To ask if you are not a Christian, what non Christian values you live by?

[BlossomBlanket]

Just that really!

Not in my life - life is good without a religion - can’t think how it could be better. You should make your own happiness and not rely on a crook.

I'd say that this is Holland's argument - that for those of born in Christian countries, whether we believe in the Bible or not, all of our notions of what is or is not moral (which would include moral views associated with what you call "wokeness") are shaped by Christianity. E.g., he postulates that it is essentially impossible for "cultural Christians" to perceive morality in a manner that is independent of Christian moral influence.

If Holland is correct in his thesis, and you do seem to have broadly adopted it, then "wokeness" (and, conversely, "anti wokeness") has indeed stemmed from Christian influence.

I don't think you can reasonably take the position that all modern-day Western morality is rooted in Christianity except, specifically, the things you don't like.

I'd also add that, even as someone who does have significant concerns about the morality of administering gender-affirming care to minors, that modern society is, as a whole, more moral than society has been during 99% of the Christian era. Even if you feel there has been moral backsliding during your lifetime, I doubt you'd want to to wind the clock back to a time before universal suffrage or the abolition of the slave trade.

Going back to the original topic - I don’t get why anyone would think that Christians have any better morals than atheists?

Yawn.

?

Your posts are boring and repetitive.

Nothing boring about having an opinion - did you not learn at school how to argue for and against a position?

To be fair, so are all the posts from religious people claiming that humans are only capable of moral behaviour because of religion. This discussion never goes anywhere - but it has to be had, because spreading misinformation about one group's moral superiority over another won't end well.

Is that the original topic?

Misinformation?

I don't imagine you would. You're not actually interested in understanding

Can you point me to where I've said Christian morals are better than non-Christian

It is misinformation to pretend that religious morality is the only source of moral codes for humanity. We know from the archaeological record that human morals are much older than that. We know that many common moral principles are held in common across all faiths and none. It is impossible to say that human morals come from religion, and from one religious source.

And claiming that anye faith more or less owns good morals is divisive because that 'others' those who are not of that faith or who have none. That is why we argue back against such claims.

I'm not particularly referring to you with this post, but there have been plenty of posts on this thread who, when someone has responded with their personal moral code, has said 'But those are Christian values'. No, they aren't. They are values Christianity has in common with other faiths and with secular movements.

Well the very same lands that has kept places like Stonehenge, Avebury, Skara Brae and more at the forefront of common reality also allows the complete practice of a multitude of religions almost seems like it's from a sci-fi novel.

Yet, this is indeed the UK of today - not a country to be slagged off just coz - but maybe we should think a bit more about how lucky we are to live in such a place that has so many freedoms.

I haven't read every single post but I think the main thrust of the argument has been that Christian thought has developed our moral instincts, and that some of these are more specific to our culture than we tend to assume. In any case, it's accurate to say that they are Christian values, even if you want to universalise them. Secular movements didn't spring up out of nowhere.

But I'm not sure how the idea of universal human morals as evidenced in the archaeological record squares with the obvious differences we find looking back in history. Even if you're talking the most general moral principles, you wouldn't find them to be identical across time and geography. Some can be based on a very different set of assumptions. Is that 'othering'? I'm not sure I agree with that objection. It's an interesting discussion.

What I am still struggling with is what, exactly, is a Christian value.

I don't think prohibitions against murder, other violent crimes or theft, for example, are helpfully labelled "Christian values" - even if they have not been entirely universal throughout the history of civilization, they are extremely widespread (and were before Christianity, too).

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that Christianity is the root cause (or at least a major one) in the now widespread (in the West) belief in universal human rights, I still find it hard to consider "equality" a Christian value when you consider that, for much of their histories various Christian churches upheld and advanced racism, sexism, religious intolerance and homophobia (and some of these still remain present, to differing extents, in churches).

I'm persuaded that Christian theology almost certainly had a very significant role in popularizing ideas that were an improvement on what came before it in Europe, and ultimately put the continent on a path (or moved it more quickly down a path) that led to modern notions of universal rights and eqaulity, which may not have otherwise occurred, but the concept of "Christian values" remains pretty illusive, to me.

