Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[ecco]

I'm a Jew who trusted Jesus for salvation, so I went against religious indoctrination, via logic, the realization of Jesus's love, and the realization of fulfilled Bible prophecy/God's omniscience.

No, you didn't go against your religious indoctrination. Part of your indoctrination was to believe in a God, a mystical entity. You did not overcome that part of your indoctrination.

Furthermore, you list yourself as a "Messianic Jewish Christianity". All you did was add on to your indoctrinated beliefs.

You also have posted modern (secular humanist) definitions of indoctrination and education...

Sure I did. Because I live in the 21st Century, not in the 4th Century. Another point...do you really believe that only secular humanists work on dictionaries. If you do, you really need to provide evidence for that ridiculous assumption.

forgetting that for a millennia, all western and eastern education through the highest levels of university was rooted in religion.

All that proves is that for many years the churches ruled in Europe. By being influential in the process of education, they could continue the indoctrination of generations of people.

In today's world, Christians push for vouchers for their children to attend religious schools. These same parents also push to have their children attend religious colleges and universities to shield them from (god forbid) secularity.

INDOCTRINATION!



There are plenty of colleges that emphasize religion and religious courses. There are very few that have courses on the benefits of atheism.

 

[ecco]

Unless you can show me from the lives of famous secular humanists that they were morally superior.

Unless you can show me from the lives of famous Jews and Christians that they were morally superior.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I think you did a fantastic job at showing how christianity is actually a gigantic guilt trip and how it tries to enforce itself on people by making them feel guilty, bad and by putting them down.

When an ideal can only be raised up by pushing everything else down, then that is a clear sign that it is nothing but psychological poison.

In any other circumstance, that kind of behavior would be considered abuse.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Funny. In your post where you ask how it's a guilt trip, you simply continue on the same guilt trip. Note the bold. You just declare humans are "sinners". ie: humans are "bad". Rotten to the core. In need of fixing. Guilty for being "human".

Christianity in that sense is like a snake oil salesman...
First, you try to convince people that they are "broken" and then you conveniently offer the only "fix".
Typical con-man strategy.


As for your question, let's review your list, shall we?



1. We can't know whether or not God exists, so it's up to humans to solve our own problems.
* Jesus Christ is source and power for problem solving

==> this is implying humans are incapable of solving their problems. They aren't smart enough or whatever. Humans are thus "dumb" or whatever.



2. Research, science, and education hold the keys to human progress.
* Acknowledge God for giving us these tools from the human mind

==> not so much a guilt trip here, but it does provide a basis to be against education and science. So it's part of the anti-intellectual underpinnings of it all. This is required to make people stop thinking and to not trust "intellectuals" and science. This off course in turn helps to convince them that they are "broken" and that christianity is the "fix". Keeping people ignorant is another page in the con-man playbook.


3. Humans got here through evolution and we continue to evolve.
* Man has a propensity to behave as a degenerate, and needs, therefore, Christian regeneration

==> literally, you're declaring humans are "degenerates". Rotten to the core. Again, "broken" and in need of "fixing". No argumentation, no evidence, no proper reasoning. Just declarations. Part of the attempt to convince people that they are "broken" and in need of "fixing".


4. Humans develop their own moral understanding of right and wrong without the need of divine assistance.
* Babysit children and see this process at work! LOL


==> Implying that humans are incapable of making good moral judgements and evaluations. All part of the bigger scheme of trying to make people believe that they are "degenerates" and thus "broken" and in need of "fixing".


5. We should not judge people who arrive at moral conclusions that differ from our own.
* Christians should not judge people with different moral conclusions, but we can discuss and debate the issues

==> first of all, this is a misrepresentation. I have no clue where you got the idea that we shouldn't judge people who arrive at a different "moral conclusion". I hate to invoke a cliché, but Hitler arrived at "different moral conclusions" concerning the treatment of Jews. Are you of the opinion that nobody judged him for it?
What planet do you live on?


6. The problems we are facing today require governments throughout the world to work together in cooperation with one another.
* The coming one-world government, like all empires, will be at its root antithetical to God

==> More declarations about how rotten humans are.





