myschae,

Not really. You just have to be in general agreement with it. The affirmations are not like commandments, they are more like a creed - a statement of what most Humanists believe in order to make them Humanist and not something else. There is no punishment or excommunication for not following the affirmations. It's just that if you don't, most other Humanists would say you aren't following Humanism but something else. It's a way to distinguish between Humanists and non-Humanists and also a way to explain to non-Humanists what Humanism is.

I ran into the OT: Secular Humanism thread here a bit late, but I'd thought that I would add comments. I've noticed that responses to (longish) multifaceted posts tend to focus on just one or maybe two points; however, I'm submitting this as a single post anyway.

I'm directing it at you Aphaeresis because you were the proponent of the SecHum perspective. You wrote in the first person, and candidly about personal viewpoints. I should state that I am a christian theist. We are all entitled to our beliefs and you don't need to defend yours to me.

All the best,

- WG

From post of 6/20/07:
I think morality is essentially just that: obedience to an authority. Some authorities result in better moral codes than others.

Jesus said God's moral code could be summed up in two precepts:
(1) Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength;
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself

From post of 6/21:
The argument here doesn't convince me that personalities/souls can't survive death. Just because brain illness or trauma *prevent us from interacting with another's undegraded personality*, this doesn't mean that that person's mind no longer exists. Perhaps one's personhood is not merely a part of the brain, but 'requires' the brain to communicate and interact unimpeded in a body.

Use memory as an example of a brain process important for 'identity'. Suppose today I cannot recall an event from 20 years ago. But a month from now I can. Something was wrong with my memory today, but I still had my personhood. With Alzheimer's _we_ may not see the person recover.

From post of 6/22:
Very refreshing commentary ...

You know one trait that clearly stands out from the gospel accounts of Jesus is that he frequently made biting criticisms of the religious hypocrisy of his day. For example, he is reported as confronting (i.e., "driving out merchants", "overturning tables of merchandise") a bunch of financially motivated members of the religious infrastructure [Chapter 11, Gospel of Mark]

From post of 6/26:I don't agree. Don't you believe in some things that are not scientifically testable (e.g., that Julius Caesar existed)? As Mark1952 pointed out, there is historical evidence.

Of course not. However, one book chapter you might consider is: Moreland, J.P., 'Chapter 6: The resurrection of Jesus' in 'Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity', Baker, 1987.

Some of the points made include:
* no body was produced after the claims of his resurrection (why not)?
* specific women were mentioned as the earliest witnesses of the resurrected Jesus (at that time, Jewish women weren't deemed credible witnesses, if the story was made-up, the authors were pretty silly to include this point)
* Jesus's disciples were Jewish theists who believed lying and believing in other Gods was wrong. They declined to renounce their faith in the resurrected Jesus while being tortured to death. Would this many men all suffer such a fate without recanting, knowing that the account of the resurrection was false?

The book seems to be in print and available from amazon. Elsewhere in his book Moreland lays out several arguments for the existance of a god, including an Islamic cosmological argument, and telelogical and ontological arguments. The cosmological argument works for me.

Myschae - This question of yours ("Is there some requirement in SecHum that you agree with or follow each and every piece of it? And, what does it say if you don't?" ) really does speak to the heart of the issue and what I've been attempting to discuss with Aphaeresis. While I never got a direct response, you have, so I thank you for refocusing the discussion on this point.


The answer from Aphaeresis? "Not really. You just have to be in general agreement with it." They are suggestions not commandments.

Both Myschae and Aphaeresis - This has been my "point" all along. Myschae has agreed with my contention while Aphaeresis has steadfastly denied my contention.

For review, what is that contention? It is that without Jesus Christ as Lord and the Triune God as the "final authority," "ultimate authority," whatever terms might want to be used to cede ALL power and authority to God regardless of what any human might think, what is left is Moral Relativism that each individual gets to determine for themselves. There is NO "absolute" morality and there is NO "absolute" definition of "good" or "bad" that applies to all people regardless of their own personal "inclinations, choices, general agreement or disagreement, society they live in, etc."

When the "final authority, supreme authority, God, again whatever term someone might choose as the 'descriptor'," is denied and removed from the "chessboard of life," the individual can make up their own "code, creed, rationalizations, justification, etc." because THEY themselves ARE the "final authority."

This is precisely what Wayward Spouses do all the time. It does not matter if the WS is a believer in Christ, God, any religion or no religion. It is ALL about "self." It is each individual's "individual sovereign right" to do whatever they want to do for whatever reason they choose to use as their "excuse" for their behavior.

When I told Aphaeresis that IF she identifies her "faith," "belief," whatever term she is comfortable with using WITH Secular Humanism she should submit her will to the tenets of Secular Humanism, that is precisely what I was talking about. "Appropriating" the name of something to "identify" yourself as a "true believer" has nothing whatsoever with one BEING a Secular Humanist, a Christian, etc.

The particular faith lays out the beliefs OF that faith. For people who want to "pick and choose" what parts they "like" and what parts they "don't like" is self-centered and selfish, NOT embracing of or submissive to the actual beliefs that DEFINE a particular faith.

What is substituted is the "religion of self."

