Fundamentalists and literalists are a very small minority of Christians and their movement is more or less a reaction to science/the Enlightenment that didn't really exist in any significant strength before the 19th Century (and honestly it's hard to square with a careful reading of the Bible, which contradicts itself in ways that present problems for literal readings). Even as far back as Augustine you have Christians writing "obviously don't deny objective reality because it could be read as in conflict with a Bible verse." So no, I'm not into Young Earth Creationism or any of that.
I won't claim it's impossible to comport yourself morally without being an adherent of any religion, but the Christian faith offers a more comprehensive framework to think about our relationship to the world and other people that I think is valuable.
I feel like this is one of those things that people say but, when push comes to shove, don't actually believe. Does anyone actually believe in the firmament described in the creation story?
When you're premise is "the bible is true" and "god can do anything", then what's not to believe? Most Christians I grew up with don't even think about it, they just accept it all.
They believe the Earth is surrounded by water, and the water is kept out because the Earth is enclosed in a solid dome? There are obvious challenges to this idea familiar to even school children.
I don't know how good a job I'll do describing it briefly, but I can try.
The fundamental message we can take, in my interpretation, is that every human being is deeply flawed and yet had inherent dignity and worth, regardless of nationality, status, wealth, etc., and that it is the duty of a Christian to keep these things in sight and help his fellow man. Not necessarily in dramatic or obvious ways, but as a general inclination. Of course there are a lot more details but I think this is the core.
Of course you might object that you don't necessarily have to be Christian to believe those things, but looking around you'll see many examples of behavior driven by different axioms (and given the environment Christianity came to exist in, a message about the dignity of the poor would actually have been going seriously against general trends).
This isn't as clear as I'd hoped but I hope it gives some idea of where I'm coming from.
Again, not op, but, it gives me a reason to pick the altruistic option rather than the selfish one, when I can 'morally' justify both.
For instance, beggar on the street. I can feel morally okay by saying "They might not really be in need, just doing this to get extra money; I'll donate to organizations dedicated to helping homeless instead". But from my Christian perspective it changes, "Why am I judging this person's need? Who knows how much those organizations will help this individual person, who is here now, asking for help. Maybe they don't need it, but maybe they do. Would I rather risk a mouth going hungry, or risk 'wasting' giving a dollar to someone who has enough?", and I give the dollar. Or better yet, say "Wait, why is my time so valuable? Am I really in so much of a hurry? Why don't I see if I can buy this person a meal and talk to them for a bit".
Now, I can certainly see people aligning their basic axioms to arrive at this same decision without an appeal to religion...I just know that for me, I wouldn't. Without a belief in a God who I know values them as much as me, and wants me to help them, I have no reason to push back against my own selfish rationalizations. I might still donate, but then it's just to absolve myself of any guilt I might have (which is also the goal of the rationalizations, really). For me, the belief in God compels me to move past just absolving my guilt, and instead leads me to ask how I can show love.
You might make the case that this is just another form of guilt, and maybe it is (certainly, doing nothing leaves me feeling just as guilty), but it feels qualitatively different. A begrudging giving of a dollar compared with actually engaging with the person leads to two very different feelings, and I know I never choose the latter without an appeal to religion. Again, for me; YMMV.
Thanks for your response, I am cherishing the open dialogue that is definitely outside of my bubble. I see your personal viewpoint, but what about the aggregate? Taking Christianity as a whole, I believe it's fair to characterize it as being used for many extremely violent acts, such as the nominal justification for crusades, for religious wars in Europe (catholic vs protestant, for instance), or for the suppression of free speech and scientific advancement (galileo, evolutionary theory, the big bang, and so forth). To me, in the aggregate, it seems that these negatives have balanced off or perhaps outweighed the potential good works of practitioners who otherwise would not have performed good works.
I won't claim it's impossible to comport yourself morally without being an adherent of any religion, but the Christian faith offers a more comprehensive framework to think about our relationship to the world and other people that I think is valuable.