Your entire post did nothing but try to badmouth humans and put them down, pretending as if only Christianity is then able to lift them up.

It's ridiculously obvious to anyone who's familiar with stereotypical con-man / snake oil strategies.

Happy to discuss with you if you actually reply to what I write, for example:

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

==> literally, you're declaring humans are "degenerates"

No, I'm underscoring the obvious truth that both secular humanism and Christianity combat, that we are all Jekyll and Hyde, with a propensity both to do good and to wound, sin and hurt others and ourselves. There's no need to achieve ideals of secular humanism without first acknowledging the need.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Unless you can show me from the lives of famous Jews and Christians that they were morally superior.

I'm not famous, but people like me are morally superior to your group--no offense meant--simply honest feedback--since atheists disobey many commandments.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Happy to discuss with you if you actually reply to what I write, for example:

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

==> literally, you're declaring humans are "degenerates"

No, I'm underscoring the obvious truth that both secular humanism and Christianity combat, that we are all Jekyll and Hyde, with a propensity both to do good and to wound, sin and hurt others and ourselves. There's no need to achieve ideals of secular humanism without first acknowledging the need.

Not at all, actually.
First of all, your statement read: "..and needs therefor christian regeneration"
==> this is a clear tell that you start from the position that humans are intrinsicly bad and require christianity to be good.

I, as a secular humanist, do not at all start from that position. Au contraire. My starting point is that the majority of humans have the propensity to act morally. This is so because of this trait called "empathy". We are social creatures that depend on cooperation to thrive. This results in pretty much an instinctive need (or "want" if you prefer) to act morally and treat eachother justly.

YOUR starting point is that (at least most) humans are bad and need fixing.
MY starting point is that most humans instinctively act morally combined with an acknowledgement that immoral behavior is an option and for some almost the default (these people are psychopaths, who lack empathy).

In YOUR world, christianity is required because all humans are "guilty" of being human and in need of fixing and somehow only christianity is able to do that.

In MY worldview, a moral framework is required only to minimize the damage that can be done by the few rotten apples, and also, to an extent, to help the well behaving people to be even better.




The point remains: christianity starts by telling people how evil they are and subsequently presents itself as the "only" way to combat that.

Secular humanism is NOTHING like that.
Christianity thus preys on fear. Secular Humanism does not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not famous, but people like me are morally superior to your group--no offense meant--simply honest feedback--since atheists disobey many commandments.

"Commandments" that only matter in your little christian bubble, and most of which actually don't have anything to do with morality. In the exact same way, you are "morally inferior" compared to people of another religion yielding other "commandments".



This is not morality.
In fact............................ the word you used itself already demonstrates this: COMMANDMENTS.
Your idea of "morality" is nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority.

This is not morality. This is just being obedient. This is the "morality" of psychopaths: people who have to rely on perceived authorities to tell right from wrong, because they lack the mental capacities to work it out themselves.


There's a wonderful example of exactly this in child psychology. There is this infamous experiment that you can do, to "sniff out" children with psychopathic potential. It goes like this:


As a general rule, it is forbidden to drink in class. However, on an exceptionally warm day, the teacher states that the students can drink water in class. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to drink in class. Virtually all kids will confidently affirm that yes, it is okay to do so in that circumstance. This is so, because children recognize it as an "arbitrary" rule with no actual moral value. Nobody is being "harmed" or "hurt" if someone does drink in class. It only has to do with general order in the class room (no spilling of drinks, no annoying slurping noises, etc).

As a general rule, it is forbidden to punch your neighbor in the nose. However, one day the teacher says that for once, students are allowed to punch their neighbor in the nose. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to punch their neighbor in the nose. Almost all children will immediately recognize that NO, it is not okay to do so - not even if the teacher allows it. In fact, most of them will instantly question this statement by the teacher and oppose it. They'll wonder if it is a test of some kind or if the teacher has lost his mind. They'll recognize that something does not add up.

