Secular Humanism: teaches us that morality is relative?

Question

Therefore, when atheist attack Christianity using moral indignation over the slaughter that took place in Numbers 31, isn't that ironic? Your views please.

Answer 1

Atheists are not always secular humanists. And I don't know if Secular Humanism actually teaches that.

Answer 2

Of course morality is relative, because life is complicated. The classic argument which reveals the problem with moral absolutism is the one which asks the true believer if he would refrain from killing Hitler if he had the chance, because "murder is always wrong."

That doesn't mean there are no guidelines and "atheists do whatever they want"; that is mere slander against atheists. The basic rules of behavior are universal in all human cultures or those cultures would not survive. We all have built-in empathy for our immediate families and certainly don't require religion to enforce those feelings, which are so strong that they inevitably spill over into feelings of empathy towards other members of our social groups as well as towards members of other species.

Moral absolutism denies real life and creates cruelty more often than not by condemning any kind of flexibility. It's one more example of why religion has been an unmitigated tragedy for both humanity and the world in general.

Answer 3

Your morality is relative as a Christian. You don't follow the teachings of the OT and justify it with a fulfillment doctrine. You also don't follow the teachings of Paul in 2 Timothy 2:11-16 unless you believe that women should not carry opinions and are only saved through childbirth...

So even Christian morality is relative to societal norms. Isn't that ironic.

According to the behavior of most Christians, secular humanists are correct. Saying your Morals are never changing, but not stoning Hindu relatives, or forcing women accused of cheating to drink tainted water is hypocrisy and only proves that morality is relative.

Answer 4

Religious morality is also relative. Christians do not apply all scriptural laws and rules equally. They certainly treat some sins with GREATER severity than others.

It is interesting that you would use a book that condones slavery to guide your morality.

Exodus 21 and 22 Give instructions on how to sell a slave, including selling your children. It gives instructions on how slaves should be beaten.

Leviticus 22:11 Talks about how priests can "buy souls" for their own use.

Leviticus 25:44-46 Speaks of how to enslave other people of other nations, "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever."

In the New Testament, Slavery was also condoned, passively. Basically the teaching was, if you are a slave, just accept your lot in life.

Ephesians 6:5
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. "

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Clearly slavery is IMMORAL!

Why should you have a problem with the approach of learning and adapting through past mistakes to determine what works BEST for the well being and benefit of all?

If you want to see what secular humanism has devised, take a look at the UN Bill of Human Rights. See what we have discovered, through history, cultural changes and science and what we have stated are the fundamental rights of every human being.

If you think these fundamental rights are immoral compared to what the bible says, that's your opinion. But I think it is a very sound moral template that respects the rights of ALL faiths.

Answer 5

I think people who acknowledge that morals can be situationally dependent are honest. Is it always immoral to lie? You to SS agent: "I haven't seen any Jewish people around here?" versus You to SS agent: "I've seen Jewish people hiding in the warehouse down the street."
This argument is usually made in reverse to imply that followers of the Bible are not moral relativists although they have made the distinction between murder and killing so they can support the death penalty and war. Guess what, that is moral relativism. Sometimes its okay to kill, sometimes not. You can come up with different names for the kinds of killing involved but its still making distinctions in the morality of taking a life. As for saying the Bible is immoral, I think it becomes a matter of saying what situations would justify killing. The God of the Bible kills those of different beliefs, babies, women, advocates the capture of virgin women whilst murdering the rest of the population, etc.... I think most secular humanists are saying those are not justified acts in any situation. People get worked up over the slaughter of the innocents by Herod in the Bible as it shows what a bad dude he was. Yet God itself directs the murder and slaughter of many including the unborn and infants.

Answer 6

No, it's ironic for a different reason.

We're using your rules.

Your own Bible condemns the sort of actions your God makes.

Answer 7

Not only that but they attack Christianity on the basis of a Jewish Document that preceded Christianity by hundreds of years.