So in the context of Aphaeresis' desire (or at least the desire of the moment) to remain married to her husband despite his shortcomings and despite her multiple affairs, is the issue of WHY should her husband a) believe her repentance is anything other than "relative," and b)what will keep her from either obeying or disobeying the beliefs of Secular Humanism when they are "in conflict" with what being married really entails?

She can say that she has made a choice and may well have made a choice FOR being married to her husband, but that's only true for today. She can "unchoose" anytime she wants to because she retains the "final authority" and is "sovereign" over everything in her life. She can, by "sovereign fiat," choose anything she wants and no one has any right to say she is wrong, because as "sovereign lord" she retains the "right and authority" to determine what is right and wrong independent of anyone else and their "sovereign right" in their life. Everyone else is reduced to the level of "servant," and servants may have the right to disagree with the sovereign in their own heads but they have no right to DO anything other than what the "sovereign" wants and decrees.

Here are the definitive tenets ("affirmations") of Secular Humanism that will forever be the "stumbling block" to recovery if they are not directly addressed, and perhaps even Secular Humanism as a "faith" abandoned and replaced with something that IS "marriage friendly." I say this with certainty because of the following admission and "position statement" that Aphaeresis made in her response: " There is no punishment or excommunication for not following the affirmations."

Aphaeresis has made it CLEAR that she personally does not see Secular Humanism as "authoritative" in her life. At best the principles of SecHum are just "relative" and can be "taken or left" at will, her own will, and the individual will of ALL Secular Humanism proponents or ""followers."


* We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

There is no giving "100%" of "self" to the marriage. Things will be retained and "non-negotiable" and the "non-compromise" position of "forsaking ALL others until death do us part" is NOT on the table with this tenet. The obvious "mutual understanding of "differences" allow for "open marriages and adultery" as a "part of their concept of marriage."


* We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

Like the "intolerance" of ANYONE other than your spouse as way to "express your sexual preferences?"


* We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

WHO or WHAT determines what is "morally excellent?" Morals will be arrived at by "compromise and negotiation?" This seems to be recipe for "try it (anything) and if you like it, it's morally good for you" and all you have to do is negotiate with, and potentially compromise with, someone else who has a "different" concept of "morally excellent" behavior. There is NO standard against which all behavior is "judged" morally good or bad, it's all "relative" and open to whatever I can "negotiate" that someone else will "put up with" by compromising some competing or opposing belief that THEY hold.


* We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

Very nice sounding and eclectic, but the " Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences" is very vague, general, and tolerant of someone who simply wants an excuse to DO whatever they feel like doing. Aspirations = wants and desires. Express their sexual preferences = "if it feels good, do it" and it doesn't matter with whom. This tenet is most "enabling" of them all FOR infidelity and against monogamous marriage.


* We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

And all of these "common moral decencies" are tossed out the window anytime a Secular Humanist decides for themselves that they don't care to embrace that "tenet" of their faith. "I will apply them today, but they are NOT authoritative and I CAN change my mind anytime it suits ME. It "sounds nice," but it's really all just "relative."


* We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

No doubt. And this "clause" is the ultimate "out clause" for belief in Secular Humanism. "We are open to novel ideas." "Anything goes" would be an easier way to state this principle.

"Seek new departures in our thinking." Everything IS relative and there are NO "fixed and authoritative truths" that supercede any "new departure in our thinking."
Easy interpretation: "NOTHING you say to me or commit to me today has any lasting application to our marriage. There are NO "limits" other than personal satisfaction and changing "wants and needs" are mine to get satisfied any way that I choose."


Aphaeresis, if YOU were the one receiving this "doubletalk" as a reason to STAY married and forgive a spouse who had cheated on you in the pursuit of their own "freedom of sexual preferences," WHY would you believe that they NOW and FOREVER want to be yours exclusively, even if the marriage is in any way "unfulfilling" in some area, especially in the sexual area?

You are going to live a "marriage of compromise?" In some areas compromise will always be needed (i.e., you like sweet potatoes and he likes mashed potatoes, so you fix both for dinner). But when it comes to the COVENANT of marriage and it's EXCLUSIVITY to each other in all things, through "thick and thin," there is NO "compromise" with Fidelity. Adultery is NEVER "right" and it's not relative, nor is it open to "new departures in thinking."

"Just believe me, dear."

WHY?

What makes your statements "believable?"

Certainly not Secular Humanism, especially since you retain the right to pick and choose what principles apply to you and which don't, and retain the right to change your mind on even those you do "accept" today.

Aph, you and your husband CAN choose to sweep things under the rug, practice Conflict Avoidance, etc., but Adultery by it's nature calls into question everything that someone thinks they believe in. It SHOULD cause someone to seriously reflect on, and examine, his or her own "core beliefs." Consider this, if personal Standards and Boundaries are NOT fixed, but relative, then what ultimate good are they regardless of what they are or what someone chooses them to be for their self?

Aph, you have rejected Christianity, but rejecting Christianity and its beliefs is NOT a "justification" for you do whatever you want to do either.

While it is very true that ALL Christians are also sinners and DO violate the beliefs of Christianity that were given BY God, not by Man, there is a marked difference in, to rephrase your response to Myschae, "It's a way to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians and also a way to explain to non-Christians what Christianity is."

The "difference" is that the AUTHORITY is God, not Man himself or herself.

The "difference" is that they are Commandments from God TO Man, not "suggestions."