EXCEPT for those children with psychopathic tendencies. They will see no harm in it. They'll respond "sure, if the teacher says it is allowed, then it is allowed, so I can punch my neighbor in the face without being punished and I will have done nothing wrong."



The "divine morality" you describe here, by mentioning "commandments", is the "morality" of those children. It relies on a perceived authority to command morality. If god says it is okay to maim, rape and kill -then it is okay to maim, rape and kill.

This is not morality.

This is moral bankruptcy. This is psychopathy to boot.

 

[danieldemol]

"Commandments" that only matter in your little christian bubble, and most of which actually don't have anything to do with morality. In the exact same way, you are "morally inferior" compared to people of another religion yielding other "commandments".



This is not morality.
In fact............................ the word you used itself already demonstrates this: COMMANDMENTS.
Your idea of "morality" is nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority.

This is not morality. This is just being obedient. This is the "morality" of psychopaths: people who have to rely on perceived authorities to tell right from wrong, because they lack the mental capacities to work it out themselves.


There's a wonderful example of exactly this in child psychology. There is this infamous experiment that you can do, to "sniff out" children with psychopathic potential. It goes like this:


As a general rule, it is forbidden to drink in class. However, on an exceptionally warm day, the teacher states that the students can drink water in class. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to drink in class. Virtually all kids will confidently affirm that yes, it is okay to do so in that circumstance. This is so, because children recognize it as an "arbitrary" rule with no actual moral value. Nobody is being "harmed" or "hurt" if someone does drink in class. It only has to do with general order in the class room (no spilling of drinks, no annoying slurping noises, etc).

As a general rule, it is forbidden to punch your neighbor in the nose. However, one day the teacher says that for once, students are allowed to punch their neighbor in the nose. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to punch their neighbor in the nose. Almost all children will immediately recognize that NO, it is not okay to do so - not even if the teacher allows it. In fact, most of them will instantly question this statement by the teacher and oppose it. They'll wonder if it is a test of some kind or if the teacher has lost his mind. They'll recognize that something does not add up.

EXCEPT for those children with psychopathic tendencies. They will see no harm in it. They'll respond "sure, if the teacher says it is allowed, then it is allowed, so I can punch my neighbor in the face without being punished and I will have done nothing wrong."



The "divine morality" you describe here, by mentioning "commandments", is the "morality" of those children. It relies on a perceived authority to command morality. If god says it is okay to maim, rape and kill -then it is okay to maim, rape and kill.

This is not morality.

This is moral bankruptcy. This is psychopathy to boot.

Although I agree with the general sentiment that secular humanism is leaps and bounds ahead of christian morality, I think your classroom psychopathy assessment is a story you were fed and swallowed which is debunked by the Milgram shock experiment which you can read about here:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Although I agree with the general sentiment that secular humanism is leaps and bounds ahead of christian morality, I think your classroom psychopathy assessment is a story you were fed and swallowed which is debunked by the Milgram shock experiment which you can read about here:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

That's not the same thing.
The experiment you refer to, is about following orders while being put under pressure.

While the experiment of the child psychology I referred to, is not about orders nore is it about pressure. It's about a sense of justice and morality concerning what is allowed and what isn't.

Note the example given doesn't have a teacher ordering students to punch their neighbor. Instead, he's only removing the consequences thereof and then the question is being asked concerning the moral implications of that act in a setting where it no longer leads to punishment.

Very different things.

 

[danieldemol]

That's not the same thing.
The experiment you refer to, is about following orders while being put under pressure.

While the experiment of the child psychology I referred to, is not about orders nore is it about pressure. It's about a sense of justice and morality concerning what is allowed and what isn't.

Note the example given doesn't have a teacher ordering students to punch their neighbor. Instead, he's only removing the consequences thereof and then the question is being asked concerning the moral implications of that act in a setting where it no longer leads to punishment.

Very different things.

Ok, perhaps i read too much into the word commandments, since a commandment can be an order.

Forgive my being pedantic though, could you link to a peer reviewed article describing your child psychopathy experiment?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, perhaps i read too much into the word commandments, since a commandment can be an order.

np at all

Forgive my being pedantic though, could you link to a peer reviewed article describing your child psychopathy experiment?

