Why is that not a safe assumption? It is a biological imperative before it is anything Christian. Parents protect their offspring from needless suffering and, in doing so, facilitate future generations.
A moral is a rule to never be violated.
Is it a Secular rule to protect your young?
The reasoning that you presented implies that anything aiding the continuance of your family is a moral value.
Is that a Secular principle?
I don’t have a definitive list of “secular rules”.
The reasoning I provided indicated more an avoidance of suffering and continuance of the species. I’d say both could be secular principles.
Well the problem with the idea of Secular morality is their thought, “If I have to stick to rules, then I am weaker.”
And because of that, there is a serious trust issue and they could certainly never form moral rules.
The only moral that I can see applies, is
“Thou Shall not get Caught by the wrong people!”
That’s an odd way to look at things. You feel comfortable making claims about secularists on the whole? I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone say they are weaker for following rules, and I certainly wouldn’t say that notion characterizes secular morality. Secularists care about morals, and do form moral rules that are no less prudent than religious morals. The difference is that secularists don’t get hung up religious dogma, which is a good thing.
…OK. You seem to want to demonize secular morality. Why’s that?
The fact that “they” make no uniform claim, is a statement in itself.
It is certainly very common, but as above, when nothing is provided as a rule, then “no rule” is the default.
Oh really, name one?
Oh, I wouldn’t say that. They definitely have their dogma, they just don’t call it “religious”.
This isn’t an issue of “demonizing”.
It is an issue of trust.
How can a Secularist be trusted to do any particular thing?
No rules, no morals are proclaimed.
No one can say, “well because he is a Secularist, he will…”, other than hate Christians… that one seems pretty reliable.
So you’re issue is a lack of organization?
Don’t cause needless suffering.
Such as?
Wow. “Demonizing” is exactly what you’re doing. Secularists can be trusted in the same way as any religious person. You think anyone who calls himself a Christian is inherently worthy of trust? Where does this idea that secularists are without morals come from? It’s absurd.
No. The problem is the lack of uniformity concerning any morality such that someone could say, “I can trust this guy a little more in this direction BECAUSE he is a Secularist.”
What Secularist doctrine did you get that from? Anyone could claim that one. What does it have to do with Secularism?
“Christianity is about mythology (and/or delusion)”
…just to name one.
No. Actually You are “demonizing” because you are seeing the “bad” and fear it being seen, so you accuse me (demonizing me).
I have asked open and honest questions that seem to get straight to the point.
If they are misleading, straighten it out.
…and stop demonizing me.
That is false.
It isn’t that a religious person can necessarily be trusted totally, but there is a sharp difference.
A religious person, in effect, takes an oath. They might not obey their oath, but they know to expect consequences.
Who would a Secularist take an oath to??
Government oaths of office have become totally meaningless.
I haven’t heard a “specifically Secular” moral from you yet.
You can’t say that for any ol’ religious person either. I can’t really think of any groups, aside from maybe monks [and there are secular monks, believe it or not], who you can say something like that about.
No doctrine. That’s the point. It has to do with secularism because it doesn’t require religious tradition or dogma.
Well, that’s hardly dogma. Is “cars are for transportation” dogma too?
I wish I had some remote idea what you’re blubbering about.
So, that a religious person “takes an oath” supersedes the fact that they probably won’t obey it? Prisons are full of people who do harmful things and know to expect consequences - and there are at least as many religious convicts as not. There is, in fact, no sharp difference. At all. Simple statistics will tell you as much.
Secularists might take an oath to the people; to humanity.
[/quote]
I gave you one, what more do you want? Maybe you should tell me what criteria satisfies the “specifically secular” distinction.
A person can be a Communist, Socialist Nazi, Muslim, Judist or Christian (hardly any difference in the West these days), Buddhist, Hindu, Democrat, Republican, or even Satan worshiper, and because of the commitment they made, to some small degree, they can be trusted toward their commitment. They each have some kind of doctrine or code of ethic, whether good or bad.
A banker makes no loans without some form of commitment.
The Secularist commits to nothing.
No doctrine. No code of honor or behavior. No creed. Nothing.
Trust is the issue.
Morality and trust go hand in hand.
That is fallacious and you know it.
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document.
And today, unfortunately it is all but totally ignored by Secular rulers.
There is probably a turd in some sewer somewhere that was Secularist manufactured. So what?
If they aren’t going to commit to it, what does it have to do with Secularism?
That’s your response? Seriously?
We aren’t talking turds, as much as I’d love to. You said secularists have no doctrine. I gave you one. Can you name a single “secular ruler” that totally ignores the constitution?
I don’t know any Christians that follow the Bible to the letter. So why do they bother? What they do must have nothing to do with Christianity then, right?
Again, your argument is fallacious and you know it.
Are YOU serious?
First, secularists didn’t write the US Constitution. It was written by Deists.
The Secularists came along and rewrote it (remember them having to take out the word “God”?) and are still rewriting it any time they want to change anything.
And Obama would be one.
Ron Paul’s entire platform was the US Constitution. He had popular vote by a land slide. He didn’t stand a chance.
I said it’s a secular document. And it is. Who it was written by is irrelevant.
Obama is a Christian, buddy.
It being a Secular document today is not something to boast about. They are rewriting it all the time, and thus;
No COMMITMENT.
Yeah right, and I am a Jehovah’s Witness. 
Like I said, no one can trust a Secularist.
They have no commitment to not LIE and say thy are Christian just to get into office.
You’re scrambling.
So, nothing in the Constitution has remained the same? I bet you’re wrong about that. And I bet I can prove it…
None of that is an argument.
You know far too little about that subject to be trying to use it as an example.
I would love for Secularists (or anyone) to truly commit to the real US CONSTITUTION as it was originally written.
It would take very little to plug the hole that a few socialists slipped through in order to corrupt it.
That IS the only concern at hand.
No commitment means no trust.
No morality means no commitment.
Obvious bullshit. You’re scrambling.
Do you know anyone who commits to the Bible as it was originally written? I bet you don’t.
You’ve yet to show how or why secularists have no morals.
What about Sodom and Gomorra? One thought one action. No order but chaotic order. If a group got together and decided it was lawful to break any law, how long would their be order? Those of any group stand up for the group those that don’t get ousted. The majority rules the minority fights for power the majority took away. There has always been I you and we and the we you and I. Two different philosophies with separate and group thoughts. What’s the statement “United we stand divided we fall”. I against the group the group against the I.
The war between the I’s and the groups will always be. Do all men/women agree on all disciplines including morals be they secular or religious? I cannot see the air but does that mean it isn’t there. Just because I cannot see or feel my spirit does not mean it’s not there. It’s a shame we cannot respect each others thoughts and beliefs without judging. Thoughts please. pljames