Secular Morality is superior to Christian morality

I agree with pro on what morality is; morality is the idea dealing with what we should or should not do to other sentient beings (the only thing that I disagree with his definition is that morality also takes into account ourselves, not just the needs of other people, but that is not vital to this debate). An act is morally good if it is meant to have a net improvement on the well-being of ourselves, others, or both; an act is morally bad if it does the opposite. My reasoning for Christian morality being better than secular morality is hinged upon the fact that there is something to compare your actions (whether they be moral or immoral) to something and confirm whether or not this is moral or immoral (an agent of God - a priest, or the Bible, or something similar). This does not exist in secular morality - all that exists is the belief that something is moral because we think that it is; we are not given a set of commandments to follow to say what is or isn't moral from someone who is above us all.In a Christian setting, if there is a dispute over whether or not lying is a moral or immoral action, we are able to confirm that this is not a good thing by referring to the decalogue within our holy text; the Ten Commandments. The moral worth of this action is able to be assessed first with what our texts or religious leaders say, and then what our intuition says. For example, there is not a commandment saying "thou shalt not rape" (and if we can imagine that there exist no verses in the Bible dealing with rape), but that does not mean that it is a moral act. This is what I like to call a "two-pronged check for morality". First, we need to look at what God commands us to do in order to be moral beings (the decalogue or the Levitcal laws, or other commandments). If there are no results in what He commands us to do, we need to try our best with what we are given and what we understand to try and reach a conclusion about if something is overall moral or immoral. Essentially, what we need to do, is look to God and then our own circumstances. In secular settings, this is not the case at all; we look to our own circumstances (and we do not necessarily look to evidence as my opponent suggests, but I will touch on that in a later time), and immediately assess the moral weight of something. This is essentially a circumstancial stance on morality; if we believe that it would benefit us all to sacrifice someone (as the Aztecs thought, but they were not secular nor Christian) due to the circumstances in which we would do so, that does not mean that it actually will benefit us all - and a secular sense of morality does not ensure that any potential actions would be in an objectively moral sense "good". A secular stance on morality is a circumstancial stance on morality; a Christian stance on morality has a check in place which first makes it an objective stance of morality (God's morality), and then a circumstancial stance on morality, if it is necessary. Jesus commands those that have not sinned to cast the first stone at a sinner - while in this story, literally it does not apply to what the course of this debate is about, the essence of what he says is that in order to make a decision (either moral or immoral), we need to be aware of what is happening around us, and to check if it is actually in line with God's will and the evidence of the circumstances at the time (which my opponent suggests secular morality does as well, but I will disprove this next round). This means that secular morality is based around circumstances; Christian morality is something that can be compared to what has already been decided to be moral (that murder is immoral, for example), and if there are no showcases of if something is immoral or moral, then it is based around evidence and, only if there is no choice, then circumstances in which choices are presented.Obviously, Christian morality is superior to a guideline-less morality, which is secular.