No sorry. If memory serves me right, I think I read about it in The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Commandments" that only matter in your little christian bubble, and most of which actually don't have anything to do with morality. In the exact same way, you are "morally inferior" compared to people of another religion yielding other "commandments".



This is not morality.
In fact............................ the word you used itself already demonstrates this: COMMANDMENTS.
Your idea of "morality" is nothing more or less then mere obedience to a perceived authority.

This is not morality. This is just being obedient. This is the "morality" of psychopaths: people who have to rely on perceived authorities to tell right from wrong, because they lack the mental capacities to work it out themselves.


There's a wonderful example of exactly this in child psychology. There is this infamous experiment that you can do, to "sniff out" children with psychopathic potential. It goes like this:


As a general rule, it is forbidden to drink in class. However, on an exceptionally warm day, the teacher states that the students can drink water in class. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to drink in class. Virtually all kids will confidently affirm that yes, it is okay to do so in that circumstance. This is so, because children recognize it as an "arbitrary" rule with no actual moral value. Nobody is being "harmed" or "hurt" if someone does drink in class. It only has to do with general order in the class room (no spilling of drinks, no annoying slurping noises, etc).

As a general rule, it is forbidden to punch your neighbor in the nose. However, one day the teacher says that for once, students are allowed to punch their neighbor in the nose. The children are asked if it is okay in that case, to punch their neighbor in the nose. Almost all children will immediately recognize that NO, it is not okay to do so - not even if the teacher allows it. In fact, most of them will instantly question this statement by the teacher and oppose it. They'll wonder if it is a test of some kind or if the teacher has lost his mind. They'll recognize that something does not add up.

EXCEPT for those children with psychopathic tendencies. They will see no harm in it. They'll respond "sure, if the teacher says it is allowed, then it is allowed, so I can punch my neighbor in the face without being punished and I will have done nothing wrong."



The "divine morality" you describe here, by mentioning "commandments", is the "morality" of those children. It relies on a perceived authority to command morality. If god says it is okay to maim, rape and kill -then it is okay to maim, rape and kill.

This is not morality.

This is moral bankruptcy. This is psychopathy to boot.

You've made some strong statements as to the evolution and roots of morality and obedience. I was merely pointing to a text. Moral people per the Bible:

Love God supremely > avoid idols > honor Shabbat > etc. etc. etc.

Per the Bible, you are immoral.

And you are right, per the Qu'ran, for example, I am SUPREMELY immoral, for I indulge in a greater sin than slave owning or adultery, I indulge in the "ascribing to Allah of a helper, Jesus, and that Jesus is God."

However, in most religions, I'm still moral and you remain immoral. And I've made my Pascalian wager that Jesus is God and Allah is not.

That's not a slur on you, it is a fact of the texts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all, actually.
First of all, your statement read: "..and needs therefor christian regeneration"
==> this is a clear tell that you start from the position that humans are intrinsicly bad and require christianity to be good.

I, as a secular humanist, do not at all start from that position. Au contraire. My starting point is that the majority of humans have the propensity to act morally. This is so because of this trait called "empathy". We are social creatures that depend on cooperation to thrive. This results in pretty much an instinctive need (or "want" if you prefer) to act morally and treat eachother justly.

YOUR starting point is that (at least most) humans are bad and need fixing.
MY starting point is that most humans instinctively act morally combined with an acknowledgement that immoral behavior is an option and for some almost the default (these people are psychopaths, who lack empathy).

In YOUR world, christianity is required because all humans are "guilty" of being human and in need of fixing and somehow only christianity is able to do that.

In MY worldview, a moral framework is required only to minimize the damage that can be done by the few rotten apples, and also, to an extent, to help the well behaving people to be even better.




The point remains: christianity starts by telling people how evil they are and subsequently presents itself as the "only" way to combat that.

Secular humanism is NOTHING like that.
Christianity thus preys on fear. Secular Humanism does not.

Do not misrepresent what I wrote, both you and I are Jekyll and Hyde--we sometimes act morally, we sometimes do things in the dark that we wouldn't tell our mums and dads. The only exception I can find to this hard and fast rule is Jesus Christ.

