles. A lot of commonality in the evolution of these principles. Just about everyone accepts some form of the Golden Rule for example. Humanism simply lacks the use of superstition to support these principles.

If I accept all you wrote, you still have this issue: "A lot of commonality in the evolution of these principles . . . "

1) I've explained on this thread as to how slavery, for example, was near universally-accepted for millennia - and I do not accept SOCIAL evolution as making morality, "Well, morals change over time, you see . . . because human nature has changed greatly in a few millennia . . . "

2) I do not accept "majority rules" as defining morality. That's why terms like "one's moral compass" or "one's moral strength of conviction" are used. That's one of the main problems with secular . . . anything . . . we don't get to "vote" to turn down eternal principles.

 

[BilliardsBall]

God who is savior a man thought.

Owns a descriptive analogy.

Wandering God asteroid gas release a theme. Not a science string. As it was an observed physical known event.

God the seal a scientific statement relativity versus satanic life destruction.

Of the sciences that removed the holy seal body of God.

Space womb relativity God was held by its mother. Holy relativity no argument.

Sun. A nuclear body in womb could not be stopped. Relative warning to any satanic mind. Nuclear never owned the immaculate.

Satanist. A human man theist. Stated in science to be our destroyer for lying about God. A known fact.

If God a planet did not exist nor would life. A status.

Was never an explanation how life existed.

From Moses ape man mutation science caused the exodus to healing a medical biological advice against occult science caused.

Human taught by humans in human presence.

In life a human is first.

Science a choice.

The teaching...human science chose to change the nation's. Ion. Fusion and sacrificed us all by EL power of God in the God Jew EL.

Thank you, but this is contradicted by changed lives, the Bible's predictive prophecy powers, Bible design and construction, Bible morality, and the Bible's significant scientific accuracies.

 

[dybmh]

How do you know that theft is wrong? Because Ha Shem says so in Torah or . . . ?

Because might doesn't equal right.

I don't want to live in a world where whoever is biggest and strongest can take whatever they want whenever they want.

 

[Nakosis]

If I accept all you wrote, you still have this issue: "A lot of commonality in the evolution of these principles . . . "

1) I've explained on this thread as to how slavery, for example, was near universally-accepted for millennia - and I do not accept SOCIAL evolution as making morality, "Well, morals change over time, you see . . . because human nature has changed greatly in a few millennia . . . "

Which was also accepted by religious folks. Morality changes through social pressure for the religious and non-religious alike.

2) I do not accept "majority rules" as defining morality. That's why terms like "one's moral compass" or "one's moral strength of conviction" are used. That's one of the main problems with secular . . . anything . . . we don't get to "vote" to turn down eternal principles.

I kind of agree with you here. My personal morals may or may not align with the majority, however laws come with a set of enforcements one has to deal with. However I'm not a dictator. I can't make the majority follow my view of right and wrong. Obviously, people have different beliefs when it comes to right and wrong. Laws I see as a compromise.

Does that mean I'll never oppose any law? No, but it'd have to be pretty drastic because of consequences one would have to be willing to face.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that theft is wrong? Because Ha Shem says so in Torah or . . . ?

Why do you keep trying to make this more complicated than it has to be?

Do you have empathy? Can you consider the fact that you wouldn't want someone to steal your things? Can you consider the fact that if we all lived in a society where everyone freely stole from everyone else, that nobody would have any freedom or security or peace of mind? Can you consider the fact that such a society would not flourish?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will do so immediately, as soon as you prove that I exist.

Why would anybody waste their time doing that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that eating/killing plants is moral (or amoral)?

I cannot accept your "evidence" as you wrote (a word which implies much) of the Bible being immoral (or moral) in its moral codes, until I come to understand your judgment system, your derivation of morals and your terms.

For example, you have strong sentiments on foods and meat. I respect your stance and your lifestyle, putting your mouth where your morals are. How do you combat the immorality of those who of us who eat meat? Why isn't it immoral for you to stop us or try harder to stop us? Is it not immoral to avoid stopping a murder or rape (if at all possible)?