The "difference" is that Christians should exercise their God-given "Free Will" by choosing to submit that will to God's will whenever the two are "in conflict."

"Faithfulness" is first to God. If someone will not be faithful to God and His authority, there is little reason to believe that they will be faithful to another "mere" human, especially when they have already demonstrated one or more times that they can, and will, choose suggestions instead of commands, to "modify" what they promise today.

God HAS the inherent right to DEMAND faithfulness and obedience from Mankind because HE created Mankind. It was no accident of nature. HE created Mankind with a definite purpose. But God "went further" than simply to "command," He also paid the ultimate sacrifice so that Mankind COULD once again be able to (as existed pre-Fall) choose to submit their own will to His will. The point is that we (Christians) are no longer "our own." We were "bought and paid for" by God and, as "unnatural children," were adopted by God as His own children and the Bride of His Son. He then begins the process of teaching us (or unteaching us as the case may be) what it means to BE "surrendered" to God and to adopt HIS commandments no matter what we might think or be feeling at any given time. They are Commandments, not suggestions, regardless of what anyone "appropriating" the name "Christian" may want to do or believe that may be contrary to what God has said.

MANY people claim the title "Christian" but deny the "power of God" as the Sovereign Lord to TELL them what they can and cannot do. They refuse to submit themselves to God. It is fair to question the sincerity of such a person's belief because God has clearly stated what a Christian "should look like" who has actually accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. The "red herring" that is most often employed by those who don't want to submit their lives to God is along the lines of "doesn't the Bible tell you NOT to judge someone else?" That is an excuse, not a true expression of what the Bible DOES teach believers regarding the "judging of behaviors by those who claim to be Christians."

The "point" is that only God KNOWS the true heart of an individual. Humans do not have the capability of knowing for certain what is in someone else's heart and mind. All that humans can do is to observe the behaviors and compare what is seen to what the Bible clearly states are God's commands. We ARE "our brother's keeper" in that we need to confront, in love, behaviors that are contrary to the commands of God BECAUSE we are all "married" to Christ and "owned" by God, no longer "our own to do as we see fit."

Since they ARE commands, the Standard for behavior is GOD, not the individual.
IF someone professes to BE a Christian, then it is expected that they NOT willfully sin. IF they do sin, it is likewise expected that other believers will lovingly confront them on the need to submit their will to God's will and repent of their willfulness and "toss out" their own "choices," replacing them with God's authoritative "choice" in the matter.

"Thou shall not commit adultery." Period. No compromise, no discussion. Just humble acceptance and submission. No trying "something new," just surrender to God's authority.

God established the covenant of marriage AND the roles of husbands and wives. We choose to obey or to be disobedient to Him, but the "Final Authority" resides with God, not Man or Woman. "Moral license" is not given to humans, though those who do not believe in God will ALWAYS choose to whatever they want to do on the premise that "if it feels good, do it" makes their behavior "right." The same "trap" holds true for believers who DO NOT WANT TO relinquish their "free will" to God's will and want to abuse their "freedom in Christ" to do whatever they want to do regardless of God's clear commandments and teaching.

As Jesus put it, " And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning, 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Matthew 19:4-8 NKJV, emphasis added)

Aphaeresis - I am familiar with Talkorigins, but I went and looked up the section you referred to as having proof that "it's all there." I'd rather not get into a protracted discussion of evolution, but I'll post the following in response to the "it's all there" idea that the "discussion" of evolutionism and creationism is "closed" and "decided."

I am pretty certain that with respect to proof that Macroevolution occurs, there is nothing in there (that article) to support that. Microevolution (and I can define the term if need be) is accepted by Creationists and accounts for variations within species.

ALL of the "examples" cited at the end of the article were of this "microevolution" type. Not one of them showed a new "kind" of organism that is the required fundamental basis of the theory of evolution. ALL of the organisms described could be classified as a differing species within the broader type of organism, for example a differing species of Drosophila is STILL a fruit fly despite differences between other fruit flies, it did not "turn into a dragonfly" for instance.

As the article correctly points out, however, there is marked disagreement within the biological community as to what even is "the" correct definition of a "species." There isn't even a "consensus" of opinion that applies to ALL lifeforms.

The "point" of my previous statement, to not belabor the evolution/creation debate, is that there is not one single example that "science" or "scientists" can point to that shows Macroevolution actually occurred, much less HOW an entirely new and more complex organism came into being. Extrapolating changes within a given species to the greater problem of explaining and accounting for increasing complexity in entirely different lifeforms is not warranted. It might be "wishful thinking," but it's no kind of scientific proof.

In fact, all of the evidence actually goes "the other way," and only a presupposition that evolution "MUST" have occurred, because we DO have life on earth, is what causes the rejection of a creation explanation concerning "how life got here and how there is such diversity in the KINDS of life."

Perhaps if I have the time I can list some of the scientific and mathematical "problems" with the evolution model. Or I can point you to publications that do thoroughly discuss them. But for now, consider this point that MUST be answered in order for evolution to have ANY chance of being the "real explanation."

In order for a completely different kind of organism to exist, it requires a specific set of genetic information. The difference in the amount of genetic information that is required is enormous AND specific. HOW does evolution propose the ADDITION of genetic information that doesn't just create differences WITHIN a given species, but creates an entirely new kind of organism with a completely unique and functioning genome. Let me give you one "concrete" example of the difficulty in assuming that evolution is the "answer." How does evolution account for the evolution of the eye, let alone the multiple different types of eyes?

