Does Christian Morality Stand on its Own?

[genkaus]

Christianity is different because it is based on love.

No, it is based on sacrifice - specifically of the best for the worst.

There are two sides of every quality: love and selfishness.

No, love is selfish. Someone who is not selfish cannot love.

Pride, for example, is destructive behind selfish motives. Self-confidence is pride's love counterpart, and is very good.

Wrong again. Self-confidence is regarding actions yet to be taken - accomplishments yet to be achieved. Pride is regarding actions already taken and the accomplishments achieved.

Assertiveness is also good when used with love--remember, Jesus was very assertive.

Nope. Assertiveness is good when used with confidence and pride in one's own judgment.

He was meek when being assertive would not have helped his purpose (like during his trial).

Oh, was he Scwawed?

In a perfect world, everyone would love one another like themselves.

That sounds like hell - having to let anyone claim your love.

There would be no need to disobey authorities because the authorities would love their subjects and help them as best they could.

In a perfect world, there would be no authorities.

Think about every attribute you consider to be good which you don't think Christianity considers good.

Rationality, intelligence, pride, selfishness, greed, independence and an uncompromising sense of justice.

Then think "what is no one had this? Would I personally still need it?"

Yes. For each and every one of them.

Sometimes people use qualities like pride in self-defense to everyone else's pride. But if everyone was completely self-sacrificial it would no longer be necessary.

No, it would still be necessary, just not possible if everyone was self-sacrificial.

Likewise, if every person was honest, there would be no reason to be skeptical or cautious.

Nope, it'd still be required. Being honest does not mean you are always correct.

In our world of sin it can be hard to turn the other cheek.

Because it is an irrational thing to do and our intelligence protests.

A slave would inevitably sin when trying to get free of their master.

Oh, the immorality! Wanting his own freedom!

War, even for the best of causes, breaks God's moral code.

Which is ironic since most seem to be commanded by and fought in god's name.

But God knows we sometimes have to sin to do good.

Sin according to your corrupt moral code. A rational moral code would not consider such an action a sin. Which is why yours falls apart in the real world.

It's why he told the Hebrews to take over Israel, and allowed divorce in the Mosaic law. In Matthew 9:18 Jesus says, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." In other words, divorce always involves sin. But a greater amount of sin can be avoided by undergoing it in certain circumstances (when your spouse no longer respects you and causes you to sin whenever you try to reconcile with him/her).

Yes, god is very good at giving excuses for not following his own moral code. He'd have to be. Because no intelligent person would actually follow that moral code.

It is human nature to be selfish.

Finally, one correct sentence.

Even our physical bodies cause us to sin with the needs they have, which is why we have "original sin."

Says you. Fulfilling the needs of our bodies helps us live. That is a virtue, the "original virtue".

Every other moral code allows inner selfishness.

Not every other. in fact, not even most. Selfishness is a rare virtue in morality.

That's the difference between Christianity and other religions. Christianity defines sin as even thinking selfish thoughts.

Which is why Christian morality is immoral.

Christians understand that we can never earn salvation. We are steeped in sin, and where is the cutoff? Just how much "good" does one have to do to offset the "bad"? The Bible tells us that only one sin is required to break the law--just as a million charity projects won't erase the death sentence of one murder. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That's why we need Jesus to take the sentence for us. The world is dead in sin. Jesus, the only human who has loved perfectly, offers us a gift. All we have to do is say we're sorry for our sins, love God and our neighbor, and accept his gift.

This is the section that proves OP's point conclusively. All the evidence you need to show that Christian philosophy is corrupt, irrational and inapplicable to the real world is here. Consider this section - consider only the philosophical statements within it and ignore any imaginary friends, places or events.

In fact, I'll help. I'll requote the passage with any reference to imaginary things removed.

Christians understand that we can never earn salvation. We are steeped in sin, and where is the cutoff? Just how much "good" does one have to do to offset the "bad"? [Edited] only one sin is required to break the law--just as a million charity projects won't erase the death sentence of one murder. [Edited] says, "For all have sinned [Edited]" That's why we need [someone else] to take the sentence for us. The world is dead in sin. [Someone else] offers us a gift. All we have to do is say we're sorry for our sins, [edited] and our neighbor, and accept his gift.

This is the philosophy you'd have us follow. This is the picture of man - of myself - you'd have me accept. An ineffectual worm crawling through muck and shit, incapable of standing tall on his own two feet. Incapable of earning his own happiness, only capable of accepting it like a sycophant when it is thrown to us as alms to a beggar. This is what your philosophy reduces to. And excuse me if I treat it with all the contempt it so obviously craves. Others here hold humanity to a higher standard than a sycophantic, sniveling loser.

[Doubting Thomas]

Isn't "Christian Morality" an oxymoron?

[ThomM]

Do Christian values/morality, as introduced by the New Testament, stand on their own?

No - in fact - there is a basic error in the claim of morality in most religions

BEING moral is doing the right thing - simply because that is the correct thing to do.

Doing something for a reward - is not an example of morality
Nor is doing something to avoid punishment

So the reward of an eternal homosexual relationship with their god- or that of a gaggle of virgins - should NOT exist

[genkaus]

Do Christian values/morality, as introduced by the New Testament, stand on their own?

No - in fact - there is a basic error in the claim of morality in most religions

BEING moral is doing the right thing - simply because that is the correct thing to do.

Doing something for a reward - is not an example of morality
Nor is doing something to avoid punishment

So the reward of an eternal homosexual relationship with their god- or that of a gaggle of virgins - should NOT exist

You are not being very insightful here.

Morality is what determines what the right thing and the wrong thing is. Saying "being moral is the right thing", is like saying "a circle has no vertices". Tautologically true, but essentially pointless.

What any ethical doctrine - even a pathetic one such as Christianity - must do is to provide justification as to why what is asserted to be moral is actually moral. The reason why Christianity fails as a philosophy is because it cannot justify it without referring to fairy tales or imaginary beings.