The answer, of course, is that their are relative degrees of morality (I use the word sin). For example, lust and hate get us into less trouble than rape and murder. The Bible is objectively moral--in the case of slavery, it provides real definitions and real answers. Both testaments say to love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore, there is an accommodation in Torah for a slave who loved their master to refuse to be set free, instead having their ear lobed pierced with an awl to show their fidelity (there's a fine old song, "Pierce me ear, Oh Lord . . . ".

**

Yes you can.
You just won't.

What do you think is the purpose of morality? I'm guessing you think it's about following laws. I say both laws and morality are constructs that are supposed to benefit all sentients as a principle.


I'm about to blow your mind (I hope). I think one of the many purposes of morality is to keep nonbelievers from murdering Christians with their hate.

I think another purpose is to humble and help us realize we need a Savior, per the Bible.

Why on earth would you believe such a silly thing?

 

[Nakosis]

How do you know that theft is wrong? Because Ha Shem says so in Torah or . . . ?

Good question.

Because of principles I've adopted, developed.

From Wicca, there is the principle of "Do no harm", Which I've modified to "Do no unnecessary harm".

Why this principle? Because I don't feel I have any more purpose or right to exit, the right to be happy any more than the next fellow. Two, I don't want to possess what I don't deserve.
Kind of an ego thing. What I have, I've earned. What I possess I do so through my own hard work. To do otherwise, I'd see myself as less.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily share the principles I've adopted/developed. They exist because I can't predict/know every consequence of the actions I take. These principles help me to make better choices, hopefully, in life. Because I want to A-succeed in life and B-Be happy.

So theft would likely cause un-desired consequences and cause harm to my ego.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because might doesn't equal right.

I don't want to live in a world where whoever is biggest and strongest can take whatever they want whenever they want.

Huh?

How do you know might doesn't equal right--it does in nature, in the animal kingdom, the weather, evolution.

You have an issue there, God is stronger than all and we must obey Him, per the Bible, to attain eternal life. He kindly put down the mantle of His power to save.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good question.

Because of principles I've adopted, developed.

From Wicca, there is the principle of "Do no harm", Which I've modified to "Do no unnecessary harm".

Why this principle? Because I don't feel I have any more purpose or right to exit, the right to be happy any more than the next fellow. Two, I don't want to possess what I don't deserve.
Kind of an ego thing. What I have, I've earned. What I possess I do so through my own hard work. To do otherwise, I'd see myself as less.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily share the principles I've adopted/developed. They exist because I can't predict/know every consequence of the actions I take. These principles help me to make better choices, hopefully, in life. Because I want to A-succeed in life and B-Be happy.

So theft would likely cause un-desired consequences and cause harm to my ego.

I understand, and again, I appreciate your stance.

But consider why Jesus volunteered to receive much unnecessary (He was sinless) harm, to spare us needless harm IMHO.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why do you keep trying to make this more complicated than it has to be?

Do you have empathy? Can you consider the fact that you wouldn't want someone to steal your things? Can you consider the fact that if we all lived in a society where everyone freely stole from everyone else, that nobody would have any freedom or security or peace of mind? Can you consider the fact that such a society would not flourish?

I have empathy. I'm also somewhat Socratic when I teach at RF.

From where does empathy come, for example?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why would anybody waste their time doing that?

Okay, prove that YOU exist, and I'll prove I'm right about the Bible, slavery and God. YOU clearly have the easier burden of proof.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes you can.
You just won't.

Why on earth would you believe such a silly thing?

That's almost like name calling at this point. I need not accept the evidence of someone without evidentiary facts in an argument.

 

[dybmh]

How do you know might doesn't equal right--it does in nature, in the animal kingdom, the weather, evolution.

It's a choice. If I imagine a world where people mimic the behavior they see in animals and in the natural world, then that is not a world I want to live in. It's savage and cruel.