Put simply, how does a one-celled organism become a multicell organism? How does a multicell organism with the genetic code for a Frog (or whatever animal) become a Man? (hint: the answer is not "magic")

And first and foremost of the questions, since the Biogenetic Law states definitively that "life begets life" and does NOT originate from non-life, HOW did masses of chemicals organize spontaneously into the minimal requirements that are necessary for a self-replicating, LIVING, organism?

The answer is contained in the article:

"it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question."

The "proof" consists of a presupposition that the evolution theory is true and that creation (because it requires a preexisting "life form" referred to as "God") is untrue. Even in the cases where someone hypothesizes that life on Earth came here by way of "seeding" from some hypothetical space alien, all that does is beg the question of where did the "original" life come from regardless of it being on Earth or somewhere else in the universe.

This is nothing more than circular reasoning. It, as with evolution period, begins with the "acceptance" that since creation by a Creator is rejected there "is no other possibility than evolution even though there is no demonstrable, definitive, proof for it. We elevate "inference" to the level of "scientific proof."

This position is NOT unreasonable if someone rejects the existence of God.

The reason that it is not "unreasonable" is because things DO exist and there are only TWO possible causes that resulted in the effects that we do see and observe. Either they were Created by "some being" or they simply are the result of dumb luck and fortuitous happenstance. Either way, NONE of us were present "at the beginning" and try as science has tried, no one has been able to successfully recreate (even though they have been specifically using their intellect and will to accomplish the task) the original conditions and show life being created from non-life.

Unfortunately, science, unlike scientists, does not bring biased presuppositions to the table. That is precisely why people used to believe in "spontaneous generation," but science proved that despite the beliefs and opinions of people, Life does NOT spontaneously generate from non-life. Life requires Life in order to exist.

But most proponents of evolution don't want to "tackle" this sticky issue, preferring instead to simply assume, contrary to the Law, that "at some point in time the impossible actually did happen" and now we can assume the "evolution" of the happy impossibility gave rise to all the complex and varying forms of life, going against the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and against the requirements that Information Theory now show are required for evolution to stand any chance of being true. And, yes, in case you might be thinking along the lines of "but Earth is an Open System, not a Closed System," the availability of energy is not the same thing as putting that energy to useful work.

In answer to this sort of dilemma we are given wild hypothesis such as the "hopeful monster" and Stephen Gould's "punctuated equilibrium." Not one shred of proof, but a lot of ideas floated, all of which rest on the preconceived presupposition that creation simply could not be what actually happened because that would require an admission that God does actually exist.

Anyway, what follows are some excerpts from the article you cited for context and if anyone wants to read the entire article they can follow the link you provided.




I have to agree, the HOW is very important.

woundedgentleman,

I so totally disagree that morality = obedience to God. If that were true, then morality would be relative to the whims of God and any statement such as "God is good" would mean absolutely nothing because God would be called "good" even if God chose to do things we would consider evil. Love thy neighbor as thyself makes perfect sense from a secular standpoint because it's the best way to get along in the world, but what basis does it have if God exists? Merely the fact that God says it? He could have said the exact opposite and it still would be called "good".

FH,

You still don't get Secular Humanism. We don't believe that morality = obedience to authority. There are too many numerous examples of evil that occurs as the result of blindly obeying authority. Therefore, you can't decide right or wrong based on whether or not you'll get punished for it. You should do the right thing even if you don't get rewarded, and even if you could get away with doing the wrong thing. Yes I could decide to cheat again tomorrow, but so could you - anybody could regardless of religious background. That says nothing about whether we should or even whether we will.

So yeah you *CAN* do what you will without punishment in the afterlife (because there is no afterlife) but that says nothing about what you *SHOULD* do. And why *SHOULD* you be good if you're a Humanist? Because the world would be a better, happier place if everyone did. Because no person is an island. It's not about obedience, it's about getting along with others because we're all we've got.

So, what is morally right in Secular Humanism within marriage would be whatever is best for the relationship between the two spouses. What would help them get along better and be happier with each other? It has nothing to do with "if it feels good, do it" - that's a strawman.

As for talk-origins, there is info there on macroevolution specificially, but you haven't said much about creationism yet. What exactly is the creationist model? What exactly does creationism try to explain?

Gotta agree with ForeverHers on one point. The speciation argument on that site is very weak. Basically says the reason it isn't reported or documented is because it is a settled issue. Very dangerous territory for a scientist. I don't know that I would use that site as a reference.

Aph, for your reading pleasure, a rebuttal article to the one you cited on Talkorigins. You may find it informative too.

Rebuttal Article to Macroevolution Article cited





ahhh...now that will take some time to type up. Before I set aside time to do that, let me ask you a question as this is a "side issue" to saving your marriage. Are you sure you really want to know or would it just be waste of my time?






Nothing more than evolutionism tries to explain. Why do we see what we do see? It provides a model by which predictions can be made of what one might expect to actually see and find in nature, as does the evolutionary model, and then asks, essentially, "which model seems to best fit what is actually observed with the least manipulation of the data?"

The "presupposition" of creationism is that there WAS an living, intelligent Creator, who created things with purpose and design. We may not understand all the HOW's of the creative process itself, but IF things were created, there should be observable order and design.