I understand Maslow and other humanist leaders to talk about levels of self-actualization--ergo, people are flawed, not perfect. The Bible says that (logically!) only perfect people can live in the utopia we call Heaven, so Jesus died and rose to transform imperfect people to be made perfect. Per the Bible, because I trust Jesus Christ for salvation, I will be made morally PERFECT and not "have a propensity to be (sometimes or mostly) moral", and therefore, eligible for Heaven.

Put differently, we can argue for 1,000 years that humanists are more or less moral than Bible believers (and some of us are a bit of both, like me, who aspires to many humanist ideals), but you are not likely to win any argument where your side is "humans are morally perfect 24/7 and can live in utopia without shattering it".

Most humans don't need fixing--I agree with you--to succeed in THIS world.

 

[ecco]

I'm not famous, but people like me are morally superior to your group--no offense meant--simply honest feedback--since atheists disobey many commandments.

Uh huh. Your group ain't all that noble...

Megachurch Pastor Carl Lentz fired, admits cheating on wife

Megachurch Pastor Carl Lentz fired, admits cheating on wife
By LEANNE ITALIENovember 5, 2020

​

40% of pastors admit to having extramarital affair! – Standing Stone Ministry

40% of pastors admit to having extramarital affair!
​

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

According to a 2004 research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been plausibly (neither withdrawn nor disproven) accused of under-age sexual abuse by 10,667 individuals.
​

I have never cheated on my wife.
I have never molested a child.
Your group does a whole lot of both.

Your group's bible condones slavery. I think slavery is abhorrent.
Your group's bible says it's OK to kill the wives and young sons of defeated warriors and then to take the young female children to rape. I think that is abhorrent.

Your group also has a higher divorce rate and incarceration rate than my group.

Save yourself a lot of embarrassment, do some actual research before making stupid, dishonest posts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uh huh. Your group ain't all that noble...

Megachurch Pastor Carl Lentz fired, admits cheating on wife

Megachurch Pastor Carl Lentz fired, admits cheating on wife
By LEANNE ITALIENovember 5, 2020

​

40% of pastors admit to having extramarital affair! – Standing Stone Ministry

40% of pastors admit to having extramarital affair!
​

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

According to a 2004 research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been plausibly (neither withdrawn nor disproven) accused of under-age sexual abuse by 10,667 individuals.
​

I have never cheated on my wife.
I have never molested a child.
Your group does a whole lot of both.

Your group's bible condones slavery. I think slavery is abhorrent.
Your group's bible says it's OK to kill the wives and young sons of defeated warriors and then to take the young female children to rape. I think that is abhorrent.

Your group also has a higher divorce rate and incarceration rate than my group.

Save yourself a lot of embarrassment, do some actual research before making stupid, dishonest posts.

The Bible agrees with you 100% as to your moral outrage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not famous, but people like me are morally superior to your group--no offense meant--simply honest feedback--since atheists disobey many commandments.

This is seriously deserving of the funny rating. No, there is no evidence at all of moral superiority of theists. In fact as pointed out by @ecco the evidence is that theists are less moral.

By the way, which Commandments were you referring to? The original Ten? You do realize that quite a few of those have nothing to do with morals, don't you?

 

[Wandering Monk]

The Bible agrees with you 100% as to your moral outrage.

So...if you had no Bible, you would have no moral outrage?

 

[McBell]

As soon I have received serious responses, I'll make a serious reply.

The bulk of the responses come from humanists drenched in the indoctrination I've spoken of.

Interesting that even those with your like mindedness are avoiding this thread like the plague...
Perhaps you should try casting your net elsewhere?

 

[McBell]

So...if you had no Bible, you would have no moral outrage?

Sounds as though it is believed that without the Bible, there would be no morals.

 

[ecco]

The Bible agrees with you 100% as to your moral outrage.

No. I get morally outraged at slavery. Your Bible condones it. I get morally outraged at young girls being given over to soldiers as the spoils of war. Your Bible God commands it.