Indeed, what does "virtue" or "morality" mean if the behavior is compelled by a whip in one hand, and a carrot in the other? Can we not make any behavior moral or virtuous merely by offering a reward for some aritrary behaviors and a punishment for others?
I suspect this is related to the question of being born again, but you'd never guess it from the speechifying of the Elect.
You can, by way of speaking. But the language is historically a posteriori to an experience that is not secular.
The whole structure of a secular virtue is actually no simpler than any other. Instead of a theodicy one must give a "physidicy." It must also answer the origin of virtue and why we would act against nature. Unless I am mistaken, this is only possible in some form of dualism. I don't think along these lines, and I suggest that if you do, give us what you think. I might be converted.