Evolutionism posits NO guidance, just blind random chance and obedience to natural laws. "Blind luck" is another way to look at it. Evolution posits many mechanisms to "account for" what is actually observed in the vast diversity of life such as genetic mutation, genetic drift, etc.

The "test" is which model best provides predictions of what should be seen if the given model is correct and how do the actual observations best fit the predictions of each model with the least manipulation of the data.




Aph, this where you are wrong. I do "get" Secular Humanism and I agree that your conclusion IS "the point" of Secular Humanism. They provide a framework of suggestions that the acolyte of SecHum can choose to embrace or reject as they see fit. "Moral Relativism" is just another way to put the idea that the individual decides what is morally relevant for themselves independent of any "absolute authority." I'll give you just one example of the divergence of opinion based on the authority, or lack of authority, of God.

Abortion. Taking all conclusions about morality out of the discussion for one minute, the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade decided to impose their "interpretation" on the issue and granted to women the SOLE right to decide the fate of the unborn child. NO ONE, including the husband, has any "say" in the matter, let alone God. The woman is granted the sole authority of life or death for the unborn child, for ANY reason she chooses. The opinion of the Court has led to MILLIONS of innocent children being slaughtered and the lining of the pockets of the practioners of abortion (my opinion obviously), all with NO regard to any "universal" morality that applies to all even if they "don't like it."

And as another aside, "No Fault" divorce wasn't far behind.

Aphaeresis,

[color:"blue"]"If that were true, then morality would be relative to the whims of God and any statement such as "God is good" would mean absolutely nothing because God would be called "good" even if God chose to do things we would consider evil. Love thy neighbor as thyself makes perfect sense from a secular standpoint because it's the best way to get along in the world, but what basis does it have if God exists? Merely the fact that God says it? He could have said the exact opposite and it still would be called "good".
[/color]

IF God IS the creator, His opinion is the only one that matters. Since He would be the one with the right to define right and wrong, it would be His definition of each that would be consistent.

Could you give me one example of a command, law or proclamation of God that you would consider evil or immoral? I'm not asking for what could happen or what might happen if thus and so were to take place. I wish to understand what specifically God has decreed that you find offensive and can support through argument as to why it was evil, not good or unjustifiable.

The basis for loving your neighbor as yourself, which you say makes no sense in context of God, is in fact a decree of the God you deny. If God did not say it, then on what basis does it become a viable precept from the secular viewpoint and why is it not a valid concept if God did indeed say it?

Since what makes a thing right seems to have so many common threads from generation to generation and society to society should be a flag that there is in fact a common root to what we all consider to be good and evil. Even small children have a concept of what is fair and right and even at two years old my own granddaughter when asked "What are you doing?" will respond with "Nothing" in an effort to hide what she herself thinks is wrong.

The call to submit to the authority of God is not the same as submitting blindly to human authority. The Holocaust was not because of submission to the authority of God but the total disregard for His authority and the replacing of His tenets with those of Darwin and Nietzsche. It was the result of Hitler's belief that evolution was true and that the aryans were higher life forms than other races that led to the slaughter of over 6 million "inferior" Jews and therefore not fit to survive.

So as a discussion point, what specific command or law of God do you find immoral or evil other than the requirement to submit our will to His and to have no other gods before Him?

Mark

What I said was 'obedience to an authority'. Upon reflection, my word choice may have been bad. Authority gives the connotation of personhood, and I didn't mean to say that one is not moral if they don't believe (a person) God exists. If I had said morality is adherence to a standard, leaving aside for just a moment what standard should be used, would you agree with this?

If God is a morally perfect person (as I believe), then his/her whims (if he/she has any) wouldn't be an issue.

If you did agree that morality was adherence to a standard (or perhaps equivalently, a moral code), then we could focus on the interesting question of what is the best moral code. You might say (and perhaps have said) that 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' or 'if everyone cares for each other' is a sufficient principle.

It's not bad. I'm not sure it is complete. It does seem relative to the whims of how each individual feels.

- WG

I think the Genesis account explains why we and the cosmos exist - God decided it would be a good idea to create us/it.

- WG

Again, I'm playing catch-up.

Aph said: Certainly correct. None of us would be here without good old Sun. But the next sentence: isn't so clear to me. In the article you cited http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm it seemed to me that:
(1) Alberty said that he doesn't think the universe is closed. This is an opinion.
(2) Haynie says "It is by no means certain that the universe is an isolated system."
Again - no proof, rather an admission that its scientifically unresolved.
(3) Dill seemed to only be concerend with the 2nd law and evolution, not cosmology.

I think you have to have a fair dose of faith that the universe isn't a closed system. Otherwise, why aren't we already at heat-death.

- WG

woundedgentleman,

Quote:

[/quote]If God is a morally perfect person (as I believe), then his/her whims (if he/she has any) wouldn't be an issue.[/quote]



Well, Mark seems to be saying God is "good" regardless of God's moral actions. But let's assume you mean to say something much more meaningful than that about God's moral perfection. It would mean that God is following some sort of standard outside himself. It would mean God chooses NOT to do certain actions because they would be wrong EVEN IF God did them. Such a standard then exists with or without God. However, I could see, hypothetically, how such a God could be of value as a (super)person who has perfect knowledge and wisdom of the standard and how it should be applied in every circumstance. And so I could agree that obedience to that sort of authority would be wise, although it would appear that there is a failure to communicate because different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do.