"If, for the sake of argument, we accept that Christianity is the root cause (or at least a major one) in the now widespread (in the West) belief in universal human rights,"

Legally, "human rights" have evolved from "natural law" - God given 'rights' as it were. This is completely uncontroversial and politics 101. This conversation is very difficult because one side of the discussion is very entrenched and doesn't actually know their side of the argument well enough. Particularly with the deployment of the term "misinformation" - I haven't said that other cultures, pre-Christ, haven't had morals. They have in fact had far richer, "thicker" moral/cultural universes than we live in now. But they were highly relative and not grounded in anything objective - but they were massively shaped by the material conditions in which they evolved. They were also almost always, very religious, hierarchical and patriarchal - so if you still want to insist that there is a universal moral code which has emerged from the average or common features of these cultures/religions then it would surely look a lot like that. The exceptions prove the rule.

But on the matter of human rights, I'm glad we've alighted on this. Because what are they? They're nothing more than the powerful are willing to bestow upon us. As long as those who hold the monopoly on violence feel we should have them, we have them. Most times and places throughout history have not had "human rights" and they're very far from guaranteed to continue into the future. Particularly when individuals are no longer considered to have equal value and dignity, this is a spiritual belief - there is no "facts and evidence" that can prove this claim. And if people stop believing it, it stops being so.

I find Christian religion, like possibly all religions, to be too rigid and judgemental to live by. What is right and wrong is arbitrary on a case by case basis. I try to be open minded and see all angles, understand context. That is why I don’t conform to a religion per se.

I don't necessarily think 'equality' in the modern understanding is a Christian value. I do think equality and equity are outgrowths of Christian thought though.

Obviously prohibitions on murder etc are not uniquely Christian. And without having encyclopedic knowledge of all religious and cultural traditions across history, it would be impossible to say that any set of ideas is uniquely Christian (theological beliefs might be, but in the ethical arena I couldn't say). But it's pretty daft or ignorant to claim there aren't distinctively Christian values which have been formative for us as a culture. I don't mean you specifically, but the argument being put forth that somehow these values spring forth pretty universally from our evolutionary instincts for group survival.

Broadly speaking it's ideas like 'the last shall be first and the first shall be last', that weakness or poverty is not to be despised, the strong should be in service to the weak and specifically to those who aren't socially 'useful'. That justice shouldn't be about 'an eye for an eye' - mercy as a higher value.

The Church as an institution has been as corrupt as any other, because of the human instinct to consolidate power and wealth, which is antithetical to Christian teaching. It's more than fair to point to that hypocrisy, but it's more nuanced than that, which is why the kneejerk hostility from some posters is quite frustrating because they're starting from basically Christian assumptions about the way things should be and pointing to the inevitable failures as if they undermine the ideals and thoughts underpinning the Christian 'mission' (for want of a better word). From a Christian pov those failures actually illustrate the importance of those ideas being put into practice. And why politics and power don't mix well with sincere Christian ideals. Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing unfortunately.

It's also the case that these types of posters have an enormous blind spot when it comes to anything positive that comes from our Christian heritage, holding up an impossible yardstick rather than looking at the span of history in a fair-minded way.

This conversation is very difficult because one side of the discussion is very entrenched and doesn't actually know their side of the argument well enough

Three thoughts on that. One, it’s telling that you frame it as an argument rather than a discussion, two, I think you need to hold up a mirror to yourself as you are incredibly dogmatic and closed minded and three, resorting to insults because you can’t articulate why you are so sure you are correct isn’t very edifying. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so :)

What have I said that is close minded? Or are you busy attacking the straw man in your head

This conversation is very difficult because one side of the discussion is very entrenched and doesn't actually know their side of the argument well enough.
Translation: Anyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant and wrong. What a comfortable position that must be - no effort required to look at the perspective of those who do not agree with you.

They were also almost always, very religious, hierarchical and patriarchal
So in terms of religiously founded morality, nothing at all has changed, has it?

On human rights, I mostly agree with you - but Christianity or any other faith is not the solution. We can see what Project 2025 is doing to human rights in the US - the self-styled Christians are the ones holding the guns and removing the rights. Same in Iran and the Middle East - it's the infrastructure of the faiths that holds the weapons and is doing the oppressing. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

Human rights are precious. Currently in much of the West we have them - not because religious faith has bestowed them, mostly because after WW2, some of us learned lessons, got together and set out the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was NATO that drove that, not any particular faith. And of course NATO includes countries that are very religious, but it also includes countries that are not. It's common humanity at work.

What have I said that is close minded?
You've said those of us who disagree with you don't know our arguments very well. We do - you are just choosing not to accept them as valid. That is close minded.