Humanism. Whatever religion I've flirted with, be it the Catholicism/Christianity of my upbringing or the Buddhism I started looking at as an adult, it was always through a humanistic perspective and it was always the humanistic elements in these religions that appealed to me. Humanism isn't necessarily atheistic or agnostic, although modern humanists tend to take these positions. I was thinking though, isn't everyone a humanist? Everyone's common sense idea of morality is described by humanism. Even those who believe morality comes from God believe God to be some kind of humanist. It's when people abandon humanistic values that they are described as extreme or fundamentalist. Thoughts?
I used the definition in the Wiki link I gave. It's commonly associated with atheism nowdays but (according to Wiki) it's also compatable with theistic religions.
I think you could say that there are definate humanistic traits in Christianity (depending upon the brand), but you could say that for just about any religion or crede. At their core, they tend to be more similar then different.
You'll have to explain to me what you mean by natural law! I re-read some of the Wiki page and it turns out it rejects a dependence of faith. Not that you can't believe in these things but your lifestyle and decisions don't depend on such notions. That doesn't make it incompatable with religion. For instance, Christians believe: "Don't put the lord to the test." Which basically means: "don't rely on the supernatural to solve your problems - if God helps you then you cannot forsee/predict it so you can't expect it or rely on it." Thoughts?
I don't know Lewis. I was thinking Thomas Acquinas and John Locke and even the Declaration of Independence. I was thinking of the "self-evident" and "laws of nature" and "Natural Law is reason itself" kind of stuff. Natural Law is said to be the product of human reason. Some people build criminal laws and civil laws on it, saying that it's reason itself and therefore must be accepted by all rational people. Some people build economic theories on it and make the same assertion. Some people build a system of ethics upon it with again the same assertion. (And obviously other people reject it, at least in part, and make competing systems of laws and economics and ethics.) I don't know what the morality it that everyone shares that "humanism" describes. If I had to pick I would say Natural Law contains our common morality. Perhaps this is humanism?
I didn't know that we believe that. Interesting. I thought that we are supposed to rely upon God. I'll have to tell my pastor to stop telling us to pray to God for help, on account of believing that God will help us is un-Christian.
You might still ask for help, just not expect it to go your way? Anyway, I was thinking more of the ethical side which sounds like the 'natural law' you described. That God's ethics would follow this 'natural law'.
That vaguely sounds like C S Lewis's Natural Law. I just read Mere Christianity, an interesting read and short if you are interested. But rather Anglican. Of course I need to read it again to digest it better. Strafio, the statement that God is untestable might mean two things. It might mean that God is not to be tried. If you do this thing for me, I will go to Church. If you allow such and such, I will donate this amount to charity. Or it might mean that God is not to be logically thought about and considered. Then accepted to be true or not. If it means the former, then it is true, God is not to be tested, for one cannot say that if you do one thing, then God should do another in return. However, it is quite reasonable to give your full intellectual capacity to religion and God. After all, to paraphrase Lewis, God meant us to believe as children do, however it was not meant for us to stay like children always.
Ya, that. But there's a third possibility, that of going along with God what told you to do on the expectation that God will fulfill what he said he'd do. This could be thought of as a "test" in the sense that by fulfilling your end of the task, you're testing whether God will fulfill his end. This type of test, so-to-speak, is biblical yet contradicts Strafio's statement above: "don't rely on the supernatural to solve your problems - if God helps you then you cannot forsee/predict it so you can't expect it or rely on it." Hmm, it's been so long I don't remember what CS Lewis said about it. But Tekken recently read "Mere Christianity." He might be able to tell us what Lewis said about laws or rules that all people would recognize.
It seems to me that if you consider doing what is prescribed to you as being a good Christian (or whatever religion as from what I understand) to see if God will fullfill his end of the bargan is merely another facet of the first definition. We should not do Christian acts because we will be rewarded, we should do them because they are the correct thing to do. Afterall, doing something for the reward only looses the integrity of the act.
Quite true, quite true, but there is still a third way. It’s where prayer comes from. Malachi 3:7-12 “Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not [do what I said I would do if you would only do what I told you to do].” “Test me in this?” That’s an interesting thing to say. A good deal of what Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophets wrote were promises of blessings that would come from obedience, if only the nation would behave. The people of God were pretty much told to stop being bad, to start being good, and in being good to test God on his promises of blessings. Deuteronomy 28 “If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will [pour on you a whole bunch of blessings listed hereafter].” Is that another test? Granted there was a context to the promises, and that context was a “covenant relationship” with God. See the whole of Isaiah and Hosea for this context. The people had unilaterally broken off their relationship with God. When that happens God stops answering prayers, which totally sucks. And what are the Psalms, if not prayers for divine aid? This idea was continued by Jesus, which makes sense considering that he was a teacher of the Old Testament. Matthew 18:18-20, ask and receive. Interesting. I wonder, though, if Jesus was talking in the context of a relationship with God. Matthew 6:25-34, God will provide for those who seek first after him. Interesting. Matthew 7:7-12, ask and God will give. Interesting. I wonder, though, if there is a context to this. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-22, pray without ceasing. Really? Pray for what? The Lord’s Prayer: “Thy will be done.” That could be important.
I see what you are saying now, I was misinterpreting. From that understanding, yes there is a third Biblical interpretation of testing.
Well on the Wiki page it says it is compatible with naturalism. I think my views are probably compatible with secular humanism for example and naturalism, but that's kind if the trouble with all these labels isn't it. I mean how many ways are there to bath a cat. No wait, is that skin a rat ? String a hat perhaps?