Quote:



Oh I definitely believe in a standard. I believe that there is such a thing as human nature that cuts across all times and cultures and that some things are harmful to all of us or helpful to all of us just because we're human. So to do good is to promote the wellbeing of people or humankind in general and wrongdoing involves hurting people in some way. I don't mean to ignore other forms of life, though, just trying to simplify. Animal rights is a whole 'nother topic.

I might even say God doesn't even have to choose -- it doesn't occur to him to do 'wrong' and he doesn't have that inclination or desire.

What would be a typical Humanist perspective on why we as humans do 'wrong'? (And as an operational definition of wrong, say violate whatever moral code any of us claim as our own.) I could imagine: (1) humankind or human societies haven't matured beyond where we are today; or (2) the human 'machine' has some biology-driven limit.

By the way, the clear majority of the Humanist affirmations strike me as consistent with Jesus's teachings and example, an obvious exception being the eschewing of the supernatural.

- WG

Aphaeresis - Mind if I try to answer this question for you?

Well, Mark seems to be saying God is "good" regardless of God's moral actions.

I don't believe that is what Mark was saying. You are applying your "hearing" with the "filter" that denies the very existence of God, so you seem to be anthropomorphizing God into what you would do or be like if you were God.


But let's assume you mean to say something much more meaningful than that about God's moral perfection.

What you are talking about is the "essence" of God question. The concept that you need to apply to this is that God is incapable of even looking at sin, much less committing sin.


It would mean that God is following some sort of standard outside himself. It would mean God chooses NOT to do certain actions because they would be wrong EVEN IF God did them. Such a standard then exists with or without God.

On the contrary, it does not "mean" (as in must be) that God follows anything that "outside" of Himself. That is precisely the point. God IS good, not just "acts" good.

God establishes Standards FOR humans, angels, etc. because they are all created by Him and for Him. The Standard that God establishes is Himself, His goodness and His perfection, His sinlessness. HE is the Standard, not that He conforms Himself to some "outside" Standard. NO "absolute" standard exists independent of God, and humanity alone should be "proof" enough of that. Secular Humanism, as you have said, is NOT the answer to the "Standards" question either because they are "suggestions" and not commands that anyone has to follow even if they choose not to. There is, as you have said, no inherent "judgment" attached to a person who chooses to NOT follow the Secular Humanism principles (Standards).


I could see, hypothetically, how such a God could be of value as a (super)person who has perfect knowledge and wisdom of the standard and how it should be applied in every circumstance.

If you can "see" how God "could be of value," then the obvious question would be why would someone choose to reject that perfection? If what Secular Humanism is striving for is "perfection" in relationships between people, but each person is free to choose their own interpretation of what is "good" in interpersonal relationships, and a "better, more perfect" belief system exists, why would not the "less perfect" system be abandoned in favor of the "more perfect" system?

If there is "value" in such a system that "should be applied in every circumstance," and if perfection in our relationships with each other, what would cause a "caring" person to reject that system and adopt one that DOES NOT "have to," or even "should be," applied in every circumstance? Substituting the "imperfect" creature, driven by selfishness and self-centeredness for the ONE who IS perfect seems to be not only illogical, but also rather arrogantly egocentric, don't you think? "I may not be perfect, but I know better than you anyway" sort of thing.


And so I could agree that obedience to that sort of authority would be wise, although it would appear that there is a failure to communicate because different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do.

And the question would be WHY do "different people have different ideas about what God wants them to do?"

IF, as many argue, the BASIC nature of Man is "good," then why are there "different ideas" about what "good," as a Standard, is?

WHO is it that determines what "good" is?

Regardless of the "lofty" ideas of some men who have learned that self-centeredness is not good, the "point" is that whether or not people even acknowledge the existence of God, God HAS written the moral code He has established FOR us on the hearts of all men and women. But God also created Mankind with the Free Will to choose, out of true love, to obey Him out of love FOR Him.

The love that God showed to Mankind in giving us that ability TO choose IS probably the greatest demonstration of His love for us (other than His also choosing to die on the Cross in our place). The truth is that no one CAN return love if they cannot choose to NOT love in return. Obedience and disobedience are manifest "possibilities" that are inherent in the ability TO choose, to exercise "Free Will" in love or in selfishness.

The attempt to live a "good life" by someone's own definition, or by a group's definition, seems to be an exercise in existentialism. If all things ARE "relative," then the "Standard" is a constantly moving target and ANYONE's own choice as to what THEY think is "good" IS good and beyond the judgment of anyone else.

In that sense, Man IS an "island" and is completely sovereign, able to do whatever they want to do without anyone else determining or establishing what morality is, much less what "good or bad" morality is.




Oh I definitely believe in a standard. I believe that there is such a thing as human nature that cuts across all times and cultures and that some things are harmful to all of us or helpful to all of us just because we're human.

I have to admit to being confused by this statement. You have previously stated that the principles of Secular Humanism are NOT "standards" that must be obeyed. An individual is free to follow them or not, as the individual sees fit.

