Since religious folk are “born sinners” and can be redeemed, perhaps the net effect is “hey if I am a duck I may as well walk like a duck”. A self fulfilling prophesy of sorts. I have observed this behavior several times. We wouldn’t want Jesus’s sacrifice to be for naught now, would we. What to you think, is there any merit in this particular good intentions gone wrong scenario?
Yes and no. Certainly most people on here will agree that secular morality is superior to morality from the bible. It’s another step further to start pointing out individual tenets as being problematic.
I am yet to read anything that even approaches explaining what Christian Morality is in any coherent way. Lines like: love thy neighbour or keep to the golden rule are often given. That is not morality but is just a preferred line from an impossible book of regulatory madness. How can anyone possibly distill the essence of Christian morality from the competing literary predators that are different book of biblical insanity and aggressively competing ethical commandments wrestling with the example set by ruthless religious leaders, scholars and other figures and their own edicts? You cannot. There is no Christian morality.
I would also avoid using terms like secular morality. Remember that Mao’s murderous reorganization of society was a secular one as are many of the paradigms of modern Vietnamese life. I think it even more difficult to distill secular morality unless you focus on very particular groups.
I prefer to think of it this way: The approach that humanists take when dealing with moral problems is more praiseworthy than the approach that the religious often take.
This reply was modified 7 years, 4 months ago by Davis.