What IS a Standard? A Standard is that thing, or things, that YOU, the individual WILL NOT do to someone else. There is NO equivocation, no relativism. It is "absolute." That is WHAT a Standard is. It is NOT dependent upon whether or not someone "feels like" being obedient to the standard, the Standard IS obeyed regardless of personal feelings. That's what makes Standards different from Boundaries.

So WHAT "human nature," inherent in ALL humans, "cuts across all times and cultures?" What is it that is true no matter how "good" or "bad" someone seems to be?
It CAN'T be altruism IF we all climbed up out of the slime and exist on the principle of "survival of the fittest," can it?

It CAN'T be "sacrificial love" IF the basic human nature is driven by what I want and "me first," can it?

There IS a "concept" out there that is applicable. That concept is the existence of "Sin" and our most basic human "sin nature." What IS sin? Sin is disobedience to God, THE Standard of GOOD. Sin is the opposite of that good. "It is rebellion, it is MY way rather than YOUR way, God." It is "it seems like BEING God is a desirable thing, so I will do whatever it takes to BE just like you, God, making myself equal to you."

But therein is the "catch 22" also. IF we arrive at the point where we deny the very existence of God, there is NOTHING left to try to "be like" or to be the "equal of." Humans are humans and NONE of them is someone we would want to be rather than to be ourself. ALL humans are "found wanting" in at least SOME area.

Recognizing that fact is one of the reasons WHY there are other religions that attempt to address that inherent shortcoming of ALL men. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. are all directed at the idea that man IS, by nature, "not good" and has to continually strive, sometimes taking many lifetimes, to finally "cease to exist" by attaining a state of "nothingness."

The truth that the Word of God presents is very simple, yet very profound concerning the basic nature of Mankind that applies to everyone, everywhere and everywhen.

"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory (Standard) of God." GOD is the Standard, His very essence, who God IS.

We CAN deny the truth, but truth exists independent of our opinion. Unless, of course, there is no God and everything is just the figment of some person's mind and are just fairytales designed to get other people to provide "followers" to someone (Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Odin, Zeus, Caesar, etc.) for their own benefit.

The "Christian" God has intervened in human history several times. Why? Because of HIS Standards and the PURPOSE, and the corruption of that purpose by the creatures, He had for creating mankind. But as Jesus said, "even if someone should rise from the dead you will not believe (they choose not to believe)."



Animal rights is a whole 'nother topic.

Ever wonder WHY God created all the animals before He created Eve?

Ever wonder why only Man was created in the image of God?

Now the issue of "animal rights" seems to have reached its apex in Hinduism, don't you think?

FH,

Do you like to argue?

Aph said:
But this was a very side comment and the context was how good or sufficient (i.e., complete) the Golden Rule was as a terse moral code.

Personally I haven't and Aph presumably doesn't because she's an atheist. So what's the point of the question? (And BTW, didn't God create the animals on 'day' 4 and Adam on 'day' 6?)

What? You don't believe woman was also created in the image of God?


Was this a perjorative remark about animal rights or Hinduism?

Proverbs 12:10 says "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal." Exodus 23:19 reads "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." In Matthew 6:26 God appears to be concerned with the welfare of birds.

Don't you think the biblical God cares for animal-kind?

- WG

I have read the Genesis creation story, but there is much in it that is not explained. Some examples...

HOW did God create? It says he created by The Word but that doesn't make any sense.

Although it's been a while since I've read it, I remember thinking the events seem out of order. There were days and nights before the sun and the moon were created, for example, if I remember right.

How old is the universe and earth? Some creationists say the earth is only 10,000 years old. But if that's true why do we find rocks and fossils much older than that?

Some creationists don't believe that dinosaurs existed. What about all that fossil evidence then?

If God created the universe just for us, why are there so many dead planets? We will never see most of them. What purpose do they serve?

If we were designed in our present form by a perfect, intelligent being, why do we have backs that are not good for upright walking (resulting in lower back pain for many people), and appendixes that don't do anything except get infected? Why do our abilities to remember and see become impaired over time? Why do we appear to be poorly designed?

Why are most species designed so poorly that they become extinct (even without humans to help along the process)?

Why are we, and other living things, designed in such a way that we are forced to kill and eat other living things in order to survive? Why not design people who can thrive on eating rocks or synthetic food? Plants make their own food through photosynthesis. Why not make a similar design for humans and other animals?

Why are there viruses, mosquitoes, harmful bacteria and parasites?

Usually when a person violates their own moral code it's because they let emotion override their good sense. Humanists assume most people want to be good most of the time. I think it would be more accurate to say we are generally pro-social. We are pack animals, more like dogs than like cats. When someone violates their own moral code it's usually a reaction to some sort of pain or an attempt to avoid pain. Think about how people typically act when they are having a bad day. They are more likely to lash out when unhappy than when they are happy. Happy people generally want others to be happy, too. But the happiness I'm talking about is not short-term hedonism but long-term, general wellbeing.

I do think human societies still have some moral growing to do, and that we have gotten better over time. For example, we're now debating the issue of universal human rights and what they should be, whereas in the distant past there was no such concept.

I agree that aside from rejection of the supernatural, Jesus' teachings and many of the Humanist Affirmations are consistent with each other. Because of empathy and an innate sense of fair play that humans have (game theory has proven we have it), most societies have had some version of The Golden Rule, even before Jesus said it. It's really the only way for people to be able to get along with each other and because we're social animals we HAVE to get along somehow.

Have you heard of Bishop John Shelby Spong? Although obviously since I'm not a Christian I don't agree with him on everything but his talks/writings about morality are very impressive. I call him my favorite Christian, although many conservative Christians refuse to call him one of their own. It's a pity since I think his views of morality are probably the closest to what Jesus actually taught.

Ah. One of the troublesome issues to get around when you are talking about a "God" or "ultimate power". The problem as I see it is anytime you talk about an external standard such as this is that the ultimate standard then becomes a higher power than the God itself. By definition God or the ultimate power must be the be all end all. Any description you give to it would then supercede the actual God. I think this is where faith must come in with any belief system. You can discuss aspects of God. You can describe God. You can try to better understand God by speaking of characteristics, but in the end you must always come back to the point of one ultimate "something". Aph, you are suggesting that the ultimate "something" might be an ideal, that exists apart from God. If that is true then the ideal would actually be the God, and the "God" that FH, WG and other describe would actually be someone on a higher conciousness than us who submits to that God.

I like the way the Tao Te Ching puts it. Words in brackets are added by me.

It all comes down to the realization that something is more than its description or its aspects. I can describe an apple to you all day long, but if you have never seen or tasted an apple at some point I will have to say, "Yes an apple is round. It could be many colors. It has a sweet taste. But you cannot understand it until you experience it." The description of the apple is not the apple itself. It is an attempt to impart a knowlege of an entity without actually experiencing the entity. Enter faith.

Sometimes, but usually I prefer to discuss conflicting ideas. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />




Woundedgentleman - I understood the "context" of the side comment that was tossed in. The Golden Rule applies to humans not animals. The Golden Rule IS a "moral code," and I happen to believe it's a fairly good one as far as it goes.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The "sincerity of belief" is not the issue nor is the applicability of the Golden Rule that is, by itself, dependent upon the "Standard" of the individual rather than the Standard of God (in my "world" that means the God of Christians).

For example: The Muslims believe that anyone who does not convert to Islam should be killed. They believe that the Koran teaches this as the word of God through their sinless prophet Mohammed.

Therefore, to a Muslim, harming you (killing you) would be precisely what they would expect, and want, for themselves if they did not believe in Islam or converted from Islam. It has been taken to the extreme of even justifying "honor killings." Some "honor," imho, as they apply the "Golden Rule" to even their own family and children.

There is a marked difference between the God of Islam and the Prince of Peace. If you apply the Golden Rule from the perspective of Islam rather than from Christianity you get a completely different "interpretation" of the rule, and that rule for Islam is founded upon the teachings AND actions of Mohammed.




The purpose of the question was to direct the thought process as to WHY God created the institution of Marriage and the NEED for husband and wife.

But if you want to reduce this question to "evolutionary" thought, which evolved first, the Man or the Woman, and how did they procreate on their own while waiting for the other one to evolve?





Oh please, don't be ridiculous. Do YOU like to argue?

"Man" is the generic term for Mankind. If I had meant ONLY Adam, I would have said Adam and clearly differentiated that I was not including Eve in the term "Man." "Woman," by the way, was the term that Adam gave her because she had been created out of a part of him.

In Marriage, the two are no longer two, but one flesh.





Of course God cares for animals. HE created them. Would like some biblical references? But God also created Man (Adam and Eve) in His image and did not created any animal in His image. Mankind, unlike the animals, was created FOR God. The animals were created for Man.

But you still have not addressed the question of WHY God created the animals FOR Adam before He created Eve?

This is a quick response, but here goes.

If God is an omnipotent being (and therefore has abilities and attributes way beyond humankind), then a few thousand words aren't going to be a full explanation. The creation/garden account probably has other purposes, perhaps: (1) to distinguish Jewish tradition from other creation stories and to attribute the creation of the universe to Yahweh; (2) to describe some of God's nature (i.e., he creates; he values beauty; he is wholesome; he is giving; he has a moral standard; he is interested in mankind; to let us know we are not alone).

That's the way it appears to me too (see below).

Age? I don't know. I recall studying some dinosaur bones in a museum and seeing healed fractures. I couldn't but believe that this was the remains of a creature that actually lived. I haven't studied it, but radiocarbon dating leaves me a little concerned (perhaps in the atomic age we've done something to the world to screw up this technique).

For me the simplest solution is to believe that the Genesis day's were not 24-hour time periods. As you point out, it wouldn't be meaningful prior to the creation of the Sun anyway. I think many christians believe similarly.

I don't know. I don't think it would shake up my faith too much if there were intelligent life on those planets.

Maybe it helps us be humble. Seriously, we do have lots of other physical limits.

I don't know. But just because medical science hasn't found a purpose today doesn't mean there isn't one. And perhaps humans living in different times (not in the modern age with high-tech and modern medicine) had/have some use for it. I think it is still the case that in the animal kingdom biologists continue to this day to find reasons and function for anatomy that were previously unknown. (Example: gecko's have micro-hairs that let them walk up walls -- way cool!)

Perhaps we are just poorly designed for potato chips, air conditioning, and television?

I'm not a natural scientist and this so isn't my area. I don't have all the answers.

Great questions. Truly I have no idea. Accoring to the creation/garden account in Genesis it looks that God didn't originally intend us to eat/kill animals?

So everyone doesn't move to Minnesota.

- WG